Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

photo

i thought i should change the picture she has up. i mean it was in 2005. i thought i would add an updated one. if it stays, it stays, if it dont, it dont. im just helping. Mcoop06 06:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of you seemed to miss this one, so I'm going to put it here:

This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Paris Hilton. It is NOT for discussion of Paris Hilton herself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Paris Hilton is "good" or "bad"; or finding out what unnecessary information this does not help in improving Wikipedia. Ohyeahmormons 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to discuss whether she is good or bad. If she is bad, then the article is just perfect as it stands, and does not need improving. If she is good, then the article is terrible, which it is, and no one could improve it as they would immediately be reverted, as the powers to be do not want anything good to be written about Ms. Hilton. Wallie 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

have you ever thought that you could possibly be a FAN of this whore, and thus not objective about her? Just curious...she is heavily criticized, heavily satirized and IMHO she also hasn't any talent aside from giving great blowjobs to her boyfriends...that's all 84.222.149.171 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wallie has to be a fangirl nothing else short of being in love with Paris, being Paris herself, or Wallie being on Paris' payroll can explain what Wallie says. Wallie is a stooge of Paris.

This whole page needs cutting down to about 1 sentence

How can so much be written about such a useless airhead? The whole page should be replaced with the sentence "Paris Hilton is a spoiled, overindulged, useless brat, who has achieved nothing except demonstrating on TV how to mis-spend her stupid family's money. Wikipedia is too important to display all the trivial guff that surrounds this nonentity and declines to do so. For further information, see airheads." MarkThomas 08:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. PS: She's a white trash slut whore. :D - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
after reading the list of famous dogs, i came across her dog, and this article. omfg i can't believe there is an article about her, i can find a ant more useful than her. *feels like deleting the whohle article* xD NeoDeGenero 11:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you do not like a certain character, doesn't mean they are not important. You don't like her because she has money? Isn't that called being prejudice? Also, please read the top of the page. This article is not for discussing Paris Hilton, unless it would be benficial to the main article. Peterwill 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Peterwill - now I have the rant out of my system though, I've calmed down. However, I can't agree that I wasn't discussing something deeply beneficial to the main page. Really she isn't a person of importance and Wikipedia is not supposed to have junk articles in it. MarkThomas 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree. Anyone who was not "a person of importance" would not appear on the front page and other pages of the newspaper so often. I have noticed that she has been constantly in the limelight for the past seven years! I can't remember any woman that famous for a long time. I believe that the likes of Amelia Erhardt and Grace Kelly were that famous, but then again that was a long time ago. Wallie 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Madonna, Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie? If you can't remember any then perhaps you aren't trying hard enough. --Golbez 05:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Madonna, maybe. But then again, she was usually overshadowed by Princess Di. All these three, including Madonna have already "had their day". I still have a soft spot for Britney, but the media seems to have written her out. Paris is still on top, and will remain so for a very long time, I suspect. She about the biggest thing thats happened, at least in my lifetime anyway. Wallie 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is hardly the place to be discussing various levels of fame, but once again, the comparison between someone like Madonna and someone like Paris Hilton is truly ludicrous. While I agree that she has enough media presence to warrant a page on Wikipedia, I also feel as though there's room to reduce it substantially. Of course, at the end of the day, the levels of work put in by individual writers are their own decision, but as someone who really has only achieved any notoriety courtesy of her publicity team and an inherited fortune, it seems a bit ridiculous to spend excessive amounts of time producing/editing/collating content regarding this woman. Mohsin.Siddiqui 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wallie, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for little kids to drool over their wet-dreams. Get a life. Why dont you spend 50 bucks on a domain name website so you can write about your "goddess" all day. Paris Hilton is an irrelevant and ugly bung-eyed freak, get over it.
Please refrain from personal attacks, your comments above strike me as unnecessarily rude. One's dislike for the subject of an article should never devolve into personal comments about the editors. Some pages you might want to check out are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cheers from an editor outside this conflict. Dina 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are all missing the point. Paris Hilton may be disliked in certain countries, but then again, even George Bush is disliked by some. But these peoples' sheer presence outweighs the minority who like to nitpick and witter on. The great majority would see Paris Hilton as a fine young lady who brings joy to others. Wallie 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody likes George Bush outside of America except Tony Blair and John Howard. Bihal 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Statement looks like extreme POV to me. Question. If these three are so unpopular as you say, ask yourself why people keep electing them... Wallie 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the talk page, I'm allowed to be POV. And people outside the US didn't elect George Bush, just so you know. Bihal 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia records notable, verifiable information. All the information in this article meets our standards for inclusion. That's all there is to say. Complain about the subject somewhere else, off Wikipedia, if you want. Everyking 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


"...even George Bush is disliked by some." That has to be the funniest thing I've read this week :)

You don't need to be POV to point out that this wiki entry is treating Paris Hilton with greater respect as a "singer actress," as if she could do either, than she deserves. There should be an entire criticisms section with cited references to how critics have panned her.
Her career has been managed by a publicity agent and press agent and whatever to keep her in the spotlight just like madonna and spears and all the celebs. once you start falling of the rador you let out a sex tape. a person whos celebrity is based on sex tapes, being wasted on camera, and acting stupid just to stay in the limelight isnt a very talented celebrity.
Well maybe that should be the point of this wiki entry. that critics (and the public) don't think she is a talented celebrity.

Eye

What is the medical term for the deformity around her eye? Should it be added into the article? -Lapinmies 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said it was a deformity? Maybe it's just a very poor attempt at bedroom eyes. Kasreyn 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The sultry look. Does it for me every time. Wallie 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

/\ this guy (wallie) is clearly a paris hype. he always tries to neutralize discussions concerning her to bend towards support. get your hick ass out of here. you're probably like 13 and shit. Panda

Yeah, so much for enciclopedical neutrality, this page was made by Paris fans who destroy any comment that is in the least anti-Paris. --Mudel 11:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to be rude. Acalamari 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that she is having corrective surgery to the problem, it is relevant. http://news.google.co.za/news?hl=en&ned=en_za&q=Paris+Hilton+eye&btnG=Search+News

Banksy

since she didnt have anything to do with the banksy thing i think it should be a smaller note with a link to HIS =wiki stating more details about it. any thoughts? M8gen

this has been fixed now. thank you! M8gen

singing comment

The fake singing comment needs to be removed.

Maybe the entire singing thing needs to be treated less seriously. Say, to the equal of her talent, longevity, et cetera. How about some printed critical reception?

Of German nationality?

Although it's evident she's American, it is news to me that Paris is a German national. Has anyone a cite?


Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZ8vxcOMhw

There is a significant difference between citizenship and ethnicity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.52.171 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC).


She isn't a German national by any means. Rather, her great-great grandfather on her father's side was a German migrant. Hardly enough to be considered "German".

  • it seems it's enough for german laws...
    • No, it's not. Go read the German nationality laws for yourself if you must.

But if his granfather had a German citizenship, her father was allowed to have it to, waht would allow her to become a German, isn't it rght?

  • This discussion is degenerating into absurdity. Let's put this all into perspective. Miss Hilton's great-great-great-grandfather, Conrad Laufersweiler, was her nearest German-born relative. That is simply too far back to claim German nationality. Furthermore, German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, meaning simply that it cannot be passed down through generations after migrating. Miss Hilton would have more luck claiming Norwegian ancestry, but even that is quite far fetched.

Whoa, wait a second!!

An entire section, and I mean an entire section of this article needs to be dedicated to her racist remarks. It's been proven in her sex tape and from a couple of her acquaintances... I repeat, an entire section. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.137.205 (talk • contribs).

Why? Be honest. Is she really racist? ...when compared with other people, and politicans who make racist remarks all the time, not using such direct language, but meaning to be extremely hurtful. Wallie 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, think of it this way. Mel Gibson was being racist, he didn't mean it to everyone directly, yet he got punished for it. And I mean ALOT. Paris was racist many times, but the media nor anyone made her pay for what she said...the way they did to Mel. Ashley.

well sir, anyone with common sense would conclude that paris' use of words are actually worse than these politicians you speak of. if one is using racist remarks (like any use of racist remarks are really justifiable???...) on the premise of them being untouchable due to their clout.. that would make their comments more ignorant than those of political affluence. Panda

What has she said? o.o Jay [ http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/10392004.htm] & [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/237171p-203602c.html ] ......Panda


Wallie it's pretty sad that you're trying justify this bitch's remarks in an indirect way. Panda

Can somebody please ban Wallie? I find wikipedia to have many good articles, and Wallie's modifications seem to show favoritism when wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. EVERY good article on wikipedia has some sort of controversies section, and this one does not. Someone PLEASE ban Wallie ...........................Spyke


Please use this page to discuss the article, not to make personal attacks on other users. 67.172.121.248 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think wallie works for Paris Hilton.
That doesn't matter. This page is to discuss ways of improving the article, not to make inapproporiate comments. 24.23.16.65 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


This is, without a doubt, the single [B] worst [/B] Wikipedia article I have laid my eyes on all year. -- BigD

Check out the article on hyenas! -- SmallC

I have a link to a video that has paris singing about being a fat ugly jewish girl, and "yo, im a black whore, and i steal." this video, and every other kind of proof should justify the addition of paris' racism to the profile. heres the link to the video, http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=1844 Hattness 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Hattness

I'm actually quite dismayed that there isn't a racism section on this article. It certainly seems relevant, at the very least. Indeed, more so than her *cough cough* "singing career". Kitty 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mental Illness

Has anyone else noticed that Paris Hilton has a Histrionic personality disorder, ofcourse i'm no doctor, but she seems to fit the diagnostic criteria like a glove.--aceslead 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I thought she was just another of those american narcissists
23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
the diagnostic criteria says Histrionic personality disorder, but theres no reason why she couldn't have both. narcissism & Histrionic personality disorder have some similarities which could lead to confusion. Both are attention related.--aceslead 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I have noticed the link between Paris' personality and the disorder. In fact, I'm writing a psyc paper on it and even though I'm not the biggest fan, all this dirt on her is great!

Mother Teresa

Apparently, Paris Hilton is going to play Mother Teresa in an upcoming Indian biopic by director T. Rajeevnath. I know, I didn't believe it either. Check out the link. Sigh. We need to update the article, as well as update Mother Teresa's article, as well as create an article for the film it self. Zidel333 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?
Paris Hilton will never play Mother Teresa. This is just BS put out by the celebrity machine.
The day an airhead like her plays someone as great as Mother Teresa will be the beginning of the Apocalypse. Dagari 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

eye and hair colour

shouldn't there be some mention of her seemingly permanent change of eye and hair color, from brown and brown to blue and blond respectively?


            no one will let any such thing be mentioned on this page, believe me! Ledenierhomme 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton sings and vomits

http://www.pr-inside.com/entertainment-blog/2006/11/21/paris-hilton-vomited-onstage-during-a/

This pertains to improving the article how? Celebrity-Benji 09:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is claimed to be the first such occurrence by a female artist (I've read that male artists have done even worse, and that female artists have also in the past been drunk and performing)... My rationale is that she should be shown/depicted for what she really is. -Mardus 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Let's just state the facts. They speak for themselves. Bihal
I also agree. It happened, so we should report that fact. Wikipedia gets enough flak for not being 'accurate' enough. 147.174.104.54 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Video on Trial

Video on Trial's verdict about Paris Hilton is NOT actual; therefore please DON'T put a picture of her. --Addict 2006 07:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially on the loser disambiguation page and other related pages because the fake (rather, falsifying) verdict said to, and I added that message to the other pages as well. --Addict 2006 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
her video WAS put on trial it was judged to be bad and she WAS sentenced to have a Video On Trial viewer add her picture to the Wikipedia entry for "loser". This all happened. The only reason to deny it is as part of a cover up. Why would you lie?

possible bisexuality & carousing with Britney Spears

Why is this page locked?

This page needs something on her sexuality. Here's something from celebritypro.com on her crush on Jennifer Aniston. "There has been speculation that Hilton may be lesbian or bisexual. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Hilton stated that she did not receive much enjoyment from sex with men. It has also been rumored that there exists a video featuring Paris having sex with her friend Nicole Lenz, a Playboy Playmate. In February 2005, she admitted in an interview that she has a crush on Jennifer Aniston. " http://www.celebritypro.com/bio/paris_hilton_bio.htm And she was in public with her hand on the left breast of Britney Spears. http://www.playfuls.com/news_00001729_Britney_Spears_Groped_By_Paris_Hilton.html Arbol25 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I am not surprised at all to be honest. Ashley.

This can't be accurate... can it?

Supposed proof of both a nose job and the wearing of blue contacts: [1]. Can anyone confirm or deny? --AWF

See WP:RS. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but these pictures may be. In addition, there have been several articles documenting her use of tinted contact lenses to change her eye colour from brown to blue, and close-up photographs of her face do confirm she wears contact lenses. [2]. I would also suggest a section dealing with her extensive cosmetic surgery, as this is someone who is in Wikipedia in part because of her physical appearance and "modelling" background.

Herpes

Why is there no mention in her Wikipedia article about the incident where one of her ex-boyfriends told her current boyfriend that Paris Hilton is spreading the Herpes virus? I smell a cover-up. I think this whole page about her is clearly written by her supporters, with the express intent of painting her in the best possible light. Could we please just have the facts here and not a one-sided view of her as some innocent princess? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.173.182 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Probably because there are no reliable sources for this. Do you have any? Due to libel concerns, we are especially vigilant about negative information about living people that is not very strongly sourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have proof that she has herpes. the site "parisexposed.com" has a picture of her prescription bottle of valtrex. a link to the picture is here, http://wwtdd.com/photo.phtml?post_key=1844&photo_key=1924 you can look up valtrex on wikipedia and see that it is a herpes drug. why isnt anything about her herpes in her wikipedia profile? Hattness 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Hattness


-->

Yes there are plenty of reliable sources out there for this story. We know factually that (a) a restraining order was filed against Paris Hilton, (b) she threatened her ex-boyfriend, saying he'd be "a dead man" if it got out, and (c) that the ex-boyfriend informed her current boyfriend of her having herpes. All you have to do to find sources is query "Paris Hilton herpes" within any of the reputable search engines. Is Wikipedia trying to hide this information from the public to protect Paris Hilton's "untarnished, innocent" reputation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.173.182 (talk • contribs).
Editors: this comes from the same editor who thinks Britney Spears married actor Jason Alexander. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You could get a lot of unreliable information from search engines, and are you trying to say that it's verifiable information because one person told another person? Rzrscm 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Irrespective of that however, the information is there on the web; one only need query "Paris Hilton Herpes" into a search engine, and receive multiple sources detailing the restraining order against Paris Hilton and the herpes-related news. Why must you people at Wikipedia suppress information that is both relevant and widely reported on? I think this has to do with painting Paris Hilton in the best possible light - this truly smacks of bias, which really surprises me, because I thought this was supposed to be an online encyclopedia of all pertinent information regarding items of interest. And furthermore, this page of Paris Hilton is clearly written by people who are pro-Paris Hilton.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.173.182 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Note that we don't just need information, we need information that is verifiable and reliable. If you think you can find information that meets those two policies I just linked, then go ahead and find it. No one is stopping you. Johntex\talk 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember that this health issue of Paris Hilton' was right here in the Wikipedia article and I also remember it was properly sourced. It's possible that someone removed the entry with their edits. -Mardus 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking About Norwegian-American

What happened to the information saying that Paris Hilton is Norwegian-American? I added Norwegian-American to her categories as the information on Wikipedia said that she was of Norwegian descent. Both the information and the category are gone. Can someone please explain why? I’m not whining or anything, I’m just wanting to know why they went. I thought it was well known Paris Hilton is of Norwegian and German descent. Acalamari 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


media spotlight pov

In particular, the part about Paris abstaining from sex seems to go on and on. Then right under it, it is noted that she was parodied on South Park. But that's all it says. One sentence. She was parodied on South Park......and? If the writer of this section felt it necessary to ramble about her abstinence having her feelings hurt and other things (that portray Paris in more positive light), why not at least make a tiny bit of effort to include more info about the SP episode? The title of the episode(Stupid Spoiled Whore Playset), and the plot device are both in reference to her sex tape. This isn't mentioned, Why? Two sentences would be too much? It doesn't make sense, with the detailed topics directly above the SP thing.

There are other examples of well-disguised POV elsewhere in the article, but that South Park thing at the end really sticks out and should be easy to fix without much contention...right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.138.168 (talk) 08:23, 8 December, 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with POV? I'm pretty sure REAL events in her life are a lot more important to write about than her being PARODIED on South Park. Rzrscm 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet all of Paris' quotes defending herself and gong on about how she doesn't give it up are so important? Just stating that she is abstaining and linking the source would have sufficed. As I already said, that part of the section drags on, creating a stark contrast between the South Park part.

Like I said, ONE sentence to describe that the SP episode spoofed the whole sex tape thing. Why do you seem vehemently opposed, and have nothing to say about my other points?

The section looks odd. It appears as if the South Park thing is "tacked on" at the very end, like the writer didn't want to put it there AT ALL, but knew they had to.

It's POV because most of the "media spotlight" on Paris has been negative. You know it, everyone knows it. The section mentions almost NONE of that and is just two excuses/explanations/defenses of Paris, portraying her in a positive (read POV) light. No mention of the racial slurs, the Tinkerbell thing, not one mention of her DUI (all incidents Paris and/or her PR people have made statements about), none of it. That section is candy-coated.

One more time....You don't think it looks funny that section is basically like this:

"playboy picture blah blah blah blah blah

"abstinence blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

"people say mean things about Paris and her response is blah blah blah blah blah blah

"Paris was parodied on South Park." end of section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.138.168 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that stuff like her racial slurs, Tinkerbell switch-up, DUI, etc should be in it...But a parody of her on South Park is completely irrelevent. A South Park parody could portray anybody in any light they want, and they do. Rzrscm 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

--> I agree. The stuff about her racial slurs should be in the article. And I also agree that the entire article appears to be tilted towards a favorable view of Paris Hilton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 15:47, 8 December, 2006 (UTC)

We need HagermanBot to show who wrote what and when in this section. -Mardus 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
He might have missed his window, so I've added it manually. -SpuriousQ 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that it looks funny (in fact I've been tempted to remove it before), but I don't think focusing on a South Park parody for a "negative" view is the way to go here, simply because it's doesn't tell the reader much about Hilton. However, if you can find reliable sources for the incidents you mention above (racial slurs, Tinkerbell incident?), definately feel free to add them. The DUI incident is mentioned in the previous section, though perhaps can be expanded in Media spotlight. -SpuriousQ 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Views on this article

I came here to research the issue of "flashing" in the context of selective prosecution. The article is devoid of links to probably the largest tabloid frenzy of that year and the talk page is full of mindless advocating. The page is in need of rework but can't get it as its beset by people with a mission on both sides.

I call for the next person along (to avoid me being judge, jury, and executioner) to archive this discussion and delete everything under my 'Where Paris Related News Goes' section direction people to other pages. It's all hopelessly corrupted with partisan bashing and is hardly relevant to what belongs here.

24.82.19.224 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is NOT the heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune...

The Hilton family owns approx 5% of the shares of the Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) according to Britain's The Times (2005). That's what Paris Hilton's paternal grandfather Barron Hilton got from his father's estate after a lengthy challenge to the will (Conrad Hilton died in 1979, the case was settled in 1988). His siblings got nothing. Five per cent is a minor stake in the company which means that any claim that the Hilton family owns the Hilton hotel empire is patently false.

Those 5% of the shares of HHC plus everything else that Barron Hilton owns are, according to Forbes, worth abt US$ 1 billion (Barron Hilton's net worth according to the "Forbes 400" 2006). Barron Hilton has eight children (Richard Hilton, Paris's father, was born as number six of the eight children) and plenty of grandchildren. If Barron Hilton decides to leave his fortune, including the 5% stake in HHC, to his children (he could do as his father did and leave everything to charity and the church though) each child would get abt US$ 125 million. And since Paris Hilton has three siblings each of them would then, God and their father willing, get abt US$ 30 million. Thirty million dollars. Hardly a fabulous fortune...

So please stop claiming that Paris Hilton is fabulously rich and that she is "the heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune", because she's not. It's just something Paris made up because it sounds better than telling the world that her father is a real estate broker (he's a working partner in Hilton & Hyland, an LA real estate brokerage).

Allan Akbar 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to determine what exactly Paris Hilton's inheritance is, but everything in the article must be sourced, not original research, and be in an encyclopedic tone. If a reputable source states that Hilton's inheritance is estimated to be $30 million, we can simply state and cite that. The paragraph you wrote in the article cannot stay as is. -SpuriousQ 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a well known fact, not original research. Forbes list Barron Hilton as #374 in their list of the 400 richest Americans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Barron-Hilton_02JQ.html). Barron Hilton has eight children of which Richard Hilton is one. And he in turn has four children of which Paris Hilton is one. Do your math and you get: US$ 1 billion divided by eight is US$ 125 million, which is the share of each of the eight children. Then divide Richard Hilton's share by four and you get approx US$ 30 million for each of his four children. So Paris Hilton's share of the "fabulous fortune" is worth approx US$ 30 million. Like it or not, that's the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allan Akbar (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
You're correct that her share is ~US$30 million, but it the way it was written was original research or close to it. I've recasted the estimation with references. -SpuriousQ 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What you guys are forgetting is her money directly from her father, who by all accounts is a successful real estate developer. Just his personal properties listed in wikipedia are worth more than $30 million. She lives in a $10 million house in the hollywood hills. While her heiress qualities are certainly less than often advertised, she is set to inherit quite a fortune. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.52.80.27 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Adding Outside Links to Paris Hilton Websites

How do I add the Paris Hilton Channel to the list of links? I'm a new user and can't edit the page. Can somebody do it for me or lower the security settings for me please?

  • [http : // www . parishiltontoday . com The Paris Hilton Channel at YouTube. Official Paris Hilton page.]

http : // www . parishiltontoday . com

Thanks in advance and everyone please have an enjoyable relaxing day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamlaughingatyou (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Sm1294@nyu.edu 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As a result today's media, Hilton has become a legitimate cultural icon: our contemporary society's Gold Marilyn. She did this not through groundbreaking work in the traditional sense, but through publicizing her career-as-self—famous for doing nothing. In our post-modern world, omnipresent existence is enough to make news, and Hilton serves as a historic bookmark in our cultural evolution. She has made it her intentional career to explore the very definitions of fame and success.

Porn star?

Why doesn't she belong in the porn star category? She owned the rights to a sexually explicit video of herself, and she sold those rights (see article). Doesn't that make her a porn star?--Truest blue 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe she is a porn star. Indeed, she did make that sex tape, but that doesn't mean she's a porn star. There are normal people who have made their own sex tapes (well, I haven't made any, I'm too young), does that make them porn stars as well? A User has reverted your edits and restored the page to previous version, which was an edit that I did. Acalamari 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand you are diffrentiating between "normal people" that make sex tapes for themselves and sex tapes that are made for the public."Normal people" are not porn stars, but people that star in sex tapes for the public are porn stars. Your defenition seems reasonable, but it leads to a lot of difficulties.If "normal people" make a sex tape and sell it, doesn't that make them porn stars? Why should it make a difference that there wasn't a director and an expensive camcorder. Does it make a difference if they initially meant it only for themselves and later decided to sell it? How do we know what there initial thinking was? Because of aformentioned problems, I propose that "porn star" should be defined as follows : "One who knowingly earns money from the public viewing of her sex acts". Paris earned money from the tape (see Rick Salomon), therefore she should be defined as a porn star.--Truest blue 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Paris Hilton did not intend for the sex tape to be released to the public. She is not a porn star; and my comparison was good enough. If Paris Hilton doesn't consider herself a porn star, that should be good enough for us. Acalamari 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This has come up before: Talk:Paris_Hilton/Archive_2#Porn_star_category, though no clear consensus seemed to be reached. I tend to agree that adding her to the porn star category is misleading given the circumstances under which that the video was created and released. Her owning/selling the rights to the video was due to her lawsuit against Salomon attempting to halt distribution. -SpuriousQ 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll read that discussion. I believe that she shouldn't be put in the porn star category. The sex tape should have been private, but her ex-boyfriend went and released the tape to the public. Acalamari 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A porn star should not be defined by what the intent was at the time the video was taken. It leads to vaugeness and uncertainty. We, as mortals, do not really know what is going on in a person's mind. If "pornstar" is defined by intent then we can never be certain as to who is a porn star.--Truest blue 08:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

True. Paris Hilton is indeed a porn star. She agreed to release the video to the public. That is the bottom line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.49.135 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Overly clean article?

This article seems to be rather light on the aspects of her that puts her in a not so good light, such as the upskirt images of her etc.... Mathmo Talk 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we should point out that Paris is in fact criticised and dislike by many critics not to mention the general and espetially the internet public.--Mudel 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs a touch up

This article needs a more noticable remark on the backlash on Paris Hilton. This page looks like it was written by a fan, there is almost nothing indication her disliking, or the negative aspects of her celbrety life, my point is she is represented as a bright and succesful talanted pop idol. Let's face it that's just not true and it would decieve a person who would come to wikipedia and read this, we should put as much as we can on anyone here, the good and bad. If I didn't know her I'd actualyl believe from this article that she actually is comparable to Princess DI or Marlyn, wich she, I think everyone agrees, isn't.

Ashlee Simpson has a criticism section, the EMo article has a backlash section, we should put something up here to, it's onyl fair. Something that'll stick and won't get deleted by a fan after 30 seconds because he likes her, that's utterly unencyclopedic.--Mudel 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Paris Hilton's criticisms are worded in with the main parts of the articl to avoid a criticism section, so it's unnecessary to put one in. You seem to have a hatred of Paris Hilton, which you don't want to get in the way of editing neutrally. Acalamari 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's not obvious enough this article is heavily edited/written by some one in Miss Hitlon's employment. Whether it's her PR agent, or simply a temp who's job it is to check this article every day there is a BIG effort put into keeping this article squeaky clean. As mentioned it should have more criticism, but some one is doing a good job of keeping it out and keeping this article locked. --216.55.200.182 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
By "someone" who "heavily edits/writes" the article, keeps it "squeaky clean," and has the article protected, I assume you mean me, correct? I never had anything to do with the protection of the article, and nearly of the content written hasn't been done by me. Anyway, why does it need more criticism, Wikipedia is not a place for spreading hate and propaganda. Also, I believe Paris Hilton gets criticized a lot elsewhere, so there's no point in creating more criticism. Acalamari 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was you. I'm simply stating the obvious that some one from the Hilton camp puts a bit effort into keeping this article clean. That may or may not be you. You may just be a fan of Miss Hilton, which is fine. I'm just saying that Miss Hilton has her finger$ in the content of this article. --216.55.200.182 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't say that I was, but you implied it. Anyway, how can you be certain that Paris Hilton is paying people to keep this page clean? On Wikipedia, things need to be sourced. Acalamari 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This bores me now. Paris, is that you? Writing your own Wiki article? I knew it!--216.55.193.151 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that I'm Paris Hilton now? You have no proof that I am. Acalamari 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And you have no proof that your not! But this needs to stop as I think we're just having a discussion now well beyond the boundaries of the article now. The fact is Miss Hilton is a controversial public figure whom is not usually presented in the most positive of light in the media/public. Yet this Wiki article makes it seem like she's a very well respected musician/actress/model/celebrity. This just makes it very suspicious that some one is from her camp is being paid to keep this article in a positive light. Neutral is one thing, this article reads like an Hilton funded biography. I never said it was you doing this, you inferred that on your own.--216.55.193.151 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you wrote This bores me now. Paris, is that you? Writing your own Wiki article? I knew it! and your indent had been placed so that it responded to my message, so yes, you did say that I'm Paris Hilton; but you have no proof that I am or not. Anyway, why don't you discuss what you want to put in the criticisms section, as that's what this Talk Page is for. Let's hear what you want to put in. Acalamari 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop it you two! The fact is this shouldn't be a place to post anti-Paris dirt. HOWEVER this is NOT a neutrual article.

All lthis page displays is the good aspects of her, her being a successful star, singer, famus person ect. Paris hilton is known to be a a party girl, a person who uses the N-word, by that I mean NIGGER, excessevly, weather she is racist or not. climbing o fame with money, NOT talent, because the world loves a blond barbie girl, oh and let's not forget THE TAPE, and an overrated celbrety, you want a source for that one? TRY THE GUINESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS! I mean there uis aprox ONE sentance about it in the whole article.

Why isn't this mentioned? Oh yes, Acalamari, you keep deleting everything under the pretence that this is not significant to this site and then playing dumb that you're just removing is for the sake of wikipedia, when it's rather obvious you're takign care of this page like a rotweiller, infact I bet you'll react to this comment within minutes, so don't tell me you don't have a Paris affection, you fit the profile perfectly; a straight teenage girl(I'm presuming)who likes pop mainstream. Not that I have anything against pop, Madonna was awsome in the 90s and mi gusta Shakira mucho.

I take care of the bandmember's pages of band I adore to oyou know, but I try to keep an open mind. No not open, ENCICLOPEDIC.

Read s l o w l y: I'm proposing we keep all the info and just add some criticism to a section or three, or even extend the public image section. Imagine what some kid from montenegro that knows NOTHING about Paris and reads this article would think; A talented, clean, pop-singer-actress-model-famous person who has a wealthy father and is well accepted among critics. "PA kako dobra osoba!". Is that Paris? Seriously, ask yourself. Is that paris? IS IT?!

You wanna be an admin one day? Here's how an admin thinks; he takes upon him both sides of the story and unobjectevly accesses each side then he tires, pardon, MUST satisfy the side that is correct even if they both are. Let's face it we both are; Paris is successfull, hailed by MTV and a lot of critics, and Japan(or so I hear), on the other side she made a pornographic movie, bought her way up , parties more than Eugene Onegin and usses the word NIGGER on every black person she sees.

And wikipedia is a FACT and RELIABLE INFO database. She's disliked FACT, stuff I just said RELIABLE INFO. So keep old, add info. THis is liek the George Bush page before the popularity section was added. THINK HARD --Mudel 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Actually, I said to the IP address in my last message that they should discuss here what criticisms they want to put in. I was willing to talk about them, but that User seems to have vanished for the time being. As for Paris Hilton and the racism comments, it depends where they were said. If they were said in a private gathering, it shouldn't matter (just like the "racist" comment from Arnold Schwarzenegger that was said in a private meeting). If, however, she said "nigger" in a public place, then there's more reason to add it in. It should be noted though, that Paris Hilton has (or at least had) a bi-racial friend: Nicole Richie. The criticisms section should be discussed here, and when it's added, it should be sourced. Also, I have not removed everything that is "anti-Paris Hilton." There is quite a bit of it scattered throughout the article. As I said, discuss what you want to add. Acalamari 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still here, I've just grown bored with arguing with a 16 year old/pr agent/paris hilton (or whomever you are), and besides, I think Mudel summed up my opinion & point quite well. I still think Miss Hilton's money is keeping this page very clean, Acalamari may or may not be employed by Miss Hilton, but I still think some one editing this page is. I mean George W. Bush's wiki page isn't even locked anymore. And he's even more controversial.. but his page also includes a criticism section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Criticism_and_public_perception) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.107.119.85 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).--209.107.119.85 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you be the same user as the IP I was talking to before? This IP is different to the one a few messages above. Also, if any of you had read, I said that you should discuss the criticisms section here. That's what we do, we discuss it on the Talk Page. As for anyone being paid to edit this page, I seriously doubt that. After all, you seem to doubt and wonder who I am. You don't have any proof that I'm Paris Hilton or not. Acalamari 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Title

The title of Paris Hilton's video game is really 'Jewel Jam'. She mistakenly introduced it as 'Diamond Quest' at the E3 unveiling. Alana margaret 04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

hacked phone

I don't have the power since some idiot left this page in protected status. Can someone please add the hacked cell phone article to this page? Wikipedia has never failed me in terms of giving me information, and in order for this article to be perfect, the cell phone incident MUST be included in here. But I can't do it myself. Who did the hacked cell phone incident affect? I heard it affected Fergie and Anna Kournikova, but who else? What are the details on it? Why is there an article on her driving under the influence and not the hacked phone incident? Here is one of the links: http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/21/technology/personaltech/hilton_cellphone/?cnn=yes

No "idiot" left it protected. It's protected so people don't vandalize it. Acalamari 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And by "vandalizing" I assume you mean writing things that don't suck up to Ms Hilton. It was an uphill battle for me just to get some correct info about her not being the heiress to the "Hilton Hotel fortune" or being fabulously wealthy into the article. I thought Wikipedia was all about balanced correct information, not a propaganda site for C/D/E-list celebrities like Paris Hilton... Allan Akbar 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, we mean vandalism. Paris Hilton is rather hated by some people, after all. We don't want to censor accurate information, but information has to be sourced and negative information has to be impeccably sourced, both for legal concerns and because we have a policy to be very careful about unsourced negative information about living people. We can't just accept every story about someone without sources that are better than tabloid journalism.
The article is also not full-protected. It is only semi-protected, which means that it cannot be edited by people who do not have accounts or by brand-new accounts. If you want to edit the article directly, register an account and wait a few days. Accounts are actually more anonymous than editing without logging in, because your IP address will not be visible. If you don't want to do this, you can propose wording here on the talk page or in your userspace and post a message about it here, and established editors can add it.
Hope that helps, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Allen Akbar, you didn't source your information. Users other than myself removed your information because it was unsourced. Acalamari 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

need to clarify

It needs to be said that most of the Conrad fortune was given to the Cathlic Church, it is an important detail. the way it is now it looks like his whole fortune went to creating a spoiled brat

Club Paris

Where's the information about how Paris was recently "fired" as the spokesmodel for the Club Paris chain? Alabasterchinchilla 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (Edit: Nevermind, I added it.)

Is that hot?

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but... how exactly is "that's hot" a catchphrase, much less a "trademark," of Hilton? Does she have some special way of saying it or what? It seems to me to be far too, well, simple to even notice that anyone is using the "phrase" more commonly than others, but maybe I'm just saying that as someone surrounded by people declaring this to be "hot" here and there... --Lenoxus 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Im way late with this answer, but "thats hot" is her catch phrase because she says it frequently, and is one of the only celeberties to say it often. Anything becomes your "catchphrase" when its something not many people say and you say it enough times. DurotarLord 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

talking of hot...

Speaking with all due dry encyclopaedic objectivity, surely there should be something in the article about Ms Hilton's not inconsiderable sexual attractiveness? 82.69.28.55 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think her fashion modeling and Playboy mention is sufficient. -SpuriousQ 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay at CEDU

When she was 17, her parents did sent her to CEDU for 2 months for a yet unknown reason. This organisation was later closed down due to lawsuit based on child abuse. A lot of former detainees had acted out i similar way (limited by access to a lesser amount of money) due to PTSD after being locked in a abusive environment.

She should have been 17 at the time. Do anyone have knowledge about what facility it was? Covergaard 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I googled it and there was a CEDU in Running Springs, California (San Bernadino County) which claimed her in 1997. The school filed for bankruptcy in 2005 and has since closed. 66.168.209.58 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Wendy

Paris Hilton Address Book Leak

Hi, In 2005 I recall her address book was leaked onto the 'net. I was going to add something about it in the article but since it was so prominent and it wasn't there I assumed there was some reason for that (e.g. it was asked to be removed, etc). Has it been decided unworthy of Wikipedia, or not included for any other reason? If no-one's got around to putting it in yet I'm happy to do so but just thought I'd check that there wasn't a good reason why it wasn't there already - so I don't type it all up and then have it deleted! Thanks :-) --Christopher 12:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It used to be in the article at least once, and I remember there was a pretty sizable section on it. Looking through the talk page archives, I see no consensus against the topic, and I wouldn't object if you re-add it provided that it is, of course, well-sourced and objective. It seems worthy enough of this article, since the event was widely covered by the press and a big deal for Hilton, T-Mobile, and the celebrity world. -SpuriousQ 12:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ParisExposed

Now that both AP and CNN are reporting on the whole ParisExposed thing, we might as well include it in the article. I was torn about including the URL for the website, and others may decide to remove it. The only defence I can offer is that the site is publicly known through the AP/CNN article and I did not make it a live link. OTOH it could be removed since the article in question does include this information, so someone wanting to know can look it up. It's a case of WP:BLP vs. information now in the public record. I'm fine either way. This is different from the address book incident, discussed above. 23skidoo 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Born 2-17-1978: ParisExposed shows a picture of her drivers licence with 2-17-1978 as DOB 85.178.54.143 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That picture is crap, I don't believe it. The image of her on the license is all blurred, as is most of the picture itself. It looks like a joke or a scam to me. Acalamari 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There are TONS of real photos, videos, documents... 85.178.31.104 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The site is real, I assure you. Check out the video files on any of the sexier celebrity forums; it's obviously her, though I can't speak to the personal info like licenses or medical records.

I've removed the link to the site, on the grounds that Wikipedia does not provide free advertising space to commercial sites. There is a $39.95 fee connected with viewing the material contained on the site. Moreover, I do not think it qualifies as a reputable Wikipedia source. Cleo123 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a redundant edit to the ParisExposed articles, re-listing some of the items found in the locker as items that were barred from being released by the judge's order. I'm sure that if someone reads what was in the locker, and then reads that the locker's contents were barred from bring released (for purposes of keeping her private information private), that they could figure out what was kept from being released. It's a small edit, but I think I should just address it quickly so that we don't have a little edit war. Alabasterchinchilla 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On whether ParisExposed.com should be mentioned

Let's talk about whether the URL should be provided rather than constantly reverting each other. My opinion is that 23skidoo did it exactly right with a "dead link" just mentioning that the site is ParisExposed.com. Since the website is notable enough to discuss in the article, it's a worthwhile service to the reader to provide its address. This is how AP/CNN treated the matter. It may provide some free advertising, but it's not the primary purpose of the link, and Wikipedia has no strict ban on linking to a commercial site. -SpuriousQ 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Above and beyond any desire to make money off Paris, I see Bardia Persa's objective to be stalking and harrassment of Ms. Hilton. I have NO doubt that in moving the container and his operation off-shore, he is attempting to avoid prosecution under the Federal Violence Against Women Act, which covers stalking behavior of this sort. This is one the most grotesque invasions of a woman's personal privacy that I have ever seen and I do not think that Wikipedia can or should be used to enable what I see as harrassment and stalking.
Clearly, Persa wants to humiliate and embarrass Hilton. This is CLASSIC stalking behavior. If he is as obsessed with his victim as he appears to be, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that many of the items supposedly contained in the storage container are NOT genuine. I do not think that we would be providing a "service" to anyone other than Persa by mentioning his site. It cannot be considered a "reputable" source of information and as such we have an ethical responsibility in accordance with Wikipedia's own editorial standards NOT to refer our reader's there. If someone is really interested, they can find the site easily enough on their own.
Clearly, some of the information contained on Persa's site constitutes libel and I think, in this case, that outweighs Wikipedia's duty to inform. I am, of course, open to the views of other editors on this point. I see the logic of providing a "dead link" although I'd rather see no mention of the site address at all.
I am also concerned that Paris Exposed is mentioned twice in the article, both leading and closing it. It seems to me that "Controversies" surrounding Hilton should be given the same type of page placement found in other celebrity biographies on Wikipedia, at the bottom. In any case, those are my "2 cents". I am open to hearing the thoughts of others on the subject. Cleo123 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For sure, I find the actions of the site's operator reprehensible and in no way condone the site, but again, since the site is notable enough to be discussed, it seems appropriate to actually name it. I am probably a bit biased because it always irks me when there is news coverage about a website that doesn't provide its URL, and I have to go find it myself. But in that sense, it is a service to the reader. It's not necessarily a reputable source, either: it's a primary source. You do have a point about libel concerns, but since AP linked to it--and it sometimes omits URLs of objectional sites--I feel we are justified here.
I'm open to hearing others' opinions and hope people will stop simply reverting each other. -SpuriousQ 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
ParisExposed.com doesn't sound like a reliable source of information. It sounds more like a porn site. If it's unreliable, remove it. Acalamari 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not linking to it as a source of information about Paris Hilton, we're just saying "this is the website we're talking about". I suppose you could consider it a primary source about itself. On a side note, the website has been down all day; it's possible this discussion will turn out to be moot. -SpuriousQ 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
One can only hope! LOL Cleo123 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
SpuriousQ, I LOVE what you did with the article! What an IMPROVEMENT! I can even live with the website mention! (As long as it's not a live link, I guess it doesn't matter.) Kudos to you! Well done! Cleo123 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


James

As a long time observer I find this article to be well written, supported by at least some "evidence" and quite neutral. The financial comments by Allen Ankbar (?) are quite correct, but for the fact that her own earnings will soon have exceeded her "inheritance" which is in fact in a trust from which she recieves an amount of approximately 1 million dollars per year as determined quarterly by her trustees.... Almost all the other comments in the SUGGESTED REVISIONS section are groundless opinion and vituperation based on no personal knowledge of anything. Clear reason to keep this entry permanently "locked".

Racism, anti-semitism, homophobia on youtube?

Apparently, there was a video on youtube, but it was removed. Anyone has a link for a mirror of the video? (btw, here's a news link on this: itn.co.uk) bogdan 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN.com currently has a video discussing the video, with clips but no sound. It has someone from CourtTv on there, so maybe you can find some of the video on their website as well. And Paris has also said that if she can't have her stuff back, that she wants proceeds from the sale of it (just like she got from the settlement of the sex tape suit). Alabasterchinchilla 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Try this one http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820174 as if there wasnt enough reason to hate her already...

Needs Complete rewrite...!

I've re-read this article from top to bottom. I've helped contribute to it quite alot, admitedly. But I've really come to notice alot that is wrong with it.

It needs a complete rewrite, but should still include the info it has there right now, aswell as expand upon it. I honestly believe after reading biographies on other young stars such as Ashlee Simpson or Lindsay Lohan, their articles are put together alot better. As long as we can cite sources, all the info we include about Hilton has a place here, whether for or against her.

The article should be written out as an ongoing biography, perhaps year by year, that includes all the good and all the bad of her personal life and her career. Whereas, at the moment, it has a Background section, two big sections for all her brands, in no particular order, and her discography. It looks a mess in my opinion.

Here's an example of how it could be written (not to say that this is all correct, but to give an example) :


2003: Rise to mainstream fame

Following some small cameo roles in The Cat in the Hat and Wonderland, Hilton began work on her reality series for Fox titled The Simple Life.

Along with Nicole Richie (adopted daughter of Lionel Richie) Hilton lived with a family on their farm in rural Altus, Arkansas. Highlights of the show included the girls performing poorly at various jobs, making out with the local boys, and numerous instances of them shown as "fish out of water".

The leak of her then three-year-old sex video fueled an "Internet frenzy" a week prior to the premiere of The Simple Life, leading to speculation that it was a deliberate publicity stunt. Hilton has strongly denied such claims and stated she was "embarrassed" and "humiliated" by the publicity brought by the tape.

Released as 1 Night in Paris, the unauthorized sex video featured her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon. The film earned three AVN Awards in 2005, including "Best Selling Title of the Year". Hilton originally sued Salomon over the release of the tape, but settled out of court in July 2005. According to reports, Hilton was awarded up to $400,000 and planned to donate a percentage to charity. However, in a 2006 interview with GQ magazine, she stated: "I never received a dime from [the video]. It's just dirty money and [Salomon] should give it all to some charity for the sexually abused or something."

The tape caused much negative backlash from the general public, however, the controversy also stirred interest. The show started airing on Fox December 2, 2003, to surprisingly well received ratings. The premiere episode drew 13 million viewers, increasing Fox's Adults 18-49 rating a phenomenal 79%. The second episode drew 13.3 million viewers, an increase of 200,000 viewers over its premiere.

Hilton also starred in the short film L.A Knights and appeared in the music video for Caught Up In The Rapture by Won-G featuring Gizelle.

She also cancelled her engagement to Jason Shaw and is said to have dated Oscar de la Hoya during some of the year.

As I said, that may not be all acurate, but it illustrates what I'm trying to say. We can include info on her successes and criticisms and write it out neatly in chroniclogical order, to tell a proper and accurate biography of her life, rather then big subsections that include lots of different paragraphs on different issues in no order what-so-ever.

Discuss.

Celebrity-Benji 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think this article would greatly benefit from a major restructuring with a focus, as you suggest, on chronological order rather than on "careers". -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, I'm glad you agree. Maybe I could get a bit more feedback on this, as I am planning to modify it myself if need be, or we could all plan it and contribute together... Celebrity-Benji 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Information

The people who contribute to this page seem to be experts on Paris, and I was wondering if anyone here knows of her making any comments regarding whether or not she is a feminist or if she has said anything on the topic of feminism in the past. I am not saying that it should be added or anything, I am just personally interested and am unsure of where else to find this information. thanks 68.32.16.90 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If she is a feminist, then she is definitely not doing much for the cause...And you don't have to be an expert on here; just be willing to do some research, or post a blurb you see released in the news. Alabasterchinchilla 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected for no reason

How long have this page been locked for? And why is the reason behind it? Can someone request unprotection.. ?

130.113.226.6 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is locked so IP's and new users cannot vandalize it. If we were to end the semi-protection, we would be reverting more vandalism from this article. Acalamari 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily true; seems like an oversweeping generalization that fails to assume good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.35.4.130 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
One of the categories at the bottom of this talk page clearly states that this is a controversial topic. No one is assuming bad faith. Depending on the vandalism, I'll see what we can do about the semi-protection at a later date. I want to avoid another situation where the semi-protection was lowered and the vandals crawled out of the woodwork. In the meantime, if you wish to edit this page, create a new account and wait for four days to edit, or, if you want, discuss what changes you want to make to the article. Acalamari 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)



For all you haters out there paris still has it going

I nkow it's protected for a reason, but surely you could clean up the vandalism quickly? I want to edit this article.80.41.6.203 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Do two things: inform us what you want to put in, or alternatively, create a new account, wait for four days, and then edit the article. Acalamari 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. I'll read the article and look for things to improve. But I don't know if i'm allowed an account...212.139.222.62 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course you are allowed an account; everyone is allowed one, just as long as they don't vandalize. Acalamari 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zsa Zsa and Anna Nicole Smith

How about this? If Zsa Zsa's husband is the father of Anna Nicole's daughter, Dannielynn, that makes Danielynn and Paris related by marriage a couple of times removed. Talk about a story made for tabloids! This should be added to her family section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.86.240.195 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

IF it turns out to be the case, which we don't know yet, so it shouldn't be added. IF it turns out to be the case, we can discuss it then. --Golbez 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

South Park

Come on, it deserves a mention!!! Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset! Mr. Garrison (talk • contribs)

Socialite?

Up until this point my involvement with this article has been confined to vandalism patrol. As it seems that the article is now beginnng to take a more coherent shape,(and I finally have the time), I thought I'd look at doing some re-writes here. There is something very glaring in the article that perplexes me. It seems Hilton has been defined, to some degree, as a socialite. I hate to be a curmudgeon on this issue, but in order to be considered a proper member of "society", one must have a "coming out" party, an event which is generally connected with proper "blood" lineage. (for example DAR descendants) I'm not sure Hilton's bloodline legitimately qualifies her designation as a "socialite". This may sound "petty" - but what I am getting at is entirely "proper". Does anyone know anything about her "coming out" into society? If so, this MUST be included in that paragraph. If she has no such backing, she is NOT a socialite - just a nouveau riche girl who gets a lot of publicity. I hate to be a snob, but that is the proper distinction. Cleo123 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be nit-picking here, socialite seems to be used just in the sense of "a socially prominent person", as Merriam-Webster defines it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I am not looking to discredit her in any way. This young lady has more than her fair share of detractors! LOL! Honestly, I was, sort of, secretly hoping there was something substantial and legitimate that could be "pulled out of the bag" to substantiate the descriptor. I, personally, have not been able to find any records on that front. It's a pity.
I will say,SpuriousQ, you have done a commendable job restoring some sense of order and nuetrality to an article that had been an absolute mess! Kudos to you! Cleo123 08:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The source cited for her being a "debutante" makes no reference to her "coming out" presentation to "society". It would appear this characterization may be entirely erronious. Does anyone have the facts on this? Cleo123 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, that source (I assume you're talking about Discovery Channel) has no mention of celebutante, the characterization it is supposed to verify. I don't think celebutante should even be in the lead because it is an ambiguous and uncommon neologism, as you allude to above. Surely we can have a more perspicuous description. (By the way, the earliest use of celebutante I could find in the news is a 1986 reference to James St. James.) -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

new album?

Can someone tell me if she is releasing a new album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.197.19 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Breast Implants

What about the new breast Implants? Paris Hilton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.3.223.208 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParis_Hilton_Archive_4_09e5.html"