This page 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.

Not wearing fur is far from activism. How does this warrant its own section? 75.60.169.46 ( talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Her show "Paris Hilton's: My new BFF" showed her eating meat several times. She ate a shrimp that was grilled to death in front of her at a restaurant in Tokyo, she ate caviar, among others. 96.226.27.241 ( talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'booking photo' in the article appears to have been vandalized. It looks like a herpes bump has been photoshopped onto Paris Hiltons Lip. Can someone please replace with the original photo?

24.8.106.182 ( talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken care of, the current booking image is the same as the one that can be found a numerous news pages. -- Amalthea 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. As the person who started the petition and who has met and spoken with Paris before, I wanted to contribute the following (see below) to the Paris Hilton page. Due to semi-protection, I can not add information into the article:

Can this please be added in:

"The petition to Governor Schwarzenegger was created and organized on May 5th, 2007 by Joshua Morales, a loyal fan of Ms. Hilton's who was upset by the sentence that Paris received from Judge Michael Sauer the day before on May 4th, 2007. "

[1]Paris Hilton Asks For Schwarzenegger Pardon (People Magazine May 8, 2007) Musicfanjm 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhapses enlighten us as to why you thought the governor should have pardoned her? I've been trying to figure that out ever since I heard about the petition. The Goat 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

She didn't need a pardon, she needed a longer sentence...what she got was hardly even a slap on the wrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 ( talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally Spies featured an episode with a character called Milan Stilton. Complete with small(robotic) dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.12 ( talk) 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need an external source saying that it was indeed a parody of Paris Hilton, else that would be drawing conclusions based on your own opinions...- Localzuk ^(talk) 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's both counter intuitive and counter productive. 220.236.175.95 ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention Paris Hilton's plastic surgery? Notable source IMDB mentions it. And here's actual pictures of the difference. And now here's a lot more links due to google. Discuss please!!! William Ortiz 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure the article isn't ommitting it due to some BLP reason. William Ortiz 10:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The site you refer to as "here's actual pictures of the difference" is a bit tacky IMO. I suggest not using any reference to that site for BLP reasons. Wanderer57 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Paris hasn't had plastic surgery, she said it herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.7.6 ( talk) 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is only 27 years old article 2 executve office requires 35 years old This may not be obvious to some people especially with her present "false president" campaign. Maybe this should be included in her main bio Blackbird1701 ( talk) 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It says that she's 27 right at the top in the infobox, and the section is called "2008 parody Presidential campaign" (emphasis by me). I don't think it can be misread as an actual attempt to run for office. -- Amalthea ^Talk 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

how do you prevent someone from removing EVERY SINGLE POST that i add? everytime i bring up a valid point, someone who thinks that you can disagree with FACTS (impossible to do, by the way) deletes my edit. not edits to the article mind you. edits to the discussion page. so where do i take my complaints? since using wikipedia as a source is unreliable anyway, what is wrong with a little tabloid journalism, especially if it is true? wiki will NEVER be an encyclopedia , no matter how hard the overly serious wiki zealots try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said at your talk page after I removed your comment: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may not be added to articles or talk pages.
The relevant policy and guideline pages at Verifiability, Biographies of living persons and Reliable sources have been pointed out to you on your talk page, by Acalamari and myself. If you choose to ignore them and just keep on with it then I'm not sure how I can help you.
Cheers, Amalthea ^Talk 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

you've been told multiple times about wikipedia's WP:BLP policy and the importance of reliable sources. calling something a fact doesn't mean it's a reliably sourced fact that is appropriate for this encyclopedia. i suggest that you become more familiar with the editing policy before trying to make any more claims or additions to the article. note: the rules apply to talk pages also. this isn't a message board. Theserialcomma ( talk) 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What type of educated person is she? Only High School? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.115.55 ( talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an education section higher up / in the archives, it had [2] claiming that she didn't attend college after high school. That's nothing to point out in the article however, it already mentions the high schools she attended. -- Amalthea 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. that's directly from the "talk page guidelines". now try to discuss adding something negative to the article about paris hilton and watch how quickly amalthea or acalamari remove your post. i simply asked if some negative info. about paris should be added to the article and my whole post was removed. but if you say "there's a rumor she's going to be in guinness..." as in the "controversy" section above, that's ok? a rumor about the guinness book is a reliable enough source to remain on the discussion page? i'm sure there is a more appropriate place for me to complain. anyone know where to do that? thanx.

Check out WP:BLP. That should provide the info on why your comments are being removed. And tabloids are not reliable sources for scandalous/ defamatory material.-- Terrillja _talk 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that that very claim 'She will reportedly appear in the 2007 Guinness World Records as the world's "Most Overrated Celebrity"' is backed up immediately with a source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/16/sbt.01.html
That's something you failed to do even after being told so by three people. Give us one, and we have something to discuss, your thread is still here. Until you do though, per WP:BLP, this discussion is moo t. -- Amalthea ^Talk 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea has actually been very patient with you, Wellcraft11, and a few months ago, even I gave you some advice regarding biographies of living persons. Unfortunately, despite our advice, you've continued to ask about why (unsourced) negative information keeps getting removed, and have added more of it to the talk page. As for the removal of comments, only comments that violate BLP or contain attacks like this have been removed. In addition, now that you've cleared our advice from your talk page, I don't see how we can help you any further. Acalamari 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. both of you need to read the section above titled "comments about the editing process"

2. in your comments above, i don't care where or how it's sourced, the phrase "she will reportedly be featured..." reportedly, allegedly, possibly, maybe, might be....words that are used for things that are NOT FACTS, but NOT DELETED by paris' two wiki publicists.

3. i'm not trying to alter this persons biography. i'm just trying to ask why her herpes is not included in the article. paris herself has admitted that everything from the storage unit was hers, that includes the valtrex. again, i'm not trying to add it, but several people on this page have given good reason, yet it hasn't been added. simply asking the question is NOT reason enough to continue removing my posts.

4. paris hilton is a product of tabloid tv and journalism. without E tv, we wouldn't know who paris is. therefore, what is wrong with including tabloid facts in the article? she is famous only for her scandalous life, so what is wrong with giving her what she wants, even if it is negative. the article itself talks about her becoming popular because of the tabloids

5. she wears a shirt with her personal catch phrase on it, and it is not spelled correctly. how better to source that? can we add that she is a notorious liar? she sat with david letterman and stated that she has never taken any money from her family. how can you source that any better? if i say the sky is blue, but don't have a source, does that make it untrue or is that info. so overwhelmingly understood that it doesn't require a source?

let me summarize... paris hilton is famous for acting like a retard and doing whatever she can to land her face in the tabloids. she is not famous because a perfume has her name on it, or she picked a pattern for a purse. why shouldn't the article reflect that? you behave like an idiot, you get treated like an idiot. any article about her that does not focus on what a buffoon she is, is an incomplete article. since when is public knowledge not a reliable source of information? and again, i am not saying "take my word for it, and put it in the article". i am asking why this type of info. isn't in the article, and i am asking on the DISCUSSION page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Right back at you. In particular the parts about reading WP:BLP and "if in doubt, leave it out".
2. Funnily enough, that's *all* we care about, per WP:VERIFIABILITY.
3. Because it's a) not reliably sourced, and b) even the speculation for which there might be sources are completely irrelevant to an encyclopadic biography
4. WP:Reliable source, WP:TABLOID
5. WP:Original research, WP:PRIMARY

This is the last time I'm replying to this. Read and understand the guidelines and policies I've listed. And "public knowledge" a reliable source? Seriously? -- Amalthea 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

parisexposed.com has scans of the valtrex prescription document. furthermore: the court injuction AGAINST the site parisexposed.com mentions EXPLICITLY "medical records" as being one of the things prevented from being provided online. knowledge of the list of items from the storage unit would allow you to notice that, this is essentially the ONLY medical record with her actual name on it (there is, apparently, a record of an abortion with SOMEONE ELSE'S name on it, but with the same DOB)

1. Do you believe that parisexposed.com is a tabloid site? because it is not. it is a pay site, providing documents from a KNOWN, VERIFIABLE, SOURCE
2. Do you believe that when 100% of tabloids (and legitimate news sources, lulz) claim the exact same thing, AND PROVIDE SCANS OF THE DOCUMENT that your laughable, completely arbitrary, and absolutely UNPROVABLE (based solely on a "common" assumption) assumptions about tabloids hold?
3. Do you assume that when paris hilton gets her lawyer to attemt to stop the website, that she did it because the information is bogus?
4. Do you think that someone would pay 10 million for the contents of the locker if the material was not legitimate?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/images/2007/01/paris_big.jpg http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/289508/471221.jpg http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/images/2007/01/paris_valtrex_small.jpg scans for the insanely biased, fundamentally retarded, wikipedia overlords. FYI: you are making an assumption about tabloid sources that is completely unverifiable. do you know of some sociological or journalistic article/survey that has ranked the accuracy of major tabloids? OR, are you simply making the assumption that most americans make. the thing that you learn off hand by your parents, in the media, etc that becomes a "common assumption." you do realize that decisions like that are what undermine wikipedia's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.52.200 ( talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This section she be removed from the main page as it is not verifiable. Even if the remarks were said, we do not know if they were in just,or were said under some influence. It smears Ms. Hilton even though the word "alleged" is stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.94.148 ( talk) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is easily verifiable, and it also mentions that "she had obviously been drinking". However, I agree that this is given undue weight. Similarily, the paragraph above that is also no better, and the Standing as a celebrity section could then be merged into the rest of the prose. All of those things are relatively minor issues, not in my opinion worth its own "Activism" section.
Opinions? -- Amalthea 16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I gave them those titles, originally it was all lumped together as a "controversy" section. BLP's aren't supposed to have controversy sections so I tried to do something more neutral with it. It's not great, but it's better than what it started off as. — Realist ² 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Paris should obviously be listed as a reality television star, yet she isn't. She is only listed as socialite, media personality, model, singer, and actress. Reality television star doesn't really fit into media personality, so it should be listed. Paris has stared in three reality televisions series. Please do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 ( talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We previously also listed her as a celebutante, heiress, businesswoman, author. And she is all those things, but it's really not helpful to name them all in the lead section of the article; a long list doesn't help me understand the topic any better.
I personally think that "reality TV actor" is both covered by "actress" and "media personality". Less precise, but falling back to more generic terms is preferrable to having I long list I think. -- Amalthea 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Paris' Raspberry Awards should be highlighted as part of the Film section in her article. It's just been announced that she won Worst Actress for "The Hottie and the Nottie" and Worst Supporting Actress for "Repo! The Genetic Opera." Perhaps a criticism section could be started with these and other Raspberry Awards victories as highlights? 75.44.221.4 ( talk) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be included. They are insulting. And if she did not accept these awards then I don't think they are relevant. Tarheelz123 ( talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An endorsement is a business contract between someone and a business. The person isn't necessarily involved at all, except to lend their name. Which is exactly what the material said she was doing in at least one case. A Wikipedia article is not an open invitation for celebs' marketing departments to brag about the amount their business ventures earn, any more than it's appropriate to include that information for George W. Bush to advertise his, or for Coca-cola. Notice those articles have very little mention of sales. Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is a page for information about Paris Hilton. Part of Hilton's career involves promoting products and services based on her fame. It's perfectly reasonably to give examples of this aspect of her career; it's no more illegitimate promotion than including the names of films she's been in is "spam" for those films, or including her album is "spam" for that album. VoluntarySlave ( talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In a film, she does work. In an endorsement, she may not do anything at all. You didn't answer my question why such information is not included in the article about Bush or Coca-cola. There's no reason why Hilton should be an exception to the rule. Bush will make millions with his investments. His article doesn't mention them. Piano non troppo ( talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

George Bush's article probably should mention his investments (though I'm not sure how much information about that is publically available); it certainly should mention how he makes his living now that he isn't president. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with the Coca-cola article; that article does include information about Coca-cola advertising and event sponsorship, which seem somewhat analogous to discussions of Hilton's endorsements. Note that lots of other pages on celebrities include discussions of endorsements alongside other business ventures (e.g. Michael Jordan, Beyonce Knowles, Britney Spears - who has a whole page just for Britney Spears products). More to the point, why not include discussion of this aspect of a person's career? If somebody makes significant amounts of money from the mere use of their name, perhaps with no other involvement, is that not a significant fact about that person? VoluntarySlave ( talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of answers to your question: Check celeb's featured articles. Of the ones I checked none, not one, had sections, none seemed to even mention endorsements and promotions: Metallica, Kate Bush, Michael Jackson, The Smashing Pumpkins, Alice in Chains, Sex Pistols, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes. The closest is Jenna Jameson, but that's a section about a business she started and runs, and is directly related to what makes her notable: pornography. Piano non troppo ( talk) 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One of my examples, Michael Jordan, is a Featured Article, and the other two are Good Articles. Other Featured Articles that discuss endorsements include Katie Holmes, which discusses her commercial relationship with The Gap (and, when it became a featured article, had a section on endorsements), Mandy Moore, which mentions her role as a Neutragena spokesmodel and discusses her fashion line, Gwen Stefani, which has a section on "non-musical projects," half of which is taken up with a discussion of her fashion lines and perfumes, and Mariah Carey, which mentions endorsements and licensing deals. So I don't think there's any existing consensus that the sort of material we have in the "Products and endorsements" section of this article is inappropriate. VoluntarySlave ( talk) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is famous for being famous, otherwise known as a celebutante. She's not famous because she's a great actress or talented musician who has won numerous prestigious awards for her professional career. Because of this point, endorsements are a major part of Hilton's career description. This is why it is important for this article. As long as the sources are reliable, I don't see a problem. Viriditas ( talk) 08:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is backward on that bit, Viriditas. If someone is *only* known for being a salesperson, a spammer, or a real estate agent, and they have a Wikipedia article, that brings into question whether they are notable to Wikipedia at all — not that "given they have an article, what they do must be notable". Apart from their official business site, a real estate agent would not be allowed to publish pages of their property listings. Just because Hilton is a notable big name does not mean she has a right to do in Wikipedia what would be forbidden for most other people as WP:SPAM.

I repeat VoluntarySlave, that the vast majority of featured articles mention no endorsements or licensing deals at all. You picked a couple examples in featured articles, while I picked a random sample of many, and found none had endorsements, except a special case. The Katie Holmes article? I skimmed it for a minute -- found no endorsements -- had to use search to find the reference to "The Gap" -- and it turns out she acted in commercials for them. She an actress, she acted in an ad. She's not endorsing "The Gap" and "The Gap" wouldn't be allowed an external link to their Web site in that article. Piano non troppo ( talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand your objection. Paris Hilton is unquestionably notable; given that, we should include all useful and verifiable information about her career; product endorsements are a part of that career. Referring to brands she has worked with simply is not spam; your basic premise is false (your mention of "an external link" to The Gap's website is a red herring - there are no external links to the products Hilton is involved with in this article). Now, some of her more fleeting relationships may be too trivial to be worth including (the RICH Prosecco endorsement may be an example of this; I don't see why we include this but not the Carl's Jr ad, which I think received significantly more press coverage); but that needs a specific case-by-case discussion, not a blanket rejection of discussing Hilton's commercial activities. VoluntarySlave ( talk) 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic issue is that Wikipedia is being manipulated for promotional purposes. Hilton *is* notable, but not everything in her life is encyclopedic. (Does an encyclopedia need to note, as the article does now, that her dog was missing for six days?) "The Gap" was not intended as a red herring, but a specific counter example: An actress, performing her primary job as an actress, creating a commercial for "The Gap" is to the point. Contrarily, "Products and endorsements" noting that "Hilton lent her name to a chain" may have nothing to do with any accomplishment of Hilton's. It was, for all we know from citation, arranged by her manager. The fact she failed to attend promotions is suggestive of her level of involvement. The opening clause of "Products and endorsements" about purses cited a reference [3] that doesn't even use the word "purse". (I just removed it.) These marketing techniques to circumvent the more blatant Wikipedia infractions are so well known they are presented to marketing groups. Piano non troppo ( talk) 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources is good, but making a value judgment about licensing and endorsements isn't our job, so your point is getting lost in the noise. We rely on good secondary sources to avoid having this discussion in the first place. Are they encyclopedic? It depends, on a case by case basis. However, as a businesswoman, major endorsements are notable and encyclopedic, and have been covered by RS. You have a bee in your bonnet about them, and that's fine. Everyone has a pet peeve or two. But unless you can show that Hilton's people are creating accounts to add material, most of your arguments are pretty weak. Products and endorsements are relevant to this topic, and as long as the RS are good and informative, they stay. Viriditas ( talk) 09:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with your statements in part, and in whole. Practically every sentence of "Products and endorsements" has some kind of problem, and the concept that it's ok for someone who is a self-advertiser to self-advertise in Wikipedia is specious. It's apparent here that people who have commercial interests in promoting Hilton, Hilton's fans, and people who obviously have not checked the references (as I did) are playing the Wikipedia system to circumvent rules and guidelines in such a way that would not be allowed in a featured article.

A valid case I found is where the person who was the topic of the article established her own business in her field of expertise -- and even then this doesn't give carte blanche for the article to discuss her other business ventures -- Jenna Jameson's business section is almost entirely about ClubJenna. I did a random statistical sample that suggests the overwhelming number of celebrity Wiki articles don't have endorsements. The few counter examples you gave have far less endorsement material than this article.

Another problem with indiscriminate references to non-encyclopedic celeb material, such as the number of days Hilton's dog was lost, is that there is no logical end to it. It's not difficult for marketing departments and vested interests with millions to buy brief articles that can then be cited in Wikipedia. Hilton's endorsement section largely uses such brief articles. I don't understand how you can consider cogent a reference on a page that requires registration to read more than the critically encyclopedic statement "The collection, inspired by Ms. Hilton's cutting edge style" [4] Piano non troppo ( talk) 14:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are good, they should stay; If not remove them. But what you really need to do is take this up with the biography project. Research comparing this article to others might help you, but I don't think it is relevant. In the final analysis, each article is treated on its own merits, not solely in comparison to others. Viriditas ( talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some sites I have looked at says Hilton is a bisexual, is that true? I don't belive it is. Tarheelz123 ( talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the only site I've seen this on is NNDB, and I wouldn't call that a reliable source for potentially controversial material. I don't know if it's true or not, but in accordance with WP:BLP, it shouldn't be added to the article unless there are good sources to back it up. Acalamari 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also one of the categories Hilton is in is American Cheerleaders. When was she a cheerleader? I knew she played field hockey but I never heard of her cheering. Tarheelz123 ( talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, NrDg removed the category shortly after the above comment, and I couldn't find anything to support it either. Amalthea 18:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The current main picture seems to be altered and composed, if you zoom in to her face and especially the right side seems awfully odd. It seems like her head was put together of 2 different files! Skin tones don't completely match and especially the perspective seems to be off. If this would be the case, I don't think this should be the proper main wikipage picture. Hans ( talk) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the effect you mean, but I think the picture is natural. She's being lit by bright lighting on the right side of her face, making the pore structure of her skin more obvious on the right side. That, combined with her wandering left eye gives the impression of a splice. Look at the light reflection in both of her eyes: it triangulates properly on the light source causing the unbalanced effect.— Kww( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To: Hans: I'm the photographer who took this photo. I assure you, this photo is NOT composed, spliced together, or whatever else you are imagining. Thank you for explaining this to him, Kww

Glenn Francis ( talk) 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read more of the article, you will find a source. Her inheritance was cut down greatly by her grandfather's decision to donate most of his estate to charity. She and her siblings still inherit a few million. Tarheelz123 ( talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well she isn't inheriting the hotel brand, which was what your edit implied, since there is no hotel brand to inherit. And the sources don't say that she is getting a penny, just that he is giving 97% of his money to his foundation. No mention of where the other 3% is going. So the sources state that the potential for her to get a large windfall is no longer there, but make no mention of her getting anything.-- Terrillja _talk 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to move this to Talk:Paris Hilton. Amalthea 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:American heiresses is nominated for deletion already anyway, so that'll probably be gone soon. The "heiress" in the lead is probably questionable then, though. Of course, she hasn't inherited anything yet, but there are a lot of reliable sources calling her that. Should it be removed from the lead, and mentioned elsewhere in the article? Amalthea 20:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be incldued that Miss Hilton's neighbor is paying almost the price of a house every year just to get rid of her?? I thought it quite "tongue-in-cheek"! http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=22 Hiltondrink22 ( talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gossip like this is not really appropriate in an encyclopedic article unless it is picked up by numerous reliable sources. Your link only points to some blog-like website, so by default I doubt it's true anyway. Amalthea 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This info is hardly worth of inclusion, and it isn't even fully accurate. Paris Hilton lives in a mansion in Sherman Oakes. The house they are talking about in Hollywood Hills belongs to Doug Rienhardt, her current beau. She's been staying there a lot and has stuff over there, but she's not on the lease or anything. It's his place. The neighbor would be paying to get rid of him, not her. Bogan444 ( talk) 19:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wished I knew how to upload pics on here or else I would change this picture. I'm not sure anyone cares about Paris Hilton at a video game thing sighing autographs you got to capture her image plus you've got to get a newer picture that captures her image come on this is wikipedia we need a better images for stars singers and so on for example Britney Spears image is alot better cause its a newer picture and captures her image at the circus tour unlike Selena Gomez which doesn't capture her image its only got her head in a box so can somebody replace this image with this one http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/358/43/paris_hilton_2009_grammy_awards_6.0.0.0x0.660x852.jpeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if it were that easy. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia", which in part means that we can only use free images (except in very limited circumstances). The image you linked to is copyrighted and hasn't been released under a free license, as is the case with practically every image you can find on the web. So unless you can take a picture of her or can find one elsewhere that is licensed accordingly, we can only use what we have.
Also, from what I can see on your talk page you have figured out how to upload images, and know by now that copyrighted images can't be used here as we please. Amalthea 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

She went to convent of the Sacred Heart with Lady Gaga not Dwight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.179.174 ( talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris wasn't a supporter of Obama in 2008. She never said who she voted for and her primary advocacy in the campaign was a self promotional "Paris For President" spoof which mocked both candidates equally. The "race controversy" thread was just so full of misinformation that I had to delete it entirely. Paris never made fun of "Jews" in her rap, she made fun of a girl named Ashley Star who happens to be Jewish. She also made fun of a black girl who had caused her offense at a party earlier in the evening. She didn't call that girl a nigger. The poster seems to thinking of an entirely different incident where Paris was harassed outside a club by two men trying to hawk their "fashion line" and after putting up with their badgering she refers to them as "dumb niggers" when they leave. Even if someone were able to accurately chronicle these respective incidents I doubt they could be written up in a way that merits mention on this page. They just weren't significant events in Paris' life. Bogan444 ( talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I went ahead and deleted the whole activism/politics section because the only other thing in there was the part about Paris being a vegetarian and not eating meat, which she did actually claim to be at one brief moment of her life, but if that was ever true, it clearly isn't now. And even if she were still a faithful vegetarian (which she isn't) that hardly constitutes "activism". Bogan444 ( talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bogan444, I can't see the need to delete referenced material just because of a subjective and personal opinion. If she is not a vegetarian now, we should find properly sourced material (saying that she is not a faithful vegetarian) and add it to the article rather than delete the reference to her vegetarianism. And since she has given a statement on vetgetarianism, it does look like activism to me. Cheers. Civilizededucation ( talk) 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bogan444 ( talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)"Activism" is defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue". Direct and vigorous action. Princess Di was an "activist" regarding land mines. Al Gore is an "activist" regarding Global Warming. Rosie O'Donnell is a pro-gay rights "activst". Saying, "I don't eat meat", in response to a reporter's question is not "activism". And I am deleting it because beyond not constituting activism, there is simply no evidence to suggest that Paris Hilton ever was an actual vegetarian. You claim she said this in 2007, but the article you sourced was printed in July of 2006. Ok, so you just got the date wrong. But Paris' legal woes began in September of 2006 when she was pulled over on her way to In and Out Burger and she justified the whole thing by remarking, "All I wanted was an In and Out Burger." Since then, I've seen photos of Paris eating at Taco Bell and In and Out Burger countless times. When she briefly flirted with Kabbalah in 2007 it was reported that she had begun getting Kosher steaks delivered to her home. This Vegetarian website urged REAL vegetarian Benji Madden to encourage to lay off the Pork and Beef Dumplings they saw her dine on at an event in 2008:

http://vegetarianstar.com/2008/11/12/benji-madden-tell-girlfriend-paris-hilton-to-lay-off-beef-sliders/

Here's a link to video of Paris getting Taco Bell in July of 2007: http://www.truveo.com/Hilton-Thats-Hot-Sauce/id/72057637262045812

I'm deleting rather than refuting because the case is so overwhelming and there is nothing to suggest that Paris went around claiming that she was ever a vegetarian to begin with. All we have is one quote from a Gossip Rag (notoriously unreliable sources) that could be made up for all we know. Or maybe Paris was drunk at the time. Or she could have just been blatantly lying like when she said she never did drugs on Larry King. It doesn't matter. She's clearly not an activist, and the fact that she eats meat is no more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article than the fact that she drinks soda.

I'm going to trim the details on the driving violation at some point because it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and need only be covered by two slim paragraphs at the most. — R ² 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Paris Hilton plays Amber Sweet, the surgery- and painkiller-addicted daughter of a biotech magnate in the goth/rock musical Repo! The Genetic Opera."

Repo! is not a musical, its a rock opera. There is a difference. In musicals, they usually have talking, than start singing and dancing. In operas, its singing the entire time. So can someone change this to say ".....biotech magnate in the rock opera..."? 75.72.221.172 ( talk) 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hilton has worked as a model, actress, singer, and engaged in occasional business pursuits." This needs an "and" between "actress" and "singer". Page is locked. 86.174.124.26 ( talk) 12:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand why this article is protected, but why is it that so much of what is in this article is unsourced? At the very least, it should be rife with "citation needed" flags. Where is it verified that she moved about when she was young? How do we know she was friends with Kim Kardashian and Nicole Richie? Hell, you can't get past the first paragraph without stumbling over a half-dozen random bits of hearsay. Since when does gossip qualify as information on Wikipedia? If you're going to keep this page locked, at the very least maintain it in a fashion that legitimates the protection.

Either clean out the information lacking citation, or flag it all as needing citation and, until it can be confirmed, at least it's clear that what is said about her is, at best, unconfirmed if not made up entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if she edits the page herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.32.229 ( talk) 12:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... we know she was friends with Nicole Richie from the TV reality show they were on together. Not every sentence in an article needs a citation: this would result in an unreadable mess. We mainly cite things that can be seen as controversial, or is some kind of claim. Friendships aren't really controversial. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. This article says that Hilton attended the Dwight School, which also boasts alumni of her sister and Lady Gaga, but the Lady Gaga article says she went to Convent of the Sacred Heart, as does [ http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5325327.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 this London times article. Did they indeed attend the same school at some point in their lives, or is this fact incorrect? Fbv 65 e del — t — c // 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Turns out this is both correct and incorrect. They did attend school together, however Hilton started out at Sacred Heart before switching to Dwight. [5] I'll fix. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Paris appears, uncredited, on Eric Stoltz's arm, in The Rules of Attraction, in front of the Bonfire scene. 70.185.227.29 ( talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think she should be referred to as "campy" in style due to her camp-styled behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.216 ( talk • contribs)

If you can find a reliable source that refers to her as campy, feel free to add it (with the reference). <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What city wikiprojects would this article belong to? Would this be a part of the New York City wikiproject, Los Angeles task force, or both? WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should somehow be mentioned in the intro that Hilton, er, 'may' be famous for being famous. Certainly, this reason is probably much more likely than the list of movie cameos & celebrity spin-off tv shows and music mentioned. I'm sure you agree with me. The only problem is, of course, that this is original research, so we would need sources. Some are already in the article [6]. Also, if you look at google trends, you'll notice that she was most searched for in 2004, before most of her work currently mentioned [7]. This of course is not enough, more sources would be needed, but all the same, some sort of edit like this I think is nesseccary. Any ideas? theBOBbobato ( talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is confusing about the "iconic blonde of the decade" quote. It should read that (1) she has been widely quoted as having declared that she is the iconic blonde of the decade, and (2) that she has also been quoted denying that she ever said that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.171.106 ( talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

the article says that she is an "heiress", but has she inherited anything? The article also reports that she will not be inheriting much from Barron Hilton. Perhaps she should be described as a "scion" till such as time as she inherits something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.171.106 ( talk) 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Regarding her status as "Heiress", her Grandfather pledged to give over 90% of his wealth to charity in his will,I'd have to verify news reports, but I'm sure that's correct.It's a valid point, though,because he's still alive,I think.2010(?)This question goes to the medias need to report a lifestyle that is largely the result of hyper-activity by the media, the snake that eats its own tail. Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Paris Hilton also has Jewish ancestry. Please add that. Conrad Hilton was a Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.15.6 ( talk) 09:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

see here — Rickyrab | Talk 15:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself but can't find any sources that say why she was named Paris. Rees11 ( talk) 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

She has sold 2.3 million albums of her first and only album, Paris.
change to
She has sold 2.3 million copies of her first and only album, Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.238.73 ( talk) 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks. Amalthea 10:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why there is hardly any reference to the incident with the sextapes released in 2003 when this was obviously a pivotal moment in her life. Many people that had never heard of her before, became aware of her existence. One could argue it was (partly) because of the tape that her name became recognised all over the world.
The fact that the tape was sold without her approval had a lot of impact on Paris. She has explained this herself in interviews as well as in the MTV documentary "Paris, not France" - see this NBC article.
Paris Hilton calls sex tape scandal 'painful' (Has this been listed under References yet ?)

I do know that there is a separate entry in wiki about the tape itself but that makes no mention of the way it has affected her or how the whole thing had a snowball effect and brought her worldwide fame, even though that was not her intention. UnreasonableDoubt ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Currently the sex tape has been reduced to one sentence buried halfway through the article, when it fact it was a pivotal moment in launching her as a celebrity that turned her from someone largely unknown into somebody very famous. This is mentioned in our own article Celebrity sex tape, which reads: "The release of Paris Hilton's sex tape in 2003 brought her to a new level of fame, leading to magazine covers, a book deal, and a reality TV series." The NYT article from which this is sourced goes even further, saying not only that the tape established Red Light District as "the leading player in a lucrative niche of the pornography industry," but that the tape "catapulted" Hilton to fame, "establishing her as a kind of postmodern celebrity, leading to perfume deals, a memoir and the covers of Vanity Fair and W." [8] Countless articles mention that "Ms. Hilton's career took off . . . when a tape of her having sex entitled One Night in Paris showed up on the Internet and eventually in stores" [9] and there is a great deal of speculation regarding the timing of its release, one week before the premiere of her TV show. Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton sex tape is expressly referred to in the third line of the article. BlueRobe ( talk) 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed there is a Photoshop trend with a picture of Hilton holding an album wherein of which the photoshoppper would replace the album's cover with another cover from a completely different album, here are some examples » [10] [11] [12] [13] . Does anyone know what the original image is? • GunMetal Angel 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting article about celebrity baby names that discuss also the popularity of the name "Paris" over the year. Amazing to see how Paris Hilton influenced it. http://www.my-practical-baby-guide.com/celebrity_baby_names.html

Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitbronstein ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

link Concert Interruptus ( talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess. I think it should all be merged into each other under a "Biography" section. I tried fixing it a bit, and failed majorly. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether Paris Hilton was refused to enter Japan is a matter of controversy. Some sources report Paris finally rescinded her application to enter the country (perhaps to avoid any record to be filed). Narita immigration officer refused to comment on the issue due to the privacy. -- 91.14.154.201 ( talk) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The word phenomenon is spelled wrongly, please fix (not registered so I can't do it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.31.92 ( talk) 11:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Amalthea 11:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Paris is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. She also attends weekly masses.

Went to Church this morning and heard the most beautiful sermon. It was very inspiring and heartwarming. I really enjoyed it. :) Paris Hilton via Twitter September 26th 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.69.225 ( talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it going to be released or what? She stated December 2008 (about 2 years ago) that she is releasing it through her own label. Nothing happened since? 82.141.72.97 ( talk) 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the '2010 FIFA World Cup' arrest sub-article. It was quite a big story here in South Africa, although strangely enough I didn't see much international news about it. I'm also a little concerned about how she was convincted of multiple marijuana possessions, but nothing ever comes of it. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. - dminnaar ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/entertainment/2636-paris-hilton-converts-to-islam.html

Shahgeb ( talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Squib is a satirical newspaper. Story is a fabrication (and I've removed the excessive quote). Amalthea 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

socializing isnt a occupation but club/event promoting is, she my have started out as a socialite who just attnded parties back in the 90's but now she gets paid to attend these things and to host them. it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.112.207 ( talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are various schools that list her us alumni, but some of them aren't mentioned on Hilton's page. It says she attended Buckley School from 1986 and this is where she met Nicole Richie. Can anyone back this up? After this she must have moved to Saint Paul The Apostle Church and School. Ashton 29 ( talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilton's ancestry is 50% German. I think we should only list German and Norwegian, no need to list every minor mix. Her paternal ancestry is completely German. Her great-great grandfather was born in Norway to parents who migrated to Norway from Germany. Then he (her great-great grandfather) married Mary Genevieve (née Laufersweiler), who was also a German migrant in Norway. So her paternal ancestry is 50% German. Therefore, we list German (also Norwegian). We don't have to list every minor little ancestry of hers. She's 50% German, that is enough to say that she is of German ancestry without mentioning the rest. Bastian ( talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A rich comic type is the ditsy, bone-headed rich person that you get to feel superior to. People find it funny and if people believe that she is just being herself, that's good acting. Her current wealth came from her works rather than inheritance. Having long-running TV shows pays well, as does acting in ads. She had me fooled, too. What 2 authors in the Huff Post think they are seeing needs to be represented as just that. -- Javaweb ( talk) 05:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

{{edit semi-protected}}

86.163.247.210 ( talk) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to have changed? Amalthea 14:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about Paris Hilton Racing, her Spanish based Moto GP team! Moto GP is the most important and viewed motorcycle racing competition in the world, and her team had an incredible 2011 season. This certainly raised her profile in Europe in terms of media coverage. If there are no objections I would like to add the following to the article under motorsport:

"Paris Hilton in partnership with Blusens-BQR (Queroseno Racing) and intially sponsor SuperMartxe VIP entered a race team in the 2011 125cc Moto GP World Championship in the last year of the 125cc category that has run since 1949. Originally the team was called "SuperMartxe VIP by Paris Hilton Racing" but that was later changed to "Blusens by Paris Hilton Racing". The Spanished based team raced the Italian Aprilia RSA 125 motocycle with two Spanish pilots, 16-year old European champion Maverick Viñales and vetern Sergio Gadeo. The Moto GP team was led by Raúl Romero, with Ricard Jové as sporting and technical director, and with Christian Lundberg and highly respected Italian technician Rossano Brazzi preparing the bikes. Both pilots finished in the top ten. Maverick Viñales finished third overall in the 125cc Moto GP World Riders Championship, with four Grand Prix wins and a total of nine podiums, and three fatest laps and three poles. Sergio Gadeo finished ninth overall and achieved 2 third place finishes giving the team an impressive 11 podiums in their first season. Marick Viñales won the Gran Premio Gernerali de la Comunitat Valenciana, the final Grand Prix of the season, earning points for both Blusens by Paris Hilton Racing and Aprilia who won the 125cc Moto GP World Manufaturers Championship. Paris Hilton said "it has been an amazing year for my team"."

http://www.parishilton.com/2011/11/paris-hilton-racing-is-1.html http://www.motogp.com/ http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2010/Paris+Hilton+125+team+2011 http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2011/valencia+ricardo+tormo+race+125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102030mia ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't 1 Night in Paris listed in her filmography? It's one of her most known work. -- 101.161.136.181 ( talk) 07:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just another note, it should also be listed in her award section -- 101.161.136.181 ( talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in that transcript of the Larry King show (which is all that's given as evidence that Paris Hilton is Catholic ) does she identify as a practicing Roman Catholic. She says she went to Catholic school, and that's it. If that's all it takes, there are plenty of Protestants, Jews and Muslims who are just as "Catholic". More nonsense from Wikipedia. Somebody fix it. 92.251.80.224 ( talk) 23:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree with you on this one. -- QuickEditor ( talk) 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She didn't just say she went to Catholic school. She also says she's religious, that she's reading the Bible and confirmed she's going to mass:

KING: Are you a religious person?

HILTON: I've always been religious. I went to Catholic school as a child. And I've always had a sense of spirituality, but even more so now, after being in jail.

KING: Did you read the Bible in jail?

HILTON: Yes. ( page 14)

KING: Going to go to mass?

HILTON: Yes. ( page 16)

Siawase ( talk) 19:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The Hilton family is Catholic (not that that matters in this argument). On top of saying she went to Catholic school, she tells Larry King that she goes to mass (as the user above me just stated). -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One more ref: "Hilton was brought up a Catholic, and still attends church." The Guardian, Saturday 8 July 2006 Siawase ( talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If people are going to quote the Larry King interview as proof of Paris Hiltons faith, don't be SELECTIVE. How about the question, What's your favourite verse in the Bible? Answer- Er, um, I, er.... In other words, this "religiosity" was some half baked attempt to appear sincere. Of course multi-millionaires have Public Relations lackeys who try to add "religious faith" to a persons "image" or biography to soften the blatant shallowness party animal and all-consuming rich life style, not to mention the sleaze factor of the pornography. No doubt there are paid lackeys whose job it is to manipulate information in the public arena to assist the wealthy rehabilitate their pathetic lives. See the "Charity" section. Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 01:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about our own personal opinion on how Miss Hilton "lives" her faith. The fact of the matter is she was baptised Catholic, recieved First Communion, went to Catholic School, and attends Mass regularly. She identifies as Catholic. Whether she is a "real" or "good" catholic is not wikipedia's job to state. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 06:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think her *cough* "Catholicism" is worthy of being mentioned in the Info-box. -- Τασουλα ( talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me these are rather disorganized. I still don't see a business section and that is her main income. Should we name them (random order and names) entertainment career, business, Formula 1 driver, type thing? Celebrity status is a section of a celebrity article? Charity change to philanthropy? -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be awesome to do so. She mainly considers herself a businesswoman and that is her main income. She said during the Fearne Cotton show that everything else she's done (acting and music) just pushes her brand, which is more focused on business (watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgVRLIJNfMU&feature=relmfu 0:18). What i'd love to do is create a business section and then make another category ("other works", for example) where we can include her works as an actress (this would be the first part of the section as most of her fame has been over shows (The Simple Life) and movies (House of Wax)), then we'd put the music part where we can talk about her first album and the development of the next one, and the last one could be modeling (that would include magazine covers, runway shows, among others). This order may express/show better what she said in that Farnie show.

In the "celebrity status", i think it would be necessary to add info about her current status in the spotlight. She hasn't been in the news for a while now, and for the past few years, she is not nearly as ubiquitous. There are two great articles from CNN talking about this: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-05/entertainment/paris.hilton.celeb_1_paris-hilton-simple-life-partying?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ and http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/02/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/jason-moore-on-paris-hilton/index.html. EricaL2003 ( talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

[Removed my lame list to save confusion-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)]

This is was just a list and order/sub-order I came up with. Feel free to edit the above until we reach consensus. I think all statements should go in date order within each section. I think this is the common method?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked this list. But why don't we change spotlight for "Status in spotlight" or it could be just "Celebrity status".Which do you think is better? What i have in mind is something like this:

• Early life
• Spotlight/celebrity status
• Acting career
  • television
  • films
• Modeling career
• Music career
• Business ventures
  • Income 1 (earliest or largest?)
  • Income 2
• Philanthrophy (here, we could add a little bit more info as most of Hilton's activities/hobbies are charity)
  • Charity 1
  • Charity 2 (is there enough info on each to warrant sections for each?)
• Personal life
  • Relationships
  • Legal issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaL2003 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be also:

• Early Life
• Spotlight/celebrity status
• Business
• Other ventures
  • Acting
    • film
    • Television
  • Music
  • Modeling
• Pilanthrophy
• Personal life
  • Relationships
  • Legal issues EricaL2003 ( talk) 22:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Other ventures is a given I think because other sections if labelled well will show that. I don't know her that well. I don't think we have ever met or dated, and my memory is pretty good. I think we should let the others have a say. You could try a page or two in your user space for them to see as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions, "Spotlight/celebrity status" is a bit vague, I think "Image and celebrity status" would be a clearer title. Also in my opinion this section should be one of the last ones, as it is a reception/impact type section. (And an update to this section on the last few years sounds great.) Any thoughts on where in that structure the "Heiress" and net worth material would fit in? Siawase ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

'Public image' title for celebrity/spotlight? Just a thought. WP:LAYOUT and MOS:BIO may have a few ideas as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work too. I looked at the various policies and guidelines that apply, but none of them really speak to how the material in the body of the article should be ordered/structured. I have in the past found it helpful to look at featured articles of similar individuals for structure ideas, but I don't know if there are any with a career as varied as Hilton's. I do still think a largely chronological structure could work well here. Siawase ( talk) 09:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Come with a structure for the article that you have in mind. EricaL2003 ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well a couple of good suggestions worth thinking here are: Ask for a peer review and allow an experienced editor see if the current headers are OK or if they could do with improvements. The peer review alone could be beneficial to resolving this. The other option would be to open a request for comment and allow "outsiders" to also participate in a discussion regarding layout etc. Wesley Mouse 15:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

EricaL2003: By chronological structure I mean similar to the one you used here: [14] (but with additional material added/restored.) Siawase ( talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i get it. But before the edition, we should change the "gossip-like info". I don't know which parts reflect what some users said about the gossip tone material, so can you make that clear please?, ah, by the way, what do you think of the removal of partiality? is it ok the way i want to change those parts?. EricaL2003 ( talk) 22:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Erica, please slow down a bit. There is no rush, patience is a virtue. A peer review request has now been made, so wait for that to run its course, and then we can figure where to go from here. And as for the "gossip-style" what people are meaning is that some of the wording of the content you added made the article look like something a magazine gossip column would have written, and that isn't what Wikipedia is all about. We're an encyclopaedia, not Heat Magazine. Wesley Mouse 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Peer review can take months with the backlog. I only asked them to help us with the format and not the content.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant, the wait in regards to the headers not the content. My fingers where not typing in sync with my brain. Wesley Mouse 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I am going to add it to the peer review list. I hope I don't break wp in the process. Feel free to edit my wording of the request. Erica, will you allow others to adjust the sections you made above to make it easier? We may just need the two listed so far or even one once we get closer to a good format. I removed my lame one already to save confusion-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Paris Hilton/archive1 is the link. We can also click the link at the top of this talk page to get there. Is it normal to discuss here or there? I feel here may be easiest.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So, after the peer review, when could we edit the article?. EricaL2003 ( talk) 23:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can edit it now. We can work on content and format at the same time. Since there is no policy on the body sections, and Ms. Hilton has such variance then the peer review may help us with that. We may even get it to GA and then FA some day. Btw does anyone know who did the unsigned section below? They should just sign the bottom, or each section if it was two people. If you do make changes now, just edit in one section at a time. Then others can look it over and comment.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll check page history and figure out who wrote it Canoe, and then will use the unsigned template. Wesley Mouse 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another user told me to make small changes, so, i will first remove some images, because i think there are way too many of them. But what about partiality? can i make that change later? is it ok the way i wanna change that? (read below). EricaL2003 ( talk) 23:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just only edit in one section at a time though. Then others can comment on the changes. If you and another editor disagree then start a new specific named section on this talk page to discuss it. I think the policy is to leave the material out until consensus is reached.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading the article i felt there are some parts i which i showed some partiality: (reviews for her performances in the movies House of Wax and Repo! and for her singing in her album Paris).

Currently, those parts are:

• After Hilton hosted Saturday Night Live with musical guest Keane in February 2005, ^[1] she got her first major role in the horror thriller film House of Wax, in which Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray also starred. ^[2] The movie, after being first screened at the Tribeca Film Festival, ^[3] opened in May 2005, receiving mixed reviews. ^[4] She described how her character was like: "I think Paige is like a small town girl. She's sort of like me, but not really. She was more shy, more insecure, and she, like, cared so much about this guy, and she thought like she was, like, scared he wasn't going to marry her and things like that." ^[5] Matthew Turner for the View London said that Hilton "does better than you might expect". ^[6] Also, MTV felt that she gave a good enough performance: "Paris Hilton is actually pretty good — she seems natural, at ease. She can be sweet and appealing, she can be sexy (no stretch), and she can be a good sport, too. ^[7] Her role as Paige Edwards won the Teen Choice Award for "Best Scream" and earned her a nomination for "Choice Breakout Performance  – Female". ^[8] (It also won her the 2005 Razzie for "Worst Supporting Actress" at the 2005 Golden Raspberry Awards.) ^[9] She also earned a nomination for "Best Frightened Performance" at the 2006 MTV Movie Awards. House of Wax grossed over $70,000,000. ^[10]

• After Hilton founded Heiress Records, a sub-label of Warner Bros. Records, in 2004, she released her self-titled debut album, Paris, under the label on August 22, 2006. Although the album reached number six on the Billboard 200 for a week, its total sales volume has been low ^[11] – but the first single " Stars Are Blind" was a top ten hit in 17 countries. "I have always had a voice and always known I could sing, but I was too shy to let it come out. I think that is the hardest thing you can do, to sing in front of people. When I finally let go and did it, I realized it is what I am most talented at and what I love to do the most," she said in an interview, expressing her passion for music. ^[12] Allmusic commented that the album was "more fun than anything released by Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson, and a lot fresher, too." Billboard magazine described it as "an enjoyable pop romp". As a whole, critical reception was mixed. ^{[13] [14]}

• Hilton played the character of Amber Sweet, the surgery- and painkiller-addicted daughter of a biotech magnate in the goth/rock musical with a cult film following, Repo! The Genetic Opera. Bloody Disgusting noted that Hilton "is QUITE good in her role, both acting and singing (all of the primary characters sing their own songs). I usually can’t stand her in anything, but she won me over here". ^[15] Horror.com said: " Not only is this by far Hilton's best role, she's actually got a grain of gravitas in the end". ^[16] She remarked that "Just getting a role like this offered to me was new to me because I always get offered a certain role just basically playing myself". ^[17] The film, first screened at the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con International, received a limited release in the United States and Canada on November 7, 2008. ^[18] Around that time, Hilton released her fifth fragrance for women called, Fairy Dust. ^[19]

How they would be after the removal of partiality:

• After Hilton hosted Saturday Night Live with musical guest Keane in February 2005, ^[20] she got her first major role in the horror thriller film House of Wax, in which Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray also starred. ^[21] The movie, after being first screened at the Tribeca Film Festival, ^[22] opened in May 2005, receiving mixed reviews. ^[23] Giving a postive review for her performance, Matthew Turner for the View London said that Hilton "does better than you might expect". ^[24] But while MTV felt that she was "actually pretty good", ^[25] TV Guide called Hilton "talentless". ^[26] Her role as Paige Edwards won the Teen Choice Award for "Best Scream" and earned her a nomination for "Choice Breakout Performance  – Female". ^[8] (It also won her the 2005 Razzie for "Worst Supporting Actress" at the 2005 Golden Raspberry Awards.) ^[9] She also earned a nomination for "Best Frightened Performance" at the 2006 MTV Movie Awards. House of Wax grossed over $70,000,000. ^[27]

• After Hilton founded Heiress Records, a sub-label of Warner Bros. Records, in 2004, she released her self-titled debut album, Paris, under the label on August 22, 2006. The album reached number six on the Billboard 200 for a week and sold over 600,000 copies worldwide – the first single " Stars Are Blind" was a top ten hit in 17 countries. "I have always had a voice and always known I could sing, but I was too shy to let it come out. I think that is the hardest thing you can do, to sing in front of people. When I finally let go and did it, I realized it is what I am most talented at and what I love to do the most," she said in an interview, expressing her passion for music. ^[28] Although The Guardian felt that Hilton sound "both distracted and bored stiff" ^[29], Allmusic commented that the album was "more fun than anything released by Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson". As a whole, critical reception was mixed. ^{[30] [31]}

• Hilton played the character of Amber Sweet, the surgery- and painkiller-addicted daughter of a biotech magnate in the goth/rock musical with a cult film following, Repo! The Genetic Opera. Horror.com said: " Not only is this by far Hilton's best role, she's actually got a grain of gravitas in the end". ^[32] However, Jam! Movies called her a "hopeless twit as an actress". ^[33] She remarked that "Just getting a role like this offered to me was new to me because I always get offered a certain role just basically playing myself". ^[34] She was nominated for the Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actress in 2009 for her role. ^[35] The film, first screened at the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con International, received a limited release in the United States and Canada on November 7, 2008. ^[36] Around that time, Hilton released her fifth fragrance for women called, Fairy Dust. ^[37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaL2003 ( talk • contribs) 19:36 25 July 2012

Note: I changed the part where it is said her album sales have been low. The media kind of understimated the performance of the album in charts. It sold over 600,000 copies worldwide and it wasn't considered successful, but Miranda Cosgrove's album was called a hit while it sold over 300,000 copies worldwide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparks_Fly_(album)). EricaL2003 ( talk) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this, but i forgot to sign the section. EricaL2003 ( talk) 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. After looking at metacritic [15] it seems the People magazine view on her album that I cited above was overly harsh, and the improved "mixed" wording is appropriate. I'd remove the lengthy quote from Hilton on singing, since it's really just her opinion on herself. Third party opinions (ie critics) are more useful. (On the other hand her quote that Repo! was the first time she was offered a part that was not just playing "herself" is worth including.) Siawase ( talk) 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy? Two max per section type thing? No more than x number that look similar? Gallery at the bottom? Does WP:MUG deny use of the mugshot? I removed the one from Bill Gates and no one reverted it.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is that much of a strict policy in regards to the number of images. Only reason I mention that is because I recently got an article to GA status (see Eurovision Song Contest 2012) that has quite a number of images. Take a look if you need something of GA status to give a rough idea. Wesley Mouse 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Erica, I'm a bit dubious that you have used WP:TPA as some sort of policy to remove images. What is the definition of perfect? Nothing is 100% flawless, there is always room for improvements - so I wouldn't personally take what is written on WP:TPA as gospel. WP:IUP and WP:IMAGES might be the better guidelines to view for this. This article prior to Erica removing some pic contained 7 images in total. The Eurovision article that I highlighted above contained 10 images in total (mixture of photos and maps), and that gained GA. So I'm more inclined to say that the 7 that were on here would have been fine; just reposition some of them, whether it be in a new location on the article or aligned to the left/right - but to reduce them down to 5 in total; wasn't the best of improvements, sorry. Wesley Mouse 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paris_Hilton has 37 and there are probably more on flickr we can choose from.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think File:Paris Hilton Marquee The Star 2012.jpg would look better in the infobox. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say focus on the encyclopedic value of the images, if they can illustrate something mentioned in the prose, if they can be captioned to draw readers in ("Hilton in X year when she Y activity" where Y activity is expanded on in the prose near the image) and position them to break up the text in a manner that enhances readability. Siawase ( talk) 10:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What is so important about changing "She is of ___, ___, and ___ ancestry" to "Hilton's ancestry includes ___, ___, and ___?" For one thing, the former wording does the same job. Secondly, "includes" is the worst word in the second sentence because it makes the description sound like Hilton has more ethnicities than what was already listed. Spelling Style ( talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't do it your way. Some readers may like to know them all and I don't think the way it is worded really matters.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that EricaL2003 ( talk · contribs) has recently made some massive changes to this article as seen here. Someone with more knowledge on the subject of Paris Hilton should review the edit to ensure there was no content lost during the rewrite. For example, it looks like there is no reference to Hilton's famous dog "Tinkerbell" in the new version of the article. — JmaJeremy• Ƭalk• Cont 05:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like career an personal life were combined into one section. I don't know what the policy is on this format. It seems to be done without any discussion, let alone consensus. You could do a few things. Ask at BLP board what the format should be, etc. You could do it the normal en:wp way as well. Revert it, edit war, get all involved blocked, and then seek consensus after the blocks expire.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 05:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe these changes detract from the article's readability and organization. To have sections that are entitled:

• Life and Career
• Early life and education
• Career Beginnings (2000-2002)
• Career heyday and high-profile arrest (2003-2007)

and then get to a section entitled Films and TV shows seems (to me), disorganized. How many sections do we really need with the word "career" in them?

I would suggest a format and structure that is used for many BLP articles, such as "Early life and education", "Career" (with L3 sections if really needed). In other words, the structure it was in was better and more organized. There's value in keeping the structure of BLP articles somewhat similar, so readers can find what they're looking for. I'm all in favor of the new information being added, but also retention of properly referenced information that was in the article. Hope this helps. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

EricaL2003's edits go back much further, the last version I could find before they started editing was back in February [16] and some of that appears to have been removed earlier. From what I can tell at a quick spot check, everything that was in that old version under the sections "Charity", "Celebrity status", "2008 parody Presidential campaign", and everything under "Personal life" except "Legal issues" was removed between then and now. Some of it was a bit bloated and likely undue weight but to just delete all of it seems excessive to me. Siawase ( talk) 22:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After looking closer it appears her relationships from 2008 on are included, but the ones before that are not. Not sure about the weighting that went into that. I also noticed that Doug Reinhardt is now simply described as a "star." I replaced this with the in my opinion more neutral and accurate "known from reality show The Hills." Siawase ( talk) 12:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, after a longer look it appears that EricaL2003's overhaul was definitely a net positive. There are a few problematic things here and there, but the article previously had serious issues, in particular regarding WP:WEIGHT. I think the overall chronological structure is a good idea, and is particularly helpful on multi-career biographies like this one, compare with FA actor-singer biographies like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue. Some of the material that was removed should in my opinion be restored, but that should be fairly easy work. The material that was previously found in "Celebrity status" can be restored pretty much as is in a separate section after the chronology, compare with the "Image and celebrity status" in the Kylie Minogue article. The "Heiress" and "Charity" material could (possibly partially) be restored in separate sections, or incorporated into the chronology where applicable. Siawase ( talk) 12:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

While it's fresh in my mind, I'll post some more detailed suggestions and comments:

• Restore mention what her Responds presidential campaign parody video was in response to. In general I think the current summary misses the core substance of the video and its impact. More sources might be available at the pre-merge article: [17]
• Restore pre-2008 engagements chronologically(?) (easily sourced to People magazine bio [18])
• Restore title of sex tape and the legal conflict surrounding its release
• Tinkerbell is actually mentioned in the 2003-2005 section, and the "Little Lily" dog apparel line is mentioned in the 2006-2007 section, that seems about appropriate weight vs the lenghty material that previously detailed her dogs.
• Celebrity status and status as heiress should at least partially be restored, possibly as one consolidated section
• Net worth right now is only mentioned in lead, goes against WP:LEAD, suggest including in above mentioned section with improved sourcing
• (As a more general comment, the article should somehow make it clear that the bulk of her current net worth stems from product endorsements and other work she has done, not an inheritance. The previous "Heiress" section that was removed made clear that her grandfather pretty much cut her off.)
• Restore charity work chronologically or possibly in above mentioned section
• Something of the ParisExposed.com incident should probably be restored and incorporated in the chronology, but reduced for weight
• I wonder if the description here of the critical response to her debut album is actually neutral, the People bio is sharply negative compared. [19]

This is all from spot checking, so I might have missed something. Siawase ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. i know i've pissed some people off with the massive changes to this article. But the last "version" made of the same is totally satisfying for me. She has said in interviews she considers herself mainly as a businesswoman, a brand and an empire, so i wanted to reflect that within the article. I kind of made a "main section" called "Business Ventures" and, also, create the "other endeavours" category to include her works as an actress, a singer and a model. She has also stated she doesn't consider herself as a performer (actress, singer, etc) but accept offers in those areas just for fun or because they help them to expand her brand. Can i re-edit it back again?. EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly even though I support you as a fan I have to say that your edits make the article look more like an article in a gossip magazine. To put it in another way, it is evident from your edits that you are a fan of Hilton who have made changes. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the parts where it is evident i'm her fan? what do i have to change to re-edit the article back? EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i just edited the article again. I changed some things, but if there is anything else i can do to make this page better, let me know. I tried to show some negative and positive reviews in Paris album for example, just putting postive ones shows a quite partial opinion from me. I searched for other kind of opinions about her performance in films like Repo!, but there were actually positive ones. And take as an example the citation made for the New York Times, talking about her latest TV show. It is shown how her star power has been fading for years and how, ahead in the article, the "Why has paris hilton disappeared" part back that info up. Hope you like. EricaL2003 ( talk) 18:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach is our Canadian version. You may wish to look at her article for ideas.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@EricaL2003: Part of the problem is that you're making these sweeping changes with single edits without an edit summary. You need to slow down, start using the talk page, and start explaining what you're doing. If you want to make changes to the article, do it one sentence at a time, and let us know what you're doing and why you're doing it in your edit summary. If somebody disagrees with your edit, they will revert you, and you can discuss the specifics with them here on the talk page, try to resolve their concerns, and then try again. If you continue to make huge changes without consensus, people will start ignoring your concerns, and will simply revert your edits. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried several times to explain to the user that she needs to bring her concerns up at the talk page of Paris Hilton and get a proper consensus for any major changes done. With that said me and a few other user's have had to label the users editsso far on Hilton as something belonging in a gossip magazine. I guess the user wasn't taking that very well as she then sent me a comment on my personal talk page with a tirade of personal insults.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That did seem a little overboard, although not as bad as my talk page. Should we close this RfC until she may decide to come back?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And I suggest she waits with coming back until she has cooled down and can be reasoned with. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to WP:Bite. She probably thinks she has been treated very poorly as well, and is still a fairly new editor who was acting in good faith. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider that a bite more a honest advice let's not jump around the bush here. Anyhow even though I agree with you that her edit's on Hilton was in good faith, I have to say that not listening to the advice from several users is an indication of not wanting to listen or learn. As you point out she is a fairly new editor and should listen to advice from more established users espcially since her edits was reverted several times. Cheers. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see now that she has been a user here since 2010 that is quite a long time which makes her not taking the advice even more difficult to understand. But I will assume good faith for now.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but over those two years she's only made just over 300 edits. I generally see about 1000 edits as a fair threshold for "newness". Before July of this year she's only commented on the user talk page of two users, [20] and this is the first article talk page she's ever participated on. AGF is good, but I'm afraid we may have already lost this editor for good. (I recently read The nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia, which is why I'm commented in the first place.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, i just wanted to say that the changes i've been doing here in wikipedia are in good faith. The only thing i wanted to was improve the article. I did some mistakes in the last week but i'm not someone who knows everything about how wikipedia works. I still desire to make this article better (since now i will write what i want to change here in the talk page and let an edit summary). I don't want to have enemies here, it would be cool to get along with everyone, give and receive support for the contributions. I will listen every single advice more stablished users give me, for me, that's what wikipedia is all about; helping each other and working on team (which is something i haven't really done before in here). EricaL2003 ( talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it does need a business type section as most of her income is from that. Didn't I see a quote from her that her other activities help her sales? See Belinda Stronach as I mentioned above. She was never in the public eye very much until she entered politics and has since left political office.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is an RFC issue, I suggest the RFC be closed, there is no real clear request for someone from the RFC pool to comment on, just a big edit summery that looks mostly to be reorganization and reformatting, if I'm missing something then I suggest rephrasing the RFC to be actually what you want commented on. Per WP:BOLD the person making this edit has no reason to seek consensus or discussion before making the change, to suggest otherwise is clearly a misunderstanding of policy. Per WP:BRD you're perfectly welcome to revert a WP:BOLD change and seek discussion and consensus to reinstate the edit. Am I missing some dispute or issue? —  raeky t 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to remove the part where it says: "is paid $300,000 for appearances in clubs and events. What she earns for going to a nightclub or event can vary- sometimes she earns $500,000 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lo_OAI6LmI 6:53) or even $1,000,000 ( http://celebrity-gossip.net/paris-hilton/paris-hilton-paid-1-million-party-cannes-532475). What about adding info about her net worth (which is stmiated to be $100 million as of this year)? EricaL2003 ( talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Forbes is a much stronger source than the other two. A host saying "I read somewhere you can get something like half a million dollars" and gossip floating around unreliable gossip sites don't trump Forbes 300,000 number. And I'd follow Forbes in considering the number relevant/weighty, so I don't think it should be removed. Maybe change the wording to "as of 2005 she was paid $300,000" or some such for clarity. Like I mentioned above though, material on her income and net worth should be moved from the lead and into the body somewhere, and then possibly summarized in the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead shouldn't contain material that isn't found in the body. Siawase ( talk) 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I get it, so i will change it to "as of 2005 she was paid $300,000 for ...", and i can mention the net worth in the lead, and then, include that info in the "upcoming projects" section. Look:

Hilton will be opening a beach club in 2012: "The first one is opening in the Philippines soon. It's going to have nightclubs, restaurants, bars, gyms. Everything really". ^[38] It has been reported that her fragrances have grossed over $1.4 billion in revenue since 2005. ^[39] As of March 2012, there are 55 Paris Hilton Stores worldwide. ^[40] Her signature brand includes 17 different products lines such as footwear, fragrances, handbags, watches, among others ^[41] — she earns over $10 million a year from her products sales. As of 2012, her net worth is estimated to be $100 million.

Thank you for your help. EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Erica, is there a reason as to why you have duplicated the same content about earnings twice in the article? Would it not be more appropriate to mention it once? Wesley Mouse 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead section is only suppose to summarise the content of the main article, not copy it word-for-word. Wesley Mouse 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hilton has been part of some documentaries thoughout her career. She's appeared in Teenage Paparazzo (2010), America the Beautiful and a recent one called Sunset Strip. We sould talk about all them, especially TP as she had a lead role in it.

We can also add more info about her racing team - just read somewhere it did really well during the 2011 season. EricaL2003 ( talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Paparazzo is worth including, though I don't think it should be characterized as a "lead role" for Hilton. Siawase ( talk) 15:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should talk about the current position of Hilton in the spotlight. As i said above, she hasn't been in the news or in the media for a while now. So, it would be cool to talk about it. There are some amazing articles i found in the net:

1. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-05/entertainment/paris.hilton.celeb_1_paris-hilton-simple-life-partying?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ - good article

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/jul/21/is-paris-hiltons-career-waning - good too

3. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1652272.php/Paris-Hilton-is-irrelevant-ABC-goes-there-VIDEO

4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/paris-hilton-vanity-fair-spain_n_1163593.html (mention this topic)

5. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bluecarreon/2011/06/29/what-paris-hilton-should-learn-from-her-mother/

Thoughts???. EricaL2003 ( talk) 21:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the celebrity status section can definitely use the addition of newer material. Source quality wise, out of those 5, CNN looks the strongest. The others look alright too (though I'm not 100% sure on the status of Monsters & Critics.) They are all more or less opinion pieces, so make sure to attribute the opinions to the sources, ie "according to CNN..." or "CNN said..." Siawase ( talk) 22:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

it would be something like this: During 2009, a quiet free relationship between Hilton and tabloid headlines led entertainment writers surmise Hilton's fifteen minutes of fame had came to an end. In an article from CNN called "Why has Paris Hilton disappeared?", editor Samantha Yanks (of Gotham and Hamptons magazines) was quoted saying: "Phase one was the ascension, seemingly out of nowhere. That came with a media frenzy, the antics, the partying, the music, the babe-like status and of course, the fashion label. Phase two, she disappears" ^[42] The absence of Hilton in the news and tabloids seemed to be a response to a new generation of tabloid consumers' lack of interest in her. ^[42] EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. The language needs a bit of polishing, but other than that it looks like a good update. Siawase ( talk) 18:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Would we need to wikilink "fifteen minutes of fame"? I think people know what phrase means that there isn't a need to wikilink it really. Wesley Mouse 18:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The wikilink to 15min may depend on how it is presented. If it is a quote from a source and we have an article on it, it may be warranted. If it is reverted by an editor we could discuss it or just leave it out and work on the rest of the article. She is still famous but just out of the fishbowl for a while. If she drops back in then it would no longer fit the link. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 11:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we clarify the fact that although she isnt longer ubiquitous she still creates media/paparazzi almost everywhere she goes? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvuqGXRf_Yk&feature=fvwrel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxyOc-OGYQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csSrYNSIltQ&feature=relmfu EricaL2003 ( talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on those youtube sources, no ( WP:PRIMARY/ WP:SYNTH issues.) If there are reliable secondary sources that explicitly say as much, then yes. Siawase ( talk) 15:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I cited an article from the New York Times called "In a Bentley, Trying to Catch the Spotlight Again", talking about her comeback to the reality tv world (it's from May 2011). Basically, it says that she "seems a little passé" as a reality star and that way before all these new shows (kardashian, jersey shore, teen moms, kendra, etc) premiered, Hilton "was famous for more than being famous". A sentence in particular catches my attention there: "Paparazzi still snap her picture. But it’s hard to see how she can recapture the kind of audience she enjoyed in her heyday — even by streaming her premiere live on Facebook". We can use this to back up what we said above. Here is the entire article: http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/arts/television/paris-hilton-in-the-world-according-to-paris.html

I personally don't think her fame is totally over; she is still really famous worldwide (although her relevance in American pop culture has been going down for a while) and she's still around, making the occacional headlines for her DJ debut or for a rumoured boyfriend or even for a leaked song.

These are recent pictures:

• http://www.google.com.co/imgres?q=paris+hilton+mobbed+2012&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=B-oSLU0sxO2dBM:&imgrefurl=http://coolfwdmail.blogspot.com/2010/12/puffball-princess-paris-hilton-is-bang.html&docid=entq6c6KPwLgGM&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YlA8RhhFr8c/TPjkEiKze1I/AAAAAAAAHvY/kTDRqbOCxTM/s1600/Paris%25252BHilton%25252Bis%25252Bbang%25252Bon%25252Btrend%25252Bas%25252Bshe%25252Bsteps%25252Bout%25252Blooking%25252Bsuper-stylish%25252Bfor%25252Ba%25252Bromantic%25252Blunch%25252Bwith%25252Bher%25252Bboyfriend%25252B%25252B5.jpg&w=634&h=422&ei=-GIhUJ6lCYnC0QGc34GgDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1050&vpy=196&dur=1044&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=215&ty=90&sig=111287854222019510535&page=3&tbnh=136&tbnw=179&start=48&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:25,s:48,i:302
• http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Paris+Hilton/Paris+Hilton+Arriving+Flight+Sydney/ZS7RGbMZCPC
• http://x17video.com/celebrity_video/paris_hilton/paris_hilton_swarmed_by_fans_a.php
• http://x17video.com/celebrity_video/paris_hilton/paris_hilton_out_having_fun_in.php
• http://x17video.com/celebrity_video/paris_hilton/paris_hilton_arrives_to_medica.php (i know we can't use these videos and images as real sources, they are just to prove my point).

What about if the part changes to this: During 2009, a quiet free relationship between Hilton and tabloid headlines led entertainment writers surmise Hilton's popularity had plummeted. In an article from CNN called "Why has Paris Hilton disappeared?", editor Samantha Yanks (of Gotham and Hamptons magazines) was quoted saying: "Phase one was the ascension, seemingly out of nowhere. That came with a media frenzy, the antics, the partying, the music, the babe-like status and of course, the fashion label. Phase two, she disappears" ^[42] The absence of Hilton in the news and tabloids seemed to be a response to a new generation of tabloid consumers' lack of interest in her. ^[42] The suspicion of her star power fading came back in June 2011, when her reality show, The World According to Paris failed to get high ratings. As a result, Hilton walked out during an interview with Good Morning America, after she was asked if her moment having passed. ^{[43] [44]} Remaining a frecuent target for paparazzi, ^{[45] [46] [47]} Hilton has been keeping clear from news headlines in recent years. ^[48] EricaL2003 ( talk) 19:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article looks like a great source, but I think using words like "constant" and "everywhere" based on that is overstating things. How about a plainer wording like "She remains a target for paparazzi."? As for the other material, anything that needs to be qualified as "reportedly" is likely problematic. If it carries enough weight to be included it should be worded something like: "according to X source an unnamed source said that...." which is usually highly problematic in a BLP. Isn't there stronger sourcing describing the The Good Morning America incident? That conveys much of the same thing. Siawase ( talk) 08:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik4QFzQm46U (the video is actually pretty cool) - as for the sources i think these are great (people, e online, fox news): http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/07/20/paris-hilton-storms-out-good-morning-america-interview-over-questions-about-her/ - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20511528,00.html - http://www.eonline.com/news/253332/paris-hilton-not-so-good-morning-america I'm not sure if we can use E online - it's more like a personal opinion that an actual fact. Just found this: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=paris%20hilton%2C&cmpt=q (it shows perfectly what we're talking about). Should we clarify her "prime" or "moment" lasted from 2003/4 to 2007/8?? EricaL2003 ( talk) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. Change "in recent years" to "as of/since X year(s)" whatever the sources specify. Re: the sourcing, I agree with your assessment, Foxnews and People look good, but skip E!online. E!online is pretty much redundant with the other two sources anyway. Re: her "prime" years, you need secondary sources actually drawing that conclusion, or it is original research. Siawase ( talk) 07:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, do you think this text would be considered as "gossip-like info": "It was reported on August 23, 2012 that she was going to appear in a music video for Korean singer Kim Jang Hoon. ^[49] The shooting took place in Malibu Beach, California from August 24 to 25. The singer's agency remarked: "We considered several Hollywood stars, such as Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johansson and Paris Hilton, for the role of lead actress in Kim's new music video. But a survey conducted in Korea showed that Paris Hilton was the most well-known, so we chose her". ^[50] She was paid $1 million for her appeareance ^[51] and the video will premiere on October 4, 2012 in 3D. ^[52]". If you think so, i'd want you to write how the info should be written like. Thanks. EricaL2003 ( talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Very much gossip-tone in that wording yes. It reads like an article in a magazine/newspaper. I'm a bit busy later as I have my final volunteering shift at London 2012 Paralympic games. So I won't be able to reword it better until I return. Unless someone else beats me to it in the meantime. Wesley Mouse 15:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Try this...

"Paris appeared in a music video for Kroean singer, Kim Jang Hoon. ^[53] The filming took place at the American resort of Malibu Beach, California between 24 - 25 August 2012. An agent for the Korean singer stated that they had considered several Hollywood stars for the lead actress role in Kim's music video, including Jessica Alba and Scarlett Johansson, as well as Hilton. However, Paris was finally chosen to play the role following a survey conducted by the Korean public who recognised Paris more than the other contenders. ^[54] It is alleged that Hilton was paid $1 million for her appearance in the video shoot, ^[55] with a 3D première scheduled to take place on 4 October 2012. ^[56]"

remember to place the citations in the relevant sections. Wesley Mouse 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to squeeze high quality encyclopedic content out of sources of such poor quality (in particular Perez Hilton...) There are a number of low quality sources used, but they all appear to reiterate the same story, which originates with x17 [21] a problematic source to begin with. The $1 million number in particular appears out of thin air (where did it come from? a representative for Hilton? Some "unnamed source close to the star?" None of the sources even clarify that much.) In my view the proper way to handle it is to cut out all but the reliably verifiable bare-bones info, following WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Something like "In 2012 Hilton made an appearance in a music video from South Korean singer Kim Jang Hoon." sourced to the most reliable source possible. Siawase ( talk) 15:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Erica, please could you explain why you inserted the section about something which happened in August in-between two other sections relating to January and March? It doesn't give chronological order to events. Please be careful with things like this. Also remember to avoid bear ref links too, make sure you use as much reftag data as possible. If you are unfamiliar on how to do this, then I would highly recommend that you research WP:MOS and learn how to avoid bear referencing citations before continuing to add new content to the article. Thanks, Wesley Mouse 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i just realized what i did. Thanks. EricaL2003 ( talk) 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read the peer review. There are lots of things that should be worked out. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Paris_Hilton/archive1 - i don't want to get involved in the edition of the article in this case, i prefer someone with more experience in Wikipedia does it. Thanks. EricaL2003 ( talk) 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment this article is longer than that for Ludwig Van Beethoven. I suggest cutting it down to about two sentences. 109.145.34.111 ( talk) 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned in the article? She recently stereotyped gay men. See here and here. Spelling Style ( talk) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please fix the collapsed table of "Awards and nominations" - it currently says "Sortable table" instead of actually being sortable. Thx.

Done. Uncontroversial cleanup request only. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Error found under "Celebrity Status" - First sentence

"Although being already a fixture in entertainment news for her heavy-party lifestyle,[277] she gained significant notoriety for her participation in One Night in Paris, a sex tape that was leaked before the premiere episode of her reality show The Simple Life, which aired to high ratings."

Link to sex tape directs you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Night_in_Paris (article about a Depeche Mode film)

Should direct you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris

Krayer ( talk) 09:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Leiservampir ( talk · contribs). ( diff)  Hue Sat Lum 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It says Hilton was active in 1993, however what made her active then? She would of been only 12 or 13. Rfkzsaok7 ( talk) 05:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

IMDB lists her as having appeared in Wishman, but that would have been in '92. Not '93. Spelling Style ( talk) 17:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not an accurate source. Epic Genius 16:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that true? I thought IMDB is considered a reliable source when cornerning appearances, release dates and such info. There is one appearance in 1992, one in 1997, and then several yearly from 2000 on. 85.217.34.67 ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Wesley Mouse#Paris Hilton Wesley♦ ^Mouse 08:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. What do you think about changing the article structure and sections' names? Now the peer review is done i would love something like this:

• Early life and education
• Business ventures
  • Fashion
  • Eendorsement
• Other media
  • Acting
    • Television
    • Film
  • Music
  • Modeling
  • Writing
• Celebrity status
• Charity
• Personal life
  • Relationships
  • Legal issues
• Filmography and awards
• Discography
• Bibliography

I think this is the way the article should be like, it's way more organised and clear. Paris Hilton has said several times that she mainly sees herself as a businesswoman and she sometimes accepts offers to act, sing and model because they "push her brand". The structure I just created reflects the way Hilton works - it gives priority to the business part while the acting, music and modelling career are put as additional works. Hope you agree. If you don't, how should the structure of the article be? Have an amazing day. EricaL2003 ( talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be more like this,

• Early life and education
• then Rise to fame
• then 2003–05: The Simple Life and breakthrough
• then 2006–07: Paris, films and arrests
• then 2008–09: Focus on acting and My New BFF shows
• then 2010–11: Legal issues and reality television comeback
• then 2012–present: Music, acting work and upcoming projects
• Celebrity status
• then Business ventures
  • Fashion
  • Endorsement
• Other media
  • Acting
    • Television
    • Film
  • Music
  • Modeling
  • Writing
• Personal life (all 3 subcategories would be clearer under each of the phases of her life)
  • Relationships
  • Legal issues
• then Charity
• Filmography and awards
• Discography
• Bibliography
• then Reflist, External links, etc.

I think it's more organized this way. Epic Genius 16:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Epic Genius, the second way looks a lot better and conforms more to how other biography pages are organized. Leiservampir ( talk) 18:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph in section "Celebrity status" contains a spelling mistake - frecuent instead of frequent.

132.68.245.204 ( talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)  Done-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The album Hilton was going to release is mentioned several times within the "2012-present" sections. As that album was cancelled and several songs from it were handed to other singers (For example, "Last Night", Pitbull), i think it's necessary to not mention anything about it and just write about the things she actually DID during the whole year.

This would be my ideal section:

In early 2012, she launched a new line of sunglasses in Shanghai. ^[57] The launch was a "huge success", she said. ^[40] Hilton's next project was her DJ debut at the Pop Music Festival in Brazil, ^[58] she premiered her single called "Last Night". Having attracted extremely negative reviews after some videos were posted on Youtube.com and being dissed by the DJs Deadmau5, ^[59] Samantha Ronson, ^[60] and even Afrojack, ^[61] she gained positive reviews from DJ Poet, ^[62] fans and the crowd at the festival. As a whole, her set received mixed reviews. ^[63] Shortly after her performance, she bacame a trending topic on Twitter. ^[64] Hilton's footwear line was nominated for Best Celebrity Licensee of the Year at the 2012 International Licensing Excellence Awards. ^[65] Around that time, she released her fifteen perfume, Dazzle. ^{[66] [67] [68] [69]}

Hilton appeared in a music video for Korean singer, Kim Jang Hoon. ^[70] The filming took place at the American resort of Malibu Beach, California from August 24 to 25, 2012. An agent for the Korean singer stated that they had considered several Hollywood stars for the lead actress role in Kim's music video, including Jessica Alba and Scarlett Johansson, as well as Hilton. However, she was finally chosen to play the role following a survey conducted by the Korean public who recognised Paris more than the other contenders. ^[71] It is alleged that Hilton was paid $1 million for her appearance in the video shoot, ^{[72] [73] [74]} with a 3D premiere that took place in October 2012. ^[75] On September 20, 2012, an audio recording of her making derogatory comments about gay people appeared on the Internet. ^{[76] [77] [78]} On the same day, after the backlash caused over the comments, Hilton issued an apology throughout GLAAD where she wrote she is a "huge supporter of the gay community" and labels gay people as "the strongest and most inspiring people I know". ^{[79] [80]} As a result of the remarks, gay-focused channel Logo pulled a documentary about her called Paris Hilton Inc., which was scheduled to air. ^{[81] [82] [83]} Since that month, she has been in a relationship with Spanish model River Viiperi. ^[84]

Hilton opened her fifth store in the city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia in early November 2012. As Mecca is considered the "holiest city in the Muslim world" and Saudi Arabia is a conservative country, a controversy regarding her personal life was ganerated on Twitter. ^{[85] [86] [87]} In early December, she modeled for designers Shane and Falguni Peacock at India Fashion Week. ^{[88] [89] [90]} She also made a performance as a DJ there. ^[91] Like her debut, the set was met negatively after a video was posted on YouTube but received acclaim from the audience. ^{[92] [93]}

• Insert it into the article, then. Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It should contain the movie "One night in Paris" that was made in 2001. 109.93.30.27 ( talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add sourced material to Wikipedia then do so. TriumFant ( talk)

Could Paris Hilton be clasified as a rapper now that she has signed a deal with YMCMB (a rap group founded by Lil Wayne, for those of you who don't know)? Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 01:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

She should have done a cover of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biHJ6S91xBY ;) 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 02:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Page locked, so would someone please consider removing the following from the article:

"...Barron subsequently contested his father's will to win back a sizeable amount of the Hilton family fortune in a settlement.[109] By leaving his estate to the Foundation, Barron is donating not only the fortune he has amassed on his own, but he is also returning the Hilton family fortune amassed by his father, Conrad, to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, where it would have gone over 30 years ago had Barron not contested his father's will."

The cited webpage looks dubious at best, whereas the Barron Hilton article is cited by the Los Angeles Times and tells a very different story. In actuality Conrad Hilton left a large amount of Hilton Hotels stock to Barron and to his charitable trust, with the stipulation that Barron be allowed to purchase a certain amount of stock from the trust in order to maintain majority control of the company. When Barron exercised his right to make the purchase the trust refused to sell it to him, resulting in a lawsuit that was settled in Barron's favor. Although Barron brought the lawsuit, it was in fact the trust that did not honor Conrad Hilton's will. 66.27.174.138 ( talk) 06:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this page lacks a section that lists references in media to Paris Hiltom. For example, the show South Park referenced her several times when her media presence was still high last decade. 77.182.12.92 ( talk) 09:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)