Talk:Paris Hilton: Difference between revisions

Biography: Musicians B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

 This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Paris Hilton. It is not for discussion of Paris Hilton herself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Paris Hilton is "good" or "bad"; or finding out what unnecessary information this does not help in improving Wikipedia.
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hear hear. PS: She's a white trash slut whore. :D - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, I have to disagree. Anyone who was not "a person of importance" would not appear on the front page and other pages of the newspaper so often. I have noticed that she has been constantly in the limelight for the past seven years! I can't remember any woman that famous for a long time. I believe that the likes of Amelia Erhardt and Grace Kelly were that famous, but then again that was a long time ago. Wallie 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna, Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie? If you can't remember any then perhaps you aren't trying hard enough. --Golbez 05:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna, maybe. But then again, she was usually overshadowed by Princess Di. All these three, including Madonna have already "had their day". I still have a soft spot for Britney, but the media seems to have written her out. Paris is still on top, and will remain so for a very long time, I suspect. She about the biggest thing thats happened, at least in my lifetime anyway. Wallie 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the place to be discussing various levels of fame, but once again, the comparison between someone like Madonna and someone like Paris Hilton is truly ludicrous. While I agree that she has enough media presence to warrant a page on Wikipedia, I also feel as though there's room to reduce it substantially. Of course, at the end of the day, the levels of work put in by individual writers are their own decision, but as someone who really has only achieved any notoriety courtesy of her publicity team and an inherited fortune, it seems a bit ridiculous to spend excessive amounts of time producing/editing/collating content regarding this woman. Mohsin.Siddiqui 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for little kids to drool over their wet-dreams. Get a life. Why dont you spend 50 bucks on a domain name website so you can write about your "goddess" all day. Paris Hilton is an irrelevant and ugly bung-eyed freak, get over it.

Please refrain from personal attacks, your comments above strike me as unnecessarily rude. One's dislike for the subject of an article should never devolve into personal comments about the editors. Some pages you might want to check out are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cheers from an editor outside this conflict. Dina 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are all missing the point. Paris Hilton may be disliked in certain countries, but then again, even George Bush is disliked by some. But these peoples' sheer presence outweighs the minority who like to nitpick and witter on. The great majority would see Paris Hilton as a fine young lady who brings joy to others. Wallie 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody likes George Bush outside of America except Tony Blair and John Howard. Bihal 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement looks like extreme POV to me. Question. If these three are so unpopular as you say, ask yourself why people keep electing them... Wallie 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the talk page, I'm allowed to be POV. And people outside the US didn't elect George Bush, just so you know. Bihal 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You don't need to be POV to point out that this wiki entry is treating Paris Hilton with greater respect as a "singer actress," as if she could do either, than she deserves. There should be an entire criticisms section with cited references to how critics have panned her.

Her career has been managed by a publicity agent and press agent and whatever to keep her in the spotlight just like madonna and spears and all the celebs. once you start falling of the rador you let out a sex tape. a person whos celebrity is based on sex tapes, being wasted on camera, and acting stupid just to stay in the limelight isnt a very talented celebrity.

Well maybe that should be the point of this wiki entry. that critics (and the public) don't think she is a talented celebrity.

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

Whoever said it was a deformity? Maybe it's just a very poor attempt at bedroom eyes. Kasreyn 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sultry look. Does it for me every time. Wallie 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You sound like you're "like 13 and shit", yourself. Maybe YOU should "get your hick ass out of here". 70.162.66.142 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

this has been fixed now. thank you! M8gen

The fake singing comment needs to be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

• it seems it's enough for german laws...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think wallie works for Paris Hilton.

That doesn't matter. This page is to discuss ways of improving the article, not to make inapproporiate comments. 24.23.16.65 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oh? I thought she was just another of those american narcissists

23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the diagnostic criteria says Histrionic personality disorder, but theres no reason why she couldn't have both. narcissism & Histrionic personality disorder have some similarities which could lead to confusion. Both are attention related.--aceslead 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Are you kidding me?

Paris Hilton will never play Mother Teresa. This is just BS put out by the celebrity machine.

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

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

This pertains to improving the article how? Celebrity-Benji 09:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is claimed to be the first such occurrence by a female artist (I've read that male artists have done even worse, and that female artists have also in the past been drunk and performing)... My rationale is that she should be shown/depicted for what she really is. -Mardus 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Let's just state the facts. They speak for themselves. Bihal

I also agree. It happened, so we should report that fact. Wikipedia gets enough flak for not being 'accurate' enough. 147.174.104.54 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Especially on the loser disambiguation page and other related pages because the fake (rather, falsifying) verdict said to, and I added that message to the other pages as well. --Addict 2006 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

her video WAS put on trial it was judged to be bad and she WAS sentenced to have a Video On Trial viewer add her picture to the Wikipedia entry for "loser". This all happened. The only reason to deny it is as part of a cover up. Why would you lie?

Why is this page locked?

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

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

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

Recognized as being solely responsible for all that is wrong in the world. Would get drunk and pass out at the Last Supper if it were possible. Could use about 6 months in boot camp at Paris Island. Can't find the U.S.A. on a map or globe. Can't spell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.29.104 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

-->

Yes there are plenty of reliable sources out there for this story. We know factually that (a) a restraining order was filed against Paris Hilton, (b) she threatened her ex-boyfriend, saying he'd be "a dead man" if it got out, and (c) that the ex-boyfriend informed her current boyfriend of her having herpes. All you have to do to find sources is query "Paris Hilton herpes" within any of the reputable search engines. Is Wikipedia trying to hide this information from the public to protect Paris Hilton's "untarnished, innocent" reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.173.182 (talk • contribs)

Editors: this comes from the same editor who thinks Britney Spears married actor Jason Alexander. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could get a lot of unreliable information from search engines, and are you trying to say that it's verifiable information because one person told another person? Rzrscm 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of that however, the information is there on the web; one only need query "Paris Hilton Herpes" into a search engine, and receive multiple sources detailing the restraining order against Paris Hilton and the herpes-related news. Why must you people at Wikipedia suppress information that is both relevant and widely reported on? I think this has to do with painting Paris Hilton in the best possible light - this truly smacks of bias, which really surprises me, because I thought this was supposed to be an online encyclopedia of all pertinent information regarding items of interest. And furthermore, this page of Paris Hilton is clearly written by people who are pro-Paris Hilton.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.173.182 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note that we don't just need information, we need information that is verifiable and reliable. If you think you can find information that meets those two policies I just linked, then go ahead and find it. No one is stopping you. Johntex\^talk 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that this health issue of Paris Hilton' was right here in the Wikipedia article and I also remember it was properly sourced. It's possible that someone removed the entry with their edits. -Mardus 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"playboy picture blah blah blah blah blah

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

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

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

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

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

We need HagermanBot to show who wrote what and when in this section. -Mardus 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He might have missed his window, so I've added it manually. -SpuriousQ 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it looks funny (in fact I've been tempted to remove it before), but I don't think focusing on a South Park parody for a "negative" view is the way to go here, simply because it's doesn't tell the reader much about Hilton. However, if you can find reliable sources for the incidents you mention above (racial slurs, Tinkerbell incident?), definately feel free to add them. The DUI incident is mentioned in the previous section, though perhaps can be expanded in Media spotlight. -SpuriousQ 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

24.82.19.224 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the attempt to determine what exactly Paris Hilton's inheritance is, but everything in the article must be sourced, not original research, and be in an encyclopedic tone. If a reputable source states that Hilton's inheritance is estimated to be $30 million, we can simply state and cite that. The paragraph you wrote in the article cannot stay as is. -SpuriousQ 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well known fact, not original research. Forbes list Barron Hilton as #374 in their list of the 400 richest Americans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Barron-Hilton_02JQ.html). Barron Hilton has eight children of which Richard Hilton is one. And he in turn has four children of which Paris Hilton is one. Do your math and you get: US$ 1 billion divided by eight is US$ 125 million, which is the share of each of the eight children. Then divide Richard Hilton's share by four and you get approx US$ 30 million for each of his four children. So Paris Hilton's share of the "fabulous fortune" is worth approx US$ 30 million. Like it or not, that's the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allan Akbar (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You're correct that her share is ~US$30 million, but it the way it was written was original research or close to it. I've recasted the estimation with references. -SpuriousQ 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The Paris Hilton Channel at YouTube. Official Paris Hilton page.

http://www.parishiltontoday.com

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

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

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

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

No, I don't believe she is a porn star. Indeed, she did make that sex tape, but that doesn't mean she's a porn star. There are normal people who have made their own sex tapes (well, I haven't made any, I'm too young), does that make them porn stars as well? A User has reverted your edits and restored the page to previous version, which was an edit that I did. Acalamari 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand you are diffrentiating between "normal people" that make sex tapes for themselves and sex tapes that are made for the public."Normal people" are not porn stars, but people that star in sex tapes for the public are porn stars. Your defenition seems reasonable, but it leads to a lot of difficulties.If "normal people" make a sex tape and sell it, doesn't that make them porn stars? Why should it make a difference that there wasn't a director and an expensive camcorder. Does it make a difference if they initially meant it only for themselves and later decided to sell it? How do we know what there initial thinking was? Because of aformentioned problems, I propose that "porn star" should be defined as follows : "One who knowingly earns money from the public viewing of her sex acts". Paris earned money from the tape (see Rick Salomon), therefore she should be defined as a porn star.--Truest blue 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton did not intend for the sex tape to be released to the public. She is not a porn star; and my comparison was good enough. If Paris Hilton doesn't consider herself a porn star, that should be good enough for us. Acalamari 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before: Talk:Paris_Hilton/Archive_2#Porn_star_category, though no clear consensus seemed to be reached. I tend to agree that adding her to the porn star category is misleading given the circumstances under which that the video was created and released. Her owning/selling the rights to the video was due to her lawsuit against Salomon attempting to halt distribution. -SpuriousQ 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read that discussion. I believe that she shouldn't be put in the porn star category. The sex tape should have been private, but her ex-boyfriend went and released the tape to the public. Acalamari 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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