Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 5

message: I read from a tabloid that she did some devious deed and might be going to jail. Really/Why? Reliable source: http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Celebrities/0,9294,2-1225-2108_2076788,00.html -Lapinmies 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read the news article, why are you asking things here --Golbez 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum or a news article, just do a google search if you care! --84.153.31.8 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: do a search on www.ipetitions.com 81.178.232.81 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to jail? 

message: In light of the small edit war going on over this edit which I have previously reverted, here is my reasoning for why I did so (copied from my response to Ledenierhomme on my talk page). The edit consists of the following:
# An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source.  This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance.  Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources.  If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.
#: Its clearly a photo of Hilton. Just because you say the site isn't credible, is irrelevant. You are going to say that about any source of any fact you consider negative. Its obviously notable because she encourages young women to be superficial and mutilate themselves with plastic surgery. Annoyed with fanboys 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, any source of what you deem brings Hilton to an unfavorable light you call unreliable. The sources are just as good as most others and you are being patently conniving about the issue.   Annoyed with fanboys 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, CNN (as of 5-09-07) and Paris Hilton herself have confirmed that she did say the racial and homophobic slurs. The periodicals you mentioned aren't lacking in credibility just because a fan of Paris would have us believe so.Majestic Lizard Returns 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Paris Hilton was a brunette with brown hair in high school and she has had plastic surgery. Recently she want from an A cup to nearly a D cup for crying out loud. It is notable because she is a role model for young women.Majestic Lizard Returns 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of my reverts 

message: Its all complete POV nonsense.
The tape of her racial slurs were on CNN. Its reality, get over it.
The statement by the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law is a fact. Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annoyed with fanboys (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refutation of Rationale Regarding Reverts 

message: I would like to remind all editors of WP:BLP. The policies regarding 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material' state that it should be removed immediately. If a single source only reports on something and there is no real analysis of the situation then it should not be included. We should always edit articles about living people with a very clear mind and lean towards leaving things out unless they are very well sourced.
Try not to think people are 'pro' and 'anti' a subject, you should assume good faith and realise that people are trying to improve this site whilst protecting the lives of those we are analysing.-Localzuk(talk) 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I call bull*hit. Any source you don't agree with you are going to say is poor and any you do agree with you are going to say is well-sourced. In fact, several positive statements in the article have the same sources that the negative ones do. Yet the positive ones remain and the negative ones get cut. POV. Very POV. Annoyed with fanboys 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] needs to be kept in mind 

message: I don't think the the introduction of a trivia section is a very good idea; usually such sections are not encouraged. Trivia sections are common points of criticism in peer reviews or good/featured article nominations. Everything worth mentioning such be worked into the main text, and not the other way around - as it happened here - cut out of the text to be put in a new created bulletin list. On the same note, one line sections (Charity Work, Allegations of Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia) are rather pointless as well; they either need to be expanded or merged with another section. Sloan21 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: Don't you think that as her fight with Nicole Richie dominated some of the tabloids for many weeks, it deservs a proper section or to be merged in to the main section. It is somthing she will always be known for. It should get more than just a trivia bullet.-- Hiltonhampton 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicole Fight

message: Could somone please give an example of this or a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiltonhampton (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrity spokesperson

message: I actually have all the clips on my hard drive, and could send them to you if you like.  But here's a run down of the important facts.  Paris does use the term "nigger or niggers" twice.  But she doesn't direct the term at black people.  The first time she uses it is while she and her sister are dancing.  She says, "we're like two niggers".  Paris appears wasted, and what exactly she means by this cryptic comment is totally unclear.  I would note however, that the song playing in the background is "Hypnotize" by Notorious B.I.G, and the lyrics to that song are riddled with "niggers" doing this and "niggers" doing that.  Later, while observing a shriveled up man who just got out of the pool, Paris says, "he looks like my ball sack after I fucked like 10 niggers".  Again, the meaning of this is unclear, and the fact that heavy drinking and drug use have seem to be going on probably doesn't help the situation.  Clearly Paris does not have a ball sack, nor is he a man.  One could guess that she is playing on the fact that blacks are 5 times more likely to carry an STD than whites, and that she is implying the man looks like a ball sack that has been struck with some sort of nasty disease, but again, this would just be a guess.  
The term "JAP" is used in a song Paris makes up sung to the tune of Sister Sledge's "We are Family".  It is important to note that this song appears directed not at Jews in general, but one specific Jew named Ashley Star who Paris seems to have some sort of beef with.  The lyrics go:
I am Ashley Star.
I'm a little Jew-y JAP
I am Ashley Star
I'm a fat ugly Jewish Bitch
I like Prada Products.....(this line sends Nicky into hysterics and she falls into Paris laughing and effectively ends the song.
The manner in which "chink" is used probably warrants some sort of edit on the main page to differentiate it from the other slurs.  Paris doesn't actually call anyone a "chink".  The camera pans to Paris' then boyfriend Jason Shaw talking to an Asian man in the distance.  Paris remarks, "he always finds the biggest "herbs" (pronounced HER-bs, not ER-bs) to talk to".  Then an off camera friend says, "Awww.  Let him talk to the chink."  Paris repeats the words "the chink" in a manner which indicates that,   she finds her friend's choice of words humorous.  So to suggest that she "uses" the word "chink" is highly deceptive.  I've "used" the words "nigger", "JAP", and "chink" just now, but certainly not in the way most people think when they here somebody, "used the word chink".  
Paris calls Nicky's future husband a "faggot", but it strains credulity to interpret it as a homophobic slur given the way it is uttered and the person to whom it is directed.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, using terms alone does not mean one is anything-ist. --Golbez 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Pick one if you must, but to load the header with all the isms you can think of is going overboard. --Golbez 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, have seen the footage in question, and contrary to the impression "Bogan444" is trying to create, her words and her attitude are very suspect, to say the least. When talking about one African-American woman, she refers to her as a "poor bitch... she's probably from Compton". I find the manner in which she uses the slur "Chink" highly offensive - she finds the it, and the person, humorous. Golbez, if you think there are too many "isms" in the heading/sub-heading, then perhaps that is an issue you should take up with Paris Hilton and her friends, and she manages to cover all areas in a single night out (I shudder to think what we'd hear were we to have footage of the many hundreds of nights out she has had). A heading needs to be descriptive. Maybe you could change it to "Allegations of Class, Race, and Religious prejudice", but that sounds even more convoluted. Ledenierhomme 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subsection consists of two sentences.  Just like the content about DUI troubles or engagements in that section, this doesn't warrant a heading. I feel the content would be most appropriate in chronological order, immediately after the ParisExposed.com paragraph. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, and restored the edit as SpuriousQ suggested and which I had made previously but had been reverted by Ledenierhomme.  We are not saying that the allegations are not important; they are.  What we are saying is that two sentences is just not worthy of an entire section in any article.  I would suggest that if you think these allegations are notable enough for an entire section, prove it by adding verifiable references to public figures or anti-racism organizations who have criticized her in the media.--Agnaramasi 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ledenierhomme,  Paris doesn't call anybody a "chick".  An girl off camera does that.  People who haven't viewed the tape carefully, or more likely, just want to slur Paris at any opportunity, have made the claim, but it clearly isn't true.  Paris calls the kid a "Herb".  The person sitting next to her then refers to the guy as a "chink".  I think it is extremely telling that though Paris uses ethinc slurs that evening, not once is one of her ethnic slurs actually directed at a minority.  As far as the fact that people have called her a racist, maybe that's true, but almost every famous personality has been refered to as a "racist" at one point or another.  Just the nature of the world we live in.  Hardly warrants a subsection.  I think the question is whether or not the claims of racism have in any way effected the person's life.  For example, with John Rocker or Sen. Trent Lott, such a section is proper.  But no one of any consequence has made a big deal about what Paris said and the so called "controversy" hasn't so much as caused a blip in her popularity or career.  You may really respect Rosie, but her daily musings do not encyclopedia entries make.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite often, actually. --Golbez 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agnaramasi, I see your point, thank you. Golbez, I challenge you to justify your statement. Give me an example of when it is not racist for a white person to use the word "nigger" (I'm not talking about white people obsessed with black culture emulating black people referring to themselves and each other as "nigga"). Give me an example of when it is not derogatory for a heterosexual to use the word "faggot". And tell me why. Cris Varengo 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware we were making a distinction between "nigger" and "nigga". Also, saying "that is so gay" or calling someone a fag or faggot is not in itself necessarily an anti-homosexual slur; it's just a way for the immature to insult others. Something can be an insult without being derogatory. --Golbez 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess I can somewhat reluctantly accept that logic. Doesn't mean I condone those words. Cris Varengo 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, using ethnic slurs in a non-acedemic context is an -ism, although more likely to be subconsious given her wasted situation.  I can't see a single situation where it would be acceptable to use that language in any context outside of defining it, talking about it's etymology, ect.  Anyways, it's all moot, the current version of the article as of this edit is in a pretty NPOV context, it just says that she used slurs, but doesn't try to guess in what context.Sabar 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sabar, I happen to agree with you completely, I just didn't feel like arguing about it anymore. As you can see above, I reluctantly accepted Golbez's point of view, in the context of self-reference or academic analysis, but in practice, I don't think there is any non-derogatory way to use those words, and I personally abhor them. I just wanted to make that clear, that I accepted that Golbez's logic works..for Golbez. For me, I cringe when I hear anyone use those words.Cris Varengo 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Exposed 

message: Larger breasts? Implants?
:She's been on a push up bra kick lately.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Body

message: Paris is 5'7" 218.186.9.1 13:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 5'7 1/2" sometimes generalized as 5'8"
Xaritix 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I understnd that this article has been blocked due to vandalism please can you unblock me so I can contribute to this page, if you look at my past contributions you will see none of them are vandalism, thank you, I look forward to editing. Beck 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not blocked; if you were you couldn't have posted your message. Not only that, but you can edit the Paris Hilton article, as your account is more than four days old. Acalamari 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Unblock

message: The first paragraph should state why she was sentenced to 45 days in jail and not merely that she was. Kidshare 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph needs addition

message: Anyone have any news as to whether they're appealing the conviction and sentencing on the parole breach?  45 days sounds pretty heavy.  Especially for someone who's going to definitely be a repeated victim of crime in a womens correctional facility, unless she was put under express guard / CPP and in isolation.  Could you imagine how many convicts would be proud to say they raped Paris Hilton in gaol?  Scary stuff.  Jachin 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some good news pics @ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow.aspx?sectionid=1915§ionname=slideshow&subsectionid=9789&photo=4 I also propose we rename this page to "Dr. Slut Bunny" :P --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I smell a reality show here! "A Night In Paris: The Cell Block H Years"! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial News?

message: Could someone please change that picture of Paris in yellow? She doesnt look that hot or pretty in that pic.
:If you can provide a similarly free image of higher quality then please feel free. We can't use an image from a magazine, tv show or any commercial media though.-Localzuk(talk) 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of images is not to make people appear 'pretty' or 'hot', it's a perfectly functional picture. Slydevil 03:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Picture

message: Please put now a criminal infobox --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. —Shanesan  (contribs) (Talk) 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I'm defending Paris Hilton here, but that is totally pointless. She is not primarily a criminal (she might not be a criminal at all, as she is apparently appealing). James Brown or Mike Tyson don't have a criminal infobox either, or how about Nelson Mandela? WP tends to blow recent events out of proportion, and this is no different obviously. Five years from now, nobody will care about this 45 day sentence, especially as might not even serve most of the time. Sloan21 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why her old infobox would be put back after her sentance. Infoboxes are for quick information usually about a recent event or an important piece of information that simply must be known by everytone who visits the article. Having no statement at all is worse than having an overstatement. The power of the internet: You can change it as time progresses. —Shanesan  (contribs) (Talk) 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not here to influence the world. We are here to document things in a neutral way and making the fact that she was given jail time the most prominent thing on her article is not neutral. She has a lot of other aspects to her life which are higher profile.-Localzuk(talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is besides the point. The criminal infobox is intended for those people on this site who are career criminals as far as I know - Paris Hilton has a couple of relatively minor crimes against her name but has many other aspects of her life. Using the criminal infobox would give undue weight to a relatively minor blip in her life so far.-Localzuk(talk) 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal 

message: While much focus has been on fans and supporters of Ms. Hilton protesting her pending incarceration, a number of petitions have emerged supporting Judge Mintz's decision to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in jail.
RegularLAgal 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article & cited - Tiswas(t) 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlash to "Free Paris" campaign 

message: "In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office claimed that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
Okay, so the statement of the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law, which can be legally proven and backed by sound evidence, is a "CLAIM" and Paris Hilton's word which she cannot even begin to substantiate is reality? Please. 
It should read:
"In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office ruled that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
The Paris fan club needs to be banned from wiki. All of the weasel words and POV nonsense on this page is disgusting. Annoyed with fanboys 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find that an attorney's office can't make rulings - they can only build a case against a person built from 'claims' the judge overseeing a trial makes a ruling and as such the attorney's were proven right - but they still made claims and nothing more. Please do not use caps to shout at editors as it makes you seem more fanatical than the fanboys you seem to be annoyed with...-Localzuk(talk) 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: All kidding aside, Paris Hilton did make highly offensive statements that could be intepreted as racist and homophobic in a public place and on video. The problem is that the article (and the discussion here) favors omitting this. No one is saying she should be called a racist or a homophobe. You can say racist and homophobic things without being racist or a homophobe. However, it is relevant because it is indicative of the maturity level of a high profile celebrity who is an influence on many young women.
The second problem is the idea that the Los Angeles City Attorney's office has made a CLAIM that Paris broke the law. It isn't a claim. It was a legal ruling based on her actions. The government of Los Angeles has more credibility in an encyclopedia article than a celebrity and her army of lawyers. She has even conceded that she is guilty at this stage. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Los Angeles Attorney's Office made a claim - the judge ruled. That is as simple as it gets.-Localzuk(talk) 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Main Issues I Have With this Article 

message: Why is there no mention at all of the prison issue? Even if thr issue is relatively minor, it did happen, and there should be AT LEAST a sentence to reflect this. After all, a sex tape got a whole section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.121.245 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire paragraph in the 'Personal Life' section...-Localzuk(talk) 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention at all of Prison 

message: What happened to the article, was it AfD'ed? Nate 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted to remove some idiotic edits, as it turned out, it had 7344 revisions so it took about 27 minutes to restore. John Reaves (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't enjoy Paris alot, but yeah, that's pretty brutal if you have to delete to protect and fix content. I salute anyone that can handle such a targeted article. Nate 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton on March 22, 2007, but it was closed as speedy keep, as it was a bad-faith and point nomination. Acalamari 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Deletion?

message: Anyone else think we should edit in (under the sex tape portion) that it (the tape) was and I quote "boring and grainy"? I watched it, and thats just what it was. Boring and grainy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, she has no gag reflex. Now that is talent! Annoyed with fanboys 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  Wikipedia does not want your opinions.  Please see WP:NOR.  --Yamla 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL. Thanks for asking first though. Sloan21 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video was kinda Grainy. 

message: Could anyone please tell why Paris passes the notability guidelines? Salaskan 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple independent reliable sources have published non-trivial coverage of her. Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus her having an album/some singles which made it into the charts, her having her own TV show and having been in multiple movies pretty much indicates that she is notable.-Localzuk(talk) 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability