Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 1

message: I don't understand why I can't find any information on Paris Hilton's brothers, Barron and Conrad.  How old are they?  Most of all-- Who are they?
Sandy June 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Siblings

message: Someone who knows how needs to take down that image of "Paris Hilton on the Cover of Playboy".  That is not her!  It is a look alike they used.  She never posed for Playboy.
:Care to cite a source for that info? Cause it certainly looks like her, Playboy says it's her, so why wouldn't it be her? Dismas|(talk) 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And just because she's on the cover doesn't mean she posed nude in it. 134.114.59.41 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris in Playboy 

message: Paris Hilton should not be labeled a "socialite" on Wikipedia.  To put her in the same line as Brooke Astor and some of the Vanderbilt ladies is just absurd.  Ms. Hilton is not of the same ilk as a "socialite."
:Valid point, but I don't agree.  In the old days the "social pages" of the newspapers were more prominent -- I think -- and average people followed the parties and cruises and so forth of the Astors, Vanderbilts, etc. more closely.  Hilton etc. fulfill that niche now, granted that the Astors et al were a lot more elegant, but times change. Herostratus 08:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialite?

message: ?? Did she lend her voice to the South Park episode, or was it a parody?
* No, Paris Hilton did not voice her character on South Park. Most of the celebrity characters on the show are impersonated (often badly, as the show's opening disclaimer points out), particularly when the portrayal is so unflattering.  Pogo747
* It was hilarious, though. -WindFish 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park

message: Is that image realy encylopedia-appropriate?  It looks more like a catalog image than an actual photo of Paris...but then I don't know Paris well.  Something about the image looks cheesy and a little off-putting. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Issues

message: I guess there's really no need for this sort of disambiguation:
Paris Hilton should not be confused with The Paris Hilton hotel, located at 18 Avenue De Suffren, Paris 75740, France, which is another cheap public accomodation.Sad, though<G>-Nunh-huh 22:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: My apologies for screwing up the spelling of Rick Salomon's name. I saw it spelled Solomon in a newspaper and I mistakenly assumed it was misspelled with an "a". I should have done more verification (although I see there are several hundred thousand online references that also misspell it Solomon). MK 05:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rick Salomon

message: :Since when does Paris Hilton have a "credible" acting career?  This isn't even a matter of personal opinion.  Her cameo in Zoolander was blink and you'll miss, and all of her cameo scenes in Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! were cut from the movie.  A couple cameos and minor roles here and there does not a credible actress make.  Most people don't take her seriously.
::Whether or not people take her seriously, Hollywood appears to be doing so. She had star billing in House of Wax, and according to IMDB has two other films in post-production.  Cleduc 20:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting Career

message: I'm posting this in case there's any further question:
Q. "Is Paris' grandfather Barron Hilton or his brother, Conrad N. "Nicky" Hilton, Jr., 'cause in her book, Paris said Conrad Hilton, Jr., was?"
A. I've looked at Paris' picture book, Confessions of an Heiress: A Tongue-in-Chic Peek Behind the Pose myself, and I would note that she also said, on Page 157, "As I said earlier, it's okay to make up your lineage."
How sad she didn't even mention the name of her grandmother. Perhaps she'd never read it in all the crap that's been written about her. My guess is that Miss Paris has probably given more thought to being an heiress than she has to her family tree.
I've read in several reliable sources that Barron Hilton is her grandfather. There's also the book Paris Hilton: The Naked Truth by George Mair, Chapter 6, "Hilton Family History and Where the Money Came From," which states:
"Two men who had a profound impact on the life Paris Hilton leads today are her great grandfather, Conrad Hilton, and her grandfather, Barron Hilton. Conrad Hilton made the family enormously rich on paper but didn't believe in leaving any money to his heirs. Barron Hilton didn't give a damn what his father thought and circumvented the old man's will and made not only himself rich but his descendants as well, including Paris. If Conrad's will had remained as he left it, Paris today might be asking, 'Would you like fries with that?'"
So, when Conrad Hilton died in 1979 he left most of his wealth to the Catholic Church and other charities, expecting his children to work for theirs. Paris' grandpa, Barron Hilton, contested his father's will and won. Not only did his net worth jump to over $335,000,000, for him and "his descendants," he became the administrator of what the church got. His younger half-sister, Francesca Hilton, daughter of Zsa Zsa, lost her case and got nothing.
Conrad N. "Nicky" Hilton, Jr., was dead since 1969. His family, including wife Patricia, an heiress of Tulsa, Oklahoma, oil millions, got the same from the Conrad Hilton (Sr.) estate as Francesca, nothing. So Paris is not the granddaughter of Nicky and Patricia.
Another source:
Los Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 1964, "Nicky Hilton's Wife Files for Divorce, Custody"
"The second wife of hotel heir Conrad N. (Nicky) Hilton -- former Oklahoma oil heiress Patricia McClintock Hilton -- sued for divorce Monday in Santa Monica Superior Court.
Mrs. Hilton, 26, charged Hilton, 40, with causing her extreme mental and physical suffering. She asked for custody of their children, Conrad Nicholson Hilton, III, 4, and Michael Otis, 2."
So, Conrad Nicholson, III, was born in 1959. Michael was born in 1961. Paris' father's name is Richard "Rick" Hilton. He was born in 1955 and is not either of his 1st cousins.
Another source:
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7, 1960, "Whole Family in Charger Act",
Under the photo:
"CHEERING for the Chargers are, from left, standing, Mrs. Barron Hilton, William, 12; Barron Hilton, Sharon, 6, and David Alan, 8. Seated are, from left, Richard, 5; Hawley Anne, 10, and Steven, 9."
I'd take most of what Paris, or her ghostwriter, said with a pinch of salt.
FredR 05:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Family and other Background

message: Sorry, but I had to delete two links from the page because they were being dis-allowed by the spam filter and I had to revert vandalism. I have had to add spaces to the addresses below or it wouldn't let me post them here either.
*http://www.paris hilton.com
*http://paris- hilton-video.blogspot.com
David Johnson [T|C] 18:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: A recent VFD discussion, raised the question if it was possible, to include text from the article Thats hot somewhere in Paris Hilton as it doesn't provide enough info on its own yet. I request you take a look at the following text by User:69.138.186.210 and incorporate any useful info in the article, leaving an attribution on this talk page.
:Thats Hot-phrase used by Simple Life Star, Paris Whitney Hilton. It is also common phrase used by teenagers and young adults. Term is commonly used by Paris Hilton on the reality show Simple Life when referring to objects, events, people, or situations Paris thinks are "cool" or in her case "hot". Term could be used for practically anything as does in the Simple Life. After asking a store worker what his name was, Paris replied, "Thats Hot." Today shirts can be bought from the very saying Paris Hilton made popular. Shirts read "Thats Hot" on the front and "You're Not!" on the back. Today the phrase is used by many teenagers when referring to "hot girls", "hot guys", "hot articles of clothing", or even "hot situations." Critcs refer to her as a bimbo and believe she is only using the term to sound young and cool. Paris Hilton changed a saying used by only her to a saying used by many americans in their conversational language. However, others believe she is a strong symbol for females succeeding in a mans world. Many of Paris' fans envy her and as a result change their behavior and conversational language to be closer to hers. After the phrase became mainstream, various opportunities opened up for Paris Hilton. Her reality TV show became a success.Confessions of an Heiress became one of the New York Times Best sellers. Paris Hilton was asked to host several award shows and take roles in several movies. While some use the phrase as means of conversation, others criticize for the amount of generality and lack of explicity. Others refuse to use the phrase because of the life style of founder.
-- Mgm|(talk) 13:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I cannot possibly see what value that adds to the article. She has a catchphrase, so? I read it for anything else of value and I see nothing, except possibly the short bit on Confessions of an Heiress. --Golbez 18:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Why was she able to copywright "that's hot"?? She didn't event it, technically Nicole Richie said it before her.  It's a common colloquialism that people have been saying since the 1960's.  Lil' John popularized "Yeah!" and "Okay!" but he's not going to copywright THAT.  How stupid is that?
:Check out copyright.  Anyone can copyright anything in the USA.  For instance, I can combine three random words and copyright them:  "Mongoose flyswatter lemonade", (C) Kasreyn 2006.  Thing is, if you actually want to make someone pay you for using it, you need to come up with proof in court that it was your creation.  Don't worry about it.  Hilton doesn't have a prayer of convincing a judge that she ought to be paid when someone else says "that's hot".  Claiming it's copyright is nothing but a vain conceit.  What judges care about are when someone's published work is being duplicated by someone else without paying royalties.  I'm sure there are thousands of examples of people publishing "that's hot" before Hilton, so, hot as it is, don't sweat it.  ;)  -Kasreyn 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, I just realized that I now have a much more reasonable claim to "mongoose flyswatter lemonade" than Paris has to "that's hot".  *grin*  -Kasreyn 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's Hot 

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that she's gay, it says that she's a gay icon.  See the difference?  Additionally, "gay" is an adjective for both sexes.  It's normally used as a noun, e.g. "Many gays and lesbians had a celebration outside a Massachusetts court house today...", when referring to the males in the group. Dismas 09:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: How to include in the article, the fact, which is relevant to hackers and programmers, the fact that (pictures of) Ms. Hilton were cited by Joel Spolsky, in his seminal article, How Microsoft Lost the API War, as one of the raisons d'etre of the Internet.
Later: I made this comment about 3 months ago. Thanks for answering folks? Was it a silly question?!!
:I think the problem is that nobody knows the answer. I for one haven't even read that article, or even heard of it before now. Everyking 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Joel Spolsky

message: Lets face it. Paris Hilton is very very famous. There is more written about her in the newspapers now than there was about Eisenhower immediately after D Day. Every country I go to has her on the front page. So I guess that rates her as a pop icon. There is sure more written about PH than Madonna (I mean the last 20th Century one). The first century Madonna is probably bigger now then the new one! The only woman I can remember them making a fuss over like PH is Grace Kelly, and she did not have the staying power of PH. Paris Hilton is a phenomenon> To think of an equally famous (and devastingly beautiful) woman, you may have to go all the way back to Helen of Troy. Wallie 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that doesn't qualify her as an icon. She is, right now, one of the most famous celebrities in the world, but in order to be an icon, she would have to occupy a position in society which she currently does not. I fail to see how she is a pop icon any more than Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsey Lohan, or any other of a number of attractive young women who become very high profile for a couple of years. She has not ascended to the same status as Marylin Monroe, James Dean etc.--Victim Of Fate 17:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fame 

message: I just tried to go to "View this article" from the talk page and got this message in my browser: "The document contained no data." Sums her up very well. Her Pegship 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This says it all 

message: Wallie removed the phrase about Hilton frequently being called a celebutante, ie "famous for being famous" as being unsourced and POV.  I partially agree.  Clearly, the term is in use.  Googling on "Paris Hilton" + celebutante returns more than 18,000 hits.  Some of them are notable sources.  Therefore, I restored the word celebutante and provided a notable source for its use.  However, it is not clear to me how this equates to being "famous for being famous", so I left that part out.  Also, I'm not sure this fact belongs in the intro.  We may want to find a better place in the article.  I've left it in the intro for now simply because the intro is too short already and I don't want to make it shorter. Johntex\talk 22:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "frequently" could be seen as a weasel word that requires us to make a judgement about what qualifies as "frequent" compared to "sometimes" or "seldom" or "almost all the time".  I don't think the word adds much so I dropped it. Johntex\talk 22:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebutante

message: After I get through with the POV and NOR that you mentioned, Golbez, there won't be much left of this article. Most of it is POV (negative) and not referenced, Golbez!  Wallie 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I ceased communicating with you. You still obsess over me, as evidenced as using my name twice in two sentences. Please stop. --Golbez 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article

message: Is this category some kind of attack or other silliness?  Friday (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's no mention of anything animal welfare related in the article, I've removed this for now.   If it was supposed to be there, I won't be remotely offended if anyone puts it back, but there should be something in the article that makes it clear how it's relevant. Friday (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It's there now, plus a nice reliable reference. And I put back the catgory. Wallie 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost any celebrity will have some kind of connection to various causes.  What's in the article now is about her signing one protest letter and wearing a sweatshirt.  To me, this doesn't look like enough to classify her as an animal welfare activist, if that's what the category is meant to imply.  Would anyone researching animal welfare care about Paris Hilton?  If the answer is likely no, I'd say the category should go away.  Friday (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday. Methinks you may be somewhat against this lady. Maybe a touch POV???  You seem to readily accept that she is a porn star, which is part of the overview... Wallie 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I will also remove the animal welfare category. I agree that she is probably a lightweight candidate in this area to date. Scottish Americans has gone too, as she doesn't have a Scots accent. Wallie 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal welfare? 

message: She was in a car crash yesterday. They tried to flee papa razzi in their luxury Bentley, driving with their bomber jacket over their heads to avoid photos and so hit a gravel truck. The whole thing was captured on video and is circulating all over the Internet. They were all badly drunk and drove away from the scene, which made the police detain them. She was not hurt at all, especially her head was well protected since she has an air bag inside her skull instead of a brain ...  aka airhead bimbo.
Here is the video:
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1426945
:Interesting. The paparazzi pestered Princess Diana too. I will never forgive them. They killed her. POV? Yes definitely. However, there are plenty that think the way I do.  Wallie 16:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason for this kind of stuff on the talk page, unless it's relevant to the article.  Calling her the "porn barbie" here is not helpful.  Friday (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car crash fails to eliminate the Porn Barbie. 

message: This article is conflicting. In one section it reads "In the March 2005 issue of Playboy, she was named the "Sex Star of the Year" in their list of the 25 Sexiest Celebrities. Someone appearing to be her was on the cover of the issue, but she did not pose for it; she says she does not know where Playboy got that picture". However, the caption of the Playboy cover says that it is in fact Hilton. This needs to be fixed.
:You're welcome to. --Golbez 03:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Playboy Cover 

message: There ave been numerous images given to this artcle, so well done. But I would like to ask why when the main image (the up-most picture, at the opening paragraph) is constantly removed when another is added? There is the one in the yellow tracksuit top, then there is the one (current) in which she is dressed in a pink top. So why are they constantly being removed and added then finally removed again? --Kilo-Lima 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images on the article

message: :*Her general IQ is 83. 
Can we have some sources for that?  83 is terribly low and would categorise as definate mental retardation.  She seems to show no signs of such a level of retardation, therefore I hold that figure with a fair bit of skepticism.  I have removed the statement in the meantime.  Jachin 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I notice, however, that the statement is now back.  I believe it should be removed again because it has no citation.  Does anyone disagree? --Takeel 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia: Paris Hilton's IQ

message: I have removed this due to the fact that it is gossip. Is this really the stuff we want to see in an Encyclopedia? Wallie 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Address Book

message: Where are they? This article is full of uncited text. There are all sorts of "facts" documented, but nothing to back it up. We should either get the references or start removing the offending text. Wallie 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References....

message: I just had text that I had put up for being copyvio, please don't do that again. All I was doing was quoting from an article that the person who reverted me had put up himself. I just want to explain to everyone out there that this particular person has some personal agenda, which has me confused. I have also thought that this article was heavily weighted against Paris Hilton. It is clear that quite a few people out there obviously hate her, and this is clouding their judgement. I believe that some positive comments are OK as well. But if any positive remarks are made, a certain person comes up with a creative excuse to remove them. Wallie 14:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over yourself; quotes are of course allowed to be put verbatim, but you also pasted the context verbatim as well. You may also notice that the quote WASN'T REMOVED. So your martyrdom is not only misplaced, but wholly irrelevant. --Golbez 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?