Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 2

message: Link to Cause célèbre?
<BR>24.4.10.67 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause Célèbre

message: "unwitting porn star"?  ;-)  -Kasreyn 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not funny--Hotwiki 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny or not, it's a lot more legitimate reason to even have an article than all this "entrepreneur" and "singer" crap.  The reason the world knows her name is for the sex tape, not for anything she's done in broad daylight.  There's a difference between fame and notoriety.  For instance, Wil Wheaton is a lot more famous as "Wesley" from Star Trek than he is for anything he's done since, much to his dismay - but he can't change that, it's simply the nature of being a celebrity.  The nature of Paris Hilton's notoriety is that it arose from the sex tape.  I think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to point out the specific things that brought a celebrity into the spotlight - whether that spotlight is white or night-vision green.  :P  -Kasreyn 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with nothing you said. "Unwitting porn star" lol it only means that you hate her--Hotwiki 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate?  Why would I waste my energy hating someone as unimportant as her?  I may have chosen to say it in an ironic way, but I meant what I said - the only reason so many people even care about her is because of her sex tape.  From the viewpoint of wikipedia, it's the most important detail of her life.  -Kasreyn 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unimportant as her? I see --Hotwiki 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about... 

message: I submit that it *is* worth reporting if it turns out to be true that Hilton has made racial slurs.  Those who defend her in this article seem to be convinced she's wholesome, wonderful, and a good role model.  Therefore it's highly suspect when they remove an allegation that she may have done something that leaves a rather different impression.  It's in the nature of celebrities for some people to see them as role models, and for there to be a public debate over their personal character.  The allegations of Ms. Hilton using racial slurs speak directly to that public debate.
Of course, I don't know anything about the veracity or reliability of the "New York Daily News" or "Drunk Report", so I still have my doubts about the allegations.  If someone can show that those publications are not reliable sources, I'll be the first to remove the allegations against Ms. Hilton, but they will not be removed because "anyone could have said that".  Paris Hilton is not just anyone, she is a celebrity.  Therefore a higher standard of scrutiny is proper.  If she were "anyone", she would not have her very own article on Wikipedia.  :P  -Kasreyn 13:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the links be simply numbered rather than named, to fit in with the rest of the page style? --Rhi 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no problem with that, as long as they're all there.  The order in which they're listed really is a non-issue in my eyes.  -Kasreyn 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What tape? There is no tape. We're also neglecting to mention that Paris has since been seen spending a holiday with Brandon Davis, and on several outings with him in L.A, so he can't have ended the friendship for too long. 203.49.212.13 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not reporting on the tape.  We are reporting on what Carol Aye Maung said, and what Davis said.  AFAIK none of us editing this article has viewed the tape.  That's immaterial, however.  -Kasreyn 17:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of racial slurs 

message: With the current disputes seeming to have been resolved or at least moving that way, should we move on to archiving the earlier talk page discussions? It's at 68 kilobytes now which is twice the recommended size. I could just do it, but I don't want to appear to be trying to take over here. Does anyone else want to? --Rhi 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving sounds ok to me. --Rob 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend keeping the discussion sections on racism allegations and porn star category, though.  Those are still being vandalized and/or reverted on a regular basis, which to me indicates they're not resolved yet.  Cheers,  Kasreyn 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've archived it to /Archive 1. Jude(talk,contribs) 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive the talk page?

message: I'd give you a barnstar, but I don't know how.  :)  -Kasreyn 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Barnstar--hottie 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  :)  -Kasreyn 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If I say something nasty about Paris, will you give me a barnstar too? Well, I won't as I do have some principles. Wallie 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a fool.  I gave Yamla a barnstar for his diligent work reverting vandalism.  I noticed it from this page, but then checked his contribs and saw that he spends even more time than me reverting vandals, which deserves merit.  You, on the other hand, seem to focus narrowly on defending your Hilton goddess; that, and leaping to incorrect conclusions.  In short, you'd be best advised to engage your brain before your mouth the next time you think it's time to judge someone.  -Kasreyn 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be a fool. But at least I am not a nasty person, so probably won't get your barnstar (sob sob). Anyhow, this should be a discussion about Paris Hilton, and not about vanadalism and barnstars. I would say that you could follow your own advice. That would be nice. Wallie 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, because if I remember correctly, from about three paragraphs above, you were the one who started shit.  I was just making a very short comment to Yamla, and receiving a very short and helpful answer from hotwiki, who unlike you can be civil to people he disagrees with.  -Kasreyn 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk tsk. Swearing too. Perhaps you need to attend a good anger management course. I could recommend one if you like. The expert may advise you to direct your energies away from Paris and me to a more beneficial cause. Wallie 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User Wallie should stop protecting his "lady-luv" and try helping the others clean up acts of vandalism or atleast stop giving the others a hard time for giving accurate verifiable facts. Your infatuation with Paris Hilton is very POV. I think this article is very good information. 59.93.242.77 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you, Yamla. 

message: This article is becoming vengeful and hateful. To my mind, it has no place the way it is in Wikipedia. The thing that really worries me is that so many admins (ie, the Senior Management of Wikipedia) are contributing to/condoning this.Wallie 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind explaining what you're talking about? --Golbez 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The article is unprofessional and I think you know it too. You also know what I am talking about too. Admins, including yourself have repeatedly reversed any text which attempts to redress the obvious bias of this article. I honestly believe that you and others are trying to take positions and win arguments, by any means, rather than actually trying to improve Wikipedia. Quite frankly I am rather annoyed about this. Wallie 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits tend to replace one bias with another. Show me an example of an edit made to shift it to a neutral POV that someone reverted, please. --Golbez 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I have attempted to put some other points in the section "Controversies". These are not "controversies" but an out and out character assasinations. It is horrible. As I mentioned to you earlier, I would not like this said about my daughter, who similar in age to Paris. You replied by calling my daughter "vaucous slut", I seem to remember. I was surprised at this comment, given your very senior position in  Wikipedia. I remember that this section once said that Paris had racist attitudes towards Nicole Richie. And yet hidden away in this article somewhere, Nicole is now defending her, saying that she is not! Again, I don't think that you want to improve things. I believe that you just want to cause trouble.  Wallie 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deliberately took my comment the wrong way. As for the controversies, I'm removing the racial slur one - it's such a minor incident, it doesn't bear mentioning here. The other ones are backed up either by a lawsuit/restraining order, or considerable press. This got almost no press at all. --Golbez 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. Good luck. I think you will be reverted too, if you try to remove the racial slur. As for the considerable press, this is mostly from gossip columnists and disruptable tabloid newspaper employees. Can you really imagine that these "stories" would appear in Encyclopedia Brittanica? I think you the wrong idea about me too. I just hate character assassinations, especially accusing people of racism. Usually in my experience, people who call others racist are the real racists themselves. Wallie 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is someone going to be a racist in this situation? It was a controversy, and you have been informed not to remove large portions of the article anymore. Stop making legal threats against me, because it's not going to work, and you can't sue someone my age. Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A real pity

message: Tere is a broken-link reference to a document that is not on the ESPN site anymore.
↑  Gary, Crary Activists campaign against seal hunt February 2, 2004 ESPN.
--200.126.147.39 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Golbez, I fail to see how a discussion between you and Wallie counts as consensus.  I've been absent for a few days and I find that he has blanked a section and the article is protected.  So I'm asking you to restore the section.  You never replied to my comments above on why Paris Hilton's behavior is notable (her status as a role model); can I take that to mean that you agree?  If so, surely you will agree that such allegations about a role model are notable.  I'm not asking for the protection to be removed, mind you; I know how bad the vandals have been recently.  But the section should be restored.  -Kasreyn 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet been convinced that just because she's notable that this, charged by a tabloid reporter and backed up, so far as I can tell, by no other reputable news source, is worth a mention in the great Wikipedia. Can you find corroboration that doesn't cite this reporter? However, as I said above, "I will not continue to remove it; discussion was spurred." That doesn't mean I'll add it, either. I've withdrawn from the argument. Also, read the protection message more carefully - it only prevents anonymous IPs from editing. You can edit to your heart's content. And no, I don't agree that she's a role model, except for, well, vacuous sluts. :) --Golbez 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think it matters so much that she's been charged by an unreliable source, i think what matters is that the allegations brought by the unreliable source has had noticeable effect on society, since a lot of people know about the controversy. Theconroy 05:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore section:  allegations of racism 

message: I feel that it was unjust to delete the trivia page of this article as Paris Hilton WAS recently voted most pointless celebrity, and was not a way for me it to get my fellings across about Paris Hilton's celebrity status.--Dobby 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore section: Trivia 

message: this fact should be included, and why the hell is this page still locked??? SOMEone is watching...
:What fact? She has a lazy eye? How on earth is that remotely notable? And it's only locked to new and anonymous users. --Golbez 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lazy Eye

message: I've removed a line asserting that Paris was a waitress "before finding fame".  I assume it was added as vandalism (or foolishness), but if not, it was certainly unsourced.  I have a hard time believing that an heir to the Hilton Hotel fortune would ever do any time as a common wage-slave.  But, if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to reinsert it if there's proof.
I've also removed some original research about the reasons for Paris and Sydney's naming.  We can't say why they were named unless we have a quote from their parents.  Besides, both names were human names long, long before they were names of cities.  (Both, of course, were and are men's names, though Sydney is a bit more androgynous.)
I'm also wondering exactly *why* we spend time on Sydney.  How is she notable?  Was her performance clearly and deliberately intended as a parody of Paris Hilton, or just in the opinion of whoever added her?  Can we get a source?  Kasreyn 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember if it was I who added Sydney Drew as a prody of Paris Hilton (it could've been, not sure) but it is certainly true, and blatantly obvious if you watch the show.Pazuzu567 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two removals 

message: I see you have reverted me yet again (boring). You seem to think it is fair enough to refer to black people as "African-Americans" and not by their names. White people usually don't get referred to by some collective name. Therefore it is only correct to do the same for white people, and refer to them as "European-Americans", as they come from Europe. It is not "pedantry". It is called NPOV. I really get sick of this term "African-Americans", when they should be simply called "Americans" in most contexts. Wallie 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would not be news if she had called white folk 'niggers'. (Not saying that it is news that she called black folk, but you see my point) You could simply remove the friend's name, but it's pedantic to point out his race. --Golbez 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, again 

message: Much of the article, especially the section on Controveries is sourced from tabloid newspapers, scandal sheets, and gossip columnists. They print material, which is often unsubstantiated. The allegations in the section, require proof. In my belief, someone has just made up some of these stories. I cannot see any article from a reliable newspaper. This whole section, heavily POV laden, is full of citations which do not support what is being stated in the article, and in some cases, no longer exist! Wallie 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I reverted it based on the edit summaries.  For instance, "To say she is the worst dog owner ever is plain false. She is not seen often with her dog Tinkerbell either - also false. Do not pint lies.)"  First part first, "To say she is the worst dog owner ever is plain false."  If that's what the poll said, that's what it said.  Is it subjective, yes.  But then what poll isn't?  If we put in George W. Bush's article that polls say he's the worst president ever, that wouldn't be taken out because it's "false".  It was a poll!  That was the result!  The only way a poll can be false is if the data were tampered with.  Secondly, PH is still known for carrying a dog with her.  She may not do it anymore but she did and was known for it.  Should we also remove info about Betty Page doing pinup shots since she doesn't do it anymore?
And as for celebvilla being reliable or not, I don't know.  Although I could see how you would doubt a gossip rag if they said person A was dating person B just because they were seen at the same club or whatever but in this case, all they did was read what NYDog had to say and reprinted it.  And NYDog seems reputable, no?
The dog was a big part of her image, so basically I don't see why removing info about the dog and PH isn't notable.  Dismas|(talk) 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NYDog seems reputable. I don't think so. That's where we disagree. You will of course say this is POV on my part. However, it is probably the most reputable source for this article. But what has it got to do with polls about dogs???     Wallie 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is not that the poll is "false".  Please refer to WP:NOTABILITY.  Kasreyn 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The discussion refers to Hilton's toy dog Tinkerbell.  Kasreyn 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst dog owner 

message: "Requires cleanup"? No shit.
:There are four pictures in the article.  We don't need any more.  --Yamla 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we coul do with some replacement pictures, honestly. The cover of One Night in Paris and Playboy...? Seriously, we could do better. Why not one of her 'Guess Jeans' photos or the cover of her book? Pazuzu567 03:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because that wouldn't be fair-use.  --Yamla 03:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've heard that there is some controversy over whether that's even Paris on that Playboy cover.  Does anyone know if it's really her?  I'm not sure.  Kasreyn 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article addresses this; no one knows. --Golbez 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the picture!! 

message: This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia policies as illustrated here.  Unfortunately, as some, including Kasreyn have pointed out, reliable sources are hard to find. But find them we must! I do feel, as I have pointed out in the past, that gossip sources, etc. are not reliable. Always remember that this is meant to be an encyclopedia, and should not be presented like a wanted poster. Wallie 13:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Please stop adding uncited, speculative/fake release dates for the album. There is no confirmed release date. The closest we've gotten is Paris apparently saying "September" on Ellen. 
The date on the HMV UK website is also not worth noting as a source, as it says To Be Confirmed all over it, meaning that, surprisingly enough people, the release date is not confirmed. At all. 
If tabloids are to be believed, Paris hasn't even finished recording all the tracks for the album.  Pazuzu567 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbeleivable! People still quoting HMV, not even getting the correct release date off that site, and don't even know how to cite sources. To anyone who updates Singer or Discography with totally unconfirmed release dates: What are you even doing here? Pazuzu567 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to make this any clearer. The release date on HMV is not confirmed. Stop adding it. Pazuzu567 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: Quote from WP:Reliable source...
Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.
Please have a look at the above. It is very clear in its statement. The is much "unverified material" and conjecture in the various sources, themselves from unrealiable sources. In addition, the article contravenes all sorts of other tenets in the WP:Reliable source directive and other directives too. As you know, I have never been happy about parts of this article. I cannot see why we persist with this "critical, negative or harmful" stuff. Thank you. Wallie 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source

message: "Paris Hilton is of German and Norwegian ancestry"
Her great-great grandparents on her father's side were German and Norwegian. At the risk of sounding pedantic, isn't such a connection a bit too distant to warrant a mention? It would be more accurate to classify her as of primarily British ancestry.
:In fact, it's debatable and unimportant, so it's better off gone. - Nunh-huh 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: I dont mean to be picky, but the box at the top of the page says "musical artist".  I realize she had some tracks leaked on the internet and a video on MTV, but I think she is still better known for that reality tv show, so shouldn't it be "Reality Television Star" ? Dowew 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with that.  It was in connection with reality TV that I first heard of her.  I would dispute the idea that Wikipedia should meekly go along with it when someone pays a studio a lot of money to declare themself a musician.  As with any form of art, achievement is measured by critical review, not by money spent.  Kasreyn 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More pedantically, shouldn't it be music artist or musician? ;)  Actually, I tend to agree with Kasreyn; a handful of "tracks" does not one a "musical artist" make.  It seems to be an unmerited accolade/title.Mohsin.Siddiqui 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the box at the top should be edited. She is not generally concidered a "musical artist" and - I just checked - pretty much no A-list actors has more than two entries (born, occupation) in these boxes. -- EnemyOfTheState 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Artist ? 

message: Why isn't he sex tape mentioned? --DragonWR12LB 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sex tape is mentioned. Controversies are useless. Doesn't matter how "interesting" they are, Wikipedia is not a news site. They added little/nothing to the overall, and detract from it as an Encyclopedia-esque article. They were debated constatnly, and were not worth keeping around. The sex tape is mentioned, and that's it. Nothing else needs to be said. Celebrity-Benji 04:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think more than a mere mention is needed, since it's one of the most important events in her life which the public are aware of, as well as one of the most controversial and commented-on.  Kasreyn 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A mere mention is all that is needed. This is not the 1 Night in Paris article. If you want to provide more info on the tape, go edit that. It is mentioned in her background; we are acknowledging that it is, in your words an "important event", and sure, maybe it even helped her career, but the tape itself has it's own article, no more information on it need be plastered in this article. This article is already considered too long, so if we're comparing the mention of the sex tape to the mention of her perfume for example, I acknowledge that perhaps the section on her perfume could use some tidying/shortening. Celebrity-Benji 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please learn how to sign your posts. The instructions are at the top of the page. It's not that hard. Celebrity-Benji 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Night in Paris 

message: I have now done alot more cleaning up of the article, have cut some of the sections down that were very overly-descriptive, etc. Celebrity-Benji 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Cleanup 

message: As Coltonblue has recently added an NPOV-section tag to the article, it falls upon him to explain what in that particular section constitutes a violation of NPOV in order for the tag to remain.  Care to fill us in with some specifics, Colton?  Kasreyn 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. I'm inclined to remove it. Celebrity-Benji 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A remark was slipped in about her prancing about like the "tramp" she was. Sound neutral to you? Coltonblue 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will be pleased to note that I personally removed the "like the tramp she is" remark myself.  And thanks to Pazuzu's suggestion with a little help from me, the entire description of her music video has been moved to the article on Stars Are Blind.  Will that be all?  Kasreyn 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it will. Didn't notice that you had. No need to get all pissy. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar... though you might not necessarily want flies... O.O Coltonblue 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; sorry for my tone.  But, I really do want to know:  are there still NPOV problems with the section?  Kasreyn 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section 

message: Im certained she had Norweigan blood in her. Has someone also removed the Norwegian-American template?
:Why? Has she had a blood transfusion in Norway recently? Wallie 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritage 

message: I removed joining this with the first tape as objectional, since I dont consider the Sex  objectionable (at least not with Paris!). I'm sure nobodys kicked her out of bed for eating crackers
Has anybody here actually seen this second tape? This sounds like an unverifiable slanderous  rumor which anybody could claim against anybody .I have seen the first tape and I know it exists.
If this tape really existed it would worth millions and be all over the internet. I really think this should be removed as it is most likely false based upon what we know what would happen to the tape if it really existed. For all we know it was a stand in double like the double they used for the Playboy cover(Doug rosenberg 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tape was rumour reported in tabloids, with an apparent confirmation by someone who is actually friends with Hilton. Yeah...  The controversies were removed. The racism allegations are not important, and very unlikely to be true. It's gone now. It'll stay gone. Celebrity-Benji 10:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to see someone who knows how to play a dumb blonde, rent one of Ellen DeGeneres's HBO specials.  I don't think Paris is playing.  Kasreyn 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dumb Nigger" Tape

message: How are parodies a career? Removed. Celebrity-Benji 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parodies"? 

message: Paris Hilton has had surgery, allegedly.  Can anyone confirm this?????
:No, because it's only a theory. There is no evidence. Celebrity-Benji 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Surgery 

message: I think the "low end" phrase is unesacary. To me, that implies bargain bin, when that wasn't the idea. The idea was to make the jewelery "look expensive", yet be affordable for Hilton's young fans. That is why I removed it. It could probably be described in a better fashion. Perhaps we could remove "low end" and describe how the idea was to make the jewelery "affordable". Celebrity-Benji 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only added it to balance "high-end" in description of the handbags, but I see this has been removed.  I would be amenable to your proposed change.  "Affordable" also works.  Kasreyn 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "low-end" Jewelery 

message: So, shouldn't they be edited in? I have a few up my sleeve... Sarnath 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Golbez 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: absolutely not.--SweetNeo85 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton Jokes 

message: Aren't they related???
: No.Celebrity-Benji 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyler Hilton??? 

message: why  on earth is there a 48, now 49, point discussion on a: boring, materialistic and painfully idiotic woman? The interest our society places on her is symptomatic of a signifigant failing in society. How is it possible that the Iraq war, something that is obviously far more important than this neuortic fool, only has a 14 point discussion whist trash 'celebs' like Hilton have lengthy discussions, concerning frivalous facts like her ridiculously named dog Tinkerbell? I'm very concerned,I think this article should be deleted altogether.
:Umm... Talk: Iraq War has three archive pages, totalling 101 sections between them, plus the 14 current equals 115 sections.  So yes, Paris Hilton is getting disproportionately too much discussion, but not by as much as you suggest.  Kasreyn 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the length of this discussion?