Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 6

message: since the article is currently protected, without notice whatsoever by anyone, I encourage the person responsible for that to offer a short explanation as to why, how long and to whom that applies. Thanks. Tullius2 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically articles are protected when they have been subjected to vandalism.  In this case, Paris Hilton is a hot topic of controversy right now, so apparently this article is attracting the pranksters.  It's not fully protected, however; you just have to  be an "established user," meaning you've been editing on Wikipedia for a while.  I have no problems editing.  And as for how long the protection will last, the answer is until someone removes the template. ;-) --Nonstopdrivel 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define "a while." Is it safe to assume there might be exceptions to a set amount of time? William (Bill) Bean 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to be able to edit a semi-protected page, you have to have a user account no less than 4 days old. This, among other things, stops people from having their account blocked for vandalism, then repeatedly creating new accounts to vandalise the same article, each one being blocked in turn. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I am suprised to see no mention of the Paris Hilton hotel, which for a long time was prominently marketed under the name "Paris Hilton", although it has been downplaying that recently. It even carried the name "Paris Hilton" on the front.
http://www.tomorrowland.org/photos/uncategorized/hilton_hotel_paris_2.jpg
It came back into prominence when some smart person realised that he literally could have "one night in Paris Hilton". 161.73.37.81 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hotel 

message: The only credible thing I could find on Paris Hilton undergoing a miscarriage is an ABC news story saying that she is suing a web site operator for publishing this story. According to the story, the only link between Paris Hilton and the person who had the miscarriage, Amber Taylor, is that the two have the same birthdate. In my opinion, not sufficient for including on Wikipedia (and certainly not in the article's abstract). --However whatever 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscarriage 

message: The introduction of this article is inaccurate in implying that the sex video was the beginning of her fame;
she was already famous before that. The sex video was infamous specifically because she was already a public figure! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.20.96 (talk • contribs).
: I don't agree, I believe it is totaly accurate. The sex tape is the major reason for her being catapulted into the lime-light.WacoJacko 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WacoJacko, Paris was your run-of-the-mill debutante until "One Night in Paris" was leaked.  She's the quintessential person who is "famous for being famous"; the tape made her name a household word, though, ironically, the only reason the tape is significant is because it's of hotel heiress Paris Hilton. Nolefan32 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with WacoJacko and Nolefan32. Paris was well known, at least in California, long before the sex video even appeared via virus video. William (Bill) Bean 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ...What? The article clearly says (as of your edit to this talk page), "Her younger sister is Nicky Hilton, and her younger brothers are Barron Hilton II, and Conrad Hilton III.". Perhaps you misread the article? --Dreaded Walrus  t c 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: The "in popular culture" section should include info on the south park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset, which is largely centered around paris hilton. its pretty much along the same lines as whats in the "in popular culture" section already
70.107.41.38 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: Posters on Fornits have identified her as one of the inmates at CEDU - a now closed and feared private prison for so-called troubled teens. As it is common in this line of business, she was first committed by her parents to a boot camp in the desert (the nice word is Wilderness therapy called Ascent in order to be broken.
She ran away from CEDU and was instead imprisoned at a facility in Utah, but there seems to be some confusion of the name of this facility - was it Provo Canyon School or Cross Creek programs ?
Covergaard 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Ascent and CEDU, where was she jailed? 

message: For 'medical reasons', apparently.  this should probably be added to the article, somewhere or other. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, I see it's in there already. Ignore me. :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's from wwtdd.com, which is not a reliable source (especially since it says "not true"). DS 13:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released from jail 

message: As I have been looking over the edit history of both the article and the talk page, it strikes me that any negative information whatsoever is being systematically deleted. Even discussion of including the fact that the media criticizes Miss Hilton have been deleted quite quickly.
It seems that there are a group of people here who are intent on stifling any discussion about the issue, weather they be fans, or something else.
Can anything be done about this?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.79.17 (talk • contribs) 
:Negative information, especially controversial material, about living persons needs to be well sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of negative information 

message: Being one of the most talked about celebrities, also leads onto her being heavily criticized by various (reputable) media outlets.
Read any non-gossip news source and they usually slide in some derogatory remark about her perceived image and public behavior, So why isn't it even mentioned here?
(There was even a whole episode of south park more or less directed at her)
Most anyone that can recognize her name would acknowledge that at the very least she generates above average lampooning from the reputable press.
So, my question is: Why isn't there even the slightest mention of any of this in the article?
I am simply saying that describing her relationship with non-gossip magazines is fact, and most certainly not personal opinion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.79.17 (talk • contribs) 
:We are IMHO talking Jante Law here, but I am afraid this will be a theory and not a fact...Greswik 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: . Newspaper98 19:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, though?  I've just checked Google News and nobody else is reporting this, which seems a little odd.  Exploding Boy 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She gone! Check CNN, Fox, etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.186.70 (talk • contribs).
BBC News, too:  --Dreaded Walrus  t c 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually considered moving this page to Publicity Stunts. However, that would've been a PoV move. So, I won't do it. GoodDay 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's going back to jail! 

message: This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is not for idle gossip about the subject of the article. Take that to a forum. I WILL be happy to block anyone who continues to violate this. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE 

message: That section is clearly made to give Ms. Hilton a bad name in the media. It needs to be cleaned up, somehow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise48 (talk • contribs) 
*The information in that section is accurate and sourced. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT 151.197.193.94 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the Popular Culture 

message: That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.188.144.213 (talk • contribs).
: I most definitely concurr with you on that....does seem a bit of a stretch.WacoJacko 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? She's recorded an album that placed reasonably high in the charts, which indicates that she is a recording artist. Can you explain why she isn't a recording artist, despite having recorded an album?-Localzuk(talk) 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you say 'somewhat unsuccessful'? It reached into the top 10 in a variety of charts and sold ~600,000 copies. Also, as it was only released mid 2006 and she's pretty much screwed her life up since then, there is the possibility that she would release another (god help us!). The title is appropriate IMO.-Localzuk(talk) 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this assessment.  "Recording artist" implies some sort of ongoing activity.  A better description of Hilton would be "one-hit wonder" -- and from discussions I heard on various media outlets, it appears that a large proportion of her sales were fueled largely by desire for comical relief.  People just wanted to laugh at how bad she was.  Hilton's album brought her ridicule, not acclaim. --Nonstopdrivel 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paris Hilton recorded an album which charted in no fewer than 25 countries, including the U.S., and had singles that hit #1 in nine countries, again including the U.S., with accompanying music videos that continue to have global play, along with the music tracks.  The album is being distributed by one of the big four music companies and she has co-writing credit on several of the songs.  By virtue of the release of this one album, she is a recording artist, regardless of its success or your opinion of the music itself.  However, the album has overall had moderate success and some notable positive reviews (All Music Guide: "Make no mistake, Paris is a very good pop album, at times deliberately reminiscent of Blondie, Madonna, and Gwen Stefani..." and "...track-for-track it's more fun than anything released by Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson, and a lot fresher, too.")  Since when is it required to have a runaway smash hit album (specifically in the U.S.) that is universally critically acclaimed or the promise of a follow-up just to qualify someone as a recording artist?  Her label deciding to drop her means nothing--Mariah Carey (the best selling female pop artist of all time) was famously dropped by Virgin Records.  Hilton's album is currently in release and it continues to chart worldwide.  It should be fairly obvious that yes, Paris Hilton is a recording artist.  WorthWatching 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A cogent, well-thought-out response, WorthWatching.  You may rest assured, however, that there is no currently serious effort afoot to remove the "recording artist" title.  I think the rumblings on this talk page are more philosophical griping than anything substantive. --Nonstopdrivel 19:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Some people seem to be missing the point IMHO. This is not about success but that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact that she has screwed up her life from her first album until now and that she's still young etc etc is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we don't prejudge people. She may or may not be a recording artist one day. But it seems to me it's highly questionable if she is one now simply because she's only released one album. Note that success is largely irrelevant her. Even if the album had been the number one since it's release until now she still wouldn't be a recording artist IMHO. If and when she becomes a recording artist then we will retitle the section. Until she does, we're not going to call it that just because some contributors feel she may be one in the future. For example a lot of pop idols from the various idol shows throughout the world have similar careers releasing one or perhaps 2 albums with mild success and everyone soon forgets about them. They're not IMHO recording artists. I would say 3 albums is the minimum before someone could reliably be called a recording artist. Nil Einne 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that seems almost completely arbitrary. Why 3? Why not 2, why not 4? Seems completely random. The fact still remains - she produced an album, she has not stated that she isn't producing any more and we don't have authority on whether or not she will. She is a recording artist unless she says otherwise.-Localzuk(talk) 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording Artist? 

message: "By affirmation of the original length of sentence, Hilton appears to have been punished for Sheriff Baca's decision. Upon hearing the sentence, Hilton shouted, "It's not right!" and started screaming for her mother, who was present in the courtroom. She was then escorted out.[47][48]. However, concern about Hilton's condition has led to her being moved to the medical wing of a Los Angeles jail Paris Hilton ordered to LA jail's medical wing instead of the original jail, but further details have as yet failed to emerge. If a medical condition is indeed established as fact, questions may be raised as to the refusal of the judge to hear the briefing, and indeed the overall motivation to specifically exclude an individual from an established prison management approach."
Comment: This section is just speculation, and in urgent need of a legal experts attention. It may be the way that Paris should have argued her special circumstances to not be jailed in the original sentencing - and hence the Judge would obviously be doing the right thing now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.1.141 (talk • contribs).
::This is not what is indicated in the newspaper accounts.  She's already received credit for 6 days, although she only spent three in jail.  If she behaves herself, she'll still get time knocked off her sentence for good behaviour (by my calculations she'll end up spending 28 days in jail instead of 23, but I could be completely wrong).  
::As to her alleged medical condition, several newspapers hinted that it was a possible nervous breakdown.  That's only speculation, but as the judge pointed out, the jail has top of the line medical facilities.  As others pointed out, inmates who have very serious medical problems (including AIDS, those needing dialysis, cancer) aren't released to their homes; why should Paris Hilton be?  Exploding Boy 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: The page is locked. Should we add the following external links on Paris's case? They are primary texts.
Paris Hilton's DUI Charges (People v. Hilton)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp.html
Motion to Revoke Probation (Calif. v. Hilton)
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton43007mot.html
Thanks www.latimes.com for giving the hyperlinks to the case in their website.Gaia2767spm 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally prefer secondary sources to primary sources as it leads to less interpretation, and as we have a multitude of sources for this information already there is no real need to add these. -Localzuk(talk) 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Errr, no.  --Yamla 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: If you go to the title in the article called "Sheriff hints at psychological problems" you will see that she apparently had psychological problems and was not taking her medication.  Just thought this might help some.  ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 14:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical problems 

message: I was doing a random check on the links (specifically #8 regarding her sex video problems)and it's not accurate (the said link refers to the current troubles of Ms. Hilton).  Someone needs to update these.  I will start getting rid of the notes/links starting next week when it calms down a bit (doubtful), but if someone wants to lend a hand, I won't object. :)
:  Be careful with how you go about doing this.  #8 is just a case of an outdated URL now redirecting to the homepage of New York Daily News. The actual citation is accurate (you can Google the author and article title and find traces of the original story).  Here, it would be appropriate to remove the URL but not the entire citation, or better yet, find a reliable source that covers the same content but is still online.  This may already be your  intention, but I was a little worried with your wording ("getting rid of the notes/links"). -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no!  I was going to just put a "Citation needed" on there, but I figured it wasn't that hard to get an updated URL, but I was hoping someone would volunteer to help me go through all of the links.  I'm a little OCD about that. --Hourick 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to help as time permits.  Unfortunately, I had to duplicate footnote 44 and 45 because I could not find the "quote" parameter that allows one to add quotes to a reference.  Does anyone remember what it is called or if it is still part of the citation templates? —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and links needs cleaning 

message: They said she was afraid use the loo in front of the guards and didn't eat for 3 days.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/06/10/2007-06-10_poohoo_she_isnt_life_of_the_potty_.html
:New York Daily News is not a reliable source.  --Yamla 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch I agree!  :)----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it not a realiable source?  I'm not claiming that it should be considered as such, just curious how you make the distindtion.  —Gaff ταλκ 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Daily News reports on medical condition 

message: What's going to become of this section? —Viriditas | Talk 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in the business of predicting the future (if I could, I'd be making huge profits in the stock market, rather than waste time on Wikipedia), but my guess is that there will be nothing new to report in this section for the next month or so. Beyond that, who knows what other civic involvements she will take up. --However whatever 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a new source to update this section:.  Paris discusses her plans for future civic involvement: "She said she would like to help in the fields of breast cancer — her grandmother had breast cancer — or multiple sclerosis. Her father's mother suffers from that disease.  She thought she might get toy companies to build a kind of Paris Hilton playhouse, where sick children might come, and the toy companies could donate toys..." —Viriditas | Talk 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that until she actually does those things, we should not include that in the civic involvement section. The section is titled "Civic involvment", not "Civic involvement she would like to participate in the future". I have already added this interview, in which she promises not to "act dumb" to ther personal section. --However whatever 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same criteria; she's promising not to act dumb in the future, and she's also considering civic involvement.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to add it to the civ. section.  Let's get the opinion of other active editors. —Viriditas | Talk 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's get the opinion of other editors, ok?  The entire aritcle is about her, and many if not most biographical articles discuss the future plans of the person in question without any problems. —Viriditas | Talk 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you so strongly believe that all her future plans are relevant and important, add them to the paragraph about the Barbara Walters interview in the personal section. I guess it would be relevant there. If she actually acts on her plans, we could transfer from the personal section to the Civic involvement section. --However whatever 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong beliefs over here.  I like the way the page is turning out, and I have no interest in starting a dispute. I just wanted to get an idea of what others think.  I see stuff like this all the time on bio pages, where an actor, director, comedian, or writer is talking about their future. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people in jail say they are going to do things, I say wait and see if she follows through with it.  Just my opinion of course. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, yeah, the day she went to jail I was going to add a comment here saying, "How long before she turns to God?" but I didn't think it was appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the laugh, I almost typed that too and caught myself. :)----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civic involvement 

message: In the MMOG World of Warcraft, Haris Pilton can be found in the World's End Tavern of the lower part of Shattrath City accompanied by her dog Tinkerbell, and her job tag reads "Socialite". ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that as that seems deliberate, and most typos are accidental, it wouldn't really be considered a typo. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedic article. --Nonstopdrivel 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these typos? 

message: http://abc.net.au.newsitems.200706.999584001215588457.851154.html.macksfoto.com/s1942069.htm
True? False? -Nonviolence 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax?  —Viriditas | Talk 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -Edit- No, the article I showed mentions suicide as the reason, not murder, and has more specifics. This might be real, and the circumstances may have simply been bad timing. Either way, we'll know in the morning. -Nonviolence 04:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope it's a hoax.  Both stories take place down under, so that's a big clue. —Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit more insight is that one article doesn't mention a death and is from a noted hoax site. The other (and one I posted) got its information from reuters. I suppose someone should take a look around the reuters site -- although their information is first fed to news sites/stations. Yeah, it's unlikely to be true given this, and that no major outlet has picked it up, but it could happen. -Nonviolence 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hoax. Scroll to the bottom. It says: "DISCLAIMER: Information contained on this web page is purely for entertainment and the content is NOT true." -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also note this site is macksfoto.com, not abc.com. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only that, the CNN link goes to mycoalproductions.com.  --  Zanimum 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I always trust macksfoto.com when it comes to breaking news. Read the URL next time someone gives you a link to zomgbreakingnews, please. --Golbez 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: I don't understand, was she reassigned to her original 45-day sentence, or is she serving her 23day sentence, there are conflicting sources. Rodrigue 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the inmate locator (LA Inmate Locater Service), you will notice that she would be free on June, 26. You will also notice that they have moved her secretly, so the media is covering the wrong prison. But there is still time for the fundatalist judge to alter her terms. According to LA Times, she would serve far more than most people would serve - convicted for similar offences. Only very violent criminal would actually serve as much of their time as her. Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds (LA Times, June 14, by Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers) Covergaard 11:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest thing I've read in regards to her location is that she's been returned to the jail, but has been temporarily placed its medical ward.  Exploding Boy 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jail Time 

message: I have added the  template to this article, as it is in dire need of basic cleanup.  I will contribute some changes today, but the regular editors need to monitor contributions more closely.  This article sounds almost as whimsical as a tabloid at times.  Do not revert this template without good reason -- i.e., significant improvements to the technical quality of the article. --Nonstopdrivel 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edited to  template or this talk will be added to cleanup list) --h2g2bob (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have done some editing and removed the template. If you believe the article still needs editing, please list where you think the problems are. I think the article is pretty good. --However whatever 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare the changes I made in the "Recording artist" section alone -- numerous very basic errors, including spelling and punctuation.  Furthermore, this article doesn't read like an encyclopedia; it reads like a bunch of anecdotes culled from human interest stories. --Nonstopdrivel 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bold I have been, as I implied in the message above, and I have significantly reworked most sections now.  It at least has some semblance of organization. --Nonstopdrivel 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Editing Template 

message: If the YouTube incident, which was reported in major media outlets, was not notable, how were any of the other parodies notable?  Anyone can create parodies in any media. --Nonstopdrivel 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody 

message: I have majorly reorganized the Actress section, improving consistency, logic, and flow.  However, there is a snippet of a sentence, possibly orphaned in some previous effort, that I'd appreciate if someone could repair:  
:"She also earned a nomination for "Best Frightened Performance" at the 2006."
At the 2006 what?  It's obviously some sort of awards ceremony, but which one?  Any help would be appreciated. --Nonstopdrivel 06:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actress 

message: Should it be added that shes been offered the role of ginger in the las vegas production of gilligans island : the musical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.104.109 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a source for this? Acalamari 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilligans Island : The Musical 

message: Why do we need this sentence?:
Sheriff Baca commented on the release saying, "My message to those who don't like celebrities is that punishing celebrities more than the average American is not justice." According to Baca, under normal circumstances, Hilton would not have served any time in jail, and he added that "The special treatment, in a sense, appears to be because of her celebrity status ... She got more time in jail".
It doesn't contribute anything, except make the article biased in favor of Hilton.  The facts should be enough for the reader to decide whether or not she was unfairly punished - we don't need to include the opinions of those directly involved which have an inherent bias of their own.
Can we please remove that quote? Viper2k6 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is relevant - it is by the sheriff involved, making a comment about Paris Hilton... How is it not relevant. If you have a comment that counters it then add it with a source but other than that it is a perfectly good sourced statement.-Localzuk(talk) 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jail time bias 

message: I see the disinherited part is already covered, but has it been ascertained if it was only Paris, or if everyone just got cut out in some way?  TheKatK 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A day late and a dollar short 

message: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22157701-1702,00.html
According to this article, she has been disinherited by her grandfather.  The article is unclear on whether or not he stopped with Paris, he might have just cut everyone off.  TheKatK 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinherited 

message: xWhy does it not say she is a convicted criminal? It is a fact, so it should be labelled as so on the top part of the page along with the other adjectives describing her.
:Because it isn't a defining point of her life. Many, many celebrities have convictions, but don't have the label 'criminal' as it is not a key point of their life. Why should she have this label?-Localzuk(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, one would tend to apply "convicted criminal" only to a person who's been convicted of a serious felony. In the most technical sense, if you've ever gotten a parking ticket, you're a "convicted criminal", but such a statement tends to imply a serious crime. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that "convicted criminal" should not be included in the intro, as it implies not only that she was convicted of a major crime but that she made a career of criminal activities, like a member of the mob or mafia, which is silly. She's just a party girl that got drunk and got in her car too many times. Dcoetzee 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Conviction 

message: I don't think mentioning her second intimate adult-themed video is appropriate for Wikipedia. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Why mention, and describe the contents of, an unauthorized private adult video, the contents of which are based on hearsay? That's tabloid journalism, and since when is an encyclopedia all about reporting on unpublished private videos? Sure, many of you may say that it's part of her public persona (conjecture) and maybe even intentional (more conjecture). Think about this. I think in order to be the first go-to site, Wikipedia risks compromising its standards with entries like PH's. 162.84.167.75 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I feel that the introduction; 
Hilton rose to fame when an amateur sex video depicting her was leaked onto the Internet in late 2003. The release of the tape, later titled 1 Night in Paris (2004), 
Is inappropriate to be placed in the introduction and contradicts a sentence taken from several paragraphs below;
''
In 2001, Hilton began to develop a reputation as a 19-year-old socialite, being identified as "New York's leading It Girl" whose fame was beginning to "extend beyond the New York tabloids".''
She was indeed identified as New York's leading "it" girl before her sex video was leaked to the internet. She did not rise to fame due to her sex video. The introduction also insinuates her role in the Simple Life came about due to the sex video - this is said without sources because it is untrue. 
I believe the sex video has been noted under it's own section "sex video" and therefore this should see to the removal of reference to the sex video in the first paragraphs. 
124.182.118.132 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted story comes from The Guardian, a London newspaper about two years before the sex tape surfaced. A simple search such as  shows your claim is false. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: On the show she stated that she did not do drugs, But a day after the interview a video appered on CNN,FOX,MSNBC,ECT showing her smoking a pot like substance....Dont you think people should add that into the article. User:MarkDonna
:Your interpretation of what it was is not a reliable source, so unless we have something more reliable to go by, that couldn't go in the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris on Larry King 

message: How did a picture of a Hilton Hotel in Paris become the main picture for the article? Messy Thinking 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone stuck that there as either a joke or a very humorous misconception. DarthGriz98 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it was vandalism. It was kinda funny, too. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It was vandalism, and a joke, definitely. Acalamari 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While I'm not allowed to state my views on that image, it certainly wasn't harmful. Messy Thinking 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just glad I wasn't named the same way or I'd be 'Back seat of Grandpa's car' :O Jtdunlop (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paris Hilton]] Hotel 

message: I have added what I believe is an unbiased synopsis of videos showing substance use by Hilton.  I have removed previous conjecture that Hilton was indeed smoking marijuana and quote her or persons in the video instead.  
It is rare, as of yet, that an iconic individual has diarised their alleged illegal drug use to such an extent, and I think the synopsises are encyclopedic and pertinent:
Authenticity: There is no doubt that because of her appearance, voice, and known acquaintances that the linked videos are of Paris Hilton; however, are they documentary rather than fictional? I would say because of the private and candid nature, the sexual groping, explicit substance use, unflattering language and image, and because at least one video was purchased from a foreclosure of Hilton's personal storage unit, that the videos are of documentary authenticity and therefore encyclopedic in nature. 67.186.245.63 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of extensive videographic evidence showing drug use 

message: This page has been protected since 14th May. In this time, the protection has been completely unsuccessful at stopping vandalism; logged in users are more than happy to vandalise this page. Therefore, the semi-protection is worthless. Remove it. 62.31.67.29 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have the semi-protection removed, but the last time it was removed, it was restored within a short amount of time, as vandals hit the page. Like the George W. Bush article, this page is too vulnerable to vandalism when not semi-protected. No, the semi-protection has not been worthless; sadly, if this article wasn't semi-protected, we'd be reverting vandalism all the time. Acalamari 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you accessed it from Google, that probably would have been the Google cache version. Acalamari 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect this page 

message: I'm so pleased that the the semi-protection presumes I'm a vandal, despite having been editing Wikipedia for longer than most of the contributors to this page. Here's what I would have added if it were possible. Perhaps a logged-in user can add it, or perhaps they're too busy vandalising the page to notice. 62.31.67.29 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A positive contribution to the article that can't go in due to protection. 

message: Should the fact that Hilton is a natural brunette and uses blue colored contacts to cover her brown eyes be added?  67.186.245.63 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is naturally blonde, not brunette. TheGoodSon 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of natural physical apparence? 

message: The actress is nominated for this years' Teen Choice Award 
I think it is time we have a separate section for awards won by Paris Hilton 59.93.113.144 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton nominated for 2007 Teen Choice Awards 

message: that she has brown hair and eyes is important.also the shots of her coming out the jail where the first without her wearing her blue contacts in many years.
something shoudl be mentioned about the popular use of the words celbuntee (like celb and debutante together)to decribibe her occcupation, as a basicly a popular person who flogs stuff who has really done much to earn thier celebrity , more of a social who has become famous and newsworthy becuse of her fmaous connnections along the lines of kimberly stewart jade jagger pixe geldof and other . the other word to describe paris is celbutard. is perez hilton mentioned???
also more shoudl be said about her reactions to the jail as there is a major media frenzy, maybe someone should do an article on "parisgate" if they wish to do it justice, especilayy to all the paris flogging and critisms that ended up on every news channel on the world just about.the world certainly did not do 23 days without paris. also the blogging about paris at the time was minute to minute and crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.127.141 (talk)  14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: since when has paris hilton been a businesswoman? This should be removed.
:With a section titled 'Business Ventures' where she has entered into a variety of business deals, I would say this title is quite apt. What would prefer?-Localzuk(talk) 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businesswoman? 

message: Does anybody here know about Citizens for a Better America's campaign against Paris Hilton? They made a petition and got the people of LA to sign it if they wanted Hilton to 'go away'. They also released a music video (search on YouTube 'Go Away Paris) and made a website (www.goawayparis.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy triple m (talk • contribs)  10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you added it to the article about 15 hours ago. I'd say it's not really notable enough to be mentioned. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 10:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizens for a Better America 

message: I have been hearing that Paris was dropped by Warner Bros. but just this past week they updated their website and Paris is still listed as an artist. I would just like to know what's going on with the label.Seth71 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped from Warner Bros.

message: someone needs to include that paris has lost her 60mil inheritance
:No shit. - Two hundred percent 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inhertiance 

message: This page needs to be updated as Paris Hilton just lost her $60,000,000 inheritance from her grandfather.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22157708-2,00.html
:I've seen some real bunk articles on news.com.au, and wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw it until some other reputable source echoes it. - BalthCat 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TMZ says no, and I'd trust them long before I'd trust news.com.au. The original source seems to be this satirical UK paper -- sort of the equivalent of picking up news off the Onion. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 02:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The news.com.au article dates from July 29th.  I can't find artilces about this from any major North American media (you know the ones who are hawks for this kind of celebrity scandal stuff?) such as NBC, CNN, etc.  There's no way they have gone more than a day without noticing those articles springing up on entertainment and gossip mags.  What's more likely is that TMZ is right, and these other publications have just fact-checked the situation and shown that once again news.com.au is crap.  It's just that only TMZ finds the mistake newsworthy.  If you want to write about the articles that say she was cut-off, sure, but until such a time as it is shown (reliably) that she has lost her inheritance the article shouldn't present that as fact.  - BalthCat 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might trust TMZ over news.com.au, but I'd be inclined to trust MSN over either of them. — Red XIV (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno... The MSN story you link to refers to Paris using the term "cum-jailbird". :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but do you trust "ninemsn" whatever that is?  It looks to me like it might be a local MSN affiliate who may just have assumed news.com.au was a reliable source and rewrote the article. - BalthCat 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to their meta description tag, "Formed in 1997, ninemsn is a 50:50 joint venture between the Microsoft Corporation and Australia's leading media company, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL)." --Dreaded Walrus  t c 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed it again, under WP:BLP until we have some better confirmation of it.-Localzuk(talk) 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton Loses Inheritance 

message: I wanted to edit some simple mistakes such as "appeard" but I lack the powers to do so. Hopefully someone with the ability to edit this article AND comprehend basic English will do something about this. What's up Dr. Strangelove 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the spelling correction for you. In a few days time you'll be able to edit this page, as your account will reach the "autoconfirmed" level. Acalamari 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and grammar 

message: Several online and printed articles have discussed Paris Hilton's going vegetarian, speaking for animals through PETA, appearing at green events (as in the one sponsored by Doug Moss, Publisher of E - The Environmental Magazine, and commenting on her (presumed) 'religious experience' (perhaps a presumed epiphany), her openness to God and to religious faith, and her determination to live differently and no longer to 'act dumb'. 24.61.16.25 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources to confirm this information? Acalamari 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going vegetarian and openness to God,spirituality, and religious faith 

message: please add :
Paris Hilton on BitTorrent
The Goat 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  WP:SPAM, WP:EL.  --Yamla 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton on BitTorrent 

message: In my opinion, the Jail "subsection" needs at least a re-write, but better yet, delete the subsection and replace it with a Jail paragraph.  As is, it's too wordy, too much minutiae, for an encyclopedia article.  I won't make the change myself lest I be accussed of vandalism, but if there are others who agree the subsection is too long, maybe we can work on a re-write.Rosiestephenson 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, you won't be accused of vandalism for making good faith edits, no matter how bold.--Agnaramasi 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jail subsection 

message: No mention of her lying on Larry King (regarding drugs for example)?---Ashujo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually read this page you could see and editor pointing out there was no proof of lie. --IceHunter (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies on Larry King 

message: I heard citation needed that she gave up her rights to the hilton fortune. Isn't it true then? User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heiress? 

message: when will wikipedia unprotect this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.1 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When people stop vandalizing it heavily; whenever it's been unprotected, it gets re-protected within a short amount of time. Like the George W. Bush article, this is a biography that's constantly at risk for heavy vandalism. Acalamari 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotect? 

message: she is made fun of highly in "superficial friends", a series of parody cartoons with her as a lead character.  However this reference has not been mentioned on the page anywhere. Tarabyte 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it actually her name used in it?-Localzuk(talk) 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  superficial friends? 

message: I've removed the  tag (if there are still problems, please re-add and/or post on WP:BLPN. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing BLPC 

message: In the first paragraph it should be mentioned that she is also a criminal; and also the category:USA criminals must be included, too. But it doesn't allow me to edit this page!!! --66.76.178.130 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Category: American criminals:  "can claim notability solely because of the crime" - BalthCat 09:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal 

message: Quoting the article: 
"Driving violations
In September 2006, Hilton was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%, the minimum at which it is illegal to drive in California. "
1)  -- "arrested and charged"  -- isn't "charged" enough detail?
2) --  The wording of the last part is confusing.  When first read, it sounded like you have to be at least 0.08% to drive in California. 
How about this?
In September 2006, Hilton was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%, the limit at which it becomes illegal to drive in California. 
Wanderer57 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just "charged" is not enough detail because a person can be charged with a crime without being taken into custody, the ICTY does it all the time. Also, one can be taken into custody and subsequently released without any charges being laid. Therefore it is necessary to say that both of these have happened.SWik78 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Law 

message: Quoting from article again:
"Moreover, Hilton made cameo appearances in several films, most notably Zoolander (2001), and Wonderland (2003), The Cat in The Hat (2003) and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (2004) although her scenes were deleted from the film."
If the scenes were deleted, she did not make a cameo appearance.
Wanderer57 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameo Disappearance 

message: Unsourced items under "parodies" are being removed.  Wanderer57 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies 

message: Does the item "a statue by Daniel Edwards entitled Paris Hilton Autopsy" in the "popular culture" section count as popular culture or as obscene exploitation?
Is it "notable"?  Putting this item may give it more publicity than it deserves.
Comments please.  Wanderer57 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now sourced to an arts magazine. Rude and crude but it's made quite an impression on the mainstream media. FCYTravis 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about article 

message: If we don't get a source for Tinkerbell's birthday, it will have to be taken out.
Wanderer57 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE - Crisis is over!
Wanderer57 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinkerbell's Birthday - Help 

message: Congratulations everyone, we have managed to remove all (or most?) of the trivial stuff in this article... a major feat when you consider the subject! --ŴôôDéļf 10:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony: The topic just above this one...
Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware of the irony.  We removed Tinkerbell's sister's names.   ;o)   Wanderer57 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re:removal of material 

message: Is "part-heiress" actually a word, and, if it is, what does it mean?
Wanderer57 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "part-heiress" 

message: Why is there no reference to the South Park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset?
I'll add it to the "In Popular Culture" Section after work tonight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.17.86 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: This photo is not an improvement over the previous one  (yellow dress), IMO.
It has a very cluttered background and was lit so as to create face shine.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palm Awards photo is not an improvement. 

message: should we not mention her career as an amateur porn star?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.143.47 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  her first film role, though not a featuer film.. 

message: Is Paris Hilton a businesswoman? I don't think it is correct to label Paris Hilton as a businesswoman! Outside the United States, she is known for her --- scandals. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  businesswoman? 

message: Hi folks:
It is probably clear to everyone who has edited the pop culture section of this article lately that there is a wide range of opinion about what should be in it, and what should not.
The Wikipedia "guidelines" about this are not hugely helpful, in my opinion, so it is not a big surprise that we don't all agree.
The process of putting stuff in and taking it out causes personal "friction" between editors, which does not help working relationships.  Also it tends to mess up the article.
I want to suggest we put our comments about the "pop culture" items in the talk, not in the edit summaries.  Discussions through edit summaries are way too confusing.
I am pasting in the stuff below that is currently in the article.  I'm put in some of my comments about it.  Please add your comments.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular Culture" in this article 

message: Hilton has been quoted as saying that she is the "iconic blonde of the decade"' and compared herself to Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe (a claim she denied in the May 2007 issue of Harper's Bazaar).We'll always have Paris Women.timesonline.co.uk   
She will reportedly appear in the 2007 Guinness World Records as the world's "Most Overrated Celebrity".  
* Is this "world's record" book out yet?  If so, is Paris in the book?  I think we should either confirm this report or drop it altogether.  (wanderer57)
** Yes, it is. And yes, she's in the book. I have read the book myself and I saw her. Also, here are some sources:  — Jhn* 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: On May 11, 2007, a statue by Daniel Edwards entitled Paris Hilton Autopsy was revealed at Capla Kesting Fine Art in New York.  Hilton is depicted by a clay model as dead, naked, and with her legs spread. The artist considers the sculpture a means of educating high school seniors about drunk driving.  
* If it was up to me personally, I would leave out the above item (hideously bad art, in grossly bad taste, plus I think the story about "education re drunk driving" is just an alibi.)  But it is not my decision.  What do other people think?  (w57)
Paris posed nude, covered only in gold paint to promote "Rich Prosecco", a canned version of an Italian sparkling wine.The Post Chronicle: "Paris Hilton Nude,Gold With 'Bubbly Blonde' Rich Prosecco"TV Shark: "Paris Hilton Nude In Gold For Canned Champagne Ad" Stuf.co.nz: "Nude Paris launches 'wine in a can' (+photo)".
* Wine in a can!!!  Nude, covered in gold!!!  Now this is real pop culture. A photo is obviously required.  (w57)
** You want the photos? Too much for Wiki? naked Paris Cinemapress (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploitation

message: thumb|right|Tongue-in-cheek look at Paris's legal troubles as presented in spoof video "Paris in Jail: The Music Video"
Popular parodies of Paris Hilton include Paris in Jail: The Music Video which was released to the video-sharing website YouTube by California video company Omovies shortly after Paris was jailed in June 2007"Paris in Jail: The Music Video".  Featuring a Paris Hilton lookalike and using the Paris song "Stars are blind" for inspiration, the music video achieved instant notoriety, garnering over three million hits in five days by poking fun at Paris' lifestyle, legal troubles, and subsequent incarcerationCBS News: "Web Extra: Paris Prison Parody An Internet Hit". AOL named the video the number one spoof of the yearThe Hollywood Reporter: "We love Paris in the summer when she fizzles ...". .
* Does AOL name a #1 spoof each year, or was this a one shot award?  (w57)
** AOL has announced a "spoof of the year" every year since AOL Videos went online.ManicAttack (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody

message: The paragraph about this video is being edited by several editors who have made similar edits to Omovies and other articles promoting this video. This is a possible WP:COI violation and I have opened a sockpuppet case against User:L.L.King for these edits. Other editors should scrutnize this section carefully for WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI violations. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I see in the edits histories is a common thread: articles involving Paris Hilton... the Paris article, the Stars Are Blind article, the Omovies article, and others all connected through interest in Paris Hilton. That these editors seem to be one-tracked in their contributions to Wiki seems to be exactly in correlation to your own machete-like editing and opinion spreading. WHat you damage, they try to repair. What you destroy with poor editing, they try to rebuild. What opinuions you try to espoise, they intelligemntly counter. That they are trying to undo the damages caused by you is laudatory. And I see though from your own talk page that you have been repeatedly reminded that you are mis-using Wiki guidelines... that you are interpreting the guidelines to your own ends as if your own interpretations they were rule of law. I strongly uggest editors scrutinize ALL of your edits, deletions, and opinions very closely. You apparently have forgotten, if you ever understood, the spirit of Wiki. Wiki is not about you or your opinions. It is about the presentation of facts. Period. Now go ahead and open a "case" against me for standing up to you... for supporting those whom you rail against... for believing that truth shall overthrow petty tyrants like yourself. I wish I knew more about how to report bullies like you to whoever is in charge... for you have truly abused Wiki. ManicAttack (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just to draw attention to the policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility.   Wanderer57 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris in Jail 

message: Hello Folks;
It seems to me that some of the comments and accusations, made above and on user talk pages about other editors, are very heavy-handed.  There are differences of opinion about how much trivia and pop culture is appropriate in this article.
This difference of opinion is NOT unique to this article.  It has been argued repeatedly.
This difference of opinion is NOT due (in my opinion) primarily to editors being ignorant or stubborn or whatever.
- - - 
Some suggestions follow about ways to try to reduce the tension around this issue.
- - - 
First, there is a LOT of GREY AREA in Wikipedia about including trivia and popular culture in articles.  
On one hand, putting in all the material of this sort that can be found about Paris Hilton, and other well known people, leads to large articles that are hard to read.  It is very important to keep the readability of the article in mind. More important, I think, than including every bit of verifiable trivia that can be found.
On the other hand, there is obviously interest in this information, at least among some encyclopedia editors and users.
Within Wikipedia policy, there is MUCH uncertainty about how much "pop culture and trivia" should be included in articles.  Too much uncertainty, in my opinion.
I think the recent editors of this article, on both sides of the "arguement", are all struggling with the same uncertainty.
I have three suggestions.
1) Read the policy on Biographies of Living Persons (if you haven't already).  (Note the strong emphasis on "get it right" and  "if in doubt, leave it out".  This policy is both for courtesy and for legal reasons.
LINK WP:BLP
2) Read the WP:POPCULTURE article.  This gives more background.  
In the talk page of this article, you will find a section called "Verifiable evidence of significance ??"   Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles#Verifiable evidence of significance ??.  I started this section because I was trying to figure out the whole pop culture thing.  I think you might find the replies to my question from "Father Goose" interesting.  (Father Goose has been involved in Wikipedia much longer than I have.)  The discussion continues in the next section of the talk.
3) It is of course possible to put in a complaint about another editor, but complaints are not as useful as a discussion.  Also they are not taken seriously unless there has first been a REAL effort to try to work out the problems with the other editors through discussion.
A proper "discussion" of what to include in an article and what to leave out needs to be carried out on the talk page of the article.  The "edit summaries" just don't allow for a real discussion.  
It is best to be specific.  For example, you might pick one or two insertions or deletions that you disagree with, quote them in Talk, and put in a note saying why you think each one should be included or excluded.
Also in these matters, remember that there is no huge urgency involved.  If some bit of pop culture is left out of the article for a few days while it is discussed, that is better (under the BLP policy) than leaving it in when it really should NOT be in.
I hope some of this is helpful.  Please let me know.   Wanderer57 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the editing process - personal opinion 

message: I temporarily deleted the report of the self-proclaimed art project to "oppose drunk driving".  It contradicts itself - stating an opening date in May and citing a ref dated April that indicates the exhibit has opened.
Unreliable information, deleted under BLP policy.  Wanderer57 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the removal of the three references as being confusing, if not exactly unreliable. A better reference might be Celebrity Mound, dated April 27, 2007, which has full details as well as images of the statue. But if one does not dig too much further, one gets confused by a Reuters article, dated May 10, 2007, which states how "The sculpture was to go on display Friday in Brooklyn". Both pieces of information, though contradictory, are correct. Further in the Reuters article one can find "The sculpture Paris Hilton Autopsy by sculptor Daniel Edwards is seen at the Capla Kesting Fine Art studio in the Brooklyn borough of New York May 9, 2007". The Reuters article was seemingly released after the Capla Kesting exhibit, and speaks of another showing in future tense. Culture Kiosque, dated May 2, 2007, speaks about the opening as slated for May, with a schedule of events showing a press reception for May 9, an opening reception for May 11, and a public reception for May 12. Also offered in this article was a link to the Capla Kesting Fine Arts Gallery website. There one can find specific information in the section "Daniel Edwards - Paris Hilton Autopsy" that confirms both the April amd May dates. An April 26 date is given for a (limited) public unveiling and announcement by the artist. This gives the Celbrity Mound April 27 date credibility and confirmation. The May dates represent the time span of the New York exhibition at Capla Kesting... with the Reuters representative being part of the May 9 press reception so as to be able to write an article that then gets released on May 10 that can then refer to the "future" showings of May 11 or 12 when it was opened to the public. Interestingly enough, pictures from the 3 different but related receptions may be found on Flickr. So with new references in proper order and set in proper context, the deleted informations might go back. Cinemapress (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "art exhibit" 

message: Once again, I have removed the wording in the 2nd sentence of the article about the so called "self made film", based on BLP policy.
Repeatedly stating in edit summaries that something is a "FACT" or a "Fact!" does not make it so.
I do not agree that the reference given supported the wording that was there.
Furthermore, even if it did, putting that statement in the prominent position it was in is not appropriate.
If you think I am wrong on this, please make a case here rather than changing the article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed contentious information 

message: Paris was reportedly given $200,000 to attend her 24th birthday party at the Pure nightclub in Vegas.
Paris Was Paid To Attend Her Own Birthday Bash  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.218.34 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Paid To Attend Her Own Birthday Party 

message: QUOTING article:  "
The leak of a four-year-old homemade sex video, called 1 Night in Paris, of Hilton with her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon a week prior to the premiere of her Fox reality series The Simple Life attracted worldwide attention in late 2003."
Since there is no reference, why is it "The leak" rather than "The release"? Why "homemade"? Was it really "a week prior"?
Some ref material is missing on these details.  Wanderer57 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Editors are attempting to subtlety insert unpublished synthesis, claiming that 1 Night in Paris was a publicity stunt for A Simple Life. They have previously stated this belief in earlier edits made to this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed 

message: Maybe someone here would like to use. :D 
 — Jhn* 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: The article does not contain the work hacker. How is this possible? Her T-Mobile communicator was cracked in 2005 and the hax0rs got hold of personal phone numbers for about half of the unitedstatesian celeb clicque population. A lot of nude (genital) photos and the like went onto the net as a result of that. Five people were put to jail for 10 months after prosecution. Isn't all this noteworthy? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basement-dwelling spotty  kids penetrated the Hiltoness. 

message: From the first sentence of the article:  "an American celebutante and businesswoman."
Ms Hilton is nearly 27.  She may have been a debutante once but is not now.
The word is silly and close to meaningless. I'm changing it to celebrity.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paris Hilton is a celebutante. In fact, the word is coined for her. I don't see any reason why you should feel a widespread media term to be "silly and meaningless" except for your own ignorance. I'm changing it back. I took a look through the history and I noticed quite a few troubling edits. I'll proceed to examine them and revert if necessary. Thanks.Herunar (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebutante?? 

message: She really is a character if you think about it. She's got a sense of humour about her place in the universe (which she never asked for, it's just an accident of birth). And she has the ability to laugh at herself and parody herself. I think she deserves credit for that. 
24.8.106.182 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Misses One Quality Not Handed To Her 

message: Australian transsexual model and pop star "Tammin Tropez" was given the title as being Australia's Paris Hilton after attending a recent awards show in Sydney, it is believed she was under the influence of alcohol. 
This is her private myspace, i don't know if shell add you, but you can try. www.myspace.com/tammintropez 
I also think shes releasing an album later on this year (?????)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.41.4 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tammin Tropez Is The Australian Paris Hilton 

message: Quoting the article: "Hilton was related by marriage to Nicole Richie's godmother, Nancy Davis, when Nancy's brother, Greg, was married to Kim Richards."
Is this information important enough to be in the encyclopedia? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth Including? 

message: It cannot be denied that the controversy surrounding the sex tape and the potential heritance are the main sources from which most readers know about Paris Hilton. I don't think there's a dispute in this, so I don't really understand the reasons that were given for its removal. I'm adding it back since it was so before a group of editors took over this article and engaged in a massive edit war. I'm also adding a sentence about her father donating her estate away, which is important concerning her inheritance. Herunar (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence about sex tape and inheritance in lead. 

message: "CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 discussed footage obtained from the website which features Hilton using several homophobic and ethnic slurs.[35] 
"The reference at the end of this sentence does not work now.  Is there another source, or different code that leads to the original source?  Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson Cooper 360 

message: I see notes above that the article is too long.  
Please keep in mind that this is a very heavily accessed article.  A lot of people are looking for information about Ms Hilton.  Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Too Long?? 

message: I'm not sure what happened on my recent edit. I think there was an edit conflict.
I wasn't trying to remove a link, just to take out Barron's 2nd name as unnecessary. Hopefully it is okay now.
:Turning to a related question, is Barron notable enough to warrant an article? Just thought I would ask.   Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit re Barron Hilton 

message: I am again removing the item about Paris Hilton having been in multiple films that are in an IMDB "bad" list.  This is to explain why.
1) It is not clear that the IMDB bad list is an objective film assessment.  The stated information may well be the result of voting by people who are generally negative about Paris Hilton.
2) As I noted in my previous edit summary: "This factoid in this section (the as an actress section) implies that the poor results of the three films are due to Paris Hilton. "
The reference kindly supplied by NiggardlyNorm is a Variety review of one of the films, (The Hottie and the Nottie.)  It suggests differently.  The reviewer did not like a lot of things about the film and says, quote:
::"Paris is far from the wrongest thing about a movie offensively crude in concept and doubly so in execution."
I'm removing the item due to concerns about BLP policy.
Here is the item for reference:  Four of the five films in which Hilton had more than a cameo are in the IMDB Bottom 100.http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936097.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
Wanderer57 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Bottom Films in IMDB 

message: Hey. I'm with Wanderer on this: I think the charity quote should not be in the lead. At the very least, it's adding WP:UNDUE weight to a point that's peripheral to Paris Hilton. If you want to put it on Baron Hilton's page, that's fine, but it's not a main point here. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". In this case, there is nothing else in the article that's related to Baron Hilton's giving to charity, so it shouldn't be here.
Hope this helps. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The EU rulings under the PDO state that Champagne can only be created in the Champagne region of France, in Europe. Rich Prosecco is made in Italy, so falls under these rules. Secondary to that is the fact that the USA respects that Champagne can only be called as such when produced in Champagne the region, unless it is a longstanding domestically (ie. in the USA) produced product. Rich Prosecco is not produced in the USA. All of this info is available on the Champagne wine page.-Localzuk(talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champagne/Sparkling Wine 

message: It seems to me the discussion in the edit summaries of US trade agreements is Amerocentric and irrelevant. RICH® Prosecco is an Italian product marketed internationally and the company website describes the product as "sparkling wine" and "Italian sparkling wine".  (Though it says "champagne-like" at one place.)  I'm changing the article back to "sparkling wine".
It's not clear if the specific date of December 12, 2007 is relevant. A company press release from August 2007 
http://www.richprosecco.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=184&Itemid=11ress 
talks about Paris Hilton's involvement in promoting Prosecco. I made this a bit less specific.
Wanderer57 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't. I dislike wine :) -Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RICH® Prosecco - sparkling wine or champagne? 

message: Her article pic reminds me of Kelly Rowan from the OCPunkymonkey987 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminds me of Kelly Rowan 

message: We need more information on it NOW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.90.145 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Album 

message: I removed the ancestry categories.  The categories are not meant to be used to document every component in a person's ancestry.  For example, "German-American" means an American of predominantly German background.  
A person cannot be predominantly German, predominantly Italian, predominantly Irish, and predominantly Swiss at the same time.
There is no information in the article to support using any of these categories.
If anyone has evidence of a predominant ancestry, other than American, to support using one of these categories, please provide it in this Talk page. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 2 

message: Almost seven paragraphs devoted to her drunk driving scandal. And then another entire section is entitled "controversies." Yet, strangely enough, only two sentences are devoted to the celebrity sex tape. Granted, there is another article devoted to the video but that does not mean that we cannot expand this section a little bit more as countless other articles do when there is a separate article. Right now, it's conveniently (deliberately?) buried in the last line of the "personal life" section. Journalists have written numerous articles analyzing the celebrity sex tape. Their reliable third-party analysis should get a little bit more attention here. Not a lot. But a little bit more to match the notability within her life (which is quite substantial according to a LexisNexis search on Paris Hilton). To downplay the significance of the celebrity sex tape would be strange given the amount of coverage it received in the reliable third-party press. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex tape needs expansion 

message: Why no mention of Paris Hilton's remarks on race? She appears to mock African-Americans and Jews during Sister Sledge's We Are Family song in a New Years Eve video provided by ParisExposed.com which can be seen here http://www.spike.com/video/2820174. I've read claims from blog posters that the voice on the video isn't even hers. Hilton's publicist Elliot Mintz confirmed to the NY Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm it's authenticity saying she had obviously been drinking. The alcohol excuse didn't work out to well for Mel Gibson. :-) Synchaser (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Racist Remarks 

message: Only two sentences buried in the article discuss the sex tape. Why is this? The leaked sex tape was what made her famous, and it should at least be mentioned in the opening paragraph. tildetildetildetilde  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.62.139 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably there are two reasons: the Paris fans are happy to whitewash the article and the BLP enforcers are being cautious.  Probably if someone really wanted to duke it out, the mention could be expanded and even introduced into the lede while complying with BLP.  After all, if you search through the NY Times archive you will find plenty of mention of the sex tape whenever Paris Hilton is mentioned.  For example, in this article, it's mentioned that "Ms. Hilton's best-known work has been an infamous sex tape that features her in flagrante with a boyfriend", and in  it is mentioned "Ms. Hilton, famous for a sex tape that is still circulating on the Internet".  The New York Times apparently considers that one of the prominent things that ought to be mentioned about her is the sex tape.  --C S (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so little mention of the sex tape? 

message: There are rumors that Paris is going to buy a listed tech company and run it as CEO or chairman.  Can anyone confirm? There are some natural ones for partnering with the family hotel business.  Rumors have it that it's a tech company with ties to entertainment.  This would be fabulous if true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeJump (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless some sources can be found to verify this, it can't be added to the article. Acalamari 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris to run tech company?? 

message: Just edited the "most known for" section. I think it is clear that Paris Hilton gained notoriety both through her role in the TV series The Simple Life as well as her role in the infamous sex tape. Feel free to contribute if you disagree, but I think it is worth noting, especially since it gets no mention in the opening paragraphs. Cheers, Intellectual11 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted for now: Biographies of living persons should be handled with great care, and a "perhaps" followed by "sex tape", especially in the intro, isn't good enough. The tape is mentioned in her article, but the "best known" bit has to be rock solid to include it up there, in my opinion. --Amalthea (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments two sections above in "Why so little mention of the sex tape?" as I believe they are relevant to your position.  --C S (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Also see the section "Sex tape needs expansion" four sections above by yet another person.  The most glaringly obvious thing when I first saw this article today was how hard it was to find any mention of the sex tape.  I suppose the reasoning is that most people ought to already know about it, but it's mighty peculiar that something of such notability in someone's life (it's essentially what started Hilton's "famous for being famous" career) is barely mentioned.  I myself think someone that doesn't know about the whole Paris Hilton phenomenon (and believe it or not, there are many such people all over the world) would be greatly disserviced by the current state of the article.  Oh well.  That's my 2 cents.  Maybe I'll stop by in a couple years and see if anything's changed (doubtful).  --C S (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Known For" 

message: In the section on Paris' response to John McCain's ad, I think it should be noted that Paris was wearing a revealing one piece swimsuit [Spam removed].
64.248.61.226 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't. As a matter of fact I removed the whole section because so far, it's not a notable event in her life. --AmaltheaTalk 08:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is not the only criterion, is it? It may well be a notable event in the political history of the US! Even the political pundits were rather impressed with the way she handled the whole affair and political candidates might think twice before just using people like Paris for their campaign ever again. Jcwf (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may well be is pretty much the definition of non-verifiability. I have no strong opinion whether this should be mentioned at all or not, but I'd really like to see some WP:RS talking about it, e.g. to source the "The video was a response …" bit. The "her response impressed many outside her immediate fans by its eloquence and made clear that she does not allow herself to be used." definitely has to go IMO. It's unsourced, and POV.AmaltheaTalk 16:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The McCain campaign has responded to the "ad", which might make it more notable--but if it were up to me, yeah, I'd wait a week and see whether this has any significance. If the "Obama/celebrity" ad has staying power as an issue, PH's response might be notable, but it's too early to say; in any event, in that case it might make more sense to mention this on the United States presidential election, 2008 page, instead of here. In the meantime, I removed the very POVy "her response impressed many" sentence, and added in the McCain response (with a link)--but like I said, I'd be just as happy removing the whole incident from her bio. -- Narsil (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite likely Paris Hilton is going to get more votes in 2008 than a good many of the 200+ people who file for the presidency every election. If she decides to have more fun with it, the effort might actually be noteworthy. And who said this is an anti-McCain commercial? Paris' demography of influence was mostly going to go Obama or stay home. I don't think she pushed very many people into the camp of "the other guy", quite the opposite. Obama, obviously, isn't somebody who's worth Paris' time to learn his name. That's a lot worse than the "wrinkly white guy" who at least gets a mention of a distinguishing feature. TMLutas (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs saying--Ms. Hilton is constitutionally ineligible to be president. (The minimum age is 35, she's 27.) I don't think she's planning to really "run", even in the minimal sense of "filing to be on the ballot somewhere". The video's a joke, that's all. If it's noteworthy, it's only because the McCain campaign responded to it. -- Narsil (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure she'll beat historically popular ineligibles like "Donald Duck" and "Mickey Mouse" however her ineligibility isn't going to matter much to her vote total I suspect. TMLutas (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So true, i.e., I am voting for her. But consider also: people do turn their lives around. Maybe this is a wake-up call to Paris that something she embodies has real value. We can hope. She has a lot of money. Maybe, just maybe, she also has brains.Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton's rebutal to John McCain's campaign ad 

message: The AfD where this is being discussed is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton energy plan. Thx.  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice re proposed merger from [[Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad]] into this article 

message: "She is perhaps best known through her appearence on the television series The Simple Life."  --- is this actually true?  Without at all trying to be silly, isn't she actually best known for being a rich party girl who appeared in a sex tape and spent some time in prison?  Isn't everything else she's done really secondary to (and the result of) that?  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in my opinion, she's probably best known for her sex tape. however, unless there is a reliable source that states what she is 'perhaps best known for,' then maybe this sentence is original research and should be edited/removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was thinking too.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best known for.... 

message: umm... there's a "Horrible Noises" section under her discography. Somebody should probably remove it. But i'm new to wiki editting so I don't know how. 203.117.90.6 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, and thanks. I undid the vandalism. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vadalism in Discography 

message: This page has been hacked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.43.69 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I undid the vandalism. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editsemiprotected