Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 4

message: i thought i should change the picture she has up. i mean it was in 2005. i thought i would add an updated one. if it stays, it stays, if it dont, it dont. im just helping. Mcoop06 06:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: photo

message: shouldn't there be some mention of her seemingly permanent change of eye and hair color, from brown and brown to blue and blond respectively?
             no one will let any such thing be mentioned on this page, believe me! Ledenierhomme 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eye and hair colour 

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

message: Supposed proof of both a nose job and the wearing of blue contacts: . Can anyone confirm or deny? --AWF
:See WP:RS.  Urban dictionary is not a reliable source.  Cheers, Kasreyn 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This can't be accurate... can it?

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

message: In particular, the part about Paris abstaining from sex seems to go on and on. Then right under it, it is noted that she was parodied on South Park. But that's all it says. One sentence. She was parodied on South Park......and? If the writer of this section felt it necessary to ramble about her abstinence having her feelings hurt and other things (that portray Paris in more positive light), why not at least make a tiny bit of effort to include more info about the SP episode? The title of the episode(Stupid Spoiled Whore Playset), and the plot device are both in reference to her sex tape. This isn't mentioned, Why? Two sentences would be too much? It doesn't make sense, with the detailed topics directly above the SP thing.
There are other examples of well-disguised POV elsewhere in the article, but that South Park thing at the end really sticks out and should be easy to fix without much contention...right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.138.168 (talk) 08:23, 8 December, 2006 (UTC)
::What does that have to do with POV?  I'm pretty sure REAL events in her life are a lot more important to write about than her being PARODIED on South Park. Rzrscm 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that stuff like her racial slurs, Tinkerbell switch-up, DUI, etc should be in it...But a parody of her on South Park is completely irrelevent.  A South Park parody could portray anybody in any light they want, and they do. Rzrscm 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We need HagermanBot to show who wrote what and when in this section. -Mardus 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have missed his window, so I've added it manually. -SpuriousQ 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I came here to research the issue of "flashing" in the context of selective prosecution. The article is devoid of links to probably the largest tabloid frenzy of that year and the talk page is full of mindless advocating. The page is in need of rework but can't get it as its beset by people with a mission on both sides.
I call for the next person along (to avoid me being judge, jury, and executioner) to archive this discussion and delete everything under my 'Where Paris Related News Goes' section direction people to other pages. It's all hopelessly corrupted with partisan bashing and is hardly relevant to what belongs here.
24.82.19.224 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on this article 

message: The Hilton family owns approx 5% of the shares of the Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) according to Britain's The Times (2005). That's what Paris Hilton's paternal grandfather Barron Hilton got from his father's estate after a lengthy challenge to the will (Conrad Hilton died in 1979, the case was settled in 1988). His siblings got nothing. Five per cent is a minor stake in the company which means that any claim that the Hilton family owns the Hilton hotel empire is patently false.
Those 5% of the shares of HHC plus everything else that Barron Hilton owns are, according to Forbes, worth abt US$ 1 billion (Barron Hilton's net worth according to the "Forbes 400" 2006). Barron Hilton has eight children (Richard Hilton, Paris's father, was born as number six of the eight children) and plenty of grandchildren. If Barron Hilton decides to leave his fortune, including the 5% stake in HHC, to his children (he could do as his father did and leave everything to charity and the church though) each child would get abt US$ 125 million. And since Paris Hilton has three siblings each of them would then, God and their father willing, get abt US$ 30 million. Thirty million dollars. Hardly a fabulous fortune...
So  please stop claiming that Paris Hilton is fabulously rich and that she is "the heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune", because she's not. It's just something Paris made up because it sounds better than telling the world that her father is a real estate broker (he's a working partner in Hilton & Hyland, an LA real estate brokerage).
Allan Akbar 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the attempt to determine what exactly Paris Hilton's inheritance is, but everything in the article must be sourced, not original research, and be in an encyclopedic tone.  If a reputable source states that Hilton's inheritance is estimated to be $30 million, we can simply state and cite that.  The paragraph you wrote in the article cannot stay as is. -SpuriousQ 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a well known fact, not original research. Forbes list Barron Hilton as #374 in their list of the 400 richest Americans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Barron-Hilton_02JQ.html). Barron Hilton has eight children of which Richard Hilton is one. And he in turn has four children of which Paris Hilton is one. Do your math and you get: US$ 1 billion divided by eight is US$ 125 million, which is the share of each of the eight children. Then divide Richard Hilton's share by four and you get approx US$ 30 million for each of his four children. So Paris Hilton's share of the "fabulous fortune" is worth approx US$ 30 million. Like it or not, that's the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allan Akbar (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that her share is ~US$30 million, but it the way it was written was original research or close to it.  I've recasted the estimation with references. -SpuriousQ 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you guys are forgetting is her money directly from her father, who by all accounts is a successful real estate developer. Just his personal properties listed in wikipedia are worth more than $30 million. She lives in a $10 million house in the hollywood hills. While her heiress qualities are certainly less than often advertised, she is set to inherit quite a fortune. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.52.80.27 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton is NOT the heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune... 

message: How do I add the Paris Hilton Channel to the list of links? I'm a new user and can't edit the page. Can somebody do it for me or lower the security settings for me please?
*[http : // www . parishiltontoday . com The Paris Hilton Channel at YouTube. Official Paris Hilton page.]
http : // www . parishiltontoday . com
Thanks in advance and everyone please have an enjoyable relaxing day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamlaughingatyou (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Outside Links to Paris Hilton Websites 

message: Why doesn't she belong in the  porn star category? She owned the rights to a sexually explicit video of herself, and she sold those rights (see article). Doesn't that make her a porn star?--Truest blue 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe she is a porn star. Indeed, she did make that sex tape, but that doesn't mean she's a porn star. There are normal people who have made their own sex tapes (well, I haven't made any, I'm too young), does that make them porn stars as well? A User has reverted your edits and restored the page to previous version, which was an edit that I did. Acalamari 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand you are diffrentiating between "normal people" that make sex tapes for themselves and sex tapes that are made for the public."Normal people" are not porn stars, but people that star in sex tapes for the public are porn stars. Your defenition seems reasonable, but it leads to a lot of difficulties.If "normal people" make a sex tape and sell it, doesn't that make them porn stars? Why should it make a difference that there wasn't a director and an expensive camcorder. Does it make a difference if they initially meant it only for themselves and later decided to sell it? How do we know what there initial thinking was? Because of aformentioned problems, I propose that "porn star" should be defined as follows : "One who knowingly earns money from the public viewing of her sex acts". Paris earned money from the tape (see Rick Salomon), therefore she should be defined as a porn star.--Truest blue 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paris Hilton did not intend for the sex tape to be released to the public. She is not a porn star; and my comparison was good enough. If Paris Hilton doesn't consider herself a porn star, that should be good enough for us. Acalamari 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This has come up before: Talk:Paris_Hilton/Archive_2#Porn_star_category, though no clear consensus seemed to be reached.  I tend to agree that adding her to the porn star category is misleading given the circumstances under which that the video was created and released.  Her owning/selling the rights to the video was due to her lawsuit against Salomon attempting to halt distribution. -SpuriousQ 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read that discussion. I believe that she shouldn't be put in the porn star category. The sex tape should have been private, but her ex-boyfriend went and released the tape to the public. Acalamari 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: True. Paris Hilton is indeed a porn star. She agreed to release the video to the public. That is the bottom line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.49.135 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn star? 

message: This article seems to be rather light on the aspects of her that puts her in a not so good light, such as the upskirt images of her etc....  Mathmo Talk 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should point out that Paris is in fact criticised and dislike by many critics not to mention the general and espetially the internet public.--Mudel 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly clean article?  

message: This article needs a more noticable remark on the backlash on Paris Hilton. This page looks like it was written by a fan, there is almost nothing indication her disliking, or the negative aspects of her celbrety life, my point is she is represented as a bright and succesful talanted pop idol. Let's face it that's just not true and it would decieve a person who would come to wikipedia and read this, we should put as much as we can on anyone here, the good and bad. If I didn't know her I'd actualyl believe from this article that she actually is comparable to Princess DI or Marlyn, wich she, I think everyone agrees, isn't.
Ashlee Simpson has a criticism section, the EMo article has a backlash section, we should put something up here to, it's onyl fair. Something that'll stick and won't get deleted by a fan after 30 seconds because he likes her, that's utterly unencyclopedic.--Mudel 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Paris Hilton's criticisms are worded in with the main parts of the articl to avoid a criticism section, so it's unnecessary to put one in. You seem to have a hatred of Paris Hilton, which you don't want to get in the way of editing neutrally. Acalamari 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's not obvious enough this article is heavily edited/written by some one in Miss Hitlon's employment.  Whether it's her PR agent, or simply a temp who's job it is to check this article every day there is a BIG effort put into keeping this article squeaky clean.  As mentioned it should have more criticism, but some one is doing a good job of keeping it out and keeping this article locked. --216.55.200.182 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "someone" who "heavily edits/writes" the article, keeps it "squeaky clean," and has the article protected, I assume you mean me, correct? I never had anything to do with the protection of the article, and nearly of the content written hasn't been done by me. Anyway, why does it need more criticism, Wikipedia is not a place for spreading hate and propaganda. Also, I believe Paris Hilton gets criticized a lot elsewhere, so there's no point in creating more criticism. Acalamari 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was you.  I'm simply stating the obvious that some one from the Hilton camp puts a bit effort into keeping this article clean.  That may or may not be you.  You may just be a fan of Miss Hilton, which is fine.  I'm just saying that Miss Hilton has her finger$ in the content of this article.  --216.55.200.182 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't say that I was, but you implied it. Anyway, how can you be certain that Paris Hilton is paying people to keep this page clean? On Wikipedia, things need to be sourced. Acalamari 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This bores me now. Paris, is that you? Writing your own Wiki article? I knew it!--216.55.193.151 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that I'm Paris Hilton now? You have no proof that I am. Acalamari 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you have no proof that your not!  But this needs to stop as I think we're just having a discussion now well beyond the boundaries of the article now.  The fact is Miss Hilton is a controversial public figure whom is not usually presented in the most positive of light in the media/public.  Yet this Wiki article makes it seem like she's a very well respected musician/actress/model/celebrity.  This just makes it very suspicious that some one is from her camp is being paid to keep this article in a positive light.  Neutral is one thing, this article reads like an Hilton funded biography. I never said it was you doing this, you inferred that on your own.--216.55.193.151 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you wrote This bores me now. Paris, is that you? Writing your own Wiki article? I knew it! and your indent had been placed so that it responded to my message, so yes, you did say that I'm Paris Hilton; but you have no proof that I am or not. Anyway, why don't you discuss what you want to put in the criticisms section, as that's what this Talk Page is for. Let's hear what you want to put in. Acalamari 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Actually, I said to the IP address in my last message that they should discuss here what criticisms they want to put in. I was willing to talk about them, but that User seems to have vanished for the time being. As for Paris Hilton and the racism comments, it depends where they were said. If they were said in a private gathering, it shouldn't matter (just like the "racist" comment from Arnold Schwarzenegger that was said in a private meeting). If, however, she said "nigger" in a public place, then there's more reason to add it in. It should be noted though, that Paris Hilton has (or at least had) a bi-racial friend: Nicole Richie. The criticisms section should be discussed here, and when it's added, it should be sourced. Also, I have not removed everything that is "anti-Paris Hilton." There is quite a bit of it scattered throughout the article. As I said, discuss what you want to add. Acalamari 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still here, I've just grown bored with arguing with a 16 year old/pr agent/paris hilton (or whomever you are), and besides, I think Mudel summed up my opinion & point quite well.  I still think Miss Hilton's money is keeping this page very clean, Acalamari may or may not be employed by Miss Hilton, but I still think some one editing this page is.  I mean George W. Bush's wiki page isn't even locked anymore.  And he's even more controversial.. but his page also includes a criticism section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Criticism_and_public_perception) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.107.119.85 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you be the same user as the IP I was talking to before? This IP is different to the one a few messages above. Also, if any of you had read, I said that you should discuss the criticisms section here. That's what we do, we discuss it on the Talk Page. As for anyone being paid to edit this page, I seriously doubt that. After all, you seem to doubt and wonder who I am. You don't have any proof that I'm Paris Hilton or not. Acalamari 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a touch up

message: The title of Paris Hilton's video game is really 'Jewel Jam'. She mistakenly introduced it as 'Diamond Quest' at the E3 unveiling.
Alana margaret 04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Title 

message: Where's the information about how Paris was recently "fired" as the spokesmodel for the Club Paris chain? Alabasterchinchilla 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club Paris 

message: Perhaps this has been brought up before, but... how exactly is "that's hot" a catchphrase, much less a "trademark," of Hilton? Does she have some special way of saying it or what? It seems to me to be far too, well, simple to even notice that anyone is using the "phrase" more commonly than others, but maybe I'm just saying that as someone surrounded by people declaring this to be "hot" here and there... --Lenoxus 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im way late with this answer, but "thats hot" is her catch phrase because she says it frequently, and is one of the only celeberties to say it often. Anything becomes your "catchphrase" when its something not many people say and you say it enough times. DurotarLord 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that hot? 

message: Speaking with all due dry encyclopaedic objectivity, surely there should be something in the article about Ms Hilton's not inconsiderable sexual attractiveness? 82.69.28.55 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think her fashion modeling and Playboy mention is sufficient. -SpuriousQ 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: talking of hot...

message: When she was 17, her parents did sent her to CEDU for 2 months for a yet unknown reason. This organisation was later closed down due to lawsuit based on child abuse. A lot of former detainees had acted out i similar way (limited by access to a lesser amount of money) due to PTSD after being locked in a abusive environment.
She should have been 17 at the time. Do anyone have knowledge about what facility it was?
Covergaard 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stay at CEDU

message: Hi,
In 2005 I recall her address book was leaked onto the 'net.
I was going to add something about it in the article but since it was so prominent and it wasn't there I assumed there was some reason for that (e.g. it was asked to be removed, etc).
Has it been decided unworthy of Wikipedia, or not included for any other reason?
If no-one's got around to putting it in yet I'm happy to do so but just thought I'd check that there wasn't a good reason why it wasn't there already - so I don't type it all up and then have it deleted!
Thanks :-) 
--Christopher 12:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in the article at least once, and I remember there was a pretty sizable section on it. Looking through the talk page archives, I see no consensus against the topic, and I wouldn't object if you re-add it provided that it is, of course, well-sourced and objective. It seems worthy enough of this article, since the event was widely covered by the press and a big deal for Hilton, T-Mobile, and the celebrity world. -SpuriousQ 12:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton Address Book Leak 

message: Now that both AP and CNN are reporting on the whole ParisExposed thing, we might as well include it in the article. I was torn about including the URL for the website, and others may decide to remove it. The only defence I can offer is that  the site is publicly known through the AP/CNN article and I did not make it a live link. OTOH it could be removed since the article in question  does include this information, so someone wanting to know can look it up. It's a case of WP:BLP vs. information now in the public record. I'm fine either way. This is different from the address book incident, discussed above. 23skidoo 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is crap, I don't believe it. The image of her on the license is all blurred, as is most of the picture itself. It looks like a joke or a scam to me. Acalamari 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are TONS of real photos, videos, documents... 85.178.31.104 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ParisExposed

message: Apparently, there was a video on youtube, but it was removed. Anyone has a link for a mirror of the video? (btw, here's a news link on this: itn.co.uk) bogdan 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism, anti-semitism, homophobia on youtube? 

message: I've re-read this article from top to bottom. I've helped contribute to it quite alot, admitedly. But I've really come to notice alot that is wrong with it.
It needs a complete rewrite, but should still include the info it has there right now, aswell as expand upon it. I honestly believe after reading biographies on other young stars such as Ashlee Simpson or Lindsay Lohan, their articles are put together alot better. As long as we can cite sources, all the info we include about Hilton has a place here, whether for or against her. 
The article should be written out as an ongoing biography, perhaps year by year, that includes all the good and all the bad of her personal life and her career. Whereas, at the moment, it has a Background section, two big sections for all her brands, in no particular order, and her discography. It looks a mess in my opinion.
Here's an example of how it could be written (not to say that this is all correct, but to give an example) :
===2003: Rise to mainstream fame===
Following some small cameo roles in The Cat in the Hat and Wonderland, Hilton began work on her reality series for Fox titled The Simple Life.
Along with Nicole Richie (adopted daughter of Lionel Richie) Hilton lived with a family on their farm in rural Altus, Arkansas. Highlights of the show included the girls performing poorly at various jobs, making out with the local boys, and numerous instances of them shown as "fish out of water". 
The leak of her then three-year-old sex video fueled an "Internet frenzy" a week prior to the premiere of The Simple Life, leading to speculation that it was a deliberate publicity stunt. Hilton has strongly denied such claims and stated she was "embarrassed" and "humiliated" by the publicity brought by the tape.
Released as 1 Night in Paris, the unauthorized sex video featured her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon. The film earned three AVN Awards in 2005, including "Best Selling Title of the Year". Hilton originally sued Salomon over the release of the tape, but settled out of court in July 2005. According to reports, Hilton was awarded up to $400,000 and planned to donate a percentage to charity. However, in a 2006 interview with GQ magazine, she stated: "I never received a dime from [the video]. It's just dirty money and [Salomon] should give it all to some charity for the sexually abused or something."
The tape caused much negative backlash from the general public, however, the controversy also stirred interest. The show started airing on Fox December 2, 2003, to surprisingly well received ratings. The premiere episode drew 13 million viewers, increasing Fox's Adults 18-49 rating a phenomenal 79%. The second episode drew 13.3 million viewers, an increase of 200,000 viewers over its premiere. 
Hilton also starred in the short film L.A Knights and appeared in the music video for Caught Up In The Rapture by Won-G featuring Gizelle. 
She also cancelled her engagement to Jason Shaw and is said to have dated Oscar de la Hoya during some of the year.
 
As I said, that may not be all acurate, but it illustrates what I'm trying to say. We can include info on her successes and criticisms and write it out neatly in chroniclogical order, to tell a proper and accurate biography of her life, rather then big subsections that include lots of different paragraphs on different issues in no order what-so-ever.
Discuss.
Celebrity-Benji 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think this article would greatly benefit from a major restructuring with a focus, as you suggest, on chronological order rather than on "careers". -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankyou, I'm glad you agree. Maybe I could get a bit more feedback on this, as I am planning to modify it myself if need be, or we could all plan it and contribute together... Celebrity-Benji 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Complete rewrite...! 

message: Following some small cameo roles in The Cat in the Hat and Wonderland, Hilton began work on her reality series for Fox titled The Simple Life.
Along with Nicole Richie (adopted daughter of Lionel Richie) Hilton lived with a family on their farm in rural Altus, Arkansas. Highlights of the show included the girls performing poorly at various jobs, making out with the local boys, and numerous instances of them shown as "fish out of water". 
The leak of her then three-year-old sex video fueled an "Internet frenzy" a week prior to the premiere of The Simple Life, leading to speculation that it was a deliberate publicity stunt. Hilton has strongly denied such claims and stated she was "embarrassed" and "humiliated" by the publicity brought by the tape.
Released as 1 Night in Paris, the unauthorized sex video featured her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon. The film earned three AVN Awards in 2005, including "Best Selling Title of the Year". Hilton originally sued Salomon over the release of the tape, but settled out of court in July 2005. According to reports, Hilton was awarded up to $400,000 and planned to donate a percentage to charity. However, in a 2006 interview with GQ magazine, she stated: "I never received a dime from [the video]. It's just dirty money and [Salomon] should give it all to some charity for the sexually abused or something."
The tape caused much negative backlash from the general public, however, the controversy also stirred interest. The show started airing on Fox December 2, 2003, to surprisingly well received ratings. The premiere episode drew 13 million viewers, increasing Fox's Adults 18-49 rating a phenomenal 79%. The second episode drew 13.3 million viewers, an increase of 200,000 viewers over its premiere. 
Hilton also starred in the short film L.A Knights and appeared in the music video for Caught Up In The Rapture by Won-G featuring Gizelle. 
She also cancelled her engagement to Jason Shaw and is said to have dated Oscar de la Hoya during some of the year.
 
As I said, that may not be all acurate, but it illustrates what I'm trying to say. We can include info on her successes and criticisms and write it out neatly in chroniclogical order, to tell a proper and accurate biography of her life, rather then big subsections that include lots of different paragraphs on different issues in no order what-so-ever.
Discuss.
Celebrity-Benji 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think this article would greatly benefit from a major restructuring with a focus, as you suggest, on chronological order rather than on "careers". -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankyou, I'm glad you agree. Maybe I could get a bit more feedback on this, as I am planning to modify it myself if need be, or we could all plan it and contribute together... Celebrity-Benji 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003: Rise to mainstream fame

message: The people who contribute to this page seem to be experts on Paris, and I was wondering if anyone here knows of her making any comments regarding whether or not she is a feminist or if she has said anything on the topic of feminism in the past.  I am not saying that it should be added or anything, I am just personally interested and am unsure of where else to find this information. thanks 68.32.16.90 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information

message: How long have this page been locked for? And why is the reason behind it?
Can someone request unprotection.. ?
130.113.226.6 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is locked so IP's and new users cannot vandalize it. If we were to end the semi-protection, we would be reverting more vandalism from this article. Acalamari 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily true; seems like an oversweeping generalization that fails to assume good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.35.4.130 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the categories at the bottom of this talk page clearly states that this is a controversial topic. No one is assuming bad faith. Depending on the vandalism, I'll see what we can do about the semi-protection at a later date. I want to avoid another situation where the semi-protection was lowered and the vandals crawled out of the woodwork. In the meantime, if you wish to edit this page, create a new account and wait for four days to edit, or, if you want, discuss what changes you want to make to the article. Acalamari 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I nkow it's protected for a reason, but surely you could clean up the vandalism quickly? I want to edit this article.80.41.6.203 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do two things: inform us what you want to put in, or alternatively, create a new account, wait for four days, and then edit the article. Acalamari 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I'll read the article and look for things to improve. But I don't know if i'm allowed an account...212.139.222.62 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are allowed an account; everyone is allowed one, just as long as they don't vandalize. Acalamari 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protected for no reason

message: How about this?  If Zsa Zsa's husband is the father of Anna Nicole's daughter, Dannielynn, that makes Danielynn and Paris related by marriage a couple of times removed.  Talk about a story made for tabloids!  This should be added to her family section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.86.240.195 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IF it turns out to be the case, which we don't know yet, so it shouldn't be added. IF it turns out to be the case, we can discuss it then. --Golbez 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zsa Zsa and Anna Nicole Smith

message: Can someone tell me if she is releasing a new album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.197.19 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new album? 

message: What about the new breast Implants?
Paris Hilton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.3.223.208 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Implants