![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I read from a tabloid that she did some devious deed and might be going to jail. Really/Why? Reliable source: http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Celebrities/0,9294,2-1225-2108_2076788,00.html - Lapinmies 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the damn petition? No link? Where is the citition for the "petition"?
In light of the small edit war going on over this edit which I have previously reverted, here is my reasoning for why I did so (copied from my response to Ledenierhomme on my talk page). The edit consists of the following:
I'm all for appropriate detail and don't care whether the information is positive or negative, but it must be well-backed by outside sources. I have actually spent a good deal of time trying to expand on the ParisExposed.com incident. The only sources I could find referring to racial/homophobic slurs were the New York Post and The Daily Telegraph (Australia)—hardly reliable sources—and the treatment was too weak for inclusion here (e.g., NY Post simply says she's seen "hitting the dance floor with sister Nicky and boldly declaring, "We're like two n-----s."). - SpuriousQ ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Its all complete POV nonsense. The tape of her racial slurs were on CNN. Its reality, get over it. The statement by the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law is a fact. Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annoyed with fanboys ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
There seems to be a small but dedicated coterie monitoring this page in order to ensure that no negative information, or at least as little as possible, is permitted to stay on this page. Countless other celebrities' pages have mention of alleged racism, homophobia, quirks, medical conditions, etc - but it seems impossible for anything like this to stay on the Paris Hilton webpage for longer than a couple of hours. Below is a "discussion" I had with one of these fanboys (and by "discussion", I mean me trying to reason with an automaton who labels every source - whether the largest newspaper in Sydney, or primary source footage itself - unreliable).
I realize you, and others, are for some reason doing their best to keep negative information off the Paris Hilton page - but photographs and video are about as conclusive evidence as you can get, short of her admitting as much herself to Barbara Walters. It doesn't matter whether the information comes from Youtube.com or Awfulplasticsurgery.com, ANYONE can view the images/video first-hand, so there is no question of the reliability of the source, the sources are direct, they are PRIMARY SOURCES.
furthermore, any "inferences" made do not require an appeal to a "reliable source", since they are mere logical deductions. A) Gossip press says Hilton is racist against African-Americans; B) Footage exists of her using ethnic slurs. There is no "original research" or "inference" there.
and why are you using the inclusive "we"? are you among a select few that dictate wikipedia policy? no? i thought not.
I'm providing facts, you're deleting them. I can't for the life of me fathom why...
The ParisExposed.com website is one of the most significant things ever to happen to her career, and is all over network news stations around the world - yet you, and a group of editors who appear to be Paris Hilton "fans", don't wish Wikipedia to make anything other than the most off-hand, dismissive reference to it, while detailing 37KB of positive or neutral information.... Ledenierhomme 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me get this straight. It's okay to reference YouTube when it's something positive ("Paris Hilton has her own channel in YouTube which is currently the #34 most subscribed channel of all time on the service, with over 10,000 subscriptions and 2,000,000 views.") but not negative (her saying "niggers")... the context is clear by the way, and you know it. Same goes for The Daily Telegraph (Australia) in reference 4.
Also, TMZ.com, TheBosh.com, Filmbug.com, E! Online, dailycal, and other websites of questionable credibility are referenced throughout with positive information - whereas when it comes to negative information, New York Post and Sydney's largest newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, are, according to your good self, "hardly reliable sources".
Despite your quite humorous attempts to appear devoted to academic rigour and source objectivity, it's clear your will go to any length to keep negative information off this page, no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical you look. Whatever. I've got more important things to do with my time, like marking about 50 essays before this weekend. I hope you get to meet Ms Hilton one day, I'm sure she'll go for your type............ HA! Ledenierhomme 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind all editors of WP:BLP. The policies regarding 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material' state that it should be removed immediately. If a single source only reports on something and there is no real analysis of the situation then it should not be included. We should always edit articles about living people with a very clear mind and lean towards leaving things out unless they are very well sourced.
Try not to think people are 'pro' and 'anti' a subject, you should assume good faith and realise that people are trying to improve this site whilst protecting the lives of those we are analysing.- Localzuk (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No way man. First of all, it doesn't quite fit the WP definition, which says someone who appears in pornographic movies. Last time I checked, Paris was only in one licensed pornographic movie. And in any case, the fact that she decided to later license it and make a buck hardly qualifies her as a porn star. In the interest of WP:BLP, I think that text needs to be removed ASAP! I'm going to remove it now. -- Jaysweet 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the the introduction of a trivia section is a very good idea; usually such sections are not encouraged. Trivia sections are common points of criticism in peer reviews or good/featured article nominations. Everything worth mentioning such be worked into the main text, and not the other way around - as it happened here - cut out of the text to be put in a new created bulletin list. On the same note, one line sections (Charity Work, Allegations of Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia) are rather pointless as well; they either need to be expanded or merged with another section. Sloan21 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the creation of a trivia section was an attempt to reduce the text. Please, review the article's edit history. The section, formerly titled "Media Spotlight" was much longer. I'll agree, however, that much of this information is somewhat useless. This is a somewhat contentious article, and I didn't want to offend other editors by deleting too much information in one fell swoop. My hope was that in highlighting the "trivial" nature of some of this material, much it might gradually be eliminated. Cleo123 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that as her fight with Nicole Richie dominated some of the tabloids for many weeks, it deservs a proper section or to be merged in to the main section. It is somthing she will always be known for. It should get more than just a trivia bullet.-- Hiltonhampton 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Could somone please give an example of this or a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiltonhampton ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Guess. [4] Cleo123 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually have all the clips on my hard drive, and could send them to you if you like. But here's a run down of the important facts. Paris does use the term "nigger or niggers" twice. But she doesn't direct the term at black people. The first time she uses it is while she and her sister are dancing. She says, "we're like two niggers". Paris appears wasted, and what exactly she means by this cryptic comment is totally unclear. I would note however, that the song playing in the background is "Hypnotize" by Notorious B.I.G, and the lyrics to that song are riddled with "niggers" doing this and "niggers" doing that. Later, while observing a shriveled up man who just got out of the pool, Paris says, "he looks like my ball sack after I fucked like 10 niggers". Again, the meaning of this is unclear, and the fact that heavy drinking and drug use have seem to be going on probably doesn't help the situation. Clearly Paris does not have a ball sack, nor is he a man. One could guess that she is playing on the fact that blacks are 5 times more likely to carry an STD than whites, and that she is implying the man looks like a ball sack that has been struck with some sort of nasty disease, but again, this would just be a guess.
The term "JAP" is used in a song Paris makes up sung to the tune of Sister Sledge's "We are Family". It is important to note that this song appears directed not at Jews in general, but one specific Jew named Ashley Star who Paris seems to have some sort of beef with. The lyrics go:
I am Ashley Star. I'm a little Jew-y JAP
I am Ashley Star I'm a fat ugly Jewish Bitch
I like Prada Products.....(this line sends Nicky into hysterics and she falls into Paris laughing and effectively ends the song.
The manner in which "chink" is used probably warrants some sort of edit on the main page to differentiate it from the other slurs. Paris doesn't actually call anyone a "chink". The camera pans to Paris' then boyfriend Jason Shaw talking to an Asian man in the distance. Paris remarks, "he always finds the biggest "herbs" (pronounced HER-bs, not ER-bs) to talk to". Then an off camera friend says, "Awww. Let him talk to the chink." Paris repeats the words "the chink" in a manner which indicates that, she finds her friend's choice of words humorous. So to suggest that she "uses" the word "chink" is highly deceptive. I've "used" the words "nigger", "JAP", and "chink" just now, but certainly not in the way most people think when they here somebody, "used the word chink".
Paris calls Nicky's future husband a "faggot", but it strains credulity to interpret it as a homophobic slur given the way it is uttered and the person to whom it is directed. Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
With some sort of modification regarding the "chink" term, I think the current status of that section is fine, but the title is not. There was some controversy with Paris' use of certain words, but to label it "racist" or "homophobic" crosses the line from objectivity to subjectivity. There is no solid evidence to suggest Paris is racist or homophobic. An cursory examination of her friends in fact reveals a disproportionately high number of Jews and Homosexuals, and two of her past three BFF's have been minorities. She's dated Jews in the past as well. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Bogan444 (
talk •
contribs)
03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
While I agree that we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot "read" her as a racist through her racist comments, it is essential for the article to mention the fact that she has been accused of being racist by Rosie and others as a result of those comments. The point of view that her comments indicate she is racist MUST be included. Therefore, I think that the title should say "Allegations of racism" insofar as the videos are only notable insofar as there was a reaction against her perceived racism by the public and the media.-- Agnaramasi 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand the logic going on here. When are the words "nigger" coming out of the mouth of a white person, or "faggot" coming from anyone, EVER, EVER not derogatory at the very least? What's up with the Paris sanitation going on on this site? I just don't get it. Cris Varengo 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The terms of this debate are slightly confused. What is perceived as "Paris sanitation" may merely be the enforcement of Wikipedia policy. Although it may seem counterintuitive, for editors to derive the claim that Paris is prejudiced from the fact that she used what are considered prejudiced words in a video recording constitutes original research under Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The claim would have to be, rather, something like this: "In light of her use of racist and homophobic epithets in video recordings posted on ParisExposed.com, Paris has been criticized for holding prejudiced views." It is essential that any such claim be attributable to a reliable and verifiable source as per WP:V.-- Agnaramasi 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Larger breasts? Implants?
PUSH UP BRAS DO NOT MAKE YOUR BREASTS BECOME HUGE Annoyed with fanboys 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Paris is 5'7" 218.186.9.1 13:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Xaritix 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understnd that this article has been blocked due to vandalism please can you unblock me so I can contribute to this page, if you look at my past contributions you will see none of them are vandalism, thank you, I look forward to editing. Beck 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph should state why she was sentenced to 45 days in jail and not merely that she was. Kidshare 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any news as to whether they're appealing the conviction and sentencing on the parole breach? 45 days sounds pretty heavy. Especially for someone who's going to definitely be a repeated victim of crime in a womens correctional facility, unless she was put under express guard / CPP and in isolation. Could you imagine how many convicts would be proud to say they raped Paris Hilton in gaol? Scary stuff. Jachin 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please change that picture of Paris in yellow? She doesnt look that hot or pretty in that pic.
As far as i know the Lynwood Prison has a special procedure for celebrity inmates. This includes a single cell and being seperated from the other inmates. But i guess we will see.
Please put now a criminal infobox -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 15:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
She deliberately broke the law and endangered the lives of other people by driving around drunk on a suspended license. She thought she was above the law and that her lawyer could distort the situation to her advantage. I'd say that makes her a criminal. What does she have to hit someone with her car first? Annoyed with fanboys 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
While much focus has been on fans and supporters of Ms. Hilton protesting her pending incarceration, a number of petitions have emerged supporting Judge Mintz's decision to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in jail. RegularLAgal 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)RegularLAgal
Now i have a very low opinion of America the reasons for this are to many to type here, now when i read that her mother viewed the prison she would be sent to & was appalled by the conditions. IT'S A PRISON not a holiday camp she broke the law & she must be punished for that. Why is there a free Paris campign? She's not a polictical prisoner, she has not been judged or sentenced unfairly so why? Now if you want to change my opinion of America do what you can to see that she does serve her time. And those who don't care about my opinion you're one of the reasons i hate America. Yours Grimm MD
"In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office claimed that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
Okay, so the statement of the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law, which can be legally proven and backed by sound evidence, is a "CLAIM" and Paris Hilton's word which she cannot even begin to substantiate is reality? Please.
It should read: "In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office ruled that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
The Paris fan club needs to be banned from wiki. All of the weasel words and POV nonsense on this page is disgusting. Annoyed with fanboys 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
STATING THAT A BINDING GOVERNMENT RULING IS A "CLAIM" IS POV. PERIOD. Annoyed with fanboys 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
All kidding aside, Paris Hilton did make highly offensive statements that could be intepreted as racist and homophobic in a public place and on video. The problem is that the article (and the discussion here) favors omitting this. No one is saying she should be called a racist or a homophobe. You can say racist and homophobic things without being racist or a homophobe. However, it is relevant because it is indicative of the maturity level of a high profile celebrity who is an influence on many young women.
The second problem is the idea that the Los Angeles City Attorney's office has made a CLAIM that Paris broke the law. It isn't a claim. It was a legal ruling based on her actions. The government of Los Angeles has more credibility in an encyclopedia article than a celebrity and her army of lawyers. She has even conceded that she is guilty at this stage. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I do have a bias against Ms. Hilton, however that bias would never come out in any contributions I would add to the article were it not locked. I would just present facts. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention at all of the prison issue? Even if thr issue is relatively minor, it did happen, and there should be AT LEAST a sentence to reflect this. After all, a sex tape got a whole section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.121.245 ( talk) 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
What happened to the article, was it AfD'ed? Nate 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think we should edit in (under the sex tape portion) that it (the tape) was and I quote "boring and grainy"? I watched it, and thats just what it was. Boring and grainy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paladin Hammer ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Could anyone please tell why Paris passes the notability guidelines? Salaskan 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I read from a tabloid that she did some devious deed and might be going to jail. Really/Why? Reliable source: http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Celebrities/0,9294,2-1225-2108_2076788,00.html - Lapinmies 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the damn petition? No link? Where is the citition for the "petition"?
In light of the small edit war going on over this edit which I have previously reverted, here is my reasoning for why I did so (copied from my response to Ledenierhomme on my talk page). The edit consists of the following:
I'm all for appropriate detail and don't care whether the information is positive or negative, but it must be well-backed by outside sources. I have actually spent a good deal of time trying to expand on the ParisExposed.com incident. The only sources I could find referring to racial/homophobic slurs were the New York Post and The Daily Telegraph (Australia)—hardly reliable sources—and the treatment was too weak for inclusion here (e.g., NY Post simply says she's seen "hitting the dance floor with sister Nicky and boldly declaring, "We're like two n-----s."). - SpuriousQ ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Its all complete POV nonsense. The tape of her racial slurs were on CNN. Its reality, get over it. The statement by the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law is a fact. Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annoyed with fanboys ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
There seems to be a small but dedicated coterie monitoring this page in order to ensure that no negative information, or at least as little as possible, is permitted to stay on this page. Countless other celebrities' pages have mention of alleged racism, homophobia, quirks, medical conditions, etc - but it seems impossible for anything like this to stay on the Paris Hilton webpage for longer than a couple of hours. Below is a "discussion" I had with one of these fanboys (and by "discussion", I mean me trying to reason with an automaton who labels every source - whether the largest newspaper in Sydney, or primary source footage itself - unreliable).
I realize you, and others, are for some reason doing their best to keep negative information off the Paris Hilton page - but photographs and video are about as conclusive evidence as you can get, short of her admitting as much herself to Barbara Walters. It doesn't matter whether the information comes from Youtube.com or Awfulplasticsurgery.com, ANYONE can view the images/video first-hand, so there is no question of the reliability of the source, the sources are direct, they are PRIMARY SOURCES.
furthermore, any "inferences" made do not require an appeal to a "reliable source", since they are mere logical deductions. A) Gossip press says Hilton is racist against African-Americans; B) Footage exists of her using ethnic slurs. There is no "original research" or "inference" there.
and why are you using the inclusive "we"? are you among a select few that dictate wikipedia policy? no? i thought not.
I'm providing facts, you're deleting them. I can't for the life of me fathom why...
The ParisExposed.com website is one of the most significant things ever to happen to her career, and is all over network news stations around the world - yet you, and a group of editors who appear to be Paris Hilton "fans", don't wish Wikipedia to make anything other than the most off-hand, dismissive reference to it, while detailing 37KB of positive or neutral information.... Ledenierhomme 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me get this straight. It's okay to reference YouTube when it's something positive ("Paris Hilton has her own channel in YouTube which is currently the #34 most subscribed channel of all time on the service, with over 10,000 subscriptions and 2,000,000 views.") but not negative (her saying "niggers")... the context is clear by the way, and you know it. Same goes for The Daily Telegraph (Australia) in reference 4.
Also, TMZ.com, TheBosh.com, Filmbug.com, E! Online, dailycal, and other websites of questionable credibility are referenced throughout with positive information - whereas when it comes to negative information, New York Post and Sydney's largest newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, are, according to your good self, "hardly reliable sources".
Despite your quite humorous attempts to appear devoted to academic rigour and source objectivity, it's clear your will go to any length to keep negative information off this page, no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical you look. Whatever. I've got more important things to do with my time, like marking about 50 essays before this weekend. I hope you get to meet Ms Hilton one day, I'm sure she'll go for your type............ HA! Ledenierhomme 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind all editors of WP:BLP. The policies regarding 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material' state that it should be removed immediately. If a single source only reports on something and there is no real analysis of the situation then it should not be included. We should always edit articles about living people with a very clear mind and lean towards leaving things out unless they are very well sourced.
Try not to think people are 'pro' and 'anti' a subject, you should assume good faith and realise that people are trying to improve this site whilst protecting the lives of those we are analysing.- Localzuk (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No way man. First of all, it doesn't quite fit the WP definition, which says someone who appears in pornographic movies. Last time I checked, Paris was only in one licensed pornographic movie. And in any case, the fact that she decided to later license it and make a buck hardly qualifies her as a porn star. In the interest of WP:BLP, I think that text needs to be removed ASAP! I'm going to remove it now. -- Jaysweet 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the the introduction of a trivia section is a very good idea; usually such sections are not encouraged. Trivia sections are common points of criticism in peer reviews or good/featured article nominations. Everything worth mentioning such be worked into the main text, and not the other way around - as it happened here - cut out of the text to be put in a new created bulletin list. On the same note, one line sections (Charity Work, Allegations of Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia) are rather pointless as well; they either need to be expanded or merged with another section. Sloan21 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the creation of a trivia section was an attempt to reduce the text. Please, review the article's edit history. The section, formerly titled "Media Spotlight" was much longer. I'll agree, however, that much of this information is somewhat useless. This is a somewhat contentious article, and I didn't want to offend other editors by deleting too much information in one fell swoop. My hope was that in highlighting the "trivial" nature of some of this material, much it might gradually be eliminated. Cleo123 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that as her fight with Nicole Richie dominated some of the tabloids for many weeks, it deservs a proper section or to be merged in to the main section. It is somthing she will always be known for. It should get more than just a trivia bullet.-- Hiltonhampton 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Could somone please give an example of this or a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiltonhampton ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Guess. [4] Cleo123 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually have all the clips on my hard drive, and could send them to you if you like. But here's a run down of the important facts. Paris does use the term "nigger or niggers" twice. But she doesn't direct the term at black people. The first time she uses it is while she and her sister are dancing. She says, "we're like two niggers". Paris appears wasted, and what exactly she means by this cryptic comment is totally unclear. I would note however, that the song playing in the background is "Hypnotize" by Notorious B.I.G, and the lyrics to that song are riddled with "niggers" doing this and "niggers" doing that. Later, while observing a shriveled up man who just got out of the pool, Paris says, "he looks like my ball sack after I fucked like 10 niggers". Again, the meaning of this is unclear, and the fact that heavy drinking and drug use have seem to be going on probably doesn't help the situation. Clearly Paris does not have a ball sack, nor is he a man. One could guess that she is playing on the fact that blacks are 5 times more likely to carry an STD than whites, and that she is implying the man looks like a ball sack that has been struck with some sort of nasty disease, but again, this would just be a guess.
The term "JAP" is used in a song Paris makes up sung to the tune of Sister Sledge's "We are Family". It is important to note that this song appears directed not at Jews in general, but one specific Jew named Ashley Star who Paris seems to have some sort of beef with. The lyrics go:
I am Ashley Star. I'm a little Jew-y JAP
I am Ashley Star I'm a fat ugly Jewish Bitch
I like Prada Products.....(this line sends Nicky into hysterics and she falls into Paris laughing and effectively ends the song.
The manner in which "chink" is used probably warrants some sort of edit on the main page to differentiate it from the other slurs. Paris doesn't actually call anyone a "chink". The camera pans to Paris' then boyfriend Jason Shaw talking to an Asian man in the distance. Paris remarks, "he always finds the biggest "herbs" (pronounced HER-bs, not ER-bs) to talk to". Then an off camera friend says, "Awww. Let him talk to the chink." Paris repeats the words "the chink" in a manner which indicates that, she finds her friend's choice of words humorous. So to suggest that she "uses" the word "chink" is highly deceptive. I've "used" the words "nigger", "JAP", and "chink" just now, but certainly not in the way most people think when they here somebody, "used the word chink".
Paris calls Nicky's future husband a "faggot", but it strains credulity to interpret it as a homophobic slur given the way it is uttered and the person to whom it is directed. Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
With some sort of modification regarding the "chink" term, I think the current status of that section is fine, but the title is not. There was some controversy with Paris' use of certain words, but to label it "racist" or "homophobic" crosses the line from objectivity to subjectivity. There is no solid evidence to suggest Paris is racist or homophobic. An cursory examination of her friends in fact reveals a disproportionately high number of Jews and Homosexuals, and two of her past three BFF's have been minorities. She's dated Jews in the past as well. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Bogan444 (
talk •
contribs)
03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
While I agree that we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot "read" her as a racist through her racist comments, it is essential for the article to mention the fact that she has been accused of being racist by Rosie and others as a result of those comments. The point of view that her comments indicate she is racist MUST be included. Therefore, I think that the title should say "Allegations of racism" insofar as the videos are only notable insofar as there was a reaction against her perceived racism by the public and the media.-- Agnaramasi 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand the logic going on here. When are the words "nigger" coming out of the mouth of a white person, or "faggot" coming from anyone, EVER, EVER not derogatory at the very least? What's up with the Paris sanitation going on on this site? I just don't get it. Cris Varengo 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The terms of this debate are slightly confused. What is perceived as "Paris sanitation" may merely be the enforcement of Wikipedia policy. Although it may seem counterintuitive, for editors to derive the claim that Paris is prejudiced from the fact that she used what are considered prejudiced words in a video recording constitutes original research under Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The claim would have to be, rather, something like this: "In light of her use of racist and homophobic epithets in video recordings posted on ParisExposed.com, Paris has been criticized for holding prejudiced views." It is essential that any such claim be attributable to a reliable and verifiable source as per WP:V.-- Agnaramasi 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Larger breasts? Implants?
PUSH UP BRAS DO NOT MAKE YOUR BREASTS BECOME HUGE Annoyed with fanboys 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Paris is 5'7" 218.186.9.1 13:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Xaritix 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understnd that this article has been blocked due to vandalism please can you unblock me so I can contribute to this page, if you look at my past contributions you will see none of them are vandalism, thank you, I look forward to editing. Beck 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph should state why she was sentenced to 45 days in jail and not merely that she was. Kidshare 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any news as to whether they're appealing the conviction and sentencing on the parole breach? 45 days sounds pretty heavy. Especially for someone who's going to definitely be a repeated victim of crime in a womens correctional facility, unless she was put under express guard / CPP and in isolation. Could you imagine how many convicts would be proud to say they raped Paris Hilton in gaol? Scary stuff. Jachin 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please change that picture of Paris in yellow? She doesnt look that hot or pretty in that pic.
As far as i know the Lynwood Prison has a special procedure for celebrity inmates. This includes a single cell and being seperated from the other inmates. But i guess we will see.
Please put now a criminal infobox -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 15:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
She deliberately broke the law and endangered the lives of other people by driving around drunk on a suspended license. She thought she was above the law and that her lawyer could distort the situation to her advantage. I'd say that makes her a criminal. What does she have to hit someone with her car first? Annoyed with fanboys 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
While much focus has been on fans and supporters of Ms. Hilton protesting her pending incarceration, a number of petitions have emerged supporting Judge Mintz's decision to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in jail. RegularLAgal 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)RegularLAgal
Now i have a very low opinion of America the reasons for this are to many to type here, now when i read that her mother viewed the prison she would be sent to & was appalled by the conditions. IT'S A PRISON not a holiday camp she broke the law & she must be punished for that. Why is there a free Paris campign? She's not a polictical prisoner, she has not been judged or sentenced unfairly so why? Now if you want to change my opinion of America do what you can to see that she does serve her time. And those who don't care about my opinion you're one of the reasons i hate America. Yours Grimm MD
"In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office claimed that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
Okay, so the statement of the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law, which can be legally proven and backed by sound evidence, is a "CLAIM" and Paris Hilton's word which she cannot even begin to substantiate is reality? Please.
It should read: "In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office ruled that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."
The Paris fan club needs to be banned from wiki. All of the weasel words and POV nonsense on this page is disgusting. Annoyed with fanboys 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
STATING THAT A BINDING GOVERNMENT RULING IS A "CLAIM" IS POV. PERIOD. Annoyed with fanboys 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
All kidding aside, Paris Hilton did make highly offensive statements that could be intepreted as racist and homophobic in a public place and on video. The problem is that the article (and the discussion here) favors omitting this. No one is saying she should be called a racist or a homophobe. You can say racist and homophobic things without being racist or a homophobe. However, it is relevant because it is indicative of the maturity level of a high profile celebrity who is an influence on many young women.
The second problem is the idea that the Los Angeles City Attorney's office has made a CLAIM that Paris broke the law. It isn't a claim. It was a legal ruling based on her actions. The government of Los Angeles has more credibility in an encyclopedia article than a celebrity and her army of lawyers. She has even conceded that she is guilty at this stage. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I do have a bias against Ms. Hilton, however that bias would never come out in any contributions I would add to the article were it not locked. I would just present facts. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention at all of the prison issue? Even if thr issue is relatively minor, it did happen, and there should be AT LEAST a sentence to reflect this. After all, a sex tape got a whole section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.121.245 ( talk) 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
What happened to the article, was it AfD'ed? Nate 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think we should edit in (under the sex tape portion) that it (the tape) was and I quote "boring and grainy"? I watched it, and thats just what it was. Boring and grainy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paladin Hammer ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Could anyone please tell why Paris passes the notability guidelines? Salaskan 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)