Blogging B‑class ( inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Perez Hilton. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Perez Hilton at the Reference desk.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

LGBT studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I've seen on the internet that he's a latino blogger from Miami. Lavendeira seems like a portuguese name... is he brazilian?

He's the son of hi people cuban expats living in Miami-- Agnaramasi 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Revamped

Did anyone notice that he has been attacked in the first paragraph. Probably needs changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.227.89.75 ( talk) 05:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Well I just redid the entire Perez Hilton article due to atrocious writing and horrible grammar, as well as useless information. Hopefully its a bit more cohesive now. I referred to him as Lavanderia rather than das problems with the things I've written feel free to change it and let me know my errors. I dont' know what people will say about the criticisms I've included about Perez. I put them in there mainly because whoever had originally written the article wrote something ridiculous like "Many people that don't like him like to bash him"... or something just as vague and misleading. I guess it could be considered bias, but I don't think Perez's profile can go without at least a mention of how most bloggers hate him. Anyways, hope I helped... reply

Also I used most of my references within the article and cited them there.. I didn't actually put a seperate references section at the bottom if anyone wants to help with that. --Shiaobundan 00:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the article, you did a great job, it makes him sound like a decent man! Jeje, jk.

I think Perez should be used instead of Lavandeira; he is known as Perez and he calls himself Perez. It makes sense, I think.

I say keep, that man is steadily embeding himself into popular culture. if this person has an article Christine Dolce, than this guy should have one, maybe not under "Perez Hilton" but his real name.( Myrockstar 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)) reply

If the article is kept, I propose it is moved to the title Mario Lavandeira, and Perez Hilton be redirected there( Myrockstar 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)) reply

When someone is of note, their article title generally reflects the name of which they are noted, not their birth name. For instance, singer Tori Amos' birth name is "Myra Ellen Amos," but her page is Tori Amos. As to whether or not Perez Hilton is famous enough for inclusion: a google search for the phrase "Perez Hilton" comes up with over a million hits, so he passes "the google test" with flying colors. Pacian 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

'Lavandeira began his career as a writer for gay magazines, and started blogging "because it seemed easy"[1]. When PerezHilton.com became the first to their "Page Six" gossip column. Later, Lavandeira was sued by Colin Farrell for posting a link to his sex tape. '

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Nor does your inclusion of it as a topic within this section. Anyway I'm pretty sure it's been fixed by now. Fatrb38 ( talk) 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Vandalism

I.P Address 71.204.121.194 vandalised the whole article on 11th of november 2006. It is now reverted back. This user has gone on a spree of vandalising wikipedia. Magnoliapaint 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

"Fat Boy Mario". An anonymous user has been changing all name references in the article to "Fat Boy Mario". Is this vandalism? (If so, please stop.) -- Stephen e nelson 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

YES Vandalism. Reverted back by another user. Magnoliapaint 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Does he think it is his job to "out" all those who might not really be gay? Who cares about their private life, what's his business looking into it? -- Jonathan.Bruce 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some gay people feel that when gay celebrities stay in the closet it delegitimizes "gay culture". While this may be correct (like drug use- lots of people do it but few admit to it, so it stays underground), it doesn't justify airing someone's sexuality in public against their wishes.

Dont care

He won't be doing an exposé on, say, Kevin Spacey because no one really cares. It's just the bimbos in society he focuses on. Cannot stand the guy, does he actually have any proof other than Alexa that his site is that successful anyway? 213.218.228.160 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This discussion page should only be used to discuss Perez's article, not opinions on whether or not he is justified in "outing" gays. Expect this section to be deleted soon. Fatrb38 ( talk) 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7qFo8Pi5E "Gossip blogger Perez Hilton has been ordered to stop stealing photos from Splash News and Picture Agency. The internet gossip columnist - real name Mario Armando Lavandeira - was handed a Cease and Desist order from the agency's lawyers on Tuesday. " -- Archeus 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've removed this from the article until we can find a citation for it:

As of December 1st 2006, PerezHilton.com was serving over 3 million unique visitors daily. [1]

That link is just to the front page of their hosting company, which provides no supporting information. For traffic numbers I like to see third-party data. Poking around on perezhilton.com, I see claims of traffic like that, so maybe we're looking at something like "Perez Hilton claims..." rather than a statement of fact. William Pietri 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Try going to Alexa.com or other 3rd party sites to figure out the numbers. I might add a few in because they are relevant. Fatrb38 ( talk) 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Now the article refers to him both by hilton and by lavandeira.. shouldn't it just use one of the two to avoid misconceptions? I would prefer Hilton I guess.. Jeroenemans 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fixed-- Agnaramasi 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fixed again. It now primarily refers to him as Hilton rather than Lavandeira. It should be noted that Hilton is his professional name and the name uses when he is billed. Fatrb38 ( talk) 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The criticism section contains many instances of Perez defending his actions, but references to negative criticism is either unsourced or deleted. A section linking to an article that quotes members of the gay community criticising Perez is repeatedly deleted. In general, the criticism sections read as defenses of Perez. Many citations are needed in both sections.

i think the critical part is a tad bit biased. Kemi<3

If you want people to start considering your comments as legitimate then do 4 "~" marks after you type something or just plain register a user name. Also be more specific about what you were referring to. I'm assuming you are talking about his Miss USA controversy though. I added the opinions of two pageant organizers so I hope that helps. I'll be on the lookout for vandalism or biased editing since the opinion of the two officials is relevant. Fatrb38 ( talk) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I removed the claim that Perez posted an old Fiona Apple song and falsely claimed that it was a "new single" because his actual post does not actually claim this. [2] He merely calls the song "new", which is too vague to be clearly either true or false; it could mean either "new to me" or "new single," but because of this ambiguity it does not qualify as disinformation. Moreover, we need some examples of Perez actually posting false stories.-- Agnaramasi 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

PerezHilton.com Merge

See discussion on Perezhilton.com page

I've commented out part of the criticism section. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, "editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is...unsourced". When the information is properly sourced, feel free to uncomment it. — ShadowHalo 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

i'm wondering if it might be better to change the name of this article to Mario Armando Lavandeira with the name Perez Hilton redirecting here rather than the reverse? -- emerson7 | Talk 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This has already been discussed, and the current name is the result of those discussions... It was determined that because he is notable as Perez Hilton and not Mario Lavendeira, that the main title for the article should be Perez Hilton. E.g. "Anna Nicole Smith" is the main title for the article on Vicki whatever her real name is...-- Agnaramasi 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to let people know that, now that I have some time, I am going to restore a lot of the significant stuff that was mercilessly deleted by anonymous user:76.167.102.24 in these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Perez_Hilton&diff=101508297&oldid=101017481. I will also, of course, find appropriate sources. In the future, I really don't think we should let people delete true and notable facts from this article just because they haven't googled for sources that are readily available.. These edits were very bad faith and very lazy, IMO...-- Agnaramasi 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

grreeat idea. i was planning to do that myself, but haven't had the time to really sit down and literally sort it all out. emerson7 | Talk 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Done.. I also reorganized some of the material into a more logical order...-- Agnaramasi 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

An anonymous user deleted this claiming that it is: (1) "specious" speculation from Lavandeira's website that does not belong in the entry; and (2) morally wrong. I restored the sentence, which is well sourced, because I don't agree with these criticisms and any decision not to include it must be made through discussion between editors.

In response to (1), it is crucial that the sentence is not relaying Lavandeira's speculation directly, but is making a factual claim about the content of the website, which is precisely all that is notable about Lavandeira to begin with. In fact, most of the article is about content and we have a specific section on Lavandeira's particularly controversial and notable habit of outing celebrities. In relation to that section and why his blog is notable at all, this list is absolutely relevent. In response to (2), personal moral judgments are entirely POV and have nothing to do with what is or is not included in a Wiki entry. To counter any perceived bias I explicitly added the fact that many of the celebrities on this list explicitly avow that they are heterosexual. And may I also suggest that self-righteousness and claims of moral superiority over other editors is not really good wiki etiquette...-- Agnaramasi 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

i agree with your action. this article, and its contents are about mr lavandeira. the individuals mentioned in the article are only incidental and neither imply nor infer anything at all. it's just an accounting of the facts. -- emerson7 | Talk 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hasn´t Jodie Foster come out of the closet already? Like, many years ago?!? So why is she still in the list?

The 'Beginnings In Blogging' section reads like a fan site and at times, a resume. I think it needs to be re-worded. I am not the best writer so could someone with more journalism skills take on the task? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilljayne ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC). Hilljayne 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

the section is factually accurate, referenced, and properly cited. unless you can cite a specific item that's biased, your npov claim is unfounded. -- emerson7 | Talk 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Note: this debate has been moved from Talk:Perezhilton.com, where it was misplaced. DWaterson 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

While it's possible to describe Perez Hilton as "noteworthy", having a page for his site and a page for him seems redundant and vain. Suggest merging article into Perez Hilton and redirecting.

I agree. I think Perez Hilton includes everything that Perezhilton.com includes, and more, so we should be able merely to change this page to a redirect without adding anything to the main article. I don't know how to do this, so we'll need someone to take this on.-- Agnaramasi 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

i disagree. simply because they have the same data, doesn't mean the should have the same data. -- emerson7 | Talk 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That wasn't my argument. They should be the same because, as above, having two articles seems redundent. Moreover, What is the rationale for having both seperately?-- Agnaramasi 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

i see your point, and i partially agree, but one article should be for the indiviual, while the other should be for website. i also think the namespace for the Perez Hilton article should be renamed to Mario Lavandeira. that should reduce some of the confusion and cross-postings. -- emerson7 | Talk 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't support a rename of Perez Hilton to Mario Lavandeira, given that WP naming convention is to use the common name by which people are known. Hilton is no different to an actor or singer taking a stage-name, e.g. we have the article at Elton John, not Reginald Dwight. Cheers, DWaterson 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Object. I think that Hilton/Lavandeira and his website are probably both sufficiently notable to warrant two articles - especially given Hilton's increasingly frequent appearances on TV and in the media as a personality himself, aside from his website. However, both articles need cleaning up and expanding to differentiate the content between the man vs. the website. Cheers, DWaterson 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Perezhilton.com and redirect to Perez Hilton. - I have spent a lot of time developing the Perez Hilton article, and I want to clarify what I think ought to happen with respect to the merge. I think that the Perezhilton.com article is redundent with respect to the Perez Hilton article and should therefore be deleted and redirected to Perez Hilton for 3 reasons: (1) Most of Lavandeira's biographical details, i.e. his various lawsuits and his media presence, are directly related to his blog; it should also be noted that much of the blog is about his opinions and interactions with the celebrities he writes about; (2) I think the format of the Perez Hilton article works fine to differentiate between the person and the blog and does not require cleanup; (3) I think that, because the Perez Hilton article is both better referenced and contains everything the Perezhilton.com article contains and more, the Perezhilton.com article can be deleted right now and redirected to Perez Hilton.

Another seperate question is whether we should either rename the article to Mario Lavandeira and redirect both Perez Hilton and Perezhilton.com to it or change all name references to Mario Lavandeira in the Perez Hilton article to Perez Hilton in order to make them consistent with the name of the article.-- Agnaramasi 00:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge. I don't think both are necessary. Lavandeira is notable primarily for the website, but the website is ultimately a vanity site, so I don't think it much matters which to keep and which to delete. I'll defer to Agnaramasi on this point. - Jmh123 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• More info about the blog. I feel like there is some basic information missing here about the blog itself. It appears the two articles have merged. I'm not sure if the old PerezHilton..com article contained the information I am looking for (from the discussion, it sounds like it was redundant) but now they it's been merged in, it seems reasonable to have a section devoted to the blog itself just like television, film, radio, etc. It could contain information about when the blog began, the change over from pagesixsixsix.com, readership levels, legal issues with content and so on. Weddingexpert ( talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I added that Perez Hilton does not name his sources and is in fact refusing to do so in court, which may damage his case. Also, I mentioned that Perez is thought to be a member of the underground blogger group, the ZeitGhosts. Which means he gets info from the inside of every publication- the very ones that have cases against him. All this is in the complaint against him, yet for SOME REASON if I say the word "ZeitGhosts" on Wikipedia it "mysteriously" gets deleted. Hmmmm wonder who's editing this. I'm sure that the ZeitGhosts will delete this too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.8.182 ( talk) 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC). reply

Give a credible source for any of that and it might be included if its notable. Especially with respect to the withholding sources in court thing. The link you gave was a spam link to some bizarre personal blog. Also, to appear more credible please consider getting a username.-- Agnaramasi 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My guess is that Agnaramasi is Perez Hilton and you really shouldn't be editing your own page. Love your blog, though. Even if you have no idea that the "bizarre personal blog" you speak of is a well known tech-blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.8.182 ( talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC). reply

The claim that I am Lavandeira-in-disguise is false, does not assume good faith, and is a borderline personal attack. Your edit was removed because it wasn't notable and wasn't verifiable.-- Agnaramasi 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure. Because everything on Wikipedia is fact and completely verifiable. Especially when you are talking about someone's bio. <--- extreme sarcasm. Actually, Agnaramasi, you've inspired me. I am going to make it my personal mission to remove everything on Wikipedia that is not 100% proven. So, I guess there won't be anything on Wikipedia tomorrow except E=MC2. Oh, wait. That's a theory. Say goodbye to that too. -- 68.126.8.182 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Verifiability. Verifiability. Verifiability. That's essentially the mantra of Wikipedia. As for E=MC^2 all you would need is a quote of someone credible saying it's a theory to say that it's a theory in its article. If you could come up with a credible and cite-able source regarding this "ZeitGhosts" thing then you could include it. Also as a note, most personal blogs are not considered legit enough to be referenced in Wikipedia articles. Fatrb38 ( talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

There needs to be clarification as to why someone so biting and proudly vulgar and who is clearly not political or intellectual appeals to so many people. Whereas someone like Howard Stern is at least on the edge of free speech via extremes in language, Perez just seems to want nothing but attention for attention's sake. Like Madonna and Paris Hilton, Perez is an obvious off shoot of raunch culture where people have become proud of being trashy in a reality TV show cultural landscape. Whereas a real thinker or critic like Cintra Wilson would be employing various tactics of witty references to 'take out' celebrities, Perez panders and grovels for attention from them. This post modernist approach to his blogging style needs to be explored in his article or it's just a bias homage. "While clearly lacking the erudite intellect and pop culture literacy of the old school gossip columnists he has gathered a huge following in the current lowbrow raunch culture that embraces the Andy Warhol concept of "fifteen minutes of fame." The preceding quote is fair, viable and should not be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine Huebscher ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC). reply

No, it is original research and was removed for that reason. Please consult WP:NOR for guidelines about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion. I suggest that you do research to see who has argued these things.-- Agnaramasi 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with anon wholeheartedly as to your opinion, but find a reliable, published source that says it. - Jmh123 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I removed this criticism in my most recent edit (and I apologize for not using the edit summary) because, once the references were properly ordered with their corresponding statements in the article, there is obviously no source for the claim that "Lavandeira has been criticized" for not speculating on celebrities' HIV status while not disclosing his own.-- Agnaramasi 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

-- Agnaramasi 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand using the blog as a source on occasion, and I've noticed that the entry is very careful to distinguish between sourcing as a reliable source and sourcing simply to indicate that Lavendeira said something in his blog. I think the entry has done well with this for the most part, and editors been very careful to use language in the text to distinguish between his words and things said about him. There's only one place currently that the line seems a little blurry: "For example, London-based singer Mika's 2007 rise to North American success has been at least partially attributed to Lavandeira's support" is sourced to his blog, but is backed up by another source. I don't think he's a valid source on his own credibility. The fact that his blog is cited so often in general concerns me just a little. Again, I think the entry is excellent in maintaining a distinction, but in citing the blog so much, there could be a danger of the entry becoming too much of a report on what he's saying in the blog instead of a NPOV discussion of the man. Not everyone loves the guy. - Jmh123 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am the one who carefully went through and seperated claims about the content of the blog from criticism or comments about the blog. Obviously, the blog itself can serve as a source for the former, but other notable and reliable sources must be used to back up the latter. I will look more carefully at the Mika claim and try to make sure this distinction is strictly upheld. Also, please let me know other problem areas.

Also -- the "career in blogging" section is about events surrounding Lavandeira as a blogger and so is generally not sourced to the blog. the "Perezhilton.com" section, rather, is specifically about the content of the blog and critical reactions to it. The blog should, and I think mostly does, serve as a source in this section for claims only about its own content.-- Agnaramasi 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

After reviewing the Mika claim, I think that the two sources are both necessary. The source from the blog itself shows an instance of Lavandeira's support for Mika. The newspaper source shows the link drawn between Mika's rise to fame and Lavandeira's support. They are both necessary to the claims made in the article.

Sounds OK to me. Just a reminder of the last part of my comment too. I think this entry is more of a report on his blog than a bio of PH. A little more criticism would create some balance. I don't typically read internet gossip, but surely he isn't universally loved, even (maybe especially) by his fellow gossips. Again, I think you're doing great--just expressing a few concerns. - Jmh123 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

for instance, I moved this from way up on the talk page because someone just added an edit to it. Surely people have commented on this:

Does he think it is his job to "out" all those who might not really be gay? Who cares about their private life, what's his business looking into it? -- Jonathan.Bruce 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some gay people feel that when gay celebrities stay in the closet it delegitimizes "gay culture". While this may be correct (like drug use- lots of people do it but few admit to it, so it stays underground), it doesn't justify airing someone's sexuality in public against their wishes.

Please do not use the talk page as a forum.-- Agnaramasi 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to have created confusion. As you can see from the line just above the new section, I brought these posts from earlier on the talk page to indicate that this is an issue some people feel strongly about that could be added to the entry. You mention in the entry that he has come under both "praise and criticism" for his attempted outings but I don't see any criticism. Feel free to move these posts back to where they came from if they bother you. - Jmh123 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've deleted the unhelpful bits--I thought the two comments quoted here are well-phrased. Again, sorry.

Any well-sourced and verifiable criticisms should definitely be added. But as per WP:TALK Talk pages are not a forum for the general discussion of a topic but specifically for the discussion of the article. If we are going to discuss criticisms, then they should be articulated as "x notable source shows that Lavandeira has been criticized for y reason" - as opposed to individual editors personal views about Lavandeira, which have little to do with the article itself.-- Agnaramasi 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Lavendeira himself is asking the question today at Yahoo Answers: [3]. 4,000 answers so far. I guess he thinks it's a good question and one that people are interested in. I don't read much about Hilton anywhere but here--I'll keep a look out in the future for reliable sources on this question. - Jmh123 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This has now been addressed. - Jmh123 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've removed reference to her until such time as there is a reference indicating that Hilton called on her to come out of the closet. All the links to specific entries on his website are now dead, by the way. - Jmh123 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Removed more names added to the list. Folks, these need to be sourced. And, speaking of sources, most of the links to his website are dead now. This really needs to be fixed. Thanks. - Jmh123 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've deleted all references to his blog that are dead links. I've also deleted his "hit list" of celebrities to out. The source, Monsters & Critics, is simply another website like his, referencing his blog. People keep coming along and adding names, without sourcing them. He can pick on people all he wants, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to give him a forum. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy, which says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." - Jmh123 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A further comment. The entry is on its way to becoming much more than a satellite to his gossip site, and I encourage continued movement in the direction of making this a genuine biography. Citations to his blog should be kept to a minimum, in favor of neutral, reliable sources. - Jmh123 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Historically, this article is the product of a merge with the former PerezHilton.com article. The idea was that Lavandeira is only notable for his blog, and so there was no point in having two seperate articles. The decision to merge will become problematic if it will now be suggested that, because we chose to merge Perezhilton.com into Perez Hilton, and not vice-versa, we ought to make the article a biography and remove references to the blog altogether. The blog is popular, notable, controversial, and widely discussed and referenced in the wider media. I strongly oppose any move to remove content relating to the blog on the grounds that the article ought to be purely biographical. Further to that, the blog itself can and should be used as a primary source for claims in the article about the content of the blog. Such citations most certainly do not violate WP:NPOV. For instance, the list of celebrities (who claim to be heterosexual) that Lavandeira calls to come out was appropriately sourced to the corresponding blog entries. The list is an example of the kind of content that makes Lavandeira's blog well-known and controvertial; it therefore precisely the kind of notable details that should be included on Wikipedia. Also, how exactly is it somehow "inappropriate" or "defamatory"? Nowhere was Lavandeira's position affirmed on Wikipedia; it was merely reported neutrally.-- Agnaramasi 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying the entry should be pure biography, not at all, but it should engage with reliable sources rather than simply echo his blog. I'm not trying to eliminate all references concerning PerezHilton.com. Most of the article is about his blog. You can use his blog as a source about Perez, but you can't use it as a source for gossip about other living people. This is a violation of BLP. This is official policy and it's very clear. In addition, it's a violation of WP:V, and this policy is quite clear when it comes to sourcing to blogs. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 says, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."

There are ways to talk about his blog without quoting his blog directly; it does get publicity from other sources, as you have just stated. (But that doesn't mean finding a source that says Perez said something either.) People who want gossip can just read the blog, which isn't burdened with BLP issues (and is an "entertainment site" with a lot of disclaimers attached, unlike Wikipedia). The article should focus more on the social issues surrounding his blog. Also, opportunities are being missed to talk about PH outside of his blog, because he is building a career for himself as a TV personality (although of course the blog is making it happen, and that can be in the article too).

As for the outing angle, there's a line in the entry saying that well known gay activists disagree with his approach, but there's no source for that. I didn't remove the line because we need a counterbalance, and because this would be such an interesting angle to pursue. One approach to this topic would be to look in greater depth at particular instances of "outing" by Perez such as Lance Bass and the guy who played Doogie Howser. I only deleted the latter because there was no reliable source given here outside of his blog, but I'm sure there were articles written about this, and he did indeed come out. As for Orman, I saw no indication from any source linked here that her coming out had anything to do with Perez. (Again, all his blog links were dead, but even if that one weren't, if the only source for his claim that he's responsible for outing her is his blog, then it's just not good enough.) If you can find a source for that, fine, because there were sources for her coming out.

I'm really only just becoming familiar with these policies in some depth, although they've been in place for some time. Also, they are in some cases being rigorously enforced for the first time, because of an ArbCom case, legal actions against Wikipedia, notable fu**-ups, and very clear statements on these issues by Jimmy Wales. When I started really examining the sourcing for this entry, I began to connect the article with the policies and realized that even if the links weren't dead, most of these would be in violation of policy. Although it's been allowed up until now, it's clearly not acceptable to use his blog as a source regarding other living people. That's a clear violation of policy. - Jmh123 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Saying that "Perez calls for x celebrities to come out of the closet" accompanied with a citation from the blog as a primary source is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. We even included the phrase "although many of them maintain they are heterosexual" to underscore that what is being reported is Lavandeira's own claim, not a verifiable fact about those celebrities. With respect the WP:V, the blog verifies the claim perfectly well. The only other question is whether this verifiable fact is notable. It certainly is, given that much of Lavandeira's notability has arisen from controversy surrounding his outing of celebrities, which already cited with respect to Lance Bass. Do you now see the distinction between including unverifiable speculation concerning celebrities' sexualities and reporting a notable instance of such speculation?-- Agnaramasi 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm going to post this on the BLP noticeboard to get some other opinions. I understand the distinction you are making perfectly well; I just don't agree with you. - Jmh123 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Alrighty then--lots of additions on my part, also addressing the issue I brought up before about the community's opinion on his obsession with outing people. Even I am surprised at just how strong the criticism is from the gay community. - Jmh123 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Could we get a mention of this please? I miss defacing his website. 82.163.34.247 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments are currently -- and have always been -- open on his site. -- 64.216.74.20 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Is it not considered stylistically poor to use quotations instead of paraphrasing on Wikipedia? It seems that it might be more concise and clear to summarize the different claims and positions presented in the "Outing celebrities" section instead of quoting each of them at length.-- Agnaramasi 04:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've never heard that. I can see where that might be a problem if you are talking about information, but this is a case where we are including the opinions of spokespersons for different organizations. A paraphrase would by necessity be less accurate than a quote. Each quote makes a different point. In the earlier version, Lavandeira was quoted twice in that section and that never seemed to be a problem.

Regarding the hit list quote, the brackets around the ellipses aren't a form of punctuation I've ever seen. - Jmh123 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It strikes me that this page is not at anything like the correct title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). At the very least, the page should be moved to Mario Lavandeira (middle names and Jr are not used if they are not the normal name by which the person is known). But, more importantly, as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens points out, we have George Eliot, not Mary Ann Evans, and Le Corbusier, not Charles-Édouard Jeanneret. So I consider that the correct title for this page should be Perez Hilton, as that is the name by which Mario Lavandeira has chosen to be known. Any objections to moving back to Perez Hilton? DWaterson 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

As there have been no objections in over a week, I've moved the page. DWaterson 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unregistered user Wikiaway has removed a passage referencing a dead link from the entry. Earlier, when I removed some similar links, I was reverted by Emerson, example of diff here: [4]. The edit comment refers to this policy: What to do when a reference link goes dead. The guideline is: "...do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive." Most of the links to Hilton's blog are dead, due to his having been dropped by his previous web host, but they do reference blogs that did exist at one time, as far as I know. - Jmh123 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

A follow-up: I found in the case of one contested statement referenced to PerezHilton.com that a google search of the title of that particular blog led easily to a new, working link, whereas a Wayback machine search did not. I also found multiple references on other gossip sites to this particular blog title so there was little doubt that the blog existed, contrary to the anon's edit comment. - Jmh123 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It's a pity that we can't WP:BJAODN this any more :-) DWaterson 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I did a re-organization and style clean up here to include more context as to why he gets more attention, which is why the guy deserves an entry. He's at the nexus of many social issues and media criticism, thus much of the above vitriol. Kitten b ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) kitten b reply

i think since Paris Hilton is mentioned as him being biased towards her by never publishing bad things about her (the racist +homophobic video tape of her), i think you should cite also he's trying to political pursue viewers to not vote Obama but vote for Hilary Clinton. Writing vague and disgusting lies about Barack Obama to the lead up election. I think it should be mentioned, see it for yourselves, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.37.175 ( talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, where is the source for that? Could be true, but I'd like to see a source. Or are you saying it is already there? I am a bit confused by your wording, sorry. Crazy coyote ( talk) 06:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Perez Hilton announced on his blog that he supports Hillary Clinton, and right before important primaries he posted rumors about Obama campaign staffers being communists (with pictures of alleged Obama campaign offices featuring Che Guevera paraphernalia). See "We support Hillary Clinton" "Barack Hearts Che" Some readers have organized a Boycott of Perez Hilton for this and other reasons. See "Boycott Perez Hilton", which also has arguments about why Perez is racist. There is also a boycott of fashion labels that support Perez, see fashionindie.com .-- Carcc ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In addition to "Boycott Perez Hilton" there is a website by Avril Lavigne, and endorsed by other entertainers including Christina Aguilera, Miley Cyrus, Queen Latifah, Lauren Conrad, Lindsey Lohan,Kim Kardashian, Ashley Tisdale, Joss Stone, Chyna, Nicolas Cage, Britney Spears, Kate Beckinsale, Christian Bale, Naomi Watts and Nicole Kidman advocating against Perez Hilton. See "Perez Lavigne". Is any of this worthy of inclusion in the article? I think so but I am new here and don't know how to edit it. -- Carcc ( talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Good argument, add boycott perez site on the main page. This is not a biased article, it should have links and points to both sides, not just sticking up for perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.109.108 ( talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"Homosexual" in the introduction should be changed to "lesbian and gay" in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of calling group by the group's preferred term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabanks ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can someone include the article(s) on the internet about his most recent lawsuit from BMG. Hence no updates about Britney or many other artists; basically he was gagged. 92.232.121.101 ( talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In the "Outing Celebrities" section, Michael Jensen is mentioned as editor of AfterEllen.com when he is editor of AfterElton.com. Can someone with the ability to edit semi-protected pages make the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.21.35 ( talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. DWaterson ( talk) 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I've replaced this:

With the exception of Jodie Foster, who has since come out as gay ^{[1] [2]}, these celebrities either maintain they are heterosexual or do not discuss their sexual orientation.

with this:

These celebrities either maintain they are heterosexual or do not discuss their sexual orientation.

1. On the one hand, Foster does not discuss her sexual orientation, so she's not an "exception".
2. On the other hand, some reliable sources have reported that she has come out for reasons discussed in detail in the Jodie Foster article.

The Foster article covers all the nuances, and this article isn't the place to simplify, selectively summarize or sidestep them.

chocolateboy ( talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

SHOULD WE ADD PEREZ RECENT WAR WITH SANTINO MARELLA?

A recent user made this change, which was shortly reverted. Though I'm not the original changer, I'm bringing it here for discussion per WP:BRD.

While I can see how a list of charities Hilton supports could possibly be considered notable if WP:RS mention it, I fail to see how it gets anywhere near the actual definition of charitable _work_ - no matter how much his ads normally go for. Calling it work on the basis of being "free advertising" would mean we would also need to list any charity mentioned favorably by any pundit e.g. Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow as charitable work, also (as their shows also have paid commercials). John Darrow ( talk) 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it is noteworthy to add in this section

"Perez used the popular Twitter platform to express his views to thousands of "followers" and tweeted celebrities at a manic pace, triggering a real-time war of words between Billy Bush and Giulini Rancic.

When hundreds of Perez's Twitter followers asked him if he thought President Obama or Vice President Biden were also ignorant because they shared Miss California's viewpoint, Perez would not respond directly. He just continued Tweeting or Re-Tweeting Celebrity responses supporting his viewpoint."

"This started a backlash against Perez for making the entire controvesy appear to be a personal attack against Miss California and not an objective viewpoint." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsoverboard ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ironically in the same week Perez is so vocal about equal rights for Gays his website features a video for a juvenile song called MY PENIS on which he is featured. It is widely regarded as an insult to all men.

To the unsigned poster above me: you would need a source for the claim that "it is widely regarded as an insult to all men" for starters. 2nd you need to sign your name or IP, or more specifically register an account with Wikipedia, if you want to be able to have legitimate back and forth discussions on this topic (how else will people know if they are still talking to the same person or a different person? PS I added the viewpoint of the pageant co-director since it's relevant. PPS It's the Miss USA pageant, which is a distinctively different pageant and organization from Miss America. Fatrb38 ( talk) 11:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've had an edit regarding his charitable contributions removed twice now. Perez is one of the few bloggers who frequently and explicitly requests charitable donations. Given that ads on his blog cost $10,000 at a minimum ^[3], and given that ads attract less attention than blog posts, he's conservatively giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of attention to charities. Is there any reason not to highlight this? Byrneseyeview ( talk) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually did bring this up, above. First, lots of other personalities (not just bloggers) mention charitable groups and encourage donations to them; Perez's actions are not that rare. Second, the entire paragraph is unsourced; if reliable secondary sources haven't found Perez's donation requests notable enough to mention, what makes it notable enough for a tertiary source like Wikipedia to mention it? Finally, even if a source is found, "garnering attention" still falls far short of the actual definition of "Charitable Work". I've made it "Support for charities" (lowercase c per WP:MOS). John Darrow ( talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The section on the Miss California controversy doesn't sound very neutral. The opinions cited are all anti-Hilton and almost all from right-wing columnist Michelle Malkin. I don't know why Malkin's opinion is given so much weight on this matter. MaesterTonberry ( talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I interpretted this as pretty straight forward. Perez made some crude remarks, they are listed. I do not think there is much defense for him regarding his comments. His view of Same Sex Marriage may be controversial to some, but there are better ways to support a cause than name calling and vulgarity. Different circumstances entirely than Imus, but the same in regards to being called out for vulgarity. ModestMouse2 (Talk) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't entirely disagree however this page isn't the place for personal opinions and you didn't address the problem I highlighted. Whilst your probably right that few have defended Hilton's comments that does not excuse the very biased tone of the last paragraph and the undue weight it gives to one individual's view.

Columnist Michelle Malkin commented
"He appalled some women like Malkin
Malkin also condemned pageant director Keith Lewis
"Malkin concluded

There's nothing wrong with including critical comments on Hilton however the section includes how Malkin was 'appalled' and how she also criticised Keith Lewis, such things are completely unnecessary. MaesterTonberry ( talk) 23:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It should be duly noted, at least within this Discussion Page section, that Michelle Malkin is not even a reputable source. No one could in good conscience consider her point of view anything less than extreme (on pretty much all subjects). As the original poster noted Michelle Malkin's comments are not relevant nor important enough to include in this article. If one wants to include a counter-argument to Hilton's then there are plenty of better (ie more legitimate) comments from people to use. Fatrb38 ( talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well as an acceptable alternative I removed the excessive emphasis on her opinion but kept her main critical comment of Hilton on the page. MaesterTonberry ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah I was looking at it and while I think there are better sources for a counter-point to Perez's regarding the controversy it's not a big deal if its hers or someone else's used as long as it represents the opposition to Perez's view. You might want to double-check to make sure your edit is still in there because I was editing as well. I decided to add in quotes from the Miss USA co-director (Shannon Moakler) since as a representative of the organization itself her opinion is relevant. Hope you guys like the addition of her comments (which I will also add to the Miss USA 2009 article). Fatrb38 ( talk) 11:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think Moakler's and Lewis' comments are relevant and would go well on the Miss USA 2009 page and Prejean's article, however they do look a bit out of place on Hilton's as they don't mention him or his role in the controversy. MaesterTonberry ( talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah it's not the biggest deal if they are not included. I think though if we are going to have the opinions of conservative talk-show hosts on this article then we can include the comments made by pageant officials. As long as the conservative opinions up then I think the officials' opinions should be up as well to give a good point/counter-point feel. Of course this also means I have no problem if both sides are removed and only Perez Hilton's comments are in the article. Whether or not the issue is important enough to have the point/counter-point stuff included is a decision I will leave up to everyone else. Moakler and Lewis' comments will still remain on the Miss USA 2009 article regardless of what happens on Perez's page. Thanks for your input. Fatrb38 ( talk) 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yep I agree we need to show both sides of the debate and Moakler and Lewis' comments are just as important (if not more) as Michelle Malkin's, however the comments quoted were more about Miss California and the controversy in general than about Perez Hilton. I won't be deleting them on this page but I think their inclusion would be better served on Prejean's article (which at the moment looks biased in favour of her). MaesterTonberry ( talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I know Lavandeira is his legal last name, but Perez Hilton is the name he is most commonly known by. Therefore, after initial biographical info, the article should exclusively refer to him as "Hilton". 24.171.52.43 ( talk) 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would actually have to agree with this. I am going to make the change. Thank you for the idea. Fatrb38 ( talk) 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Fixed. It now primarily refers to him as Hilton rather than Lavandeira. It should be noted that Hilton is his professional name and the name uses when he is billed. IAny additions/editions to this article should stay consistent with the new changes. Fatrb38 ( talk) 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

From the article: "Lavandeira lost a total of 45 lbs. in three months and dropped 13” around his waist, leaving him at 160 lbs and a 28” waist for his 6’0” frame, and 7% body fat."

There's just no way he has 7% bodyfat. No one can go from 30% to 7% in any period less than a couple years (especially not without steroids). The article cited for this doesn't even say 7%, only that he started off at 30%. For him to get down to less than 10% after losing ~40lbs would require that almost 100% of the weight he lost was bodyfat (and not lean weight, or muscle). It is not rational to conclude that almost all of the bodyweight lost was bodyfat and therefore if there are no objections we are going to have to delete the "7%" figure. 76.171.5.82 ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Fatrb38 ( talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems far more logical that he went from 30% to 23%, a decrease of 7%. Alansohn ( talk) 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed but I still don't know if the 7% figure should be included. Here is a link to a video he posted in 2008 (note that the "Flab to Fab" thing was supposedly back in 2004). Anyway in this video I don't know he could be anywhere less than 18% AT MINIMUM. I'm deleting the 7% figure but if anyone here can verify any real number with regards to bodyfat then let us know. 76.171.5.82 ( talk) 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Fatrb38 ( talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry I didn't realize I was not logged in. Anyway I've made it so that it now says "and a greatly reduced level of body fat.", which I think is fair. Thanks for the input. Fatrb38 ( talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Please join the discussion at Talk:Miss USA 2009#Merge "controversy" with Carrie Prejean article?, where editors are trying to hash out a solution to the explosion of information on this incident that are taking over Wikipedia. Exploding Boy ( talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply