Talk:Celebrity/Archives/2014

Various talk
EventHorizon 17:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the "power law" part.

First of all, celebrity's not "domination of the many by the few", it's recognition of the few by the many. hey uh, why does pop star redirect here? it should redirect to pop music, no? Secondly, those matters are interesting, to a biologist (which I am not). However, that's not what's at hand.

However, I'm not convinced that (even though it was me who added this bit) that the "winner-take-all society" is directly related to celebrity. They're related concepts (WTA society resulting from importance of "a name" in a given industry, the GFOGL (get famous or get lost) paradigm) but professional prominence != celebrity. So I'm considering rv'ing myself there. Thoughts? EventHorizon 06:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Dan|(talk) 15:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Dan|(talk) 15:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) Yeah, its an interesting discussion. Naturally celebrities don't "dominate" over "ordinary" people, but the discussion about marginal (negligable) or even non existent differences in skill leading to a disproportionate difference in what we might call "visibility". I think visibility is somthing like "household-name-ish-ness" - but please don't slam me for neologizing...

I think it is very interesting to discuss weather social phenomenon are based on 'biological principles' - whatever they are. I know the power law trend backwards and forwards, and you can see it everywere - perhaps I should just update that article and put a more neutral link here?

Thing is "social stability" is very hard to quantify, and must ultimatly be a biological phenomenon (this is my POV :). I wanted to 'open up' this whole aspect of human culture in this article. I guess the safest thing to do is remove that section :)

All the best, --Dan|(talk) 15:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. if you like the article scilebrity please vote for it to be moved to scientific celebrity. Cheers, --Dan|(talk) 15:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course this article is US Centric. And so it should be. Most celebrities come from the United States, or more correctly, New York. Anyone can be a celebrity, but it means you have to do something special. New Yorkers are those special people. Good luck to them - they inspire us. Wallie 09:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why so many people want to be celebrities nowadays? what's the main reason? - left unsigned by someone

Especification
iin one side it says that "famous pop stars" and not rockstars and below it says actors and rockstars. and then later... SOME pop stars.. what do you think?

Is the reporting of a celebrity's private life performing a public service?
please give feedback on this topic WHY DO I BOTHER..... ?
 * It depends on how you define public service. In a narrow sense, a public serice is a service performed by state auhtorities; in this sense, of course reporting of a celebrity's private life is not such a service. If you understand public service as a service provided towards a larger audience, it is a public service, as soon as the report is a public report. Perhaps you did not want to ask such a trivial question, but rather intended to discuss whether reporting of a celebrity's private life in public is justified. This is a tricky question, and it is decided in courts worldwide from different legal approaches: In some jurisdictions, as e.g. the United States or Israel, any true public report about any person is legally permitted. This is understood as emanation of free speech. Germany, on the other hand, has a different approach, as the legality of such publication depends on a sphere theory: If the celebrity has voluntarily brought the sphere of life about which a (true) report is published into the public discussion, he or she cannot demand that true reports concerning this sphere are not being published. If, for example, the celebrity had allowed home stories showing the spouse's and children's life extensively, it would be permissivble to report about a separation, otherwise not. This leads to the result that e.g. children of celebrities are protected from public reporting as long as the celebrity had never presented them in public. According to this approach, the freedom of media has to be brought into a balance with personal freedom. As soon as someone reveals a part of his or her life, that person had exercised his or her personal freedom in a manner that he or she agrees to it being discussed in public. --DanSchultz (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
This article is a possible candidate for deletion.96.53.149.117 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Frightful article: anyone for deletion?
This does more to degrade the WP brand than to contribute anything useful for readers. It's an embarrassment, and at the least needs to be trimmed right back. Tony  (talk)  03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the word is overused on WP List of celebrities, List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, etc. it is an extremely vague, culturally relative term. I would prefer a dictionary def and links to related concepts. I do NOT like us using the word to describe people, even when all they are is obviously a celebrity ie Rula Lenska. unless someone out there in the real world would like to define a celeb as someone who gets more than, say 500 hits per day on their wikipedia article. that would make our job easy, but horribly self referential and put us at risk of a black hole type implosion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would someone at least add Fame in the 20th Century by Clive James as a source for what fame/celebrity is? Anyone writing this article who isnt familiar with his work is not ready to add much content here, IMHO.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then, trim it right back. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Image
The introductory image of an article should be well-selected, and clearly embody the concept of the subject matter. The current image of David Beckham, an English former footballer, is not the best example of the phenomenon. I see from past discussion below that some Wikipedians are forgetting to be objective in the construction of this article. Wikipedians are to refrain from subjective edits, and from using an article like this to demonstrate fan loyalty to a particular favourite celebrity (e.g. by changing the image to that of their idol).

Having said that, I will take the current image of David Beckham and place it under the section of Careers that offer celebrity status. For the front image, I will take a more undisputed example of celebrity: Justin Bieber. He is a good choice because even someone like me, detached from popular culture (and without any interest in his genre of music), has heard of him. Also, as cited from the article about him: With a global fan base, termed as "Beliebers", and over 40 million followers on Twitter, he was named by Forbes magazine in 2012 as the third-most powerful celebrity in the world.

I would also like to note that the article overplays the significance of the sports industry. The article still seems to reflect the insights of the original author, who I imagine was quite the sports fan. The entertainment industry is a far more significant source of celebrities than the sports industry. Gossip magazines feature celebrities from entertainment far more often. Therefore, the mention and showcase of professional athletes here is overdone and misleading. Wikipedia articles must aim to be as accurate as possible in the treatment of their topic. - The Aviv (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Past discussion
What in the world does the caption mean? Is this some form of patronisation? -- Natalinasmpf 14:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye - I think its being sarcastic Robdurbar 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've eedited the caption to make it more appropriate Robdurbar 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. I like that. Paris Hilton typifies the 21st Century celebrity, just as Pablo Picasso did the 20th Century and Sarah Bernhardt the 19th. Wallie 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping this is tongue in cheek. Paris Hilton typifies what and how? And what has Picasso got to do with anything? You could put forward arguments for any number of 'typical' celebrities in that they represent a 'type' but they would all be different and therefore no more representative of the genre than any other. For the record, I would put forward Marylin Monroe for 20th Century as her life nicely demonstrates the rise to fame, frenzied media attention leading to her downfall and posthumous rise to iconic status Btljs 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)]]
 * So someone's got rid of Paris and put in Michael J. Not that I don't approve but: 1. isn't he strictly a late 20th century/21st century celebrity and once again why him? why not David Hasselhoff? or Nicole Kidman? or Eminem? or David Beckham? or Chemical Ali? or are we going to have a different celebrity every week? Btljs 10:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is that? Lil Flip246 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Federline
Who is he? The latest US college football star? I doubt he is a celebrity. Perhaps he is in the United States, but nowhere else. Previously Michael Fox was there. At least I know who he is. When I first saw it, I thought it was Roger Federer who is unknown in the United States, but a celebrity in Australia.

I would think that Pope John Paul 2, Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev or even the man himself, Nelson Mandela are better known internationally, and might be better candidates. 60px|Nelson Mandela A better choice??? Wallie 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Federline is an American celebrity. He doesn't really have a career, but is the #1 person in tabloids/for the paparazzi. Public interest is what celebrity means and Kevin Federline has just that. Maybe there was public interest in Nelson Mandela and Mike Fox 20 years ago, but not anymore.

Federline defines what celebrity means in today's world. It's based on public interest, not a career. That's why he is the best example of a celebrity. This also fits the description of celebrity at the top of the article because it's careful to explain that celebrity no longer is synonymous with "actor" or "singer".

I think major news companies should stop reporting on the personal life of famous people because I am sick of it. I also think that their assets should be seized and spread to the rest of society. I am a socialist and believe in placing income caps on all people. No one person should have more than $1,000,000 in annual salary. This is more than enough and most people will never reach it in their lifetime. We have more than enough money to solve all the ills of society but the problem is that this wealth is sitting in accounts doing nothing more than further enriching people who don't need it. Down with all celebrities.
 * You are talking only about the United States here. At the moment, I am watching TV and reading the paper too. There has not been one mention of Kevin Federline HERE. We have however had Nelson Mandela mentioned, and also almost saturation coverage of Pope John Paul 2. So what is your definition of celebrity? I would say that far more people know who Pope John Paul 2 is than Kevin Federline. You still didn't tell me who/what Kevin Federline is/does. I do agree with you that some people get too much money. I believe that this started with some CEOs ripping off their companies with share options etc.. This is a recent and disturbing phenomenon.  Wallie 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Federline doesn't do anything. He's married to Britney Spears. He may not be as well known in austailia as Nicole Kidman, but he's the guy you see in taboids, on ET, all over the internet, etc. right now.
 * Hmmm. I tried a search on Google. Federline got 2.5m hits. And Nelson Mandela got 11.5m hits, almost 5 times more! So I think that proves he is popular. I tried John Paul II, and he got 134m hits! Not bad either. So I guess the internet is different here than in the US. Wallie 07:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Paris
Thats more like it. A real celebrity that everyone knows. Gets 825m hits on the internet too. I guess the city and the other Paris (Troy) could have helped too... Wallie 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hilton is in some senses a special case; she is famous at least in part for being an example of the perceived negative or shallow aspects of celebrity life"... um, I think the sex tape had the most to do with it. I would never have even heard of her were it not for that. - left unsigned by someone

Image copyright problem with File:Oscar Wilde.jpg
The image File:Oscar Wilde.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping changes
Look, if you are trying to help, that's fine and all, but you are removing far more than you are adding, and you never left a message on the talk page or an edit summary. Dustin ( talk ) 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. OK, then: this article is a complete mess. It is too long, unstructured, uses poor grammar and is completely US-centric. I was trying (before you reverted it) to create a structure that made sense by moving (not deleting) the sections around and adding 'history' which is sorely needed. Small changes are really not going to save this article, so I (or someone else) can either go off and rewrite the whole thing from scratch or it's going to have some 'sweeping changes' done to it in situ. I won't touch it again - life's too short Btljs (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I even prefer the version on the user page above.


 * I would suggest that you make a copy of the page in your sandbox, make the modifications there, then recopy everything into this article. In that way, you may make all the necessary changes with one edit. Thank you. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I should have; I tend to just edit bits at a time, but then I realized the structure of the whole thing needed moving around. To avoid having everything reverted again, I'll make some comments here first:


 * sections missing - History of celebrity: who, where, notable firsts - print, theatre, film, radio, tv (started writing this)


 * Regional and cultural implications - don't like the title, but I get what the aim of the section is; it just needs some references and more global outlook (Quebec is fine for ONE example) similarities and differences around the world.

Fictional implications: really? Need reference for anyone talking about fictional celebrities - I suppose you have a fictional character who is a celebrity within the fiction (Harry Potter is suddenly famous in the wizarding world) and then you also have fictional characters who are treated like celebrities - given endorsements etc. But needs sources.


 * Pictures: these should be notable in some way, not just 'here's another celebrity' & the captions should explain this - who cares how many cups Beckham has won? He's a celebrity because of what else he has done: endorsement, media appearances, marriage etc.


 * Becoming a celebrity - I'd keep the US based references which are interesting but I propose splitting along the lines of: people's aspiration to be celebrities, the media machine that generates c., again global differences


 * Careers that... - I'd dump this whole section. Any career can lead to celebrity & being royal is not a career. If anyone wants this I would suggest another article called lists of celebrities by occupation but I don't recommend it


 * Wealth - again, make it more global and take out the table of arbitrary American celebs


 * The other shorter sections just need sorting.

As a Brit, I am still Anglocentric and this article (like so many others) desperately needs input from people who know about other cultures. Btljs (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me so long as you don't just pull it to another side but rather than make it more neutral. That's your aim from what I can tell? Dustin  ( talk ) 15:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope so. It is difficult, as the dominant culture in media over the last 70 years is the US, so global celebrity is very US biased. The problem is the less well-known celebrities who tend to be more nation specific - I don't have a clue who these basketball players, news 'anchors' (the UK doesn't even have celebrity news anchors in any meaningful sense) etc. are but there's no point me replacing them with UK celebrities as it's the same problem the other way round. It would be nice to have a 'Celebrity around the world' section, but the danger would be tokenism - e.g. here's the most famous Bollywood actor, sumo wrestler etc. without any context or deeper understanding. Ah well, you can only do what you can do. Btljs (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Jill Kelley
Seriously, who? 222K hits on Google makes her about as famous as my local MP. Can we agree that this article should deal with people of a historical import? Btljs (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)