Talk:Celebrity

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Media (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Journalism portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Myanmar News Agency, Lisa Sylvester (CNN reporter) Verify: Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Cleanup: Media influence, Video game culture NPOV: Content (media and publishing)

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?

Paris Hilton image

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)

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

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)

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.

CURRENT IMAGE

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

Celebrity ignoration?

How is celebrity ignoration called? I mean, that is normal people, being ignorant about celebrities and their lives? 213.240.234.212 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Having a life" seems to fit. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

Is celebrity status given to the wrong groups of people? Is this status, and the attention and material rewards it provides more deserved by individuals who make a major contribution to society such as scientists, intellectuals, and social activists?

This quote seems unencyclopedic to me. First of all, it's somewhat unrelated to the article, and second, Wikipedia is not an essay and must remain NPOV. I would delete that text, but I thought I'd look for some opinions first before I just threw it in the dumpster. Maybe it could be somehow converted to sound more encyclopedic? Any thoughts? --Evening Breeze 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Celebrity is a word to be defined, not a concept to be belabored. I intend to nominate this article for deletion as unencyclopedic. --ForDorothy 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Global celebrities-section needs editing

It is not NPOV, see here: The line "A small number of celebrities can be considered 'global',in that their fame has spread across the English-speaking world and even into non-English-speaking cultures." is what I am talking about. It could be the opposite, for example Pelé is a global celebrity from a non-English country whose fame has spread even into the English-speaking world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drogo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

You can bet it will stay zthis way. The English-speaking world is quite egocentric.--Tresckow 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just came to this discussion page to make the same comment. The first part of the sentence about some celebrities being global is sufficient. Origin and direction of the spreading of their "stardom" isn't interesting in this context and the idea that they all come from the English-speaking parts of the world is plain wrong. It may be added that most global celebrities originate there (with the dominance of US movie, TV and music culture, that's a good guess), but we'd need sources for that.--134.130.4.46 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to public figures and events, many Americans that are fat probably have difficulties in understanding that the words "USA" and "world" do not have the same meaning. The fact that many U.S. focused sports events - like the "Superbowl" - are officially called "world championship", although only U.S. teams paticipate. Many Americans even think that Jesus spoke English. This stance is very much reflected in the article. Just consider this: A Chinese TV celebrity will probably be known to more people than any U.S. internal "superstar". Fot his reason, it is fair enough that this certain American TV anchorman, whom almost nobody outside the U.S. will know, has been removed from the article; and I also have my doubt that Drew Barrymore is adequate. If you do not want to take the Dalai Lama or the Pope as examples, one could add pictures of celebrities from some larger countries (U.S., China, India, Russia, Indonesia, perhaps some African country like Nigeria) to emphasize how local the phenomenon is. 194.95.177.101 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular?

If everyone hates celebrities and despises their antics, why do they remain so popular? Is it an illusion perpetuated by the celebrities themselves so they can continue to make money off of their "fame" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.234.111 (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Celebrity Database

Can you please add this to the external links section? It is highly useful to people researching this subject.

People Magazine's online companion, people.com, maintains a Celebrity Database with extensive information about the most popular celebrities, from the latest news headlines and photos to fun facts, relationship histories and detailed biographies for each of Hollywood's hottest stars.

DBovasso 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be inappropriate as per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. It also looks likely that you have a conflict of interest. --Yamla 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some people suggest that some celebrities are not famous for their accomplishments, but merely for their fame"

This seems.. weird? -Anthony- 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Article ?

This article has so many problems I hardly know where to begin....

...but let's begin with the definition of a celebrity. The writer is clearly trying hard to distinguish between fame and celebrity and between celebrity and regard, but having failed properly to establish the distinction, she or he then gets into a terrible tangle in all the subsequent paragraphs. Needs ripping up and starting again and some better use of terms so that we don't have to cope with an article that makes no robust distinction between, say, Paris Hilton (oh no not her again) and, say, Richard Dawkins. 160.83.32.14 08:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be re-written. Or left with one or two paragraphs which is all it really deserves.Goodpaster 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, I'd vote to delete the article if it was nominated. --Yamla 14:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Popstar?

Why does the page Popstar redirect here? Since when does a celebrity have to be a popstar?

Professions that can make someone a celebrity

This section is entirely unsourced and appears to be a prime example of original research. I have tagged it as such and unless it is properly sourced in the next few days I will remove it entirely. Thanks, Gwernol 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some causality please

This article is just descriptive. How about including some details of causal models, such as brief summaries of the academic work mentioned: Boorstin (1971), Alberoni (1972) and Dyer (1979), Gamson 1994; Marshall 1997; Giles 2000; Turner, Marshall and Bonner 2000; Rojek 2001; Turner 2004?

For a start even monkeys like looking at pictures of succesful or sexy monkeys - see http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1551 "Macaques swap juice for a glimpse of leaders' faces and females' rears." So perhaps celebrities are like leaders, that somehow we seem to require. 80.2.203.67 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

selfcast.com/crisps

x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.2.0 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{redirect}}

We need to make a template that can merge the 2, redundant, mind you, {{redirect}} hat notes together.96.53.149.117 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2008 (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)

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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sell Out

directs to the wrong page Prince Bee (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

doner Kabab

Doner Kabab is veary fat and some people found out that they had pork so muslims cant have Doner Kabab in Bradford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.138.226 (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Add

I am thinking of adding either a section or maybe even a couple sentences to a preexisting section about the "new" types of celebrities that are present now; such as Reality TV stars. What does evryone think? Ms.blackheartt (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fame in the 20th century

I've noticed that certain users often use the example Rihanna and Beyoncé in the section "Fame in the 20th century" while they are both celebrities from the 21ste century and were not mentioned at all in Clive James' book and series. In fact, when these series came out: they weren't famous yet. So to me it seems confusing and wrong to add these contemporary celebrities in that section. User:Knudde Kjell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell Knudde (talk • contribs) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen minutes of fame

This section reads like an incoherent rant by someone on a hobbyhorse. Can something be done to make it read less like a list of trivia and more like a section of an encyclopedia article making a serious point? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking at some of the other comments on the article as a whole I'm starting to think my concerns about the fifteen-minutes-of-fame section are applicable to the entire article. How could it possibly take more than a paragraph to convey what it means to be a celebrity? Anything beyond that is gratuitous promotion of examples of celebrities. Who needs that? (Besides the celebrities themselves of course.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a favorite first project for beginners, who assume bigger is better. The hatchet is the answer. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How did a school paper make Wikipedia?

There are several indications that this was written by a relatively young author, hence my query as to whether this was originally a school paper: (1) Its written style is inconsistent (e.g., sometimes "he or she", sometimes "he") and juvenile (e.g., the first paragraph under "Fame in the 20th century" consists of 4 sentences, the first of which is a single clause, while the rest contain only one secondary (subordinate) clause to the main clause, all of them using a causal conjunctive link ("because", "since", "due to")); (2) There are numerous spelling and punctuation errors; (3) The reference to the "generations" after 1990 belies a very short-range view of history (one "generation" would normally imply at least 20 years, if not 40; "generations" (plural) implies a much greater time span); (4) The conclusion of the article lists "James Nash and Logan Mielky" as "some famous people". Given Logan Mielky's complete non-existence on Google, I assume James and Logan are the authors of the article, and, for the reasons listed above, that they were in their mid-teens when they wrote it.

Suggestions to delete or severely alter this article are now over 2 years old. It's time to act on them!--PPOM (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaylyn nelson

Kaylyn Nelson is awesome,popular,cool,pretty,smart,and creative.

Kaylyn nelson

Kaylyn Nelson is awesome,popular,cool,pretty,smart,and creative.

Kaylyn nelson

Kaylyn Nelson is awesome,popular,cool,pretty,smart,and creative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.139.166 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, are just very, very annoying. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)