Talk:Celebrity/Archives/2012

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)

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)

Royals

We're told:

"Celebrities often have fame comparable to royalty," claimed notable author Micha Frydman.

I wonder what this Micha Frydman person is notable for. (Acuity of sociological analysis? Dress sense?) Anyway, I don't understand how royals aren't slebs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity

Celebrity, a definition. A Person whose life can be celebrated for the work they have done in the field that they have chosen to work in, and can be looked up to as a role model, and as a person who has given more than they have received. Just to be clear, just because you may be in the media spotlight, this does not automatically make you a celebrity. Some examples of celebrities are: Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Lord Mountbatten. As you can see from this small list, its a certain kind of person that makes a celebrity, not just anyone. Feel free to add anyone to this list, but remember, its not just anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakmeoff (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your idea that a celeb is A Person whose life can be celebrated for the work they have done in the field that they have chosen to work in, and can be looked up to as a role model, and as a person who has given more than they have received is an interesting one. As is just because you may be in the media spotlight, this does not automatically make you a celebrity. According to my understanding of "celebrity", you have it exactly wrong. We don't need the word "celebrity" for, say, Mandela, precisely because of his real achievements -- we can refer to him in those terms. It's the media-hyped nobodies who are the celebs.

But perhaps I am wrong. Can you cite any authority who agrees with you? -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my own view on the "celebrity" issue. Far too many people are suddenly called celebrities, just because of some media attention, when, in fact, they are nobodies, like you said. We need to show the world that there are real celebrities out there, real people that can be looked up to, real people that can inspire. Thats all I was saying. I cannot cite anyone that agrees with me nor do I expect to, as this is just a personal point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakmeoff (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But an encyclopedia shows the world as it is, not as it ought to be.

(As it happens, I probably share your view of the relative claims to fame of, say, Mandela and Paris Hilton; but (1) I'd never want to call Mandela a celeb because (i) the word has such strong connotations of a trumped up nobody, and (ii) I can anyway refer to him as the leader of South Africa or whatever; and (2) I don't begrudge the heiress her celebrity, for without it I'd not have had the great pleasure of reading this [recommended].)

Now, as you have acknowledged that what you are saying is just your personal point of view, and as Wikipedia articles aren't repositories for the mere personal points of view of its contributors, please stop adding this material to this article, poor though the article may be. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

External link

I think the External Link Top 25 Celebrity 2010 List should be added in External Link. Including a list of the most popular celebrities by country.--Realwords101 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Re-write of the Article

I am a new editor and I want to help improve this article. I see from the messages at the top of the article that it needs a complete re-write so that it becomes more encyclopedic. I have created a new version and would like to know what other editors think of it and if its OK to change the article. Here is the new version of the article on my user page. [[1]]AbelBergaigne (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Famous for commiting criminal act?

According the the linked wikipedia article, Casey Anthony was convicted of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Could it be that the crime that helped excite the media circus resulting in her celebrity wasn't the crime for which Casey Anthony was convicted? That seems plausible. Does the writer of the article not know what crimes Anthony was convicted of? Or does the article's writer think she became famous for committing the crime that a jury nevertheless acquitted her of? 66.114.147.89 (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.147.89 (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)