Talk:Celebrity worship syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

not relitve

I think this is kinda not realy relayvand to be a full artile, i think this should just be a stub and nothing else! your putting loads of scientific reaseach and everything! ur kinda making it look like a illness. dude...--62.30.81.125 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Excuse me, but this article appears to be in dire need of a section outlining the criticism levelled against this supposed condition. CWS is among the conditions most frequently cited in critiques of medicalisation as bogus diseases. The general argument against conditions like CWS is that, while the behaviours associated with them may constitute a genuine problem for some people, they do not exist as distinct medical categories as such. Critics like John Naish claim that drug companies and the medical establishment at large are promoting bogus diseases like CWS because they need to keep finding new conditions in order to keep their business growing. As a doctor, Naish is speaking from within the medical establishment and belongs to a growing community of practitioners increasingly concerned about the tendency to conceptualise human experience in medical/psychiatric terms. See the BBC Radio 4 program The Medicalisation of Normality and a related article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7967851.stm for further info. Ilmateur (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Control

This article needs some serious editing to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There are plenty of grammatical mistakes, some more obvious than others. Also, the writing isn't very clear in places.

70.247.125.236 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, there are multiple things wrong with the text on this page. There are symbols spread throughout the text between words in the second half. This screams plagiarism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.181.142 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber bit

The article really shouldn't include "Most notably the recent obsession with 16-year old Justin Bieber." It just doesn't seem like it should even be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invaderzimrocks (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepting Critical Counterpoint Submissions

Excellent critical summary near the end. There should also be a sort of neutral rebuttal in my opinion since to me it reads rather decidedly biased. Also, where is the research on the effects of CWS on celebrities themselves psychologically, emotionally, physically? 63.147.77.19 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion?

I find, amongst my worthless, shallow, pathetic friends and family that this is more of a religion that an syndrome. (I think you can see what I'm getting at. If you can't, just consider that people who worship celebs are substituting the celebs for what God was in the 1400s, etc.) Apple8800 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

NOT Neutral - Critical reflection on celebrity worship and mental health

The "Critical reflection on celebrity worship and mental health" spends about six paragraphs just criticizing the study mentioned earlier in the article, and basically just supports celebrity fans. It is not neutral AT ALL, and something should be done about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.35.7 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That section was probably penned by one of the many K-pop fans who are having problems dealing with CWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.215.44 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DSM

Is this so-called "syndrome" even recognized by the American Psycology Assocation in its DSM manuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

When did the APA DSM Manual become the source of all worldly truth? Are you suggesting that we barbarians and savages who are so unfortunate to happen live outside of the USA should align our own psychological manuals in order to fit with the APA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.215.44 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this "syndrome" recognized by the ICD, either? By any other clinical diagnostic manuals? And whether it is, or is not, the article should specify. Bittertea13 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebrity worship syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228103915/http://www.johndmoore.net/projects3.html to http://www.johndmoore.net/projects3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

"To hear personal descriptions of mental illness visit http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/feelslike "

I don't think articles are supposed to be written like that. Anyone else feel like the opening section reads like an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.91.70 (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

More Research Needed

There is more research needed for the article. The only information that was available was from an article published in the Daily Mail in 2002.

There does seem to be neutrality issues in this article. 15.251.169.69 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mispelling

"Misnoma" should mean "misnomer". 24.30.152.44 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)