Talk:Celebrity

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Celebrity article.
Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections). Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! You may want to read our frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Respect etiquette Assume good faith No personal attacks Be nice Don't bite the newcomers!

I put up the NPOV dispute sign, as one contributor remarked that this article is US-centric, and I believe he's probably right. 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.

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)

What are the effects of celebrity?

Don't ask me.

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)

is the reporting of a celebrity's private life performing a public service

please give feedback on this topic

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)