Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hollywood values"

Revision as of 14:49, June 24, 2008

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-MexMax 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? Barikada 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-MexMax 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Barikada 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. Misterlinx 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. Misterlinx 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...MexMax 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.MexMax 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Possible Inclusions

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--RossC 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with this website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) HelpJazz 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? Misterlinx 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. HelpJazz 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." Barikada 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are more likely to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. Dadsnagem2 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Heath Ledger

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? TheGuy 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

It is clear upon reviewing this and this that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. TheGuy 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? Dadsnagem2 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

So?

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems? Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

Artiefisk 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

What about Britney Spears?

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab? Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"? Just a suggestion. MikeSchwartz 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Not entirely accurate

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. Urushnor 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. Urushnor 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Wikilinks

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. HelpJazz 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Crime

For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. RSchlafly 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)

TBH Roger, I think the linked Mel Gibson article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Hollywood

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about Hollywood? Maestro 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

What do we do?

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? Blinkadyblink 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Bix Biederbecke

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? AliceBG 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Who compiled this silly list?

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --VincentMC 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Tate

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. Cisnon 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): liberals become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. Hollywood values are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of Hollywood values and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no liberal denial on this site.--Aschlafly 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--Aschlafly 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Again, I think censor has a different meaning than delete. Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-PhoenixWright 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --VincentMC 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- Factcheck 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

You're bloody kidding me

Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? Barikada 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are Hollywood values, and they cause death.--Aschlafly 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. Barikada 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death are Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that leads to disease and death.--RossC 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. Barikada 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Hypocrisy

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at Liberal Hypocrisy I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. JoeSoap 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. JoeSoap 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--Aschlafly 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by Hollywood Values is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--Aschlafly 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.

removal

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so" AdenJ 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--Aschlafly 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values. AdenJ 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered! AdenJ 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of Hollywood values. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how Hollywood values work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--Aschlafly 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. AdenJ 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, Tate's murder had everything to do with values. And, duh, that does include the Hollywood values of Manson and his followers.--Aschlafly 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem. AdenJ 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Ridiculous

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". LinusWilson 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Linus has given us the fundamental liberal denial: denying that liberal values have consequences.--Aschlafly 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial. AdenJ 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not refining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.

LinusWilson 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Miley Cyrus

see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0 "They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless--  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." Jinxmchue 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --ElizabethR 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely negating her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word topless which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen role models. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. Jinxmchue 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

• sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --ElizabethR 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. Jinxmchue 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--RossC 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on Modesty yet? --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--RossC 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its role models for tweens. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.

And anyway, shouldn't their parents be more concerned then a board of directors? ---user:DLerner--- 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a link to it, if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then by all means put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I agree with the premise of the article. ---user:DLerner--- 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Bruce Lee

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. Bugler 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

ATang 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. Bugler 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. ATang 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Rob Knox

He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

"The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman." Feebasfactor 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. Hollywood values include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--Aschlafly 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are Hollywood values?--Aschlafly 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?

Eh, who cares... it's your site.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. Story is here, and conservatives are probably interested.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [1]--Aschlafly 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.

At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --Leda 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims and speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--Aschlafly 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is vile. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. Humblpi 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! WarrenG 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Chaplin

I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --JessicaT_{Ohayo gozaimasu!} 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --JessicaT_{Ohayo gozaimasu!} 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Hypocrisy - all specious

Would someone please tell me what is hypocritical an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - act? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. Humblpi 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of liberals), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--Aschlafly 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... Humblpi 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a conservative starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by liberals would be deafening!--Aschlafly 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

But, Hollywood values embrassed by all Liberals would mean they were desensortised to this.

Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. DanielB 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective

At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. Learn together 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Crime: Innocent until proven guilty

I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we can use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.

Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things. --Borneo 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided?

I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.

While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.

If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."

Charity work

I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? Daphnea 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of Liberals who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, Bugler 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

So, let me get this straight...

Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"

Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.

So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.

Trustworthy indeed. EBrown 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)