Category talk:Socialites

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

Biography

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Fashion

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles

International socialites

So what is desired here? Someone has been changing persons that are International socialites to either American or French from the main category. Should they be in the primary category articles, or in more than one sub-category? Thanks Doc 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Others have been in more than one sub-category. - Ted Wilkes 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question, it seems to me. Certain international or global socialites are perhaps more appropriate in the general articles rather than in every sub category. Also, with regard to Howard Hughes, while it is not that important to me, one way or the other, he certainly was a socialite as a young man. Only after his illness took over did he become a recluse. Doc 03:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and think this category needs to be streamlined. "Socialite" should in my opinion, only refer to those who spend the majority of their time and resources entertaining and being entertained. Someone born into a socially prominent family isn't necesarily a socialite. Also, the word socialite has traditionally been applied to women or gay/bisexual men. I would be very hesitant to label heterosexual men as socialites. Playboy, clubman, sportsman or simply gentleman is preffered as men who don't work for a living never like to call attention to the fact.

There is no reason to refer to an industrialist like Howard Hughes to use your example, as a socialite simply because he was known to attend parties. Thesaunterer 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To take your final example of Howard Hughes while he was not a life long 'socialite' my point is that there was a period of his life where I believe that he would have 'met the test' during the movie production years, where he was a sought after guest and gave lavish parites at great expense to draw the rich and famous, to just those he would like to meet, always the excentric. His invitations were more sought after than many less known included persons. More than willing to discuss further, but unless we want many more categories with perhaps a "Historical socialite" as a subcategory and remove all of the persons that are dead, but made there mark, then we need to rethink. IMO Doc 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but my concern here is that, as I previously stated, my impression is that the term socialite has primarily been applied to women or overtly gay/bisexual men. A man like Howard Hughes probably would have winced at being called a socialite. If anything, I think there was certain period in his life when he would have qualified as a "playboy". Would this be a more appropriate category? Thesaunterer 01:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are some people who seem to have been listed as socialites simply because they are members of socially prominent families. Cornelius Vanderbilt III is a prime example. His son's biography of his mother Queen of the Golden Age states that he actively avoided parties detested being present at large gatherings and chided his wife for being overly concerned with her social position. Thesaunterer 02:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I changed the definition of the word "Socialite" on this page, as I found the previous def. a bit too nebulous. I hope that's OK.Thesaunterer 17:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you end the discusssion with "I hope that's OK" yes, but one might think that you would extend the same curtesy to another. Sorry that I did't post here first, but then neither did you. My resoning below Doc 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning here was that this is a subcategory of occupations. One who augments an active social life with paid employment, in my opinion should not qualify as a socialite. The person's job would be their occupation. A socialite, I believe would be one who pursues social advancement and the maintenece of one's social position to the exclusion of all other endeavors. I think I was hasty in reverting your edit. I understand your point of view and would not object if you changed it back.Thesaunterer 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, regarding the nationality issue, I think that if a person is identifiable with the life of a certain country, they ought to be listed in that countries category, regardless of where they were born. It seems to be very inconsistent to put Nancy Astor is the British Category but Jennie Jerome in the American Category since Jennie Jerome actually spent more of her life in U.K. than Nancy. Also, socialites identified with the international "jet set" should probably not be confined by nationality. The implication of placing them in a national category is that they are not 'known' outside their own country, which is would be erroneous. I hope that makes sense.Thesaunterer 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I too made one more tweak which I hope that you feel is appropriate, as I think significan money and time is necessary to qualify, but don't feel it should be limited to the 'majority' of time and resources.

Secondly, that's my concern with the massive changes that were made by Ted Wilkes in that he clearly did not know the persons involved and made changes that I believe are inappropriate, but as you can see by his response above, he does not seem sensitive to unnecessary duplicative categories. I believe that the international socialite that crossed the Atlantic on the Concord many times a year and had homes in Paris, London and New York City, belong as articles under the primary heading. Doc 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, I'll try to address them all here. In the future if you always indent a response by one more space it makes the thread much easier to follow. I've taken the liberty of tweaking your's above to conform. I'd really like to continue the dialogue and get this category into shape and will give it more thought and reply more tomorrow Doc 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Again, my apologies for deleting your contribution without prior discussion. I look forward to your responses and helping to improve this category.Thesaunterer 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]