Talk:Spoiled brat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] I never thought I would be discriminated against for being a redhead
I guess if you live long enough you hear it all. Red head = fiery temperment? Are you sure? I've known many mellow readheads in my life...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.173.224 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
- Hein? Why was this worth posting? It's a well known (though not necessarily believed), and old stereotype. See Red hair. --Belg4mit 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename
I am considering moving this article to the new name Spoiled child. Does anyone object? —Theo (Talk) 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm unsure, it's just that I'm sure it is possible to be spoiled (i.e. given lots of stuff) without becoming a brat, sometimes even being really nice (Tomoyo Daidouji for example) - perhaps because boundaries and rules are at least somewhat maintained. Which is what "Spoiled child" implies to me whereas "Spoiled brat" implies the more well know sterotype. But perhaps that is just me. GracieLizzie 17:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to keep this article here and have a separate article about children who are spoiled but not brats in a "spoiled child" article.bcatt 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've started an article called Privileged child, to describe non-bratty spoiled/privleged children. GracieLizzie 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks...it's actually kind of a funny subject, but I've found a lot of things on wikipedia that are very humourous yet quite encyclopedic...go figure. bcatt 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to keep this article here and have a separate article about children who are spoiled but not brats in a "spoiled child" article.bcatt 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Non- bratty? This is horrible, just because some really, really poor people don't get decent Christmas gifts and have to go to bed at 10 o'clock until they're 18 doesn't mean that everyone who's parents don't give them too many boundaries and let them make their own decisions in life and know that we all have powers, even as children, is spoiled. The most obnoxious children I've encountered have been those cocky, council estate types who think that they don't have to respect others, not people with a little bit more money and a little bit more love.
BOV1993 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- First off wikipedia is not censored and second off this page is based on fictional character stereotypes more than real life. Also this article doesn't even state that all rich children (hence the privileged child article) are spoiled brats, or even that all spoiled brats are rich but that this is the stereotype in fiction. --GracieLizzie 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] megan parker
Hi I removed megan parker from this list because she is more of a sneak than a person who wants everything
then again I thought maybe she does belong here so I will put her back
[edit] Positive and negative symptoms of being pampered
What are the positive and negative symptoms of being spoiled by one's parents or friends? --User:Angie Y.
- I'd like to know this too actually, does anyone know of any links to verifyable sources on this? GracieLizzie 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miles Tails Prower
How could Miles Tails Prower in Sonic X be a spoiled brat?
I dunno. --User:Angie Y.
[edit] Fictional brat list
I think this list is out of control. We could have a handful of famous ones mentioned in the article and that would be fine. Thoughts? --Awiseman 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone? --Awiseman 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm deleting the list (or at the very least spinning it off into a new article) if no one objects. We really don't need 100 examples of this. --Awiseman 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since nobody supported your view, and all edits were to icnrease, the logical thing would be to withdraw your suggestion, not carry it to the extreme- we don't 'need' (how do you even define that?) 99.99% of Wikipedia, but an encyclopaedia should rather give to much then too luttle, as long as it's structured so as to allow the uninterested reader to skip that part- and this list is well isolated; a split-off seems only necessary if the whole thing ever gets really long. Fastifex 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Read this, from "What Wikipedia is not":
- Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
I think this list is useless and far too long. Two or three examples would be fine. --Awiseman 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I feel like Voltaire who wrote (in French, words to this effect) to an author being censored: Sir, your opinion is utterly wrong but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it. While personally I feel hardly any of the fictional characters is of any real value, the bulk of them ARE (albeit in my and, I presume, your opion, generally undeservedly) famous, probably many even more famous then most of Nixon's ennemies since cartoons etc. are more popular (though infinitely less important) then history. Fastifex 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree with you, Nixon's Enemies List is far more notable than 95% of the things on this list. Another problem with this list is that it's subjective - Nixon wrote his enemies list, but this one is debatable about who is really a brat or not. What's the purpose of this list? Why not list "Nice cartoon characters" as well? --Awiseman 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that wikipedia.org needs a "Fictional Spoiled Brats" list. Chris 20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't need another list. A few entires here to exemplify the typology are sufficient. To that end, I'd suggest that only the most famous (yes that's somewhat subjective) examples of characters whose primary attributes is brattiness e.g; Eric Cartman, Veruca Salt(rather famous book, and a "classic" exammple), Dudley Dursley (very famous book). The others probably ought to be axed, particularly the ambiguous Simpsons and the adult Scarlet O'Hara. --Belg4mit 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of fictional spoiled brats
When does the list of fictional spoiled brats come back?
[edit] Natalie Portman
Yeah Right, and Carrie Fisher was a man.
[edit] It's someone elses business why?
This is why I hate that term, my parents have always let me get away with a lot of stuff and I'm doing okay, I passed the 11+ test for grammar school, I have an IQ of 118 and am only 13 and yet some people who aren't as intelligent or successful blame every poor attribute of my character on 'doting' parents?
Really what business is it of someone else to find offensive names for someone who's had loving, or 'over- loving', parents? It's no- one elses business how you raise your child unless they're coming to harm?
So perhaps the article should reflect how it's often used by those who are insecure about how much their own parents love them about those who's parents love is obvious.
BOV1993 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is a fair assessment and the article could do with being more rounded but we need to add references and avoid original research. However the entire article is rather OR-ish and could do with extensive clean-up. --GracieLizzie 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with the above note. I almost pruned 70% of the article out for being simple inadmissible but I thought it better to leave it a week and see if anyone thinks there's much salvageable. Personal comments and opinions have no place in the article - it's important to stick to known and verifiable facts. 60.49.70.41 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oxymoron?
Is the phrase "spoilt brat" an oxymoron?. It's just that brat means ragged/beggar's child while spoilt means...well spoilt. It should probably be mentioned in the article. Leemorrison 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Types of brats - suggested "Faculty brat" addition to "See also"
I read with interest the item on "military brat" featured today on Wikipedia's main page.
I appreciate that the phenomenon deserves to be, and is, a worthwhile field of sociological study, with rich research and publication to date.
But the same is true of "faculty brats". Possibly that phenomenon is not as common as it was in the 1970s, and certainly it wouldn't be as common on larger university campuses. But on a small college campus, and in towns that host large universities, there are recognizable "faculty brats."
The type is especially distinguishable when public politics and social norms are in upheaval anyway. In the 1970s in the Amherst-Northampton (MA) area, teenaged faculty brats were a prominent element of life and, for some, a major headache. Generally intelligent, privileged at an underlying level, introspective, rebellious intellectually and/or socially, and cliquish, they stand out from schoolmates and disregard or reject the traditional town norms. They are distinguishable from common "freaks" or "dissipates." Public hanging out and drug use, but also hungering for ways to let their creativity loose and often developing remarkable artistic or activist initiatives, they attract attention, derision, anxiety, and sometimes surprised respect. As with "military brats", they use the term themselves, and it's considered derogatory only by those who consider the kids objectionable per se.
I can't believe that "faculty brats" who identify themselves as such would end up just like everyone else as adults. I would be surprised if the term is not well-defined enough with enough longevity, and if the phenomenon is not important enough, to warrant mention in "See also" under both "military brat" and "brat." There may also be additional such types of "brat", but despite some effort I can't think of any that are even arguably in established usage.
I've never contributed anything to Wikipedia before. I am not particularly inclined to try to learn how. And I have no authoritative data, and no of know research or reporting. But I suggest that if these are not really impediments to enhancing Wikipedia, it would be good to add the mention, and/or create an "article"(?), so that "faculty brats" are recognized.
- Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.85.42 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Bart and Lisa?
I don't see how Bart and Lisa Simpson are spoilt brats. Can you please explain? Scibah
They aren't, they're poor.
JBAK88 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Lists
This was said before but the fictional list is unmaintainable. These really need sources to stay included. Also, for the real life ones, these can really be seen as personal attacks against the people and go against the policy of WP:BLP and so I am removing them until they are sourced. The fictional list should be sourced, but there might not be consensus for that, so that's a matter for later I guess. Anyone have opinions? Phydend 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Surely just a couple of prime examples could be used instead of having an exhaustive and debatable list. That many fictional characters is simply not necessary to get the point across. Texasfirebrand (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meg Griffin...?
I have to ask. In what universe is Meg Griffin ([i]Family Guy[/i]) considered a spoiled brat? All the episodes I've seen indicate that she's an embarrassment whom they literally forget exists on more than one occasion. Brat, maybe, but spoiled? Erik Carson 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kyle Broflovski
I'm trying to add him back to the list, but someone keeps removing him. [User: Nate Speed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate Speed (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- He would certainly not be considered a spoiled brat. Maybe it keeps getting deleted because it doesnt belong. Texasfirebrand (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
id think cartman is more of a spoiled brat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.7.10 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Now that the list is gone...
Perhaps we can remove the Cleanup tag? Definitely an improvement without that long list of fictional characters. Texasfirebrand 17:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well its back again. Perhaps we could have a real vote on the subject? Can we trim it down? Seriously, why does the list need to be that long? Texasfirebrand (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just tripped over this article looking for recent vandalism, and while I didn't find any, I did find this MASSIVE list. What is the point of this list? I can see the appropriateness of having a few examples. But the purpose of examples is (should be?) to help convey a sense of the item being discussed, not to list every spoilt brat that has ever existed. Would it be possible to trim this list down to 3, 5, 10 (at most!) examples? Or possibly even delete it entirely, or move it to a new article of its own, as was once suggested by someone else? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can divide it by type of media, like book, movie, etc. Angie Y. (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur. The list of fictional brats is long, unwieldy and it just looks... wrong. Better far to pick out, at most, half a dozen examples of spoilt brats, than have a list of a hundred or more obscure references to pop culture that only the most TV-addicted aspie is going to recognise. On the same list, you have FoxTrot, Cinamonroll, Bratz, Totally Spies, Super Mario 3, Reisdent Evil, Samurai Pizza Cats; it's just ridiculous. It isn't helpful, it doesn't add anything to the page and it isn't even well set out. I'd be far happier just off-loading it to its own page. Not an ideal solution, but better than having it here. MachiavellianMeow (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't believe in democracy, I've forgone waiting for the results of the vote and just changed it to something that, I think, is more useful (and a Hell of a lot more concise). I'm sorry, but I don't see the encyclopaedic worth of arguing over whether or not Kyle Broflowski is a spoiled brat, or having individual Pokemon and Digimons singled out as 'spoiled brats'. Maybe they did have entire very special episode devoted to them and how they overcame their spoiled-ness through adversity, but this isn't the place to tell us about it (not that you did). If you want to do that, then <can of worms> each of the Pokemon and Digimons have their own pages. </can of worms> MachiavellianMeow (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of fictional spoiled brats
I want to ask Georgiacatcrimson why he keeps restoring the list after it has been deleted twice though the AFD process. In both AFDs, the community came to a consensus that the list was unverifiable, original research, and POV. So why is it be added to the main article? --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

