Talk:List of highest-paid American television stars

Missing info

Jay Leno should doubtless be on this list. 68.33.227.184 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the references cited are really old and a few of these hosts/presenters/actors have retired or changed shows. Hugh Laurie, Ashton Kutcher etc need to be added. There needs to be an updated list. A different current list & an all-time highest paid list needs to be created.

Eham.a (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is really out of date. Most of the figures are wrong and some of the highest paid are missed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iakobski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, things have changed:

Women, 2014 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2014/09/03/sofia-vergara-is-the-highest-paid-tv-actress-of-2014-for-third-year/

Women, 2015 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2015/09/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-tv-actresses-2015-sofia-vergara-and-kaley-cuoco-sweeting-lead-with-28-5-million/

Men, 2014 - http://www.forbes.com/video/3747780765001/

Men, 2015 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2015/08/25/worlds-highest-paid-tv-actors-2015-jim-parsons-leads-with-29-million-take/

Other lists - http://www.forbes.com/search/?q=highest%20paid%20TV

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Game of thrones error

I cant find any sources saying the cast are paid upwards of 1 million $ per episode. Daiyusha (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What about the modern family. Sophia Vergara by every other source is listed as the highest paidf person on television and yet she is not even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.32.83 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that the Express isn't exactly the most reputable source... Melias C (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

User:Jojocc, please stop removing sourced content or you will be reported. You have been reverted by different users for your behavior. So I suggest you stop, the soures clearly says the cast earn 2 million. - AffeL (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a response to AffeL (who I hope, based on what he has written elsewhere, has already learned from his mistake) but a general comment for the record: There are about a dozen valid reasons for "removing sourced content" on Wikipedia. Claiming that the cited sources are quoting a rumour, when Wikipedia does not document rumours, is one such valid reason. Other valid reasons include that the information is unencyclopedic or arbitrary, that the sources themselves are not reputable and/or biased, that the inclusion of said sourced content lends undue weight to a minority view, etc. Users who can't wrap their heads around these concepts generally should not revert other editors with this kind of rationale. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Equal salaries should appear in reverse chronological order

Does anyone know how to fix the table so the list is from highest-paid to lowest-paid, the cast of Friends, Gandolfini, Seinfeld and so on appear together because their salaries were the same, but the earlier dates appear first? Currently, if one clicks "Salary" the "Year" parameter automatically arranges them from late to early so that Seinfeld is on the bottom, but this doesn't make sense because according to the list Seinfeld was the highest paid in history at that time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue about the sorting, but I believe their should be information about that in Help:Sorting#Dealing with problems. - AffeL (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I just fixed the sorting myself. I'm a genius. - AffeL (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Shit, I was wrong. It does not work at all. - AffeL (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be a better idea to sort income in inflation-adjusted figures. Helen Hunt and Paul Reiser's salaries in 1988 would be equivalent to $2.07m in today's money, putting them far ahead of even Charlie Sheen. Food for thought.

GOT actors' salaries are a rumour -- 3RR-blocked user Jojocc was right on the substance

@TheDragonFire: @Betty Logan: @Affel: @Jojocc: Sources contradict on whether the "Tier A" actors had their salaries raised to 1.1 million USD or 2 million GBP. See this source analysis, in particular this. The show's budget is in USD, so the actors are not getting paid in GBP, and only, at most, three of the five would even have reason to think of their salaries in GBP.

If The Hollywood Reporter and the derivative TV CheatSheet and Telegraph articles are correct, then the actors ... probably still warrant a place on this list, as they would be higher up than any actors' current salaries (assuming the Big Bang Theory cast didn't get another raise). But still, the fact that reliable sources contradict, the higher estimate comes from generally less reliable sources, and the higher figure is definitely an inaccurate guesstimate USD-GBP coversion anyway even if it is "true" means the list needs more nuance than is currently there.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Repinging User:AffeL, whose name I misspelt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not really involved in this article. I was more involved in the dispute at List of highest paid film actors where Jojocc was definitely misinterpreting the sources. I assumed he was doing the same here at first but withdrew from the conflict when I discovered the conflicting sources. I agree with your point though that you have to be careful with dollar conversions because dollar to pound to dollar can result in a different figure. The important thing to do now is to resolve the issue here on the talk page and install an accurately sourced figure into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They are not rumours, Their are reliable sources that back this claim up. - AffeL (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: Kindly read the sources before just claiming they are wrong. "£2 million" is a rumour that is contradicted by some better sources (EW for example). So far, only one source (The Telegraph) has been found that explicitly analyzes the contradictory sources, and they favour the lower estimate. Furthermore, it is highly inappropriate to ignore other users' attempts at talk page discussion until they directly edit the article, then revert them and claim their edits need talk page consensus. Per both WP:BURDEN (which says that the burden is on the editor wishing to include a claim in the article) and WP:BRD (which says that the stable status quo should remain pending discussion), the claim that you are trying to add should remain out of the article until you can nuance it appropriately to convince me and other editors that it belongs in the article. If you continue refusing to engage on the talk page, and edit-warring in this manner, I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to convince me and other editors before making such a bold edit. As you can see the £2 million source is from a reliable source. - AffeL (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented except you is in agreement that it should stay out pending some kind of nuance pointing out that it is a rumour contradicted by our best sources. You really need to change your attitude toward editing, or you will not be allowed edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"You need to convince me"—no, AffeL, the onus is on you to back up suspicious information. The fact that the salaries are given in pounds when they've always been given in dollars is suspicious in itself—the American Dinklage is suddenly getting paid in pounds when he was getting dollars before, from an American show on an American network written by an American? Then you compound the problem by converting the number ot dollars—what was the conversion rate when the contract was signed? When the actors were paid out? Were they paid all at once, or once each episode aired (in which case the conversion would change each time they were paid)? The source is far too problematic—we need confirmation from a source that did not get its information from this source. Until we can get a reliable verification (and rationale for the pounds), the source cannot be trusted, and the information must be excluded from the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also: AffeL should be sanctioned for editwarring against two editors over this suspicious material. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's in pounds because they shoot almost most of the show in Europe and the cast(except for Dinklage) are from England/Europe. What makes you think that the source is not reliable?. Their are no "conflicting sources", the Hollywood Reporter source came first, then months later the Telegraph articles was released claiming that the cast got another pay raise. But if you believe the Telegraph source that mention the salary in pounds is not reliable, then we can use The Hollywood Reporter source instead(Salary:$1.1 million), I would have no problems with that. - AffeL (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

AffeL, you do realize that "England" and "Europe" are not the same thing, right? Nor are "England" and "the UK". The UK and most of the rest of Europe have different currencies. The show is an American production, and the cast, regardless of nationality or residence, are paid in USD. And your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever -- yes, the Telegraph source does mention that "the salary in pounds is not reliable". That's precisely why we shouldn't be quoting the GBP figure -- the only source we have that addresses the issue says the GBP figure is wrong. Anyway, if you have now accepted my above proposal that the article be nuanced, then you should have implemented it by now. You took more than a week after I pinged you above to officially recognize that I had even made such a proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not see the ping, it got lost along all the other pings you made. I know that England and Europe are not the same thing, I meant England or just other country in Europe. What I mean is that most of the cast are british. The last thing I said was that as a solution, we can use The Hollywood Reporter source that says $1.1 million and change the table to that instead, I can agree on that. Also could you stop being so hostile and disrespectful when you reply to me. Thanks. - AffeL (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"most of the cast" here means "3/5", since we're only talking about the "Tier 1 cast". The idea that HBO started paying everyone in GBP in the wake of Brexit is pretty absurd; it's much more likely that one British source quoted the figure in a rough GBP conversion, and a bunch of others copied it, or that the GBP figure is just a made-up rumour. And I will stop being "hostile and disrespectful" when you do the same for me. You have been extremely hostile throughout my interactions with you, and have continued in the last few days to edit-war without engaging in talk page discussion. You should formally retract your numerous personal attacks against me across several talk pages, for one thing. It should never be a necessary prerequisite to discussion to bring in someone else who isn't subject to any editing restrictions; you should have discussed before I had to invite CT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I should have discused this before, but as I said I missed this comment. "You should formally retract your numerous personal attacks against me across several talk pages" I would not call that personal attacks. What do you mean by retract? Should I take my words back, cause I want to start over this thing you and I are having, and put this so called "feud" behind us. - AffeL (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

About the GoT salary, do you think if we change the table to how it was like this(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest_paid_American_television_stars&diff=766293403&oldid=764424583). It would be alright? - AffeL (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I should have discused this before, but as I said I missed this comment. That excuse is difficult to take as sincere; you've done the same on like three separate pages at roughly the same time; in one of those cases (the season eight draft) you only stopped when I brought in an outside party who wasn't restricted by 1RR, and in the other (Talk:Olenna Tyrell) you just stopped discussing. I highly doubt that if I re-added the maintenance template on that page you would just let it stand. More likely you would just revert and re-state your personal opinion that maintenance templates require talk page consensus to be added. You can ask CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) what happens when you hold that opinion and push it too far.

I would not call that personal attacks. You said "Their is an user on wikipedia who is biased and not neutral when he/she edits wikipedia. The person is clearly a book purist who hates the show." without providing any evidence, because no such evidence exists. This is a personal attack. Please read WP:WIAPA. And besides that, a whole bunch of your other comments about/to me don't make any sense unless read under the assumption that you think I am some anti-GOT POV-pusher and are trying to troll me. Randomly talking about how the show is much better than the books and GRRM has said nice things about the show in discussions where this was completely irrelevant, for example. What do you mean by retract? Take it back. Apologize. Admit you didn't mean to cause offense as you did. Say you won't do it again.

About the GoT salary, do you think if we change the table to how it was like this [...] [i]t would be alright? Yeah, that would be fine. Ideally we would be able to figure out whether the 2mGBP figure is just bullshit, but assuming the only source discussing the issue is the Telegraph article I dug up, we don't really have that as an option.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I will go ahead a change it to how it was. And about the Game of Thrones draft, that was not the reason I stopped. The text you put said "Martin revealed to showrunners about unreleased future books", while I changed it to "but also adapts material Martin revealed to showrunners about the upcoming sixth and seventh novels The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring". "about unreleased future books" is the same thing as mentioning the upcoming sixth and seventh books by name, which was all I did, am I wrong that both of those sentences has the same meaning? - AffeL (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"unreleased books" does not mean the same thing as "The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring". I was quite clear that my rationale for removing the names of the unpublished/unwritten books was partly that we have no reason to assume that either book will be published as one volume under this or that title. The series was originally planned as a trilogy, and when A Game of Thrones was published (as far as I know) it was planned as the first book of said trilogy. Our author's writing style has become more elaborate/detailed/long since he started the series, and arguably since the current "seven books" thing was decided. We don't even know that he isn't currently in talks with the publisher to split The Winds of Winter into two books like what happened with A Feast for Crows/A Dance with Dragons (the last "book"). All of this is an entirely separate issue from the problem that the writers of the show didn't adapt material from books they hadn't read but incorporated stuff they had heard from the author in a private conversation. And all of that aside, even if you had been right on the substance, edit-warring over it was inappropriate. Your still not understanding my rationale more than a week later makes it very clear that you did not understand my edit when you reverted it, and so you should have opened a talk page discussion at most. You need to change your editing style and stop edit-warring. Edit-warring doesn't just mean breaking 3RR (it would be impossible for you to edit-war with me if it did); reverting edits you don't understand because you think it's better to revert than discuss is also a form of edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Edit warring, it says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." - AffeL (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so if I make an edit, you revert said edit without explanation, and I revert back based on the assumption that you had just made a mistake, and you revert again, that is an edit-war. At least on your part. There are a few circumstances under which what you did would be considered acceptable. I added unsourced or dubiously sourced material and you cited WP:BURDEN, for example. But in this case the opposite was the case. I opened a talk page discussion that you either ignored or didn't notice for some unexplained reason (say what you want about not getting my ping even after I made a second comment for the sole purpose of pinging you), and I also specifically pre-defended my edit in response to a previous comment you had made in another talk section further up the page. I implore you to read (re-read?) said pre-defense, and if you do not understand it then I will ask you to promise never, ever, to revert someone based on the claim that they "removed sourced content" again. I haven't seen you use the word "vandalism" since an admin warned you, so I don't think you are utterly incapable of improving your behaviour. But I think it needs to improve anyway, whether or not you are capable. (By the way: I am aware that offering you general advice on an article talk page is a little off-topic, even if it is specifically related to your recent edits to this article. But I'm also aware that another flaw in your editing behaviour makes using your user talk page for this purpose extremely difficult.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the list meant to be "highest paid ever" or "highest paid at any given time"?

The Big Bang Theory actors, for instance, were never the highest paid in history, and if The Hollywood Reporter (as cited in The Telegraph) are right then neither are the five Game of Thrones actors. No matter which GOT source is correct, assuming at least one of them is, then the BBT actors are now lo longer either the highest paid ever or the currently highest paid, so their continued inclusion is somewhat confusing. Should the list currently included under the heading "Network primetime salaries per episode" be split, à la List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films and List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year? Or maybe reformatted to include a "Peak" parameter like the former? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

The 2 million pound (2.6 million dollars) figure emerges from several sources such as this one and this one which all state that the actors get a cut the actors get paid a bit when the episodes air in different countries (170) + reruns (or "They contain complex bonus clauses based on shared percentages of syndication payments received from more than 170 countries in which the series is broadcast." from here, which I know it's the most reliable source, but it just explains it better than I did. Maybe don't add it to the table, since it's not confirmed, but perhaps edit the note slightly to reflect these thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.20.89 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Article title - slightly misleading?

Should the title of the page be changed? In its current form, it is slightly misleading, my opinion is that it should only include "American" actors. Kit Harington and Hugh Laurie are two prime examples as both are British. In short could I propose a rename to "List of highest paid actors in American television", instead of the concurrent? Thanks all Nightfury 13:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't mind a rename to "List of highest paid actors in American television" or just "List of highest paid actors in television". - AffeL (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones Conflict

So, there are currently a couple sources (x) citing $500,000 as the main 5 from GoT's salary which is in conflict with the other various reports (x) of 1.1 million with upwards of over 2 million. Which number do we want to use?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The Nikolaj Coster-Waldau lawsuit says he made $942,857 and $1,066,667 an episode for S7 and S8 respectively, so $1 million an episode for the two seasons. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Cast

Why is this list using the TBBT cast for when the took a paycut and not when they were being paid a million dollars for season 9 and 10? --137.59.194.147 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's weird. Ellen's salary seems spurious too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.86.254 (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

SJP / Multi Hyphenates

Anyone know if the number cited for SJP is her number just as an actress? She was also a producer on SATC and since the title of this article is "stars", it probably shouldn't include the money that multi hyphenates get as producers/directors/writers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnapps17 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Nanny

There are several sources claiming that Fran Drescher, the producer and actress of 'The Nanny,' made over 1 million per episode. Why is she not included in that list? 2A02:3100:5DA3:6D00:5175:F80C:CA2E:10EB (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)