Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Mariah Carey talk page (Discussion page). (January 2006 - August 2006) - Please Do not edit!

Mariah 3rd highest female seller

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has just published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever. IFPI has finally come up with a list of the top-selling acts in History. Its about time.

The top 10 is as follows:

01. The Beatles 40 400,000,000 UK 60s (1962-1970) Rock/Pop Guinness/EMI

02. Michael Jackson 14 350,000,000 US 70s-00s (1979-) Pop/R&B

03. Elvis Presley 150 300,000,000 US 50s-70s (1956-1977) Country/Rock

04. Madonna 16 275,000,000 US 80s-00s (1984-) Pop

05. Nana Mouskouri 450 250,000,000 Greece 60s-00s (1959-) Pop

06. Cliff Richard 60 250,000,000 UK 50s-00s (1959-1969,1977-1979,1986-1999) Rock/Pop

07.The Rolling Stones 54 ~250,000,000 UK 60s-00s (1964-1981) Rock

08. Mariah Carey 14 230,000,000 US 90s-00s (1990-) Pop/R&B

09. Elton John 43 ~220,000,000 UK 70s-00s (1972-1976,1989-1991,1997-) Pop

10.Celine Dion 21 220,000,000 Canada 80s-00s (1990-) Pop Music/Pop

Source: IFPI

PICTURE DRAMA

The latest picture at the top of the page (from the I Still Believe shoot) is even worse than the previous one! What was wrong with the two previous ones (from TGIFY & TEOM)?

They're not public domain. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I put back the PD image Image:Mariah Carey3 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg. I also tagged Image:10927343mc.jpg as a fairuse orphan, which sould be deleted. --Rob 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wiki image use policy, a non-high resolution, copyrighted image may be used if no other alternative can be found. I would argue that the I Still Believe Edwards Air Force Base image is not an adequate depiction of what Mariah Carey truly looks like, therefore an alternative image should be used - even if is copyrighted - under the fair use citation. Anyone else agree? Simply because an image is public domain does not mean that it must be used, especially in this case, when she looks nothing like the image in question. Acero2310 09:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You stated the policy correct, but I don't get your interpretation of it. We have a public domain option (at least seven). Fair use is entirely unacceptable in the case for the principal picture. Now for other situations, such as discussing CDs, there's no PD option (e.g. you can't get a PD CD cover), or movies (the screen shots are never PD). We can't just use whatever image looks best. Of course, the fairuse commercial pictures will often look much better, as they're commercial quality. But, we can't take advantage of that. Now, occasionally PD images are of such poor quality, that they shouldn't be used, but I suggest we have multiple PD images of sufficient quality. Image:10927343mc.jpg has been removed, and is properly subject to deletion. Any other "fairuse" images put in as the main bio pic should be similiarly removed and (if not used elsewhere) deleted. --Rob 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we not use a CD cover (I'm thinking Butterfly), then? 195.93.21.34 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We already use Mariah CD covers in articles discussing the CD in depth. You could argue for a CD cover in a section of this article, that discusses a CD in-depth. But, you can't just use a CD cover as the main bio picture, unattached to a relevent discussion of the CD (this isn't like other shorter bio articles where there's just one CD, and the whole bio article doubles as a CD article). We currently have about half a dozen nonfree images, and one free image. The idea we're going use exclusively nonfree images when free ones are available is pretty unreasonable. I never said to get rid of all nonfree images of Mariah (be they CD covers, or still-shots), but merely keep (reput) the one free image. --Rob 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The still from the I Still Believe music video is not really representative of Carey since she dressed up as Marilyn Monroe. I believe a different, newer picture can be used. Baby Bash 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense to the person who put that "I Still Believe" picture, but I don't like it. We should put a picture that reflects her as an artist TODAY meaning the way she looks right now. I suggest the Grammy night or the VH1 Save the Music Foundation Concert or any picture in which she SINGS... It's just a suggestion though.

Please find a free one, and it can be used. Unfortunately, it seems most of the free images we have were taken of Mariah by U.S. service pesonell during the I Still Believe shoot (the one in the article was during a break). Because of that, they're free and useable. Any Grammy or VH1 picture is probably under a nonfree coyright license. --Rob 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a "picture drama" discussion, this article lacks pictures. We should have pictures of albums or music videos becuase this would help reflect Mariah Carey as an artist as well as make it look cool. Also, another suggestion is to create more parts for each album. It would really make this article more of an encyclopedia.

WP:NOT a discussion forum

I reverted this edit to the talk page. WP:NOT a discussion forum, and those debating whether or not Carey is a good live singer have already been informed of this. Please join a fan forum or IMDb.com if you want to talk about things like this. Chatting with other editors can be pleasant, but remember that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Extraordinary Machine 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Vocal Range

Slight change to incorporate her performance at the Stevie Wonder Tribute...

Original:

Carey is credited as having a four-octave vocal range; she can cover all the notes from the alto range leading to those of a coloratura soprano. [1] Her vocal trademark is her ability to sing in the whistle register. She has often been incorrectly credited as having a five, six or seven-octave vocal range. It has been suggested that Carey's publicists falsely claimed this at the start of her career, [2] although it may also be a misstatement of the fact that Carey frequently accesses the notes situated in the seventh octave, her highest so far being a G#7, hit in two live performances of "Emotions" in 1991.

Voice Carey is credited as having a five-octave vocal range; she can cover all the notes from the alto range leading to those of a coloratura soprano. [3] Her vocal trademark is her ability to sing in the whistle register. She has often been incorrectly credited as having a seven-octave or eight-octave vocal range. It has been suggested that Carey's publicists falsely claimed this at the start of her career, [4] although it may also be a misstatement of the fact that Carey frequently accesses the notes situated in the seventh octave, her highest so far being a G#7, hit in two live performances of "Emotions" in 1991, and a A7 in a rendition of "Emotions" in 1993. She has also dipped down to an F2 in a live performance of "You & I" at the Stevie Wonder Tribute in 2005, a note which is out of reach of many male singers.

WBT NUMBER ONE IN CANADA?

Please, would someone clarify this: was We belong together number one in Canada? Cause if that was true, it should be stated in the MC #1s Table here on Wikipedia!

It is true 195.93.21.34 16:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Previously, this song was announced #1 in Canada. How come it became #2? Baby Bash 06:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

it was never #1 in Canada or Australia. Or many european Countries.

"it was never #1 in Canada" ---PROVE IT. Baby Bash 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? In order to "prove" that a song wasn't #1 in a country, you would have to list all the #1 songs from that country, from every chart generally used in that country, from the time the single was released until today. When a factoid like this is being disputed, proving that it isn't true shouldn't be an issue, the burden of proof should be on those that claim that it is true.

And by the way, yelling isn't exactly the best way to try to sway the argument in your favour. - Ugliness Man 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WBT went to number one in Australia, her second since One Sweet Day. I would know, I'm Australian.

   One Sweet Day only went to number 2 in Australia in early 1996. Her first Australian number 1 was Fantasy in late 1995. WBT debuted at number 1 (her second ) in August or September in 2005.

We Must Rememver than an encyclopedia is not supppose to take sides on ay matter yet simply state the facts about the subject at handl. Mariah carey has about a 4 octave voice similar to julie andrews and can go into the 5 octave by using her superhead voice.so in this case you can basically state that she has a 4 octave voice-MRGQ (wiki member)

revised methodology/statistician BS

Why does some jealous Elvis/Madonna fan keep putting the following:

'..."Don't Forget About Us" became Carey's seventeenth number-one in the U.S., tying her with Elvis Presley for the most number-ones by a solo artist according to Billboard magazine's revised methodology (however, their own statistician still credits Presley with an eighteenth). By this count, Carey is behind only the Beatles, who had twenty number-one singles from 1964 to 1970.'

The Hot 100 is Billboard's chart, just because someone with connections to them inexplicably credits a double A side as two #1's, there is no need to put this in the article. Billboard has not had 'revised methodology' that effects Presley's #1's, he has 17, Mariah has 17.

The article should read: '..."Don't Forget About Us" became Carey's seventeenth number-one in the U.S., tying her with Elvis Presley for the most number-ones by a solo artist ever. Carey is behind only the Beatles, who had twenty number-one singles from 1964 to 1970.' 195.93.21.34 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree...that line is totally not necessary. Basically every article credits Mariah and Elvis as tied. Even on Billboard's Chart Beat, it is generally acknowledged that both have 17 #1 singles. Billboard itself reports Elvis as having 17 #1's...it's just a statistician (Whitburn) who claims Elvis has 18 because he counted a double-sided single as two seperate singles (old methodology).

I can't believe that important Mariah facts are constantly trimmed to keep the article concise, but lines like these don't directly apply to Mariah and are just an alternate way of counting singles are included. I don't know why people want it in the article. There are many more interesting and important Mariah facts that could (and should) be added instead! For example, I'm sure more people would care about the fact that Mariah received 8 Grammy nods than that one statistician counts Elvis has having 18 #1's...Just my opinion, but I definitely think that line should be permanently removed.

Also, the Beatles have only had 20 #1's (NOT 21 as the article states) I believe. Unless they are talking about the older methodology again... If so, it would seem absurd to talk about (in a MARIAH CAREY article Mariah under the revised methodology, the Beatles under the old methodology, and Elvis under BOTH methodologies. We should stick to the "revised" methodology as that is the one being used NOW. The older methodology can be discussed elsewhere (eg. Billboard articles or even Beatles/Elvis articles...but NOT in the Mariah article)!

You're right, the Beatles do have 20 number ones! (By the way, if whoever keeps putting the double sided thing back in should note that 'My All,' Mariah's 13th #1 was actually a double A side with 'Breakdown' -- does that mean she actually has 18? (!)

DOES THIS NOT COUNT AS DICUSSING IT? BILLBOARD HAS NOT REVISED ITS METHODOLOGY TO CHANGE HOW MANY #1'S ELVIS HAS HAD (HE HAS ALWAYS HAD 17, NO CHART COUNTS 1 DOUBLE A SIDE AS 2 #1'S, IF SO MARIAH WOULD HAVE 18 AS WELL). BILLBOARD'S STATISTICIAN WRONGLY COUNTS A DOUBLE A SIDE AS TWO #1'S. THIS IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE PUT ON WIKIPEDIA (UNLESS IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT ELVIS/BILLBOARD). WHEN THE ARTICLE IS SO OFTEN TRIMMED OF IMPORTANT FACTS, THIS RUBBISH IS NOT NEEDED! 195.93.21.34 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---I assume the previous discussion about THIS EXACT POINT has been since bumped to the archive, and I would suggest the above posters read it there. Short version: until 1958, Billboard maintained separate charts. Joel Whitburn uses all four of these charts for his series of books, which are published under the Billboard imprimatur and have always been considered official. Thus a single that peaked at #5 on one chart and at #9 on another is considered by Whitburn to be a #5 single. It is by this standard that Presley had 18 #1 hits, which has been the official Whitburn count for decades. In recent years, Billboard has settled upon a methodology which eliminates credit for double-sided hits, and which chooses one of the pre-1958 charts as the official one, to the exclusion of the others. This does not affect Carey's "My All"/"Breakdown" tabulation; while it may have been marketed as a double-A-side, "Breakdown" did not receive enough airplay to have become a #1 hit. Billboard has frequently changed its policy on double-sided singles, most recently in 1998. Thus it is not a statistical bone of contention for current performers.

However, there is heated debate about applying these changes retroactively, which is reflected in the magazine's own "Chart Beat Chat" as well as the Associated Press article about Carey's 17th #1, which HIGHLIGHTED the 17/18 Presley mini-controversy. You'll have to better explain why a primary point of fact in an article published by the Washington Post than just saying it's "jealous" and "rubbish." Merely touting numbers for the greater glory of any performer-- Carey, Presley, whoever-- while trying to suppress even a whisper about what those statistics represent and how they were compiled, is numerological fanboyism.

The threat to block my Wikipedia access was unnecessary last year, Extraordinary, and it remains so this year. Especially since my IP address is randomly generated and changes every couple of days. I expect the 13 words to remain in place.

It should be noted that many media outlets didn't even give the discrepancy a mention when reporting about Carey's latest single; regardless, this is not "numerological fanboyism", it is an attempt to keep the level of detail on the main article under control and make sure that material that doesn't belong here is moved to the individual single and album pages. Myself and several other editors have been working hard to keep fawning contributions and misrepresentations of facts out of the article for months now, so please do not accuse people of "merely touting numbers for the greater glory of any performer" - I assure you, this is not true.

In response to your final comment: I notified you of Wikipedia's blocking policy last year and again earlier today as in both cases you were coming close to violating the three revert rule, which all editors are expected to abide by. Extraordinary Machine 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. In no way are most disowning the fact that under the old methodology Elvis had 18 #1 singles but this is a totally unecessary fact to mention in the Mariah article. Many important facts are being trimmed (which I'm not disagreeing with since the article should be nice and concise), so I don't understand why some still argue for a somewhat irrelevant to remain in place in the article. If this statement is to be kept AT ALL, in my opinion, it should be in the Don't Forget About Us article instead.

You folks need to question why you're insisting that the "#1s" digit be included, while insisting equally strenuously that the number's very relevant context be excluded. PoV problems can arise from omission as well.

Jackie Robinson is credited as the first black player in the major leagues, but this is technically untrue. And Robinson's page mentions Moses Walker, a black player from the 1800s, in the 5th paragraph. Nobody's deleting the fact because Walker is "irrelevant" to Robinson's career, even though in a real sense he is.

The 1960 Presidential election has been disputed by many, though proof is lacking. Nonetheless, the entire opening paragraph of "Results" is devoted to this subject. Nobody's suggesting that this be spun off into a separate topic because space is precious.

Dalton Trumbo won two Oscars for screenwriting-- one under his own name, and a second during the Hollywood blacklist, under the pseudonym "Robert Rich." Nobody's calling it "absurd" and "rubbish" to include this "wrong" fact on Trumbo's Wiki page, even though that was the system of rules his generation of performers was operating under.

The Wiki page for television's Nielsen ratings prominently features a section criticizing the company's methodology, as well as other mentions of the system's discrepancies elsewhere in the article. Nobody's accusing the writer of this section of being a jealous Arbitron fan.

Examples of this nature go on and on. Just saying "Mariah has the most" doesn't illuminate anything. When all supplementary or contradictory contextual information is repeatedly deleted, it does the opposite. Go ask Al Gore how he felt in 2000 about getting the most votes of any candidate to that point in U.S. history. 24.215.152.250 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though you are right to an extent, Elvis NEVER had eighteen #1's, one man uses the idea that he does due to a technicality in a book which has NOTHING to do with Billboard. Although it is debatable whether it should be mentioned, please don't just put 'under revised methodology' -- because it is not revised. If in a book I put 'The Pussycat Dolls have had 2,000,000 U.S. number ones', would you change Carey's page to read 'Carey has the second most U.S. #1's under Billboard magazine's revised methodology (which retroactively nullified all of the Doll's chart-toppers)'?! Because that is what you are doing. People are always trying to drag Mariah down, she has sevewnteen #1's fair and square, as does Elvis (and if you do randomly want to include double A sides, then Mariah had eighteen as well, with My All/Breakdown as her 13th/14th instead of just 13th.)195.93.21.34 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, everybody calm down. To 24.xxx...: I'm not familiar with the controversies you listed, but most of the related Wikipedia articles are not way past the 30kb recommended size limit (as this one is), nor do they have the luxury of expanding on certain topics in subarticles. You should also know that I left in the note "according to Billboard magazine's revised methodology", which I believe adequately implies to readers that there is a discrepancy and that not everybody agrees with Billboard magazine on this issue. To 195.xxx...: Joel Whitburn is a well-known charts statician, and the explanation at http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/chart_beat/chat_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001995389 appears to make more sense (and is supported by more evidence) than claiming that the Pussycat Dolls have released two million U.S. number-one hits. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.250 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)It's incorrect to argue that a decades-long series of books such as "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits," etc. "has NOTHING to do with" Billboard. Dozens of Whitburn's books are sold through Billboard.com. Joel Whitburn is the magazine's official chart historian. The magazine also employs Fred Bronson, who writes chatty "Chart Beat" columns about various accomplishments and trivia. He has explained the discrepancy more than once. It's hardly a matter of "always trying to drag Mariah down." I suggest you look at the Wikipedia page for baseball legend Ty Cobb. The page reproduces his Hall Of Fame plaque, which credits him with 4,191 hits. It also lists his career total as 4,189 hits. Later research into Cobb's playing record revealed he'd been inadvertantly double-credited with a 2-hit game. Major league baseball has yet to officially recognize the new number; mlb.com continues to list Cobb with the higher career hit total. I do not believe Commissioner Bud Selig has accused Wikipedia of "trying to drag Ty Cobb down."

As for the Billboard totals, they are undoubtedly entertaining and somewhat enlightening about the state of the music business across eras. And many fans have long rooted for their favorites to do well on them. Carey is especially savvy about the dynamic, even marketing a hits compilation titled "Ones". However, it's foolish to put so much stock into the Billboard charts as iconic, carved-in-stone data, while wishing away an understanding of how the numbers were compiled and what they measured. To many people, the process of compilation is as interesting and illuminating as the results that come from it.

If Mariah Carey gets an 18th #1 hit, will she be a 5.55556% better singer than she is today?

I love how some sad Madonna/Elvis fan (it's always them trying to drag Mariah down) has blocked people from editing the rubbish about Elvis having eighteen #1's -- HE HAS SEVENTEEN, that is a FACT and you are just petty and stupid to disagree. Do you deny that George W. Bush is president just because you don't like him? Exactly. Get over it, moron.

Featured Music Project evaluation

Mariah Carey has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Audio - References - Format/Style

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Audio: Needs sound samples
• References: More inline citations (e.g. sales figures), scholarly, non-biography print sources
• Format/Style: Need text under all section headings, trim see alsos

Grammy wins

I have restored the comment below to provide context for anybody reading this. Extraordinary Machine 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And I have amended it-It is an important part of her career (128.119.169.232 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

See [5] for the comment that was actually placed here. Extraordinary Machine 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Carey's Grammy Awards in the article's introduction, when it is (in the context of her career) an essentially non-notable fact that serves no purpose other than to imply to the reader "she's great!", is in my opinion a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The introduction, as a summary of the article, is supposed to mention her most notable achievements, and her Grammy Awards history isn't one of them. She has not won a record number of Grammys, nor has she received a record number of nominations. Extraordinary Machine 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just a statement of fact that she has won five grammys and not an implication of "great"ness, nor is it a point of view-other singers have their grammy totals included in their introductions though they have not amassed a record number of awards or nominations, so why not her?-you are making a mountain out of a molehill and blowing this out of proportion-winning a grammy is an important event in a musician's career and it should be mentioned —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.83 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 February 2006.

Actually, Mariah has been pretty well dissed by the Grammies throughout her career, especially this year when she was (unjustly!) shut out of the major televised awards. So to mention it in the intro gives a really false impression. Wasted Time R 03:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that she has won five Grammys, and for that and that alone, it deserves to be mentioned in the intro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.83 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 February 2006.

It hardly goes unmentioned, as Grammy Awards and nominations for Mariah Carey is a whole article on it. It just doesn't belong in the intro. Wasted Time R 13:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"other singers have their grammy totals included in their introductions though they have not amassed a record number of awards or nominations" - well, they probably shouldn't for the reasons that I have outlined above. I agree with WTR: it gives a false impression of her being consistently successful at the Grammys when she has won only five of her thirty-one nominations. Extraordinary Machine 14:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Carey's Grammy Awards in the article's introduction, (in the context of awards won) is a notable fact and not mentioning it would imply to the reader "she's not so great!", and is in my opinion a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The introduction, as a summary of the article, is supposed to mention her achievements, and her Grammy Awards history is one of them, simply by virtue of the fact that she has won five. Other singers have theirs listed in their intros-by singling her out and not listing hers would be taking on a petty and non-neutral point of view and also would be discrediting the FACT (and not opinion) that she has won 5 grammys. Other singers should have their totals removed from their intros as well, if her totals are not included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.83 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 February 2006.

Please do not simply regurgitate my own words, or create sock puppet accounts. Just because other articles include this doesn't mean that they aren't in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view; if you list any articles that do what you describe then I will be happy to edit them to conform to the policy. Including a mention of an essentially non-notable achievement in the article's lead section is POV; we're not supposed to imply any point of view to the reader, we're supposed to be neutral. Wikipedia:Lead section states: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Carey's number of Grammys is not a particularly important aspect of her career (it is not record-breaking in any particular way or notable for some other reason), and thus does not warrant a mention in the article's lead. Extraordinary Machine 16:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is important that she be recognized as it is a notable fact in her career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geogrrrlll (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2006.

Including a mention of a notable achievement in the article's lead section is not POV; we're not supposed to imply any point of view to the reader, we're supposed to be neutral. Wikipedia:Lead section states: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Carey's number of Grammys is an important aspect of her career and does warrant a mention in the article's lead. (128.119.169.232 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

It is notable for the fact that she has received grammys (128.119.171.217 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Winning a grammyis an important event in any musician's career andshould be noted (128.119.170.225 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

It is the musical equivalent to winning an oscar, emmy, tony and is the highest award bestowed upon musicians, hence it should be included (128.119.169.116 17:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

for every six nominations she has won one award-those are not exactly horrible (though they are not great either)-that is close to whitney houston's 6 grammys out of 29? wins and her wins are included in her intro (128.119.170.236 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

it is a simple fact that she has won 5 grammys that above all else merits an inclusion in the intro (128.119.171.16 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

regardless of how many she has lost (128.119.171.34 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

grammy wins also included in singer's intros-beyonce knowles, norah jones, alicia keys, celine dion, madonna, janet jackson, aretha franklin, christina aguilera, and too many more to mention (128.119.171.57 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Please do not keep changing the signatures and timestamps on the above comments; it is misleading and confusing to other readers. The lead section at Whitney Houston read more like a press release from Houston's own agent than an introduction to an encyclopedia article; I have trimmed and rewritten it. The only other ones out of the articles you listed that should consider mentioning their subjects' Grammy Awards are Beyonce Knowles, Alicia Keys, Norah Jones and Aretha Franklin, since the number of Grammys they have won is actually significant and notable. I have also removed the mention of Carey's Grammy Awards from the introduction of this article again, for all the reasons that myself and Wasted Time R have provided above. Lead sections are not "all-inclusive", they are supposed to be succinct and free of any non-notable information. If you revert again, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Extraordinary Machine 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the mention of Carey having the most World Music Awards as it did not cite a source. Extraordinary Machine 18:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, you're right and I'm wrong-I don't think so-I am not going to stop, block or no block-I will move from computer to computer until it is in-my contributions are just as valuable as anybody's-nothing can stop me-i will change it once every day on a different computer, if i have to, for as long as it takes. i have had it with this site! i am done with it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.174 (talk • contribs) 20:35 11 February 2006.

128.119.238.174, I'd advise you to take a long look at the following policies on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that did not last long! World Music Awards with citation-it is notable for her record, even if the grammys are not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.174 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 February 2006.

I've already explained above why Carey's number of Grammy wins is not notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead section. Yet you still insist on restoring it without further discussion. You also removed a comment that I placed above. Why is this? Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.250 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)The first paragraph of the article is inelegantly phrased. "...the most successful and best-selling artist" is needlessly repetitive. And you don't need the "...according to Billboard magazine and the World Music Awards" since those citations are repeated later in the article. Also, combining "she became..." with "...the coming decade" is a clunky clash of verb tenses.

I'd suggest something like: Making her debut in 1990, she became the best-selling artist of that decade, and remains successful today. But she has fewer critical accomplishments than commercial, as evidenced by her track record in awards: though the 2000 World Music Awards named Carey the top-selling female recording artist of all time, she has only won 5 Grammys in 31 nominations.

Wording such as this may satisfy your desire for "notability" while also appeasing the Grammy-centric poster.

I'm still against mentioning Carey's Grammy Awards in the lead section; they are not an important part of her career. It also introduces the possible POV of not mentioning other awards organisations. I'm not even sure if stating "she has fewer critical accomplishments than commercial" is completely accurate; while not held in extremely regard, she appears to be (from the reviews I've read) consistently respected by and popular with critics. However, I've tweaked the lead a little and credited the edits to you.

Unfortunately, user:128.xxx... seems unwilling to discuss the matter calmly (or at all, for that matter), so I fear that whatever consensus we come to on what the lead should say will be dismissed and reverted instantly. Extraordinary Machine 23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Singers performing live

Well I am surprised that the Mariah article dosn´t take into account Mariahs lack of credibility on stage.Miming,never touring,outclassed by others while singing live, are you sure we are talking about the same singer....it´s a piece of cake sounding nice in studio but a piece of hell performing as well live....just ask Milli Vanilli or Mariah.....

This is a joke....are you serious about this article! It can only be some hardcorefans living out thier fantasy here....the women can´t sing live,and when she performes sounds terrible. Have you even deared to compare her voice with other great singers... I suspect not... well try and listen to some other voices in concert and then maybe you should evaluate your article again.Mariah will ever obtain the status of a great singer worldwide... and you know why.

^^ Don't you just love those crazy, jealous Madonna fans! If you want proof, see her Grammy performances/Unplugged album/1994 tour, Rainbow tour in 2000, Charmbraclet in 2003 & 2004/the fact that she pretty much always sings live etc. Mariah is frequently voted best singer ever in poll on MTV, VH1 etc. The above comment is just the sad, rambling rubbish of a deluded moron who didn't even leave their name -- I even had to change the TITLE to make it make sense! 195.93.21.34 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What a sad loser this guy who said that MARIAH is not a legend-whatever.... It's like saying Madonna is the greatest singer ever ha! Yeah right

All of this is irrelevant to the fact that she has had two live performances, one on Arsenio Hall and one on MTV's VMA's, were she actually did hit the famous G#7 note, You can site all the "bad performances you want to, but those two performances actually happened, download them through limewire and see yourself. You can talk about her bad performances all you want but she has had an equal if not greater amount of good performances in her SIXTEEN years of musical activity. Just because you are not a fan of or hers does not mean that you have to insult the woman, I'm not a fan of Maddona or Elvis yet I will never deny their ability to entertain. Pleae be civil and mature.

Grammy mention in "Return of the Voice" section

I removed the mention of the total number of Grammy Awards ("She has now won five Grammys over her career.") that Carey has received as a) the paragraph on The Emancipation of Mimi is already longer than the ones on her previous albums, b) the number is not record-breaking or particularly notable in some other way, and c) it's already implied from the rest of the article that she won her third, fourth and fifth Grammys this year as no mention is made of any Grammy wins between 1991 and 2006, so I felt that it was stating the obvious and that it was a little patronising to do so. Extraordinary Machine 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

you are obviously not going to listen to me so I am not going to listen to you either-this is my last post here-you can write whatever the hell you want-you want to start an arbitration proceeding over the mention of "she has won 5 grammy awards"-i have already explained why it notable to mention her grammy wins above-if you had listened to me we would not be having this petty conversation-you are not worth having a discussion with-i am through discussing it-bring it on-waste of time and money-i am going to change it come hell or high water-goodbye forever "When I have something to say, I'll f------' well say it."-Fiona Apple —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.238.174 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 February 2006.

I agree with Extraordinary Machine. Goodbye. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

as soon as the protection comes off, i am going to change her grammy mentions again-you ara all biased, anyway-there is no such thing as a completely neutral point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.171.60 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2006.

"Film career" image

Although I had originally corrected the size of the image Image:Carey Walters Sorvino in WiseGirls.jpg (the text had been running into it on my browser), the new material added to the article once again caused this issue. I have reduced the size of the image again so that this problem remains avoided. If my edit disrupted the article in any negative way, please leave me a message or place a message on this talk page. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

WMA

I keep posting this and it gets deleted. The World Music Awards never gave her any 'best-selling female artist of millemnum award' but a Legend award, which has nothing to do with sales and is given for 'outstanding contribution to the music industry' check http://www.worldmusicawards.com.

Pleased to see that the intro has changed, but yet again, Mariah insists on being introduced as the best-selling female artist of all time, and TV introductions are not factual evidence. Recently, she seem to have changed her intro, by using 'one of the best selling artists ever', which at least is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.171.60 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Actually, she did receive for Best-selling of millennium. They give different legends awards for different things. This one certified that she was best-selling of millennium. View WMAs alternate site: [6] Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not the WMA site, anyway, email their legal officer and they will tell you. I have, asking about it, and replied quite strongly that such award has never been awarded (though they have been trying to award a similar one but never succeeded, not to Mariah anyway) That is a link to the Monte Carlo Tourist Information Office, not the WMA. The WMA state clearly Legend and Diamond for M Carey, tourist information offices are not in the position to say what other organisations do, especially when the organisations in questions deny it. By the way, you will be surprised soon by the WMA, if things go according to plan, because they have ben trying to award a one-off prize along the line (best-selling female artist in history) for years now, but not to Mariah Carey at all. Only problem, the receiver has never been able to collect it. Links need to have some reliablity and authority, otherwise I could create my own website, state whatever I want and provide links for anything I want to say.

BLOCKED FROM EDITING

First I just thought it was sad that someone has blocked new and anon users from editing 'Mariah Carey' with something so scandalous but the truth, but now I've seen that it because of 'vanadlism'. Oh dear. I'm pretty sure that the truth doesn't count as vanadlism. The most insulting thing of all is that it then says talk about it on the talk page, something I have done many times, but whoever keeps changing it back to lies (Elvis has, and always has had eighteen number ones) doesn't (at least doesn't ever get anyone agreeing). It is sad when users just constantly revert pages when they don't like what is written, even when it is true. I would suggest users who do this read the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_pillars

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism. (!)

You are aware that when you toss the term "Nazi" into a bitchfest like this, you only make yourself look like a cliche-monger, aren't you? And for someone who seems to think of themselves as such an authority on Wikipedia, you didn't even seem to notice that your spaz attack is about 5 lines longer than it needs to be. Superfluous carriage returns don't make you look any smarter, and you seem to have forgotten the little known trick of using square brackets to link to an article. Then again, I'm not sure if I should expect better from someone who feels the need to use an allcaps heading. Ugliness Man 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please -- I don't 'think I'm such an authority on Wikipedia'. I just feel that it is stupid that whoever did this block feels the need to stop people because they dare to mention the truth (what the Nazis did). (BTW, your spaz attack is about 5 lines longer than it needs to be, as well.)

You are a genuine net-kook. Here we have the temporary blocking of an article on an internet information source, which was impimented to temporarily put an end to idiotic edit wars due to a difference of opinion. To compare this relatively insignificant action to the atrocities and propaganda the Nazis were responsible for is not only ludicrous, it's vulgar.

There's no grand conspiracy to prevent people from telling "the truth", it's a temporary block because people are being childish with this edit war, and when children are bickering, mommy or daddy has to step in and go "you two shut up for a second so we can figure this out". Like it or not, that's what happened here. Reading too deep in it doesn't make you better or more perceptive than the rest of us.

And for the record, you may have thought my comment was longer than it needed to be, at least mine was all content. About half of your initial crazed babbling comment was carriage returns and shitty code or lack thereof. Take off the tinfoil hat, bub. - Ugliness Man 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, OK then. Can you answer this question WITHOUT writing a book about it, please. Why, next to the part of the article which we are arguing about, is there a link (no. 30) which completely proves me right and the page as it stands wrong, with proof from Billboard that Elvis (indisputably) has had seventeen number ones (you know, what this is actually all about)? PS, Do explain what 'Take off the tinfoil hat, bub' means!

For starters, three basic paragraphs hardly constitutes "a book". If you don't feel you have the time to read a well-constructed (if slightly verbose) response to your idiocy, then don't bother. As for your link, you seem to miss the fact that the issue at hand is different sources that give different information. You are citing one of those contradictory sources and claiming it proves you're "right". Uttering the word "indisputably" doesn't make it so. And the tinfoil hat reference was nothing more than a glib nod back to my theory that you are a kook (a theory mostly based on the fact that you compared this trifle to the atrocities of the Nazis). By the way, you might want to read the editing article's subsection on organizing your writing, specifically the section on the usage of colons, unless you actually enjoy making conversations look like ass. - Ugliness Man 12:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

'...making conversations look like ass'?! So unintentionally funny! Anyway, the point of a link is to PROVE the fact in an article, not completely disprove it (in an argument about Billboard, an article on Billboard.com IS indisputable). By the way, my use of the Nazis in this argument is sarcastic (look it up), however, trying to smother the truth is one thing the Nazis DID do, and while I'm not seriously comparing a Wikipedian to Hitler, that is what is happening in this article -- the truth is being nonsensically stifled to fit an agenda (i.e. some sad acts, normally Madonna, but now apparently Elvis fans, trying to curb Mariah Carey's achivements).

Common voice isn't even finished, who edited it? Please leave things alone if you can't do it like you're suppose to do it, were the hell is her discography link?

= DATA MISMATCH

Moved to Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography.

Music video desciptions

I have noticed the descriptions for the Carey's songs and music videos for Can't Take That Away and Loverboy. For the first song, Carey's acting in the video was previously described as "waving her hand and singing spasmically" and I did not believe it was an appropriate description. I'm glad that now it's been revised. I also did a revision on Loverboy because on the remixes section, it had been written that Cameo's part was "blabbering nonsense" whereas it should been described as just random adlibs. Hope everyone agrees. Thanks for your time. Baby Bash 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Joel Whitburn

'It should also be noted that venerable Billboard Magazine statistician Joel Whitburn officially credits Elvis Presley with an 18th #1 single, owing to the double-sided "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" chart-topper. However, this 45 is officially considered a single entry by the magazine.'

-- This descibes exactly what happened on the controversial DFAU argument and I have changed it to be part of the page. I know some morons who don't understand what Wikipedia is about will simply change it back without reading this or listening to anybody else, but I hope that for as long as people care for what actually happened, not the revised version of events Presly fans love so, then it will be changed back to the above.

PS, it should be noted that Carey's 13th number one single "My All"/"Breakdown" was also a double A side, so if anyone wants to go for the wrong methodology, then at least mention that too.

64.131.199.5I received the following messages: Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --lightdarkness (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 2. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Shanel 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 3. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

64.131.199.5 06:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)First, my IP address changes every couple of days, so your "last warning" is an empty threat. You'll notice that my "user contributions" list is 3 items long, all from the last 15-20 minutes. I've edited this page a hell of a lot more than 3 times. Second, the valid reason has been specified several times on this page as well as the archived Talk page. Moving the Billboard/Whitburn debate from the 7th section to the introduction, deliberately overlooking the controversy, then gang-reverting the changes, indicates a lack of seriousness. It also serves to double up information even as various editors have been trying to shorten the article. Extraordinary Machine, who takes an extraordinary interest in this page, wrote on the edit history page, "restore mention of Billboard controversy, this has been discussed extensively on talk." He/she seems to understand this issue better than you, and you might like to take a cue from his/her oversight, even if it's not as much fun as calling contributors "morons" and "petty and stupid" and "sad Madonna/Elvis fans." I shall wait for some of the more responsible editors to weigh in, and then I shall restore my edit.

I too would take 'an extraordinary interest in this page' if anyone apart from Extraordinary Machine could edit it without being reverted. This is Wikipedia, not Extraordinary Machine-pedia. And for your information I got what I put onto the page from another Wiki page. Why does he understand it better than me?

To 64.xxx...:I apologise for not editing the lead to remove the mention of Presley; I've just done that now. I don't think that you would intentionally vandalise the article, so I believe that it may have been some sort of accident. To 195.xxx....: firstly, that slab of text is (in my opinion) too long and detailed; secondly, I'm not the only one reverting. Also, the edit you keep restoring deletes the footnote that is being used to support the sentence. Carey's "My All"/"Breakdown" single doesn't count as two number-one hits in the same way that Presley's "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" does. From what I can surmise, if "Breakdown" reached number one on the Hot 100 Airplay chart then it may play a factor in the debate, but it didn't. "Don't Be Cruel" and "Hound Dog" both reached number one on the jukebox-play chart (equivalent to an airplay chart in those days); they are counted as one because Billboard uses the sales chart only for its pre-Hot 100 data. Extraordinary Machine 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

64.131.199.5I would still drop the "Since her debut..." clause since we can safely assume Mariah Carey didn't have very many #1 singles BEFORE her debut. Saves you 3 words, anyway. Ex-Machine's thumbnail description of the Presley single's chart history is correct. He is also right about "Breakdown" never qualifying as a #1 song, despite being promoted as an A-side. Presley's single came out during a period where four relevant charts were being compiled by Billboard Magazine. "Don't Be Cruel" and "Hound Dog" each topped the Juke Box and Best Sellers charts. "Don't Be Cruel" also topped the Most Played by Jockeys and Top 100 charts. The Top 100 chart is considered somewhat lesser in clout to the other three, even though its Hot 100 descendant replaced them all. However, in 1955-58 the Jukebox, Sellers, and Jockeys charts were of roughly equal importance. The magazine's retroactive emphasis on one of them, to the exclusion of the other two, continues to spark debate. Billboard's official statistician Joel Whitburn rejects such backdated methodologies, and the magazine has apparently agreed to disagree. There was no such uncertainty in the autumn of 1956, as top billing on the Presley single switched back and forth during its 3-month run at the top, depending on which side had received more radio airplay or jukebox dimes that week. A stronger retroactive case can be made for breaking up the single's then-record 11-week run at the top between the two chart-topping sides, rather than eliminating one of them entirely. Interestingly, Joel Whitburn's 1978 edition of his "Top Pop Singles" reference book credited "Don't Be Cruel" as being #1 for 9 weeks, and "Hound Dog" at #1 for 7 weeks, due to place-switching and overlap. His books currently credit each song with 11 weeks at the top. None of this was at issue for Carey's "My All"/"Breakdown" single, as "Breakdown" never received enough airplay to challenge for the #1 slot. The current revision seems reasonable, since there is far less argument about whether Elvis or the Beatles were solo females.

ANOTHER LIE

Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Accurate in a lot of ways, but the new intro is just ludicrous. The iFPI never said that. Again there is no link, plus the IFPI do not count single artits' sales. Can Mariah fans stop posting lies please? Just trying to post tham Mariah is the best-selling female artist without the numbers is ridiculous, first she should sell the records, then claim. She's about 230 by the highest estimates, including mad claims of 25 million for records that scarcely sold 17, and despite all this, she still needs to sell another 70m before she can claim the title. Sure if we really counted more realistic sales she would slip beneath Celine and Whitney, so, just stop this nonsense.

Actually yeah there is a link for that -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we check links at all? Yes, there is a link, to a Fox News article that does not mention the IFPI nor sales at all. The link has nothing to do with the claim at all. The IFPI DOES NOT monitor individual artists' sales, but markets, and they would never come up with an absurd claim like that anyway.

Now, here's the article from the link, if anyone can put any link and then claim it says something different, then the whole 'reliability standard' has no meaning:

•Mariah's Sister Arrested for Prostitution•Carey Has 16th No. 1 Hit With Ballad •Mariah Prepares for 'Emancipation of Mimi' 

NEW YORK — Sultry songbird Mariah Carey (search), who's back on top with chart-busting hits, is now confronting a heart-wrenching new worry: whether she's become an enabler to her HIV-positive, prostitute sister.

Last month's arrest of the curvy crooner's older sister, Alison Carey Scott (search), on charges she solicited an undercover cop for sex on a boat at Huntington, L.I.'s West Shore Marina, hardly shocked the Carey family.

It was Alison's second prostitution bust in 10 weeks.

And the 44-year-old mother of four — who's been HIV-infected for at least 15 years — has been turning tricks off and on since the early 1980s, largely, friends said, to fund her longtime drug addiction.

While Mariah has repeatedly paid for her sister's efforts at rehab, at this point, "she's looking for Alison to want to help herself," a spokesperson for the singer said.

"Mariah can be there with love and support — but at what point do you not enable someone any longer?"

For a heartsick Mariah, 35, Alison's arrests made painfully public the illicit lifestyle from which she has tried to save her sister after a hardscrabble Long Island childhood.

It took years to realise that the famous WMA link was actually to the Monte Carlo Tourist Information Office, not the WMA, on this very page... This one is Fox News, not the IFPI, and mentions Mariah's breakdown, not her sales.... I think it's just a silly response to the infamous IFPI list above. Only, this link has absolutely nothing to do with the claim, at least the other was honestly taken from a website. Now, unless we can say that her prostitute sister makes her the best-selling female artist in history (absurd, isn't it?) There is NO LINK.

As a general rule of thumb, I woudvise Mariah carey's fans to avoid trying to state the unsttable, and, for their own benefit, stop trying to find out how many records Mariah Carey has really sold (not how many her husband says), because they would be rather disappointed. Let's stick to what her record company says, as we should for all artists (ievenif Columbia have been 'quite generous' with Mariah), that would place her in second position, at 160Million albums sold. if we sytart investigating, you'll find it counter-productive for Mariah Carey, as she would slip down the chart quite considerably. Not a surprise, as she's sold the same albums (fewer singles though) than Madonna in the US, and many, many less in all other countries.

Actually, Ive replaced the source and the claim. Watch the video, this links to the actual programme and not any Monte Carlo site. World Music Awards claim that she is the best-selling female of all time (and third best selling overall behind Elvis and the Beatles). Also, 1)Mariah has outsold Madonna in the US (both albums and singles), and two, isnt it funny how Madonn has sold 250 (supposedly) and she has never won a WMA (even though everyone else who sells a lot has received: Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, MJ. MC). The thing is, Madonna isn't anywhere near 200 or 250. In 2000, Guinness reported 120. There is no way she could have doubled since then, especially with todays sales drag. End of story. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This proves a point-the WMA only awards priizes to those who attend (can you actually believe Madonna does not deserve a Diamond Award? Her platinums in the EU and in the US alone add up to 140M records sold... Mariah's tot for the two Markets is just above 80M...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 April 2006.

How incorrect is all this!!! First, the video clearly states 'Diamond Award', and it also states 100Million albums. Second, the World Music Award are a charity, like many others, they are not an official music industry organisation, and don't pretend to be. Third, they are not at all related to the IFPI, while in your introduction it says 'the IFPI'. Fourth, you see the 'contact us' link on the WMA website? ask them, and you will get their legal officer dissuading you from stating that they ever awarded that prize. Again, the usual mess, Diamond award turned into something else, etc... Fourth, the World Music award only give prizes to people that can attend the show, and as I said above they have been trying to award the 'Best Selling female artist in history' prize (one off) to, you guessed, Madonna. Ask their legal officer for confirmation. They have tried to get her to go to the show for the last few years, but Madonna's never mamanaged. If she gets it, would it make her any more the best selling? NO, because the WMA are just a charity, they have no authority to decide who is or sin't really the best selling. Also, when it comes to how Mariah is introduced, that does not account for factual data. We all know artists have a say on how they want to be introduced, and Mariah has alays insisted on being introduced as 'the Best-selling bla bla' (not anymore I've noticed, she's now being introduced as 'one of the best selling...') Madonna never gets introduced with numbers, that does not make a difference to her sales. It just shows more class. Finally, Madonna's 64plat in the US, Mariah's 63 (so, less than Madonna at this very moment, anyway not far), only difference is that Madonna's sales are 1/3 in the US (1/6th now) and the rest around the world, while Mariah's are more than 60% in the US (75 at this very moment). Island declared 160M albums for Mariah last week. I'll trust them, even if I know that the numbers are hugely inflated (daydream sold 17M not 25, just an example, plus, if she's sold 2)+M in the US, she's very likely sold less than twice as many worldwide). Warner Bros declare in excess of 200M albums for Madonna(that was before COAD which is aleady about to outsell TEOM), much closer to the truth than any Mariah count, and there are about 100M singles to add (Island say Mariah's sold 50M singles, again, where?)Look at TEOM, 5+M in the US, 1M in Europe, lucky if it's sold another million and a half worldwide. this is Mariah's international success. It has not changed much, apart from her losing ground (which she had for a couple of albums) in Japan. Her best selling album in the EU is 2Xplat (2million), the main question is WHERE does she want us to believe she's sold all those records? Even if if believe her, she is still 90M behind Madonna. Now, to be honest, the problem with Mariah's numbers is not Island, nor was it Virgin, but her husband- sorry- Columbia: Island seem to be quite reliable and add onto what they received from Columbia and Virgin, in fact, they declared shoipments of 8 million for TEOM, which makes sense with 1m shipped in the EU, 5+ in the uS (or 6) and about 1.something M in the rest of the world. Not so for Columbia, who can add 7.5 and 2 and come up with 20 something... There have always been doubts about Columbia's honesty, but, as we know, they can say what they want. However, this spells the end of Mariah's inflated numbers. Her great comeback will maybe settle under or around 10 million. World Music Awards (a charity) or no World Music Awards. The pathetic thing is that all these lambs are trying to make out something which is not true. Using a Fox News Article, the Monte Carlo Tourist information Centre, a WMA vid that states 100M to change it into who knows what and then give it creditation from the IFPI (they are consulted by the WMA, but even the IFPI do not know how many recods artists sell, plus they do not endorse the WMA, as they do not endorse any prize giving. Set your heart at peace with the WMA, email them. As to Mariah's real sales? I think they are far below Whitney's in the end Whitney was A list worldwide, Mariah's B list in 2/3 of the world market, her albums just creep into the top 10, sort of thing. Check the Discography discussion, someone's pointed out how her numbers are humongously inflated and don't add up... For what I care, I can trust Islad, which still places Mariah tie with Celine 90 Million behind Madonna. If you aske anywhere in the world apart from the uS, people wopuld actually be surprised to find her so high (Celine is far more famous outside the US than Mariah, in fact she's got about 3 times as many Europlats as Mariah's, Madonna gets the same Europlats with an album as Mariah has in her whole career,a nd we're talking 6/7 m at a go) so, all your questions answered. Yes, Madonna Has shipped 200M records, just add up breakdowns of her platinums worldwide, and you'll actually find out it's well past 210, so sales can't be that far behind. Forgetting, The Guinness Book of Records, juts ask them. The entry is 2000. Since then, Madonna's sold 40M albums, Mariah's sold about 12M albums in the same time, so che could bnot by any means have caught up (3.5+3+7.5? maybe 1 or 2 more COAD alone ahould outsell Mariah's whole sales since 2000) however the data was collected from WB as per 1996. Anyway, ask the Guinness, they are now in the process of collecting information to update the entry, which, as a draft at the moment reads 'Madonna is the most bla bla bla, with albums sales in excess of 200M and 100 m singles sold), it should be in next year, if WB don't delay it any longer.

After reading the first few sentences, I can find a million things wrong with your stance.

1) World Music Awards are directly related to IFPI, unless I've been seeing double. read this: IFPI statement See the little black logo in the top right hand corner? and world music awards.

The WMA consult (among others) the IFPI, so does the Guinness book of Records- mismatch? Since 2000 (Guinness Book of Records) Madonna's ousold Mariah by 3/1, so mariah can't have surpassed her since. The WMA have the support of the IFPI, but neither the WMA nor the IFPI say that the WMA numbers ARE the IFPI's. The iFPI also award platinums in the EU, they check on piracy etc, monitor record companies, etc... This idea thet WMA=IFPI is wrong. we could as well say Ginness Book of Records=IFPI. Anyway, the WMA do not say Mariah is the best-selling. This is based on another wrong assumption: Prince Albert introduction=WMA=IFPI. No, his introductions = agreement with Mariah (it is normal praxis). The prize had nothing to do with the introduction. That came from the WMA, having 'consulted' the IFPI. This is waht it states: The WMA, having consulted the IFPI, (as well as other sources includimg newspaper articles, by the way),give Mariah Carey a Prize for having sold 100M albums. The rest is speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 April 2006.

2) Where on earth did you hear that WMAs only award people who attend their show? Legal officer? Dont make me laugh. You think you can throw down these names and I will automatically believe? Mariah Carey received a total of 7 awards (yes 7) between 1995 and 97 , but the first time she attended the show was in 1998:source go to Mariah At The World Music Awards: Complete History. If "Madge" won anything, she would have gotten it.

Actually- Yes! They state they 'have been trying to contact Madonna... but so far she has not been able to attend the show and collect the prize...' The prize has been ready and waiting for Madonna to collect it for years... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 April 2006.

3)Madonna US: 64 albums, 20 singles. Carey: 64 albums, 22+ million singles. Confessions on a dancefloor isnt anywhere near TEOM sales or music wise. State your source!

IFPI end of year chart- COAD 6.3 (in 5 weeks!), TEOM 7.7M in a year. COAD has certaily sold 2/3M since then.. We know from media Traffic that in 23 countries, COAD has sold almost 3M in 2006 - do the maths [7] this is the source...

Coldplay top 2005's global charts

GLOBAL TOP 10 ALBUMS OF 2005

1. Coldplay, X&Y (8.3m) 2. Mariah Carey, The Emancipation of Mimi (7.7m) 3. 50 Cent, The Massacre (7.5m) 4. Black Eyed Peas, Monkey Business (6.8m) 5. Green Day, American Idiot (6.4m) 6. Madonna, Confessions on a Dance Floor (6.3m) 7. Kelly Clarkson, Breakaway (6.1m) 8. Eminem, Curtain Call (5.5m) 9. James Blunt, Back to Bedlam (5.5m) 10. Robbie Williams, Intensive Care (5.4m) Source: IFPI http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...865716.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 April 2006.

4) Most of you content (especially the last part) was speculative, unsupported, fan gush, which I wount even pay any attention to. IFPI says Carey. Period. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a point: the WMA consult the IFPI with their queries about year sales, the IFPI report what record companies declare (shipments). That is about it. May I point out that the Legend Award has nothing to do with sales, though?

UNSUPPORTED? THe WMA webpage is my evidence- yours is fanzine articles and Prince Albert's introduction (by the way, if the phantom award was given in 2000, why is the introduction made in 2003?????? Not even the dates match!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrian76 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 April 2006.

The fact that the 'best-selling female artist bla bla' has never been awarded is another thing altogether. The fact that the link given is 1- to a Fox article about Mariah's sister, 2- of a video for 100M albums sold, not best selling ever.

2) The WMA stated that they've been trying to contact Madonna for years trying to award her the 'best-selling female artist of all time' but haven't given it 'because she has not been present to the show, but hope to award it snext year' (WMA legal office's email- you can get one yourself).

3) The IFPI do not say Mariah Carey, they said Madonna in 1988 (Guinness Book). Prince Albert says Mariah Carey- his words are not the IFPI's or is he an IFPI representative? The prize was for 100M albums- that comes from the IFPI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 April 2006.

TEOM has shipped 8million (Island 2/3 weeks ago), that is in a year. Confessions on a Dancefloor has shipped 7.4M (WB last week), that is in 4 months. US numbers are different, but that follows the trend whereby Madonna's a huge hit worldwide whereas Mariah is a mainly American phenomenon (TEOM = 5+M in the USA (6 shipped?) and about 2 in the rest of the world, TEOM 1.6 (Shipped) USA, 5.6 rest of the world, 3M in the EU alone). When you talk about sales, you seem to include the US only. COAD has by far outsold TEOM in its first 4 months, as the two albums sales are now rather close, but COAD is 8 months younger than TEOM. This ,again is WORLDWIDE. We are talking about best-sellers in the world. In teh US, I think the best seller is Barbara Streisand...

Even in the US, you should remind you that they have both 64 plats, but that one of Mariah's diamonds is actually for 7.5M sold, not 10. Anyway, as I said, the two artists' sales in the US are about equal at this moment, but there is no comparison betwen Madonna's sales in the rest of the world and Mariah's. Mariah's best-seller in the EU is 3plat, Madonna (we are not sure as True Blue and LaV were before the times, but TB has sold 10M in the EU) has had in the last 10 years a several albums at 7, and 6plats. As I said, the salesa ratio for Madonna is about 20(US) 80(Rest of the world, now, though if her early career is included, it ends up being 30/70. for Mariah it is now 80 (US) 20(RotW), none of its album as EVER sold as many copies in the whole rest of the world as it has in the USA, therefore, if she's sold 64M in the USA, she can't have sold more than another 60 in the rest of the world. On the other hand, the 30/70 ratio for Madonna means that if she's sold 64M albums in the uS, she should have sold the 200M+ (I think it's about 210+ at the mom, but WB are not prompt to declare sales quickly, the next time may be in a few years) as declared by WB. Just to give an example, Daydreams is 10Plat in the uS, but only 3 in the EU (in fact there's no way it's sold 25M, even allowing 2.5 extra in the US on the 7.5 sold according to Soundscan).#1s sold about the same as Music in the US (3.5M) but Music has sold 6.5 in the EU, #1s 1million.... And so forth for all the albums... as I said, COAD alone may collect as many Europlats as Mariah has in her career (2plat in two weeks to start with, going 4 plats very soon, and still a year of good sales to go) I've noticed that even inventing sales from China (which did not literally HAVE a market till very recently) and enormous slaes (given what the market is now) there are about 30/40% of all her albums with Columbia's sales unaccounted for (and only about 10% of the world market, where by the way, it's not like Mariah has a huge string of #1s, unlike Madonna...) It's quite simple, the two artists have sold about the same in the US, but Madonna's sold incomparably much more in the rest of the world, so there is no doubt as to whose sales are higher, and their record companies' data is along the same lines (210M tot for Mariah, 300M plus for Madonna), this even considering Mariah's super-bloated numbers.

COAD officially sold 6.3M in 5 weeks, while TEOM sold 7.7 (IFPI) by the end of 2005. At this very moment, the two albums are 8M each, COAD about to surpass it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 April 2006.

Finally, whatever people say and go on about, as I said, I am ready to accept Columbia's over-bloated numbers for Mariah, but they still are far behind Madonna's. Mariah 160M albums, 60M singles (Columbia0, Madonna, 200+M albums and 75M singles (in 1988, the singles, 100M now) according to WB (NB< WB Brazil declared 95M singles last year, which adds up exactly with singles breakdowns, as the 200M albums match with album breakedowns, thing which we can't say for Mariah). THere is NO WAY Mariah has any claim to the #1 spot, she's still almost 100M behind (and the divide is growing, as COAD is selling better than TEOM, and it will keep on like this, for many reasons).

Anyway, I'm pleased to see that silly claim has been removed from the introduction, someone must have checked both links (Fox Article, and Video for 100M, not best-selling ever). Whatever you want, just email the WMA as to them, they'll confirm every word I've said, then ask if you can publish the email, if you want. Coming from the legal officer, I think I should feel free to publish it...

Still, it says the WMA 'named' her- that's not accurate- Prince Albert introduced her as the best-selling ..., while she was receiving a Diamond Award. Introductions are agreed bvetween the artist and the presenter, all the media speculation afeter that is abased on the introduction, however, the prize was a Diamond award in 2003 and a 'Legend Award' in 2000. [8]

The introduction follows the 'media mess' that folowed the 2000 Legend Award. The WMA not being that famous, the Legend Award was taken to be what it was not, also thanks to Prince Albert's long intro and Mariah's thanksgiving speech. To be correct, the article should read 'at the 2003 WMA Prince Albert introduced her as the Best-selling female artist of the millemnium'. However, hundreds of artists have been introduced as the greatest/best etc... by better music experts than Prince Albert... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 April 2006.

This is starting to annoy me. On 3 occasions the article talks about the 'Best-selling Artist of the Millennium' prize. This is not what the WMA says [9]so, it's an unsubstantiated calim. The more sources are presented the more unconvincing they are (Mariah's own thanking for the prize? fanzines? Prince Albert calling her whatever he wants, but giving her a diamond award? The Monaco Tourist information office?) Are we joking? The ONLY SOURCE YOU IGNORE IS THE WMA THEMSELVES. Tnhjhis is utter misinformation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 April 2006.

No, you are starting to annoy me. Can we just stop this nonsense? Look, the media, and everyone else (including WMAs themselves) have repatedly said that Carey received this award. And if ecven by some mistake she did not receive this award, you clearly hear them repeatedly refer to her as such in this clip. Whats more, they officially claimed her the best-selling and most successful female artist of all time. And don't attact Prince Albert; he is the one in charge of the World Music awards and everything it entails. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that after the WMA themselves got in touch with the editor to confirm that the prize was never awarded to mariah Carey, this claim has been dropped, and the new claim 'one of the best selling' has been added. By the way, Prince Albert is not in charge of the WMA, he's the Parton- not the CEO, he's an 'external' figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.148.2 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 April 2006.

Major rewrite of 12th March 2006

Okay, I've been developing the article in a sandbox page recently, and I've now just transferred my edits to the "live" article. Basically, I've tried to insert more reliable and print-based references, expand the information on Carey's musical style and influences, balance the critical appraisal with quotes and paraphrasing from Carey herself, and generally improve the prose. It's somewhat more detailed than previously, but I think that the new material is worth including. Extraordinary Machine 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Very Good. My only problem is the intro: its not very consistent. For example, you mentioned her voice in the second paragraph, moved on to something else, then rementioned it in the last paragraph. Also I think you should include her albums instead of singles when talking about her being one of Columbia's biggest acts (just personal preference here). Last thing; "return of the Voice" was more appropriate: it was her slogan/catch phrase or whatever. I think it should be included, but in quotation. However, I'm absolutely impressed with everywhere else. GREAT WORK!! Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just a few things:

1. I made some edits to the lead section again. From all I've read she's perceived as more of a pop musician than R&B, so I mentioned pop first. Also, I think we should only mention the World Music Awards once, otherwise it's both name-dropping and repetitive. And the record she attained for the highest number of number-one singles at the start of her career is probably one of her most famous commercial accomplishments (again, from what I personally have read) so I added it back in.
2. "Born in Huntington, New York, Carey is the third and youngest child of Patricia Hickey, a former opera singer and voice coach of Irish American Roman Catholic extraction, and Alfred Roy Carey (born Núñez), an aeronautical engineer of Afro-Venezuelan descent." - this is a run-on, so I split it.
3. "Critics rated Carey's debut highly; in 1991 she won Grammy Awards for Best New Artist and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for her debut single "Vision of Love"." - I'd prefer that the "and" was used to join the two sections here, as do critics vote on the Grammy Awards? Also, it implies that we are using the Grammy Awards as proof that critics rated the album highly, when the references are different for each.
4. I couldn't really find references to "return of the voice" from any reliable sources (or ones that aren't press release-esque material). From my research, it seems to be used more by fans than anyone.
5. Splitting the Emotions paragraph into two seemed odd to me as all of it refers to the album (except the last sentence, which is related to the sentence before that anyway), and I don't think it's big enough to be split into two.

Thanks for the kind words! Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, GREAT WORK to all the editors (Extraordinary Machine, Journalist, Eternal Equinox, and anyone else I unintentionally forgot to mention) who contributed on the recent overhaul of a page in need of tidying up! Not only am I grateful, but very impressed and inspired; its deserving of much attention. On a side note, I do think that information on her MonarC label attempt (?!?) and her ventures and plans for Automatic Princess, which can be verified if a reference is necessary, should have at least a brief mention. Particularly, the former should be included because it was that label that affected certain releases from Charmbracelet ("Boy (I Need You)", "Miss You", etc.) and the careers of her contemporaries Trey Lorenz, Dat Baby, and Belle & Nae Nae. In addition it provides a look at some of her ventures that may have "failed" or atleast have been postponed. In any case, GREAT, nay, AMAZING WORK yet again, but do consider some of my points. Thanks. Grey Pursuit 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think that her Automatic Princess line is that notable as it appears to have been cancelled, but I've added a mention of her MonarC imprint. Unfortunately, the MonarC article doesn't say whether it's still active or not. Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticality in lead

I inserted the sentence "However, her voice and lyrics are the subjects of frequent criticism" into the lead section less than twenty-four hours ago, and already it's being repeatedly removed without explanation. I don't see why it should be, since the article has entire paragraphs dedicated to discussing criticisms of Carey's work (as well as numerous negative appraisals of specific albums). Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've used up my three reverts for the day, and anons are still assiduously removing the above sentence (and in the latest instance, replacing it with a mention of the number of Grammy Awards Carey has won, despite previous discussions about it in relation to WP:NPOV). This is an encyclopedia article, not a fanzine or hagiography. Extraordinary Machine 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Images too similar

This may simply be a matter of taste, but I just find the image of Carey performing under the 'Style & Influence' section too similar to the image that heads the page. Of course, both are free domain pictures, but the performance picture could always be replace with a photo of her performing on tour, which is also free domain. Anywho, I'm just pointing it out for the sake of variation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be such a big dispute (I have no problem with the image that currently heads the page, just the one that's featured later because of its similarity). So, if I provide possible 'appropriate' images of tour performances of what not or maybe replace, please discuss if you disagree with my choices (by 'appropriate', I'm not particularly referring to photos of her tastefully dressed as she is known for her provocative wardrobe, but instead, photos that are high quality, of free use, or pertinent to the section 'Style & Influence'.) Grey Pursuit 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was a little worried about that, but I inserted it anyway as it seemed to fit with the section because it shows her singing, whereas the other one is just a general candid shot. Also, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says that we should use free use images wherever possible (except if there are so many of them available that they would end up turning the article into an image gallery). But if you know where to find other free-licensed pictures of Carey, then by all means insert them. Extraordinary Machine 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave the Page Alone

Can we please leave any innappropiate and opinionated comments, such as Maiah Carey has a great set of boobies, off the artists page. The Page Is fine the way it is leave it alone. It is not opinionated or biases for the most part and I believe it's the best we'll get.69.217.195.50 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment is by 69.217.120.94 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 March 2006.

Extraordinary Machine Is A Vandal

This person is a vandal. He is committed to disrupting the Mariah Carey website and uses his knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to disturb other users who have just as much right to make edits as he does.

Saying that Billboard does not credit Mariah as being tied with Elvis is patently false. Billboard is the final arbiter of their charts and their charts are widely recognized as the offical U.S. pop charts. To suggest that Elvis and Mariah are not tied because Billboard is not really the only chart out there is just dishonest and stupid. We would not even be talking about a record if we did not see Billboard as the official chart. When Carey scores 4 more number 1 singles on Billboard's Hot 100 to surpass the Beatles will you then say Billboard is not the only chart out there and the record is not really official. That is just a preposterous argument. Billboard is the final arbiter of their own charts. This is silly. If they say tomorrow that they are taking away 5 of Elvis's number 1 singles well guess what, he will have 12. People might not respect it, but that would be the official total. Whitburn's statistics are no more credible than Fred Bronson's. Bronson has published numerous books for Billboard and works for them currently and has direct contact with the chart department on a regular basis. How can you argue with what Billboard publishes in their own magazine, which is that Carey is tied. That is absurd.

I am going to refer to you to the Island Def Jam legal department for continuing to vandalise Mariah Carey's website. You will face legal action for distorting her record.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Get2nomey (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and please do not call other users "vandals". The situation should be discussed since edit warring will not progress the article. In addition, I'd suggest a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, no legal threats. I'm glad that you share my enthusiasm for the subject of this article but this is not "Mariah Carey's website", it is an encyclopedia article. If by "[using] his knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to disturb other users", you mean directing them to appropriate policy and guideline pages, then I apologise if this caused you distress in some way, but I'm hardly going to let you add and take away material just to bring the article in line with your own personal opinion of the issue. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that all users are expected to abide by, and enforcing such policies is not "vandalism". Vandalism would be if I deliberately added misinformation to the article, which I haven't; this controversy is supported by evidence and has received substantial press coverage. The fact that the magazine's own official statician doesn't even agree with this indicates how controversial (and often inaccurate) retroactively applying current metholodies to earlier chart listings is. See [10], [11] and [12].

I'm sure you may be thinking "What does this have to do with Wikipedia? Billboard is official, they have the last word". Well, this is a clearly legitimate discrepancy, and it has been discussed at length by sources such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post and Billboard magazine itself (in its "Chart Beat" column written by none other than Fred Bronson, who cites Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles book as an "indispensable tome" and cautions that people shouldn't throw statistics like this around without providing any context for how those statistics were compiled). It is best to defer to the neutral point of view in cases such as this, as implying that one party is correct (by saying that Carey is tied with Presley) and not the other, when they both have valid points, is POV.

Read the text that remains again: "she has the highest number of U.S. number-one singles by a female artist". Isn't this a highly notable accomplishment for Carey in itself (in addition to it being undisputed)? Extraordinary Machine 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.46 09:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Extraordinary Machine is pretty calm, you know, considering that he's headed to "Def Jail."

Please, don't make me laugh. No one can arrest anyone here. This site does not belong to Mariah Carey or IDJ, nor is it affiliated with them in any way. You know what? I won't even respond to any more posts of legal threats. The entire matter is just plain silly. If you want a site that worships Mariah Carey, I suggest going to mariahdaily.com. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.46 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)You'll all soon be breaking rocks in Wikiprison! The Wiki entry for the U.S. Constitution has recently been edited to add "failure to properly adore Mariah" as a federal crime. Officer Get2nomey has spoken!

Yeah whatever. And "Officer Get2nomey", if you continue this silly "game", you might find yourself being blocked for a longer period of time. And don't be fooled, that IP address you are using can also be blocked, as well as every address you might threaten from. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.46 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)(Psst. Orane. I'm making FUN of the nonsensical threatening posts, not leaving them. It'll be our little secret.) I'm also the guy whose IP address switches every 3-to-10 days, making all talk of blocking moot. Yours is the 5th such toothless "warning" I've received regarding this page alone. I'll never understand the impulse on Wikipedia to zoom straight to the "I'll ban you!" gambit. But it comes from an astonishing number of users, it's always precipitous, and it certainly reinforces my decision NOT to sign up for a steady Wiki account.

Edit Wars

There would not be any edit wars if people would stop behaving as though they own a particular site. Some posters put lines into articles that they know will cause controversy and upset other posters. There is not reason to insist on lines of text that were never in an article before that upset everyone. Furthermore some posters believe that what they post is gospel and what others post needs to be revised. It is wrong. This is a free encyclopedia to be edited by anyone and other people's edits count too. Some posters cite the rules as though that gives them authority to interpret those rules any way they please. It is wrong and unfair to other posters to appeal to authority in that way. Legal action seems to be the only way this will be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Get2nomey (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments by placing four tildes after each posts like this: ~~~~ . Thank you. Also, while this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have certain policies and guidelines that you have to follow if we are to be productive here. (Please familiarise yourself with NPOV, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:policies and guidelines) If you break these guidelines and procedures, then ofcourse others will try to correct them. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert that sentence to cause controversy, I inserted it because it represents a point that is discussed extensively in the article. I do not believe I "own" this article or that what I write is "gospel"; you are free to edit it, provided that (as Journalist said) your contributions conform to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and the manual of style. However, it becomes a problem when such contributions compromise Wikipedia's aim to maintain a neutral point of view. As I wrote on your talk page: I did the research on Carey, negative critical appraisals of her work came up very frequently, and I have reflected this in the article. From everything I have read, criticisms directed at her voice and lyrics do indeed have "great importance in the grand scheme of things", enough importance to mention in the lead anyway. Extraordinary Machine 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page, and will not release it until you guys have come to a concesus on the talk page. Please behave yourselves, and familiarise yourselves with the applicable policies and guidelines before asserting any point; it would make it a whole lot easier for you guys. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Signing posts

People should worry less about this and worry more about the outragious vandalism that goes on here. Get2nomey 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)get2nomey

New Sales Figures?

If anyone has noticed, in her Official sites newsletter it lists her Album sales as only over 160 Million records world wide. So, I'm thinking the number is somewhere close to 162 or so ?

Shouldn't the charts on here be changed then ?

I think that maybe you are looking for Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography, since there aren't any sales figures in this article. Also, please do not insert copyrighted material, or material unrelated to the discussion of Wikipedia or its articles, onto talk pages. Extraordinary Machine 22:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Album Content

This point has been discussed by me and probably numerous other editors many times and is probably going to make everyone FED UP of reading it again, but don't the album sections seem WEIRD in this article. In every other biographical article on a singer, it never has so many quotes from reviews on their albums (they belong in the album's respective articles) and also, there is still too much emphasis on chart performance. Let me review on what I think should be said:-

Chart records worthy of note in this biographical article:-

1. Mariah Carey spanned 4 #1 singles in the U.S.
2. "Emotions" made her first artist in U.S. chart history to have first 5 singles hit #1. No-one has repeated the feat since.
3. "Without You" was her first U.K. #1 single
4. "All I Want For Christmas Is You" = first #1 in Japan
5. "Fantasy" became second single (first by female artist) to debut at #1
6. "One Sweet Day is still the longest running #1 single on Billboard Hot 100 at 16 consecutive weeks
7. "Honey" made her only act to have 3 singles debut at #1 (was her last)
8. "My All" gave her 13 #1 singles - more than any other female artists
9. "Heartbreaker" made her only act to have a #1 every year of the 1990s
10. "Thank God I Found You" made her only act to have a #1 every year for 11 years (1990-2000)
11. "We Belong Together" was her first #1 for 5 years

I don't think anything else is really worthy of note, and to be fair some of these could be cut out, but they are pretty impressive accomplishment as almost all of them have never been accomplished by anyone else, making them specific and unique to her, therefore relevant to her biography.

As for her albums-little more than one or two sentences should be used to explain their critical success. Fair enough, a word or a short sentence can be quoted from a review, but don't waste two or three sentences quoting from various reviews. Saying that Daydream was her most critically-acclaimed effort yet, really is enough. Readers who are interested in more can link through to the album's article where they can find out more about its critical response.

What are your thoughts? I won't make any changes to the main article until I obtain some response, as its edited enough as it is. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the chart records you listed are already mentioned, 9 and 10 are kind of the same anyway, and 11 is implied. Also, I think that there is about as much emphasis on chart performance as there is on everything else. I also believe that critical appraisal is very important; saying "The main criticism of [this album] was [this]" and nothing more doesn't really stand up on its own unless the statement is corroborated by quotes from actual people (see WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation). Kylie Minogue, a featured article, has a similar approach to summarising the critical reception of each of her albums. Extraordinary Machine 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

One Sweet Day

The caption needed to be changed, because it is impossible to have a "duet" with four other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.196.46 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2006.

I Hate It

I dont like the current Head Picture. Its too UGLY. can somone upload a better picture that represtents her in a 'Beautiful' way? thay way she should be represented? Coojah 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The current one is under a free license, and any new image must also be under a PD/free license. As for finding a new image, to quote Mahatma Gandhi, "be the change you wish to see in the world."--Fallout boy 07:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

oh hallelujah some1 actually realized it!!!!! Please change the picture because it is U-G-L-Y. I liked the last picture but that does not represent her today. No offense to the person who put that pic, but its horrible... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.124.70.135 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 April 2006.

who put a sign on it

Clean up required; March 2006

The size of the article currently stands at 57k - almost twice as long as the maximum allowed limit of 32k and therefore needs to be edited down.
A lot of the information on the article is too long and needs to be either cut down or removed completely to comply with Wiki regulations. Rimmers 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The size of the article isn't necessarily due to the amount of text in the main body of the article. Footnotes and references, sound samples, images and categories are also contributing factors (as is the discography section). The word count is actually lower than some of Wikipedia's featured articles about musicians, such as Kylie Minogue.

The article is currently undergoing a peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Mariah Carey/archive2); no concerns have been raised about the size of the article there.

Wikipedia's 32kb article size is a recommendation, not a "maximum allowed limit" or hard and fast rule.

Nonetheless, I'll try and see if I can trim it down a little over the next few days. Extraordinary Machine 18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously spent a lot of time (time well spent!) on this article, so its down to you...but imo the article contains far too much information than is actually needed. For example, the influence section is about 3x longer than it needs to be; much of the biography section covering her career includes too much info also and my worry is it amount to over kill. Its a fan article - but people coming to Wikipedia arent neccessarily fans - so the article should be more of an overview rather than a blow by blow account, if you get what I mean... Rimmers 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's far from a blow-by-blow account and I personally don't believe it's overkill. Mariah's been in the biz for over fifteen years and a LOT has happened in her life compared to many other celebrities. To me, this article is a good overview of her life and success, and if I wrote the article, I'd include even more about her singles, which is shown in articles of other artists like Whitney's. I mean, an article MUST be short if you cut out names of her four debut #1 singles, her "comeback" single It's Like That, and the recent smash hit Shake It Off. The latter two songs aren't even mentioned in the article at all! So I think a "longer" article is justified in this case, though personally I really don't think it's enough information! And I'm sure most of the people visiting this page are Mariah fans or people who enjoy her songs or are intrigued by her and want to know more. So I think that the article shouldn't be trimmed anymore than it already is! Just my opinion! :) 65.110.24.179 04:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rimmers, I've replied to your message at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mariah Carey/archive2. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I recently reorganized the lead but Journalist changed the lead and said it made the discussion incoherent. I do not see how that is the case. I did not insert the line about the World Music Awards. That has been there. I think it makes more sense to end the lead with Mariah returning to the forefront of music in 2005. In the first Paragraph we end with a discussion of Mariah as being named the biggest selling artist of the 1990s by Billboard. Why do you think it is incoherent to begin the next paragraph discussing Mariah being named the world's best selling female artist. Doesn't that come next logically? By the way I did not insert that text point. It has been there for some time. You left all of my edits in place except for the order of the paragraphs. I think it is incoherent to jump back to the world's best selling artist in paragraph 3 of the lead. The middle paragraph belongs at the end of the lead because it sums up what has happened in her career the last 10 years and brings us to the present.Get2nomey 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)get2nomey

I'm glad that you're willing to discuss things peacefully now. I removed the "widely considered to be one of the most talented singers in popular music" remark you inserted, as a) it isn't true, from the material I've read, and b) we have a quote in the article saying "Does having a great voice automatically make you a great singer? Hardly". Extraordinary Machine 13:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

TEOM

Singles:

1st It's Like That 2nd We Belong Together 3rd Shake It Off 3rd (internationally) Get Your Number 4th Don't Forget About Us 5th Say Somethin' 6th Fly Like a Bird

No countries got both SIO & GYN in that order (AUS got them as 3rd and 5th), thus on all the individual single pages the numbers are wrong.

POV

I had a little spare time, so I thought I would drop in for a sec. I have to say, this is a really good article. However, my main concern is that it is slightly POV'd. Now E.M, I know that you worked long and hard trying to make it stable, but I have to admit, the article has a negative undertone, which is most exponent at the Craft/style and influence section. For example, when you are discussing her voice, you have three quotes that portrey a negative impression of it. But where is the balance? Where are the good quotes? Remember, to scrutinise/criticise means to examine and judge as a critic; to pass literary or artistic judgment upon the merit or demerit of (http://www.answers.com/criticise). Being NPOV does not only apply to being fannish; an article is POV if it only reports one side of the issue, which is what you have done here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I did take this into consideration. I tried to compile that section in accordance with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, which says articles should represent viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each. Carey generally seems to be praised for her vocal abilities (as demonstrated in the results of the MTV poll, which is mentioned here), but is mostly criticised for how she uses them. I think that it would be misleading to provide a balance of positive and negative appraisals when almost all of the ones I have read are unenthusiastic at best. This is only from the research I've done, though. Extraordinary Machine 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the section to be slightly POV. Instead of searching for three positive reviews about the subject matter, why not locate just one to allow a limited proportion of balance? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vocal range

I'm neither a vocal, musical, nor Carey expert. However I do play the piano and sing, so I'm not a total stranger to music. For awhile I've heard rumours of Carey's amazing vocal range. This article states, "According to most sources, she has a five-octave vocal range, though some credit her with as many as eight octaves." I'm having a hard time believing five octaves, let alone eight. A piano does not encompass eight octaves. Someone needs to show me the songs where she reaches her highest note and her lowest note, and then this claim can be verified. Very few songs that I've heard span more than two or two and a half octaves. If some sort of proof is not given for statements regarding her range, it should be noted that either it is not known for sure, or the ridiculous rarity of having an 8 octave range should be commented on. -- Andrew 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

unfotunately, mariah carey's sister, alison has been reported as a prostitute when she offered sex to a policeman for $200.00 US. Although, this is not the first time she has been caught. carey says" its not like i don't want to see how my sisrer is going, it's just that i can't talk about in public nd it's illegal for me to." mariah 4:20pm 12/05/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.226.133 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 May 2006.

Here is a source, although it says six octaves, not eight. However, it just goes to show that it is atleast five octaves. You could go here to listen to her high notes. Most of them are in the 7th octave. A couple low notes can be found in Thank God I found You. Also Don't Forget About Us spans 3.5 octaves (she hits a C3 in the first section, and I b6 at the bridge), and lastly You and I. Of course, I'm not an expert either.

Also, I dont understand something. You said: "Someone needs to show me the songs where she reaches her highest note and her lowest note, and then this claim can be verified." Are you saying that you are in authority to verify such claims? Because, if thats what you are implying, you might want to read our official policy No original research. Orane

Thanks for the links. And of course I'm not an authority to verify such claims; that would be silly. Someone needs to show me the songs in the same way that every reader on Wikipedia must be given sources for all statements made. You need to be shown the songs or the sources, too. You can see the sentence with a passive verb if you like, "the songs need to be shown." Now that I'm listening to the links you gave, it's really interesting to hear her sing like that. I've never heard anyone use this so called "whistle register." Andrew 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing: I've read statements in some (seemingly) reputable sources that she has an eight octave range, but I didn't want to add "some erroneously credit her [...]" as that would be a little POV. Extraordinary Machine 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Her vocal range of what I know is Bb2-G#7. Bb2 from You And I live(very briefly) and a live version of Emotions where the key was lowered. G#7 from Emotions live(VMA performance) as well as G7 from the Arsenio Hall show. But I'm sure it can some days be higher and lower.Myke 07:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubts Mariah can go really high, it's feasible and she occasionally shows it. But at the other end... a Bb2?! Is it even possible? Maybe a burp or something like that. F15x28 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, her official site used to have a page that cited her range as A2-G#7. The site even said she can cover her entire range in the span of one breath. Unfortunately the page with that information is missing right now and I don't know if her site will repost it. I have no doubts about either extreme; I've heard Mariah Carey sing both the A2 and the G#7. The A2 might seem questionable, but it's possible, believe me. (A2 is my lowest note, and I'm a high tenor.) --Surelyican 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Maybe theres a reason it was taken off. I think its because her voice isnt as good as it used to be. but still I say her range is Bb2-G#7 but all that can be proven is a range of C3-G#7. C3 is the lowest note in My All, Emotions, You're So Cold, and I believe other songs. A1 is my lowest note and F7 is my highest and Im a Lyric Baritone. I don't know if Mariah has ever sang above the piano or in the second octave because there is no audio to prove it. All I know is alot of people exaggerate her voice alot. Notes should be checked before saying what they are. People start rumors about alot of things like the note in You're So Cold being G2. Its not. My way of checking notes is by using a keyboard. its pretty accurate too. Its better than a tuner. Tuners can be thrown off by the slightest extra sound. the best way to check a note using a tuner is to copy the note by singing it yourself. But keyboards are easy cause it wont produce a note an octave lower or anything as most people tend to do if they feel a note is too high or an octave higher if the note is too low. You should always check a note yourself and ask another person if you can rely on them. Myke 06:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Archive 1 of the talk page for comments of mine; I listened carefully to the My All sample that someone posted and I couldn't hear anything verifiable below D3; I suspect she can't do Bb2. (But the G#7 is clear.) On the other hand, this is certainly possible for women -- a girl in my choir in college could hit A2 without problems, but she was a low, low alto. Happy Rhodes sings down to B2 in some of her songs (well, she tries to; it's a bit sharp). But I rather doubt that you can really hit A1 (likewise F7); very few men can even get to C2 (singing, not creaky-voiced growling). Benwing 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should add the vocal profile back up. Not only was it on her official site, but there used to be a website documenting people's vocal ranges with clips to back it up. I fully believe the A2-G#7 because not only have I heard the clips, but also there's a handful of other people who have wider ranges than even that's. She's not the only one so it's not that unbelievable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.224.211 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 July 2006.

From Josh: If she hit a B2 live and on youtube live she hit a B7 with strength than if u do the math by yourself and scale up from B2 to B7 isn't her range more than 5 octaves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.48.76.77 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2006.

Grammy Awards

The article had mentioned how many Grammy Awards Carey has garnered since her debut, yet Extraordinary Machine provided an insufficient edit summary where he states that the it is inexplicable. Since Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the facts, and when taking into consideration that a particular number of Grammy Award wins is clearly notable, I am going to be placing it in the article. There have been previous occasions where the Grammy count was also removed, though I believe this had something to do with unsourced material. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously; see Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive06#Grammy wins. Basically, mentioning Carey's number of Grammy Awards in the article's introduction (or anywhere else), when it is (in the context of her career) an essentially non-notable fact that serves no purpose other than to imply to the reader "she's great!", could be considered a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The introduction, as a summary of the article, is supposed to mention her most notable achievements, and her Grammy Awards history isn't one of them. She has not won a record number of Grammys, nor has she received a record number of nominations. Also, she has actually lost some twenty-six nominations, so to mention her number of wins in the introduction (or anywhere else) gives a really false impression. However, there is a whole article at Grammy Awards and nominations for Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether she has won a "record-number of Grammys" or a "significant number": an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize all of the facts, and if one wanted to locate her Grammy-achievement, it should be placed at least somewhere in her main article. One is not going to type "Grammy Awards and nominations for Mariah Carey" since it is very unlikely. If it cannot be placed in the lead because it is violating NPOV (which I am skeptical about), then it should be contained somewhere else in the article. Her notable achievements should not be excluded; Grammys are supposed to represent the highest honour in the musical industry. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "See also" to Grammy Awards and nominations for Mariah Carey. Also, I was wondering why you moved the Carey/Houston image to the right of the article again? You did it originally because it indented the header of the following section when it was placed on the left, but the image caption is shorter now so it doesn't do that anymore. Extraordinary Machine 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Grammy accomplishments deserve mention. EM, how can you say that including it is POV? I'm sorry, but I'm having a very hard time understanding this. While I realise that it should not be in the lead, it definitely deserves mention. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the mention of Carey's total of Grammys to the "Return to prominence" section. I was worried about it being POV if it was at a random place in the article (as it would draw attention to itself then), but hopefully where it is now flows well with the article and doesn't jump out. I hope you all understand what I mean. Extraordinary Machine 21:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the image to the right side because it was a personal preference, you can revert if you choose to. Isn't it a little difficult to locate her Grammy Awards mention where they currently stand in the article? One is likely not going to just happen upon the 2005–2006 portion of the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the image back to the left, as now the images and sound samples and right-left-right-left throughout the article (damn my OCD ways! :)). Though if it ends up indenting the section header again then we should probably move it back. As for the Grammy Awards mention, I think that if it is more embedded within the flow of the article (rather than standing out), then it is less likely to be POV. Extraordinary Machine 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently it does not indent the next header, though it is definitely close to doing so, especially if even one more paragraph is added. The Grammy Awards mention is fine where it is. :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

IBT.jpg and OSD.jpg

I don't know if this is just me, but the audio sample image in these captions is distorted. The image doesn't appear where it's supposed to (before "audio sample of..."). The bottom half of the image appears on the next line under. I'm not sure how to fix this. Anyone else seeing this? -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. Perhaps you should clear your browser? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening photo

Could someone put a nice pic in the lead section? :) Brand 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We would require a picture of Carey from her youth if you are attempting to communicate the "early life" portion of the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily from her youth... just a more flattering photo than this one, and there are plenty... believe me. Something a little more recent wouldn't hurt either, that photo is eight years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.249.200 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 May 2006.

Yeah, honestly. What a bad picture, probably posted by a Mariah hater. I try finding one, and you should too.--Exult 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The picture of her at the air force base is not only old, but is ugly. She doesn't present herself this way anymore. I posted one of her at her Tunian concert on July 22, 2006, but everyday I come back and the one at the airforce base is there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.166.209 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2006.

The New #1s Format

I think this new format doesn't do Mariah Carey justice. You should take off the years in the "Mariah Number Ones Chart". Some number ones have crossed over two years. Hero, for example, was number one in 1993, but it was also Mariah's only number one in 1994. Not listing it as a 1994 #1 may confuse the readers. Those who aren't major fans of Mariah, might think she didn't really have a number one each year of the 90s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.84.82.3 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 April 2006.

The number-ones have been formatted as per guidelines and the style featured in an actor/actress's article. "Hero" does not need to be listed as a 1994 number-one because it was released in 1993; would it confuse readers if "One Sweet Day" was not referred to as a 1996 number-one? It is unlikely since this is not the main article concerning these singles. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article and the article on Dianna Ross both claim that their respective artists have the most #1 singles for a female —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.167.145.20 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 April 2006.

Gay icon source

Planet Out [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobbieNomi (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2006.

So, she performed at a gay club, had a popular reaction, and will perform at other gay spots. So what? I don't see the word "icon" in that link. Also, the article body still doesn't say she is a gay icon. If she truly is, and it's important, the article should say that, and cite sources to back it up. Obviously she has gay fans, just as she has straight fans, white fans, black fans, and all types of fans. An icon, is something that is an exception, not typical. Judy Garland is a "gay icon". Many sources use that exact term for Garland. Garland's acknowledged to have had an effect on the gay community (or parts thereof), unique from her effect outside that community, and unique from other performers who happen to have gay fans. Not so for Carey. If I'm wrong, then fix the article, to show that. When we overuse words, we deprive them of meaning. --Rob 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Added: citations belong in article space, not just talk space. Readers shouldn't have to look here to find references. --Rob 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

no need to call her a gay icon, she clearly is not! Especially compared to Madonna, Cher and Kylie Minogue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.11.81.236 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 May 2006.

Well, about that Gay Icon bit

Um... she is, however, one of the most prominent artists in gay culture. And if your thinking is correct, Madonna and Kylie Minogue aren't gay icons, either, because they still have mainstream succes and relevance. A gay icon can very well enjoy success in other markets. I think it's only their prominence in gay culture - and not in perspective to their success anywhere else - that decides if they're gay icons. Mariah Carey is, in more opinions than mine, a gay icon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.178.227 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 July 2006.

Editing notes

1. Everything is referenced as of this revision.
2. As previously discussed, Image:Mariah Carey11 Edwards Dec 1998 uncropped.jpg should not be replaced with a copyrighted non-free image as its use would not meet the fair use criteria. However, feel free to add a better free-licensed or public domain image if you find one, and also upload it at the Wikimedia Commons.
3. For some of the print sources, I added URL's that are embedded within the source code and can be viewed in edit mode. Extraordinary Machine 00:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I believe that the intro needs to be cut down from its' current three paragraphs; my start (removing the second paragraph that sounds more like body contents than intro) was reverted by User:Rossrs. Comments? --Stretch 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I reverted it was because the intro should be a general summary of the article, and this includes noting key information, with the expectation that it will be expanded upon in the main article. Therefore to have some info that seems like body comments is normal. The lead should be able to stand alone - ie on the main page, and give a very brief, very general overview of the subject. I think taking the middle paragraph out, made it too brief, and somewhat unbalanced and only focussed on a couple of aspects of Carey rather than giving a broad overview. Also, this is a recently promoted featured article, and one of the very common objections given at FAC is "the lead is too brief". It's standard practice that featured articles have a somewhat more detailed intro. 3 paragraphs are not usually considered to be too long, while 2 paragraphs are often considered to be too short (depending on the size of the paragraphs, and their content, of course). Rossrs 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected --Stretch 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

Someone PLEASE change that image, it is truly awful!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saucyminx (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 April 2006.

I agree. There was a picture of Mariah at a press conference of some sort that was used as the title photo a few weeks/months? ago. Not one picture in this article represents what Carey looks like in real life. All the pictures are from music videos/movies except for the charity picture, where you can barely see her. If we can't use any non- free-use or whatever images, at least use the one from the press conference that was used a little while ago. At least that more fully represents what Carey looks like. The current picture is one of the worst pictures one could find of her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.116.192.113 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 April 2006.

What's wrong with the previous public domain image Image:Mariah Carey3 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg or Image:Mariah Carey3 Edwards Dec 1998 cropped.jpg? Shawnc 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ugly and is the worst photo you could find of her. I put a better on up that shows her at her 7/22/06 Tunisian concert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.166.209 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 July 2006.

This picture situation is unfair! Most other artists' page has a promotional picture, but when one is put on this page it is labeled copyright and is removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.166.209 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 31 July 2006.

Breakdown?

Can we get some more info on the Glitter meltdown she had a few years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.180 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 May 2006.

G7 not the highest!!

hey ya'll I just found a clip on youtube.com that has a compalation of all Mariahs highest notes, and in a live performance of emotions she extends several pitches above the G7 quite clearly compareed to other clips where I've heard sqeaks in the backround. I don't know whatnotes they are but maybe some else can listen and tell me. Just look up "mariahs high notes". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 May 2006.

you're talking about the section at the end of the first video; she doesn't go above g7. Benwing 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah on youtube she goes up to B7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.48.76.127 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 August 2006.

Japan #1's

I changed those charts because Mariah Carey has never had a Japanese #1, despite what the article says. I've already posted about it in the singles discography page, but what I did about it on the main page got reverted.

The only chart that measures single sales in Japan is the Oricon chart. I know a large amount about the Japanese music industry and charts, and I'd never ever heard of the 'Tokyo Hot 100' which is what this data was based on. I checked out the site, and found that the Tokyo Hot 100 is an airplay chart for that radio station. There have only been two #1 singles by western artists in 30 years, and Mariah wasn't one of them. This is because singles by domestic Japanese artists are released before albums, so consumers don't really see the point of buying singles that have been recut from albums.

For the official Mariah Carey singles and album charts, see this page. --Mahogany h00r 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not how it's done. You do not make bold, radical changes to a featured article (or any other article) then provide s simple explanation on the talk page. You provide your explanations first, wait until others review its authority, credability and importance, then we make changes to article. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles, and it's not as if I changed major parts of the article. I just got rid of some false facts from the page. Anyway, when I originally posted this nobody replied to it, and I waited ages for any replies. So I edited the page myself. --Mahogany h00r 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also the international chart (which is a chart that shows the best selled and airplayed international singles). Ramonojo 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can We Have A Current Projects Section?

Mariah just announced her 2006 tour. Maddyfan 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the current version is good--LooseTheHotButtonS 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Maddyfan yes we can. Just dive in if you want to. Be bold. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, LooseTheHotButtonS, when are you going to get around to mentioning the Adventures of Mimi Tour, or Mariah's perfume deal, or all the latest that she has going on? Maddyfan 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what r u talking 'bout--LooseTheHotButtonS 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

I think the current image should be replaced with Image:Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg, because this image has a closer view of Carey's face, and her face is partially covered by two microphones in the current image (Image:Mariah Carey11 Edwards Dec 1998 uncropped.jpg). -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I highly agree. Her beauty is reflected well in this pic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 May 2006.

What the heck?

After this edit, the refs can't seem to go back to normal. Is anyone else seeing this? (Yes, I cleared my cache) -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Page

This new page is much more practical and does not waste as much space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.11.81.236 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 May 2006.

This page is far too large. Edit it immediately, or it will be done by us. A short biography is all thats needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.11.81.236 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 May 2006.

Unsectioned comment

I dont know why people keep increasing sale figures I really dont I mean I put a link to a Billboard Article that said The TEOM sold 9 million copies worlwide according to Mariah Carey's record company and then people change it again to 10 million. I think worlwide figures should not be included anymore because this is an encyclopedia not somewhere where if your favourite artists' CD sells 5 million for real you put 10 million because they might have sold more. Its stupid and I think it makes wikipedia unaccurate. Its not just Mariah Carey's discography all of the discographies that have worldwide totals add several millions some more than double the right amount. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.114.188 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 June 2006.

"Authored"

I'm not sure about replacing "written" (in relation to songwriting) with "authored"; it seems "flowery" for no reason other than to sound clever (clear writing is better than "clever" writing). I remember inserting "colluded" into the article, but I wasn't sure about it and I'm glad it was removed because it sounded strange. "Author" is also misleading: dictionary.com defines "author" as the writer of a book, article, or other text, but not a song. That's probably why I've never heard the phrase "song-author" before. Extraordinary Machine 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times?

How many times has something like this had to be removed from this article:

"According to most sources, she has a five-octave vocal range, though some credit her with as many as eight octaves."

Even though there is a source cited, it's been said time and time again that the reports of her voice spanning eight octaves was a misconception at the beginning of her career. Her voice spans about five octaves.

I'll assume good faith though, as any good Wikipedian does ;-), and assume it was an honest mistake. However, I believe it should be changed to better reflect her actual range...then again, Wikipedia does have that policy about stating the vocal ranges/types that different pop artists possess. I do believe though that this is a case where it should be changed, because five octaves is around the truth. -WikiFiend90 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that I read at least one reliable, scholarly source (not a tabloid or a blog or a message board or anything like that) claim that she has an eight-octave range, I'm not sure we should edit the article to state that it is a misconception unless we have another reliable source (preferably an expert) saying it is. While it's highly likely that she has a five-octave range, we ourselves can't say that for certain (and so we should change the article to do that). Even Carey herself has said she doesn't know how wide her vocal range is. Extraordinary Machine 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe she once said herself that she didn't have an 8-octave range and that it was part of a promotion to get her recognised in her earlier career. Whatever happens, we aren't going to get an accurate number as to describe her octave range as the "five octave" range is quite old and she herself has said that she can't 'hit' some of her higher notes. - A Shade of Grey

Category:African-American singers

I've noticed that Musicpvm (talk · contribs) and Drmagic (talk · contribs) seem to be in a dispute regarding whether Category:African-American singers should be listed in the article. As both of you are in violation of the three-revert rule, I request that you calmly and civilly discuss the issue on this talk page rather than just reverting each other over and over. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that I was in violation of the 3RR rule until I had already reverted several times. But User:Drmagic and I did discuss the issue at our talk pages, and we have agreed that the category should stay. --Musicpvm 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

List of songs by Mariah Carey

Is this article necessary? A Beyoncé fan was using this article as a reason to create List of Beyoncé songs which repeats all the info already present at Beyoncé Knowles discography. List of songs by Mariah Carey does the same thing. It repeats info that is already present at Mariah Carey albums discography, Mariah Carey singles discography, and List of unreleased songs by Mariah Carey. I think it should just be redirected to Mariah Carey singles discography. --Musicpvm 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article request

What do you guys think about adding this article to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests so it can be displayed on the main page?

Mariah Carey (born March 27 1970) is an American pop and R&B singer-songwriter, record producer, and occasional actress. Carey made her debut in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and became the first recording act to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart. Following her marriage to Mottola in 1993, a series of subsequent successful records consolidated her position as one of Columbia's highest-selling acts, and according to Billboard magazine she was the most successful artist of the 1990s in the United States. Carey took full creative control over her image and music following her separation from Mottola in 1997, and introduced heavy elements of hip hop into her album material. Her popularity was in decline when she left Columbia in 2001, and she was dropped by Virgin Records the following year after a highly publicized physical and emotional breakdown and the poor reception of Glitter, her film and soundtrack project. Carey later signed with Island/Def Jam, and after an unsuccessful period, she returned to the forefront of popular music in 2005. (More…)

--Musicpvm 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of Mariah Carey (I don't dislike her either) so this should be fairly neutral. It seems to be a very good article and would be a good featured one, but that being said, I think that's a terrible picture. It looks very old, but, with her age, it can't be as old as it looks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedHotHeat (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 July 2006.

Picture

This new picture is ugly of MC. Please somebody change it..... She is beautiful but this picture is ugly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.74.108 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 July 2006.

You can replace it with another image as long as the new one is under a free license, in compliance with the fair use criteria. Extraordinary Machine 17:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dance music?

I don't know if we should include the genre of dance music in the infobox; she's done relatively few dance-influenced songs (and "dance-influenced" doesn't automatically make a song a dance song anyway). Thoughts? Extraordinary Machine 17:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mariah's dance remixes are among some of her most popular and memorable songs. She has hit the top of the hot dance/club airplay chart many, many times with these mixes. Basically all the singles she released (with dance mixes) from her latest album hit #1 on that chart: It's Like That, We Belong Together, Don't Forget About Us, and Say Somethin'. I think that's a pretty darn good indication that she's a major dance music artist, even though the original versions of those songs aren't originally dance songs. Furthermore, she re-records all new vocals for her remixes while the whole feel, beat, and melody of the song is frequently changed (she also co-produces a lot of the new material), which is basically like recording a completely new song. So I'd say she is most definitely a dance music artist! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.136.24 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with Extraordinary Machine,we need to put genres that define her career.User:panda52

Say Somethin' & Fly Like A Bird

I think the Return to Prominence section needs to be updated to include the above singles as her current single is not Don't Forget About Us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.230.169 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 July 2006.

We're supposed to include what's relevant, and that's not necessarily what's current. Also, what you wrote about those singles having limited success needs a source. I looked for articles outside of fansites about this but couldn't find any. Extraordinary Machine 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT AN UNGLY PICTURE!?!

Guys you should change the picture at the very top of the article...It's old, and it doesn't give Mariah justice. A while back someone did put something more recent...whoever put this old pic back should be banned from editing this page! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, For wikipedia objectivity and values's sake, change that picture. It is not fair to have such an old 1997 photo for Mariah's article, while other singers get to have their latest pics in their articles!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.84.82.3 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 July 2006.

The current picture is a public domain image - it was taken by a member of the U.S. military. When there is a public domain image avaiable, it can't be replaced by any other image - including CD covers, promotional pictures, etc. - except another public domain image. Fabricationary 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This picture situation is unfair! Most other artists' page have a promotional picture, but when one is put on this page it is labeled copyright and is quickly removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.166.209 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 31 July 2006.

why did wikipedia do that? can i see where is says that?--Colorfulharp233 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth Name

Mariah Bootlouse Carey, born at the Piccadilly Wafflehouse.

On a more serious note, there should be some mention of the pornstarress with a stage name in her likeness, Mary Carey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.178.227 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 July 2006.

too long?

this article is 56 kilobytes long. is it too long? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size --Colorfulharp233 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre

I believe that many people such as the users of wikipedia try discredit Mariah as a R&B singer. The songs that are urban-oriented don't have R&B. The person thinks he or she is right.

Someday, Heartbreaker, Thank God I Found You, My All (listen to the undertones

The Roof and Underneath the Stars are not pop songs. Charmed36 4:48 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put a butterfly as the Butterfly single cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charmed36 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2006.

Picture

Someone deleted what I said yesterday, but here's the suggested pic again:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pull Up To It (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 September 2006.

Update: Holy fuckign crap!! It was supposed to be a pic of Mariah at the Oscars. !!! The file name was NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The hell?? I'll just leave it, because it's hilarious. : P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pull Up To It (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 September 2006.