Talk:Mariah Carey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mariah Carey article.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Featured article star Mariah Carey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Mariah Carey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 13, 2006.
Peer review Mariah Carey has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Mariah Carey:

edit - history - watch - refresh

Find a Recent picture.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Main Picture

Why is there a picture from 1999 as her main picture? that should be changed. PrincessOfHearts 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Because that's the only free image we have. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. Mushroom (Talk) 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


(216.99.50.80 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Actually, the picture dates from December 1998 ;-) Look at the picture details. IMHO she was very very attractive back then .... 88.108.32.242 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)AF

That picture is real ugly of her....she looks WAY better than that picture!! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.74.108 (talkcontribs).

i agree that isnt a very good picture  PrincessOfHearts 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

At one point, there was a next picture of Mimi's Concert in this position. Can it or a better picture of her be placed here please.....(Beyonce's picture looks good...why can't Mimi's??)24.162.74.108 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Blueandgold200

DO NOT DELETE THE IMAGE I HAVE UPLOADED. Is is the Single cover of Mariah Carey's "Love Takes Time." From what I understand we are aloud to uplode album covers and/or singles. Album covers and single covers can be found on just about any musical artist's article even Mariah's. So, pleas do not delete it.

Thank You!

Also, if wikipedia is open for everyone to edit, no one has the right to tell us editors that we are not aloud to upload any other images other than the one on Mariah's article. Don't go looking for what i just said, because i deleted it. It was when you went to go edit the article.

Thank You again!

You understand wrong. Next time try reading the embedded note about fair use images. CovenantD 02:42, 9 November 2006 (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.157.217 (talk • contribs) .
Calm down—the debate over fair use on Wikipedia and on this page in particular has been going on for years; it's not something that can be understood perfectly in five minutes. In any case, an album cover is fair use. We are allowed to use fair use images in certain situations, but not everywhere. Thus, an album cover image can be used to illustrate the article on the album, but it cannot be used to illustrate another article, even this one. In general, the same is true of magazine covers and book covers. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, if we are aloud to use fair use images in certain places, then a picture taken of mariah to showcase HER as in artist can be used to illustrate HER on the main page of HER article. And, whoever this person is that keeps deleting all the images to replace them with his, lay off of it. People are tired of seeing your image and your threats about fair use images when we can use them at certain times and certain guidlines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.145.244 (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately, you're arguing against Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:FU#Policy, point one. We have a perfectly acceptable free-use image; thus, fair use is not permitted. That's just the way it is. Please stop replacing the image; if you continue to break Wikipedia policy, you will be blocked. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But, if you said that we are aloud to use an album picture to illustrate and article about the particular album, then we are aloud to use a picture of an artist to illustrate the article of that particular artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violinist1 (talkcontribs) .

No; it's more complicated than that. Part of the rationale of "fair use" is that there's no replacement image available, and that you're not going threaten anyone's livelihood by distributing the image. So with an album, there's no meaningful way to represent the album with any image other than the album cover. Furthermore, you're not making it less likely that people will buy the album (who buys an album for the cover art?). Promotional material is different, because it is created by a professional whose livelihood depends on proceeds from images. And besides, free alternatives are available (like the one produced by the US government in this article). --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense, thank you for explaining that. Also, i got your message, and I think that maybe the encoded message involving the changing of the image should be deleted because anyone could find an image that fits the guidlines of the policy.

-Thank You

[edit] Can't Take That Away

Can't Take That Away did not charted with Crybaby. I remember seeing the Billboard Chart Rewind about a year ago on billboard.com and Crybaby debuted at 28 without Can't Take That Away.

Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

we need a RECENT ONE! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.210.114.195 (talkcontribs).

[edit] Grammy Wins

I think musicians who win Grammies, especially multiple Grammies, should have that honor mentioned prominently in any biography written about them. It's akin to mentioning the fact that someone in the film industry won an Oscar. The Grammies are considered by most to be the premier award in the music industry, since it is recognition by their peers and not solely on commercial success. A Grammy is a Grammy is a Grammy.

tpetross 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's misleading in this case. For a musician of her sales and chart accomplishments, Carey has done poorly at the Grammies. Even "We Belong Together", a super smash and critically praised, lost all the major categories last year (unfairly, in my view). If you're thinking about all the most important things to say about Carey, which is what the intro is doing, the few minor Grammies she's won is not high on the list. Wasted Time R 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, this question has been discussed several times before, look above. Wasted Time R 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I had already read the posts above and disagree with the arguments made against inclusion. This has nothing to do with NPOV, but rather that it is a standard practice to mention such things in most academic publications. I will concede that perhaps the Grammy wins should not be mentioned in the first sentence. However, I believe some mention of her Grammy wins and nominations should be placed in the introduction section. The fact that she has received 5 wins and 31 nominations, I feel, is pretty significant in the big picture. One of those wins was for Best New Artist in 1991, which is a major category. As I stated before, I can perhaps agree with your assertion of poor placement choice, but I do not agree with outright exclusion.

tpetross 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which "academic publications" talk about Mariah Carey, please let me know! Anyway, if you added at the end of the intro, "Carey won the Grammy Award for Best New Artist in 1991; since that time, she has been nominated for Grammies 31 times and won 5", I'd be ok with that. Wasted Time R 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't specifically referring to Mariah Carey. Obviously, scientific and educational publications would not have information regarding Carey's achievements--I'm not delusional. I was simply meaning respected, "academic" (in the sense that people study, analyze, and discuss in an intelligent, categorical, and historical context) sources of information regarding the entertainment industry will traditionally (not always) mention such accomplishments as a featured achievement of the recipient's career. This is something that seems to be afforded to other artists such as Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Beyonce, etc. on their respective pages as well as in other biographies.

I think the Timberlake usage is wrong too. For someone like Stevie Wonder, who holds Grammy records and who won the major Album of the Year award three times in four years during his classic period, the usage is very appropriate. Wasted Time R 19:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I do realize that the Grammy Awards (like any awards program) have their own biases and politics. People are nominated and awarded (or dissed) for varying reasons, and as you pointed out, maybe she has been unfairly treated by the Academy, which is hardly the point. The point is, if it's good enough to mention for any of the aforementioned artists with comparable skills and musical styles, it's good enough for Carey.

The agreed upon changes will be made as you suggested. Please let me know what you think.

tpetross 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead sections "should provide an overview of the main points the article will make" (per Wikipedia:Lead section), and Carey's Grammy Awards history is far from a "main point" in the article. If other articles have similar introductions, then they shouldn't unless their Grammy history is particularly notable in some way (i.e. they have a record number of wins or nominations). There are over a hundred Grammy Award categories (some of which are for entire albums, in which case you have about a dozen people winning in one category), and they're handed out each year. We need to analyse this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis. Extraordinary Machine 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to summarize the primary information. The Grammy history is very notable, because it is the highest honour a musician can receive. How is this not notable? The argument that there are over one-hundred categories is correct, but not significant. Also, a dozen people do not win in a single category. A record number of nominations or wins is peculiar; why does the musician have to be "special" to indicate their Grammy Awards' win? Carey may be very successful in the sales component, but even though her critical reception has never been overwhelming, it doesn't seem like a good reason to ignore this. We wouldn't ignore Alicia Keys nine Grammy Awards, would we? She doesn't hold a record for nominations or wins. This is virtually the same situation. Oh, and no one said that it had to be in the lead section. It could be moved to the position it was before, which was fairly appropriate, in my opinion. 64.231.115.150 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Keys has won 9 Grammys in a short career, including a major one (Song of the Year), while Carey has won fewer Grammys in a much longer career, including no majors. That's a real difference. Wasted Time R 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Above IP user is Eternal Equinox (talk contribs), who recently ran into conflict with me and was banned from the Cool (song) article, over which he attemped to claim ownership, after he caused disruption in violation of the ArbCom ruling on him (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox). The timing of the above comment leads me to suspect it was written more with the intention of antagonising me than anything to do with the article; regardless, I agree with Wasted Time R: it's not just whether she's won any or how many, but in which categories. Extraordinary Machine 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That above user has had this discussion with you as far back as April (long before any RFAr). This is not antagonizing you since we've had prolonged conversations regarding the topic. Also, it is nobody's business whether an RFAr was held or not; do you want me to begin adding comments about you in my edits? No. But anyway, Wasted Time R does have a point concerning Keys career, which has been fairly critically-raved even though her commercial success has not. A fair argument, so perhaps the Grammy Award-mention should be added at a later date or if Carey eventually receives more than ten Grammys. I'm not sure, these are just suggestions. We will see later on. 64.231.152.103 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anticipating vandalism

Seeing that some people don't like to see some topics as the FAOTD (like Bulbasaur, Lindsay Lohan and KaDee Strickland), I think this article should be semi-protected. --Radio gaga 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No Raul654 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We gotta protect it now! There is Vandalism like ive never seen before!Cameron Nedland 01:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for semi-protection. Many IP vandals! Nfitz 05:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay it's much better now, but I'm still worried what will happen.Cameron Nedland 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8 Octaves? Impossible

No human can have an 8 octave voice.

8 octaves is the full range of a grand piano. meaning Barry White style notes on one side, and Mariah's whistle notes on the other. this is beyong human capacity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.68.235 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2006.

I agree. Could someone check that source, please? --Fang Aili talk 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a snopes.com article stating that she doesn't even have a 7 octave voice. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/carey.htm

--Dudepal talk

There aren't even 8 octaves on a piano. --Fang Aili talk 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Although some pianos have 8 octaves. ThisIsMyName 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No modern-day pianos do. --Fang Aili talk 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
An 88-key piano has 7 octaves and four semitones (88 keys divided by 12 chromatic notes per octave). -- Malber (talkcontribs) 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how an erroneous 8-octave assertion is encyclopedic. The fact that somebody thinks that Carey can sing in a range beyond human hearing is not relevant. --Fang Aili talk 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What we here are claiming about Carey's vocal range, the octaves in a piano etc. is neither here nor there; while conducting research and compiling references for this article, I came across conflicting reports from seemingly reputable sources about the number of octaves in Carey's vocal range. Carey herself has said she doesn't know what her vocal range is. So, because it's a subject of so much discussion, and because so many reliable sources I've read say she has more than five octaves, I think this is worth mentioning, but I've added "erroneously" to the sentence and a citation to the Snopes.com page. Extraordinary Machine 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
She barely has a 5 octave range. It's not impossible to have an 8 octave range which is currently the guiness world record for largest vocal range held by Georgia Brown. G2-G10 is her range but I've only heard G2 since her G10 is actually able to be heard and sounds more like a B8 or B9. Nicola Sedda actually has the largest vocal range that I know of which I only remember his highest as A9. The fact is that Mariah has only displayed a range of Bb2-G#7 which is very close to a full 5 octaves. Bb2 has only been displayed in an interview and G#7 has been hit twice in live performances of Emotions and seemed fairly easily done. Besides Bb2 she has hit C3 numerous times. Emotions, My All, You And I(live performance), and other songs have C3 as their lovest. Besides G#7, F#7 is her highest in the studio version of All In Your Mind. Myke 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that a human being can have an 8 octave voice. Gerogia Brown has an 8 octave voice as stated in the Guiness World Records. However, Mariah does not have such a broad range, rather she has a 7 octave range, this was credited her in the 2003 Wolrd Music Awards, and based on what is taught in the study of her music through classical. This can be heard from her highest notes in 1993 Emotions performance where she hit G#7 and her lowest notes in My All and in All In Your Mind.

[edit] Mariah's full name?

This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&oldid=75425523) has Mariah's middle names as "James". I wasn't sure about this so I did a google search of "Mariah James Carey" and got no matches. Can someone verify if her middle name is indeed "James"? Karma Thief 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't her middle name. Mariah has stated in several interviews that she has no middle name. --musicpvm 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Mariah's Name

okay someone changed all of Mariah's last name Carey into Doodlejesus ... i'm trying to fix this but i'm not proficient in it. please bear with me. Axistence 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forefront?

The lead states that she "returned to the forefront of popular music in 2005". Isn't this rather POV? The term "popular music" covers a wide range of genres such as punk, prog, jazz, rock, alternative, country, blues &c. If she returned to the forefront of anything, I would suggest it should be chart pop. But I'm not going to edit it without consensus from others.

It's also incorrect to state, as the lead does, that she "took full creative control over her image and music". Chart artists never have full control over everything they do, especially if they are signed to a major, as she was. --Richardrj talk email 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so no-one's responded to these points yet, so I'll make a couple of changes and see what the consensus is. --Richardrj talk email 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you said about creative control. I've changed "chart pop" to "pop music", which the article previously said at some point. Extraordinary Machine 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism

Someone also inserted comments about how she's an ugly ass girl next to her birthday. There is also a lot of vandalism to her Biography, among other sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14:16, 13 September 2006 (talk • contribs) 216.148.248.75.

Yes, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It gets picked up and removed quickly. --Richardrj talk email 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone listed "Mariah Carey: The Fat Cow Lives" as an upcoming 2007 album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.22.212.110 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 September 2006.

It's gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardrj (talkcontribs) 15:18, 13 September 2006.

HAHAHA!! as much as i love Miss Mariah, i have to say that made me laugh. AND SHES NOT FAT!!! And so what if she gains a few pounds? Is she an alien?

[edit] The View controversy section

This is the first time I've heard about this supposed "controversy", and I don't remember it getting any substantial or sustained press attention (even less than, say, Carey's "wardrobe malfunction" last year). In fact, the linked article ([1]) gives the distinct impression that the incident would be more relevant to mention in a discussion of The View than Carey; the main story here seems to be the "catfight" between Sandra Bernhard and Star Jones, and Carey was just one of several topics Bernhard discussed. So I'm considering removing this section. Thoughts? Extraordinary Machine 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Seems to be just another one of those media-manufactured "controversies". By the way, wasn't it Janet Jackson that had a "wardrobe malfunction", not Carey? --Richardrj talk email 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I already removed it. I didn't see that there was a discussion on the talk page. It really is not notable enough to include in this article and definitely not notable enough to have its own section. Mariah was not even directly involved in the "controversy". It was just Bernhard running her mouth like usual. --musicpvm 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glitter on Sept 11

The last time I looked at this page, it stated that "Glitter" had the unfortunate release date of Sept 11, 2001, (something I already knew, since I bought it that day, lmao), but now it's gone. Does anybody think it's worth mentioning as a possible reason the album failed, or too coincidental to draw a conclusion? Marikology 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Glitter just sucked, 9/11 had nothing to do with that. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.147.119 (talkcontribs).
I disagree. Many people ignore critics' reviews and the like. Who bought an album on September 11th 2001 anyway? Although it may still have bombed I think it's worthy of a mention. 88.111.104.195 10:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billboard magazine's "revised methodology"

"tying her with Elvis Presley for the most number-ones by a solo act according to Billboard magazine's revised methodology (their statistician Joel Whitburn still credits Presley with an eighteenth..."

I'd like to know what this is supposed to mean. Billboard has never credited Presly with an eighteenth number one. Joel Whitburn, an employee who does not make the rules, wrote in his book (not an official Billboard publication) that, by his methodology Elvis SHOULD have eighteen. Whitburn's opinion has no bearing on Carey's record, it should be something more along the lines of

"tying her with Elvis Presley for the most number-ones by a solo act on the Billboard Hot 100."

Such Great Heights 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been discussed to death before, back when you were editing from your IP address. To reiterate: Joel Whitburn is Billboard magazine's official statistician and some kind of less reliable outside source. Apparently, the people at Billboard have agreed to disagree (but not completely sweep it under the carpet - they dedicated a whole "Chart Beat" column to it at the time). Whitburn uses one methodology to calculate that Presley has eighteen number-one hits, which he feels is correct; others at Billboard use another metholodology to calculate that he has seventeen number-one hits, which they feel is correct. The one thing that we know for certain is that both parties have good reasons for believing what they do, which is why it's best and safest to simply mention the dispute (with further discussion about it in the Don't Forget About Us article), give no clear answer and let the reader decide what to think. Extraordinary Machine 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Act"?

Re: use of the term "act" in the first paragraph description. A group is an act, e.g., Gladys Knight and the Pips. The word seems to connote performance rather than being, and a group rather than an individual. Perhaps she could be described as a recording artist, or a musician, or a singer.rich 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "act" is there because The Jackson 5 previously held the record being referred to the first time, and also to avoid repetition in the second instance. Extraordinary Machine 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas: studio album?

It seems that there's a dispute concerning whether Merry Christmas should be listed under the "Studio albums" header in the discography. I think we need a definitive answer here, so I was wondering if anybody had evidence indicating that Christmas albums are/aren't considered studio albums. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The International Association of Music Writers (IAMF) has officially ruled that Christmas albums are considered studio albums if the artist involved put a lot of effort and thought into them, while they are not considered studio albums if they were quickie throw-offs designed to make a few bucks at holiday time. You can determine how to apply the IAMF ruling here, but given that one of the songs she wrote has become a standard, you might be inclined to rule for inclusion. Wasted Time R 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early years....

In an interview on Youtube.com Mariah mentioins that she used to smoke and drink alcohol and that she used to try and buy these things with a friends fake ID during her high school time. Can i put something on about this, or is it irrelevent? (gulfrazthehunk) 19/nov/06 19:37

[edit] Can mariah play the piano?

Well, i saw a video of her playing the piano. Can she?! (gulfrazthehunk) 19th November 06 20:08

I read that she "knows her notes" and can play the rights ones but shes not the best.Blueandgold200 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rollcoaster"

I promise not to long ago it was posted on hear that Mariah's album was going under the working title "Rollcoaster." What happened to that.Blueandgold200 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Age - 1969 or 1970?

I just noticed that her birthdate was changed to 1969. Where was this information found? Every place I've been to has said 1970. *edit* Okay, I just clicked on the "history" tab, and found the link. 128.180.211.181 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

link

It is pretty suspicious that she has a driver's license that says 3-27-1969. Is she rounding up like Jennifer Lopez? Which date is right?

[edit] list of best-selling remix albums worldwide

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure.

[edit] possible stealth vandalism

When I came to this page about 10 minutes ago, it listed her age as 79. I reverted to pre previous version of the page but the incorrect material was changed. I then undid my edits and looked at version of the page that was on before my changes and it listed her correct age. There is now no record of the page I originally saw. --Ted-m 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


I just discovered that the 18:22, 1 December 2006 page was the one I saw. I am not sure why I saw this page instead of the latest one --Ted-m 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glamorized

I've seen the line marked down quite heavily in Claire's stores recently. Is it cancelled or is it just "last season" now? SKS2K6 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number-one singles

I suppose it was a good idea to remove the large template including all the number-one positions as to not violate Wikipedia:Article size, but I'm curious to know why the UK positions are listed? The U.S. are very plausible since that's where Carey's from, but I think a different country where she attained more number-ones should replace the UK. For example, she has four New Zealand number-ones (I think?) and six Canadian number-ones. Velten 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the UK positions have been removed. Yes, I think it'd be best to include the U.S. number-ones only. Velten 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariah's Numer One Singles....

Didn't Mariah Carey have a number one single for every year in the decade (90's)??? because in the 'number one singles' section right at the bottom, she doesn't have a number one single in '94. Sorry if im annoying anyone...

gulfrazthehunk 7th December 2006 16:14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gulfrazthehunk (talkcontribs) 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).