Talk:Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Journalist, your repeated deletions verge on creating an article for "promotional purposes." Carey's chart accomplishments are impressive enough, without removing all context to make them appear unprecedented in entertainment history.
The impression you're so interested in preserving is a bit like implying My Chemical Romance is statistically a bigger band than the Beatles, because they've been played more often on MTV2.
I don't think we're trying to create that impression at all, but a lot of info is just not needed, like the part about those Billboard charts not existing until the 1990s. Well, I think that should be a given considering Mariah's career didn't start until 1990! But I agree witht he part on Ashanti though. OmegaWikipedia 16:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- 1 records are a perfectly fine historical standard (although information like the 49-cent pricing gives context). Awards exist. Even if it's easier for an artist to simultaneously have the #1 and #2 singles today, it's still a rare and noteworthy accomplishment.
However, saying Carey's "topped more charts than any other artist," without regard for the history of those charts, is a vacuous statement. How many times did the Bee Gees make it to the "Hot Ringtones" chart?
It would be just as biased to edit the pages for Rudy Vallee or Al Jolson to point out how their all-time numbers on the "Sheet Music Sales" chart dwarf Mariah Carey's.
Again: Carey's chart records are impressive enough, without the need to leach them of all context.
It's not like we're trying to make Carey look perfect. If you look at the "Loverboy" page, we do explain the 49 cents scandal. And most of the charts that Carey topped, she topped at the start of her career too. It's not like she topped them all for the first time last yearOmegaWikipedia 02:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even as harsh as you, it seems. The 49-cent Loverboy single was not a "scandal," it's just a commercial tactic designed to maximize Carey's chart position, which it did. But if it's worth a mention in the discussion of the single, I don't see why it wouldn't be worth the same quick mention in the discussion of the single's chart performance.
Carey has been a successful artist from the beginning of her career. However, many of her statistics and accomplishments are listed with no context. Carey was the first female to debut at #1 because she was a hugely popular singer AT THE TIME BILLBOARD CHANGED ITS CHARTING METHODOLOGY, not because she's some kind of fraud. That Mariah Carey was popular does not negate the importance of the methodology switch; that Mariah Carey happened to be the one to capitalize first on the change does not negate her popularity. They are two facts that happen to work in concert.
I do not appreciate the diligent deletions of supplemental information (complete with a threat from Journalist to block my Wikipedia access). It is, in my opinion, a effort to glorify a string of numbers while suppressing a better understanding of how those numbers were compiled, and the system under which they were achieved. Judging from his user page, it appears I'm not the first to run afoul of his protective nature towards Ms. Carey.
The satirical categories I posted earlier were also quite serious. The Wikipedia page for Derek Jeter does not merely state that Jeter has the most postseason hits; it reports that fact within a paragraph that also lists how many postseason series this number was achieved in. The creators of the Jeter page do not fear that contextual information will hurt Jeter's image, and this worry should not be considered by Mariah Carey's page tenders.
BTW, the 'satirical passages' you posted were considered vandalism!
Vandalism is also "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Repeatedly deleting relevant context qualifies.
Example: No single had ever debuted at #1 in the 101-year history of Billboard Magazine before 1995. Within one month of the methodology change, two singles had done so. Thus, trumpeting Carey's (or Jackson's) "first ever" status independent of that information would be unnecessarily misleading. That you are aware of this pertinent context, yet repeatedly delete it, is deliberately misleading. It verges on the "promotional material" which Wikipedia prohibits.
I am considering flagging this article for an NPOV dispute, specifically regarding these two criteria:
- While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
- Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:Balance).
Perhaps this will not be necessary.
The fact is this: you are not being very neutral at all. You seem to want to provide an excuse for Careys achievements, which is unnecessary. You are filling the article with superfluous info! All the other artists in this encyclopedia have records and achievements, and no excuses are provided for them, so why are you so determined to do it for Carey? For example:
- Carey is the only artist to have the first singles from all her studio albums top the charts in the 1990s. (Her run was broken in 2001 when "Loverboy", the lead single from Glitter, peaked at #2.
- This: The "Loverboy" single, Carey's first for Virgin Records, did not chart upon its first release, but Virgin dropped its retail price to 49 cents to ensure a high placement is unneeded, since it is already stated in her mani artcle, and in the article about the song!
- Mariah Carey is the only female artist credited as a lead artist to occupy the top two positions on the Hot 100 with "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" which were #1 and #2 respectively on the week ending September 10, 2005. During the rock era, it had only been done by The Beatles (1964), the Bee Gees (1978), Nelly (2002), and OutKast (2004).
I dont think that we need this:
-
- In 2002, female singer Ashanti also appeared on her own #1 "Foolish" single as well as in a "featured" credit on Fat Joe's concurrent #2 single "What's Luv?". However, as she was only a featured artist on "What's Luv?", she is not grouped with these other artists by Billboard's statisticians, as Carey records is being a 'lead female artist. There is no reason for Ashanti to be mentioned, as she wasnt a lead artist, and the record has nothing to do with her.
- If you were making this fuss about the records of other singers in Wikipedia, then I would understand, but you deliberately focusing on carey. Again, most of the info you continue to put is unnecessary!
Let me see if I understand you. The "49 cent single" information has already been deemed worth including-- twice-- and for that reason, it's NOT worth mentioning here? That's illogical.
In keeping with my horrible Jeter "vandalism," I'll give you another baseball example: it is believed that Barry Bonds may have broken the seasonal home run record in part due to steroid use. What you would prefer to do (were you a Bonds apologist rather than a Carey fan) is to create a page listing Bonds' various records plainly, and without annotation of any kind.
I refer you to the NPOV standards: "the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." Emphasis on "omission."
Another baseball example: you keep deleting the information that Shania Twain has 3 "diamond" albums, preferring to mention only that Carey was the first female artist with 2. This would be like reporting that Mark McGwire was the first player to hit 70 home runs in a season, while omitting the fact that Bonds has since hit more. Go to the McGwire page, and see for yourself that this is NOT how such situations are commonly treated on Wikipedia.
You're hung up on "excuses." You have misread the edits. The information is supplemental, contextual, and factual. I have virtually no interest in Mariah Carey, pro or con. The drum I'm banging is about the Billboard charts in general, and the changes in their methodology in particular.
And the reason you think that I'm on an anti-Carey crusade ("If you were making this fuss about the records of other singers in Wikipedia, then I would understand, but you deliberately focusing on carey") is because my server's IP # changes regularly. For now, it's 24.215.152.211-- but soon it will be something else. This is why my "User contributions" page begins on August 29, and you don't see any other edits regarding music. (It's also why your threat to block my Wikipedia privileges is something less than chilling.)
As a matter of fact, I have added this EXACT sort of supplemental explanatory information to MANY other musicians' pages, many times. I've just never encountered someone as resistant as you.
I say yet again: Mariah Carey's chart performance is wonderfully impressive already, without your guarding the gate for her. You needn't nurture the illusion that 223 million people heard "We Belong Together" on the radio last week.
- But no one is trying to fool anyone. If you know about audience impressions, then you know that 223 million people literally didnt hear the song. OmegaWikipedia 23:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Ive decided to come to a compromise as we can no longer keep going back and forth, reverting each others changes. To tell the truth, i still dont think that much of the info needs to be added. The part about Shania Twain having 3 Diamond albums is pointless; whether she has 3 or 10, it does not change the fact that Carey was the first to achieve two. That bit of info should be included in "Shania Twain achievements". Your anology with the baseball still failed to provide a reason, as it is still an accomplishment for Mark McGwire being the very first to do something (no matter if 100 persons have done it afterwards). You really should provide a convincing reason why it should be included. This article lists the records. Go on the Billboard Hot 100 article and take a look at the records; they are the same thing. Does that mean that that that article is biased?
Anyway, ill see if we can come to a compromise on the matter !
I'm not quite convinced that deleting 7 out of 7 edits qualifies as a "compromise," though I can understand why you're accepting of it.
As for analogous information you consider "pointless":
MARK McGWIRE (taken from his Wikipedia page): QUOTE: He finished the season with 70 homers, a record that has since been broken by Barry Bonds.
MARIAH CAREY (deleted from her Wikipedia page): QUOTE: Shania Twain now has the most such albums for a female artist, 3.
You're using one-way logic. The fact that Shania Twain now has the most "Diamond" albums does not change the fact that Carey was the first with two. Mark McGwire's page is not harmed by the "pointless Barry Bonds info"; rather, it is enhanced. The fact that you're deleting the Twain information shows a personal preference for first over most, which gets us into NPOV territory. The two pieces of information sit quite comfortably together.
Did you read the Billboard Hot 100 page you cite? It is REPLETE with contextual information, previous record-holders (who, by your preference, would be deleted), open questions of methodology, and so on. That page makes MY case for supplemental content, not yours for less of it.
Such omissions are misleading. Case in point: audience impressions. I do know about audience impressions, which is why a quick explanation of them is pertinent. It doesn't undercut the fact that Carey got the highest total to date, it just explains what the total MEANS. What possible reason is there for dumping the explanation other than the inaccurate feeling that it somehow "tarnishes" Carey's accomplishments to mention anything other than "first!" or "biggest!" or "most!"
I have tried to recraft the edits in a fashion that you will hopefully find less incendiary. Please permit this supplementary information to stand, or I will have to flag the page with a NPOV icon. This would have the unfortunate impression of calling the sum total of the page into question, rather than the handful of descriptions under legitimate dispute, and so I would prefer not to do it.
[edit] Edit wars
First off, if we revert to "edit wars", the page might be blocked from editing under the "excessive revert rule" until you and I can can come to a compromise. Also, I did not delete all seven of your edits. If you check my edits, you will see that I only reverted two or so. Still, the analogus information is pointless. You are saying: "The fact that Shania Twain now has the most "Diamond" albums does not change the fact that Carey was the first with two." If the mention of Shania Twain does not change any fact, then why is it there? This is the same reason why I class this info as superfluous. As such, I will once again remove the info. Tell me something, if this was a Shania Twain achievements page, how does this sound:
- Shania Twain has the most Diamond albums for a female. Mariah Carey was the first artist to receive two diamond albums.
That statement does not make any sense; it has nothing to do with Carey; likewise with this record. To omit it in no way shows POV.
You said: "Let me see if I understand you. The "49 cent single" information has already been deemed worth including-- twice-- and for that reason, it's NOT worth mentioning here? That's illogical." How can this be illogical? If the statement was addressed twice before, to include it here is unnecessary repitition.
Secondly, the Billboard thing that I cited does prove my point. There is not "supplementary" information in the records themselves; the methodology is listed in a seperate section of the article, and there is no bulky, and supererogatory info.
What I propose to you is that you open an account, write an article telling the reader what is BDS/Airplay/impressions (and provide a link from this page to avoid going into lengthy explanations). We still have to worry about syntax etc, and at the moment, the sentence structure is shot, and follow up sentences give information that are totally off topic.
I am going to write many of your surplus info in the "note" or "disclaimer" section. It fits better. If you still have any concerns, please address them here.
On a side note, the newly-added "Artist prevented the most times from replacing (him/her/their)-self at #1" category should be rephrased or clarified. The Bee Gees were prevented from replacing themselves twice in the span of five #1 records at the beginning of 1978; they had the 1st, 3rd, and 5th #1 singles in that stretch... and the 4th was a record they'd written and produced for their brother, Andy Gibb.
It's also not so unexpected that Kanye West's single would sneak past Carey's. They've both been on the charts for 7 weeks. But Carey's song had made a 4-2 move the previous week, while West had gone 27-19. None of the other Top 50 singles are showing any unusual momentum. West also had the benefits of a new album release, and increased media attention.
OmegaWikipedia wrote: "Yo, random IP number. I added a record, is there any context for this, or does Mariah own this one?"
Yo! A wiseguy question deserves a wiseguy answer. As this is the 4th separate listing predicated on the same circumstance-- the increased number of charts available in 2005-- I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can think up another half-dozen identical "most charts ever" records for your gal before you're done.
Context, shmontext! Context would only bum her fans out. Let's just say that topping the Hot Videoclips AND Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Recurrent charts really leaves Elvis and the Supremes in the dust. And that "Pop 100" section where the same one single gives Carey "the most" in six different all-time criteria is particularly impressive-- it's not just any artist who can match Bo Bice's career totals.
With all the hitherto unknown achievement categories that have popped up just in the past week, maybe Mariah now has the all-time record for having the most all-time records? How about Carey's record, thus far unmentioned, for having the Most Charting Top 100 Singles For An Artist With The Initials "M.C."? Beating out Mel Carter and Mike Curb should not go uncelebrated.
XOXOXO, Random IP Number
- LOL Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come out like that. I didn't know what to call you, since you don't have a username..why don't you just make an account? LOL @ Mariah having the record of the most records...I should add that hehe..Anyway, I was serious with my question, can you think of any other song that could match it? I thought about the category for a long time before I added it, and the closest I could think of was Outkast's "Hey Ya" which charted on 7 different genres: Pop (Top 40 Mainstream), R&B (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks), Rhythmic (Top 40 Rythmic), Dance (Dance Radio Airplay), Hot AC (Adult Top 40), Rock (Modern Rock), and Latin (Latin Pop Airplay) OmegaWikipedia 12:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The serious answer: Billboard's got about 42 or 44 singles charts now, with a ton of overlap. For albums, there are even more (classical, tropical, reggae, bluegrass, Mexican, new age, soundtracks, kid audio, blues, etc.). But for singles, the only two genres I don't see on your list are Christian/gospel, and country, and neither of those are going to have the same multi-chart crossover.
I doubt that any of the rock/rap singles, from Linkin Park or whoever, would have shown up on enough R&B/dance/adult-type charts to compete. There may be an upbeat Lite-FM/Z-100/dance mix single from Jennifer Lopez or Britney Spears or Usher or even someone like Savage Garden that made it to a lot of charts, maybe as many as Mariah Carey. But I'm not prepared to search a couple of years' worth of 30 charts to jog my memory.
The reason I haven't signed up for Wikipedia because I don't like to register on sites, unless it's work-related or otherwise mandatory.
- According to the article itself, Aretha Franklin has the most number one singles for a female artist on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles and Tracks.
[edit] Facts
The World Music Awards never awarded Mariah Carey with the 'Best-selling female artist of the Millemnium Award'. In fact, such award does not exist. Mariah, in 2000, received the 'Legend Award' which is niot related to sales and is awarded every year to a man and a woman for 'outstanding contribution to the music industry'. Just check the WMA website (http://www.worldmusicawards.com) for a clear confirmation.
What is this MC has topped more charts than any other artist thing? Never happened. Is it worldwide? The uS? In either case it's nowhere near true. especially worldwode, where sin most countries she has topped the charts 2/3 tiimes, and in some countries she never had a #1 at all, Even TEOM only topped 5 charts- nothing compared with The Beatles, Elvis or Madonna, who ghave topped the charts basically 10/20 times in each single country in teh world.
- In 2005, The World Music Awards named her the best selling female artist of all time. Case Closed.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In 2000, they gave her a LEGEND AWARD, a critic's choice that has nothing to do with sales, in 2005, a Cippendale Diamond, for sales (not as it states on your article) of over 100m albums. It's on the world music Award website. all your sources are non-existent. The source you provide is a deleted page from a deleted tourist information website. The WMA say that she never got it, how can you say that they did!!!! Even on your qwon WMA page, you provinformation that is denied by the WMA themselves www.worldmusicawards.com
