Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2|
- 1 Factual disputes
- 1.1 Vocal range
- 1.2 Other disputes
- 1.2.1 Alensha asks why Glitter is considered unsuccessful
- 1.2.2 22.214.171.124 explains
- 1.2.3 126.96.36.199 / 188.8.131.52 answers Alensha
- 1.2.4 Ultimate Star Wars Freak points out inaccuracies in chart positions
- 1.2.5 184.108.40.206 insists the article is correct
- 1.2.6 220.127.116.11 questions Carey's claim that car was blown up
- 1.2.7 jls comments on Suffolk County
- 1.2.8 18.104.22.168 says Carey's childhood stories are made up
- 1.3 Images
- 2 POV
- 2.1 David Gerard complains about POV in article
- 2.2 Alai thinks article still reads like "promo-flak"
- 2.3 jls rewrites article and replies to Alai
- 2.4 M complains of continuing POV problems with article
- 2.5 22.214.171.124 agrees with M
- 2.6 DropDeadGorgias tells M to be bold
- 2.7 jls comments on the Carey-Mottola professional relationship
- 2.8 jls thinks efforts to reduce idolatry would be "futile"
- 2.9 M agrees with jls
- 2.10 DropDeadGorgias comments on "gushy" section title
- 2.11 M is impressed by DropDeadGorgias's changes
- 2.12 jls comments on album sales for Carey and other female artists
- 2.13 Rick thinks POV language needs toning down
- 2.14 Wasted Time R says Carey idolators will revert any changes
- 2.15 FuriousFreddy suggests a request for comment
- 2.16 Extraordinary Machine restores Neutrality/factual accuracy dispute notice
- 2.17 126.96.36.199 / Journalist insists there is nothing wrong
- 2.18 Extraordinary Machine restores notice and responds to anonymous user
- 2.19 Wasted Time R comments on state of the article and makes a proposal
- 2.20 Extraordinary Machine restores notice and responds to Wasted Time R
- 2.21 188.8.131.52 insists the article is fine
- 2.22 Hall Monitor disagrees with 184.108.40.206
- 2.23 Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's three NPOV examples
- 2.24 Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's inline citations gambit
- 2.25 220.127.116.11 / Journalist says "EVERYONE READ NOW"
- 2.26 Wasted Time R responds to 18.104.22.168's Madonna rant
- 2.27 22.214.171.124 / Journalist responds to Wasted Time R
- 2.28 Extraordinary Machine responds to 126.96.36.199
- 2.29 Extraordinary Machine responds to Wasted Time R
- 2.30 Wasted Time R acknowledges inability to meet WP requirements
- 2.31 Mason.Jones replies to 188.8.131.52
- 2.32 FuriousFreddy replies to Wasted Time R and files the request for comment
- 2.33 Wasted Time R says FuriousFreddy has completely misunderstood
- 3 Images
- 3.1 Wasted Time R thinks article needs images
- 3.2 Wasted Time R says it now has too many
- 3.3 Ultimate Star Wars Freak thinks album images are a good idea
- 3.4 Rick agrees there are too many images
- 3.5 184.108.40.206 wants image to be inserted in Wikipedia Commons
- 3.6 Mistaken Identity agrees that there are too many images
- 4 Miscellaneous
- 4.1 Nicholas Lativy adds Sonic Youth track mention
- 4.2 Tvgeek adds biographical tidbits
- 4.3 KelisFan2K5 enquiries about release of The Emancipation of Mimi
- 4.4 Philwelch adds article to Gay icons category
- 4.5 Ultimate Star Wars Freak proposes re-structure
- 4.6 jls requests references and suggests section layout
- 4.7 Ultimate Star Wars Freak makes section title suggestions
- 4.8 jls comments on section title suggestions
- 4.9 jls congratulates Ultimate Star Wars Freak on new articles
- 4.10 Ultimate Star Wars Freak says thanks
- 4.11 jls points out that article size remains a problem
- 4.12 Ultimate Star Wars Freak wants to know more about Carey as a person
- 4.13 Wasted Time R agrees the article only presents Carey as a musician
- 4.14 Wasted Time R thinks record sales won't be as important in the future
- 4.15 Mseames suggests sections for singles, chart positions, and videos
- 4.16 Wasted Time R points out already existing article
- 4.17 Mseames instead suggests article dedicated to Carey's unreleased songs
- 4.18 Ultimate Star Wars Freak refers Mseames to already existing article
- 4.19 Mseames says thanks
- 4.20 Ultimate Star Wars Freak discusses what SHOULDN'T be included in this article
- 4.21 Wasted Time R responds to USWF's guidelines
- 4.22 USWF responds to Wasted Time R's comments
- 4.23 Mistaken Identity in regards to the chart positions
George questions vocal range claims
I'm new at this, so feel free to ignore me if I'm being presumptuous. The mention at the top of the article of the extent of Carey's vocal range seems unsubstantiated and unbelievable. I say this for the following reasons.
First, while publicity material and various entertainment outlets have claimed a variety of impressive ranges for her, they tend to be inconsistent, ranging from 5 to 7 octaves. Given that the "default" range for an opera singer can be taken to be 2 - 2.5 octaves, any of those numbers would be utterly extraordinary, indeed perhaps unique in the known history of vocal music. Further, claims of impressively wide ranges are routine for female pop singers - witness the statement, easily discovered by a Google search, that Aretha Franklin has a four octave range, something she has never exhibited on recordings. In any case, since the claims tend to be both amazing and inconsistent, they should be viewed with suspicion.
Further evidence comes from her music. When I was younger I was a fan of hers, and I've read the published sheet music for all her albums. The highest note called for is the C above soprano high C (in "Emotions") and the lowest is the bottom G (below middle C). Though especially impressive on top, this is far short of five octaves. Given her partiality to the extremes of pitch, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she would have left an octave or more of her range unexplored by now.
Given this evidence, I modified the article slightly. I was reticent to do so myself without giving my reasons. Thanks.
George 06:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An anonymous user answers George
Anyone who knows how to play a piano/any musical instrument would realise that the note that carey hits in emotions is indeed a G7, YES its rare, YES it seems impossible, and YES a lot of people wonder how she does it but the fact is undisputed that she does indeed hit those noted WITHOUT studio magic.
I mean a LOT of critics out there criticise her dressing sense, simple lyrics, commercial value, etc, but the ONE thing they do not dare question is her vocal ability.
I concur that she does not have a 7 octave range NO one can have vocal chords that flexible, HOWEVER, she can sing right down to the lower extremes of the baritone range (A2) as she has exhibited in many recordings and live shows. Now, she has also proven to be able to sing G7# (Emotions, VMA 1991) you do the math.. (5 octaves approx)
- Voice Type: Pop Singer with a Whistle Register extension. Mariah Carey is DEFINITELY NOT a Dramatic Coloratura Soprano. Let alone a "Full" Dramatic Coloratura Soprano! Geeez!
Sopranos DOES NOT sing in whistle register, as the sound of the notes are airy, powerless and lack of brilliance with such technique, plus it is not the proper way of singing in classical sense.
Just vocal range itself does NOT define one's voice/vocalabilty, it takes WAY more than singing a few notes above the high C for one to call oneself a Dramatic Coloratura Soprano!!
In opera, soprano's vocal range is measured by the FULL AGILITY in singing the lowest chest voice and the highest head voice, NOT falsetto or whistle register, in pop music, people would just count anything wouldn't they?!
Whistle register notes are high, yes, but it has no colour, intensity or brilliance, without the studio enhancements, it sounded merely high, and height is NOT what singing is all about is it!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 June 2005
18.104.22.168 / Journalist tries to explain vocal range
People, there is nothing wrong with this article. It is impossible for people to be objective and unbiased when writing an article like this.
- Firstly, about her vocal range:
- Mariah has over 4.5 octave range. If you click on the link at her vocal profile, you get proof. She has hit the E7 in her song 'Emotions' and the G#7 on stage, believe me; i play the piano. Secondly, if you listen to the end of "My all", you would see that definitely is a B2 and according to rumors, she has gone a note lower on stage (A2); it is plausable from listening to the deep pitch at which she speaks.
In addition, in all fairness, that vocal range is quite possibly the largest of any pop artist. The reason many opera singers have a 2.5 range is that they might sing high but the do not go very deep. Mariah sings freakishly high and then deep into the baritone range; before your challenge my credibility' listen to "My all" paying close attention to the last held note.
- Secondly, her album sales are quite fine. they are not embellished; they are just estimates since no worldwide tracking exists.
- LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE*
- EVERYONE'S ARTICLE IS OPIONATED AND BIASED IN SOME WAY AND WE ARE NOT ACTING OR QUESTIONNING IT ARE WE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 June 2005
Antares33712 comments on Mariah's range
Mariah can hit a G7, she hits a G#7 live at the 1991 VMAs. She also redid it at the 2001 Super Bowl, but the recording equipment messed up. The record goes to Adam Lopez for a D7, but he is working on a C#8, yes folks, eighth octave beyond the top of the piano. It is rumored that she, like Minnie Riperton, and maybe Rachelle Ferrell can hit a C8. I believe it. It only takes muscular control. Her voice is a "full voice" as she can sing alto, mezzo, soprano, and coloratura with EQUAL ease. She and Toni Braxton reach A2. So she has the five octaves in a linear count (some people count different, using C to C, F to F, then C to C again, F to F, and C to C. Whitney Houston does this to say she has a five octave range, but linearly speaking, its barely three. You see how the first C to the last is exactly three octaves counted linearly. Her voice is a linear five octave range.
"her commercially unsuccessful album "Glitter" -- unsuccessful, compared to what? 3,5 million copies of Glitter were sold. Anastacia sold about 3 million of each of her albums. Alicia's, Christina's and Britney's recent albums are around 3 million too. Even the overexposed Beyonce sold only about 4 million. You can't say all artists are commercially unsuccessful just because in the age of p2p softwares it's impossible to sell as much as in the early 90s. Alensha 22:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Glitter only sold that WORLD WIDE, Britney, Xtina, Beyonce all sold more than that in the U.S. alone... besides Mariah isn't #1, Madonna is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 November 2004
188.8.131.52 / 184.108.40.206 answers Alensha
- Christina's recent albums has been sold 10 million worldwide.
- Britney's recent albums has sold around 8 million worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2005
- Anastacia sold 7 million copies of Not That Kind, 10 million copies of Freak of Nature and 9 million copies of 'Anastacia' (Worldwide) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2005
Ultimate Star Wars Freak points out inaccuracies in chart positions
There are two inaccuaricies with chart positions. Mariah had 15 #1s on the Hot 100 from 1990 - 2000. They were
1) Vision Of Love 2) Love Takes Time 3) Someday 4) I Don't Wanna Cry 5) Emotions 6) I'll Be There 7) Dreamlover 8) Hero 9) Fantasy 10) One Sweet Day 11) Always Be My Baby 12) Honey 13) My All 14) Heartbreaker 15) Thank God I Found You Why is "Whenever You Call" listed as a #1 US single?
Also, "Forever" in the Hit Singles section is listed as #9 (airplay). In the biography section, it says it made the Top 10, but makes it sound like it made the Top 10 of the Hot 100. Did it make #9 on the Top 100 Airplay Chart or on the Hot 100? A correction will either need to be made in the Hit Singles listing or a justification will need to be made in the biography. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 insists the article is correct
she said she has sold 155 million albums, it is the figuere use on the news the radio, her website, and everyywhere she is introduced.... gt over it...stop trying to find something wrongt with mariah and go live a life....some people.. the article is correct, and you all need to stop crying over her achievement amd realized that she worked hard and has done something with her life... stop arguing with the truth.. her range is 5 ovtave, she IS the third most selling female artist of the world, and she IS the best-selling... celine sold about what she did with more than twice the amount os albums... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 June 2005
188.8.131.52 questions Carey's claim that car was blown up
I added "She CLAIMED" cars blown up in her early life section: No police report, neighbors say it never happened. Cars blowing up is something that get noticed. Suffolk COunty NY where she grew up is a very LIBERAL county run by the Democratic Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 May 2005
jls comments on Suffolk County
Great, the one thing this article was missing was political diatribes! Actually, Suffolk County was long a GOP bastion (read Suffolk County, New York#Law and government; the shift to the Dems has been recent, from the 1990s on, well after the period in question). That said, confirmation that these racist actions took place would be good to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 May 2005
18.104.22.168 says Carey's childhood stories are made up
Suffolk County was and is liberal. It is the bastion of liberal Republicans. When she was a kid, the Republican County Execuctive was GAY, that openly walked around with his boyfriend. Later when she was a teen the County Exectutive was a democrat. The first gay resort community ,Cherry Grove, is in Suffolk.
Here is something that I got from a former classmate: "That is so far beyond the truth it's not funny. She wasn't being bullied she was DOING the bullying and I was one of her victims. I graduated with her from Harborfields High School in Greenlawn, New York in 1987. Yes her father was a prominent black lawyer and her mother was an opera singer. She was the nastiest person in the school and I didn't like her than and I'm not very fond of her now. We had our 10 year high school reunion and she never showed up."
All her schools had students of many races. SHe said "Cars" getting blown up. There is no police reports about these. Wouldn't the family try to get insurance? A police report would be required by the insurance company.
The image on the article should be changed to a more recent image, instead of an image of 10 years ago.
David Gerard complains about POV in article
Grossly POV. Reads like a press release. - David Gerard 00:14, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
Alai thinks article still reads like "promo-flak"
Could do with being rewritten from top to bottom. For starters, I've removed the "seven octaves" range the article seems to feel is the upper end of "accurate", which there's no basis cited for. I also have my doubts whether anyone claiming "8 full octaves" is of encyclopedic notability, even as wild speculation. Source? (If anyone actually did say this, it might be cruel and unusual to quote that as saying so.) That's greater than the range of a piano, or of any two people one cares to name. Alai 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
jls rewrites article and replies to Alai
I've tried doing some rewriting, especially of the intro and early life sections and spots here and there in the main sections. Surprisingly some of the key details of her career had been left out, such as her songwriting, her discovery by Mottola story, her role in Wisegirls. The article still suffers from too much detail in the main sections; it's easy to lose the forest for the trees. And the awards section is also too long and hard to read, and may be a copyright violation of some web site as well? Can't tell for sure. -- jls 1 April 2005
M complains of continuing POV problems with article
Carey has many fans, but this article suffers from far too much idolatry. Contributions are fawning and over-the-top, like a press release from Mariah's own agent. The article needs monitoring to keep things encyclopedic and to avoid POV inanities. I respect Carey's considerable talents, but her fans here are her worst enemies. --M.
22.214.171.124 agrees with M
DropDeadGorgias tells M to be bold
Then your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to boldy go where no fan has gone before. Feel free to tone down the POV wherever you see it to be effusive or plagued by boosterism. After reading through the article I tend to agree that the article glosses over her more questionable activities (i.e. her casting couch relationship with Tommy Motola), and the cancellation of EMI contract, and the complete media debacle that was Glitter. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
jls comments on the Carey-Mottola professional relationship
I'm not sure the relationship with Mottola was a casting couch one. That term often implies someone needed help to land a position or role or deal that they wouldn't have obtained or been qualified for otherwise. Mariah however was obviously a super-talent and didn't need such help; Mottola had already decided he was interested in signing her based on the demo tape before he ever saw her in person. Rather, I have the impression that Mottola served more of a Svengali role in guiding her career, public persona, videos, etc. Similar examples are Sonny Bono with Cher and Mutt Lange with Shania Twain. Carey has said he was very controlling in the marriage and that probably spilled over into the singer-record exec relationship as well. --jls 19 Apr 2005
jls thinks efforts to reduce idolatry would be "futile"
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, would be futile. One look at the History shows there's an unlimited supply of people willing to put back in the idolatry even if you take it out. Unless you're willing to buy into an edit war without end, give up now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2005
M agrees with jls
True. After fixing grammar and overwrought prose, I see that Carey's fans keep coming back with more illiterate contributions. Carey graduated from high school, but some of her fans did not. --M.
DropDeadGorgias comments on "gushy" section title
- "Mariah Carey Conquers the Globe"? Yeah... I guess I see that POV thing you were talking about. I changed that section header to be a little less gushy. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
M is impressed by DropDeadGorgias's changes
Thanks, DDG. I like your changes. As you can see, I wasn't exaggerating. You should have read the article just 10 days ago—it was like something from Entertainment Tonight. Very lowbrow. --M.
jls comments on album sales for Carey and other female artists
Take a look at (blocked website) from last year and keep scrolling. Apparently some people spend their lives trying to add up 30 countries' worth of possibly accurate album sales info, to see if Mariah or Whitney or Celine or Madonna or god knows whom is the overall leader in female artist album sales. These must be the same people who then edit WP articles back and forth with whatever figures match their agendas.
Get a life! Who cares who has the most sales!?!? These women are each tremendously successful and have each sold a mountain of records. Isn't that enough? Even if you could figure out who's top right now, it would change over time as new albums come out and as back catalog sales rates change. --jls 22 Apr 2005
Rick thinks POV language needs toning down
Wasted Time R says Carey idolators will revert any changes
Well, yes, it does. Go ahead, do it yourself, then see how long it takes for it to get put back in. The Mariah idolaters out there are greater in number and more fervent in purpose than the NPOV encyclopaedists. This is one case where the WP model breaks down. Wasted Time R 01:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FuriousFreddy suggests a request for comment
Extraordinary Machine restores Neutrality/factual accuracy dispute notice
Without making any effort to clear up this POV-laden and citation-less article, I see User:188.8.131.52 has chosen to remove the neutrality and factual accuracy dispute notice. I have since restored it. That notice actually made it clear to both readers and contributors that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and who knows, there might be somebody out there reading who can provide sources for the statements and facts presented in the article. To everybody else, please don't remove it again until the article is well on its way to becoming unbiased and verifiable. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 / Journalist insists there is nothing wrong
I've ventured on this site numerous times and Ive always seen signs posted at Carey's section of the encyclopedia about its neutrality etc and Ive always asked myself, "Why is this?". People, there is nothing wrong with the article. Nothing is biased, there are good and bad points. Just because someone has an illustrious career, that does not mean that one is biased to write about it. Carey vocal range is verified to be true. Her biography is correct so i dont know what the problem is. You people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It is not possible for an article to be fully objective, thats why it is called an 'article'. Leave the article alone. Madonna's article needs editing and so does many other singers but you do not focus on that do you? Has anyone provided a source for Madonna's discography? This encyclopedia keeps claiming that "According to Warner Bross, Madonna has sold 250 million records..." and Ive been on Warner Bros' official site numerous times and I still cant find that official statement. Did anyone provide a link? No Does anyone ask for a link to be provided? No they do not because everyone are too busy making a fuss about Mariah Carey. These are things i keep talking about. If someone says "A" about Mariah, all of you want to know why was the "A" said and if there is a source provided to prove that the "A" is true. You will even put up "Neutrality and factuality" sign. On the other hand, if someone says "B" about any other singers everyone accepts it as true without giving it a second thought. LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE. DONT BLAME MARIAH FOR HER LUCRATIVE CAREER and dont blame people for writing about it!!!
- Is this what you want?:
- "Mariah was a skank who grew up on the streets of Huntington, New York. Whoring her way through highschool, she was able to pass courses by sleeping with the teachers since she hardly made appearances in class. She has been hailed as a "has-been" and her vocal range is as small as Brtiney Spear's"
- I bet you if this was apart of the article, then no one would have a thing to say.
COME ON PEOPLE, THE ARTICLE IS WELL WRITTEN. YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SEEM LIKE FOOLS WHEN YOU TAKE A WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE AND TRY TO EDIT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 June 2005
Extraordinary Machine restores notice and responds to anonymous user
And once again, User:18.104.22.168 has removed the neutrality and factual accuracy dispute notice, all the while adding unverified statements to the article, such as "Carey has been classified as a 'Full Dramatic Coloratura'. This means that her voice is rangy enough to access more than one registers with equal ease. She can sing contralto very comfortably, sing over the orchestra, and execute vocal acrobatics and melismas." Carey's "lucrative career" isn't the issue here, it's the fact that many people (including you) have added countless figures and statements and who knows what else to the article without ever backing them up with a single reference or citation. I've restored the NPOV/factual accuracy notice again, please do not remove it until the problems pointed out on this talk page have been resolved. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R comments on state of the article and makes a proposal
My judgement is that the intro and the history sections (up through Return of the Voice) are in reasonably good shape. I think they are factual and while a little bit fannish in tone sometimes, are still fairly neutral, pointing out Carey's failures and limitations as well as her successes. Does Extraordinary Machine concur with this, and if not, what in particular needs changing?
On the other hand, I think the Voice, Career Records and Achievements, and Trivia sections and subsections are a disaster, full of fawning Carey idolatory. Ironically, the Records section actually does Carey a disservice, since it buries some truly oustanding achievements (16 #1 singles; secondmost cumulative #1 weeks) in the middle of a pile of trivia that only charts freaks could care about (one day listener figures, number of consecutive albums by a female that have sold more than 3 million, etc.).
One possibility would be to move the bad sections I named into the existing List of Mariah Carey Awards article (renamed to List of Mariah Carey Awards and Achievements, or something like that). Then the idolators can fill that up to their hearts' content, while the main article stays in a reasonable shape. Wasted Time R 00:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extraordinary Machine restores notice and responds to Wasted Time R
I have performed some work setting up inline citations so that people can start adding references. I only did this up until the Worldwide success, 1993–1996 section, for reasons I will explain below. Here are some of the POV statements (since changed to NPOV) that I weeded out:
- "Vision of Love" established the template for her best songs: a hint of swing; a melody and arrangement designed for her voice, such that her ornamented vocals seem part of the fabric of a song rather than an add-on; lyrics organized around themes of dreams, struggle, and self-help. (Early commercial success, 1990-1992)
- She premiered a heartfelt cover of the Jackson 5's "I'll Be There", featuring Trey Lorenz, which was subsequently released as a single and gave her a sixth #1 hit, returning her to form. (Early commercial success, 1990-1992)
- The latter gained an added resonance in the public mind when Carey performed it at the televised America: A Tribute to Heroes benefit in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. (Worldwide success, 1993-1996)
Now don't get me wrong: I am a Mariah fan (albeit a casual one), and would like to see her Wikipedia article in the best state possible. But looking at other people's comments on this talk page, I have a feeling the more devoted Mariah "lambs" will just revert any attempts to change POV in favour of Mariah to NPOV, and continue to claim that there is nothing wrong with the article as it is. I have had to restore the dispute notice four times since I first added it, while those who removed it in the first place continue to contribute to the article without providing references or toning down POV language. The number of "fill in!" messages I had to insert should tell anybody this article needs A LOT of work. And while I like your suggestion, I think that even if a separate article is created for the Mariah idolaters to POV to their hearts' content, there will still be words like "heartfelt" and "best" creeping in again on this one. I will try to finish the inline citations tomorrow, but after that, I'm not sure if I'll bother contributing significantly to this article any longer. Extraordinary Machine 21:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 insists the article is fine
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It is extremely informative and well written. The fact is that Mariah has had an extremely successful career. People seem to have a problem with this, so they are saying the article is biased.
I completely agree with the post "An anonymous user insists there is nothing wrong". People only seem to have a problem when it has to do with Mariah. Why don't you fools stop getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and let the article be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 June 2005
Hall Monitor disagrees with 188.8.131.52
Extraordinary Machine is right. The article could use improvement, and undoubtedly will be improved over time to address the slight POV and accuracy issues which creep in from fans and the like. Hall Monitor 21:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's three NPOV examples
Well, I gotta admit, the three NPOV wordings you object to all originated with me! (in my former incarnation), and not from any of the Mariah superfans. (I'm a moderate Mariah fan, who got sucked into this article for reasons I can no longer remember or fathom :-)
I guess my NPOV definition isn't as strong as some WPians'. In particular, I think it's possible to objectively say some works of art are "better" than others. So, Dvorak's New World Symphony is better than most of his earlier symphonies, and the Beatles' "Let It Be" is better than their "Mr. Moonlight", and Mariah's "Vision of Love" is better than many of her sappier other songs. How can I prove this? I can't, lacking some comprehensive critics' survey of the artist's work, which maybe exists for Dvorak and the Beatles but doesn't for Mariah. However, objectively, you can make the case that when a song is the title song and first single off an album, that means that the artist, producer, and record company all believe it's the best song on that album too. Ditto for "Emotions" on her second album. Both of these songs have a swing and a dynamism that her other work (even ones that made #1) often lack.
- Oops, "Vision of Love" isn't a title song.
Similarly, I believe it's often possible to tell when an artist really means something and when they're faking it. In her Unplugged intro to "I'll Be There", she said it was always one of her favorite songs, and the way that she sang it (and the whole band arranged it, with care and taste) convinced me (and many listeners) that she meant it. Hence "heartfelt".
As for "Hero"'s post-9/11 resonance, this I would also argue is objective. At least in the NYC area, it's the old song of hers that gets the most oldies airplay by far, and both it and Enrique Inglesias's unrelated "Hero" did pick up an added meaning to many listeners after 9/11.
I guess the bottom line for me is that full-blown NPOV concern can often drain the life out of an article. But I realize this runs counter to WP dogma. Wasted Time R 01:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's inline citations gambit
I realize what you're trying to get at here, but I think you went way overboard. How many WP articles on any subject, much less popular music, have this many inline references? The density of footnotes that you've established is something normally only seen in Law Review articles!
A lot of what you want footnoted can be verified by looking at the albums themselves (Mariah's writing and producing credits) and at any Billboard top hits reference book (which singles made #1). That she co-writes and co-produces her material, and that she's had 16 Billboard Hot 100 #1 hits, are the kind of facts that aren't in dispute by anyone! A lot of the basic biographical material is on Mariah's website and any number of other online websites. That Mottola discovered her at a party, that they got involved, that they spent a ton of money on the wedding, that they got divorced, none of these facts are in dispute either.
Better would be to focus the references on the facts that are in dispute, such as her vocal range, her record sales, what criticisms have been made of her music, what's the highest note she's ever sung (it was G#9 in 1990 in her shower! dogs came running from three counties!), and so forth. Wasted Time R 01:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 / Journalist says "EVERYONE READ NOW"
Ive been on this Wikipedia page numerous times and Ive always seen neutrality sign on Mariah's page and ive always asked myself, Why is this? Ive read the article numerous times and I have to say nothing is wrong with it. I visited many other pages within this encyclopedia and Ive seen many BIASED article but no one cares about that. All you guys care about is editing Mariah article. The point is, Mariah has had a very successful music career and there is nothing wrong with people writing about it. There is GOOD and the Bad in this article, nothing is biased. Alot of other people's article are REALLY BIASED i.e.: Madonna, and you guys don’t care about that, all you guys care about is EDITING MARIAH'S ARTICLE CAUSE SHE IS TOO SUCCESSFUL. Let me use and example:
- Does anyone try to provide a source to the official WARNER BROS statement that claims that Madonna ha sold 250 million records?
Ive been on their site numerous times and have yet to see that statement. You guys need to check that out- there has been rumours that it isnt true: NOT EVEN HER OFFICIAL WEBSIT CLAIMS THIS. Now if someone said the same thing about Mariah, you guys would ask for source or put up neutrality sign and all other crap. It is impossible for some one to remain fully objective while writing an article. Nothing is wrong with documenting success. There is no idolatry; IT JUST THE TRUTH!!!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2005
Wasted Time R responds to 18.104.22.168's Madonna rant
There is a whole separate article, Biggest-selling female musician, devoted to the who-has-sold-the-most-records argument. Personally, I don't care! Mariah and Madonna are apples and oranges, pointless to compare. Technically Mariah is a much better singer, but Madonna has had a much greater cultural impact. Mariah is better at songwriting and producing, while Madonna has done more acting. Leave it be. (FWIW, the quality of the Madonna article seems pretty good to me, although I haven't looked at it closely.)
22.214.171.124, are you from Germany? English obviously isn't your first language, and I've been trying to figure out from your sentence structure and capitalization what is. Wasted Time R 10:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 / Journalist responds to Wasted Time R
- I dont recall asking you anything.
- Did I ask if you cared?
- BETTER YET, do i care if you care?
- No, I don't
Your statement about my Grammar was such a FLOP, I ALMOST FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, BUT ILL GIVE YOU A "C+" FOR EFFORT (BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME). TRYING TO insulting my Grammar gets you nowhere (yes, I might mess up while I type fast); it just makes you seem like a damn fool!!! I have other words for you too, but PETA prohibits me from being cruel to dumb animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 June 2005
Extraordinary Machine responds to 184.108.40.206
220.127.116.11, I'd wager that most of us here are Mariah fans, that's why we want this article to be as factually accurate (i.e. verifiable and backed up by citations/references) and NPOV (in other words, no idolatry!) as possible. The Madonna article doesn't have anything to do with this. Why are you turning the development of a Wikipedia article on Mariah Carey into a "success" battle between her and other female singers? Oh, and insulting people instead of listening to them will not get you very far here. Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extraordinary Machine responds to Wasted Time R
I think that statements and words like "her best songs", "heartfelt" and "added resonance" can be okay, as long as they include quotes from music critics and the like (e.g. She premiered a cover of the Jackson 5's "I'll Be There", featuring Trey Lorenz, which was described as "heartfelt" by Some Critic. It was subsequently released as a single and gave her a sixth #1 hit, returning her to form.) See characterizing opinions of people's work for more information. I don't want to drain the life out of the article, just make it sound less like an essay a Mariah fan wrote for school.
As for the inline citations, I am in the mindset that no Wikipedia article can "over-reference". Many otherwise great articles have been criticised for having no references, and I want to make sure that facts presented on Wikipedia can be verified as just that, facts. See my reference work on the KaDee Strickland article, which I will be inserting inline citations into soon. See also Citing sources: When there is no factual dispute. The fact that she has had sixteen #1 Billboard Hot 100 hits may be common knowledge and listed on every other Mariah site now, but what about in ten, twenty or even fifty years? People reading this article then might like to know where the information came from. Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R acknowledges inability to meet WP requirements
Well, E Machine, I admire your dedication to doing these articles The Right WP Way. But it's a lot of work to do it so, and if I'm going to write an academic-quality article, then I'm better spending the time writing a couple of real-journal computer science articles I have on the back burner, not this.
And the Right WP Way is also not very creative: I can't say a Mariah performance is heartfelt, even if it's clear to me that it is and no other editors object, but rather I have to find someone else who said it was heartfelt and reference them. That one other person's opinion thereby becomes more important than the collective opinion of all the WP editors. I know this is the logical outgrowth of the WP "No original research" dictum, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.
And the thing with WP is, even if you put all the research and writing and annotation work into writing a really good article, you've still got to put it on your watchlist and constantly fight against changes that will degrade the article and you have to maintain this fight indefinitely. With the more obscure subjects you've maybe got a decent chance to be able to do this, but Mariah is anything but obscure. Good luck nevertheless! Wasted Time R 01:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mason.Jones replies to 18.104.22.168
Yes, the Mariah article is one of the worst articles in Wikipedia when it comes to objectivity. The only reason it seems "well written" to you is that many of us continue to monitor it for questionable facts and ESPECIALLY awful spelling and grammar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should read like one. It is not ET; it is not People magazine; it should not glorify its subjects. The current article is still a piece of fluff and totally over-the-top.Mason.Jones 17:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FuriousFreddy replies to Wasted Time R and files the request for comment
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a promo site. There has to be nuetral tone of voice so that information is presented in an academic way. Your pledge, as it were ,to keep reverting any changes you don't like to the article violates both the NPOV regualation and the three-revert rule, and someone could end up banning you because of it. --FuriousFreddy 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS. I filed that request for comment.
Wasted Time R says FuriousFreddy has completely misunderstood
I made no such pledge!! You must have misunderstood. My most recent statement was me saying I wasn't going to work on this article anymore, because I don't have the desire to do it the way Extraordinary Machine has structured it (which I concede is the right way to do it in WP practice). Since then I did make a couple of edits to the 2004- section, which I believe streamlined the discussion of "We Belong Together"'s success, but I still have no intention of doing significant work on this. I have not tried to restore any of my prose that Extraordinary Machine took out (see comments above), nor will I try to restore anything else of mine that the RfC process takes out. Have at it. Wasted Time R 22:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R thinks article needs images
To have only one image/photo in an article this long is unusual. Wasted Time R 10:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R says it now has too many
Now I think it has too many. In particular too many CD cover images, which make the text too visually choppy. Maybe just have one image per section? Wasted Time R 14:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ultimate Star Wars Freak thinks album images are a good idea
I actually think the album thing is quite a good idea, it gives a little visual display of the main concentration of the article. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rick agrees there are too many images
22.214.171.124 wants image to be inserted in Wikipedia Commons
Mistaken Identity agrees that there are too many images
I agree that there are too many pictures in this article. I find it utterly useless for there to be a picture of EVERY single album; it is superfluous. If you want such pictures on A Mariah article; just include them into the album profile, nothing else! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistaken Identity (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 July 2005.
Nicholas Lativy adds Sonic Youth track mention
I added (although I stupidly wasn't logged in at the time) a mention of the Sonic Youth track about Mariah to the page, feel free to remove it if you don't feel it is relevant --Nicholas Lativy 16:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tvgeek adds biographical tidbits
Some useful biography tidbits that I can't organize well on my own:
- Birthplace: Huntington Bay, N.Y.
- Parents: Patricia Hickey and Alfred Roy Carey (father deceased)
- Graduated from High School: Greenlawn, N.Y.
- Siblings: One older brother, Morgan & one older sister, Alison
- Odd Jobs: Waitress & Hairstylist
- Year Mariah first sang in public: 1976
KelisFan2K5 enquiries about release of The Emancipation of Mimi
The reason I put "April 12, 2005 (tentative)" is because the release date MAY change again. Hopefully Emancipation of Mimi will be released, and not get cancelled. --KelisFan2K5 13:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Philwelch adds article to Gay icons category
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ultimate Star Wars Freak proposes re-structure
Whilst the article I believe is of good quality, I think the actual biography section lacks detail in some areas, and instead of being split into 2 sections, should be split into shorter time periods or even by album if enough relevant material can be found. I wasn't going to start doing this without thinking what other people thought. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
jls requests references and suggests section layout
The first thing that needs to happen is for the two people doing it, to stop the silly edit wars going on about how many of each album she has sold worldwide. References are needed! I added a reference for the WMA Diamond Award -- it's for selling over 100 million albums worldwide -- she may have sold more than that, and her website says it was for 150 million, but in fact that award was for 100 million.
As for splitting the article into more sections, I wouldn't go album by album, that's too literal. It's best if each section has some thematic unity to it, as part of telling the story of Carey's career and music. The current two-section theme is the obvious breakdown, splitting at the point where her career hit a huge bump in the road, but if you have a better thematic breakdown in mind, go for it. -- jls 8 Apr 2005
Ultimate Star Wars Freak makes section title suggestions
Agreed, yes, by album by album is rather silly. Perhaps something along the lines of this:-
- Early Life & Family (1970 - 1990)
- Early Commercial Success (1990 - 1992) - Chronicling the releases of her first 2 albums as they were slightly similar
- Mariah Goes Unplugged (1992) - Discussing her appearance of MTV unplugged and the success it was - album released and US #1 single with cover of "I'll Be There", also discuss the TV show they made about her showing she was a real person as well as a celebrity (I can't remember the name, but it featured her friends and family)
- Global Fame (1993 - 1994) - Chronicling the massive success of Music Box and also the great success of Merry Christmas for simply a Christmas album
- Mega Stardom - Diva Status Established (1995 - 1998) - Chronicling the releases of Daydream, Butterfly, #1's (showing how a #1 album showed off her true stardom) - also showing her greater focus on image, presentation and sexuality
- Slow Decline (1999 - 2001) Chronicling the release of Rainbow, Glitter and Greatest Hits
- Waning Popularity (2002 - 2004) Chronicling the release of Charmbracelet & The Remixes, focusing on how she only made guest appearances in 2004
- Resurgence (2005 - Present) The Emancipation Of Mimi and thus forward
Obviously, some of the titles don't look that great, so please tell me what you think of this structure and change any title names. I won't go ahead with this plan until Im sure someone else approves. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
jls comments on section title suggestions
Hmmm. I'd fold the Unplugged section into Early Commercial Success, since that show was still early in her career and mostly recapped the first two albums. Global Fame and Mega Stardom need different titles; maybe the break/theme should be when she and Mottola split up, is that when her image/presentation really changed direction? Also, Slow Decline and Waning Popularity sound like the same thing, need retitling. Finally, Resurgence is predicting the future, wait a while and see what happens with the new album. My guess is it won't do much better than Charmbracelet, but who knows. -- jls 11 Apr 2005
jls congratulates Ultimate Star Wars Freak on new articles
Ultimate Star Wars Freak says thanks
Thank you very much. I thought it would be a good move as the article size was over 32Kb and it would prevent the endless edits trying to keep the article short. Plus the article is on her, this gives more room for detail in the biography section. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
jls points out that article size remains a problem
Ultimate Star Wars Freak wants to know more about Carey as a person
Ok, I know I'm not exactly one to talk, having edited this article a lot of times to add random chart facts about Mariah's songs and albums, but I think the main problem with this article is that it has so much detail on her songs, albums and chart positions and doesn't actually tell us ENOUGH about her. After all, this is meant to be a biography about Carey and not a story chronicling her chart success as a musician. The career records and achievements section already details enough and with all her singles having their own articles and the albums' articles slowly also being expanded, there should be more on her in the article. Do you guys agree, or am I being too critical? Any proposition on where we can actually get more information on her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 May 2005
Wasted Time R agrees the article only presents Carey as a musician
Yes. Right now the overall theme of the Mariah Carey articles is: She was put on earth to make #1 hits. Every time she got a #1 it added to her incredible success as the best selling female something-or-other ever. Every time she didn't get a #1 she and her record company plunged into despair because her career might be over. If this is really what her life was like, it's a wonder she didn't have a breakdown long before 2001! Wasted Time R 21:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Wasted Time R thinks record sales won't be as important in the future
Another way of looking at this is to imagine someone is reading an article ten years from now, or fifty years from now. What would be important to get across? If you don't know much now about, say, Frank Sinatra, would you really care that "All The Way" only made #2 in 1957 and not #1? I'm not sure anyone even remembers that record nowadays, whereas Sinatra signature songs like "My Way" and "Summer Wind" and "It Was A Very Good Year" never got into the top 20. What will Mariah Carey be remembered for in the future? Probably for her voice, and the way that she wrote and produced records that naturally took advantage of that voice, even though the substance of her songs was not always that deep. Surely it will not matter in the future that some fourth single off a successful album in 1994 didn't make the top 10, or that in May 2005 she was in a charts battle with "Hollaback Girl"! Wasted Time R 00:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Mseames suggests sections for singles, chart positions, and videos
I think the article is written just fine. A bit glowing, yes but, Mariah has had amazing successs. There is nothing wrong with documenting her successs.
I do dispute the 7 octave range- that is humanly impossible. I think whoever said 4.5 is pushing it a bit- but it is a bit more reasonable/logical. I don't think it is humanly possible to hit a G7. I have seen that issue hotly disputed everywhere.
I think there should be a "Singles" section, to further document her singles and their relevant chart positions. Also, I'm thinking of a list of her videos, including remix videos, should be incorporated into the page because she has so many of them. I believe she has more videos than any other artist.
I think we should list the chart positions for other major countries as well. (UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.) It would be interesting. Mseames
Wasted Time R points out already existing article
Yo! There's already more info on Mariah singles and videos than you could possibly imagine. See Mariah Carey discography, scroll down, and follow the singles links. Wasted Time R 16:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mseames instead suggests article dedicated to Carey's unreleased songs
I almost didn't see you, right there smack in the middle. LOL. Anyway, I see what you mean. That is too much information to incorporate into the page, as I was origially thinking to do. Instead, I am now thinking of making a seperate page, similiar to the one for Madonna, Unreleased Madonna songs. Mariah has many non-album tracks and songs released overseas or added to overseas CDs that were not released to the USA. Another bamboozling project could be to list all of her remixes. There are hundreds of her remixes. And I still see no listings of all of her videos. Mseames
Ultimate Star Wars Freak refers Mseames to already existing article
Mseames says thanks
Ultimate Star Wars Freak discusses what SHOULDN'T be included in this article
The following should not be placed in the Mariah Carey article.
- Sales Figures: All figures for albums and singles (both US and worldwide) are listed on Mariah Carey discography.
- Single Awards/Nominations: Awards and award nominations are listed in the separate articles for each single. If an award is missing that you know a single has been nominated for or has won, add it there, NOT in this article.
- Awards For Carey Herself: Awards Carey herself has won are all included in List of Mariah Carey Awards. If you want to include a list of all the awards she has been nominated for, but lost, add them in THAT article (make a separate section, if it gets too big split into two articles) and do not place it here.
- Extra information on singles: A lot of the information about singles people write on this article is included in the separate singles articles. Please add any information you have about them there. All that should be on Carey's singles in this article is the name and a brief note on its success of its significance. There is already too much emphasis on chart positions and mentioning of many singles in this article which needs to be reduced.
- Extra information on albums: Any information on albums other than the name and a brief note about the general impact, success and/or genre should not be placed in this article. Carey's album articles are not of high quality, most of them only containing a sentence and tracklisting and need to be improved.
- Endless comments on her voice: Wikipedia sticks to an Neutral Point Of View in all its articles. A sample of her voice and a brief profile along with a mention of it generally being considered impressive is all that is needed. No other information is required.
In my opinion, as the single articles are of such good quality, the album articles should then be worked on. Then every piece of Carey-related relevant information, within good reason and that is factual that cannot be included in a single and/or album article should be placed in the Mariah Carey article. Remember, this is a biography and HER life is not emphasised enough upon as she has done more than just score #1 hits and some top-selling albums. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 28 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
Wasted Time R responds to USWF's guidelines
Makes sense to me. I would include Grammy wins inline in the main article, due to their significance; it's a common practice in WP musician articles already. But I definitely would push nominations-but-losses down into the albums/singles articles as you say.
Regarding your last sentence, I agree, but recently an editor (not you) deleted a lot of important biographical info, such as her staying at a mental health facility in 2001, her messages to her fans at the time, her relationships with Derek Jeter and Luis Miguel, her sister's issues, and her father's death. These are all relevant to her story and can all be verified from reliable sources. Maybe the wording needed some NPOV-ing in places, but the material deserves to go back in. Wasted Time R 28 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)
USWF responds to Wasted Time R's comments
I agree with the Grammy Award, they are more significant than other awards and of course nominations, which should be in the separate album/single articles. I didn't even notice that the information about her family, love life and mental health had been removed: they are perfect examples of biographical information which this article needs. I say complete the album articles, and then place every other piece of Carey-related information in this article, within reason of course that isnt in a single/album article. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 29 June 2005 19:12 (UTC)
Mistaken Identity in regards to the chart positions
Coming from Australia, I would like to see, if applicable, if Australian chart positions could be added to the chart position profile. Though Australia may not be a big country (etc.), I would like to point out that we have a huge music industry, and many American/UK artists (eg. Jem/Mariah Carey) are popular down here; and in my opinion, Australian chart positions should be added due to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistaken Identity (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 July 2005