Talk:Thalía

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

When WAS she born?[edit]

Currently I see her as being born in 1971 and in 1976. One of these answers is definitely incorrect, and the other may be correct.

  • 1971 ~ June 30 2006 16:38
1971 is listed in several articles. It also makes sense as she was a young teen in Juguemos a Cantar versus being a child actor. Ronbo76 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it say Mexican American in the intro since she's now a citizen? 67.10.149.92 07:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thalía has sold near 22 million album worldwide:

- Thalía, 1990: 600.000
- Mundo de cristal, 1991: 700.000
- Love, 1992: 1.000.000
- En éxtasis, 1995: 1.500.000
- Amor a la mexicana, 1997: 4.000.000
- Nandito ako, 1997: 1.000.000
- Arrasando, 2000: 2.500.000
- Con banda grandes éxitos, 2001: 900.000
- Thalía, 2002: 3.500.000
- Hits remixed, 2003: 850.000
- Thalía (en inglés), 2003: 3.000.000
- Greatest hits, 2004: 1.000.000
- El sexto sentido, 2005: 3.400.000


No sources[edit]

  • In the summer of 2005, Thalía's multi-million dollar contract with Televisa was cancelled, due to her not wanting to star in a soap opera or a show with the company. After several notices the head of Televisa Emilio Azcárraga Jean, decided to cancel her contract after several attempts to make her go back into telenovelas. The contract was made for three telenovelas and only one was made, Rosalinda (1999). Thalía was paid $75,000 U.S dollars a month for the contract.

I removed the above as there are no sources cited for any of this, and some of it sounds like speculation

  • So it didn't happen at all (her contract cancelled)? Because other than the "speculation" I don't see why that bit of info couldn't be included. 67.10.149.92 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Thalía of Greek descent?[edit]

Someone editted Thalía with the category of Greek Mexican. Can anyone confirm she is of Greek descent with a citation? Otherwise the category should be deleted. Ronbo76 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

She has nothing to do with the Greek, just her name is of Greek origin, because her mother liked learning Greek Mithology very much. Thalía is of Mexican-French-Italian descent and she was born in Mexico City, August 26, 1971. (Zoltan, MDC webmaster)

No, you can see her sister, Laura Zapata is in that category too

- Thalía is not of Greek descent, but she is named after a figure in ancient Greek mythology. Saying she is greek is like saying everyone named Abraham or John is Jewish because those names are of Jewish origin, or everyone named Muhammed is an Arab because Muhammed is of Arabian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.9 (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I had read in a few articles (one by Shanik Berman in Teleguia years ago) and the other in a list of famous Jewish people that she was at least half Jewish from her father's side. Has anyone come across or remember any article that mentions this? I know the last name 'Sodi' is a common Jewish name and it may be a different case than you describe in your example but I want to make sure I post the correct information before editing the article.Aa1232011 (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion arises because of her name and step-Dad[edit]

The name plays into it but also her step-Dad is Greek (if I remember correctly). Some people even in Mexico think she is Greek for that reason but nothing I have seen or read indicates she has Greek blood or was adopted. Ronbo76 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article available in Greek language[edit]

Please add it: "el:Ταλία". (Zoltan, MDC webmaster)

Sources[edit]

I suggest you taking news only from her official website www.thalia.com and her official fan club website www.mdcthalia.com. These sources are always OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED. The information on all the other sources may NOT be true. (Zoltan, MDC webmaster)

Protected?[edit]

What's going on?

Edits without citations to record sales and other facts. . .[edit]

Will not be permitted. All items added must be in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ronbo76 08:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Hi there. I’ve had a look at the details of the images used in the article and I don’t think they’re quite appropriate per WP:FU. In particular, the album covers really need to go, since the albums are not discussed in detail here. The covers should only be in the articles for the corresponding albums. I’ve removed the covers from the list, but I’ve left the other images for the moment, in case somebody has replacements or is willing to expand the article so that some of the images become usable. Please note that Image:T&tmarried.jpg and Image:Thaliasodicollection1.jpg lack source information. They will be deleted if it is not provided. If you know where these images are from, please add the information to the description pages! —xyzzyn 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Her supposed "Guiness Record" is highly questionable...[edit]

"In 1996 "Guiness World Records" decided to put Thalia as 'the most recognized artist in one day' She won awards from all over the world in only one day of receiving Key of Indonesia,Key of Philipines and the key of Miami,won 6 awards from the "Eres Awards" for 'Best Song' 'Best Dance Song' ,'Best Female Singer'....etc. and Won Several awards too in "Heraldo Music Awards" and many other in the same day."

  • I'm afraid this information is FALSE. Although many news articles reported this at that time, BUT THERE HAS BEEN NEVER FOUND A GUINESS SOURCE that would have confirmed it. Maybe there was a confusion with another recognition.

Zoltan, MDC webmaster 88.209.201.157 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thalia has never received any of those awards at the Premios Eres. I should know as I have them all recorded.

64.175.66.19 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just saw an interview with Thalía where she mentioned this supposed Guinness award, but she couldn't remember either what it really was. So I'm still saying it has never been true. I would like to see the PROOF from the Guinness World Records book from 1996 or 1997. --Zoltan 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph as I'm convinced it's BS. 71.231.107.188 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonight's wholesale edit[edit]

The user who did the edit tonight claims that info was moved to another part of the article. Most of it was actually deleted which is indicated by the history of edit diffs. Recommend another editor review. Ronbo76 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only deletes done were non-neutral point of view comments and most of the comments were moved and rewritten properly. Your too lazy to read the article. Keep you day job (if you have one).

Her correct name is ARIADNA, not *Adriana.[edit]

ARIADNA THALÍA SODI MIRANDA... Ariadna is from Latin "ARIADNA" and this form from Greek ARIADNE, a historic name from a Greek god, daughter of King Minos in Greek Mythology. She is NOT named Adriana. Just listen to the audio that I added, SHE is saying her name herself. You will hear it. I think the difference is very evident when pronouncing ARIADNA and Adriana. Regards --Zoltan 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rib Removal[edit]

Down here in south america, it's a very commonly held (mis)conception that Thalia has had several ribs removed to enhance her waistline and latin curves. Personally, it sounds a bit far fetched, but perhaps still worth a mention since so many people believe it to be true. plenty of hits for 'Thalia ribs' in google. 200.25.194.96 05:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And more from down here in Ecuador... Just saw a report on a local entertainment program that said Thalia will be posing nude. Not really interested in finding a source (far more interested in the pictures, personally), but i'm sure its out there. 200.41.2.144 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Found a source: Thalía podría posar desnuda para PETA 200.41.2.144 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The rib removal rumor might deserve a brief mention. Her recent Instagram parody of it purporting to show her rib fragments pickled in a jar stirred up some media attention: [1][2][3] gobonobo + c 22:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism[edit]

Anonymous user always removes the section about her fan clubs. Please be aware of anonymous vandalism. Thanks. --TheMexican (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sales[edit]

I have noticed that all the sales of all the albums by thalia add altogether: 29.150.000, is that truth? In the beginning of the article it says that thalía sold little more than 12.000.000 of albums. It would have to add references to the total of sold albums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.45.111.67 (talk) 03:56:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship[edit]

Since Thalia is now a US citizen can we please change her to being referred to as a Mexican-American singer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

is it appropriate to have a discography including commentaries of the album? I thought discographies are merely a list of albums and release years... Boshiaki (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arab?[edit]

Is she really part Arab? there seems to be no source claiming so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabMexican (talkcontribs) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is vandalism. She is not Arab at all. I have a small magazine-biography about Thalia. She is actually of distant French ancestry. Opinoso (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
More exactly, Mexican-French-Italian. Her father, Ernesto Sodi Pallares is from Italian descendents (Sodi is an Italian surname). --Mextalk 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard way too many different versions of her ancestry to know for sure but I know I read somewhere that 'Sodi' is Italian but also Jewish.Aa1232011 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stupid and false information removed[edit]

Of course she is not of Arabic descendents, I removed false information. Neither she is a Latin Grammy awarded singer, she was only nominated many times. It's true that her album "Arrasando" won a Latin Grammy award, but it was not her award, but the recording engineers' who mixed the album. Please let me know if sombody puts suspicious information or spam. Thank you. --Mextalk 09:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of sales[edit]

Please DO NOT put false or unverifiable information about her sales. DID you have any OFFICIAL source confirming that she has sold 23 million records??? Also note that the only official sources are Thalia.com and EMITelevisa.com, all the other are gossip, inventions and lies. --Mextalk 08:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


You have given a figure of 20 million records sold worldwide and cited EmiTelevisa as the source but EmiTelevisa states that her record sales are approaching 20 million and therefore is not a source for a concrete number of record sales. Tne second source for record sales consists of awards given to her by her record label for 12 million unit sales worldwide.Does this mean that ESS and ESSR sold close to 8 million? I think this information is worth looking over. (pixiedustrawr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixiedustrawr (talkcontribs) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

new album?[edit]

Why isn't there a refence about her releasing a new album this summer? GFN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.174.30 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN[edit]

THALÍA DOES NOT HAVE OFFICIAL FACEBOOK AND MYSPACE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? They are pages created by fans who want make all to believe it. The only official websites of Thalía are www.thalia.com, www.thaliaradio.com, thalia.emilaforums.com and www.mdcthalia.com... NO OTHER OFFICIAL SITES!!! They are lies! Administrators, please be aware of spammers. This was one of the best pages about Thalía, but was destroyed by liars... Thank you. --Mextalk 06:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring over OR and BLP violation[edit]

This should not be added back without good sources:

Despite her long career and achievements, Thalía was never considered a real artist by most people, not even in her native country, Mexico. This is mainly because of her telenovella roles, which are considered silly and unremarkable by many people and in many countries. Other possible reasons are that, unlike most popular world stars, Thalía has never inverted too much in the promotion of her albums, she almost never gives live concerts and performances, and in addition, she usually uses playback in her presentations.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Family Scare[edit]

How come no information related to the kidnapping of her 2 sisters nnot included in the article? Thalia was the person who allegedly paid the ramson. Her ordeal should be notedCombatant (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Is it Ariadna Thalía or Thalía Ariadna? The article contradicts itself. Rojomoke (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Ariadna Thalía. Ariadna is officially her first name, but from early ages she uses the second name, Thalía. --El Mexicano (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

About leaving EMI and joining Casablanca Records[edit]

Neither Thalía nor any of her official sources has never confirmed this, not even her record label manager knows about it. I suggest removing it from this article. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

135 million in recordsales wordwide[edit]

In the discography section of this article, it says that Thalia has sold 135 million albums worldwide... Seriously ? Sounds far fetched to me... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thal%C3%ADa_discography Mortyman (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And far fetched it was. The real figure is apparently 12 million according to the sources cited in that article and so was changed to 12 million. AngelOfSadness talk 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)



I telephoned the IFPI Company which is the official musical industry in Greece to ask them how much Thalia has sold.However they could inform me only what she has sold in Greece.AMOR A LA MEXICANA has sold almost 60,000 and Arrasando 70,000.Lunada 10,000,Thalia 2002 45,000 ,Thalia 2003 50,000,Thalia;s hits remixed 7,000 and THE SIXTH SENSE 16,000.However in these album pages the munbers are not the same.Also I have noticed most of information is lies.For example Lunada did not sell only 4,000 in Mexico as it was displayed.I think that the sales should be mopre official.I am almost sute that Thalia has sold over 30 million copies worldwide.If you write sth,then you must explain it.I mean that every time in this page the sales are different.You should be informed by an official site or sth like this.Also,Paulina Rubio's fans are constantly spamming this bio.They had also written 2 million copies for AALM.This is totaly wrong.My unlcle was working for EMI and he told me that the album sold almost 7,5 million copies and it is the most successful Thalia had ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.126.212 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talia is NOT SPANISH[edit]

I changed Thalia's origin: she's not Spanish (=Spain, Europe) but Mexican. She's also not in any case Spanish-American, but Mexican-American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.163.118 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag[edit]

The contradiction tag was placed in this article: 01:50, 7 April 2009 COMPFUNK2 m (36,508 bytes) (What's her full name?).

It was a simple change that could have easily been resolved rather than placing the contradiction tag. Don't forget to Be Bold when coming across simple edits. I changed her name in the Biography section to reflect what is in the rest of the article and removed the contradiction tag. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. Kjnelan (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Born 1971 or 1972?[edit]

Someone just changed the year of birth back to 1971. TIME Magazine says "Thalía was born Thalía Ariadna Sodi Miranda on August 26, 1972". [4] This may need to be handled at the BLP Noticeboard, but I wanted to discuss it here first in case we can come to a resolution on this. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Livejournal, et cetera are NOT acceptable sources for WP:BLP articles. TIME Magazine, on the other hand, should be.

Did TIME Magazine make a mistake here? If so, are there any other third party publications which corroborate the 1971 claim? JBsupreme (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that on this very talk page, just a couple sections above, another editor excitedly claims that the MySpace and Facebook pages are illegitimate to begin with. In which case we should default to TIME Magazine, obviously, but I cannot speak to the validity of such a claim. The pages are being linked from thalia.com so I would want to assume they are legitimate. JBsupreme (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lessee... time to hit Google News:

  • USA Today dated 10/9/2007: "Thalia, 36..." That would imply she was born in '71.
  • United Press International dated 10/8/2007: "Thalia, who is 35" ('72 birth)
  • People: dated the 8th as well: "Thalía, 35" ('72 birth)
  • Detroit Free Press (via Access My library) dated 12/11/02: "The 31-year-old actress and singer" ('71 birth)
  • Promo magazine dated 4/13/2004: "The 32-year-old was born in Mexico..." ('71 birth)
  • Contra Costa Times dated 8/25/2009: "BIRTHDAYS:... Latin pop singer Thalia (38)" ('71 birth)
  • San Antonio Express News (via The Ledger) dated 8/1/05: "Thalia, 35" ... Hey she's born in 1969 then! (This appeared before her birthday that year folks)
  • Reforma (via Access My Library and a pass through Google Language Tools) dated 8/27/2000 (the earliest story I can find for Thalia): "Ariadna Sodi Miranda-his real name, now meets 29 years of life". This works out to '71 (I assume they were looking ahead to her birthday in two days)

It would appear then that '71 is the most popular year for her birthday. And by the way folks, some of those articles I posted are likely good sources to flesh the article out with... Tabercil (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh ffs... wow... this is horrible. Surely there must be a precedent for such a situation when the DOB/YOB is disputed. Should it just be left out all together, or multiple dates cited? I can't believe this. JBsupreme (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well doing a quick search elsewhere on Wikipedia comes back with a few articles on recent people: Chick Webb, Janice Dickinson and Orlando Hernández, all of which have sections detailing year of birth controversies. I'd say put the '71 in the infobox as the most likely date of birth, and create a subsection down in the article laying out the dispute on her birth date between 71 and 72. Tabercil (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Magazines are not reliable sources, moreover if they are in English. You should believe what Mexican magazines and her official Facebook and MySpace say, since they are handled by Thalía's management and Thalía herself. There is no doubt that she was born in 1971, see also IMDb and Allmusic. You can also add a ref tag saying that according to some sources, she was born in 1972, but more probable is that she was born in 1971. --El Mexicano (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well IMDB is out as a source as it's felt not to be reliable except for specific information - specifically film appearances; the biographical info is most certainly not considered reliable. As for Allmusic, I suspect that might be in the same category... not too sure offhand. If the Facebook and MySpace pages can be backed up as being official, then I can see them being used as a source... but you'll need to prove the "officiality" first. In the end I too feel that the Spanish-language media is probably the most accurate source. When (if?) I get around to doing a proper section regarding her birth year controversy, I'll probably be using the Reforma article as the primary source for the 1971 year, as it's the oldest one locatable. Tabercil (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If you enter Thalia.com, you will first see an intro page with the links to her verified Twitter account, MySpace and Facebook pages. I think there is no better proof for the officiality of these sites. However, if you need an even better source, here is the official announcement of Thalia.com regarding the officiality of these sites. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thalia's English information and Spanish information does NOT match....Spanish NEEDS to be revise and updated, it has to many false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.229.87 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Full name[edit]

Is there a source for her full name? Many sites do not include María in her name. Missionary (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Acting[edit]

I have started and will be adding information on her acting projects since there currently is none and it was a big part of her success internationally. Please help by adding more information and citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The acute accent is sufficient disambiguation. -- Hadal (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Thalía (entertainer)Thalía

  • A user moved this earlier this year for no explained reason. I left the user a note, but have not been responded to in the past week, so I am listing the article here. It should be moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Izno (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thalía is a redirect to Thalía (entertainer), but Thalia is a long disambig page. Is the acute accent on 'Thalía' enough distinction from Thalia? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    I would say it is, as none of the articles aside from this one have an accent. Just my opinion, however. --Izno (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, the accent differentiates it from all other articles. The move this year was unauthorized and created needless work. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Anthony Appleyard. However, on principle, if there is no consensus in this discussion, I support the return of the article to Thalía since the initial move was undiscussed. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Capitalization and (I think) accents are considered sufficient disambiguation according to policy. Marcus Qwertyus 02:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biased?[edit]

Th article seems to have good information. One thing I find inappropriate for a Wikipedia article are the constant references to her "beauty" and other statements that are opinion and not fact. Although many might find her beautiful, it is inappropriate for such statements to appear in a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.231.24 (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Telenovelas[edit]

I doubt that her telenovas have been watched by 2 billion people but in her autobiography in the picture section (no page numbers are included for the picture section) it says "The novelas were highly rated and seen in more than 180 countries by more than two billion people."

In the book cover at the back it also says she has won 2000 awards from her work as an actress and a singer and has sold 40 million discs worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.80.163 (talk)

File:Thalia in 2008 (2).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Thalia's album sales[edit]

Please DO NOT change the article regarding to the artist's sales. It is clearly stated in her recent book "Growing Stronger" that she has sold "over 40 million albums". Isn't her personal memoir an official source??? This thing about changing the artists's sales all the time is stupid. I think this article should be locked. As long as there is a source for something, it shouldn't be changed at all. What are Wikipedia's moderators doing after all? Sleeping? Can't they see that the artocle is hacked daily? Please make all the necessary changes and lock it. It is just unpermitable the way this article is violated. Just do something about it, it is an article about a living person.

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Thalia in 2008 (2).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thalia's Growing Stronger book, her so-called memoir, appears to reference 25 million albums sold worldwide.

http://www.nuestrathalia.com/2011/11/01/thalias-interview-on-good-day-new-york/ http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45148867/ns/today-books/t/growing-stronger-thalia-shares-her-story/

The host of NBS's Today show referenced Thalia has having sold 25 million albums in a televised interview that took place on November 4, 2011. Where did this 40 million albums sales figure come from?76.228.74.139 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough with non-English speakers editing English Wikipedia![edit]

This article is being violated seriously. Please, if you aren't fluent in english, don't edit this page. We know that Thalia is a huge latin star and as a result she has millions of spanish-speaking fans, but of them try to translate the spanish Wikipedia page about Thalia in english, without using correctly the english language. Edit an article ONLY if you are a native English speaker or fluent in this language. I think that the page about Thalia should be locked for somewhile and be edited by serious Wikipedia editors. It is not a fan page after all, it is a Wikipedia article and the vocabulary used should be more formal, as Wikipedia is considered as the most popular database for artists etc. She has a long career and you should stop making her biography look ridiculous. It was like a circus, seriously! Tones of unimportant information, and thousands of syntax and grammar mistakes. Please, stop doing this. And Wikipedia moderators should be careful when an article is being changed so that they correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.206.104 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Article corrected[edit]

I tried to correct this article. Please revise it and then lock it so that it soesn't get violated again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.206.104 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Awful![edit]

Who the heck changed Thalia's article? It is full of syntax and grammar mistakes. Please, do not violate this article. Go and have fun in another site, this is Wikipedia, not a fan site. Are you fuckin' kidding me? HIS best-selling album? Since when Thalia is a man? 10 million copies Amor a la mexicana? And a bunch of unimportant information like surveys and celeb rumors. You think Wikipedia is a blog? Please do something, enough with spanish-speaking people translating the articles using the google translator. Leave this job for someone who speaks english.

Please don't remove massive sections of the article without getting a consensus to do so. Also, please understand how to place references in an article (see WP:REF for guidance). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to remove massive sections of the article? "After 13 successful years with EMI Music, "the Mexican singer says goodbye to the music label and plans on recording her next album in English." With the recent release of her album Lunada, the 36-year-old singer ended her contract with EMI Music, who recognized that the album was not successful as it was not well promoted since it coincided with the months after her pregnancy when she contracted Lyme disease." Is this official and formal speach? For God's sake...this article seems to be badly-written from hispnic fans of the artist. Nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. It is obvious that it should change...Wikipedia loses its reputation with awfully written articles like this. There should be only serious information on the artist's career and only important facts of about her trajectory and biography as a musician and actress. This article is more like a gossip page written by hispanic people trying to speak english, rathen than an official source of information about the artist. It is full of information that is not important enough to be included in a wikipedia article, apart from the millions of syntax, grammar and vocabulary errors. As for the references, most of these references contradict from the article. Lots of false and unimportant information, and full of gossip stuff. It is full of uncertain and false infos. I was just trying to improve it. And I am the one to false? You seriously need to get down on earth and see some things clearly. Thsi article is about a living person and about one of the most important musicians in contemporary music, which means that thousands of people visit this link daily to learn about Thalia's career and biography. It is bad for Wikipedia's reputation to have such a badly written article...come on, when i saw the changes, I laughed for two hours! HIS album? HIS success? We are talking about a female. They have even edited about low-importance polls like a Univision poll in the first paragraph of the article!!! Is website poll something so important for a career that has spanned over 3 decades? It is ridiculous. Please at least show some respect towards her and edit correctly this article. Enough with haters and antifans trying to violate articles about the singers they dislike. It is Wikipedia, not a forum.

At least I tried to change the opening of the article. I'm kindly asking you to show the minimum respect and don't change it or tranform it into a circus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.206.104 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but please try to remain coherent. We need to discuss what the best approach is. Right now, you're not doing the best for the article. As I've already requested, such a huge change to the article should be discussed here. Please do not edit war. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please improve this article[edit]

So many mistakes in the first overall paragraph. Do something about it. Why did Wikipedia moderators let someone destroy this article?? Are you kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.204.252 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes in the first overall paragraph[edit]

I rephrased the non-sense sentences, corrected the grammar and syntax errors, removed non-encyclopedic information. There were thousands of sources, which is not necessary. I kept the most important ones, and removed the low-importance links. Now, it is an article about the artist, it includes all the most necessary information and it reminds of an encyclopedic article, not a gossip blog like before. I hope it remains as it is, and it won't be destroyed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.143.237 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sodi Family Origin[edit]

In the book From Liberal to Revolutionary Oaxaca page 250 it mentions that the Sodis are descendants of Carlos Sodi who was an Italian engineer. We could add that as part of her ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.81.175 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is already an article about the Sodi family, which is generally a very popular family in Mexico. However, this information is of low importance in this specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Amor a la mexicana Thalia's best selling album?[edit]

Amor a la mexicana was a huge release in 1997, it spawned three international hits, that stayed for many weeks or even months in the lists of popularity. However, the source provided for this album's total sales is considerable and doubtful. Amor a la mexicana's certifications provided in the page article are so poor that it doesn't total 8 million copies (!). It must be about 5 million copies considering the years that have passed since then and the certifications of the album of course. Wikipedia users must be objective. There is only ONE site that mentions 8 million so definitely it is a false information. I think as long as it is doubtful, it is unnecessary to be added in the article. It is information that could be included in the album's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 09:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sí, es confiable; Amor a la mexicana ha vendido más de 8 millones de copias en el mundo. Los artículos de Wikipedia no gozan de completitud (en este contexto, Amor a la mexicana no presenta todas las certificaciones que ha ganado en el mundo). Álbumes como Dónde Están los Ladrones? o Pies Descalzos ¿alcanzan el mínimo de ventas certificadas?, no verdad y eso, que las ventas estimadas están exageradamente infladas. Yo conozco bien la Wikipedia y sé que hay que ser prolijos e imparciales; además, las ventas certificadas en muchos países durante el lanzamiento de Amor a la mexicana, eran bastantes elevadas. así que mientras tanto, restablezco la edición desecha que hizo el usuario Sailormoon94. Saludos cordiales, Chrishonduras (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like also to point out something. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Am I (or any other user) supposed to understand Spanish? And what's more, NO, it is not a trustful source because the information is not crossed anywhere else. It is just one site, there is no other source data that corroborates the fact that the album has sold 8 million copies. It is my opinion that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, as there aren't sufficient sources to confirm this level of sales, that sounds exaggerated especially for a spanish album (no matter that it had international projection, it is still a spanish album and spanish albums are always less commercial than english albums and IT IS a fact). This information will be elaborated at least until any other data provided by an official source appears (like IFPI, RIAA, AMPROFON, UAC, RIAJ or EMI Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sailormoon, perdón por hablar español (¿acaso los griegos no hablan español?). ¿Acaso los de la Wikipedia en inglés no van hablar inglés en todas las Wikipedias?. Yo entiendo todo lo que usted dice, así que me da la gana de hablar un idioma latín, que es español (y sé que también que usted sabe español ¿O me equívoco?). En fin, EMI ha dicho que son más de cinco millones de copias por parte de Amor a la mexicana (que es lo que lleva certificado, de hecho) y los ocho millones de copias que estima el poderoso portal Terra es confiable, por lo menos se acerca al mínimo de ventas certificados. Yo aún veo necesario que esté en la introducción de este artículo, de lo contrario, no veo necesario que en artículos de artistas latinos como Shakira o Paulina Rubio tengan información sobre las ventas de algunos álbumes (cuando ni siquera, las ventas certificadas se acercan al porcentaje) y también, ¿sería necesario hablar cosas inutiles en el artículo de Shakira como las visitas de sus videos al canal de YouTube? (y en la introducción); cierto, que este artículo es otro, pero la información sobre su álbum más vendido es relevante, y, como le repito, los artículos de WIKIPEIDA EN INGLÉS no gozan de completitud, es por esta razón que usted ha de decir que las ventas certificadas de Amor a la mexicana no alcanzan un porcentaje mínimo con los ocho millones. Use el sentido común. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I DO speak Spanish but it is not a private conversation between you and me here. It is a topic that aims to be taken into consideration by other users that edit Wikipedia articles. As long as you want to edit the english Wikipedia, learn English, or else go and edit articles in spanish Wikipedia. It is simple. (No, in Greece people speak Greek. Someone speaks spanish not because it's our native language but because anyone can learn privately whichever foreign language they want).

As for Terra, no, it is definitely not a trustful source. Furthermore, you mentioned other articles about other singers. Please get down to earth, it is not a forum of public speech. It is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Do you know what that word means? This is Thalía's article, there is point in comparing it with other articles. Every article is different and every singer is different. The language used and the information provided to edit articles in Wikipedia shouldn't be fan-oriented. You should know there is a word named OBJECTIVITY. If you think that there are mistakes in the articles for Shakira or any other singer, then you can go to these articles and insert this topic or edit these articles. What makes these articles to be role models so that all the articles should be the same? Are you serious? And the information about her best selling album IS NOT relevant because the information provided is not crossed. Find at least 2 sites that mention 8 million copies and add them as a reference. I searched in the Internet and I didn't find anything related. As long as the information is doubtful, it should be elaborated (especially here, that it is the general introduction to an artist's article, where there should be cited only important and official information).

Entiendo completamente lo que es la palabra objetividad. Desde luego, Terra Networks es un portal de internet bastante serio, en múltiples idiomas, y dedicado a varias cosas, para nuestro contexto: música (hasta premios musicales entregan y hasta han hecho entrevista a Thalía). En ningún momento quise ser una edición de "fan" como usted dice, simplemente porque si bien algunos medios se refieren a Thalía como la "reina del pop latino", me pareció imperativo colocar que su disco más vendido es Amor a la mexicana (ocho millones de unidades), pero también ha tenido grandes declives comerciales (Lunada, únicamente 300 mil copias, según Univision). Yo entiendo el inglés, aunque se me complica escribirlo, así que mi edición en mi opinión, pareció correcta desde luego, con las políticas de Wikipedia. Pero a mi no me gusta discutir. Finalmente, si encuentro otra fuente que hable de las ocho millones de copias de Amor a la mexicana, lo colocaré. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Central photo[edit]

The 2006 photo is old. There must be a recent photo in every artist article, people's appearance changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.88.0 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thalia Worldwide Album Sales[edit]

In Mexico, diamond status equals sales of 300,000 albums, not half a million, which you can verify on amprofon.com.mx

Emi Music stated in 2006 that Thalia sold over 10,000,000 albums in her ENTIRE career. She resigned with Sony in 2009 and released Primera Fila, and currently just released a new album. Her first album came out in 1990, which means she sold about 10 million albums in 16 years. How can she possibly sell an additional 30 million albums in the last 3-4 years? You mean to tell me Primera Fila sold 30 million copies worldwide? Something doesn't add up. Sony has already stated that Primera Fila sold 500,000 copies in Latin America, which is where most copies were sold. I doubt it has even reached a million copies worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AMPROFON has certified the album as diamond plus 3x platinum...not just diamond. As for her sales, it was even stated in New York Times that she has sold 40 million albums. There are millions of references that verify her total sales. So, what you say is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 13:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's be informed. The diamond recognition wipes out the 3 platinum certifications: it does not add to them. That is how certification works. Educate yourself. For example, if an artist in America sells 15 million albums, then the RIAA will give them a diamond certification, but will also adjust sales to 15x platinum. That doesn't mean you should be dumb enough to think that the artist has sold 25 million albums by adding together the diamond certification and the 15x platinum.

There is no reference to the New York Times. Even if one exists, that does not verify album sales. Albums sales can only be properly verified by entities like the RIAA, Amprofon, Nielsen, or a record label (maybe, since they can inflate their artists sales figures). If someone writes on an unreliable source, like Wikipedia, that an artist sold 100 million albums, an editor at the New York times, or some other publication, may take it upon their selves to consider that a legitimate reference and use it. When that happens, magically, this false info somehow becomes fact and is spread around. I'm certain these phony sales figures, posted by some random person on Wikipedia, have been sourced by presumably reliable publications. According to the RIAA, Thalia has only sold 1.2 million albums in her entire career in the US market. Under the Gold and Platinum header on the RIAA website, look up "Thalia" and you can verify this. Shakira on the other hand, has sold over 15 million albums in the US market, which you can also verify on the RIAA's website. She is the queen of pop, not Thalia. I'm a fan of Thalia, so I'm only being honest. I'm not biased. I only seek the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the RIAA, platinum and gold are different for Spanish language albums. Gold = 50,000 copies. Platinum = 100,000 copies. For "standard" albums: gold = 500,000 copies, while platinum = 1 million copies. Pay attention to whether an album is categorized as "standard" or "latin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

YOU educate yourself. There was a reference regarding to the sales. As for mexicancertifications, Primera Fila had become diamond and some months later as it was still number 1 it became plus gold and then plus platinum and then plus 2x platinum and now it is diamond plus 3x platinum. Its last certification was NOT diamond. Check out the amprofon site for that. Do not change the sales, they are verified everywhere. 12 million copies is a number that comes from nowhere, from your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe certifications in Mexico are different, but either way, her worldwide sales should be listed as over 10 million albums sold as clearly stated in the article from People magazine. You can't ignore an official award for career sales of 10 million copies in 2006 from EMI music. She didn't release a new album until 2009, Primera Fila. Where did those extra 30 million albums come from? The moon? Can you explain yourself? http://www.peopleenespanol.com/article/thalia-recibe-disco-de-diamante — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's better for the article to NOT list worldwide sales since it's unclear how much Thalia has really sold? Just a suggestion.

In her book, which was released in 2011, it clearly states 40 million. No changes are made. This number is the one given by her record company Sony Music and this is the only official number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 08:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no link referencing her book. Either way, that does not prove anything. A lot of people know she lies about how successful she is. A few years ago, Premio Lo Nuestro gave her an award for selling 25 million albums supposedly, now it's 40 million? First 10 million in 2006 (after 16 years as a solo artist), then 25 million a couple of years later with NO new albums, now 40 million. LOL This is all a joke. Thalia and Sony want to hide her failure after so much media support and novellas by making up false sales figures that aren't backed-up by official sales organizations like Amprofon, Nielsen, or the RIAA, ect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

= Well, then go and make complaints to Sony Music, Chronicle Books and all all the media that claim this sales number. But what YOU or I think is true has nothing to do with what is official. Please stop vandalising the article seriously, I will report you.

You do not provide any data from Sony Music, so stop vandalizing the page with sales figures that don't come from credible sources like the RIAA, Amprofon, Nielsen, or IFPI members who give official and verified sales figures. If you don't agree, I think it's best to remove worldwide sales figures from the page like has been done with other pages from music artists. Also, you should stop adding phony statements about how many people have seen Thalia's soap opera's or references of her being a star that no one will forget from the UK's Sun publication. You keep adding non-existent articles and info that isn't properly referenced. So stop vandalizing this page or you will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are so many references, her official site, the latest press release by Sony Music, sites like BBC Music, NetWorth, other news sites etc. I've included some references. It is a number that is widely claimed. 12 million comes from nowhere. It doesn't make any sense. It seems like you've added supposed album sales and you result to this number, as if you were a record company and now the exact sales. So ridiculous. Plus, it is reported everywhere that her telenovelas have aired in 180 countries for many years now. It is not something new, and definitely not something doubtfull. As for the Sun, the newspaper doesn't keep Internet database or arhice of past volumes. But information is verified from the moment the source is referred. By saying source, we don't mean only Internet. Read the terms. Plus if she weren't that successful, Hollyuwood Walk of Fame wouldn't give her a star. Don't you think so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: 76.228.74.139 Assume good faith, please. "I'm a fan of Thalia... LOL This is all a joke. Thalia and Sony want to hide her failure after so much media support and novellas by making up false sales figures". It is totally ironic, Don't you think so?. Latin Billboard Music Awards, NBC, USA Today and several sources true claim that Thalía has sold 40 million albums. Morover Thalía not only belonged to EMI; In 2006, EMI gave diamond record for selling ten million albums certificates or, I think it was only for the period of 2000-2006. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows Thalia's first 3 albums were commercial failures. Her 4th album, En Extasis was her first with EMI, which came out in 1995. So she sold 10 million from 1995 - 2006. I doubt her first 3 albums sold more than 1 million units combined. They all got the sales figures from Wikipedia, which some random fan, such as yourself, put up on Wikipedia in the first place. Was it you who created this fairy tale figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You mention Billboard, but there is no actual reference. They have never claimed that Thalia has sold 40 million albums. In fact, they have stated that she has only sold about 1.4 million albums in the US in her entire career. http://www.billboard.com/features/ask-billboard-delta-goodrem-thalia-paulina-1003819200.story#/features/ask-billboard-delta-goodrem-thalia-paulina-1003819200.story Now that's a real reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a breach of etiquette: "Was it you who created this fairy tale figure?". Clearly, this is an personal attack. Latin Billboard Music Awards (they have stated that she has only sold about 40 million albums worlwide in her entire career), NBC, USA Today and several sources true claim that Thalía has sold 40 million copies. After all, it seems weird that you believe hoaxes like this: [5], [6], [7], [8] or [9] and without providing references, when you says: In 2008, the British tabloid The Sun, named her as one of "the 50 female singers who will never be forgotten"[1] is not verifiable (Does not it make reference veracity Yahoo! News?). I also find it ironic that you say this: "I'm a fan of Thalia... LOL This is all a joke. Thalia and Sony want to hide her failure after so much media support and novellas by making up false sales figures". This reveals easily that your actions are in bad faith. Anyway... Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it ethical for a Thalia fan to add sales figures on her Wiki page? It does not prove anything is in bad faith. If she has only sold 10-12 million albums after all that media support for 22 years, then anyone can conclude the same thing. I'm only pointing out the obvious. Being a fan doesn't mean I will inflate someone's popularity, which you clearly seem to think. That reveals your obvious bias. As a fan of Thalia, you believe it is your duty to exaggerate her success and popularity and blow wind up everyone's _ss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.74.139 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not for nothing, I am impartial and objective, As there are many references indicate that Thalia has sold 40 million records. After all, many say that Paulina Rubio has sold 20 million records, but has certified in Argentina or Brazil? (And let alone other countries). Or Shakira, no the minimum certifications reach 70 million copies that many media says, or or am I wrong?. But, if you are unhappy. You can propose a comprehensive policy, not only by Thalía, Paulina Rubio and Shakira, but for every artist to have his biography in Wikipedia.. Chrishonduras (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is something I can agree with. I do believe sales figure are inflated for most artists. Personally, unless record sales can be given by an agency granting OFFICIAL certifications, then I think worldwide sales figures should not be listed. It may be true that several sources stated Thalia has sold 40 million albums, but I'm certain they all got that info from Wikipedia. And now it is viewed as fact. There are recent interviews that Thalia gave on TV when she was promoting her book Growing Stronger, like the Today show, where they said Thalia sold 25 million albums. So, again, this 40 million figure appears to have come from Wikipedia.76.228.74.139 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)76.228.74.139 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

¿Supongo que has de hablar español, no? yo también pienso que muchas ventas de artistas y de discos, como Thriller son gracias a la "Wiki magia". Pueda ser el problema con Thalía, pero después de todo ella no sólo ha pertenecido a una compañía disquera, mira con ABBA, las ventas varían significativamente de acuerdo con el medio que se cita (bastante), incluso de año en año. Madonna, Michael Jackson y muchos más es lo mismo, pero el problema es que no hay ninguna política oficial sobre esto. Con Thalía y los 40 millones, pues al menos una entidad como lo es Billboard y su premiación en idioma español lo respalda y muchos conglomerados mediáticos en inglés, español, portugués y en varios idiomas lo reportan. Mientras tanto, es imparcial mencionarlo y verificable. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Her first three albums were com mercial failures? They just didn't have the international impact her EMI and Sony releases had. But they were huge success in her native country and Spain, because of her presenting a TV show, and of course many countries in Central America. Apart from that, these 3 albums havw spawned endless hits collections that were released in the years to come by Universal Music. Even now, collections including hits from these 3 first albums are released. This is silly. As for her releases from En extasis up to the moment, there is something that you totally forget. That they were elbums that were released and promoted in multiple countries worldwide. Amor a la mexicana for example was a huge success all over Europe, as well as Arrasando and Thalia 2002. El sexto sentido also had an international impact, not to mention her English album which was a huge commercial success in Japan, certified as platinum, which equals 1 million copies only in Japan. This number (10-12 million) isn't claimed anywhere. Totaling Thalía's albums sales in Mexico and US is something silly, since she has certifications in more than 30 countries, apart from the fact that it is widely known that Thalía became a huge icon and superstar in many parts of the world, but neved really made it in the US. However, I'd like to point out something, in her book Growing Stronger, it mentions clearly 40 million records, while in half of the interviews for the book this is the information that had been stated, while at the moment the sales figure in Wikipedia was 25 million, a number that came only from those Premios Lo Nuestro. But no one takes into consideration those mediocre awards, when a record company or an editoral claims something else. Apart from all these other reports in big american news sites, especially in the period when she was pregnant, NetWorth of course which counts rich people's wealth state etc. Even Michael Bublé has stated 50 million when he presented her in his TV Special program for Christmas. It's been so many years of discography, certified sales in more than 30 countries, so many awards, so many albums, most of them highly successful, legendary music videos etc. 40 million doesn't sound exaggerate number. What's more, you need to understand something. Neither AMPROFON nor Nielsen nor Billboard have ever stated worldwide album sales for any artist. So, this number is only claimed by a record company or a variety of verified and respectful media (the 40 million number is confirmed by both). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 07:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sailormoon94... you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You provide no references. The 10 million in career sales is found here, which was granted by EMI Music in 2006: http://www.peopleenespanol.com/article/thalia-recibe-disco-de-diamante Platinum in Japan is 250,000 albums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_Japan But you provide no references. Platinum does not equal 1 million units everywhere. In Mexico, platinum = 60,000 units. In the US, for English albums (standard albums) it is 1 million units, but only 100,000 units for Spanish language albums. This info is found on the website for the RIAA. The Michael Buble statement just highlights the dishonesty of Thalia's album sales. First 10 million, then 25 million, then 40 million, now 50 million? At least if Thalia and her management are going to lie about worldwide albums sales, they should do it right.76.228.74.139 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Primera Fila stayed only 1 week in Billboard before vanishing? It was 22 weeks in the chart. Check out Billboard history. I don't about the EMI stuff you are talking, before I don't know how many years ago. The policy in Wikipedia is like this : the most recent statement by an artist's record company is what is taken into consideration to provide the sales. Record companies are the only who know the sales, and since Sony Music claims 40 million, it's 40 million, and it sounds logical. 30 years of career, and gold and platinum certifications in more than 30 different countries. If you think that Sony Music lies, then all the record companies lie for all their artists, does it sound logical to you? This is stupidity. In Japan, platinum certification indeed is 250,000 copies but when Thalia (2003) was released the platinum was 500,000 copies. Furthermore, the only reference about 10 million is People En Espanol's site? A gossip magazine to be taken into consideration above BBC Music, Sony Music, Penguin Books, USA Today, Televisa, Today's show, Huffington Post, Katie Couric's show etc. ? And as for the Primera Fila section you edited, it was all lies. The album lasted 22 weeks on Billboard. Not 1 week. And after all, almost all your edit history includes removing information or vandalising the Thalía article. So, don't you think you take it very personal? It's like you are obsessed to make Thalía look like a loser, but I repeat it is no POP FORUM here, it is Wikipedia, so go and argue somewhere else about what you believe is official, or verified or whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a biased Thalia fan and liar who adds non-neutral points of view to her article. Billboard.com literally archived Primera Fila as having charted for 1 week. Are you calling them liars? http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/latin-albums?chartDate=2009-12-19 You say platinum in Japan was 500,000, at the time, yet you originally said 1 million? Again, platinum does not equal 1 million units in every country. Sorry to tell you. Thalia has only been a solo artist for 22 years, not 30. Any certifications with Timbiriche do not count as a sales figure for her. The 10 million albums is accurate: here goes a video of the presentation from EMI with Thalia accepting the LIFETIME sales of 10 million albums: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHEtT8LcE8 This in no fan page for a delusional Thalia fan... sorry to bring you back down to reality.76.228.74.139 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you an idiot or pretending to be? First, you gave a link with the debut week of the album in the Billboard chart archive...at that week, it was DEFINITELY only one week but if you check the following weeks, the album is there but in lower positions but it is there for 22 consecutive weeks. Secondly, this is a video from 2006 and it counts Thalía's certified sales in her native Mexico from En extasis to the first weeks of El Sexto Sentido (her then EMI era), not the first three Universal albums, not the overall Universal best of releases that are countless, not the singles, not the WORLD sales. The information about 40 million albums came from the Press and Thalía's current record company. It is mentioned in countless sites. It is not irrelevant, you are just uninformed. It's not about being a fan or a hater, it's about common sense, something you seem to don't have. Furthermore, a video cannot function as a reference in Wikipedia. We need text, writing proofs. Can you find an official source that mentions 10 million? In almost all sites, they mention 40 million. When there are capable references for something, it can be claimed. When there aren't, it cannot be taken into consideration, especially when the only source is a video! It is Wikipedia here, not a forum, grow up and go to talk with other Univision members about your music tastes etc. not here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.181.153 (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, sales of Thalía (40 million) are impartial and are not taken from Wikipedia (check history and see also the article in the Spanish Wikipedia). Chrishonduras (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In addition, 76.228.74.139 says: "It may be true that several sources stated Thalia has sold 40 million albums, but I'm certain they all got that info from Wikipedia or, Is it ethical for a Thalia fan to add sales figures on her Wiki page? " I researched the history by years (2007-2011) and never see anything of the 40 million records, so it is clearly not primary source. And the article in the Spanish Wikipedia is protected since 2009 (indefinitely) and never see anything of the 40 million records too also. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "As 50 cantoras que nunca serão esquecidas". The Sun (in Portuguese). 2008-05-13. Retrieved 2012-08-10. 

Important![edit]

According to the terms of Wikipedia, nothing must be removed without discussion with other users in the talk page. If anyone tries again to vandalize the article by edit warring and removing very big parts of information, even whole sentences, should be reported. I think an administrator should protect the page. It is a really well-written article and many users come and vandalize it, by removing verified information and changing it for yellow press. It's not a blog here, please show respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talkcontribs) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph is very well structured, the syntax and structure are exceptional. All information is based on sources etc. NO REASON to edit it. When something is up for debate, come here in the talk page, open a section, let us discuss it and then process to edit the article. Removing information or paraphrasing doesn't make any sense. Come on guys, we are here to improve Wikipedia, not to make bad written articles. You have no sense of democracy?? Of the meaning of dialog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.158.20 (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why the references change in sales if they replace are not better than the other?. Chrishonduras (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not the only problem. The general problem is paraphrasing. It is a well structured paragraph, no need to destroy it with wrong syntax or vocabulary. As for the references, it is obvious that some users have lost their common sense and nullify every valid media that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.69.50 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

First: De10.mx says that Ana Gabriel has sold over 100 million copies? (José José 85 million copies?). In addition, says it has collected data Celestrellas.com and GranMusica.com. So this reference serves no.

Second: says that "Other articles claim Ana Gabriel as the most succesful (no concensus by Media)" is WP:PEACOCK, totally. By contrast, with Thalia, yes we are giving the media that her have named so and there are several, in addition to that are relevant. So this is not for nothing violates WP:NPOV. Do not confuse one thing with another, also use common sense. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this page if you want to know how to properly reference sales by musicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists "Claims" are one thing, "certifications" are another. There are no certifications of Thalia selling 40 million albums, they are only claims, and should be listed as such.Zz2zz (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Certifications are not significant of the sales. Many countries don't even publish their certifications and in other countries some albums are close to be certified. The total sales of an artist are the total sales, not the certified sales. Plus mr. Zz2zz, why are you paraphrasing??? You don't seem to be a fluent English speaker, as you use wrong vocabulary and syntax, so what are you doing here? If you disagree with something, well then edit that certain sentence in which you disagree. But paraphrasing a whole paragraph?? This is editwar. Do not edit like you own the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.166.183 (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

About the structure of the first paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph of the article should remain as it is. I understand having concerns about certain information considering the introduction of the article. Well, here is the talk page, we can discuss about any stuff, try to find sources/references and conclude somewhere. But paraphrasing the whole introduction, changing words, using wrong grammar, syntax or vocabulary, changing the general structure, removing sentences or references is VANDALISING. Please understand that it is against the terms of Wikipedia. So, it would be highly recommended to have fluent English speakers editing this article. People that have poor knowledge of english CANNOT contribute to the English Wikipedia. I think this is common sense. As for the structure, information is placed in a certain order, not chronological, but order of importance of facts, information, etc. Before removing anything DISCUSS, do not act like you own the article by changing the whole introduction, this is clear example of EDITWAR. It is not a forum here, so don't act like that. It is important to have well structured articles, if your knowledge of english is poor, then maybe you should reconsider about editing English Wikipedia. I don't think that my point is hard to be understood, and I don't mean to offend, but it is about common sense.

I also agree with you, not write paraphrase. But please, DO NOT YELL (Better beam emphasis). I already told Zz2zz, that before making drastic changes, he should discuss here. Please remain calm and do not edit war. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of the article[edit]

First of all, I speak and write better English than anyone editing this article.

"As for the structure, information is placed in a certain order, not chronological, but order of importance of facts, information, etc."

If that is true, then years are not necessary because it looks like the article is all over the place. If you want to use years, then it should be chronological, especially since the 'importance' of what is being said is 'subjective'. Generally, though, introductions are summaries of an article's content. There are different styles and ways to summarize (not one write way), but I don't think that the way it is presented looks very professional.

Sentences added by 37.32.166.183 (talk) & 37.32.165.144 (talk) are poorly written. Ironically, this person, keeps speaking about poor syntax. Is this proper English:

"Her major sister, Laura Zapata, was also a singer and she used to take Thalía with her at the theatre, when she was a child. This motivated her to passionately embrace and connect with acting at a very young age." ?

How is my editing not an improvement?

"Her older sister, Laura Zapata, also a singer, used to take Thalía to the theater as a child. This motivated Thalia to embrace acting at a very young age."

I also think that Chrishonduras is being ironic as he clearly has the worst English of everyone here. You tell people that non-English speakers should not edit this article, yet you keep editing it?

I believe that the two of you don't even know what the word 'paraphrase' means. So let's stop pretending. Paraphrasing is when you take another person's comments and write them in your own words. If anything, I edited the article to better state what is actually written in the so-called references. Either way, an article cannot be made entirely of someone's quotes, which is the only way to avoid paraphrasing. What do you think paraphrasing means? Additionally, paraphrasing does not equal poor syntax.

I removed a couple of sentences that were added as original research(no references), which violates Wikipedia standards:

"Some of Thalia's most notorious album releases are En éxtasis, Amor a la mexicana, Arrasando, Thalía and Primera fila. These albums spawned various hit singles and sold millions of copies worldwide." ?

I removed sentences like this because the references are from unreliable sources:

"Big part of the media refer to her as the "Queen of Latin pop", because of her numerous Latin pop hit singles."

People in the US, and around the world, generally know that Thalia is not the Queen of Latin Pop, that honor goes to Shakira, who has outsold Thalia and actually released a successful English crossover album. She will be a judge on NBC's The Voice next year. BTW, I'm not a fan of Shakira (just to be clear). I removed the sentence to preserve integrity because I know people will not take the Wiki article seriously and discredit it. The article is being written like a fan page.

Please read this: WP:RELIABLESOURCES

What I have done is not vandalism. If you want to better understand what vandalism is not, examine this article: WP:NOT VANDALISM In case you didn't know, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected. It seems like a waste of time editing this article any further.

Who takes Wikipedia seriously? When I went to university, the first thing my professors told students was to not use Wikipedia as a reference. Otherwise, your work would not receive credit. I was only trying to make the article more professional, but if you insist that Wikipedia not be taken seriously, then by all means... Zz2zz (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Zz2zzz. First: presumed good faith, please. I am not a native English speaker, so I do not do large editions, only trivialities or, rather, minor edits. But, You know what's ironic too?, before you edited with your "user", you edit with under the IP 76.228.74.139 with arbitrary editions as for example: [10] or [11].

Many times he was told to come to the discussion by to comment on any drastic changes, but it was like "talking to a wall"; Both when I was writing as an IP, like now with your user. Many times you said you had primary sources, primarily on sales, with: "It may be true that several sources stated Thalia has sold 40 million albums, but I'm certain they all got that info from Wikipedia or, Is it ethical for a Thalia fan to add sales figures on her Wiki page?". That's saying something without knowing, it never appeared in Wikipedia, in those years that became official the "40 million" (please, check the history here and check the history in Spanish Wikipedia). With 37.32.166.183 or 37.32.165.144, are from Greece but know English well; and you who are in California or in general, U.S. make errors of syntax and grammar (Definitely, a text has to be fluid). Chrishonduras (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

="Big part of the media refer to her as the "Queen of Latin pop", because of her numerous Latin pop hit singles." This sentence is TRUE. You can check out that indeed huge part of the media refer to her as the queen of latin pop. The sentence is not "Thalía is the queen of latin pop" but "Big part of the media refer to her as...". As for the US, US is not the world. And around the world Shakira's name is not linked to latin pop music, but to pop/rock music. Believe me because I live in Europe and many people don't even know that Shakira has latin origins. Shakira's music is more commercial/pop, while Thalía is widely known as a pure latin artist, that's why big part of the media refer to her as the queen of latin pop. However, this sentence proves that big part of the media also refer to other women with this title, for example Gloria Estefan for the past years or more recently Paulina Rubio. But Shakira is NOT linked to latin pop music, as Thalía is. Thalía based her career in latin pop music and she was recognised in that genre many years before Shakira, while Shakira was becoming huge in the latin rock scene, and later on the English commercial pop music. So, what you say indicates that you are highly irrelevant.

Now, "it is claimed". There is no "it is claimed" for your information. In all the artists' articles, the sales provided are the ones claimed by the record company of the artist or other sources. The "it is claimed" is unecessary, because if it was needed, then in all the articles about other artists there should be an "it is claimed" ahead to their sales. This doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, one sentence, space, one sentence, space etc. seems to be good structure to you? Well, then maybe you should go back to primary school. It is a text that functions as an introduction to an article, two-line paragraphs doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, you mention her 2012 release and its chart performance in the article's introduction paragraph. You think this information is important to be included in the first paragraph?? "In 2012, Thalia released her 11th studio album (12th overall), Habítame Siempre. In Mexico, the album debuted at #3 on the music charts, but subsequently peaked at #1.[22] In the U.S., Habítame Siempre debuted at #1 on Billboard's Latin Albums chart.[23]" Are you serious? This is very detailed information of low importance, while in the first paragraph there should be a general review of her career and achievements.

Later on, you added "In 2013, Thalia will receive her own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, as a recognition of her successful career in music and television." This is FALSE, they do not give her a star because of her work in television, but because of her general achievements and legacy in music and the world of entertainment, as it was stated by the press release of Hollywood Walk of Fame. So, this sentence was rephrased for no reason, being mistakenly stated. "Regarding Thalía's successful career..." It is "regarding TO her career etc.." and you claim to speak English fluently.

"by the mass media, particularly, Televisa, the world's..." A storm of commas. If this sounds good English to you, then Ok...

"This has helped maintain her" this syntax is wrong. The correct is "This has helped her to maintain her..."

"With her productions, Thalía has received several gold and platinum sales certifications in the Americas, Europe and Asia, establishing her as a popular international artist." NO, she is not a popular international artist. She is a "spanish-language crossover artist", this is more acure and correct, since she became popular around the world for having success with spanish songs, not for being a pop artist like all the other artists. You seem to be totally irrelevant to Thalía's career, so I wonder why you edit this article. Thalía is known as a promoter of spanish music heritage around the world, nothing to do with Shakira, so comparing them leads nowhere. Shakira is a global artist that gained popularity with her english songs and her career is definitely not compared to that of Thalía. For example in my country, in the biggest cd stores Thalía's albums are included in the ethnic/world categories, while Shakira's in the dance/pop categories. It's like comparing apples with bananas, two totally different things. This just proves how irrelevant you are.

As for the sentence "she is recognized as the most influential female solo Mexican artist internationally..." No, not as the most influential, but as the most successful in international level. International means out of Mexico. Do you claim that there is any other Mexican artist with bigger international success than Thalía? Then let me remind you about her certifications in Hungary, France, Belgium, Turkey, Philippines, Japan etc.

It can clearly be seen that you remove information that you personally dislike, like you own the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.170.81 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Using commas does not equal poor syntax. Either way, I only added 2 sentence paragraphs because I was leaving the article open for other editors to add something to each section. Isn't that the point? Or do you want to keep contradicting yourself?

Completely rewriting sentences is okay because Wikipedia clearly states that bold editing is not considered vandalism and encouraged, but people here think that every single sentence needs to be discussed before it's edited. Good luck improving the article.

Just because you say Shakira is not viewed as a Latin pop artist does not make it true. That's exactly what she is. Latin pop traditionally refers to artists who sing Pop music in Spanish, not artists who sing ethnic music with so-called Hispanic origins. Thalia released an album in English which I'm sure she wanted to continue doing, but no longer does because it failed for her. Shakira switches between English and Spanish albums because it actually works for her. Nonetheless, Shakira's English albums always have a Latin style to them. And Thalia has also sung pop rock, which is the style of her first album and her 2002 release. Actually, if you look at Thalia's English album, it was done in the hip-hop style, not Latin.

"...certifications in Hungary, France, Belgium, Turkey, Philippines, Japan etc." How much do her albums actually sell in most of those countries? 20,000 units? Not sure that being certified in so many countries is much too brag about with such poor sales. None of her albums have ever sold a million copies in any single country in her entire career, including her native Mexico. Yet she has somehow sold 40 million albums? For example, artist Adele was recently certified by the RIAA for selling 10 million units of her album '21' in the US alone. https://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=newsandviews&news_month_filter=11&news_year_filter=2012&id=EFB7CD0F-C057-0494-A4D0-90A5A385816E That is an actual fact, not something that is 'claimed'. While Thalia's Primera Fila, 3 years after it's release, has yet to be certified gold in the US. Gold for Latin artists is a modest 50,000 units. It's not hard to achieve after 3 years. Do you still consider Thalia the Queen of Latin Pop? She is only the Queen of Novelas.

This article from the BBC, a 'European' media company, refers to Shakira as the Queen of Latin Pop, not Thalia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mrf2v

Also, the article about the Hollywood Walk of Fame does say she is being honored for her work in TV and Music. If you actually knew how to read English, you would notice that they mention her music and novelas. The word entertainment may properly refer to TV, which is also entertainment. Did you know that or what? The article mentions other singers, but also mentions actress Rita Moreno. So you stand corrected: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/thalia-hollywood-walk-of-fame_n_1628329.html

And I wasn't aware that Wikipedia articles were supposed to be written like essays. If they are, then that makes no sense, since it doesn't appear to be the norm if you actually read the poorly written articles. If there is a place that states articles are to be written as essays, then Wikipedia has done a poor job in making sure editors notice their hard-to-find guidelines which seem in vain.

I'm not sure why I'm speaking to someone who misuses the word 'irrelevant' and who doesn't know the meaning of 'entertainment' or 'paraphrasing'.

And everyone around the world knows if an entertainer doesn't make it in the US, they are irrelevant (that's proper use of the word). The US is the entertainment capital of the world and the ONLY one. Does that offend Europeans? Zz2zz (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever...you are a silly person. I will give you an example, a French artist named Mylene Farmer has had over 10 diamond albums in France, she is huge all over Europe and she has sold 30 million copies. Ayumi Hamasaki is one of the biggest stars in Japan, she began her career in the late 90s and she has sold over 75 million copies. She is noone in the US. Believing that the US is the world just proves the level of racist and nationalist you are. Thalía is still huge all over Latin America and of course in many countries, like Greece (which is my country) for example, her records still get gold and platinum certifications. And what you say is not true, because Thalía's english record had become platinum in Japan which equals 1 million copies, apart from other releases like Nandito Ako which had sold over 1 million copies in the Philippines and it is one of the top 5 best selling albums in the country's recording era. And Shakira is not a latin pop artist you like it or not. She has released some spanish albums but her most notorius and successful releases are in english (like Laundry Service or Oral Fixation). However, this is an article about Thalía. If part of the media refer to Shakira as the queen of latin pop, then go and add it in HER article. But here it is Thalía's article and this information is not false. There are indeed sources that claim that Thalía is known as the queen of latin pop, it just depends on the territories. And as for Adele, are you an idiot? Adele sings in English...how can you compare an english-speaking artist with a latin music artist? That's why Americans are disrespected around the world, because they always tend to offend all the other cultures by thinking that they are the only ones with entertainment etc. Come on, don't make me laugh. When music was born in Europe some thousand years ago, in America you were still monkeys up on the trees. "Entertainment capital of the world" You mean the capital of criminality, violence and silly fat people who waste their time in MacDonalds eating cats and dogs with expired potatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.86.10 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Where are the certification's of sales? I'll believe it when I see it. I only brought up Adele as a point about sales. You would think that the so-called Queen of Latin Pop would sell more. Farmer is famous all over Europe? I doubt people in Britain know her very well. The only country in Europe that is a significant territory with international artists is Britain... Adele, Coldplay, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, George Michael, Elton John, One Direction, Muse, The Beatles, etc., and etc. They also have many successful actors in Hollywood. Most American's have roots in Europe, so your argument about monkeys in America is very stupid. America is a young country, but that doesn't mean any one was a monkey. Even if they were, then that means people in Greece were also monkeys. Your statement is nonsense. We have gone very far in such a short time. When was Greece on top? 2500 years ago? And how long did it take? As I mentioned to someone else from Greece, platinum is not a million albums in Japan. It is in America, but not much other places. It shows how uninformed you are. Maybe that's why Greece is on the brink of collapse? If you're any indication, then I'm not surprised. Just because I'm nationalistic that does not make me a racist. I'm sure most people are too some degree. I have never attacked anyone's race. Your comments are very ironic. Also, you should know that civilization as we know it originated in Egypt, not Greece as many Greeks falsely believe. The Greeks copied the Egyptians. And the Italians (Romans) copied the Greeks. Do your research. Zz2zz (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Zz2zzz and 85.74.86.10: Wikipedia is not a forum. Also, do not make racial attacks. This page is to discuss "how best the article Thalía". Zz2zz too many media in English! (yeah!), Spanish, Romanian, Greek, Portuguese and others, who call Thalia as queen of Latin pop; so it's fair to put it that way: " Big part of the media refer to her as the "Queen of Latin pop". And are sources that have said for years. Therefore, both Shakira, Thalia and Gloria Estefan are as "Queen of Latin Pop", such as Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears or Lady Gaga as "Princess of Pop". Chrishonduras (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never intended to have these discussions with anyone. I think the situation shows that Wikipedia needs better guidelines and policies to avoid these problems, so we can all learn from this. Apologies and good luck to you all. Zz2zz (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

=Even the word "music" is a greek word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Does America exist in this article? No. Why? Maybe because music itself originated in Europe and Asia? As for what you say, is nonsense. Mylene Farmer is not that popular in Britain but she has sold more than other British artists, because almost all of her records have gone diamond or double diamond in France while she is also huge in Canada, Russia, Switzerland, Belgium, Ukraine, Poland and Greece. What's more, what about Ayumi Hamasaki? She began her recording career in the mid 90s and she has sold over 75 million copies in Japan. Other British or American artists that sing in English have never had those sales even in international level and even with more years of career. What about the Greek Nana Mouskouri who has sold over 250 million copies? Or Dalida? Edith Piaf? Thinking that only english language artists are successful and that only America and Great Britain have had successful artists indicates the lack of cultural education you have. I'm sorry for you. And as for Thalía, she has had a huge career of over 30 years, she has released many records and her music is popular all around the world. And the certifications exist. You just haven't searched them. And as for Japan, in 2003 when Thalía had released her english album, the platinum certification was equal to 1 million copies. Or maybe you think that organizations like RIAJ or ORICON lie about their certification levels and standards? This is sick. Get informed and stop talking without knowing.

Well, creating a word does not mean you created what the word defines. You cannot claim anyone has created music. It is something that exists in all cultures.

The top 10 best-selling artists of all time are ALL American and British. The one's you mention don't make the cut as the numbers you provide for them are only claims used for marketing purposes like the sales figures used by Thalia. I will believe you as soon as you provide reference links with verifiable certifications. This Wikipedia page has both 'claims' and 'certified sales' for the best-selling artists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

At #10 is Canadian artist Celine Dion, but if we go by 'certifications', we can replace her with American artist Garth Brooks. But his certifications would place him as the 7th best-selling artist of all time, not the 10th. Celine Dion has been certified for 114 million albums worldwide. Garth Brooks has been certified for 128 million albums in the U.S. ONLY, not worldwide. In December of 2012, the RIAA listed the 100 top selling artists in America, not worldwide:

http://riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-selling-artists

Also, Thalia's English album only sold 200,000 units in Japan. In 2003 (when the album was released) platinum in Japan for national artists was 400,000 units, but it was only 200,000 units for international artists (Thalia is categorized as an international artist in Japan). It says very clearly in this Wikipedia page (in the section that says 'Old Criteria'):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_Japan

It's possible that Thalia's English album sold 250,000 depending on the exact date it was released in Japan, but it did not sell beyond that. If an album sells a million copies in Japan, it is given a certification called 'Million'.

I never said only American or British artists are successful. I said they were the most successful. There's a difference. Zz2zz (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough, please. This discussion is hurtful, instead of improving the article "Thalia". Please "be more humble". Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2013[edit]

Life and career: There is really no reason for any of the subheadings in this section to be in italics, as they are not album titles, movie titles, etc.

Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 10:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not entire section headings, no; but some did contain book or album titles. So, Done, but not completely de-italicised, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013[edit]

In Personal life section, the word "familiar" is incorrect. Change each of the three mentions to "familial."Editamerica (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Editamerica (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Native English Speaker[edit]

A native English speaker who cares about this article should take the time to edit it. There are many instances where someone who speaks Spanish is obviously writing the entries because the grammar and syntax are Spanish, not English, even though English words are being used. It could use some tlc. I'm not the one to do this. Wuapinmon (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is a mess, awful use of English[edit]

People who can't handle the English language at an academic level shouldn't edit articles in the English wikipedia. The article is a mess, it needs many corrections. It s full of grammar and syntax mistakes, spelling mistakes, wrong use of punctuation, useless information and poor vocabulary. It needs to be rewritten from the beginning I think or at least someone should become a volunteer and try to correct the thousands of mistakes. And the worst thing is that it used to be much better but an idiot came here (thinking that he/she can write fluently in English) and ruined it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.101.255 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Celebrity worship[edit]

The claims in the introduction section are hugely exaggerated and unreliable. --78.0.210.25 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

They are based on references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.112.44 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thalía. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hypey, fannish tone[edit]

Even a brief look at this article shows that much of it is written in a highly inappropriate, fannish and press-release-like WP:TONE. One bare examples: Hype phrases like "while she is an accomplished author having released four books" has no place in an encyclopedia, which would say "and is the author of four books" — to which I have changed it. I would ask fellow editors to comb this article and replace such fannish phrasing with more encyclopedic wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thalía/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is fairly well written but it could stand to have several of its facts supported by references. One example of this is the following statement: ". . .and has been named one of the "25 Most Beautiful People" by the reputable magazine People en Español many times." This should be an easily referenced fact supported by a link. There also seems to be some "fan opinion" inserted amongst various statements about the popularity of her records. As with any recording artist, there will be fan favorites but unless a signature song exists and is acknowledged by the artist, opinions intermixed with facts do not make the opinion fact. Showing a ranking by Billboard Latino might be an indication of a recording's popularity but again should be supported by a link. Overall, a good effort but a lenghty article like this one should be supported by references which should be easily available for this artist. 71.142.221.66 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Thalía. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Thalía. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Thalía. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Change Profile Pic[edit]

Can anyone update the profile pic for Thalia's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyriver1 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Marriage, crossover, and first tour in the United States[edit]

Since there is no mention of marriage in this section, I have taken the initiative to delete "marriage" from the section title. I imagine it was a holdover from an earlier version of the article that must have been organized differently. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)