Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Mariah Carey talk page (Discussion page). (July 2005 - January 2006) - Please Do not edit!

Battle Over the Top Photo

User:Journalist says: And yes, Im the one who have been changing Mariah's photo at the start of her biography. I just believe that we can find better pictures than the current one where she is in a short mini dress and green go-go boots. It looks really trashy.

Like it or not, that's how Mariah chooses to look. At Live 8 she wore a short mini dress and high heels. In last night's US 4th of July Macy's fireworks broadcast, she wore three different outfits, all of the short and revealing variety. So the top photo that you don't like, is a good current representation of her. Wasted Time R 5 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Someone is editing the photo without changing the overall impression. In the current picture she is wearing a skimpy body-suit and green high heels. I agree that she does like to be photographed looking trashy. However, the picture of her at the MTV awards, in a red evening gown, would be a better top photo.

If someone wants to note that Carey often prefers to be seen in skimpy or provocative dress, which is both true and a point of view, then I would suggest that they add a comment to that effect to the article. The fact that she does often dress to provoke is a fact, but it is not necessary to display it at the top of the article. Robert McClenon 04:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Journalist

Just because she might dress skimpy at times (and it has been said that she has the fashion sense of a 70s porn star), that does not mean that we have to present a picture where she is so exiguously dressed. Can't we still show her with a little class? It matters not if she commonly dresses like that. If she took nude photos, would you place them there too?

If you can find a good, dignified recent photo of her, by all means use it. But the thing you keep putting up there isn't even a photo, it's some heavily processed diva imaging fantasy something or other. Not a good candidate. Wasted Time R 6 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

BTW, I watched that July 4th performance. In the first performance, she wore a blue dress where she was fully covered. On the second performance, she wore a mini dress that was not very revealing. Only on the third performance was she a bit tawdry Journalist 6 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

I also agree that there are too many photos in the article. All we need are a few pics of her albums and the rest can be moved to her discography section. Many pics here serve no real purpose and it causes the article to be crowded.

State of the Article

When are we gonna finally complement the article?; It looks really messy Journalist 6 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

I'm trying to eliminate a lot of duplicate material and unnecessary subsections. That should help a bit. Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

There! I've eliminated the Trivia section as well. If you think about it, encyclopedias should not have Trivia sections. If an item is really trivial, it doesn't belong. If an item does have some meaning, it should be put in the proper regular section.

In all of this recent batch of shuffling I've done, I haven't fully deleted anything except that silly item about her being vain regarding a mole. Everything else was either moved to one of the other articles, or moved within the main article, or was a duplication to begin with. Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

In my view, the article has three major problems at this point:

1. A system of heavy inline citations was started by Extraordinary Machine, but not followed up on by either him/her or anyone else;
2. A lot of important biographical information that was previously in the article is currently absent, as pointed out by Wasted Time R above;
3. There are NPOV concerns and a pending request for comment by FuriousFreddy from two weeks ago that hasn't been acted upon.

My personal vote is to remove the first, restore the second, and wait and see what happens on the third. Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

The numerous references are not required and the article does need to be more biographical. The album articles are coming along much nicer now and everything in them and the single articles shouldn't be in here other than a few short words. I think a good example could be:

Music Box was released in 1993 and became Carey's largest selling LP worldwide. It yielded two of her signature songs, "Hero" in the US and "Without You" internationally. From lead single "Dreamlover" onwards, Carey began a string of successful international hits.

As "Anytime You Need A Friend" had little impact anywhere in the world, there is no need to mention it. Yes, many people in the US believed her career to be in decline because it didnt make the Top 5, but that is for the single article and not for the Carey article. Sales and chart figures are of no use, because all the information is in the article. Signature songs are important because they are what Carey will be remembered for and considered her best works. "Dreamlover" marked a new stage in Carey's career where her hits were massive across the globe and not just in North America, so this is also worthy of note. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 8 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think your version is a little too terse. It should be possible to read just the main article, without reading any of the subarticles, and still get a good idea of what Mariah's career has been about. So it's worth it to state here that "Dreamlover" found as easy, appealing rhythm that she reused in later works, while "Hero" is an inspirational ballad that has been her most-played old song on (US at least) radio. In other words, describe the musical path of her career. The singles articles generally don't convey this, since they focus more on chart action, remixes, etc. But yes, I agree you we can omit mention of minor singles like "Anytime You Need a Friend". Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

RL commitments and activities prevented me from completing the inline citations work, but I will try and finish it in due course. In addition to the biographical and NPOV problems you listed, I think that the article has other problems, such as:

• Too many images. Pictures of every single album cover are not necessary.
• Too much emphasis on how many singles and albums she has sold and their chart positions, and not enough ground covered on what critics think of her sound.
• Closely related to the above point, Mariah's charity work and her career as an actress have barely been touched upon. I'm eager to improve the filmography (her performance in Wisegirls was how I first became a fan of hers), but I don't really know enough about what else she does outside her music career to start anything new. Extraordinary Machine 9 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

Honestly, is there a need for so much reference on the page? Mind you, some of them are needed, but not virtually after every sentence in the article. I have deleted some statements that I think were POV eg "she has a 5 octave range, possibly the greatest range of any pop singer". I dont think we need statements like that. Also, I changed the statement that said 'she was the best selling artist of of the 90s' to 'she was the most successful artist of the 90s according to Billboard Magazine' (Artist of the decade thingie). I'm working on references to put in the article. Hopefully, we can get it to comform to the normative Wikipedia standard posthaste. Journalist 9 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Guess what? I found a site with a database that contains alot of info about Mariah Carey. I'm sure that that site can prove any statement made in the article. The only problem with the database is that each page does not have its own url address, so a link cannot be provided to a specific page. Check it out nontheless. When you access the link, click menu, then news etc and you know the way from there. http://www.mcarchives.com/. Journalist 20:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow the main Mariah Carey article too deeply, and I haven't been looking at all of the debates, and so no offense to anyone, but are references really needed? I don't see most other pop singers having references. Or are they all going to have references too? And it seems like you guys want to reference every sentence in the other article OmegaWikipedia 21:01, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with OmegaWikipedia. Reference is not needed for every statement. As writers, are we not allowed to analyse and expound on data fron other sources with an air of objectiveness? Journalist 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my interference, but really, no article on the Wikipedia has 62 references. Not even articles about complex physics theories... so why would the Mariah Carey article need more than four or five references? Be bold and replace the darn thing with a few useful reference links. --Sn0wflake 01:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree about the references. The amount of references placed in the article is ridiculous. There's one for every line. All of that stuff does not need to be referenced. No other article I've ever seen at Wikipedia has had that many references. --Musicpvm 03:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool, so it looks like a lot of us agree that the references aren't really needed (or at least not that many). So..can we get rid of them now? OmegaWikipedia 02:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I rolled back some of the changes User:Journalist made to the article. I have tried to assume good faith (even when he/she was contributing under his IP address), but looking at his recent edits, I am convinced that he/she is trying to sabotage this article and turn it into a Mariah puff/fan piece rather than an unbiased, NPOV, referenced and verifiable article (which is what all great Wikipedia articles should be). He has removed the entire reference section (even the ones that weren't inline citations), as well as the {{unreferenced}} tag (which, let's face it, is needed on this article), and added POV words such as "expansive" and "impeccable", and I'm sure he/she will continue to deteriorate the quality of this article. It's good that contributors to this article are trying to work together to improve it, but the article will be stuck in the sand for as long as users like Journalist are allowed to run rampant. Extraordinary Machine 01:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Let me explain

I am trying to sobotage the article? The only thing I did was remove the reference tag (bear in mind that I was under the impression that we had all come to the consensus that it was not needed). For my mistake, I really apologise. That was all I did. The 'impeccable' at her vocal profile was POV and I take that back but I still dont know how 'expansive' can be described as POV. Cant we just reverse the changes and move on? Please, don't make 'something' out of 'nothing'. Someone added something about her singing C8 and E2 in 'Whenever you call' (they gave her a range of 5 oct and 5 notes) Those were the only things I changed! I looked at the file that Extraordinary Machine presented that showed my recent edits and it made it seemed like I deliberately tried to destroy the article. An entire paragraph is there that looks like I deleted it or something, but I did not. Now, as stated earlier, I apologise for my mistake but people please get over it. And how am I runnung rampant? I change one thing and everyone is acting like its the end of the world. None of you assumed good faith, you are all biting my head off for one sipmle mistake. Someone even told me to stop editing the article. That was not what I expected when I came here. Is this is what you all call team-work, prasing someone for good work, but biting their head off when they make mistakes? Journalist 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I said you were trying to sabotage the article because you removed the remaining inline citations, a reference which was not an inline citation, added POV words, and took away the {{unreferenced}} tag. All Wikipedia articles should have references, as explained at Wikipedia:Cite sources. This article had very few, hence the need for the {{unreferenced}} tag. It's interesting how you complain of people asking you to stop editing the article, when you yourself have told people to "Leave the article alone", called people who edit it in ways you dislike "fools", and called one other user a "dumb animal" when they commented on your Mariah/Madonna comparisons (see here, here, here and here). Despite what you may think, I am glad so many people are contibuting to Wikipedia, and this article in particular. In order to work effectively as a collaborative project, however, there are rules which users are requested to follow. You are supposed to contribute to articles from a neutral point of view, rather than allow your own opinion of the article's subject to severely influence your contributions. I hope that everybody here can work together constructively to improve articles such as this one. However, if you continue to add POV-orientated words and statements, remove important article content, and dismiss the attempts of other Wikipedians to engage with you as personal attacks, then you may be banned from editing for a period of time. Extraordinary Machine 23:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No sources cited for Vocal Profile section

MARIAH CAREY IS NOT A DRAMATIC COLORATURA SOPRANO PEOPLE!!! PLEASE DELETE THAT BIT FROM THE "VOCAL PROFILE" AT LEAST!!

WHO EVER WROTE THAT HAS A LOT TO LEARN ABOUT CLASSICAL SINGING!!

URGENT: SOMEONE MUST TO CITE AND ADD THE VOCAL PROFILE BACK TO THE PAGE! All of the other major vocalists have a vocal profile listed on Wikipedia (Whitney, Celine, Christina, etc.) Mariah quite possibly has the second biggest vocal range in recorded histroy, yet the Vocal Profile isn't even on the page for Mariah. If someone wants to use a source use http://treylorenzmusic.tripod.com/id15.html at the bottom of the page is an analysis of Mariah's voice that I got from a professor who studies the human voice. Cite that. THE VOCAL PROFILE A FEW PARAGRAPHS BELOW, IS ACCURATE. JUST LISTEN TO THE SONGS, THIS IS NOT RANDOM INFORMATION, ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE SLIGHTEST THING ABOUT VOICE CAN HEAR THE NOTES IN THE GIVEN SONGS. I HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT THE VOCAL PROFILE BELOW BE ADDED BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE.

That page is incorrect. Mariah's lowest note is not a C3, Mariah has hit lower notes than that. In My All, the note was a B2, not C3; she hit C3 in I Don't Wanna Cry, and Im sure that "My all" is lower than that. She has also hit lower notes than "My All", songs such as "Bringin' On The Heartbreak" and "Thank God I Found You". Mariah even did a F#2 on stage, but because some of her notes written down, it cant be cited. I'm all for putting back Mariah's vocal profile, but I have to admit, If it is returned, it will be edited daily be fans who will extend her range to even 5.5-6 octaves. Journalist 21:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you post clips of the relevant sections from these songs? Benwing 04:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No sources are cited for the Vocal Profile section of this article. Furthermore, the actual statistics within this section seem to change over daily, making it high unreliable. In light of this, should this section be removed as per WP:CITE until a reliable external source can be referenced? Comments are requested. Hall Monitor 18:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:CITE guideline :

Disputed statements for which a credible source has not been provided may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material.

Disputed information which, if verified, would remain in an article, should be placed on the article's talk page. Potentially useful information ought to be retained — and by placing disputed information on the talk page, you give other users the opportunity to find sources to support it, in which case the information could be re-inserted into the article proper. This guideline does not endorse or mandate that all unsourced information must be removed: it is recognised that some information is self-evident and that a source for it might not be necessary, or that something may be true and accurate but as-yet unsourced. However, it does make clear that users who, in good faith, dispute information to an article may remove that information and, where, if verified, the material would be suitable for the article, paste it to the talk page. Vorash 18:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The following information is being disputed:

===Vocal Profile===

• Voice type: Full Coloratura Soprano
• Highest notes: G#7, F7#, F7, E7 (G7# "Emotions" at the 1991 MTV VMAs, F7# from "Mine Again", F7 and E7 from studio version of "Emotions")
• Lowest notes: A2, F2, G2, B2 (A2 from "My All", F2 "You & I" at the 2002 BET Awards, G2 from Divas live 1998, B2 from vocal demonstration)
• Vocal range: 5 octaves (F2-G#7)
• Longest note: 20 seconds ("Lead The Way")
• Highest chest notes: G#5 ("Anytime you need a friend", "Mine Again").

The statistics above are being heavily edited on a daily basis, mostly by anonymous editors. In the best interests of Wikipedia, I have moved this section to the talk page until someone can WP:CITE an external source which makes reference to these characteristics. Hall Monitor 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the source that was previously referenced for this section: [1] Taken from Google cache since I couldn't reach it at this time. What I don't know is how authoritative this source is; for all I know it's one of the WP editors who writes at the site as well. Wasted Time R 21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken. After all, it is a Google cache from a site hosted by a domain named www.freehostz.com. Hall Monitor 21:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see the ultimate absurdity in this vocal range stuff, check out Rachelle Ferrell. Practically the whole article is about her range! Nothing about date or place of birth, what records released if any, etc., just range. And, as I write this, the article can't even be consistent about that, stating her range as 5 octaves, 6-and-change octaves, and 4.5 octaves. Wasted Time R 12:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found a page at dutchdivas.net, complete with an audio sample, saying that Mariah hit G#7 during her "Emotions" performance at the 1991 MTV VMA's. Whoever wrote it called it "the highest note in the history of recorded music." Also, at snopes.com, it says that Mariah's voice is "possibly even close to six octaves in range". If we're going to include "fuzzy" facts such as this, perhaps we should make it clear that it is in dispute, and offer various sources backing up their arguments on what they think is true. Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This contribution [2] has been removed because the editor failed to WP:CITE a credible source. Furthermore, it should be noted that immediately after it was added, several other editors immediately began tweaking the values of her vocal profile without citing sources as well. Hall Monitor 16:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This very same discussion is taking place in multiple channels, so I am consolidating this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#Vocal_profile_controversy in the hopes we can achieve a consensus on what should be done with contentious "Vocal Profiles" which are based on original research. Hall Monitor 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Mariah's actually lowest note is a Eb2 and not an F2. Can someone verify this for me?

About the note in "Loverboy"...is that really an A5 in chest voice? About that clip of her against the piano and hitting a C8...CAN SOMEONE UPLOAD AN AUDIO OF THIS? About Mariah's range...if her lowest is an Eb2 and her highest the G#7 then that'd make her range a 5 octaves and 3 notes one. Basically 5,5 octaves right?

Maybe. No one has been able to WP:CITE a credible external source for any of this information. Hall Monitor 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The info on dutchdivas.net looks highly credible to me, and what is says agrees exactly with my own determinations for the samples posted. This seems to be a reasonable source for the high g#7 in "Emotions". If you look below, you'll see my evaluations for the "chest voice" high in various posted samples. No one has posted any low samples, or samples of longest note, so the above info should not be considered credible. In general, this information *should* not be hard to verify. What's important is that [a] the samples for every piece of info cited be posted; [b] only judgments by people who are musically trained should be considered -- most of the people here seem to have no training and hence have no idea how to make such determinations. You are right that all of this could be considered "original research" but it could equally simply be considered fact-checking. "Original research" to me refers to a high-level hypothesis, not simply a verification of basic data; I'm certain that a large % of Wikipedia articles contain some directly observed data. Again, determination of a note in a song *should not be* hard; any well-trained singer can do it and all will agree. Benwing 20:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is this: if an authoritative, reliable, and credible external source is not cited, I can guarantee you that a large number of "experts" and Mariah fans will immediately flock to this section of the article and begin tweaking the figures based upon their own evaluations, with no source to refer back to. This discussion has since been migrated to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#Vocal_profile_controversy if you wish to comment there as well. Hall Monitor 20:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I went and found a copy of "My All" on the net. The lowest note I can confirm is D3, right near the end; not A2. at the very end there is a gravelly section that could be lower, maybe C3, conceivably even B-flat2 (aka A#2). but this is barely singing at all so much as croaking, so it's very hard to tell. however, it seems obvious that whatever is going on here is the very lower limit of Mariah's range, so claims of A2, G2 or (especially) E-flat2 are extremely improbable. (Keep in mind, E-flat2 is the bottom of *my* range, and I often sing Bass II -- the very lowest part -- in a choir.) Benwing 00:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The end of "My all" is definitely lower than D3. The highest it would be is C3. Also, 'My all' is among her lowest notes, but its not her lowest note. That note was in 97. Over the years, Carey's tessitura has dropped and her voice has gotten a bit 'rougher'. That is why she relies on her falsetto to reach notes in the 3rd octave that she used to access in full voice in the 90s. Eb2 is also my lowest note and I dont believe Carey can hit it, nor G2 or F2, comfortably. However, the A2 is possible, trust me. Journalist 01:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you post samples? I can't find any of the other pieces mentioned above, and given the number of questionable claims being made, it's extremely important that all claims are verifiable. BTW I know that it's *possible* for some women to hit A2; one of the altos in my choir could. But this does not mean that Mariah can. The only recorded note below C3 that I've heard was in a Happy Rhodes song, where she sung a somewhat sharp B2, obviously the very bottom of her range. BTW what do you mean by "3rd octave"? Benwing 05:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont know how to post samples. In any case, I dont have the song that she sang very low in; I listen to samples from music sites on the net. I know that A2 is quite rare in female, but singers like Toni Braxton can hit it and Im sure that Ive heard Mariah hit it as well. By the 3rd octave, Im talking about the notes between C3-C4. Remember that Carey 'whispers' when she begins a song in the 3rd and 4th octaves. Her voice fits the diapason of a contralto (with the range of a coloratura), so she can belt in the 5th octave, but she cant sing in the these ocatves without switching to falsetto on every other word (which can be quite annoying at times). Journalist 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Her high notes

Audio samples

• C8 - "Your Girl", The Emancipation of Mimi, 2005
• G#7 - "Emotions", MTV Video Music Award, 1991
• A2 - "My All"
• F8 - "All in your mind", Live version, 1991

Chest Voice High Notes

• C#7 - "LoverBoy Remix", Glitter, 2001
• G#6 - "I Miss You", Charmbracelet, 2003

After listening to the C8's clip I still don't find the C8 note and It's highly doubt that she can go that high because from what I have heard,every source said that the highest note she can hit is G#7.And again NO ONE can hit those notes(C#7/G#6) in chest voice.It's totally fake except the G#7.And the note in My all is B2 not A2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.90.85.245 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have all of Careys Cd and I have never heard that alleged C8 note and believe me, Ive been listening for it quite meticulously. I doubt that she can hit a C8-today. Back in the 90s when her voice was in its peak, she probably could hit it. The highest note she HAS hit is G#7, but that does not mean that it is the highest note she COULD hit!

Also, I beg to differ with 61.90.85.245's comment that no one can hit G6 in full voice. I agree that C7 might be impossible, but Patti Labelle has come quite close to G6 hitting D6 on stage, and I've seen many sources that say that Tamar Braxton, Toni Braxton's younger sister, has belted a G#6 in full voice!

Concerning the note in 'My all'. People have always been saying its A2, C3, some even say E3. That note is infact A#2, Im almost certain and she has hit A2 on stage while adlibbing and 'showing off'. Journalist 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Patti always use mixed voice/strong head voice to hit the note C6/D6(not pure chest voice).No one hit the note above C6 with chest voice(When I say chest voice I mean pure chest voice not that mixed voice or strong head voice).From what I've heard the highest note in chest voice may be C6 from the spanish singer named Monica Naranjo.So,let's alone the notes G#6 and C#7.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.90.85.245 (talk • contribs) 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, if someone will post the appropriate sound clip(s) I can definitely tell you what the correct values are, as I have perfect pitch. The g#7 is definitely correct, as I've heard that clip. Where is the c8 sample? Someone please post the "My All" section and I'll verify that as well. As for the chest voice complaint, I rather doubt that anyone can hit g#6 in chest voice; from what i've heard, even highly trained sopranos like mariah and pat benatar who belt out popular music tend to switch to head voice around f5 or g5. Journalist, you may be confusing chest voice with "full head voice" or something like that. Benwing 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm using a pitch detector tool and she did really hit a c#7 in chest voice (or head voice, but it is sharp and she's not using the whistle register) in her song loverboy remix. and a G#6 in "I miss you". she can sing extremely low like in "Whenever you call" and i thought it was brian mcknight but i was surprised that i'm listening to the album version (with no brian) and that note sounds so 'manly' for the bassy sounds. and concerning with the c8, i think it's maybe even higher 'coz my pitch detector can't read notes higher than c8 so i decided to match that note in the program pitch detector and as well as to my piano. It was definitely a c8 (or even higher). check these files for you to hear.

• C8 - "Your Girl", The Emancipation of Mimi, 2005 you can hear a sharp note in each every verse especially the first sharp high note.
• C#7 - "LoverBoy Remix", Glitter, 2001- she belted out "I-I enjoy"
• G#6 - "Miss You", Remixes, 2003 she belted out "All i do"

I just want to comment on the high tones in chest voice, taking it in my vantage as a voice coach, band vocalist, and songwriter. If I'm not mistaken, the part in Miss You is actually a G#5 and the one in Loverboy Remix plays somewhere a A5 to a B-b6 and to a snap at C6 (very quickly towards the end of the adlib). Mariah hits a B-b5 to B5 in Yours right after the whistle adblib of the word amazing. And I must agree that it is physically impossible to hit a note in full chest voice after E6. After E6 starts the whistle (or to some) super head tone registers. Patti La Belle mixes chest voice with nasal and head voices, thus they sound fierce and powerful, although they are already half or mixed voices. But Mariah can definitely go low, and I agree with F2 on the live rendition of You and I (in the chorus when she sings "in love"). It's hard to pick out mariah's high chest tones because she riffs on top of her high tones. If I may add, when she was in the Philippines during her Charmbracelet Tour, there was a part where she intoduced the band and duelled against the keyboards. I'm doing my best to scout for a copy of that clip because from my recollection, it really was a C8. The keyboardist had to press the last note on the instrument (as focused on the wide screens) and when he let go, Mariah's voice took over. That I still have to verify.

Arctic Flames

^Have you tried matching the note with the piano? the note in "miss you" is way higher than "yours". if i'm not mistaken it belongs somewhere between the half of the 6th octave and the seventh octave. And it sounds higher than the belted notes in "yours". (sort of controlled scream). I also thought it was somewhere between G5 to C6 but when i matched it with the piano and the tuner tool, it's way up there. I also have some other clips of G5 from other artist like jessica simpson and patti labelle singing "lady marmalade". It says from the source site that the note she hits is a g5#. I tried comparing it with the said g5# note in "miss you" but mariah's note sounds much higher and sharper. and about in the "loverboy", it should be measured higher than the high notes "miss you". With the c8 in your girl, has anyone tried to match it with the g#7? i tried it and it sounds much sharper than the two last notes of the "emotions live", so it will adds to her range. And if you have that "live" c8 in the Philippines charmbracelet tour, kindly post it here so i can check with it too. In her live rendition of You and I ( i have it too) she sung even lower than "in love", the line where she sings lower is in the "we can conquer the 'world'" part. listen how low she sings the 'world' . Thank you. Circles overyou 16:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

For all we know, she could really sing from F2-C8 (& over) and have a 5.5- 6 octave range. No one would be happier than I, as I have always believed that Mariah can go both lower and higher that what most people say. However all the above might count as original reaserch and might not be allowed as a source

Journalist 20:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to any of you that it's not which notes she can sing that matter, but what she does with the artist quality of her music? No, I didn't think so. Wasted Time R 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, guys. This is getting slightly out of hand, so I would like to suggest that you all did what we did on Death metal. There was a list of bands there which kept causing long revert wars due to the fact that there are no reliable sources on which band does or does not belong to the genre. To solve that, we created List of Death metal bands and linked it from the main article. There, people can post whatever band they think belongs to the genre and sincerely, it does not harm the main article nearly as much as the previous list did. Why not create Voice of Mariah Carey and make it a short-medium article containing all reliable information you can find and then create a section with her possible highest/lowest notes etc? --Sn0wflake 02:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mariah has sung death metal!? Are you sure? Do you have a reference for that?  :-) Wasted Time R 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought her masterful use of death grunts made that implicit. :P --Sn0wflake 04:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, you're right! And I heard that in 1995 while ad libbing during a soundcheck with a headcold she did pitchshifted vocals but all on her own, without any help! She got down to A(-4)! That makes her range, like, 12 octaves at least! Wasted Time R 16:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (I gotta say, looking at all the WP articles on different metal subgenres, there's some pretty gloomy musicians out there ...)

To the person who said Mariah matched the keyboard live - doesn't a keyboard only go up to a C7? I could be wrong, but that's what I thought it went to. About the C8 - that doesn't match the last note on the piano. I don't know that she'd be able to go that high these days. She hasn't touched anything past C#7 in the past few years. 69.160.116.44 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course Mariah has reached C7 in the last few years. In "I wish You knew" from The Emancipation of Mimi, she hits E7! I agree that maybe she cant go to G#7, but she still can hit her high notes; that part of her register has simply lost some of its power (due to over-use). Also, I dont think her range has gotten smaller, her tessitura has dropped a few notes; her bottom range expanded a couple notes and her high notes might drop a couple steps, but its still the same 5 octaves. Journalist 20:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I forgot all about "I Wish You Knew." Thanks. 69.160.116.44 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought she hasn't simply lost her voice power, i thought she sounds much better these days than the early 90's. She sounds like an alto but now she can belt with more ease and can reach high notes with her chest voice. Concerning with her middle voice, she sounds more 'mariah' now compare to her early careers where she sounds like whitney. And if you watched her charmbracelet tour, she can really hit the same high notes (or even higher like the keyboard thing someone mentioned)like she used to be. I'll stick to that c8 in "your girl" no matter what it's obvious that it sounds sharper than her g7# in "emotions" i've been listening to them right now simultaneously. i've downloaded the musebook thing and it sounds higher.

Circles overyou 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

^i'm gonna ask you which note sounds sharper (higher), the g#7 in emotions or the high notes in "Your girl"? and try to record a c8 note (musebook tuner could help) then increase it's pitch by an octave. The higher the notes the fainter it sounds.

I've had Mimi since the first week it came out. Im Mariah's biggest fan, but Ive listen to Your girl and I still can't hear those alleged C8s. All I've heard are some squeaks and piercing whistle sounds in the background that obviously are mechanical. The piercings sounds do not sound like they are sung. There are squeaky voices in the background when the song starts (even of her in full voice), so whose to say that the 'whistle notes' are not made higher by the studio? Believe me, I know Carey's voice and I havent detected any sung C8 notes. Maybe Im mistaken, however. Ill listen again. Could you tell me exactly where she hits this note?

Journalist 03:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

download the above samples the mariahyourgirlc8.ogg files the squeaky sounds (which i thought isn't a mechanical sounds, i know it, it's definitely her whistle which she used to embellish her musics.) the position of the whistles are as follows: 0:11, 0:17, 0:23, 0:29 seconds. it's almost mechanical because of it's sqeakiness, knowing her, she used to use her whistles as a backgrounds sounds. 219.90.85.234 08:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The notes in chest are in the 5th octave.. when you use a tuner sometimes if the note is powerfull it pickes it an octave higher ..use yur common sense and a piano to check

Attempt to answer this definitively

OK guys, I've listened to all three samples posted by Arctic Flames, and verified what I heard by myself by comparing against a guitar I just tuned.

In *C8 - "Your Girl", The Emancipation of Mimi, 2005:

[1] There is no way you can use that sound. There is no evidence that this sound was sung -- it is impossible to know if it's actually a vocal or mechanical sound, as it is isolated and has no "singing" attached to it, as in the (verifiable) G#7 sample. [2] The piece is in D, not C, and the note itself is an F#, not a C. [3] It does not sound to me like it is in the 8 octave, but (probably) in the 7 octave, maybe the 6 octave.

---

OUT OF THE BLUE-------------------------------------------------

Yes there is evidence that it is her. She sings the same high but short-lengthed notes in the 1991 MTV Awards for the song Emotions. You'll notice it when sings em near the end of the song. It sounds like a dolphin

---

OUT OF THE BLUE-------------------------------------------------

In *C#7 - "LoverBoy Remix", Glitter, 2001:

The note on "I-I enjoy" is an A5 (it's a fifth, and the piece is in D major). Yes, it's chest voice.

In *G#6 - "Miss You", Remixes, 2003:

The note on "All i do" is between a G5 and a G#5 (the note is a third, the piece is in a key that appears between E-flat and E major).

To whoever is claiming your use of a "pitch detector tool" -- you may well be picking out other notes that you think you are. You need to verify against a piano or other instrument, where you can listen to the actual note and/or sing back what you hear, and then check it. However, even then if you are not musically trained (e.g. if you can't figure out what key the song is in), you may make mistakes.

Arctic Flame or other, please post samples of other places where high and low notes are claimed and I will verify. Benwing 05:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please also note, everyone, when you talk about "sharper" as the same as "higher", you are confusing pitch with timbre. Different voices and instruments will sound differently "sharp" even at the same note. Benwing 05:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

after listening the note in the "I-I enjoy" meticulously, it starts from A5 and peaks to C#6. I used the piano and it's not purely an A5. and yes, it's chest voice. Can someone upload her performance in "You and I"? She hits hits a note lower than A2.

Hi! I ask the owner of the site http://dutchdivas.net about the notes you are debating. He says the note in the "LoverBoy Remix", is a G#6 same with in "I Miss You". I also downloaded a pitch detector program to measure and it even says a c#7 in the "Loverboy" and G#6 in "I Miss You". I'm sure that i'm not picking the wrong notes because i edited the file and filter the highnotes only. It constantly reads as a C#7 and a G#6 respectively. Anyone must try because some of you may have a different level of hearing resulting to different results. Use it to make sure 'coz no matter how trained we are using the piano and other instrument, we're not sure how precise are we. user:guest

As for the first unsigned comment, we at least seem to be in the same universe. i hear no c#6 at all; what i hear on "I-I" is a sequence a5, f#5, a5-g5-f#5, the last three in a run; followed by "en" on e5, "joy" on d5. however, i may have missed something. i'd be interested in hearing what you think are the notes on "I-I" and where exactly the c#6 is. btw do you agree with the other things i say?

As for user:guest -- if you aren't trained musically, then even using a pitch program you got over the internet is not going to help. go ask any trained singer to verify the notes and there is no way you will get results remotely like what you are claiming, and they will all tell you that a c#7 in chest voice is simply impossible. how do you know your pitch detector is working correctly? are you aware that any note sung or played by an instrument is not a single pitch but a collection of harmonics over (and sometimes under) the fundamental frequency? given this, all that a pitch analyzer can do is report the various harmonics and (at most) make a guess as to which one is the fundamental frequency, which is likely to be much worse than what a trained ear can figure out. are you simply reporting what appears to be the loudest harmonic on your pitch output as "the" pitch? if so, this is totally wrong. Benwing 04:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm not trained musically but maybe the one who owns the site http://www.dutchdivas.net named Joop Lindeijer is a trained one. I uploaded the song and emailed it to him. The results were:

Hi Leticia,

You ask me something. It's very difficult to measure those short notes. I have to filter the surrounding music, but here are the results:

1) highchest.ogg, at 0.15.6 G#6 2) mariah_imissyou.ogg, at 0.13.4 G#6 3) mariahyourgirlC8.ogg, at 0.11.7 F#7, at 0.17.6 F7, at 0.23.3 F#7 and finally at 0.29.2 F7. So just below here Emotions notes.

About chest voice, this name is actual wrong. It's the lowest register and the singer can feel it in his chest, but he or she uses his/here throat and vocal cords. However, the name 'chest voice' is now a common conception. And high notes you can only sing in the high register. Except bats probably!

best regards, Joop

I used to consult on him whenever i have some questions about notes esp. high notes. I only used a pitch program to double check it. Though the first one the "I-I enjoy" reads as a c#7 and G#6 (same with his results) in "Miss You". The last one is so faint and it didn't register in the pitch program. You can check with him too 'coz he confirmed me that mariah hits that G#6.

OK. Notice how your results are approx. an octave higher than the real results; see the anonymous comment in the above section about this, and reread what i wrote about harmonics. As for mariahyourgirlC8.ogg, note again that his results agree with mine, but as i pointed out above, that note is not a sung note so you cannot use it. Benwing 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Untersifying

As I mentioned above the description of the first album and especially Music Box had become a little terse ... especially so in light of recent in-depth article additions regarding songs written for others, fallings out with others, and acting. (The well-referenced Acting section is now almost as long as the 1990-1996 sections combined!) So, I've expanded those album discussions, with the idea of explicitly mentioning all of her #1 singles (almost all WP articles do this, Carey shouldn't be penalized just because she has so many) while leaving the lesser singles unmentioned, and expanding the discussion of a couple of her really notable singles. Wasted Time R 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Addition of critical receptions

Hey E Machine, good job digging out all these reviews! They pretty much agree with what the article already said, but it's nice to have it sourced, and some of the quotes have pointed out things that weren't mentioned before. Wasted Time R 03:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wanted to see what critics thought of her music; previously, the tone of the article had been "Mariah was a hugely successful singer who had a seemingly endless string of hit albums and singles". I still think there should be a little more about what inspired Mariah's creative process, what her intentions for her albums and songs were, etc. But at least now there's a stronger sense of how she is perceived as an artist, rather than just an extensive rundown of the chart positions and sales for her CDs. I'm a fan, but I really didn't realise that critics liked her so much. Extraordinary Machine 15:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This Mariah site has some critical reviews of her work, as well as lists she

has made:

http://www.geocities.com/mariahchart

MisplacedValidity

Mariah's charity work

I think the fact that Mariah won a Congressional Award (the Horizon Award) in 1999 for her work for kids should be added to the charity section. Here is an article about it: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1426935/19990413/carey_mariah.jhtml

Left side of her face

How about a comment about how she refuses to let anyone videotape or take pictures of the left side of her face? (Possible vanity insecurities?)

Maybe because of her mole on the left side of her chin...

If she dislike her mole so much, why don't she just remove it permanently? The cost is quite cheap though.

Reggaetown?

Is Mariah Carey a reggaetown singer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.180.180 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 August 2005

1993-1996 section

I have some questions about the last few lines of the 1993-1996 section. First of all, who was saying Mariah's voice was deteriorating then? That discussion didn't come up until the late 90s. In 1996 she was considered the best singer in the world. Also, that last paragraph says people criticized the lyrics on the album and that the criticism would come up in later albums. The reviews I've seen say Daydream featured better writing from Maria, and Butterfly definitely features her best writing. The criticism of her writing came more early in her career, not later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.71.128 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 August 2005

Poor links

A lot of the links provided as sources are to Mariah sites, and when you click on them you get a homepage for a site, not an actual article or even an actual news item. I think it would be better if the sources/links were actual articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.71.128 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 August 2005

Comment regarding Carey's childhood stories

In response to claims that Carey made her childhood stories up, which have been archived at Talk:Mariah Carey/Factual Disputes.

Mariah has actually admitted she was a bully in school, so she didn't lie. And whether or not the town was liberal (none of us actually knows), she very well could have had someone poison her dog. It only takes 1 conservative person to do something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.71.128 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 August 2005

Original research again?

From the article:

Highest notes in full voice (no falsetto or whistle register):

G#5 - "Miss You", Remixes, 2003 (info)

Highest Note in Full Voice G#5 , confirmed with Joop Lindeijer from DutchDivas.net.

When I click on the link for DutchDivas.net, it does not take me to any sort of article which confirms that her highest note in full voice is G#5. If an external source is not credited within 48 hours, this portion will be removed; it is already being subjected to vandalism and there is no source to refer back to. Hall Monitor 17:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone just changed it to g#6, which is wrong. the g#5 in this sample is approximately correct, and the sample from "loverboy" (see above) has a chest-voice a5 (that's a very slight bit higher), but given the crap that's going on i think you're right to remove this stuff unless it can be conclusively sourced. (NB given what's happened here i don't necessarily trust any outside source to be correct, either; someone could of course just post whatever they want and then link to it.) Benwing 04:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who sent the file to Joop from dutchdivas.net. He's the one who clocked it anyway so whydon't you ask him whether the note is a G#5 or G#6? He said it was a G#6 and i believed in him 'coz he's working with vocal related stuff. So why need to delete it if someone has proven it right? There were some envious persons changing the stuff to g#5 but sorry, it was confirmed by a trusted person to clocked it as a g#6. Mariah's whistle in G#6 and full voice in G#6 is different in quality, whistle sounds heady and soft but her full voice is rather fierce. I heard there were some males who can hit a G5 in full voice. So how's about women? does it mean they stop below C6? I thought they have shorter vocal cords so they can reach higher notes in chest voice. It's unfair!

How's about the original search? ok if want to find all the highest and the lowest notes of a particular artist, what do you do? Research. But like what you've said references must be cited, we're there, so what's next? It's not an original research actually. The samples were searched by someone else (I haven't heard the song until i discovered it here) and because you guys were debating, I decided to call someone who can do the job. It's done and I thought it was over and I was surprised that here's the debating again. I did some research about the notes and samples about the G5's and G#5's by other artist, their alleged G5 doesn't much this "I miss you" G5 (if it's a g5). I think some of people here needs to have their ears cleaned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.64.100 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that answers that. I will remove this section yet again as original research until a published *and* credible source can be cited. Hall Monitor 16:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote to create Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey subarticle

Well, at 61,606 bytes, this article has become one of the five hundred largest articles on Wikipedia (see [3], which includes lists), and I think that it might be worth considering spinning the "Sales and charts achievements" section off into its own daughter article to reduce the size. Trying to merge the facts into the main text would create a mess, and simply deleting the section wouldn't be fair, as a lot of the facts presented in it are notable (and people have put a lot of effort into researching them). Also, the list of Carey's awards have been separated from the main article, and I think it works well. Extraordinary Machine 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So let's vote:

Shall we create a new Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey article, and re-edit both accordingly?

• Move, per above. Extraordinary Machine 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Wasted Time R 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• OK. Journalist (talk · contribs)
• Agree. ;etstaytogether (talk · contribs)
• Support. That would greatly decrease the amount of bit-switch vandalism to the main article, if nothing else. Hall Monitor 23:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

no

POV TAG

Mariah's range "conveniently changes" entirely too much. Please Provide a reference for this alleged C8, From what's been discovered the note is a Synthesized keyboard sound, So if you cant find a reference to this "alleged" not it will be removed

POV TAG

Mariah's range "conveniently changes" entirely too much. Please Provide a reference for this alleged C8, From what's been discovered the note is a Synthesized keyboard sound, So if you cant find a reference to this "alleged" note it, will be removed

Sales/Chart Records Section

Can someone please list all twelve of Carey's consecutive albums that have sold over 3-million copies. Carey only has 10 albums with 3x platinum or higher status, and they were not all consecutive.

Top pic

I can't see the top pic--60.226.17.162 09:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. At first I thought that it was my computer, but since others have experienced the same problems, we have to consider changing it.

• I have changed the pic to that on the "butterfly album".

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

The new pic (2005 head & shoulders) is the best one yet for the top spot. Wasted Time R 23:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I put the "head and shoulders" pic, but yet again, its not showing. Does anyone know how this can be fixed?

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

I changed the thumb size from 250px to 175px, and the pic showed properly. Achitnis 17:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Middle Name

The intro says her middle name is Angela but in the early life section it says she has no middle name. Which is right? Everyking 05:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I did change it earlier (see IMDB database - which states it as her middle birth name; also noted on my prev edit). However, some of the info in IMDB is somewhat unreliable and I have yet to see another other source replicating this notion. Also I'm not sure if she still has a middle name if ever. Only Mariah or someone close to her will. Since I don't know Mariah or anyone close to her, then we can leave it as is for now. Sorry Journalist; didn't mean to leave you THAT excited. Drdr1989 23:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Can't see the forest for the trees"

...a very good way to describe this article. Is it at all possible to trim this down so that someone who doesn't know the first thing about Mariah Carey, and would like to learn, isn't scared away by the extreme (over) detail present here? Do we really need to know what reviewers thought of her walk-on part in State Property 2? The plethora of external links doesn't help, either. At 62 (!) kilobytes, the article is twice as long as the reccomended legnth for a Wikipedia article. A little bit over is understandable, this is, like, too much, man. --FuriousFreddy 04:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you add a clean up tag to the article? Even if you think it needs to be shorter, it definitely does not require "clean up". --Musicpvm 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to be shortened, and the several dozen (mostly pointless) external links need to be leaned up. The qualities of the images used need to be improved. And there are still plenty of POV issues. --FuriousFreddy 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Freddy. This article is a mess for all the reasons he's mentioned -- AND there's redundant information. Please refer to Wikipedia's Featured Articles in Music for examples of the ideal we're shooting for here. --C-squared 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't read the whole article through in a while, so I give it a try in light of this criticism. It does indeed read kind of slow, but that's due to the reviews and the external links that were added to satisfy previous POV critics, and that far exceeed the referencing given to almost any other popular music topic. If Freddy still thinks there are POV issues, he needs to supply some specifics. The Acting section does seem excessively long and detailed; maybe it could be moved to a separate article, with brief discussion of Glitter and Wisegirls (the only two roles of significance) inserted into the main sections. Another thing that causes drag is the discussion of Mariah's work for others – Lorenz, Penny Ford, 7 Mile, Blaque, etc. Did any of these become hits? They don't seem to be of much significance compared to her own work. The duplicate album discography also seems pointless, given that it exists in a separate article. But in general I think the article is what it is and does not deserve a cleanup tag. And if Freddy is bothered by the level of detail here, he'll change his mind once he reads the articles on her singles! Wasted Time R 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Freddy's already read the articles on her singles, and has nominated several non-neccessary articles for deletion (resulting in the editors here ganging up to have them kept). As far as specific examples, the level of detail in and of itself is not-NPOV. All of these articles could very easily be cut down, and become not only more impactful, but far better. There is POV language used i nthe prose throughout; I will pick some examples out when I have time later. More is not always better, and especially not in this case. Common sense facts do not need ot be referenced; no page on one person should have dozens of reference links like this. It would be recommended that, if you want to cover Mariah Carey in this level of detail, a MAriah Carey wiki should be started at WikiCities or someplace. As far as her coverage (and the coverage of a few others) here is concerned, this is excessive. I know peple don't like the term "fancruft", but it definitely applies here. --FuriousFreddy 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Excessive detail does in this case imply fancruft, but it does not imply NPOV. The material here and in her early 2000s singles articles spells out in elaborate detail how badly her records were flopping. The many inline references are here because of demand at the time; the Hillary Rodham Clinton article looks the same way and for the same reason. I agree wholeheartedly that less is often more, but I think that's a losing battle in Wikipedia; without centralized editing, popular culture topics will always grow longer and longer. Relocation to WikiCities is likely to be unpopular since no one's heard of it or read it. Wikipedia articles often show up in the first screen or two of Google hits, so people with something to say are going to write on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. Wasted Time R 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Understand that an encyclopedia article is never about "elaborate detail". An encyclopedia's roel as a reference is to provide a concise, neutral, and accurate starting point for deep research on a subject. Encyclopedia articles are about general overviews rather than minute detail; note the lack of exacting detail in the Encyclopedia Britannica and other professional encyclopedias. As far as topic growing longer and longer, there must be some discresion involved. I cut down the Michael Jackson article once every two weeks or so, because it keeps getting larger and larger with excessive over-detail. As it stands, it's already going ot be very long, and it certainly doesn't need to be longer. Just because someone adds something doesn't mean that it's to be kept, and often times, whole paragraphs of text can be boiled down to sentences, once unneeded detail is removed. Are you going to clip your hedges, or allow them to grow out of control? --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you've never heard of WikiCities, I'd strongly suggest that you and several others research it and look into it. What has been happening to most of the articles here is that Mariah Carey fans have turned this section of the encyclopedia into a Mariah Carey fan wiki, which is exactly opposite to the very purpose of the Wikipedia. Fan wikis are allowed at Wikicities (and you can set some of your own rules as well). As far as Google hits and knowledge of WikiCities' existence is concerned, I'm certial that if enough traffic flowed to the fan wiki, the Google ranking would climb. Also, links to the fan wiki could be placed here.

The point of the matter is that the articles need improvement, and saying that "there's nothing we can do" and "this and that isn't going to work" aren't helping it get any better. --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions: The extensive details about her album reviews could be moved to the article discussing the album in question. We could also create a new sub-page for her acting and insert {{mainarticle|Mariah Carey acting}} ect. This would reduce the POV (if any) from the main article, and also shorten the article. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Has Mariah Care really had enough acting roles to warrant a seperate page describing each of her roles? The only acting role that should be mentioned in anything more than one sentence is Glitter, the rest need only a passing mention. --FuriousFreddy 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could copy and paste the article as it is, right now, to Talk:Mariah Carey/temp, and then start editing down the main article. Then, we could set up a Mariah Carey Wikicity, move the old article there, and then create various subarticles at that Wikicity such as "Acting career", "Voice", "Charity work" etc. The overwhelming fangush and detail of the Wikipedia articles on her singles and albums may find a home there also. Additionally, we could compare the article with the featured article about Kylie Minogue, another contemporary pop singer. Just my two cents... Extraordinary Machine 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I read of that Kylie Minogue article, it's pretty good (the "image and celebrity status" section could be shaved down some, but otherwise the article covers its subject in just the right amount of detail). I have nominated this article for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, in hopes of (guess) improving the article. I wholeheartedly agree with porting the articles as they stand to a Wiki on WikiCities, and then revising the WIkipedia versions to cut down on the fan-gush. I wouldn't want ot undermine anyone's work (it would be preserved at WikiCities), but it should be obvious that encyclopedic standards are not present in most of these articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the rewrite of the intro;it encompasses the main points in the entir article, but I think that it could be a little more succinct. Also, what I find with the most recent 2005 section is that every news story that is released in the media is etched unto the bottom of the article. The article is, at times, a "Mariah Carey latest news" piece, and though many try to fix the writing and make it more encyclopedic, it still makes the article quite long and over wrought with trivial details. Orane (t) (@) (c) 16:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Half african-american/black

Is it true that she is half black/ african american? My friend said she is.

Well, actually Mariah has tells the media that she is "Mixed," This is not true by a long shot, mixed race is one race equal to another like 50% black 50% white. Mariah however is multiracial with black being one of her many races. Mariah's mother is Irish/American (White) and her dad is Hispanic/Black so if any one is "Mixed/Biracial" its her dad.

Breaking it down to its truest form Mariah is 50% white 25% Hispanic 25% black, that's why a lot of people don't know she's multiracial and think she is of Caucasian background only, because in all honesty she is more Caucasian than anything else. And to me she looks like she is Italian.

I don't see any Minority ethnicity when I look at her. Now they way she tries to look is a different story. I'm all about everyone being themselves and if changing you name to Mimi, darkening your skin with make-up and recording R&B songs makes you feel more "black" I'm all for it no hate here, but one question wasn't she raised by her mother???? So who is Mariah .. Really? She is the only one who truly knows that

Read the article! Wasted Time R 11:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've gone through and fixed any typos or grammar and style problems that I could find. For people who maintain this article, I would suggest taking it to Peer Review, and once that is completed, nominate it for Featured article status. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 19:56

The article sure needs a lot of work, especially the "Acting" section. This section is too long, plus its overwrought with sources (over 30, which is a bit over the top), each of which practically says the same thing, but in different words. Additionally, we could do away with all the sub headings at "Other Activities" and just give a synopsis of everything; sectionalising them using only paragraphs. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of deleting several unneeded enteries from the article. The article delved into far too much details, some of which you would expect in an autobiography, and thats not wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for the matter) is here for. The information given should be as general as possible, so Ive deleted some sections like "fashion and lifestlyes" (things like these can be found on Mariah daily or something), unnecessary controversies (Brenda K starr). Ive allso deleted additional sources that proves the exact same thing as the preceeding one. If anyone feels that these changes were overdone, please revert them and start over.

PS: I accidentally logged out while editing, so the IP address that says something like "major tidying" was me. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, now you mention it, a Mariah Carey "wikibiography" doesn't sound like such a bad idea...:) Extraordinary Machine 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the removal of the Discography, Awards, etc. sections from the main article. Yes, they only contained a link to the appropriate separate article, but putting those sections there made them visible in the Table of Contents at the top. As it stands, someone looking at the top of the article won't know where to find the Discography, unless they go all the way down and search through the lengthy See also list. Wasted Time R 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with some recent edits that are actually increasing the detail of the article rather than decreasing it. For example, we don't need to know the exact peak position of "Crybaby"/"Can't Take That Away" on the Hot 100, just the fact that it didn't make the top twenty. That said, I think this Article Improvement Drive is really helping. So far, about 25kb has been shaved off. It's great to see so many different editors pulling together. Extraordinary Machine 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats true. Sorry about the "Crybaby" thing.

However, the 2005 section wasnt necessarily a mistake. I just assumed that since that section is listed as "2005–the present" it would fit at the last section, as the article doesn not flow chronologically: theres the 2005 material, then the "acting" in 2001-3 below it. It works fine either way though.

Im kinda trying to model it off the Kylie Minogue article, which was a feature article (albiet a pop culture article). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

One option would be to merge the "Acting career" section with the biography, but that might not work, as it may look messy jumping between her music and acting careers in the same section. On a slightly unrelated note, I think we should start working on fair use rationale for the images, which may mean a lot of them would be replaced by others. For example, Image:OSD.jpg could be argued as "fair use" if it were to be used in the article as i) it is a low resolution screenshot from a promotional music video intended for wide distribution, ii) it shows Carey recording a song, and iii) it shows Carey collaborating with another artists (which is important to illustrate as she does this often). However, Image:Mariah Carey in The Bachelor.jpg and Image:Mariah Carey and Busta Rhymes in I Know What You Want music video.jpg may not qualify as "fair use", as the article doesn't discuss the topics related to those images as much as others, and they seem to be being used for purely decorational purposes (though I was responsible for the insertion of both of them). What do you think? Extraordinary Machine 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The merging of the acting into the rest of the article wouldnt be a good idea, See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Also, I think that if there is detailed mention of the song, the image is worth including (as long as it does not crowd the article). "The batchelor" and "Busta Rhymes" images can be excluded; they only contribute to the long nature of the article — which is what we are running from. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Extraordinary Machine 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over use of biography infobox

User:Reddi inserted a biography infobox (using the raw syntax as opposed to Template:Infobox Biography, which is essentially the same thing) into the article, and I undid his/her changes on the basis that it essentially just duplicated information already present in the article's first paragraph. Reddi has chosen to revert my edits, so I thought that I should bring this issue to the talk page (as I probably should have done originally, and apologise for not doing so) so that it can receive input from other editors. Here are the justifications for my edits:

1. Some of Wikipedia's featured articles about music, specifically deceased musicians, use this infobox (Johnny Cash for example). But Mariah Carey is still alive. It seems rather odd-looking (and a little morbid) to have an empty "Died:" section in the infobox, as it is having "(March 27, 1970 - )" in the first paragraph, almost as if somebody is "waiting" for her to die.
2. I am also concerned by Reddi's expansion of the image caption for Image:Miss Carey.jpg. Per the Wikipedia:Captions guidelines, image captions should be succinct, whereas the caption for the header image is almost as large as the image itself. It also contains information that bears little relevance to the image (which was not taken at the World Music Awards), and would be better off in the main body of the article, where it has more context.

If there are no objections, I will remove the infobox and restore the image caption and lead section to their previous state in a day or two. Extraordinary Machine 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing "morbid" to have an empty "Died:" section in the infobox ... everyone is gonna die ... it's just how things are done in biographies (from my experience and understanding) ... if someone hasn't died, you leave it blank (again from my experience /understanding) ... as is having "(March 27, 1970 - )" ... it's a technical thing IIRC ... no one is "waiting" for anyone to to die, it's a 'writing convention'.

As to the caption .... a "caption breathes life into the picture by providing context and adding depth". Though being succinct is an ideal, other consideration should be viewed ... such as how is this image (the lead one) to "draw the reader into the article and provides context for the picture (her accomplishments; What is noteworthy about the subject of the picture?) and consists of one or more complete sentences.

But I care little about this article (and saw it on one of the "to-do" lists) ... just thought that it added something to the intro ... Sincerely, JDR 16:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with everything that you say; the info box is unnecessary, and the died section makes it seem as if we are just sitting by, waiting for it to happen :(. Em, your changes, once again, we reverted by Reddi, and the info-box was put back. I've rolled back Reddi's contributions. Just a note: this cannot go on; be careful of the 3RR! Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I once read an article in a Belgian newspaper, where MC complains about her having lost a lot of money, on her record deal(half of the income is was for Sony)and on her marriage.

Issue over number of Carey singles

An issue involving the number of Mariah Carey songs with articles has become thorny. Too thorny. There are articles for "So Lonely" and "Mine Again" despite the fact that they won't be released for another few months. Is it really necessary to have these articles when their release has not even been confirmed? I feel not. --Winnermario 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey!!!

I think you are the best singer. I'v chosen you to do my English biography!!! Good luck with your singing carrier.

                 Love one of your biggest fans 
                          ~leandra~

Top pic

Not too sure of the current one.:( Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's public domain, while the other one was copyrighted, though I agree with you that it isn't the best. Apparently, Wikipedia prefers public domain or free license images as opposed to copyrighted fair use images; in fact from what I've been told in the past, one of the criterion for fair use is that there are no free alternatives available, which is no longer the case here (that doesn't mean all fair use images have to be trimmed from this article, just the top one I think). There was a similar discussion over at Talk:Britney Spears#Top photo. If this seems confusing, don't worry, I was extremely baffled by all this talk of "fair use" and whatnot when I first encountered it, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use page is quite helpful in explaining about image copyrights (also the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use is quite interesting to read). Also, I sent an email to the official Island Records website a while ago asking them if they could donate an image of Carey under a free license, but unfortunately I got no response. Extraordinary Machine 00:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are others photos of Carey somebody uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons that I listed at Category:Mariah Carey, and the one at the top of the article was the best of the bunch (in one of them Carey looked green :)). Extraordinary Machine 00:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

.ogg files

Having trouble playing the .ogg files, I can normally play .ogg files, so I'm not sure if these are corrupted somehow or otherwise.

--Jen Duane 00:16, 15 November 2005

They have been deleted by User:Zzyzx11, as he discovered that they contained executable Microsoft Windows code. See User talk:Paulfajardo. Extraordinary Machine 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert of edits by 195.167.118.100

I can understand the time and effort that went into these edits made by 195.167.118.100 today, as well as previous similar edits made in the past few weeks by (I'm assuming) the same user here and here. On those two previous occasions I undid most of his/her edits because I felt that they violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and am about to revert again, for the following reasons:

1. You have radically changed the tone of the article. For example, Charmbracelet was a critical and commercial failure, Glitter was more panned than your tweaks make it out to be, and while reviews for Music Box and #1's were quite good, they certainly weren't excellent. Also, Carey's career decline began with Rainbow (not her breakdown and the release of Glitter in 2001), which received mixed reviews.
2. You have referred to Carey as "Mariah" in the article, which is not only inconsistent with how the rest of the article is written, but introduces a "fanzine"-esque style to the article that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
3. Carey is moderately well-known for her acting work, and an entire section of this article is dedicated to her career as an actress. It seems odd not to mention this in the lead section of the article.
4. You may not have realised, but this article has been previously tagged for {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}}, was the subject of a request for comment, and less than a month ago went through an article improvement drive. Several editors (including myself) have been working quite hard over the past few months to de-POV, reference, refine and trim this article, and they will not appreciate attempts made by individuals to revise the article according to their own personal opinions of Carey. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and also consider creating an account here. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Great cleanup job.

The article is much-improved now...although would a short, simple list of albums and number-one hits be too much for the main page? --FuriousFreddy 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you were exactly right about the ref/notes and external links cluttering up the text of the article. It looks much cleaner now, and the trimming of a lot of the critical quotes (many of which, especially in the acting career section, were added by me, I'm ashamed to say) has also helped a lot, as well as cutting away some of the detail about the sales and chart positions of her records. While the article certainly isn't the best it can be, it's gradually getting there (you were instrumental in this, Freddy), and I think it now provides a relatively succinct overview of Carey's life and career while steering clear of trivial information. I've just inserted a slightly modified version of the number one singles table you originally created for the article a month ago, as well as a simple list of albums. Also, I recently tried uploading uncropped versions of Image:IBT.jpg and Image:OSD.jpg, but the images on Wikipedia have been acting up lately (for me, anyway) and they aren't loading properly on the page. :-( Extraordinary Machine 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

POV?/Source needed

Regarding this statement, "The strain on the family led to the divorce of Carey's parents when she was three years old," I think a source should be provided. How does anyone know what led to the divorce? Did Cary or one of her parents say it? Logophile 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement was confirmed in a CNN People in the News segment that aired last April, which I have included in the references section. You can read a transcript of it here. The specific quote is: "Her parents struggled tremendously with prejudice. They would move into a neighborhood and discover that their dogs were poisoned. That created a lot of tension between the parents so that they split by the time Mariah was three years old." Extraordinary Machine 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links. This should mean excluding offical web sites of an artist or their fan club.

If an external lyrics site is included, it should be found on the page that discusses songs for a specific album. The link should only contain lyrics for the specific album.

Example the following site has lyrics for each separate Mariah album

(link removed)

65.95.127.85 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right in stating that Wikipedia is not a repository of links; however, per Wikipedia:External links, official websites should be linked to, as well as sites that are used as references. In fact, Wikipedia has specific templates for the formatting of links to IMDb and TV.com. The Live 8 and lyrics links may be stretching it a little, but there's little reason to exclude the others. Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icons

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... I'm getting so frustrated at the fact that MC is always getting deleted from this category, especially when you consider the fact that this category contains such questionable entries like Christopher Meloni, Rose McGowan, and Richard Cromwell. Anyone who has even stepped foot in a gay club or talked to a gay man would be a good enough source, but for those who live their life by print:

• http://www.gay.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=398
• http://accept.ong.ro/buletin6eng.html#enter

These are just the first two pages that popped up in a Google search, there are PLENTY more where they came from. RobbieNomi 21:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Question, Is Mariah considered a reggaetown singer?

Requests for FA

When are we gonna nominate this article for FA status :) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the references still need formatting properly, and I think there are too many quotes from All Music Guide reviews. I don't believe that it's ready yet. Extraordinary Machine 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible references

Here are some references off of Proquest. Sorry there isn't more material for her early work; for some reason Proquest isn't letting me access many newspaper reports from before the late 90s. If you have reference requests for a specific album or song, I may be able to oblige, but here is a rather random assortment:

• Re Don't Forget About Us: "We Belong Together" certainly restored Mariah Carey's A-level status at radio." "On its own, "Forget" is a soulful, satisfying track, but it suggests that Carey has hit a creative wall. Even so, radio does not seem to mind." (MARIAH CAREY: Don't Forget About Us Chuck Taylor. Billboard. New York: Oct 29, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 44; pg. 69, 1 pgs)
• Re Emancipation of Mimi re-release: "It has been a liberating and lucrative year for Mariah Carey, whose latest CD, The Emancipation of Mimi, has gone platinum four times over since its April release. Not one to rest on her laurels, the diva is releasing The Emancipation of Mimi: Platinum Edition on Nov. 15 in two separate formats. The CD version will include all 14 tunes on the original Mimi, along with four additional tracks: fast-rising new single Don't Forget About Us; So Lonely (One and Only Part 2), a collaboration with Twista with a new verse penned by Carey; What It Look Like and a remix of We Belong Together featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., previously available only digitally online." " A limited-edition CD/DVD version also will include videos for It's Like That, We Belong Together, Shake It Off and, in its U.S. debut, Get Your Number with longtime Carey colleague Jermaine Dupri, plus a link to access the just-shot video for Don't Forget About Us. " (Carey is looking golden with 'Mimi: Platinum'; [FIRST Edition] Elysa Gardner, Gary Levin, Donna Freydkin. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Oct 14, 2005. pg. E.1)
• Re Shake it off: "The bouncy midtempo single finds the resuscitated diva dumping her disrespectful, cheating man while name-checking Louis Vuitton and Calgon. The tune is straightforward and simple-and the sparse thumping beat wisely doesn't distract from Carey's unmistakable vocals." "After "We Belong Together" brought her back to radio big time, "Shake It Off" will take Carey's good fortune to the next step." (MARIAH CAREY: Shake It Off (3:54) Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Jul 16, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 29; pg. 62, 1 pgs)
• Re Emancipation of Mimi: "Former top songbird Mariah Carey has sent fans scrambling away with the movie-CD debacle "Glitter," the failed comeback of "Charmbracelet" and an abundance of overall wackiness." "Although ridiculously titled, Carey's 10th and latest CD, "The Emancipation of Mimi," is easily her least generic and most consistent CD since her over-rated debut" "Carey's comeback actually feels genuine this time around, thanks to two out-of-the-box hit singles in "It's Like That" and "We Belong Together,"" "It's Like That" is an immediate club track, [...] The beat is sparse but potent, and she sings an immortal dis line: "Them chickens is ash and I'm lotion." "We Belong Together" is a more traditional romp that succeeds despite crossing Usher's "Confessions" with Lil' Jon/ Usher's "Lovers & Friends."" "On much of "The Emancipation of Mimi," Carey finally discovers her soul -- and her old soul at that. Perhaps this newfound emancipation is allowing her to dip her toes into retro R&B/neo-soul waters, where Carey sounds more comfortable than she has in years. Carey even seems to have finally realized that she doesn't have to scream the paint off the walls on every track to prove she can sing." "Carey is certainly more at home here than she had been with some of the hip-hop slop she had immersed herself in."" (Forget Mimi, Mariah is emancipated; [Five Star Late Lift Edition] Kevin C. Johnson. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Apr 21, 2005. pg. F.3)
• Re Emancipation of Mimi: "Carey's new album is, at heart, a pleasing return to the midtempo R&B and powerhouse ballads that made her the biggest-selling female artist of the '90s. The disc is front-loaded with the requisite handful of edgy club numbers boasting ego-stroking cameos from Twista, Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dog, and Nelly." "Carey is a limo-loving superstar who sounds a lot more like herself dropping product placements for Bacardi and Louis Vuitton, and singing the praises of her house on Capri and her sick hot tub, than she did on the cheesy personal remembrances of "Rainbow," or the faux hip-hop, plastic funk, and adult contemporary shlock she's investigated during the last half-decade." (MARIAH CAREY SOUNDS LIKE HER OLD SELF; [THIRD Edition] Joan Anderman GLOBE STAFF. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Apr 12, 2005. pg. E.1)
• Re We Belong Together: "Mariah Carey is on the comeback trail. With new single "We Belong Together." she builds on the momentum of recent hit "It's Like That."" "On "We Belong Together," Carey delivers a return-to-form R&B groove ballad. It's a stellar I-shoulda-known-better-please-come-back-to-me song, with her vocals taking center stage" (MARIAH CAREY: We Belong Together Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Apr 2, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 14; pg. 30, 1 pgs)
• Re It's like that: "After years of underwhelming singles, Mariah Carey finally returns with a certifiably hot track. "It's Like That" is a sparse, bass-heavy, beat-driven cut that is primed for radio and dancefloors. For too long now, Carey's vocals have shifted between breathy near-mumbles ("Boy [I Need You]") and overwrought multilayered wails ("Through the Rain"). With "It's Like That," she goes back to basics. With a mostly straight-ahead delivery, Carey reminds us why we fell for her pipes in the first place." (MARIAH CAREY: It's Like That Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Feb 5, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 6; pg. 33, 1 pgs)
• Re Charmbraclet: ""Charmbracelet," Carey's ninth disc and the album she's touring behind, is the worst of her career, revealing a voice no longer capable of either gravity-defying gymnastics or soft coos. Carey's still got the superhuman high note - which she produced right out of the gate Monday during set opener "Heartbreaker" - but frankly it sounded more like she was whistling through her ear than singing music." (FOR CAREY, THE GLORY'S GONE BUT THE GLITTER LIVES ON; [THIRD Edition] Joan Anderman, Globe Staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Sep 10, 2003. pg. D.4)
• Re United Center Concert: " The closest Carey came to something soulful was Def Leppard's "Bringin' on the Heartbreak." Other than that, the show was as rote and dispiriting as the ramshackle roadside circus the stage sometimes resembled. Maybe that's what once mighty Mariah gets for picking a butterfly as her personal mascot: nice to look at, but not the best harbinger of longevity." (Stylish Carey strains in search of soul; [North Final Edition] Joshua Klein Special to the Tribune. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Jul 31, 2003. pg. 4)
• Re Charmbraclet: "While fans of her early-'90s material will find much to embrace here, those that rallied 'round the singer during her hip-hop days may feel lost and abandoned." (Charmbracelet Michael Paoletta. Billboard. New York: Dec 14, 2002.Vol.114, Iss. 50; pg. 29, 1 pgs)
• Re Charmbraclet: "The rest of the album is strangely muddy: On songs such as "Yours," Carey's lead vocals blend into choruses of overdubbed Mariahs cooing overlapping phrases." "Charmbracelet is nearly wall-to-wall Mariah. Tempos plod, and hooks are few. Carey needs bold songs that help her use the power and range for which she is famous. Charmbracelet is like a stream of watercolors that bleed into a puddle of brown." (Charmbracelet Barry Walters. Rolling Stone. New York: Dec 12, 2002., Iss. 911; pg. 93, 1 pgs)
• Re Glitter: "When employed correctly, Carey's pipes can convey a range of colors: earthy indigos, sun-dappled golds and blinding, ethereal whites. And her phrasing, which draws from pop, R&B and gospel, gets sharper with each release. Indeed, the main problem with the "Glitter" soundtrack was that she didn't sing enough. There were too many guest rappers taking up valuable song space." (Voice puts Mariah back on right track; [Home Edition] CRAIG SEYMOUR. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Dec 3, 2002. pg. E.1)
• Re Glitter: " "Glitter" is also an absolute mess that'll go down as an annoying blemish on a career that, while not always critically heralded, was at least nearly consistently successful."" (MARIAH CAREY'S NEW "GLITTER" IS A FAR CRY FROM GOLDEN; [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition] Kevin C. Johnson Post-Dispatch Pop Music Critic. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Sep 16, 2001. pg. F.5)
• Re Rainbow: "Overall, the new album is a major disappointment. " (Mariah Carey's Lackluster 'Rainbow'; [FINAL Edition] Richard Harrington. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 1999. pg. C.01)
• Re Butterfly: "Released in the wake of her marital estrangement from Sony Music Entertainment mogul Tommy Mottola, this album is easily the most personal, confessional-sounding record she's ever done. " "Carey gets most adventurous on a gorgeous, soulful version of Prince's "The Beautiful Ones." The lyrics are even more intimate and telling in her hands. If this track is representative of what we can expect from her, Carey-bashing just might become a thing of the past." (POP MUSIC; Carey Gets Personal in Her Latest Release; *** MARIAH CAREY, "Butterfly," Columbia; [Home Edition] Connie Johnson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 14, 1997. pg. 58)
• Re Music Box: "after hearing her heart-piercing "Music Box" album..." ""Music Box" is easily the most elemental of Carey's releases, her vocal eurythmics in natural sync with the songs that examine the personal ferment of faith, particularly fidelity to one's most private emotional ideals". (Mariah Carey's stirring 'Music Box' White, Timothy. Billboard. New York: Aug 28, 1993. Vol. 105, Iss. 35; p. 5 (1 page) )

--Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The quotes you found will help improve the article, as well as the relevant album and single articles. Thank you once again! Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is time I pitched in to improve Mariah Carey's article. In its current state, it isn't going to the nomination house for some time. Is there anything in particular that I could be useful for? —Hollow Wilerding 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well okay. I suppose I'll be fine. —Hollow Wilerding 01:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced and possibly untrue sentence removed

Per WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute, I have trimmed this unsourced and possibly untrue sentence from the article ahd moved it here: Carey continues to collaborate with hip-hop artists, and is a featured artist on singles by Damizza, Twista, N.O.R.E. and Da Brat. Is this true? I mean, has she recently (i.e., in the last year or so) been a featured artist on singles by these artists? Any help in clearing this issue up would be appreciated. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The charts

I have cited a source for Carey's peak positions in Canada. I'd like to ask why the chart exhibited in the article is limited to her number-one singles? I understand how her singles discography is quite lengthy, but I'm stumped over the matter of displaying her number-ones if we are incapable of showcasing her entire chronology. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See Mariah Carey singles discography. Carey's released far too many singles, and the article is big enough as it is with her number one hits included. And this edit you just made is borderline vandalism; please do not disrupt an article just because you haven't received a response to a comment you made on the talk page. Extraordinary Machine 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not vandalism because I did not remove the chart from the article; I merely excluded its presence until I received a reply. Honestly though, Extraordinary Machine, I'm sure you have this talk page on your watchlist if you have Carey's single "Hero" watched. Also, I would appreciate it if you did not restore "Huntington, New York" in Carey's template. If Carey were German, I highly doubt the template would read "Greiz, Thuringia, Germany". We cannot just assume that someone in Australia is going to know where New York is located. See the Céline Dion article if you're not quite sure what I'm talking about. The lead section can include the city, province (or state), country. The template should include the city and country. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have almost four hundred other pages on my watchlist, some of which are subject to frequent vandalism, so I apologise if I didn't notice your comment being left here. That said, it's absolutely unacceptable to disrupt the article "until [you] received a reply". At the very least, you should have left a second message inviting other users to participate in the discussion. "Greiz, Thuringia, Germany" may be obscure, but "Greiz, Germany" is, in my opinion, even more so. With all due respect, we also shouldn't assume that someone will know where Huntington is either (especially as there are some two dozen communities by that same name in the United States); however, they may be more likely to know where New York state is. Extraordinary Machine 23:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I did not disrupt the article. After all, I did receive a reply, did I not? Attention, attention. Just learn how to play your cards right. You bring up a very good point regarding the cities and provinces (states). I'm not sure if I'm overly fond of it though. However, I'm not asking for an edit war, so I'll just leave the template the way it is for now. You're doing a good job on the article, by the way (everyone who has contributed that is). Comparing the article to what it was in July 2005... I'd say we've come to an excellent conclusion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine, does Berlin, Germany sound unusual? How about "Berlin", [province or state], "Germany"? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing or obscuring content from the article for no reason other than to attract comment on the talk page is simply unacceptable. I don't think "Berlin, Brandenburg, Germany" sounds strange. Extraordinary Machine 15:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your first comment yet again. If you find including the province (or state) that Berlin is located in strange, then why should it be acceptable to add the states of the United States or the provinces of Canada? This places emphasis on the U.S. and Canada as their specific territories are included in the biographies. Also, I believe that this is a violation—well, no, not a violation—but I believe this interferes with the neutral point of view policy. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I said that mentioning the state or province in the infobox doesn't sound strange. Extraordinary Machine 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, pardon my... error. However, that does not excuse the fact that it violates the NPOV. The template requires three separate wikilinks. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore my above comment. I don't believe that I read your comment properly yet again. Excuse my foolishness. All is clear EM, thanks. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's' 18th #1 single?

The wire story on Carey's 17th, picked up by multiple media outlets, included the Whitburn 18th fact. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/en_nm/singles_dc and http://channels.netscape.ca/entertainment/article.adp?id=20051223085909990001 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201166.html

A fuller explanation may be found on Billboard's own site: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/chart_beat/bonus_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001736670

The various year-end statistics (Top Artists/Airplay/Ringtones/etc.) come straight from the magazine's December 24 issue.

Billboard magazine themselves state that Presley's "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" counts as one single and not two (as mentioned in the Washington Post article you linked to above), though it's probably worth mentioning on the Don't Forget About Us article (if not here). As for the reams of information about Carey's standings on the year-end charts and sales tabulations, I think that it's unneeded excess, which is what we've been cutting down on for the past several weeks. The section on The Emancipation of Mimi, which isn't even her most successful or well-received album, is now about as long as the whole of the section covering Carey's first three albums. If we dedicated equal amounts of text to her other albums, the article would become bloated beyond belief, even more so than before. I've reverted again, and I suggest that the information be moved to the We Belong Together and The Emancipation of Mimi articles (as well as the aforementioned page for Don't Forget About Us). Extraordinary Machine 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Removing context ends up fetishizing numbers for their own sake (and lends this entry a fan's "vanity shrine" character). John Kerry's Wiki page doesn't merely report that he got "the second-highest vote total in U.S. history!" and end there.

It's a little incredible that you think the excised information-- considered pertinent enough by the Washington Post, and which is hotly debated in the very pages of the magazine whose rankings are here celebrated as new records-- is "extraneous detail." Carey's chart accomplishments are quite impressive enough, without whiting out the backdrop against which they've occurred. Case in point: the Beatles had 20 #1s in 6+ years, Carey's had 17 #1s in 15+ years, and Presley had 17 or 18 #1s in 22+ years. Obviously this entry isn't the place to discuss the changes in the industry and Billboard's charts that aided and impeded the three acts in accomplishing their totals, or to dwell on the respective acts' concern and/or strategies about achieving those chart placements. But to say "Mariah tied Elvis, and look out Beatles!" tells us little. Indicating the most notable difference with a short, neutral addition ("during their six-and-a-half-year heyday") doesn't exactly bog down the article.

I've tried to shorten the material, dropping the references to other contemporary artists. I hope the changes now meet with your satisfaction.

• • • • • And so the deletion party continues.... if the subject matter is "all-time Billboard Magazine records," and there is active debate WITHIN BILLBOARD MAGAZINE on the SPECIFIC RECORD BEING CITED, the discrepancy behooves a mention. "Their statistician isn't them" is an inane point when their statistician continues to produce official Billboard publications citing the total of 18.

You know, by some standards the Hot 100 chart doesn't count until the various charts were combined in 1958, meaning that Elvis Presley only has seven #1 hits, not 18. By that methodology, he shouldn't be mentioned at all. Chicago Cubs outfielder Hack Wilson was long credited with 190 RBI in a baseball season, the all-time record. Later research uncovered a 191st RBI, and both competing totals co-existed for decades. The point is mentioned in the second paragraph of Wilson's Wikipedia page.

If you want to talk about Carey tying Presley, then you have to deal with the question of whether she has. (Yet.)

The number-ones

Now does anyone care to address my concern of the chart? If it continues to expand, this article will be filled with hundreds of ones, which I'm sure are already present. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should delete the number ones, we already have a discography of Mariah and it's on there, it's just a fan thing.--Hotwiki 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the opinion that it's not worth mentioning her most notable hit singles (in fact, user:FuriousFreddy requested this), but the number-ones chart has completely spiralled out of control. Singapore? Israel? Is there a lot of point including information on such minor markets in the main article? I'm trimming them all except for the U.S., Canadian, UK, Australian and Japanese charts. If anybody thinks that a different set of countries should be listed (e.g., if one of the five I just listed is not notable enough), please say so. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now removed the Japanese positions as they were not referenced. Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then again, are the UK and Australian positions referenced? It doesn't appear so, unless I am blind as a bat. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have sourced the Japanese chart positions with two references. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the list of number one's is out of control. Maybe a separate page for the list should be made? - (ThisIsMyName 09:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Mariah's Middle Name

• According to imdb.com as well as other sources, Mariah's middle name is "Angela". I have inserted it to the page several times only for someone else to come behind me and delete it. Who ever is doing this contact me and tell me why you are doing so. Lesanichelle 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Carey has no middle name, and this fact is supported by references. Like Wikipedia, IMDb runs almost entirely on user contributions. Unlike Wikipedia, false information is notoriously hard to correct as IMDb isn't a "wiki" and everything has to be processed manually by a handful of paid workers, resulting in numerous delays (I myself have submissions still pending from last August and earlier, and some important sections of the database are backlogged from July 2004). I'd hazard a guess that most other sources to list her non-existent middle name as "Angela" took their information from IMDb. In any case, they seem to have finally got around to updating her biography as it no longer says anything about her having a middle name, be it "Angela" or "Ashlee" or anything else. Extraordinary Machine 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks a lot for clearing that up, because I was getting really FRUSTRATED!!! Lesanichelle 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Autobiography birthplace

Is the birthplace of Mariah Carey no longer to be included in the article itself and solely in the template? —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

it's under "early life and discovery" -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Am I the only one who thinks that the picture of Carey at the top of the page should be more representative of what she actually looks like?

Having her dressed up as Marilyn Monroe seems strange.

Is there not a more relaistic picture of what she looks like, perhaps from "The Emancipation Of Mimi" artwork, maybe the one billboard.com uses when she is at #1 - you can see it when you search for her on that website.

Best would be a photo where she's tastefully dressed, normally posed, and not engaging in any affected or overdone mannerisms. I don't think any such pictures exist! Wasted Time R 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow -- mature! Why are you editing the page if you hate her so much? BTW - I like the pic from 18:06, 7 January 2006 -- can we get permission for that one?

As the article says:

Carey's fashion sense has itself often been criticized for exposing too much of her, or just being poorly put together.

There used to be a fuller discussion of this, complete with recent attempts by fashion gurus to improve her look (apparently unsuccessful), but it got thrown out with everything else that was interesting in the article, in the Make It More Encyclopaedic movement. Wasted Time R 12:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you hate her, of course you would write that! She is more covered up than Madonna and Christina Aguliera will ever be, yet they get decent pictures that actually LOOK LIKE THEM!

Trivia?

Why has the Carey trivia section been removed from the article? I've been looking at some of the music articles in Wikipedia's Featured Articles in Music, and many feature a lengthy 'Trivia' section (ex. the Beatles). I think the trivia section that had been deleted from the article be put back, its obviously not violating Wikipedia standards to the point where it could no longer be considered a 'good' article or anything more. - Grey Pursuit January 8, 2005 (UTC)

It was removed some time ago as I recall, with the relevant material being integrated into the body of the article. I personally am opposed to trivia sections, as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If there isn't a way to work a trivia item into another section of the article, then it really doesn't belong here. Extraordinary Machine 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Layout of 'Biography and music career' section

The recent work on this page is brilliant, however, I feel that the layout of the 'Biography and music career' should be more structured -- at the moment it doesn't appear from it's layout that she has been in the music business for over 16 years.

  1.1 Early life and discovery
  1.2 Early commercial success
       1.2.1 1990-1991: Mariah Carey
       1.2.2 1991-1992: Emotions
       1.2.3 1992-1993: MTV Unplugged EP
  1.3 Worldwide success
       1.3.1 1993-1994: Music Box
       1.3.2 1995-1996: Daydream
  1.4 Independence and a new image
       1.4.1 1997-1998: Butterfly
       1.4.2 1999-2000: Rainbow
  1.5 Personal and career struggles
       1.5.1 2001-2002: Glitter
       1.5.2 2002-2004: Charmbracelet
       1.5.3 2005-present: The Emancipation of Mimi

I'm no Wikipedia expert, so is it possible that if people agree with it, then a 'proper' Wikipedia editor could do it -- I'd probably just mess it up! Got Soul Not Solider 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to order sections in articles based on the titles of the musician's albums. Another user who suggested this said that they thought it worked on the Madonna (entertainer) article, but that's only because it is bloated enough with excess detail (and is in need of an overhaul/rewrite) that there is enough material on each album for its own section without making it look too choppy. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article, "sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow". Additionally, the second section header under "Biography and music career" begins with 1990 and the last one begins with 2005, so the reader does learn that she has been in the music industry for so long. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool -- the Madge article was were I got the idea! I just thought that the article could do with more detail, but you're right, it could make it choppy. Byy the way, if you feel that way about the Madonna article, why don't you edit it?! Got Soul Not Solider 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

live performances

Is it too delicate to mention Mariahs liveperformences? If not they should be mentioned...or are you afraid of telling the whole story....

Mariahs week liveperformences must be mentioned in your article ( Signed MusicBoy )