Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Mariah Carey talk page (Discussion page). (January 2008 - August 2008) - Please Do not edit!

Voice

Are we really sure her voice has been estimated at five octaves? Is this from a legitimate source, I couldn't tell from the citiations.

I'd rather estimations were not included if possible, but the point made that anything else left to go on is rumour, and wildly inaccurate at that, is valid. I've even heard that she's only has one and a half. Again, that's as unsubstantiated from what I can tell as the 'estimation' (what's this estimation based on?) that she has five. I'd rather for sake of clarity have the line: " It has been estimated that she has a five-octave vocal range" and all subsequent variations removed from the article until it is a definite fact. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

I may take it out for now. I'd prefer the actual facts though. Obviously this is a source of contention, therefore it's easier and better if the suspect elements are removed. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Stop changing it back please until you can verify the "estimation" and the validity of the "estimation". Thanks. (P.S, Reidlos, you seem to have many complaints and queries on your talk page regarding your edits to this page, my advice would be to stop, or to only revert changes to proper claims that can be verified, and to only add things you can back up). (StevenEdmondson (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay, seriously, stop it or defend it. I'm open to options. At the moment it's baseless. Lets keep it to the facts, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RHYTHM AND BLUES?!

First: it is not rhythm and blues; it is contemporary R&B. Second: Mariah Carey is a pop/R&B (contemporary, of course) singer, with a hip hop twist in the latest albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.9.191 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Siblings?

I couldn't help but notice there is no mention whatsoever of Mariah's sister Alison [1] in the early life and family section, or anywhere else for that matter... how come?! Why are only her parents and the fact she is the youngest of three nameless children mentioned? Also, interestingly, if you search wikipedia for "Alison Carey" it redirects to Mariah Carey, although there is no mention of Alison on the page whatsoever... weird! Omgplz (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is probably no mention because its not relevant, or the story you believe you recall is not true, or no reliable cites are available. Wikipedia does not contain gossip that cannot be verified. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger Freidman is NOT a Movie Critic

It says: and Roger Friedman, referring to her as "a Thelma Ritter for the new millennium", said, "Her line delivery is sharp and she manages to get the right laughs"

Sorry but Roger Friedman is NOT a movie critic, He is a news reporter for FOX News, and Fox News is not a movie reviewer. So why is it relevant to have some random news reporter say something about her role? New York Times, Rolling Stone, EW, those are publications that do reviews, not FOX NEWS. Its looks like some Mariah fanboy is trying to dig hard for a reason to say she's a good actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswhite85 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Celine Dion the best-selling female recording artist, per World Music Awards?

I read in a couple of articles that Celine Dion has surpassed record sales of Mariah, according to World Music Awards in 2004. Mariah was awarded the same in 2000. Though the worlwide sales figure of World Music Awards is doubtful and uncertified (since Guiness which seems to be more credible claims Madonna is the best-selling female of all-time), is there still a reason to place the statement in the introduction that Mariah was voted as the best-selling since that has already been broken by Ms. Dion. Any thoughts? Diphosphate8 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the basis of World Music Awards for giving citations/awards to recording artists like Michael Jackson, Celine or Mariah? I don't seem to get it. In the U.S., Garth Brooks and Elvis Presley are the 2 best-selling male while for the female singers, Barbra Streisand and Madonna are the 2 biggest sellers. Mariah, Whitney and Celine would just follow in order while Michael is only in 7th place among the males, yet World Music gave the award to Michael and Mariah? This award-giving body seems to be confusing...Diphosphate8 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just anecdotal on my part, but if Mariah was "crowned" biggest selling female artist in 2000 and Celine in 2004, it seems that Mariah would have regained the title by 2008. Celine's popularity has declined rapidly over the last 5-7 years, while Mariah's declined and then resurged dramatically. So it seems that Mariah would have easily recaptured the title between 2004 and now. I don't have anything empirical to support that claim, just mere reason and logic. (Acero2310 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

actually i just checked soundscan and mariah surpassed celine so she is the best selling in the states.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.129.62 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Best selling in the states?!? Are you for real? LOL! Honey, you're refering to Soundscan and that was established only in 1991 so it's not really a good source of album or single sales in the U.S. The only institution that certify single/album sales is RIAA. And according to RIAA, Mariah is the 3rd best-selling only and she's behind Barbra Streisand and Madonna. But when it comes to worldwide figures, the international phonographic federation declared Madonna as the best-selling female.

Now here comes the confusion w/ the World Music Awards. It's an award that's up to now being doubted by the industry cause no one really knows where they get their so-called "worldwide" figures cause apparently there's no global institution that certifies records. In 2000, Mariah was voted as 'the best selling female' but 4 years later, the same award-giving body claimed that Celine Dion was the best-selling female of all-time. So there! Diphosphate8 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The best selling female artist..belongs to Madonna. Celine has 2 flops album for the past few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually anything dated before SoundScan is questionable. Before 1991, those times are jokingly refered to as "The Washing Machine Era". Reason why is because Music executives would buy washing machines(etc) for "special" (radio etc) people in order to make radios(etc) proclaim that a certain record was number one. Back in the day, that's how things worked. twinqletwinqle 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annhoang (talk • contribs)

Celine is "The Best Selling Female Recording Artist in World" which means it's just currently (ann how wouldn't she, when she recorded million albums - LoL). She isn't the best in history. When Mariah sang The National Anthem on Superbowl, the speakerman said: "An now, to honor America, performing the national anthem, the best selling female artist in history - ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Marih Carey."User:Iggy Ax (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

--PatrickDion22 (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Celine Dion is currently the best selling female artist of all time. She was presented with the Chopard Diamond Award in 2004 for ammassing over 175 million albums wordwide. In April, 2007 Sony BMG stated that Celine has sold in excess of 200 million albums. This doesn't even include her French albums before she signed with Sony in 1986.

Wrong! The world Music Awards gives out that award to artist who have sold in excess of 100 million records, not to the best selling artist of all time. Madonna is cited by various sources, not just her record company to be the best selling female artist of all time, which still isn't necessarily true. PhoenixPrince (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Mariah and Celine were presented with the Chopard Diamond Award in 2000 and 2004 respectively, and they were cited all over the world as being the "best selling female artists in the world" in their respective years. By 2004, Celine had sold over 175 million albums worldwide, and that was referenced at the World Music Awards. Today, she has sold over 200 million albums and IS the best selling female artist ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Celine Dion is the best selling female in the world, better yet more then one source other then her record company, because there are tons of sources that say Madonna owns that tittle and not to mention other female artists who have been like Alla Pugacheva who is cited as selling over 250 million albums, Cher is cited as selling over 200 million albums, and Nana Mouskouri who is cited as selling over 300 million albums. In other words these inaccurate and unverifiable claims of who is the best selling female musician in the world are irrelevant and I'll make it my personal duty to edit them in a manner that better reflects the truth. PhoenixPrince (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you do not have the authority to "make it your personal duty to edit" anything. Celine Dion is a featured article and people constantly making edits will compromise the legitimacy of this article. Just because you do not approve of what is on this article does not mean you have the right to change everything. Your account may be deleted.PatrickDion22 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm last time I checked, wikipedia was open to any user who felt it was suitable to change information deemed "unencyclopedic", or POV and since saying making a claim that Celine Dion is the best selling artist in the world is not factual, I have the authority to remove it. Are you familiar with the rules? If the article is featured then that means that the information should be correct and if its not anyone can feel free to edit it until it's right. Don't threaten me with deletion,your not an administrator, you don't even have a user page. PhoenixPrince (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are proving my point with every word you write. You have no proof whatsoever that the statement is wrong. There have been no qualms with the Diamond Award statement before you came along, and I get the feeling that you are only changing the statement for personal reasons. If you continue to edit a statement that doesn't need any changing then I will submit your name to an administrator.PatrickDion22 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have proof, it's on the WMA website, out of the horses nouth. Just because no one else caught it doesn't mean it's not wrong.But wait you don't have to contact an administrator I'll do it myself. PhoenixPrince (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs cleanup if it is going to keep featured article status

This article needs a going-over if it is going to keep its featured article status. There are problems with the references, as well as some grammatical and factual errors. There should also be a picture in the infobox. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

THEMES & MUSICAL STYLES

Practically half the section is filled with "citation needed". Where are the sources? This is obviously some Mariah fan's opinions, hence the lack of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.105 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article has become a fansite. A fan's opinion on her themes and music. There are plenty of critics that talk about her work in their reviews, yet everything says "citation needed" because its a FAN's opinion, which obviously is blinded and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswhite85 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

why is there so much unsourced material in this section? I will be removing it if no source is found.

Taller is better (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Taller is better

Hip hop?

Is Carey a hip hop singer? Her remixes seem like she is rap-singing. I'm not sure. Charmed36 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dated Eminem?

From When the Music Stops (by D12/Eminem), Eminem raps:

Before I do that, I beg Mariah to take me back

Not sure if this really helps Mariah's article at all, but it's worth mentioning in case someone wants to add their relationship (if it's even true) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.223.97 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a big thing about this a few years back, and there was still a lot of confusion. Carey claims that they were never sexually involved and only dated a few times; but the stir came because Eminem was claiming they had an affair. It might be worth mentioning in a sentence, since they were dating for a couple of months and it did cause a lot of media attention and hype at the time. 128.113.195.102 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not replace free images by fair use

I am fed up of restoring Image:Mariah Carey in Holland in 1998.jpg. So, anyone removing free images and putting fair use will be blocked. Vikrant 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty rediculous that the same picture has been on this page forever. Several times people have tried to update the image and it continues to return to this same old picture from 10 years ago. It is not an accurate picture of what Mariah looks like, and with the many tours and appearances that she's done since this picture was taken, there is absolutely NO reason why another picture can't be found. I encourage the higher ups on this site to block the person(s) who insists on having this same picture rather than finding one that is both appropriate and more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 127.0.0.1 (talk)

Born in 1970, not '69

• Although few sources like People magazine and IMDB claim she was born in 1969, numerous and more reliable sources say she was born in 1970. Mariah's own mom along with a birth certificate says she was born in '70. People magazine claim that her management slipped out that she was born in '69 in 1992, yet even in 1990 her management said she was born in 1970. Even this interview from 1990 is proof:[2]LAUGH90 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it and she didn't say she was bor in 1970, she just laughed. Maybe she was hiding that she got held back at school for all I know of. Then she would have graduated at 19 and this would hav happened when she was 21 instead of 20. I don't really know, even though I am a big fan whether she is 37 or 38, so the video didn't provide any proof. --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I can finally confirm that Mariah was born in 1969 because I was watching Making the video for Touch My Body and she just mentioned that her and Brett Ratner were born a DAY apart and he was born Mariah 28 1969..and he also mentioned that "Mariah was born the day before me" so really if they were a year apart they might have mentioned that so I guess Mariah was born in 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.221.65 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Important facts not always cited

The article is looking a lot better than it did a couple of months ago in terms of the quality of the writing. Good job. At the same time, there are still a lot of facts that have no references. I marked a bunch of them. Maybe a few of them are excessive, but you would have to agree that some more work needs to be done if you are going to include specific facts like piano lessons at six and $28 million contracts.Tkurt (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are excessive, and I'll be reviewing your requests when I have the time. Many of your requests are unwarranted; you don't need citations for every sentence. Additionally, as I told you earlier, you repeatedly request sources in the middle of sentences, even when they are referenced at the end. Orane (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of uncited claims. If she SAYS something, then there should be proof of that somewhere on the net. Eg. "Carey said that she cannot read sheet music and prefers to collaborate with a pianist when composing her material, but feels that it is easier to experiment with faster and less conventional melodies and chord progressions using this technique". If she indeed made that statement, it shouldn't be hard for you to find a source for it. Otherwise it just appears as if some fan just added it in as their own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taller is better (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Age Dispute

I know my supplied source is a valid one. It is the U.S Copyright Association (a government office) who has that record. Please do not remove the date of birth 1969 unless your valid reason is made know. As much as I love Mariah Carey and her music, this seems to be her real age. You did not supply any source, therefore, I have no choice but to change the year of birth back to 1969.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• [3] [4] [5]

At the Oprah Winfrey Show interview in 1999 Mariah's mom said that Mariah was born in 1970, saying "and in 1969 we where in that neighborhood and in 1970 when she was born (meaning Mariah) we moved out of the neighborhood" —Preceding unsigned comment added by F9o0oly (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a gigantic fan, but still my sources are more accurate being a government office's website. Anyone can say anything. Anyways, since I'd really like to believe that she is 37 years old and even less, I'd give you the leeway (not the right of way). Also, since one of your sources include the reliable Billboard, I actually believe this source over the copyright office. I don't know why. Maybe it's because back then people made lots of mistakes and now everything is computerized.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can also back up that she was born in 1970. I found this on the US Search on birth records:[6]. It says that she is currently 37 (turns 38 in a few weeks) which means she was born in 1970. Apparently, when she came out in 1990, she tried to lie about her age and say she was older than 20 (21 at the time) for other purposes.71.175.78.209 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to "Honey"?

Can anybody explain to me why the sound box with the Honey file was removed? Reidlos (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can i Add a link

http://mariacareyvideos.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaubo22A (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

late response but no. That website’s old, and it’s made with blogspot which is not an reliable source. Rosiedanugbtugn (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Mariah as songwriter

Hello, everyone. The following sentence caught my attention: "Carey co-wrote the tracks on her 1990 debut album Mariah Carey, and she has continued to co-write the majority of her material since." Don't you agree that it would be more accurate to say that Carey continued to co-write ALL of her ORIGINAL material? If you check the credits of her entire discography, the only tracks she didn't co-write were the revivals (The Wind, I'll Be There, Without You, Open Arms, The Beautiful Ones, Against All Odds, one or more in Glitter, and Bringin' on the Heartbreak). Hope you all give this a thought, because songwriting is an important aspect of her artistry and therefore deserves this kind of attention. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.141.79 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she did co-write "The Wind".---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to give her credit. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.141.79 (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly standard technique in the music industry, that when someone supplies a new song, an established performer demands a co-writing credit before agreeing to record it. The real writer acquiesces - better to receive half the royalties for a song that sells millions, than all the royalties for a song that goes nowhere. Carey may indeed receive a co-writing *credit* for all original material. This does not ncessarily mean that she actually *co-writes* all or any of it. AuntFlo (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you went pass want her misunderstood public persona, then you would have found that she writes the lyrics and melodies herself. She only needs a pianist so she can work faster because she has said that she is a weak piano player. Only in recent years has she really started writing lyrics and creating melodies with other people, but she still is doing the mojority of the work. She has been writing since her early teen years.

Mariah Carey has always been touted as writing or co writing her own material, that's a big part of her image, and most of it is co written with Walter Afansieff. PhoenixPrince (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at "Heartbreaker", for a good indication of her writing, she's the "only" writer on that record. The other writers are credited as a result of the sample "Attack of the Name Game", and Jay-Z is credited for his rap. twinqletwinqle 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annhoang (talk • contribs)

Mariah Carey's vocal range

Mariah Carey's entire range is more or less 5 octaves, able to emmit several low notes like A2 (My All[harmonyzed]), B2 (My All[Studio]), C3 (Emotions) and incredible high notes, among these, there are notes like B6 (Star Splanged Banner, Someday), C7 (Bringing on the Heartbreak), D7 (There's Got to Be a Way), E7 (Emotions), F7 (All in Your Mind), G#7 (Emotions live on Arsenio Hall and MTV Awards). So counting from A2 to G#7 we will see that there are 5 octaves in range. This includes chest voice (A2-A5), head voice (Bb5-D6) and Whistle Register (Eb6-F7).

Nice old high school pic!

That old HS pic is really nice! It really looks like Mariah!!! Cool! And I believe the yearbook states that she was born 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has the yearbook. When someone can supply her birth certificate or a real ID card, then that is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• According to the birth records I have, she was born in 1970, but graduated in 1987, not '88.LAUGH90 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

I made a userbox for us :)

This user is a Mariah Carey fan.

Feel free to copy and spread around! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Billboard-Elvis-Global edits

Some of the text you're deleting was hashed and rehashed and re-rehashed over a year ago. Billboard's having reduced Presley's total from 18 to 17 number ones is a volatile topic in the chart-watching world. Check the Mariah Carey edit log, then keep the "for the most number-ones by a solo act according to Billboard magazine's revised methodology (their statistician Joel Whitburn still credits Presley with an eighteenth)" wording, which provides concise and accurate context, and which was the end result of much past discussion. Other text is unnecessarily wordy, such as "therefore" passing Presley (we all know that 18 is higher than 17) and "she is now second only to" the Beatles (ditto 20 and 18). Citations 74 and 75 duplicated chart information, so I deleted the first. #76 (all Australian #1s ever), and #77 (all Japanese #1s by non-Japanese) appear to be sound. If you have any other concerns, please feel free to address them.One Sweet Edit (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of the citations provided state that Carey has surpassed Presley in the list of most number-one singles by a solo act. They say nothing however, about Presley being reduced from 18 to 17, unless I've missed something, in which case I am wrong. I agree with your queries about wording but The Beatles bit must be in relation to Carey, as just saying "The Beatles have twenty number-ones" is not, I also think it reads better if we say "Carey is now second only .... etc". Eagle Owl (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, judging from this citation: [7]. What should we do? Any thoughts? Eagle Owl (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One Sweet Edit is actually referring to North America, not the UK. In North America, Elvis apparently had a double A-side ("Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog"), which some people consider two singles, not one. A full explanation is here. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote from the link:

On the Best Sellers chart, two-sided singles were considered one entry, or one hit. Just as in later years on the Hot 100 "It's Too Late" / "I Feel the Earth Move" by Carole King would be considered one No. 1 single and not two; or just as "Candle in the Wind 1997" / "Something About the Way You Look Tonight" by Elton John was one No. 1 single and not two, Elvis Presley's "Don't Be Cruel" / "Hound Dog" counts as one No. 1 hit and not two. [...] Because "Don't Be Cruel" and "Hound Dog," two sides of the same single, charted separately on the airplay and juke box charts, Whitburn counts them as two No. 1 hits. That's why Billboard reports 17 No. 1 hits for Elvis and Whitburn comes up with 18.

SKS2K6 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more overt than that. For decades, Billboard also used to list Presley as having 18 number one singles. Then the magazine rejiggered its criteria and methodology, and retroactively lowered the numbers for various artists (for #1's, Top 10's, Top 40's, etc.).

Since fans of both Presley and Carey are especially attentive to all-time chart accomplishments (i.e. both artists' "Number Ones"-style compilations), the 18/17 topic is somewhat tendentious. Say Elvis has 18 number ones, and you're throwing an unfair obstacle in Mariah's path. Say Mariah has beaten Elvis, and you're cheating The King.

This past week's wave of wire service publicity notwithstanding, Billboard's official stance is schizophrenic. Fred Bronson asserts the company's current party line in his "Chart Beat Chat" column, but all of Billboard's authorized "Top Pop Singles" books are overseen by Joel Whitburn, who has opted to stick with the original totals.

As mentioned in my first post above, this is not a fresh issue, and a slew of edits and deletions and reversions led to the sentence fragment in question: "...for the most number-ones by a solo act according to Billboard magazine's revised methodology " (their statistician Joel Whitburn still credits Presley with an eighteenth)." Plus a linked citation, for any readers interested enough to pursue the discrepancy further. The thing to do is to put the well-hammered language back.

Eagle Owl's point about phrasing the Beatles in relation to Carey is well taken, so I'd suggest keeping his version.One Sweet Edit (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference to the "18/17" discrepancy, as per the above. One further bit of "inside baseball"-style subtrivia regarding Billboard's shifting methodology: although Billboard officially "de-certified" one half of the "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" pairing for #1 counting purposes, they continue to list it as having been #1 for 11 weeks, a total which is only possible by combining the chart runs for both sides of the single. It's a bookkeeping mess.One Sweet Edit (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire statement is unnecessary, if Diana Ross technically had 18 number one singles, she'd have eighteen number one singles period. The billboard charts are all very technical. If this is worth mentioning then why not include the nine number one singles Paul McCartney had outside of the beatles which makes his total 29. It serves no purpose really. 69.209.220.63 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Although technically, Diana Ross has sung the lead vocal on eighteen number-one singles, she sang twelve of them as the lead singer of the Supremes, and, therefore, is not typically listed as the vocalist of eighteen charted number-ones. If this were the case, Mariah Carey has matched her success, as well."

Ridiculous claims on her vocal range... AGAIN...

"According to most sources, she has a five-octave vocal range, though some credit her with seven or eight octaves."

OK, shouldn't it be clarified that NO CREDITABLE SOURCE has said that she has these seven and eight octaves? These were mostly ridiculous claims by Sony trying to promote her.

"According to The Guinness Book of Records, there is no other singer who can hold a higher note than Carey."

What ever happened to Georgia Brown?

Inaccurate calculation of Music Box

If Mariah's album "Music Box" has sold a total of 30 million albums, why is it then that Madonna's "The Immaculate Collection" (21 million copies) is no.30 on the All-time United World Album Chart and Mariah's Music Box is at No.47 on the same chart? [8] I think you will find that the figures shown are inaccurate and are a gross exaggeration as the European sales have been added twice. This brings the album down to 20 million copies which explains the lower positioning on the UWC. JWAD (talk) PS just because a PR or record company statement claims it is 30 million doesn't mean it accurate!

I agree. People keep adding "30 million copies sold" and do so WITHOUT any valid sources. It is vandalism and provides false information to readers.PatrickDion22 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of new image

Hello there. I saw this image of Mariah performing at the Grammys and its free. Check it out. --Efe (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New lead by Shankbone

I have put the one I think is my favorite, but reasonable minds can differ and I'll let the regular editors of the article decide which of these should be the lead. Carey is *very* particular about images (just FYI). Happy Editing --David Shankbone 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

All the images are good; in my opinion, though I personally prefer images 2 and 3, but I see nothing wrong with the one you selected being on the page: it looks nice, portrays her well, and even better, it's a free image. Excellent work. Acalamari 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Journalist added 2 into the article: while I think that 1 looked great, two is even better. Again, excellent work. Acalamari 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These are great and I guess you're associated with Mariah Daily Journal. Did you take any pictures of her performing on Good Morning America. Those pictures would be nice to use. Thank you very much for the lovely free images.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Engaged?

Confirmed: Mariah Carey & Nick Cannon Engaged! jengod (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course - the engagement ring is in the photo. --David Shankbone 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• That does not confirm anything. A "source" is a bunch of lies always found in the tabloid world. She is not engaged.LAUGH90 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gossip about marriage

If someon finds a reliable source (NOT a tabloid publication) to confirm (NOT speculate with words such as reportedly) that she is married, plase insert it and reference it to the appropriate article. Until then, do not add this speculation to the article and please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a primary source for all things Mariah.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it should be a part of the article. It's been getting a lot of press coverage over the past couple of days, and that's notable in itself. Even if it turns out to be fake (as in, erroneously reported or a publicity stunt), that would be notable in itself, no? Even one line would suffice (but clearly not in the header). SKS2K6 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is one of the strictest guidelines imposed on Wikipedia articles due to the sensitivity and potential harm that can be done by incorrect information. As stated in the policy itself:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Entertainment Tonight loses nothing if their latest gossip turns out to be incorrect but Wikipedia does. Therefore, the press coverage in this case is unreliebale to warrant an inclusion into the article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Yahoo News (not a tabloid publication) is reporting that Cannon and Carey married, shouldn't it be okay to post? --Dave 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's this story you're referring to, it only reports that there are reports of the wedding, no definites are given. Again, WP:BLP overrules this, in my opinion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that we shouldn't put garbage in BLP pages, but it's getting significant coverage, and that's why I bring this up. CNN, The Associated Press, and various newspapers ([9]/[10]/[11], for example) have all reported on this. As it is getting signifcant coverage, the coverage should be mentioned. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, notability is not temporary. Second, New York Post is a tabloid so it can't be considered a WP:RS. The CNN article, the Yahoo News article and The AP article are one and the same. Associated Press sells stories to its subrcribers in the US and abroad for a fee so you will often see the same story written by AP be published in dozens or hundreds of newspapers simultaneously. Again, the AP report does nothing else other than to report other reports of the wedding taking place. The principal source for these claims seems to come from latina.com which can by no means be considered a reliable source. So this is basically what we have:

• Latina.com reports the two are married
• other tabloid type publications, such as New York Post and Perez Hilton, jump on the bandwagon and start quoting each other as reliable sources
• Associated Press runs a story that several tabloid publications are claiming Mariah Carey is married and the story is distributed to, among others, CNN, Yahoo etc...

CNN and AP are reliable sources but they report nothing else other than reports in tabloids. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this information is not encyclopedic. Forgetting for a second that this may actually end up being true, ask yourselves this: If every single rumor perpetuated about Mariah Carey by a handful of tabloids in the last 18 years made it into this article, how long would this article be? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should only be adding information that will not be removed at some later point in time because hype over some alleged event eventually blew over. We're not here to report on what's new and current. We are supposed to document permanent historical information and this does not currently qualify. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio industry website AllAccess.com is reporting it as a confirmed event. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Name?

Umm....if she is married to Nick Cannon, wich I believe everyone has established, her name, I guess would be Mariah Carey-Cannon. Or something of that nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.39.221 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. After marriage, an individual can take their spouse's name, amalgamate their names, or simply not change their name at all. Unless we hear something specifically stating otherwise, it's sensible to assume that she still goes by "Mariah Carey". --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On Friday, I was watching Entertainment Tonight. They were showing a video of Mariah and Nick's first appearance after the wedding and they were addressed as Mariah and Nick Cannon. That being said, she probably changed her last name.68DANNY2 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read that she had "Mrs. Cannon" branded tattooed on the back of her neck or on her back. I haven't found a reliable source for that yet, but when/if it is found it's the best evidence I've ever heard for a name change. And the creepiest. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep hearing the names "Mariah Cannon" or "Mariah Carey-Cannon" thrown about, too. Still, things like ET and tabloids are hardly official sources. Also, the "Mrs. Cannon" tattoo may be just that, a tattoo, and not a reflection of a legitimately changed name (maybe she got it as a sort of compromise, a way of becoming "Mrs. Cannon" without actually becoming "Mrs. Cannon", if you will). I still say that, until official sources report otherwise, she is still very much Mariah Carey. --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, the name under which she gained all of her notability, and the name by which she is best known, is Mariah Carey, and this is not expected to change no matter who she marries. Mary Tyler Moore has always been known by her maiden name despite being married at least twice during her career. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Range

I believe Georgia Brown is the female with the highest range a (G10) Mariah's highest recorded note is A7

Noir227 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You may indeed be right about that, it appears Ms Georgia really does have a world-beating voice. This doesn't mean that we should remove all reference to Mariah's still-highly-impressive range of course, but yes, I guess it does mean rooting out instances where she is specifically called the current world record holder (of which there was at least one reference within the body of the article). --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Add spouse Nick Cannon to Info Box

We'll need to list spouse Nick Cannon on the info. I don't have permission to do so. -Spencer,Leon 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Source: Yahoo! - [12] -Spencer,Leon 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer leon (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, "spouse" is not a legitimate field in the "Infobox: musical artist" template. Basically, you can't put it in. This has nothing to do with "having permission" or no. --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Change Mariah Carey's Last Name

It's Mrs. Mariah Cannon. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.88.158 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No reliable / verifiable sources have confirmed a name change. Because of that, we can not arbitrarily change her name in this article. If you can provide a source, it can be brought up for discussion here on this page for a consensus. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... Angelina Jolie is still Angelina Jolie and not Angelina Pitt, Jennifer Lopez is still Jennifer Lopez and not Jennifer Antony, Julia Roberts was never professionally known as Julia Lovett, so... I really don't think a name change is going to happen, either professionally or in this article, which refers to her by the name by which she is best known. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to name other artists before her?

Should we put Barbra Streisand and Madonna's name in the line "Mariah is the third best-selling female in the U.S., behind Barbra Streisand and Madonna, per RIAA" or "Per IFPI, she is the third biggest-selling female singer worldwide, behind Madonna and Celine Dion, with estimated sales of 160 million albums?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not necessary for the lead. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed on Hip Hop

Is there any way we can get consensus about the use of hip hop on this article? Currently we have a near daily addition/removal of the category from her info box and the lead paragraph.

Could everyone please agree to leave the page as is until consensus is reached? Once we have that we can comment the relevant places and stop this tedious revert war.

To begin with; are there any good, solid, reputable cites that describe Carey as a hip hop artist? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment: Mariah Carey's primary genre is not hip hop, however, the info box is used to display any genre which is common to an artists music. Carey has had hip hop influences on at least three albums, and therefor it should be mentioned in the info box. It does not, however, require mention in the LEAD of the article, esp not the first sentence. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mariah Carey Wins Top Billboard Prizes

• Mariah Wins Big At Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop Awards

• Mariah 'Emancipated' On New Album

• E=MC2 The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what genres should be put in the infobox? Does it include influences? --Efe (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with The Bookkeeper. If it's a significant element of three albums, then it should be in the info box. But if it's not her primary style then not needed in the lead. I don't think influences should be in the info box. That would get too confusing and verbose. Plenty of room for explanations of cited influences in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of Mariah Carey's albums have hip hop influences, for instance "Mariah Carey" has Someday(new jack swing) and she can be hear rapping on Prisoner, Daydream has elements of hip ho. Butterfly, Rainbow, Glitter and Charmbracelet all have heavy influences of hip hop, and The more recent TEOMM is predominately hip hop and RnB. E=MC2 is a complete hip hop/rnb album. I don't think it would be right if you were to exclude hip hp as one of her genres seeing as that she has slowly yet surely evolved into a full fledged hip-hop/rnb artist. Her music is going to continue down this path so you might as well classify it as it is and not as what you want it, or don't want it, to be. PhoenixPrince (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment She has some hip hop influences in some of her records, yes, but that does not make her a hip hop artist. I can agree with R&B and Pop because it's blantantly obvious that those apply, but to call Mariah a hip hop artist would be like calling George W. Bush a Democrat... It's just not accurate. She is a Pop/R&B artist that gets some hip hop airplay, but that's about as far as the discussion ought to go, as far as her listed genres. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment You're overlooking the fact that the info box is used to display any genre the artists has frequent use of. I agree Carey is not a "Hip hop" artist but the amount of hip hop influence she has on a number of her records warrants inclusion in the info box. It is not the same as defining her as a hip hop artist. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If a significant amount of her current music is hip hop and she gets a significant amount of hip hop airplay, and critics and newscasters and the like cite her as an hip hop/rnb artist, more then likely she is. 69.209.199.91 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At the page for Template:Infobox musical artist, all it says concerning genre is that one should "aim for generality" (i.e. don't get bogged down in minutiae and specifics). To me, that means being simultaneaously as succint and as broad as possible. As far as I'm concerned, describing Mariah Carey as a "pop/r&b" artist certainly seems sufficient. Hip-hop may be a style that she has incorporated, but I believe that opens a slippery slope, as we may then also want to incorporate her influences from soul, gospel, dance, etc. "Pop/r&b" is a more than suitable and adequate description, in my opinion. --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Vocal Type

it says mariah on mumerous websites...wheather there reliable or not that she is "dramatic" coloratura soprano...Dramatic Coloratura: The hardest sopranos to find because they’re voices have the power and stamina of a Dramatic Soprano to sing over large orchestras but also the range and agility of a Piccolo. They can normally sing up to Bb6 as well (Mariah Carey and Rachelle Ferrell)

source:http://bellsouthpwp.net/h/a/hamidmahdi/Downloads/VOICETYPES.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilruthlessplaya (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Influence

Shouldn't there be a section in here on her influence? PhoenixPrince (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC) She is defenitely not The Voice. She is just one lipsyncing plastic diva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.181.138 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar for Grammys!

Can someone please fix the grammar error in the first line: an Grammy-award winning artist. It winds up right at the top of Google's search results - ouch! Thank you! - Heduanna

Fixed. I'm guessing whoever re-inserted "Grammy-award winning" forgot to change the an to an a. I just removed the "Grammy-award winning" part from the first line altogether as having "{artist} is a Grammy-award nominated/winning" in the opening sentence does set a slight biased view (it's not neutral point of view by starting with unintentional attempt to cast her in a positive light) on the article. The opening sentence is to explain who Mariah Carey is and she is an American singer, songwriter, record producer, and actress. Even though she wins or is nominated for awards, it's not who she is and thus explaining how having "Grammy award winning" in the lead sentence violates Wikipedia's manual of style. Therefore Grammy mentions should really be left to the other leading paragraphs and currently it is already in the third lead paragraph. Also mentioning Grammy wins twice in the lead would also seem like emphasis is trying to be placed on that fact (that bias again). At least that's how I see it but that could just be me. This has been done with many music artist articles over the last few months so removing "Grammy-award winning" from the opening sentence shouldn't be such an "out there" idea to anyone (of course assuming that everyone works or at least has seen other artist's articles). Anyway cheers Hedunna for the heads up. AngelOfSadness talk 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I don't think having the word in the beginning reflects a POV. It seems more factual to me. Yes she has won multiple Grammys. Therefor, it seems appropriate to list the word. Although, yes, having it in mentioned in the introduction multiple times seems repetitive and over stressed, and I could see how someone would view it as a violation of WP:NPOV, It wouldn't seem so outrageous, but then again that's just my opinion. :). Also, I have noticied it to a lot of music articles especially the unfeatured ones. --eric (mailbox) 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's the repetition of the fact which is like emphasis is trying to be placed on that fact. And then especially having it in the first line, before what she actually does (singer, songwriter etc.) is surely against the manual of style especially Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph where what the person did/does (number 4 in the previous link I provided) seems to have more importance over why the person is significant by mentioning their achievements (number 5 in the link). Mariah is known for her vocal skills first - not her Grammy wins. Sure she's also known for having the most number one singles for a solo artist in the US and even has sold a rumoured +hundred or so million records in her career but all of that is first mentioned in the final paragraph of the lead not the very first sentence. It doesn't make sense to mention Grammys before these seemingly more significant feats. The whole point of the lead (See WP:LEAD) is to provide an overview of the main points that the article will make and I seriously don't think her Grammy wins is the most important point of the entire article. Personally I think that "Grammy-award winning" should only be mentioned in extremely certain circumstances like if her number of wins holds a record of sorts, if they discussed at length in the article, if her Grammy wins notable in some other way (e.g. caused controversy like a Milli Vanilli type incident]]), or if her Grammy wins are the only thing which assert her importance or significance.

And yes the term is seen in unfeatured articles but you won't find it in featured articles. For example Alison Krauss: she has won 21 Grammys in her career (she actually holds the record for most Grammy wins by a female solo artist) and yet that fact is first mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. Even most good status articles don't mention Grammy wins in the first line for example: Aerosmith, Green Day, Janet Jackson etc. and that's probably because the basic critera, regarding WP:NPOV of good article status, is that the article represents viewpoints and facts fairly and without bias and the whole "Grammy-award winning" does tend to place bias if put before her actual occupation.

Even though this completely irrelevant, I really don't think "Grammy-award winning singer etc." is what she would fill in on official documents for occupation. Or even when explaining who she is to an uninformed person in real life you wouldn't say "she's a Grammy award winning singer". Instead you might say she's a singer etc. that has won Grammys for her work. Even in paperback encyclopedias, you wouldn't see "award winning" in the very first sentence of an entry on any subject.

To sum up, seeing as this is a featured article and of course, I assume, everyone would want to keep it that way, and that no other featured articles (in the music category) have "Grammy-award winning" in the first line before stating the occupation of the artist/or founding of the band - does it make enough sense to leave "Grammy-award winning" out of the first line? AngelOfSadness talk 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10