Jump to content

Talk:Cher/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Controversial passages

"...brought the sense auf female autonomy into the business" --> While there is no reference for that claim, I strongly doubt its legitimacy thinking of popular female acts from the 40s, 50s and 60s, thus before Cher's time. I think it's rather a very subjective sugarcoating of actual facts (in other words: POV) by some fanatic admirer who regards this article as his personal playground -- as well as ceveral other formulations throughout the whole article, defining the general tenor. It seems like a rigorous revision by someone neutral or an exhaustive self-reflection by the author is very necessary! --79.224.125.203 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the peer review, but the article still seems very sympathetically to me. I don't know, maybe 3O? English isn't my first language, so I possibly missunderstood and/or overreacted. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
English isn't my first language too. This article received three peer reviews (the last one is still open) and none of the reviewers disagreed with this passage. It's noteworthy that the Legacy and Artistry section reviews aren't finished yet. Sorry for my errors. Lordelliott (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It's okay then, I will remove the template. Regards from Guatemala City! --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Right. Regards from Brazil ;) Lordelliott (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don;t understand how this talk page works. But the whole introduction is so mind-boggling flattering in almost every single regard, it totally undermines the whole article, and to some extent Wikipedia itself. I mean, who wrote all that, a fan or Cher's publicist? It sure as hell wasn't anyone with an understanding of impartiality Beatsneedrhymes (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC) The intro is mindless, meaningless psycho-babble and has no place in Wikipedia, Scottca075 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

'Recognized for having brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry...' and '...nicknamed the Goddess of Pop.' These two uncited claims confirm that this lede can only have been written by her fan-club, who are the people least likely to define her notability in a subjective way for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with her. Valetude (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Queen of Pop" thing is pretty well cited in the main article text – in two different places, IIRC – which makes additional cites in the lede unnecessary according to many editors' reading of that guideline. The concept of the "female autonomy and self-actualization" description also seems to be pretty well established in the text, but I agree the actual phrasing in the lede leaves a lot to be desired. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy

You say 'They married after she gave birth to Chastity Bono (who years later became Chaz Bono) on March 4, 1969.' In the box, you quote 1964 as their marriage date, as does the Wiki article on Bono. Valetude (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Cher and Sonny became close friends, eventual lovers, and performed their own wedding ceremony in a hotel room in Tijuana, Mexico, in October 1964.{{sfn|Berman|2001}}"
People, corporate-controlled representatives of mainstream middle-class values that they are, probably insists on fine details like marriage certificates, license, and a legally binding ceremony before calling them married. Fuddy-duddies. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Way of Love"

I have amended the explanation of that song to indicate that the way it is often interpreted is not necessarily correct. One may argue that an analysis of any one of her specific recordings or hit singles does not belong in a general biography about the pop superstar, but if that partial explanation is to remain, then my correction must too. I ask Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz not to keep immediately reverting it without explanation.

The 1972 single "The Way of Love" has been presumed to be either about a woman expressing her love for another woman, or a woman breaking up with a gay male she loved ("What will you do/When he sets you free/Just the way that you/Said good-bye to me"). However, many contend that as the singer of the song she is imparting advice on matters of the heart to another woman in the second person, but then directs the line "Just the way that you said goodbye to me" at the man who recently left her, on which her advice is based. SWLinPHX (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't add your own unreferenced lyric analysis to articles; don't falsely claim other editors haven't explained their edits; don't insert your own comments between article text and the relevant citations, deceptively creating the impression that your original analyses are supported by the citations. Instead, read and comply with [[WP:RS], WP:BLP, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Posting palpably false claims on other editors' talk pages is also unacceptable. If you persist in such behavior, you will place your editing privileges in jeopardy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It is you Hullaballoo who have reverted the same text three times in an hour. Either my addition should be included or the entire interpretation of the song should be deleted. You continue to insist only one side (the common misconception) be represented. You are also disingenuous in your assertion that I engaged in cite breaking, as there were no cites to the original (and incomplete) analysis of the lyrics to begin with; I merely expanded and clarified. Anyone can see that in the revision history. Never did I insert my own text before a citation of a source. Being a "Wiki-bully" or acting as if you own the rights to a page by deleting all edits that you don't personally approve is against TOS. And you did not give clear or specific reasoning (although incorrect) until just now, after your third reversion of my edit. There is a difference between an experienced, courteous editor and a bully who is marking what they consider their territory. SWLinPHX (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks. First of all, the interpretation of the song is referenced. Secondly, the analysis is an example of the following sentence: "Her ability to carry both male and female ranges allowed her to sing solo in androgynous and gender-neutral-themed songs." SWLinPHX, sorry but you can't add ANYTHING without a reference. Sorry for my english. Lordelliott (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Since the citation is to a review of the carrier album by one reviewer, it might be better to either supply a source supporting the idea that this is a consensus view of the song's meaning or attribute the interpretation to that reviewer. Lots of comments by reviewers in articles about singers and musicians (and books, actors, movies, etc.) seem to be specifically attributed. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
You are right, I'll make the attribution. Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you should all consider these few items of note before including that passage on Cher's Wikipedia page:
1) The song was not written nor first recorded by Cher. It was written first with French lyrics in 1960. It was first recorded in English by Kathy Kirby of the UK in 1965. She employed the same pronoun use that is the basis of the debate over the interpretation. So it has nothing to do with Cher being androgynous or "gender neutral". Cher simply did not change the lyrics. So should she be credited for them?
2) It is very unlikely that a 1965 easy listening/adult contemporary song such as this was supposed to make any statement or reference to lesbianism or homosexuality in any way. You are interpreting this with a 21st Century mentality.
3) Vicki Carr included the song on an album which was produced by Snuff Garrett, the same man who produced this song for Cher. He approved of the lyric being altered from the original Kathy Kirby (and later Cher) version to "What will you do when he sets you free? Just the way that he said goodbye to me". So after he produced Cher's recording he realized the confusion or "mistake" in the song and corrected it.
4) Contrary to initial reaction, it was later understood that the original version was likely a woman who is suffering from her own recent jilting, and thus is giving this advice to another girl or woman. She then, lamenting her own situation, turns to direct that last line to the man who left her ("Just the way that you said goodbye to me"), as he was on her mind the whole time she was giving the advice, which itself is based on this recent loss.
5) Because Joe Viglione of Allmusic may have inferred the homosexual reference does not supersede all the evidence here. Many, MANY songs are often misunderstood or misinterpreted at first by the listening public.
6) The analysis of this (or any) one specific song does not really belong on a page that is about Cher in general. It is too off-topic, even if she was the original recording artist or it had been written for her (and all the gender theories were emphatically true), but it was not. This discussion belongs on the Wikipedia page for the song itself, which already exists.
7) Finally, other than this dubious, weak and misguided reference, what other examples are there that Cher herself sang gender-neutral songs? Can you cite any? Having a deeper, contralto range does not in and of itself lend her songs to being construed as "androgynous".

Anyone who is a Cher fan or Wikipedia aficionado should want only the most accurate and pertinent information to be included in its articles. In light of all the above, I kindly urge you to reconsider.SWLinPHX (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with items 1, 2 (although any of us, Wikipedia users, is interpreting the song), 3, 4 and 5, so I will remove the analysis. As for the items 6 and 7, the analysis of a specific song belongs to the artist's main article if it serves as an example to a fact, as seen in good and featured articles like Madonna (entertainer), Michael Jackson or David Bowie. I can name examples of what you asked, but it would not be valuable since Wikipedia only accepts referenced content. We can't discuss the androgyny in Cher vocals; if a reliable source like Allmusic published that, it belongs to the Music section of Cher's article, even with attribution. Thanks for your observations. I am currently learning to speak English fluently, so sorry for any mistakes. Lordelliott (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Before removing Viglione's citation, I have a point: we know Cher wasn't the first to record the song, but her version was by far the most popular. Certainly the song brought discussion about its dubious lyrics, even if that was not the intention. If the discussion existed (and many sources prove that), I believe it should stay in the article. Lordelliott (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupation (infobox)

I'm using a chronological criteria to list Cher's occupations on the infobox. Check out:

  • Singer (main occupation)
  • actress (main occupation)
  • model (she first appeared on Vogue magazine as a model in 1966. Since then, she posed numerous times for Richard Avedon and was the cover girl five times between 1972 and 1975.)
  • fashion designer (she designed a clothing lines in 1966)
  • television host (The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour (1971-1974), Cher (1975-1976), The Sonny and Cher Show (1976-1977), Cher... Special (1978), Cher... and Other Fantasies (1979))
  • comedian (she was much referred to as a comedian in the 1970s due to the comedy sketches on her TV shows)
  • songwriter (she first recorded a song written by herself in 1979. She has released an album most written by herself, Not.com.mercial (2000), and appears as a songwriter in the credits of some of her recent songs such as "The Music's No Good Without You" (2001), "Real Love" (2001), "Dressed to Kill" (2013) and "Lovers Forever" (2013).)
  • dancer (she was much referred to as a singer-dancer in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to her Las Vegas shows, which included numerous choreographies.)
  • entrepreneur (she formed the film production company Isis in 1985.)
  • philanthropist (she began her charity work in 1990, serving as a donor and the National Chairperson and Honorary Spokesperson of the Children's Craniofacial Association.)
  • author (she first appeared in the credits of a book in 1992's Cooking for Cher. With Jeff Coplon, she wrote the autobiography The First Time in 1998.)
  • film producer (she produced the 1996 TV film If These Walls Could Talk.)
  • director (she directed a segment in the 1996 TV film If These Walls Could Talk.)
  • record producer (she was the executive producer of her albums Not.com.mercial (2000), The Very Best of Cher (2013) and Closer to the Truth (2013).)

Do you guys agree with this list? I am currently learning English so sorry for any mistakes. Lordelliott (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead picture discussion

A lot of pictures from the D2K Tour have been uploaded to Commons, you can see them here. As Cher is still active in music and actually touring, it would make more sense to use a rather recent picture as the lead of this article - see other artists her age that are still active. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions about "recent" images vs. quality head shots for the lead were discussed previously. Because her career spans over 50 years, it actually makes more sense not to use a photo just because it's recent. Plus, the article already has many too-similar tour photos. That one's good, but she's been seen by more people in her 14 films, and even won an Oscar. Consider replacing an existing image or inserting in the body, although more film-related shots would be more relevant and appreciated IMO. --Light show (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It was actually me who initiated the previous discussion. I am generally rather in favor of recent pictures, we just could not find a good one at that moment. The new one I put in today complies with the quality standard, so I see no reason to keep the old one. As far as I know, that is the common practice (see Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dolly Parton). Also, it expresses far more about her as an artist, IMO. You may be right about her films, however that 70s publicity photo has nothing to do with them. She had her acting breakthrough in 1985. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is limited in images it can use as they have to be totally free, and not paid for. But if WP had the flexibility and standards that book publishers use for biography book cover photos, we'd probably see more images from prime career periods. For example: [http://www.amazon.com/Cher-You-Havent-Seen-Last/dp/B006V59ZEU/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398654799&sr=1-11&keywords=Cher Cher: You Haven't Seen the Last of Me] (2011), [http://www.amazon.com/Cher-Strong-Enough-Josiah-Howard/dp/0859654842/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398654799&sr=1-1&keywords=Cher Cher: Strong Enough] (2013), or [http://www.amazon.com/Cher-All-Really-Want-Do/dp/161713452X/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DZW8RWM5XDSBK5D75WT Cher: All I Really Want to Do] (2013). The same choices pertain to equally notable living singers, [http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Gorgeous-Becoming-Barbra-Streisand/dp/0547368925/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398655172&sr=1-1&keywords=Barbra+Streisand Hello, Gorgeous: Becoming Barbra Streisand] (2012) and [http://www.amazon.com/Barbra-A-Retrospective-Allegra-Rossi/dp/1402788231/ref=pd_sim_b_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=16XED0D916MAFR11WTMX Barbra: A Retrospective] (2012), and even McCartney, [http://www.amazon.com/LIFE-PAUL-Years-British-Invasion/dp/1618931121/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398655287&sr=1-4&keywords=Paul+McCartney LIFE PAUL: 50 Years After the British Invasion] (2014). --Light show (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That is true. Although this may not be a valid argument, my major point is that an old picture atop the article creates the impression that the respective person is a "has-been." That should not be the case with Cher, IMO. She released her highest charting solo album just last year and is currently on an almost sold-out arena tour. If you are eager to keep the current late 1970s (a rather insignificant period of her career, BTW) photo, I will conform with inserting the 2014 tour photo somewhere in the body; I just kindly ask you to re-think your position regarding my arguments. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


I propose to replace the currently used infobox picture with the one below. It's very much better picture we have as for now, because the current one is ancient and has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment; she released her highest-charting solo album in the US only last year and she is on tour right now. Boris Karloff II. is right the current picture creates the impression that the person is a "has-been" or "dead". All the other singers have infobox picture that are fresh and recent. FraDany 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Current photo
    Current photo
  • Suggested photo
    Suggested photo
  • Suggested photo
    Suggested photo
The third one isn't even Cher, it's Beyonce's mom I think.
Far from "all." There's nothing about an early quality portrait in a lead that makes bios of still active Barbra Streisand, Jackson Browne, Neil Young, Kenny Loggins or Peter Frampton suddenly become "has beens". Quite the opposite, IMO. This is not a tabloid or photo site where recent or new tour candids are used to sell papers or promote photographers. --Light show (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the respective artist. Cher has evolved with every decade since the 1960s, constinuously re-inventing both her artistry and appearance. On the suggested photo, she is performing her all-time biggest-selling single; in a gown corresponding the public image she has sported since then and is best known for. It is of good quality, too, and you can clearly see both her face and body. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
For singers and actors a picture that most reflects their notability should be what's best; on the suggested photo she is performing on her brand new tour her biggest-selling single (1998), that makes Cher alive and kicking. What represent a picture from the 70s? She doesn't look like that anymore. So i propose to replace the currently used infobox picture with my suggested photo. Again FraDany 12:2, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest another photo from the tour. IMO, Cher can just as well be put on a par with artists such as Madonna, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga or Rihanna (whose articles have pictures from their recent tours in the lead). As the two suggestions are of excellent quality, I quite honestly don't see where your problem is. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If you do a Google Images search for Cher, you'll discover that close to 99% are head shots, portraits or close-ups. Same with her book bio covers. While we're all envious that you got some front-row center shots, this is not a photographer's promo site. Nor is the song she was singing while you took the photo, or that it was a hit song, or in your opinion she was dressed in what she is best known for, at all relevant. Suggest you post it on a public Facebook page and be happy that you can get a trillion likes. --Light show (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The photos were not taken by me, I fortunately found them on Flickr and imported them as they were licenced under cc-by-sa-2.0. I surely wish I had the chance to take front-row center shots of the show myself, unluckily I'm located in Europe. Your cynical, unfounded allegations are not constructive at all. Since when does the result of a Google Images search possess any relevance regarding the adequacy of a lead picture on Wikipedia? The current picture seems pretty inappropriate to me simply because Cher's outer appearance is completely different nowadays. None of the people with "early quality portraits" you enlisted before did undergo comparable transformations throughout their career. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: Unfortunately, the request for a third opinion placed at WP:3O cannot be accepted, as more than two editors have participated in this discussion. If further discussion proves fruitless, perhaps WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options may be able to help. Sorry. Stfg (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Light show is the only one in favor of the current photo, anyway, so I don't see why we are still discussing. Why are you so keen against putting one of the recent tour shots in the lead? --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Already answered above. --Light show (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Light Show. Lordelliott (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can see here Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. As a matter of fact Cher's current infobox picture is false because she doesn't look like the 70s anymore. So i change the current infobox picture with my suggested photo. Other edits will be consider vandalism. FraDany 14:11, 01 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1970s photo is not being used out of context because the caption reads "1970s publicity photo". I will revert your edit until we reach a consensus. Lordelliott (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the same message I am having to repeat. Open your mind! This picture is false according to Wikipedia rules here. Furthermore other former singers and actors have their picture recent that reflects their own career at the moment such as Madonna and others. A picture from the 70s do not represent this requisite. This is it! So i will change the picture according to Wikipedia rules. Again FraDany 19:01, 01 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't use articles like a Flickr photo posting site. Even the two "suggested photos" above, taken within minutes apart, are very different, both in dress and hair. The one you seem to prefer is also totally different. The fact is, she was already a star nearly 30 years before you were born! --Light show (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
+1. It is common practice in biography leads to favor a recent picture of good quality if there are any at disposa. I can't comprehend your stubborness. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Then you should respond to the earlier comments, not keep repeating the same questions. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I described very precisely why I think a "1970s publicity photo" or "early quality portrait" is inappropriate in this article's lead. Some people seem to have adopted this article as their property and feel in the privileged position of dictating which changes are allowed to be made. It would tremendously help to get some objective view by an uninvolved person. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You're so rude and arrogant! What's your problem with my age?! You are an old fogey! Stop repeating the same things and argue with valuable reasons! I don't see any problems changing the picture. I said this over and over again and you have no authority to keep rejecting our propositions. FraDany 20:16, 01 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify: the 1970s portrait was "elected" after a consensus made between numerous users. You can't impose your opinion as the truth. Search for users who frequently edit this article, ask them their opinions and THEN, after reaching a consensus, you can change the infobox picture. FraDany, I don't think anyone is complaining about your age here. Please be polite. I'm currently learning English so sorry for any mistakes. Lordelliott (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all you don't have to tell me to be polite because i didn't do it and i didn't impose my opinion either; actually you and Light show did it. Far from all, in this previous debate here, three other users appreciated a recent infobox picture. And you said: "Because a more recent picture is better for the lead. She doesn't look like 20 years ago anymore." So we do actually reach a consensus. FraDany 12:49, 02 May 2014 (UTC)
People change their opinions. Your definition of "consensus" is completely nonsensical. Yes, those two other users appreciated a recent infobox picture, but the majority agreed with the current one - if that was not the case, the 1970s picture wouldn't have remained for so long. Search for other users opinions; if the majority agree with a more recent picture, we can change the photo. Until then, the 1970s photo continues. Lordelliott (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To be honest your definition of "consensus" is completely nonsensical. In this debate NO ONE agreed with the current picture, on the contrary everyone agreed with a more recent picture, you included. This article is not your property and you have no authority to reject other opinions with nonsense reasons. The current picture is false and the majority of users agree with changing it. FraDany 19:17, 02 May 2014 (UTC)
You should be asking opinions from other users. Instead, you keep repeating the same invalid arguments. We only work with consensus here. No one is rejecting your opinion. You are rejecting my opinion and Light Show's opinion, as if only your opinion should be respected. I say the same to you: this article is not your property. Ask opinions from other users and then, after reaching a consensus, we can change the picture. Lordelliott (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I took this discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard. We can try to reach a consensus there. FraDany 20:55, 03 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Mark Miller and I am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Notice board. I have no special powers or authority, but as a volunteer, regularly close DRN filings that have gone stale. It appears this dispute has not had any movement either here or at the DRN so I wanted to mention that I will be adding a 48 hour closing notice on the request at DRN and will be making a general close for a lack of participation on the dispute at that time unless Lordelliott, and Light show become involved as listed participants. I am familiar with image disputes of this kind and if all parties agree i can assist at the DRN or you can gain more community input here with a neutrally worded RFC. I will check back as regularly as I can to see if there are any responses. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The lack of interest by Lordelliott and Light show in reaching a consensus is a shame, as they did not even bother to take part in the DRN. I would be very thankful if you could assist us in some way. A RFC would be the best further step in my opinion; let's see what the other participants think. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the arguments made by Light show and others favoring the older image. I've noticed over the last several years that there is a vocal contingent of editors arguing that "recent pictures trump old pictures", and in almost every topic area where I find this argument, I discover that the more recent images being placed in articles are almost always of a poorer quality, and usually make the subject look terrible. Because I keep seeing this argument pop up over and over again, we really need to have a larger, community based RFC on this problem. IMO, it shouldn't matter if an image is new or old, just as long as it is great and depicts the subject in the best possible light. Using this criteria, in this case, it is obvious that the older image trumps the more recent one, and has consensus to boot. We really need to put a stop to the preference for more recent images without an improvement over the older ones. I can't tell you how many biographical articles have had wonderful "old" images removed and replaced with terrible, out of focus, poorly composed "new" images. Let's put a stop to this please. And for what it's worth, when she's dolled up, she looks almost exactly like the old image today. Some of you may find that hard to believe, but I've stood right next to her, and it's true. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Light show keeps saying that this is a biography covering a 50-year career, but that is exactly the point: A Wikipedia article is not just a "biography." This is a site where people look up artists to find out about who they are and what they do. Neither do people visit this site for the same reasons they buy a biographical book, nor do we have the same function. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not what I keep saying, it's what the bio says: try looking at the table of contents and the fact that 99% of the article relates to a full biography. There's already a section devoted to her tours, for those who only want to know what she's up to now and what she looks like today, on stage, in costume, or where they can buy tickets. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's one that I think is more iconic from the period of her most notable fame. Properly cropped, I think it would work well. -- Netoholic @ 15:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Lead Image discussion

It is noted that in the discussion preceding this actual RFC, there was more consensus to changing the photo to a more recent photo, but due to this discussion having a more full turnout, the consensus is determined by this whole group of editors, including both the discussion and the RFC. Most of the change supporters cited the need to more accurately show who the artist is now, whereas the keep supporters showed that the current image is more overall representative of her whole career. This RFC has a consensus in favor of not changing the lead image of this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the current infobox picture be changed in favor of a more recent one?

  • Current photo
    Current photo
  • Suggested photo
    Suggested photo
  • Suggested photo
    Suggested photo

Take a look at this discussion before providing an answer to this question. Thank you. FraDany (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The question is asking for a "yes" or "no" answer, so the choices should probably be for one of those. --Light show (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes
  1. A recent picture is best because the current one has nothing to do with Cher at the moment; in fact she has evolved, continuously reinventing both her artistry and image, and also she is still active like other artists such as Madonna, Lady Gaga or Rihanna (whose articles have pictures from their recent tours in the lead). The suggested photo reflects Cher for what is best known for. FraDany (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. The current lead picture is a portrait from the 1970s. It must be considered that Cher had her acting breakthrough not until 1985 and her commercial peak as a musician in 1998. She is not only still active today, but released her highest-charting solo album just last year and is currently on a sold-out arena tour throught he US. Having considerably changed her public appearance multiple times throughout her career, she does furthermore not at all look like she does on the afore-mentioned photo anymore. In view of that, along with the additional arguments in the discussion above, I hold that one of the suggested tour photos would be more adequate for the discussed article's lead. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Please change the picture, young people didn't know the Cher of the 80 but the 2010's acher & she is so changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.6.106 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. All of these pictures are good, but I really like this new one of her in the pink & blond wig with the skin-color spandex body suit decorated with pink heart appliqués on her breasts. I remember what a controversy it was when she came out on prime time television on the Sonny & Cher show with her belly button showing in a beautiful white bodysuit that was truly amazing. I had never seen such a deep decolleté and this was decades before the famous dress by Kylie Minogue with the glue edging. The newspapers were full of it for a week. This picture really is a throwback to that time and shows that even after all these years, she can out-bimbo the youngsters in the business. I had no idea she was still doing this sort of thing and really got a kick out of seeing this. So file the old black&white one under "early acting career" and use this one, because she looks really amazing and just as ridiculous as ever. Jane (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No
  1. Portrait, out of costume, is best. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Quoting Light show from this discussion: "This is supposed to be a full biography of a singer and actress, covering a 50-year period, not an article focused on recent newsworthy appearances with candid images more suitable for today's tabloids, where papparazzi swarm and click away. A photo representing the biography and more closely relevant to her notability would be one like File:Cher - Casablanca.jpg, which shows her as she appeared during a key period in career [...] Hence, the rationale given by an editor, more current photo generally preferred to antediluvian image, is wrong on all counts: It is not generally preferred, except for news stories, not a biography. This is especially true of people in the entertainment field." Lordelliott (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. The lead image should be the most recognisable or iconic image we have available. It helps in both identifying the subject and in projecting them in their most recognisable form. The current image is recognisably the subject; the suggested alternatives are not - she could be mistaken for Tina Turner or several other singers. The article body provides opportunity for displaying more recent and/or performing images in context. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Prefer non-costume portrait to the other two. Moreover, not too keen on the rather sexually charged and/or objectifying images given as suggestions. Are there no other more neutral images? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Out of the three options presented I like the first one as the lead image. She has had a long career, so I don't see any reason to use a more recent one. AIRcorn (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. First portrait is the best, per arguments by Light show in the discussion section above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  7. Arguments for WP:RECENTISM are unpersuasive: this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a concert promoter. A very recognizable publicity headshot is more appropriate for the lead photo than costumes (burlesque or otherwise) from a recent spectacle. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  8. No need for a very recent photo, just a good representative picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  9. A high quality portrait is preferable to a random shot from a live performance in an obfuscating costume. As noted above, the longevity of the career is an argument against including a recent photo. In general, an infobox photo should be of the period which was the high point of the subject's fame and notability, if such an era exists and can be identified (which I don't know if it can be done in Cher's case). walk victor falk talk 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  10. A posed head shot portrait by a professional photographer is best as the first image in a biography. The alternate images would be fine for an article about her current tour. It would be nice if we had a better color portrait taken more recently, but we don't. This portrait, though older, is perfectly acceptable for the biography of a performer with a half century career. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  11. Current photo is better than the others presented. I'd prefer one of her singing and more "iconic" from her most successful period though, like this one. -- Netoholic @ 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  12. A photo from the height of her fame would be most appropriate, no need to use a recent photo so we know what she looks like right now. Zarcadia (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  13. Current photo is preferable per SilkTork's argument.  Include the other photos within the body of the article if feasible.  Resolution of newer images are insufficient resolution to crop to provide a good headshot — The costumes tell the story of where her career is/is heading; the face is who the person is.  — Who R you? Talk 21:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language in lead

"Recognized for having brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry". This sounds like public relations / fan club double-speak to me and I removed it; it was restored with a note that it summarizes the Legacy section of the article "established during past PR reviews". It still sounds like public relations / fan club double speak to me, and was able to find only one discussion of it in the archives, here, which while leaving the phrasing alone, is certainly not an endorsement of it. Let's revisit this. I don't think the phrasing as it stands belongs in an encyclopedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Firstly, I'm still learning to speak English fluently, so sorry for any errors. Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the PR review (only one?): Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cher/archive2#Lead. JohnInDC (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cher/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Peer_review/Cher/archive1 (this peer review by Wikipedian Penguin was moved from Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cher/archive1 to avoid confusion with the PR by Noleander.) Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"Recognition" of her "self-actualization" seems to hinge on a description contained in one of a series of illustrated books for children. Setting aside what the phrase means, is that particular insight from that source really lead-worthy? JohnInDC (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There are sentences, although not on the Legacy section, which endorses it, such as:
Cher has employed various musical styles, including folk, pop, punk rock, arena rock, power ballads, disco, new wave, and hip hop; she said she has done this to "remain relevant and do work that strikes a chord".[205][206]
Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself through various personas, for which Professor Richard Aquila from Ball State University called her "the ultimate pop chameleon".[233][234] According to author Lucy O'Brien, "Cher adheres to the American Dream of reinvention of self: 'Getting old does not have to mean getting obsolete.'"[235] Author Craig Crawford called Cher "a model of flexible career management" and claimed that her "many and varied career victories" were based on constantly reshaping her image according to the evolving trends of popular culture.[236] He stated that she billed "each dramatic turnaround of style as another example of rebellion—an image that allowed her to make calculated changes while appearing to be consistent."[236]
I admit the phrasing may be a little vague since English isn't my first language and I would like if you could help me with that! : ) Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The "female autonomy" point is better established but "bringing a sense of female autonomy" misstates it. It isn't so much that she "brought the sense of female autonomy" to the industry as that she embodied it, by not performing in reliance on a man (at least, post-Sonny). Rather than the current language, I would suggest someone along the lines of, "Described as embodying female autonomy in a male-dominated industry…" (leaving out the self-actualization part) and then going from there. JohnInDC (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'll make the changes. Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I see too that there was a Featured Article discussion wherein the nomination was quickly declined in light of the excessive fan club phrasing in the article - citing as an example this very phrase. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the nomination was declined because of the prose rather than the content itself. I think the prose (not only on the lead but on the article's overall) can really be improved. Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"Reinventing herself" is likewise a stilted elocution. I take it to mean that Cher, like Madonna or David Bowie, has adopted a variety of appearances and styles over time. I would propose revising that section of the lead along those lines, to make it clearer 1) what is actually intended by the observation and 2) avoiding the cliched and vague phrase that is now there. JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
See the sentences I've mentioned before. I think those sentences can clarify the meaning of "reinventing herself". From those sentences, I think we can make a better paraphrasing. : ) Lordelliott (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputing that these things have been said about her. I am saying that the language being used in this article to summarize those sources is not neutral and smacks of fandom; and, in the case of "self-actualization", is such a tangential point that it does not deserve to be in the lead. I will look at your changes, thanks. Also next time please do not refactor my comments, with their indents, and then respond to them one by one. It is confusing, and makes it look like we were having a conversation when in fact we were not. I am going to go back in and fix it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See the Madonna article, which is considered GA. Just like Cher (and having been influenced by her), she has been known for "reinventing herself", which is well established in the lead; see the sentence "Madonna is known for reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry." So, I don't know how this is not lead-worthy. As for the language used to summarize the content, I think it should be improved too, but I can't make these changes by myself because English is not my first language. If you could re-summarize the content in a way it doesn't look partial or anything, it would be very good. ^^ Lordelliott (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of comments. First, Cher is not Madonna. It may be just my own view of things, but "reinventing oneself" is a phrase applied almost by rote to Madonna, whereas in the case of Cher it seems to be more - limited, and including it in the lead seems to be pushing the point. Good grief, Madonna even named a tour "Reinvention Tour". Second, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That the phrase appears in the Madonna article really hasn't got much bearing on whether it is appropriate here. In fact I am not the first editor to make this observation not just about the language in this article, but comparisons between Cher and Madonna - see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cher/archive2. So I would be inclined, still, to remove "reinvention" from the lead and substitute something a little less enthusiastic, and plainer, like, she has adopted a variety of styles and appearances during her career - along the lines of whatever I said up above. That language has the virtue of both being accurate, and, doesn't sound like the first paragraph of liner notes to her latest album. JohnInDC (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say Cher is Madonna; I've mentioned her and Bowie's articles because they both have been known for changing their music and image a lot of times during their careers, just like Cher. I do agree with you when you say "reiventing oneself" is a phrase more associated with Madonna rather than Cher or Bowie, so I'll make the changes. I didn't see any comparisons between Cher and Madonna on the FAC page; user Peter Griffin questioned the statements in the first paragraph, I said it was a summary of her legacy (citing Madonna and Bowie's articles as examples) and he said it reads well on the Madonna article and not so much on the Cher article - a phrasing issue. Anyway, thanks for your valuable contributions. Lordelliott (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

amFAR Award of Inspiration

This needs to be included in the article, possibly in the Philanthropy section: http://www.amfar.org/In-The-Spotlight/Press-Releases/CHER,-FELIPE-DINIZ-and-JEAN-PAUL-GAULTIER-HONORED-AT-FIFTH-ANNUAL-INSPIRATION-GALA--S%C3%83O-PAULO/ Lordelliott (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cher is not Cherokee

Name the ancestors. Just because a false claim is old doesn't make it less false. It's only "stable" because no one checked. The sources are only WP:RS for what Cher has said about herself. They are not WP:RS for Cherokee heritage. - CorbieV☊☼ 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Cherokee descent redirects to List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry, so that's good to have linked in the article prose. Yuchitown (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown
Please see https://www.google.com.br/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cher+%22georgia+holt%22+cherokee&tbm=bks&start=0. Lordelliott (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone in Hollywood and the country music circuit claim Cherokee heritage; however, without confirmation from any Cherokee tribes or genealogists, these must be treated just as what they are: claims. Here are some citations about Cher's incorrect family claims of being Cherokee: Nerve, Mental Floss, Native News Online, Polly's Granddaughter (blog, but by a Cherokee genealogist who could be regarded as an "expert" as per Wiki standards), PBS, *Going Native Or Going Naive?: White Shamanism and the Neo-noble Savage*,and *Racial & Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, & Discrimination*—just to name a few. Yuchitown (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cher which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.ehow.co.uk/slideshow_12239708_controversial-trendsetters.html#pg=12
    Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to watch out for: death hoax revived

We are likely to get people coming here to post that Cher is dead. The old internet hoax has been revived, and it's been exacerbated by a National Enquirer cover about "Cher deathbed". (Can't link to the sources, they are blacklisted.) I heard people in the supermarket pointing to that cover and believing it. So watchers of this page should be on the alert for people wanting to add that to the article, and if it becomes necessary, to protect the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cher's Navel - and other international crises

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have removed this statement:

She was the first woman to expose her navel on television.

(sourced: Fury, Alexander (July 23, 2015). "Cher on the cover of Love magazine: Queen of chiffon and sequins is the ultimate fashion icon". The Independent. Retrieved January 18, 2016.)

This source is simply not true. Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek fame, had on-going disputes with the TV censors about navel exposure. In 1973 during the filming of Genesis II, he finally got even by giving Mariette Hartley with two navels - one her own, and a fake one. In one of the Star Trek episodes in 1967, "Mirror, Mirror", Uhura did show a navel, but it was missed by the censors - ten years before Cher's exposure...

Gene made several public statements about this issue (which I personally heard in person). Sources about the above statement:

And there are many others...

Sorry to say, Cher was not the first in this area.... Dinkytown talk 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dinkytown. I'm busy right now, but will be back soon with my response. Note that although the pic that illustrates the Fashion subsection is from 1977, she was exposing her navel on her TV shows since 1971. Lordelliott (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Lordelliott, where is the source that she was doing this since 1971? As mentioned above, Star Trek had Urhura exposed in 1967. We are also only talking about US Networks. I'm sure European were exposing their buttons long before this. Dinkytown talk 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Urhura's navel, trumps Cher's navel... Here's pictorial proof from 1967 - ten years before Cher's exposure: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/4/48/Uhura_distracts_Hikaru_Sulu_%28mirror%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110406062040&path-prefix=en Dinkytown talk 17:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Lordelliott - If you can not come up with a source to counter the above sources, then please remove your edits on the main page regarding this issue. Dinkytown talk 19:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
There's this source for Cher exposing her navel on primetime television back in 1972. Even the Navel in popular culture article supports that she began showing her navel on TV on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour, which ran from 1971 to 1974. Apparently, neither the censors nor the general public noticed that Urhura's navel was exposed as an one-off event during this Star Trek episode, because I could not find a single reliable source on the web supporting that she was the first woman to expose her navel on TV; for Cher, who fought the censors and was showing her navel weekly on primetime television, I can find numerous sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the list goes on and on, and on. Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As for the "you can not come up with a source" remark, please remember that I can't always reply to your comments instantly because I'm pretty busy in real life. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Lordelliott - First, both the Sonny and Cher Hour and Star Trek both fell under the Network Censorship rules, which remained in effect until the early 1980s. Second, all your sources reflect a non-neutral POV and are not a reliable source. Source #2, doesn't even work, #5 is a fan commentary and not a 'source' and the rest are simply industry promotions of Cher. Gene Roddenberry had two "navel events" that predate the Sonny and Cher show. The first is "Mirror, Mirror" had Uhura, played by Nichelle Nichols. The episode was from 1967 - pre-dating Cher's exposure by several years. The still photo of that episode is here [1]. You can see dozens of stills from that episode here:[2] Nichelle Nichols was running around for the entire broadcast hour - not in between set and cast changes for Cher. All the sources you claimed were either fan comments or industry promotions - which are not good sources for this issue.
The second 'navel event' was from the 1973 TV movie, Genesis II, which showed Mariette Hartley with *two* navels - one real one that was hers, the other fake. This was Roddenberry's protest to the Network Censors actions - all during when the rules were in effect, and he got away with it. All this happened years before Cher made her 'navel statement'. He has made this very public for years, and I heard him describe this personally in 1987 before his passing.
Sources: Playboy interview of Mariette Hartley about her event: [3]; another source described here:[4]; ...and the "taboo breaking" event described here:[5]
Cher was not the first to expose herself - nor was she the second... Dinkytown talk 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you are that interested in proving your argument, search for a reliable source stating that Nichols was the first woman to expose her navel on television, because I couldn't find one. As for your remarks on the sources I listed, E!, New York Post, Daily Telegraph, Sun-Sentinel, and the book The Hundred Dresses: The Most Iconic Styles of Our Time by Erin McKean are reliable. Also, did you really check the E! source? Because the sentence "Cher made history as the first woman to bare her midriff on TV" is pretty clear in the second paragraph of the article. The Sun-Sentinel source is working pretty well; make sure to check your internet conection. I'm leaving this discussion to other users, since you are rejecting some seven reliable sources in order to remove an information that YOU think is wrong—original research, anyone? Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, she was the first, but that barely made news since neither the censors nor the general public noticed. Her navel was shown for an episode only, while Cher's was seen week after week on primetime TV. That is why this "first" in television history is usually attributed to Cher (see the sources I listed). I would suggest changing the line to "Cher was one of the first women to show her navel on American television" for a more accurate approach and because her bare navel was indeed treated like a first-time event in American television during that time. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you CorbieVreccan for your input - Lordelliott, Cher was simply not the first, nor second, nor even third. During my research I have found others, here they are found to date: Nichelle Nichols here: [6]. In the same episode, BarBara Luna also did the same here during the same episode: [7]. As I mentioned before, Mariette Hartley with two navels here: [8]. But also two years later (1969) The Cloud Minders of Star Trek, there was even more exposure: [9]
Gene Roddenberry fought the censors on many different levels than just 'navel wars', i.e. the number of women vs. men on a set at one time (suggestions of an orgy); no women in leadership roles (Spock was supposed to be a women in the original series), no chest hairs on bare-chested men; etc. He describes that here: [10] In 1968, the networks did crack down on the rules, but there was push-back again in 69'. Cher was not the first, but did her exposure ten years after the fact.
I would like to include the following: "Although Cher has been erroneously[note 1] attributed to being the first to flaunt the ban on navel exposure to the network censors, she was one of the last, and most prominent, to do so before it's repeal in 1983."
The note didn't work. Here it is: "Nichelle Nichols and BarBara Luna in the TV series Star Trek on October 6, 1967, and Diana Ewing in The Could Minders of the same program. Mariette Hartley had two navels in the TV movie Genesis II"
Let me know if this works. Dinkytown talk 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Dinkytown, you keep stating that Cher first exposed her navel on television in 1977 just because the picture that illustrates the section is from 1977, when I already provided you a source that supports she's been doing this since the beginning of The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour in 1971. The "Genesis" event occurred after the first time Cher exposed her navel, and in fact she was doing this just four years after the "Mirror, Mirror" episode. Considering that this happened before with three actresses on the same TV series, Star Trek (according to stills from the set and not actual screen captures, which would prove your point a little better), it is safe to say that Cher was one of the first women to expose her navel on television. Your suggestion would fit great in the Navel in popular culture article because of the details you've given, but on here, "Cher was one of the first women to expose her navel on American television" is enough, considering that this article is about Cher and not about navels in general. Lordelliott (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Lordelliott - I am using the date of 1977 that was shown on your photo used on the Cher here: [11]. Are you claiming that Cher exposed herself throughout the airing of the series? If that's the case, then I would like good sources with specific dates on that, including a few of the episode(s), since we are talking about dates specifically. What date and what episode in 1971 did she do this? Did she suffer sanctions from the networks because of her actions? Gene Roddenberry did, the networks forced him to retake many shots during the series.
Cher wasn't the first, or even third - that's the point. The claim that she was the first is just entertainment media hype. *IF* she broke some specific censorship boundary, then we can include that, but she wasn't the first do the navel thing. Did she file a lawsuit against the censors? Was she sued by them? What specifically did she do that was different from before? How did she suffer because of her actions? If anything, I'd say she was the last to push the boundaries of the non-navel rule imposed by the censors.
"Cher was one of the first women to expose her navel on American television" will not work because it is WP:WEASEL. It is not specific, and it lends support of the rummours that is was the "first". It won't work.
Lets do the statement that I described above. Dinkytown talk 18:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's what I found in a 15-minute research:
As we can see, she was one of the first women to expose her navel on American television, and certainly the most proeminent one—the ones who showed it before her were Star Trek actresses, to low media coverage and reaction from the general public.
That said, I still think that details about the navel exposure (such as naming the three actresses who did it on Star Trek and the exact dates they did it) belong to the Navel in popular culture article. If you are reading about Cher, you'd want to know that she was one of the first women to expose her navel on American television, but certainly would not be interested in knowing who were the other women, and the exact dates they showed it off. If you are reading about navels in popular culture, you'd surely want to know all of that minutiae. Do you get it? Lordelliott (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Lordelliott - Sorry for my delay in replying. I will grant you that Cher was an important figure in challenging the navel rule, and she might even be able to claim that she was the one to successfully challenge the network rule about navel exposure - and break it, but I would like to see more direct sources about that. My problem is that people are claiming that she was "the first", including Oprah, et.al. and that is not correct. It does look like she made her first exposure in January 1972, but it was still several years after Nichols. How about this sentence:
"Although Cher has been erroneously[note 2] attributed to being the first to flaunt the ban on navel exposure to the network censors, she was one of the last, most prominent, and most often to do so before it's repeal in 1983.".
Attached note: Nichelle Nichols and BarBara Luna in Mirror, Mirror in the TV series Star Trek on October 6, 1967, and Diana Ewing in The Cloud Minders on February 28, 1969 of the same program.
Now after that statement, there should be some description of her conflicts with the censors, leading up to this question: "Were Cher's actions of navel exposure a direct result in getting the censors to remove their rule in 1983"? That is the larger - and more important question that should be answered, and it looks like she would be the closest to earning that title, because she's exposed more often towards the end of the effected rule. I can't accept the wordage of "...one of the first" because it is wp:weasel and plays to the media hype. What do you think? Dinkytown talk 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This RfC is getting long... I think we can claim that "Cher has been erroneously attributed to being the first to flaunt the ban on navel exposure to the network censors" (and I would love if you could help me by finding reliable sources backing up Nichols', Luna's, and Ewing's showings). To claim that she was "one of the last" to bare her navel before the ban of the rule in 1983 is a bit confusing, since she was actually the fourth woman to do so and the three women who did it before were Star Trek actresses; clearly it was a merit for the production of the series, rather than for the actresses.
The sources I found do not credit neither Cher or Nichols—or other Star Trek actresses—as responsible for the ban of the rule in 1983. They state that Cher was the first woman to expose her navel on television (which we know is not true, but give the ideia that she was the most proeminent one to do so) and that she fought CBS censors to bare her navel on her shows, and that's it. I plan to soon get my hands on the book Cher: Strong Enough by Josiah Howard, which provides some rich details about this period of her life and precisely describes her conflicts with censors; until that happens, I would suggest:
"Although Cher has been erroneously¹ attributed to being the first to flaunt the ban on navel exposure to the network censors, she was the most prominent and most often to do so before it's repeal in 1983.".
¹Attached note: Nichelle Nichols and BarBara Luna in Mirror, Mirror in the TV series Star Trek on October 6, 1967, and Diana Ewing in The Cloud Minders on February 28, 1969 of the same program.[citation needed]
What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this will work. If you want to do the honors of putting it in, go ahead. The [citation needed] at the end may be problematic as it is a footnote within a footnote, which may conflict with structure. I've never heard of it in the Turabian, Chicago Method, PA, MLA or any other style. Wikipedia may have a policy on it already. The sources can be connected with the respective links.
I think reading how Cher fought the censor should be an interesting read. I'm sure there are sources about how the censors removed the navel rule locked up somewhere, but it may be unpublished and stored in government archives beyond the reach of Wikipedians, but not researchers.
A side note; I found two more programs that had navel exposure; the TV series Hee Haw, and Laugh In, during the late 60s and early 70s. However, I've never heard of any issues with censor conflicts with navels, other that political controversy with subject matter on Laugh In (attacking Richard Nixon, Vietnam War, etc.). Laugh In is where Goldie Hawn (and her navel) got her start in show business. As far as I know, Gene Roddenberry and Cher deserve the credit on this issue exclusively, with Cher pushing it far more.
If you haven't figured it out, this dialog has exposed my age, since I'm recalling ancient TV programs long since canceled. Dinkytown talk 12:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
We are close to reaching consensus... Good! :-) I need only two things to put it in the article: one reliable source backing up the navel exposure during those two Star Trek episodes and other for the navel ban repeal in 1983. Could you help me with that? Lordelliott (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to worry about sourcing it here, just simply linking it to each wiki-page and let it go from there. BTW: I did get a source that Nichelle Nichols was the first to expose herself here.... Regarding the 1983 navel repeal, I got these sources from the navel in popular culture article:
- Associated Press. "Broadcasters Decide to Dissolve Their Radio-TV Advertising Codes". The Miami Herald, 6 January 1983, 19A. NewsBank. Web. 22 February 2013.
- Collins, Bill. "Changes Are Few in TV Ads". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 24 February 1983: C08. NewsBank. Web. 22 February 2013.
- Broadcasting, Self-Regulation of - The National Association of Broadcasters Codes of Practices, Broadcast Standards and Practices, JRank Articles
Lets run with the above changes and put this baby to sleep... Dinkytown talk 17:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we need sources for every single statement in the article, since I'm planning to nominate it to good article status soon. :-) I'll see what I can do about the sourcing. Lordelliott (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dinkytown, see the Public image section now; I did some rework on your suggestion based on the sources I've found. Let me know what you think! Lordelliott (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Lordelliott - again, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Yes, the changes look great, and I liked the sources cited for the work. I will consider this discussion complete. However, I saw a discussion about who was the first person to do a tap-dance on TV, though I'm sure that Gene Roddenberry might have been the first to do it in a hollow-deck - with a Vulcan... (and at this point I could care less... :) ). Thanks for the discussion - take care... Dinkytown talk 22:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Indeed. We wouldn't want an international incident. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 04:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment.  I can't believe there is actually an RfC about whose navel was the first to appear on television.  I'm sorry I don't have anything to contribute; but I will definitely enjoy following this RfC to see how it turns out.
    Richard27182 (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I simply meant that navels, in just about any context, seem a rather unlikely topic for an RfC.  Also the fact that the title of the RfC humorously contains the words "..... and other international crises....." suggests that the topic is not exactly among the most important concerns of mankind.
    Richard27182 (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact that navel exposure was banned in U.S. television for more than 20 years gives an ideia of how it was a pretty important subject back in the day, as bizarre as it may seem. Lordelliott (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess it depends on perspective.  On the one hand, an RfC about navels seems quite humorous.  On the other hand, opposing censorship is a subject that deserves serious discussion.
    Richard27182 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cher's record

Hello, to avoid a edit war @Lordelliott:, I posted this on talk. Actually, I changed the record sales of Cher of 200 to 100. The sources of ABC News its provides that Cher sold 200 million, but it was since her debut on scene with Sony & Cher. And if you noted, the source is from 2008, a range years when it was a mistakes Cher's record (that some sources includes with her husband-band). I know that now, there is some reliable references that demostrates the figure of 200, but there are primary sources. Chrishonduras (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chrishonduras! We should always stay true to what the sources say. If ABC News (a pretty reliable source, by the way) states that she has sold 200 million albums throughout her career, that's what should be mentioned on the article; anything other than that would characterize original research. As it is nearly impossible to do an exact estimate on the number of her total album sales (both solo or with Sonny) and considering that 1) her discography is really long; 2) record certifications weren't popular when she started out; and 3) she's been associated with every record label you can imagine, I think the ABC news source pretty solves this question... At least until we can find better, more detailed sources. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Voice role in 'Zookeper'

Cher's appearance in 'Zookeper' was nothing but a minor voice role, not worth mentioning as part of her essential filmography. A mention on the Cher filmography page is more than enough! If you have a different opinion, you are very welcome to discuss it here, but please don't keep putting that film back on the main page. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Boris Karloff II! It was established by consensus in this peer review that all films mentioned in the article body should be listed in the "Filmography" section, including minor roles such as The Player, Prêt-à-Porter, and Zookeeper. I agree we should discuss it here, but since this consensus was established a while ago, I'm reverting your edit. Feel free to ask for other users' opinions, and if we reach a new consensus involving more users, then we can keep your edit. :-) Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Cher has NOT sold 200 milion records

Cher has not sold 200 million records. Please stop vandalism. She can't sold that much. Her certified sales 40 million —Navyiconer (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please IB [ Poke ] help me. —Navyiconer (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Navyiconer. Its possible that we can open a census (and for other artists with inflated-figures like Janet Jackson). Chrishonduras (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes this one I agree with is dumbfoundedly inflated. —IB [ Poke ] 09:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Navyiconer! I don't think we have a vandalism issue here; what we do have is a reliable source (ABC News) indicating that she has sold 200 million records both solo or with Sonny versus your opinion. If you think this number is inflated, I'd suggest you to bring up other reliable sources proving your point and, once a consensus is reached, then we can change the figure. As for certified sales, keep in mind that record certifications weren't popular when she started out in the 1960s, and she has many, many under and uncertified records under her belt. Lordelliott (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

OMG I can't stand this :((( you can't write 200 million records her actual sales (with inflations) cannot be more than 100 million records, IB [ Poke ] please do it something :(((((( —Navyiconer (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for 100 million figure; http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-as-cher-tries-to-sell-adelaide-key-on-ebay-20120422-1xfo0 http://www.buffalonews.com/gusto/concert-previews/cher-says-farewell-again-with-dressed-to-kill-tour-20140416 and sources for 200 million it can be Billboard or Rolling Stone it doesn't matter 200 million unreal. sources for 200 million all of them unreal. Her actual sales (with inflations) cannot be more than 100 million records —Navyiconer (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the 200 million is an inflated number, however, Cher has so many uncertified albums, video albums and singles, and with all the compilations issued over the years, Cher has probably sold somewhere in the range of 110-120 million records. So, the 100 million records sold should stay until an acceptable higher figure is posted by a reliable source. —Uncleangelo (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lordelliott the figure of 200 million record, is because some references take individual and as duet with Sonny & Cher. However, the certifications are a range of the possible real figure that the artist sold. Yes, Cher is from 60's decade but she is not very popular in other countries like we can says that has so many uncertified albums (like other artists best-seller). There is not cherry picking statements... Vandalism from Wiki or not, these figures are so inflated. So, I think that we needs to open a census or present both figures and this is not WP:SYN or other policy. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Chrishonduras You obviously have no real idea of how the music industry worked back in the 60s and 70s - almost all the countries except the US didn't have certification system, the UK started issuing them in 1973, so that doesn't mean artists from that era were not popular or didn't sell there. There are artists like The Supremes who sold a lot of records back in the day but barely have NO certifications. Out of all the female artists from the 60s, Cher is 2nd when it comes to certifications, and her actual estimated sales are over 100 million. The 200 million figure, as I wrote above, is inflated and should not be used.—Uncleangelo (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
SMH, both of you are saying the same thing eventually, that the 200 million is inflated. There is no need for a RFC or anything when it is widespread consensus, and lets face, if someone pushes that 200 million, either that person has no indication how record companies inflate sales, or its fancruft. —IB [ Poke ] 08:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Overlinking in the lead (Billboard), Bob Dylan (second link in the sixth subsection; third paragraph). Georgia Holt (eleventh subsection; last paragraph), power ballad, disco, and hip hop (artistry), Jennifer Lopez and Janis Joplin (public image), Chaz Bono (philanthropy), Madonna (legacy and influence), Audrey Hepburn (achievements and recognition)
  • If she only won an Academy Award once, why bring it up twice?
    • The Academy Award is cited during the third paragraph (... Moonstruck (1987), for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress) because it was a high point in her career, and again in the fourth paragraph, during the "honors" sentence, for obvious reasons. In this specific case, I think the double mention is needed - it would feel awkward not to have her Academy Award listed in a sentence about honors she has received, as it would feel awkward not to mention her Oscar win when talking about her film career breakthrough during the 1980s. I know my English is not that good, but I hope I'm being clear. :-P Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Me too! The lead is structured by one paragraph introducing who Cher is, two paragraphs listing the highlights in her career, and a final paragraph listing her accomplishments. The Oscar is mentioned twice in the lead, firstly as a high point in her career, and then as one of the honors/awards she has won. That's why I think the double mention is fine in this case. Sorry for not being able to address all the points you've made yet. I'm a little busy these days, but of course I'll do my best to reply to your comments and make the changes in the article as soon as I can! Lordelliott (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article at hand, if you repeat an honor or accomplishment then it fails to be a summary and would read as fan cruft or point of view of the subject that the writer wants the reader to know. – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If her winning an Academy Award was a highlight of her career (even though all honors are) then the first mentioned is fine, the second mention (the list) doesn't fit and adds to its more list-like than prose approach. At this moment, you seem to know more about Cher than I do; so what would best fit the lead to help an uninformed reader?
  • The last comment in the first paragraph in the early life subsection is redundant, you already mentioned how Cher's mother had another daughter with a different man, pointless to add that Georganne Southall is Cher's half-sibling.
  • No need to tell readers that Georganne Southall is Cher's half-sibling again (fourth paragraph of the first subsection)
  • "being the first young woman in her social circle to do so." - irrelevant undue weight, the fact that you specified her choice of clothing at a young age and her behavior during lunch breaks is fine.
  • You already mentioned who is Connie Berman and Mark Bego, why continue telling readers of their occupation and first names? (second subsection; first paragraph, fourth subsection; first paragraph, fifth subsection; second paragraph and third paragraph, sixth subsection; third paragraph, seventh subsection; last paragraph, ninth subsection; first paragraph, legacy and influence)
  • Remove the redundant "so he" in the second subsection; second paragraph
  • You should specify that the album All I Really Want to Do was Cher's debut album, seeing as she had recorded and released the song which is a cover version of Bob Dylan.
  • Either link RIAA certification or explain what a gold record (and platinum) is, since countless countries have the same certification with different measures of units.
  • You do not have to link nor explain each occurrence, because many countries have different measurements of units of what a gold and platinum record is, it would be best to either explained (when first read) or link to the article for further understanding. – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Emotional is an MOS:OPED word and should be removed (tenth subsection; first paragraph) as well as the WP:PEACOCK word famous (public image; also if the image was famous, elaborate on it, you only said it was famous which sounds fan-ish since you didn't specify what made it so.)
    •  Done The word "emotional" was removed. As for the word "famous", I found a source which details how the photo caused an uproar on media (Cher: Strong Enough, by Josiah Howard - pp. 125-126). But after reading that, I think the right word would be "controversial", not "famous". The sentence already states that the gown is "nude", which pretty much explains how it was controversial, but we can add details from the book if you think it is necessary. Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since Closer to the Truth is her highest peak to date, then remove the mention that Living Proof was her highest.
  • Overall, the article is well-written and I applaud your work on this very important person. Once these issues have been fixed, I'll re-read the article once more before passing. Great job – jona ✉ 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Wow! That means a lot to me considering that I'm not a native English speaker (as you can see) and that the only place I practice is Wikipedia. Thank you for the compliment. Look forward for you comments! :-) Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem, I was amazed at the writing so kudos to you. Also, you seem to be engaging in an edit war with other users, I won't be able to pass (once my comments have been addressed) if the article continues to be changed often. Either have a discussion on the talk page with said users or file a complaint over at WP:AN/3. Best – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am now passing this article after my comments were addressed. Congrats on your great work, hope to see more from you in the future. – jona ✉ 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First marriage to Sony Bono

An editor changed the marriage from 1969 to 1964 in the infobox, which was inconsistent with the body of the article. I reverted that change for now. They did point out that Sony Bono says they were married in 1964. I did a quick check there and there is a source in that article that does say 1964, but the sources in this article say 1969. Not sure what is correct. MB 04:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I just checked a number of newspapers from back then, including The Los Angeles Times, and they all confirm 1964. --Light show (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I went through the article more closely and it says they were "self-married" in a hotel room in Mexico in 1964 but were not officially married until 1969. So the actual date appears to be 1969, even if they acted and professed to be married in 1964. It looks like Sony Bono is using the "self-married" date and is wrong. MB 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Superfluous "to date".

"She is the only artist to date to have a number-one single on a Billboard chart in each decade from the 1960s to the 2010s" doesn't need "to date". It's implied. If it wasn't to date, we'd say "she was".

This isn't controversial (I think), but the page refuses to load when I save my edit. It tries for a minute or so. Something about security certificates. Other pages here seem normal. If this one works normally for you, can you make this minor edit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Come on. You know you want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Had a go on it and found this sentence to occur three times in the article. is that really necessary? 155.4.221.123 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Her last number one song was in 1998.  She hasn't had any number one songs since then.  So how can we say that her timeframe is from the 1960s until the 2010s?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.41.245 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed text which was simply a copy-paste of the reference given at the end of the sentence. Please do not restore it without rewriting the offending text. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

audio for "share"

Cher is a homophone of "share" I believe so the audio file at Wiktionary:share can be used. also giving "share" explicitly as a homophone might help. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Nomination

She was also nominated for a supporting actress Oscar for Silkwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cher/Archive_3&oldid=1140397292"