Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Mariah Carey talk page (Discussion page). (July 2010 - October 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Best-selling of all time

I am reopening this discussion and restarting it so I can accurately present my case. I had a previous discussion about Carey's worldwide record sales. I believed to place 200, alongside many reliable independent sources. However others decided to stick with her label's claims of 175, saying her label is the most reliable because they produce her and certainly won't deflate her sales. So I then added another claim her label says Best-selling female artist of all time. However an editor didn't agree, because while her worldwide sales are well listed on her label, a claim such as Best-selling cannot be quoted by her label (as it won't be reliable for that). The editor was "Escape Orbit", and we reached a compromise. The compromise was "The claim could stay, as long as I present reliable third party sources". The full conversation can be viewed here. I did so and have the 2 original sources and 3 new reliable third party sources listing her as "The best-selling female artist of all time". They are Island Def Jam, Universal Music Group, The Daily Telegraph, The Insider and BMI. I then placed them with the claim, only to be removed by 2 editors, who don't believe it to be true. I would like a discussion/vote to take place here to determine if these many reliable sources (her label and third party sources) can be used. Please express yes/no and why/why not. Thanks everyone.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• IMO under no circumstances is the record label any kind of appropriate source for record sales. That much I will never budge on. That discredits the IslandDefJam source (as well as Universal Music Group because its parent company of Island-Defjam group). I consider the likes of the Daily Telegraph to be reliable as long as there is some sort of industry verification - which BMI provides. In my view BMI is the most reliable of the sources provided for this type of content. I'm neutral/undecided/do know about the Insider, though on brief inspection it does appear to be credible. I consider any use the of record labels, for this sort of claim, to be the use of a primary source and thus discredited. According to her website she recieved a World Music Award in 2000 for being the best selling female of the millenium. [1] those such claims could probably be backed up by the media. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm honestly not 100% sure if you agree or not unique. Would you agree to inserting the "Best-selling" claim or not?--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I get that you don't agree to use her label, but you do like the BMI source. So my question is, would you agree/disagree/neutral to placing the statement "Best-selling female artist of all time"?--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've removed my other response cus it was confusing. I would have agreed but I've just found the following on Google Books: "No wonder Madonna remains the highest earning female singer of all time according to the 2007 Guiness Book of World Records. Forbes estimates her wealth to be around $250 Million dollars"Billboard Magazine (October 13, 2007) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't understand what difference this source makes. The source says Highest earning female, that means she earns the most money. That has nothing to do with album or single sales. It doesn't say "est-selling female" or "top-selling", it says "highest earning", that means she earns the most money.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That certainly makes me doubt the credibility of who is actually the highest selling female. I feel that at the moment its too ambiguous. You would have thought that the media would have covered stories on this. Rather than claiming Mariah is best selling female of all time stick to comments like she's 17th best selling artist in the US, which is easily proven by RIAA. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike national/regional recording associations like the RIAA, CRIA, FIMI, or IFPI, there is no way to estimate worldwide sales of an artist. That leaves us with only sources and statements from reputable parties. The problem I have with including any mention of her being the world's best-selling female artist is that there is no mention of that other than a few sources from a few news articles. Also, these sources do not cite any recording industry organization, which can corroborate the statements that they write. What can also be said, is that there is so much saturation with terms like "most successful female artist" or "best-selling female artist". It provides ambiguity that is quite difficult to discern from any one party or source. Music firms like Sony and Universal can say what they like about an artist. It creates great marketing and increases the "starhood" of the artist. I agree with Lil-unique1 that providing a source directly from Mariah's record label is a bit biased, at best. From these points, I don't think providing this accolade or anything similar to it is neccessary given the lack of reliable information available. BalticPat22Patrick 03:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this one. First of all, record labels know how many albums an artits ship otherwise they wouldn't be able to analyze it and react to the reception. Like when an album sells well, they immediately ship more units. To trust those sources without reviewing them would also be naive and stupid. Here is an example to support my argument: A few year ago it was stated that Michael Jackson's Thriller sold more than 100 million copies, but when we compare it with the official data from the RIAA, IFPI, etc. it doesn't add up. Estimations put the total sales of the album at 45-50 million. Of course then you have to add the countries which do not have any official data. Reidlos (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

According to what your saying Baltic, then the same would apply to Celine Dion's page. Sony once produced her and would no doubt want her to look as good as possible for album sales, making them unreliable. My problem is I don't think you apply this to all artists, simply to this page.--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reidlos, would you object to inserting that claim, being the sources given?--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bold statement that can never be proven, I think the media says Madonna or Mariah Carey whenever it suits them best for whatever their purpose is. I think if it's to be included it should say "It has been stating by various Media outlets that Mariah Care is the best-selling female artist of all time", that way it's not saying it's 100% true. I for one disagree, Mariah has never been as big in Europe as Madonna and although Mimi is bigger in the U.S., Madonna has still sold more albums there. As for the record sales, if the label isn't a valid source, I think we should go with the media and change it back to 200m. Jayy008 (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the way the lead is now, is fine. Jayy008 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Jamie, I happen to agree somewhat. We have 4 editors saying that her label cannot be trusted when it comes to record sales, and is not reliable. Yet whn the discussion came up, they wanted to stick with the labels claim. Well if the label is not reliable for record sales, then we should stick with the 200 M figure. If the "Best-selling claim doesn't fit, then the 200 M figure should have no problem, as there are plenty of reliable sources (not just newspapers) that claim 200, being that her label is not deemed reliable on record sales.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We have many editors already express how her label cannot accurately represent her record sales, as well as they are not reliable and can serve absolutely no purpose here. This being so, her album sales should not go on by what her label says, but by the many reliable and independent sources, as Jay008 indicates. These sources Yahoo Music, The Independent, The Telegraph, Sony Music, Reuters, MTV, Vh1, The Insider, Fuse TV and Tower Records. These are countless reliable sources, many of them industry related, such as Yahoo Music and The Independent. Being that everyone has agreed her label to hold no ground with her sales, they should be listed at 200 M.--PeterGriffin • Talk 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the 200m figure, but I do have an objection if it says 200m albums because that would be OTT. If it's 200m albums, singles and videos written then that would be fine. Jayy008 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Jamie, there Im not sure. "Yahoo" does not specify, "The Independent" says albums, "Reuters" says albums, "MTV" says albums, "Sony" says albums, "Fuse TV" says albums and "Tower records" says albums. The only ones that says records or albums, singles and videos are "The Telegraph", "The Insider" and "Vh1". I think just by way of weight and numbers, the albums claim is more accurate and sourced.--PeterGriffin • Talk 12:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding up the WW sales of all her albums (the reliable ones), what does it total to? (32m for Music Box wasn't valid, it was 28 wasn't it?) Jayy008 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Music Box" currently is listed as having sold 32 million copies worldwide, with this Yahoo Music source, its reliable. Theres really no way to know forsure jamie. Taking her top 4 seller equal over 100 million. Being so and we don't have reliable sources for all her albums, theres no way to know for sure. The same goes for many artists, add up their sales and it probably doesn't equal the sales listed, that because we don't have updated sources for all their abums available. Its basically following the reliable sources, or adding up whatever we got. thats the truth, I'd go with the sources.--PeterGriffin • Talk 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is not the claim but rather the source. I'm with Jay on this. You can use the 200m figure though i will say according to RIAA's top-selling artists according to certifications Mariah has sold 63m certified units (albums and singles) in the U.S. Therefore I think its a bit of a stretch to say her uncertfified U.S. sales and and rest of world ones equal 137m. [2] If you take out the singles her certified sales would be a lot lower. So stick with 200m records sold. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I wouldn't object to that, that seems reasonable and logical.--PeterGriffin • Talk 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just want to fully respond to your statement Unique. This source, which lists her album shipments at 63 million are US album shipments. If you add her US single sales which according to Billboard are 17.2 million physical singles and 13.8 million digital singles, making her US verifyable sales at 94 million records. Just wanted to point that out. But I agree with you guys, and would not object to 200m records.--PeterGriffin • Talk 13:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The source from RIAA is all certified unit, meaning singles and albums. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry Unique, but you'll find there your mistaken. That would mean Nielsen SoundScan and RIAA are severely contradicting each other. Nielsen lists Carey's US album sales at 52+ million (not including half of her debut) and 31 million single sales, while the RIAA list 63. That would mean Nielsen is inflating the RIAA's listings by over 20 million records, over 30%. Thats not logical and not the case, its talking about album shipments not both.--PeterGriffin • Talk 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming too complex because we're pitting sources against each other. All RIAA says in the source provider is "Certified Units in Millions". No where does it state that it is just albums or just singles. Therefore her sales with certified being the keyword (i.e. sales which have earned certificates). Nielsen will obviously track ALL sales including those not certified. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, anyways, that part is not of importance, only the 200m figure. W just have to wait for a few more people.--PeterGriffin • Talk 14:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say use the sources for 200m that specify albums AND singles. That totals at least three and that should be enough. Jayy008 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Peter, no it would not. This is because the source corroborates the figure with a reference from Sony Music. Also, are we talking about Mariah Carey, here, or not? You are always trying to compare and contrast articles (if this article has it, then that one has to have it, etc). It's unfair, unneccessary and clearly showcases that some sort of bias is at work, here. I would also like to add that the "200 million" statement is ridiculous. The fact that her record label doesn't even acknowledge that number, (they state the 175 million records sold) showcases it as incredibly an inflated figure.BalticPat22Patrick 15:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

200 million albums and singles seem probable as long as it is sourced from a reliable source, such as her recording company, and NOT just from fan websites that would surely compromise the validity of the claim. For the best-selling female of all time, this has been discussed so many times that it is become tiring. World Music Awards named Celine Dion, not Carey, the best-selling female artist of all time vs. best-selling female of the millennium for Carey so that makes the difference there. That should be settled for now. Diphosphate8 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to explain, here. Also, I'm curious to what sources say "200 million" other than her record label, because they explicitly state the "175 million" figure in various sources which are already present in the lead.BalticPat22Patrick 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I don't even understand what your trying to say in your first paragraph Baltic, try again. Secondly, that just goes to show how Diphosphate8 is just trying to demote Mariah. Your claiming that these sources are "just from fan sites", makes it clear you haven't the slightest clue what you want to believe. Yahoo Musc, The Independent, The Telegraph, Reuters, Vh1 and MTV are NOT fansites, they are very reliable and reputable source, even baltic will tell you that. that just proves you are just simply against the change wether its true or not.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, who is telling you that removing such a claim would demote Mariah? You're the only who thinks this way. Well, there are some special articles from newspapers/magazines claiming sales of 200 million but then it wasn't specified who certified such sales (no mention of IFPI, RIAA) so how credible can that be? In fact, there are actually some magazines claiming Britney Spears to be the best-selling female of all-time but nobody's biting that, because we all know it's not credible and for an artist to be featured in their magazines, there's a need to elevate the singer's status. We should stick to " 175 million albums, singles, videos" unless her record label would state otherwise. And for the best-selling female of all-time, that should be fine AS LONG AS World Music Awards declare Carey such a title, which obviously belongs to Celine Dion but that has not been changed since 2004. Therefore, we cannot put it in the lead. Diphosphate8 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does beg the question, why is Mariah's label saying less than 200m then? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's because her record label (Island) believes in certification, not from claims from any publication that do not tracks album/single sales. For one thing, their credibility would be compromised if they do otherwise. Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What yoour saying doesn't make any sense IFPI and RIAA only measure shipments not sales and only for US and Europe. So there is no comparison, and Yahoois not a magazine niether are most of these sources, they aren't people magazine who look to elevate their sales. And your really contradicting yourself. If her label is reliable for record sales, so why can't it be used for her being "the bes-selling female" for one its reliable for the other its not? you don't make any sense.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If her label is reliable for record sales, then we can forsure say "best-selling female" because we have reliable sources who agree with it. If its not reliable, then we have to go with the other sources and list 200m. There is NO other option, either 200m or "best-selling female". Its one or the other, is her label reliable with record sales or not.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And what does her record label say where they got that claim of "best-selling female of all-time?" We're talking about sales of her albums, singles here relating to what her Island Def Jam is claiming, NOT that unsourced claim you want to keep on inserting in the lead. As if "the best selling female of the millennium, the most successful artist in the 1990s, the artist with the most number one singles" are not enough, here you are trying to put another claim. What else do you wanna add, Peter? Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

...and not to mention, "the highest selling act in Columbia records!" Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

see my solution to the problem below. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you must know, thats all...:P....Thats not a response or logic, saying "theres too much information" isnt an arguement, its a cheap copout your using to get out of answering the problem. There is no way out, its either her label is reliable and we stick with "best-selling female" or her label is not reliable and we stick with 200m. Either way one must stay, so stop making crappy excuses.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter, only World Music Awards or Guiness World Records declare such a title (Best-Selling Female Artist of All Time) to recording artsts, not from a record label, magazines or fan websites. And quit replacing "100 million albums" to "150 million albums" for Chopart Diamond Awards. Since when did they change that? Do you have their own website to back it up? You are really trying to push this "200 million records and best-selling female of all time" for Carey, aren't you, Peter? LOL! But then, we are here to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Its about sources here, not your claims. Carey's official website, which Ive sourced, claims the award was for 150 million albums. Were you there? Do you know better than her website? NO so quit it. And no I don't want both placed, I want 1, whichever is deemed more reliable. And NO record labels and reliable sources can bud a person "best-selling"--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, if it comes from her official website, then DO NOT CHANGE the 100 million albums (Chopart Diamond Awards) to 150 million albums. It has to be sourced from IFPI or World Music Awards to back it up and NOT from her website. I checked the main article on Chopard Diamond Award and it clearly states "for sales of over 100 million albums." Do not change what the lead states unless we come up with a consensus yet. It has to be discussed here first. Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moderators/editors, I think Peter needs to be reminded about inflating sales of albums in this article. He keeps on inflating 100 million to 150 million albums for Chopard Diamond Award. He claims to have come from Mariah Carey's official website, but it is not what the IFPI states. Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia CANNOT source Wikipedia. Where is your source? for God sakes I have one and you DON'T--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to be reminded of anything, you need to learn how to edit. Look Here, youll see her website claiming 150. Now if you have an IFPI source claiming 100, then by all means it will stay, but you have NO source, you just quoting a Wiki page. Wikipedia CANNOT quote Wiikipedia.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Then stick to the figures of 100 million albums Chopard Diamond award, before you change it to 150. This needs to have a consensus, Peter. We don't mind changing it to 150 million as long as it can be backed up the IFPI site itself. Thanks! Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NO, thats not how it will work, end of story. I have a source, you DON'T, thats THE END. It stays at 150, until you can prove otherwise.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't deal with editors who can't reason with others or listen to reason and logic. You have to counter my claim with another source, not just revert. Thats all you know how to do is revert, well learn to do some research!! and try and prove me wrong for once in your life, instead of just senselessly reverting.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you know and we all know you've had issues before. Stick to it, until we all come up with a consensus. Diphosphate8 (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive had issues? At least Ive been here to have them. You don't even have a user or developed talk page for crying out loud. Get som experience and learn to hear reason and logic before you come back here. Im not going to revert again, Ill let you get blocked. I already requested Admin intervention, being your stubborn and won't listen to simple reason. The only two things you have written on your talk page are WARNINGS, how hilarious, ad your hear claiming that to me. Don't make me laugh.--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously not going to be resolved easily. I say just leave the lead as it is. I only said change to 200m if the label isn't a reliable source. But as Unique said WHY would Def Jam make it seems she's sold less? They just wouldn't do that. Everywhere that says 200m I'm guessing they source from Sony, who like to inflate, alot. The lead is fine and says she's the biggest selling pop artist. This has turned into more of an argument. I believe Madonna has sold more than Mariah Carey because the U.S. is Carey's biggest market and even there Madonna's sold ONE million more and Madonna's much bigger in Europe. I say because nobody can ever verify this, it shouldn't be included in the article. To solve all problems. Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

removed

As stated by Jayy above, we'll leave the lead as it is now to solve all problems. Diphosphate8 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if there isnt a problem anymore lets not create one! --20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

I would like to make a section called "Legacy" and include certain things such as; Commercial accomplishments and records, influence, legacy and quotes from artists she has influenced over the years and how she has influenced them. Please list any things you other editors would like to include and what you think of the project.--AlastorMoody (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Since many of her accomplishments were removed from the lead, I believe them to be properly placed in the "Legacy section". I also agree to the placing of sourced quotes from other artists who respect and were influenced by her.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it could be a section worth creating. However, I am not in favor of it being a trash can of misc. and unneccessary pieces of information stating various forms of random potpourri. I would advocate for specific and concise pieces that do not belong in other sections of the article. Obviously, all references would have to be from reputable sources, as well. Other than that, I think I would be fine with it. BalticPat22Patrick 02:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Be very careful with Legacy sections which can very well end up being trash can infos as BalticPat points out. Best would be to include scholarly analysis of her work, her influences on other artists, her accomplishments in the vocal category and Hot 100 chart, her business ventures (if it is successful), as well as her successful collaborations. Peter, I strongly disagree with placing fellow artist quotes, untill and unless it is supported by a scholarly claim. In an industry like the American music, peers rarely downplay fellow peers and newcomers anyways points out a range of artists as their influences. My point is would that be really credible seeing that such artists would really have originality if he/she is continuously saying that he/she is influenced by Carey, but doesnot show any influence in real in their work? That's why its best to include such influences backed by scholarly analysis, who can point out how Carey has influenced such newcomers. For reference, check out the legacy section of Michael Jackson and Madonna. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually did thanks, the Madonna legacy section helped me allot in thinking of ways to help write it. I agree, we can find authors and music critics who have analyzed younger stars and their possible influences. As welll as what you and Baltic mentioned.--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good that you all agree, Ill start gathering sources and ISBNs and start writin something. You guys are all welcome and encouraged to assist in any way possible. Its an important section!--AlastorMoody (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. If you need any assistance please let me know, Ill be glad to help.--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have begun on the "Legacy" section and listed various accomplishments and records. Its not finished as I have yet to find reviews and authorative commentaries. Please Legolas2186, you helped allot in the Madonna legacy section, so I encourage you to do the same here, it needs allot of quotes and such. Please feel free to add and remove information and lets keep this a civilized and united project. All the best.--AlastorMoody (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try definitely, but can't promise as scholarly work on Mariah is not that much available. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Bad

All things considered, the Legacy section looks pretty good and I especially enjoyed reading the introduction, but there are still some thing I'd change:

As the most successful artist of the 1990s, Carey has been dubbed a "Queen of Pop" for dominating the charts over the course of the decade alongside Whitney Houston and Celine Dion.[210]

I understand that there are articles, people who would agree, but in general the title "Queen of Pop" has always been attributed to Madonna.

Possessing a five-octave vocal range, Carey was ranked first in MTV and Blender magazine's 2003 countdown of the 22 Greatest Voices in Music, and was placed second in Cove magazine's list of "The 100 Outstanding Pop Vocalists".[188][211][212] Aside from her voice, she has become known for her songwriting. Yahoo Music editor, Jason Ankeny wrote, "She earned frequent comparison to rivals Whitney Houston and Celine Dion, but did them both one better by composing all of her own material."[213]

This has already been mentioned in "Artistry" and "Voice"! That's only an example, you should re-check! There is also a lot more information in the "Biography" section that should rather be in the "Legacy" section.

Thanks for reading. Reidlos (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Reidlos. I totally agree with your post. Mariah was never a pop-star, I mean most of her work isn't even pop. Its R&B, Pop, Hip-Hop etc. So yes obviously Madonna's entire discography is pop, so I totally agree. I do think we should mention her being called the "Songbird Supreme" and the songwriting part. I agree the voice thing can definitely go, considering we have a nice section solely dedicated to it.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful how rigidly you define "pop": Michael Jackson, Prince, Janet Jackson and Whitney Houston are all contemporary R&B artists who's music has been equally defined as pop - both in their post-disco dance oriented rhythm/instrumentation and in their commercial value, as "pop" or "popular music" is also defined academically as music that a significant number of people are paying money to listen to. In that respect, Mariah Carey is as much of a pop star as any of the above. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I really have problem with that statement. First of all, Carey was not the most successful artist in 1990s (maybe in US or in female category). Second, can you show us mainstream media such as CNN, BBC, The Daily Telegraph, Billboard, etc, calling her "Queen of Pop"? Opinion from just one author dose not make sense. Baratayuda (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Mariah Carey was "the most successful artist of the 90's in the US, not female or any other BS, the best-selling artist out of any band male or female etc. Also, she also was the best-selling international artist of all time in japan, as billboard wrote (I have a link), so it would be no surprise if she was the best-selling around the whole world, especially with "Music Box"s big sales in Europe. BTW I disagree with you, its the scholarly reviews that count, not BS media that call every talented female "queen".--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source for claiming "most successful artist of 1990s"??
The Times: Now Madonna, the “Queen of Pop”, seems to think she is Queen Victoria, waiving the rules in Malawi, CNN: The "Queen of Pop" began the British leg of her "Drowned World" tour in spectacular style, BBC: On Madonna's 11th album, Hard Candy, the queen of pop invites us to imagine her as a confectioner running a musical sweet shop., Sydney Morning Herald: The Queen of Pop's spiritual search led her to practice yoga, study Buddhism, Taoism and the Art of War, The Daily Telegraph: Queen of pop Madonna seeks help from the real Queen, The Independent: but given that this is Madonna - the Queen of Pop, Reuters: "Queen of pop" Madonna kicked off her "Sticky & Sweet" world tour in the Welsh city of Cardiff on Saturday, Billboard: interesting dilemma for the woman who certainly held the 'Queen of Pop' title for almost 15 years, CBC Canada: The Queen of Pop directed 2008's Filth and Wisdom, which was widely panned, FOX News: John accused the queen of pop of lip-synching
Can you show us the same like that (CNN, BBC, Telegraph, MSN, etc) calling Mariah Carey "Queen of Pop"??? -- Baratayuda (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Carey is the best-selling international artist in Japan of all time and Carey as the best-selling female performer of the 90's. Also, I'm not the one who placed that info, but I'm not sure if I agree it should be removed. I'll wait for further comment.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I mean Baratayuda (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

CBC calls Carey, "the leading pop diva" while the poll placed her #1 in "Queen of Pop" Ahead of Madonna so does Fox News. Those are just 2 examples of many. I'm just too lazy to search more, you get the picture.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About sales numbers-----Must be carefully not to use POV editorials as a source...We dont use news paper columns blogs/editorials for sales figures as there are individual industry standers in each country and they have there own qualification requirements (some are by numbers shipped others by numbers sold at the retail level. The only numbers/figurers that should be used are listed here --> List of music recording certifications under Certifying body. If a news article does not refer to the countries certifying body and/or distributors sales numbers we will have to question is reliability especially if its the only one that says it. ..And about Queen of POP...Many many people called this...i can find you a ref for anyone out there Beyonce is the new Queen of Pop Its is all over i see it ewver weere Moxy (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I too believe that "most successful artist of 1990s" must be clarified, this can't be worldwide, Carey was never big in Europe, for example in the UK I really doubt that she was bigger than Take That, Boyzone, the Spice Girls or Oasis. Also Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill, Shania Twain's Come on Over and Madonna's The Immaculate Collection have bigger certified sales or nearly the same of all of Carey's albums combined during that decade. I also find hard to believe that she could be bigger than Celine Dion in France or Belgium. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, of course its talking about the US, not worldwide. Firstly, what are you talking about? Mariah Carey's "Music Box" has sales just as large as "The Immaculate Collection" in Europe except in the UK. Everything is easily matched. Also, while Madonna was big in the UK and Dion in France, Carey was very huge in Asia and especially Japan, where #1's alone has sold over 3.3 million copies. So aside from the US, those other females have their bulk of success in another country besides from the US, for Carey its Japan, for Dion its France and for Madonna its the UK. Besides that Carey's "Music Box" has sold more in France than any Madonna album has (1.4 million). In fact, just looking at abvailable certifications, "Music Box" was more successful in Europe than "The Immaculate Collection", besides for the UK, where she made up for easily in other regions.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be mentioned in the lead, but the part in the legacy section (that I see now that was erased) don't mention anything about a specific region, it sounded like that was worldwide. The example that I putted from Morissette, Twain and Madonna was for the UK, where the The Immaculate Collection is certified 12 times platinum, which is more than all of Carey's albums combined during the 90s, the same go for Come on Over and Jagged Little Pill. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the editor that added the statement, it was in reference to her being the most successful artist of the 1990s according to Billboard magazine:

• The artist of the decade, as determined by the same formula that we use to calculate each year's top pop artists list, is a singer who launched her career in 1990: Mariah Carey. The formula awards points, according to chart position and total chart weeks on both The Billboard 200 and the Hot 100, and a quick look at her chart history easily explains her standing. She has sent 14 songs to No. 1 on the Hot 100, more than any other female artist in chart history, trailing only Elvis Presley and the Beatles among all acts. She debuted at No. I three times on the Hot 100, an all-time Billboard record, and her 60-weeks-at-No.- I mark trails only Presley. All nine of her career albums have reached the top five on The Billboard 200, with four of those reaching No. 1. Carey also reigns as the top R&B artist of the '90s, as determined by the formula of performance on Hot R&B/HipHop Singles & Tracks and Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums that establishes each year's top R&B artist categories. She has had 18 top-10 singles in the format, including six No. Is. She's also had eight top- 10 albums on the R&B list, including two No. 1s. The highest-ranking male on the pop-artists list is Garth Brooks, third among all '90s acts behind Carey and Janet Jackson." Geoff Mayfield. "Totally '90s: Diary of a decade". Billboard. New York: Dec 25, 1999/Jan 1, 2000. Vol. 111/112, Iss. 52/1; pg. YE16, 2 pgs

Im not saying that she is not most successful artist of 1990s "in the US", but that should be clarified, because clearly she is not the most successful artist of the 1990s worldwide, she is not that popular in Europe. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as being "Queen of Pop":

• "Among her co-stars is queen of pop Mariah Carey who has won rave reviews for her portrayal of social worker Mrs Weiss." Evening Chronicle. "Indie film hits big at box office". Newcastle-upon-Tyne (UK): Jan 29, 2010. pg. 4
• "MARIAH CAREY, the '90s queen of pop who remains the best-selling female performer of all time, isn't quite ready to pass the crown." Gerry Gittelson\ Staff Writer. "No End To Carey's Charms". Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 20, 2003. pg. U.3
• "Queen of pop Mariah Carey will be performing at Seoul Olympic Park, May 31, and at the Busan BEXCO Center, June 3. Although this is her third visit to Korea, Carey's "Charmbracelet" World Tour will be her first ever solo-concert for local fans." Korea Herald. "Mariah Carey schedules summer concert in Korea". Seoul: Mar 26, 2003. pg. 1
• "December brings on dueling divas with one tabloid-weary queen of pop against another. Mariah Carey released "Charmbracelet" Dec. 3, one week ahead of Whitney Houston's "Just Whitney"." IN THIS CORNER Mariah Carey, the reigning queen of the pop charts with 15 No. 1 singles -- behind only the Beatles (with 20) and Elvis Presley (18) -- once seemed unstoppable. But she split from her past, embracing skimpy outfits that make micro-minis seem dowdy and swapping big ballads for rhythm-heavy tracks that turned her from center-stage diva to bit-part coquette. The disastrous "Glitter" soundtrack and much-publicized breakdown didn't help matters. IN THAT CORNER Whitney Houston, the one-time queen of pop, who defined the '80s and early '90s with big ballads and chipper dance numbers. In recent years, Houston crossed back to the groovy side of the street with the multi-platinum "My Love Is Your Love," a sign that Whit still knows how to get down. However, her current career limbo comes from tabloid rumors about drugs and her marriage to Bobby Brown, and a string of high-profile no-shows that signal "Houston, we have a problem." Edited by Cara DiPasquale and Joe Knowles. "Faceoff: Mariah Carey vs. Whitney Houston". Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 4, 2002. pg. 47
• "If Ella Fitzgerald is the queen of jazz, Billie Holiday first lady of the blues, and Aretha Franklin the queen of soul, then who is the queen of pop? In the 1990s, it would seem to be a three-way tie between Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion. Certainly all three have their devotees and detractors, but their presence has been inescapable." Linda Lister. "Divafication: The Deification of Modern Female Pop Stars". Popular Music and Society. Bowling Green: Fall 2001. Vol. 25, Iss. 3/4; pg. 1, 10 pgs
• "Mariah Carey is unstoppable. With 17 No. 1 singles since her career began in 1990, Mariah is the riegning queen of pop." "The new Mariah Carey". Scholastic Scope. New York: Sep 3, 2001. Vol. 50, Iss. 1; pg. 16, 3 pgs
• "Mariah, you're the Queen of Pop, and your reign extends with another chart-topping single, "Without You." Michael Saunders, Globe Staff. "Mariah Carey: On a more personal note". Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Feb 4, 1994. pg. 58

There you have it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, those are allot of sources Bookkeeper, thanks. That just goes to show Barayatuda. Also, Frcm1988, I get you, yes "The Immaculate Collection" was very big in the UK, but when I said Carey was probably the best-selling worldwide of the 90s as well, I didn't mean in every country, I meant in cumulative. While there is no possible source, its just me saying. Carey's success in Japan more than matched Dion's in France or Madonna's in the UK, so I mean if you add all her sales everywhere for the 90's it will equal the most, not that she sold more in every country. I mean the world combined.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But the article is from Billboard, where they clearly mention her achievements on the Billboard charts. There is no way she was the biggest selling artist of the decade in Europe, her only successful album is Music Box. Her next most successful album is Daydream which is only certified 3 times platinum, the examples I gave before where albums that sold more than Carey's combined albums during the 90s. Madonna also had Erotica , Bedtime Stories, Ray of Light, Evita, etc. Celine had Falling into You, Let's talk about love, D'eux, etc. And there are a lot of artist that sold a lot during the 90s as well like Michael Jackson with Dangerous and History, Oasis, George Michael, the Spice Girls, or the Backstreet Boys have bigger sales than Carey's during the 90s in Europe. The source dosen't explicity said worlwide, they are referring to the US, and if you have a source for Japan than you could add both, but not worldwide, that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's why it if the "most successful artist of 1990s" statement is placed, it must be clarified that this is for the US (and Japan is there is a source). Frcm1988 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I agree with you btw. Firstly, while Mariah has been successful everywhere in the world, it is true that her success in Europe is not as big as Madonna or Dion. However, that statement that "more than all her albums combined" is BS except in the UK. "Music Box" has much higher sales in Europe than any Madonna album, as well as the fact that Carey has always been huge in Asia, where from just 4 albums, shes sold over 12 million albums alone in Japan (sourced from Billboard, I have sources). So what I meant is, I wouldn't be surprised if Carey sold more albums throughout the entire world in the 90's than any other artist (not in Europe, but the planet as a whole). Now this is of course just unverifiable-theory, so in NO way am I suggesting we include this, its just for discussion. However, we have sources for best-selling in 90's in the US and best-selling of all time in Japan, both which are in the legacy section.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Queen of Pop" is a quintessential peacock term. It means absolutely nothing. It's not based on anything that can be measure or evaluated in any sensible fashion and anyone can be called it in the opinion of practically anyone else. So really, a bundle of cites for either Carey or Madonna doesn't really prove anything unless they can show that they are practically synonymous with the term (like, for instance, The Godfather of Soul). I do not think this is the case with "Queen Of Pop", otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening. So I would say use of the term in the article is not improving anything, and debate about comparative sale figures or popularity isn't going to settle anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So then why Michael Jackson's article allowed to say "King of Pop" its the same thing! If so ten that too should be removed. Also, how is the James Brown thing any different?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Michael Jackson article, take it up on its talk page. Meanwhile, I do not believe that the term "Queen of Pop" is synonymous with Carey, or tells the reader anything factual, informative or useful. The James Brown thing is different because it is synonymous. You won't get anything like as uniform a search result using Queen Of Pop --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Over all these "Queen of Pop" crap, what bothers me most about the legacy section is how much it looks like a fancruft and a directory. There is no coherent flow, each line jumps to some other point, without any link, and is just statistics. A thorough copyedit of the section is needed. The only acceptable content I see is in the first para. The second and third para simply dwindles to a statistics of Carey's chart cornucopia. Unacceptable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look at the top of this discussion, you'll see I never thought it belonged, I just wanted to have it discussed before its removal. Anyway, the problem I have with the whole James Dean/Michael Jackson thing is, then we are kind of relying on opinion, like who do you think commands the title better. I don't buy any of them, but whatever.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad we are agreed then. :) You are right that these accolades are essentially opinion, which makes them questionable. But if the majority of people are agreed on who they refer to (even if they don't agree on the sentiment behind them), then it makes them notable. Ask 10 random people in the street who was "Queen of Pop" and you're likely to get 5 different answers. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Legolas. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphy of the section should either be summarized or completely removed! Reidlos (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Voice

There's double info in the voice section, is this needed?? Jayy008 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not 100% sure what you mean by double info? I mean there is definately allot of unnecessary info, at least 1 paragraph. Is that what you mean? If so, I say no its not all needed and go ahead and remove a nice chunk of it, it seems to be a repeat, "this person says this etc" :)--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. The "this person says this" parts they mention the same people more than once. Jayy008 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Mariah actually a singer-songwriter instead of a singer, songwriter? 70.52.170.86 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's actually correct per MOS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hair

Did you know that Charles Baker Strahan -- a "World-renowned hair stylist" who "is especially known for perfecting and individualizing his clients’ look and teaching them how to grow their hair to make it strong and healthy", who believes in "the integrity of the hair", and who has a "unique talent for creating flawless looks that enhance the inner beauty of his clients" -- spent months working with Mariah Carey?

Somebody who (unlike me) can take world-renowned hair stylists seriously might like to look at that article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Queen of pop/r&b

Speaking of "legacy", I found an article that states Carey as the Queen of Pop/R&B. There are countless articles that cited her as the queen of pop and/or the queen of r&b, but this is a title that I truly believe she has earned to merit. Its not a predominent title as, say, Aretha's The Queen of Soul, but it was popular among her fanbase (ex. Cher has been called the Goddess of Pop by her fans, and there are several articles credible reporters that call her the Goddess of Pop), and I believe that this is a credible source that is worth being considered to add to this article.
1. http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20091014000129 --99.235.34.129 --99.235.34.129 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, such recognition needs a scholarly analysis and an allegiance to the music, which is missing in case of Carey's article. Hence, such title cannot be added untill a critical analysis is done. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Personal life section? spouse section in the infobox? Remove personal info from the other sections and keep it just as career. What does everybody think? Jayy008 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Her personal life received third party notability because of who she is and her career. Hence it is a part of the same process. Like Madonna, any personal life info should be a flow of the main biography, and not a separate section. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Muddled sourcing

Regarding Carey's vocal registers, French-American baritone and singing teacher in the Conservatoire de Paris Malcolm Walker as well as music critic Stephen Holden of The New York Times said,

The low register is "tired", "distended." The medium is "pleasurable and possesses an ample vibrato." The belting register is "pure, full, ample and warm, but this register is often forced, scratchy above E-flat one octave and an half above middle C [Eb5]." The head voice as well as the whistle register are "pure, bright and ample, with an impressive power until B nearly three octave above middle C [B6]."

References

The sourcing is muddled. Are we expected to believe that both individuals said precisely the same thing? — ThePowerofX 14:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you're the one that noticed it. Can't you fix it? Jayy008 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things

There are two sentences that bother me.

• In February 2010, the song, "100%", which was originally written and recorded for the film, Precious,[150] was used as one of the theme songs for the 2010 Winter Olympics, with all money proceeds going to Team USA.[151]

I think this one fits better the "Philanthropy and other activities"-section.

• Carey performed in Brazil for Festa do Peão de Boiadeiro, the Cowboy Festival in Barretos on August 21.[157]

This should be removed because it's trivia.

Reidlos (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Definitely support; go ahead! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pop Singer

You guys need to stop removing Pop from her intro. As much as some might not like it Mariah is primarily a Pop singer, it's the genre that she started out with and that made her famous. Although she did start to mix R&B and Hip Hop elements WITH Pop in the late 90s, doesn't dismiss her pop styling. Even today she still performs primarily Pop songs with elements of R&B and Hip Hop. So, can the Pop/R&B please be added back. (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Merry Christmas II You

Just open up the page already. Song titles have been revealed, the album name is revealed, release dates have been revealed. There is already considerable info about the album, and its released in under two months. other singers have the pages open for months before. calvin999 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the release dates and name has been revealed and the formats of distribution have also been revealed. I guess its right to open up the page. But, officially it has not been confirmed whether the dates and release formats are correct, but the fansite has posted some information. So, I guess we have to wait until its publicly announced. Novice7 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong.... It needs to be confirmed by reliable sources. Read WP:NALBUMS for the notability criteria for when it is is appropriate to have individual pages for albums. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Voice

Does the voice section really need to be so separated? It could still have speech bubbles if it was written as a continual paragraph. Jayy008 (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it looks kinda off and weird! I would suggest to bunch it up into, maybe, three paragraphs (or four) and have quotes like you said.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. I'll wait for around two more replies then make the changes. Jayy008 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.208.23.147, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} When a female singer is singing from alto untill soprano notes the person hasn't got a soprano voice, but a mezzo-soprano voice. The debt of the voice and the timbre are the things that are guiding a voicetype. Please change the soprano vocals into mezzo-soprano voice.

87.208.23.147 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't see where in the article it states that Mariah Carey is a soprano. I'm inclined to disagree with you and say she's an alto, not a mezzo-soprano, but this is open for discussion. Can you point out where this is, please? elektrikSHOOS 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed duplicate review

Hey so the line "Carey convincingly seizes many opportunities to display her incredible vocal range, on such memorable tracks as the popular 'Vision of Love." was in the article twice, so I removed one of them. On one occasion, the above sentence was attributed to "Allmusic", and in the other instance it was attributed to "Billboard". Upon checking the source for the Billboard attribution, I found that Billboard had cut and pasted the review from Allmusic's site. So I deleted the Billboard attributed sentence and kept the Allmusic attributed sentence.

Jozsefs (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TOO MUCH INFO on the LEAD

I have noticed that one moderator keeps on adding this outdated World Music Awards Mariah got in 1998 being Best Selling Recording Artist of the 1990s and Best Selling R&B Artist and another contributor adding her recent Billboard ranking at #6 on Billboard All-Time Top Artists.

I don’t see anything wrong if these achievements are added in the article elsewhere, but NOT in the LEAD as it is agreed upon that the “lead should stay AS IT IS.” Petergriffin and Diphosphate, I have nothing against you two, but you are very well aware of this and you have been a part of this discussion before , along with Jayy008, BalticPat22, Lilunique, etc.

I have noticed that so many citations from World Music Awards have flooded this article: 1.best selling female pop artist of the millennium, 2.recipient of Chopard Diamond Award and now Peter is adding up a very outdated award in 1998 being 3. best-selling recording artist of the 1990s and 4. best selling R&B artist. Moreover, it is so apparent that Mariah’s achievements in Billboard is OVER-EMPHASIZED as well, such as 1.1st 5 singles to top the Hot 100, 2. her 18 #1 singles in the Hot 100 and now Diphosphate is adding her recent ranking in Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artist at number six.

Can we trim this LEAD and choose the most notable citation once and for all??? The aim of the lead is to just give a glimpse of who the artist is and her most distinguished awards but not to a point of making it look a lot like Mariah’s fan website, just so readers would have interest to read further the entire article about Mariah, which is the aim of this website afterall. We already came up with a RESOLUTION a couple of months ago. We don’t want another problem. Thanks! Ikabod08 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong in your idea. You are claiming that we had consensus to "leave the lead as it is and not change or touch anything" that is complete BS. I'll tell you what the consensus was. We had a consensus on 3 things. (1) to not mention other artists names in the lead (Barbra Streisand, Madonna). (2) to not use other references to source her sales when her label contradicts (That issue no longer exists, as not her label claims over 200 million as well). (3) to not turn the lead into a collection of Carey's chart achievement. For that reason, mamy were removed and moved to the "Legacy" section. Now under no circumstances does that mean that I cannot change the lead as I deem fit. It was in NO way agreed to leave the lead in that state forever. I removed the "Best-selling act in Columbia history" and replaced it with "Carey earning the awards for best-selling of the decade in the world & best-selling R&B artist." There is nothing wrong with this switch, with my change being far more notable. As for Diphosphates' edit, I would agree to leave that out of the lead, as that was a "specific" piece of info that was removed during the consensus. Your constant reverting it haltering this articles development, so I ask you again to stop.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as the lead doesn't go above four paragraphs, it's fine. Again, putting capitols will not help the argument, it's rude and aggressive, please change it. Jayy008 (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you did not seem to get my point. I am not arguing with anybody and I have nothing against that World Music Awards she received 12 long years ago but what I'm questioning is "can we just filter this out and SELECT the one most notable among her 4 WMA citations mentioned in the lead" as what it is in the lead of other recording artists, such as Michael Jackson, Beatles, Madonna, Elvis as Mariah's lead is over-flooded with World Music Awards. One more thing, the Columbia thing is still there, contrary to what Peter said that it has already been removed. This is what it's stated in the first paragraph "Following her marriage to Mottola, in 1993, a series of hit records established her position as Columbia's highest-selling act" followed by her redundant outdated WMA citations. So it still stays there and has never been replaced, as Peter claimed. Ikabod08 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ikabod08 this has come up recently in that someone has mentioned that this article need to loss its FA level because of outdated info and puffery (specifically in the lead). He was told that he should mention this here...i am wondering if this is you and if so can you copy and past what you said before here, because i cant find it (was at the FA talk page i believe). If i am way off and it was not you sorry! I also agree that the lead needs some work with this points but its not at all bad. Perhaps we could make a proposal and re-do the lead here and get concusses to put it in. I dont think the article should loss its FA level because of a bit old info presented as valid today or puffery that we can fix by removing a few words or a statement or 2.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate, the most notable information in generally preferred. The lead also doesn't need to be sourced as all of the information should be sourced lower in the article. If you're going to remove certain information from the lead, make sure the information in actually mentioned in the article below. You ignored this the first time, so I'll say again, please assume good faith Wikipedia:GOODFAITH, the capitals equal shouting as assume people here aren't capable of reading plain text. Jayy008 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Moxy, it wasn't me who requested to have this article lose its FA level. It's definitely somebody else. I'm not even quite sure why that person requested such. I am foreseeing now the lead to be way improved. Honestly, it wasn't all bad until the insertion of another 2 WMA citations in 1998 (best selling artist of the 1990s; best selling R&B artist) in the first paragraph that seemed so REDUNDANT as WMA is mentioned again in the last paragraph (best-selling female pop of the millennium; Chopard Award recipient). So it's ok to move the 1998 WMA citations to be moved most appropriately in the Legacy section? UNLESS you guys prefer the 2000 WMA citations to be moved instead? Thoughts on this? Ikabod08 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all Ikabod. That does not mean, "Ikabod, go run wild and completely change the lead as you see fit" it will be a slow and not drastic procedure. Secondly those are all important milestones in her career. I would vote to move the Chopard award info to the legacy, the rest I do not view as redundant.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that her 4 WMA citations in the lead are important milestones in Mariah's career, just as her 79 wks at number 1 and the artist with the most number 1 debuts in the Billboard Hot 100 but then again, it was too much to mention these Billboard stuff in her lead though it had been resolved, once and for all. Same thing now goes to what the issue is - 4 WMA citations all in the lead and I have to agree with Jay and Moxy that it needs to be fixed. We have to select the MOST significant WMA citation. I would vote for either 'best selling female pop of the millennium' or 'best-selling artist of the 1990s' but defnititely just move the other 2 to Legacy section. By the way, Peter, I thought you added the recent 2 WMA to replace "Columbia's highest-selling act?" Check the first paragraph and it's still there. Thanks! Ikabod08 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually was incorrect in my previous statement. I replaced the "Best-selling artist in the US" for the 2 WMA wins. I vote to keep "Worlds best-selling artist of the 90's" and "female artist of the millennium". "Best-selling R&B" and "Chopard award" can be moved. We'll have 2 in the lead, versus 4.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the "world's best-selling artist of the 1990s and the "female artist of the millennium" though it'd be better to place both in the last paragraph to highlight her most significant achievements. Ikabod08 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I already did a little work. Feel free to finish, I'm busy in another project currently. Honestly, the entire article needs a thorough copy-edit. Also, almost every source needs fixing and re-formatting, as well as the removal of dead-links and unreliable sources. I will give it a try soon, its a shame the article should suffer from such issues.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter! I already made some edits and I will just have to move some of the specific info (Music Box, Number Ones, Chopard Diamond Award) in the Legacy section. Let me know if it does look better now. Ikabod08 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it looks fine now :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

Wikipedia in use: The photo in the infobox was used for an illustration in an interview with Mariah for Time Out. --David Shankbone 16:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of photo in info box

Petergriffin9901 changed the lead photo on the 21st of October. Since then his edit has been reverted 4 times by 4 different editors. Each time Petergriffin9901 has reverted it back.

The problem is that;

1. The existing photo is very good and clearly shows the subject.
2. The replacement clutters the image with a second person who has very little to do with this article.

Can I asked Petergriffin9901 to stop edit warring over this and explain why the picture he is adding is better for the purpose? The "Quite a few editors" who agree with the change could contribute to the discussion, as so far there is no evidence of them on this talk page.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask where there is a rule that the photo should not have another person in it? Or anything else your claiming? I happen to think its opinion based. You can leave it here and well see what people think.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "rule". But it's generally accepted that, whenever possible, the best photos to lead an article are of the subject alone. Featuring someone else can be confusing. Which is which? (No, I'm not suggesting that's a problem in this case) Who is this other person? What is their significance? Why are they in this article? Are they usually seen together? Are they in a relationship? It's all a needless distraction, particularly when there is a perfectly acceptable, high quality photo of Carey alone available. There is no reason to replace it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)