Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

I want to just added one more Music Genre that Mariah Carey do, which is DANCE genre ViktorLucian88 (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources for this information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Add Mariah Carey's 2019 album "Merry Christmas (Deluxe Anniversary Edition) to her Discography. And remove "born March 27th 1969" , and change it to March 27th 1970. Themeaningfulrock11 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not sure re-releases are appropriate for inclusion there, but 1969 either way should remain until someone can prove beyond any reasonable doubt Mariah was born in 1970 (there are multiple legitimate sources for each year and a 2013 RFC agreed to include both as a compromise). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 billboard greatest of all time artists

Mariah was just ranked as the top female artist of all time by Billboard’s Top 125 Artists of all time. Definitely worth mentioning!!! Lambily4lyfe (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

All I Want For Christmas Is You - 19th #1 Single (Not In Lead)

Doesn't follow up after saying "Touch My Body" became her 18th #1, thus making her the soloist with the most #1s. Someone please update the Lead. Thanks.--207.244.180.40 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done just implemented this now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

Please change "amazon music" to "Amazon Music". This is located in Career - 2018–present: Caution, continued residency and touring. 77.98.148.182 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Mariah Carey birth year

After researching all the sources including the ones cited on this page, her birth year should state the year 1970 instead of 1969 because there are a lot more sources for 1970 than there are for 1969. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

First account testimony (by proxy) as proof of Carey's Year of Birth

I wanted to bring to your attention an additional source related to her birth year that could potentially be added to the many sources that are already there. I chose not to add the source myself since I know varied conflicting sources have been contradicting one another for many years and I'm assuming the sources you've already carefully selected the many sources that are already there. I thought this source was interesting since it is basically from a first account (from her mother). In this 1999 episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show, Oprah talks with Carey and her mother about biracial identity. Around 18min 18 seconds, Carey's mother says this:

"They didn't like us because we were living as, you know, a black and white couple and that just wasn't done. And in 1969, we were in that neighborhood. And in 1970, when she was born [gesturing in Carey's direction], we moved out of the neighborhood."

In my opinion, the fact that Carey's mother appears on television and refers to the year "1970" as the year "when she [Carey] was born", even gesturing towards Carey while she does ( making it even more clear that she is indeed talking about Carey) speaking about Carey), is a pretty solid proof to support the claim she was born in 1970.

According to the sources that are already in place on the Wikipedia page, even though sources are conflicting about her birth year either being 1969 or 1970 , the latter appears to be the year more often preferred by serious publications. I've also noticed that a lot of the sources provided in support for 1969 are much more scarce. Indeed, by taking into considerations only the sources presented there, there are twice as much sources backing the year 1970. Also, this might be more subjective, but among the sources used in support of the year 1969, there are fewer authoritative sources or if they are then the article itself is more or less of questionable merit. While The Routledge International Who's who ? would typically be well researched, all the others are merely show-business news snippets about pretty mundane concerns and were certainly not the result of thorough research like a feature piece would be.

Also based on the fact that Carey doesn't object to the claim or have any kind of reaction whatsoever to what her mother is stating, is somewhat an indication or at the very least a clue from which we could make the inference that this information is accurate. I get this is is somewhat speculative and I'm not saying Carey would have objected verbally or corrected her mother mistake on television, but I think most people would have some sort of reaction either, verbal or on a much more smaller scale like a change in gaze or just a smile if their date of birth was stated incorrectly in their presence. Also, for what it's worth, I think it is safe to say that for recollecting any event surrounding one's birth, a mother is a much more able and reliable source than a child himself or herself could ever be. Now, someone could argue that her mother stated the year incorrectly, but honestly, that would just be weird. I don't know if that settles it for you. I know it did for me. I was convinced by it. I find this statement to be pretty clear and unequivocal. What do you think ?AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 12:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from with trusting a mother's word over even what her child says, but Patricia has previously been rejected as a basis. The user Tenebrae firmly insisted on not taking her word at face value or any other relatives because of how family could potentially lie about age and that celebs can lie to make themselves look younger. Pinging that user for input. Personally, I doubt she would make it up, but it was previously decided that only something official like Mariah's birth certificate or a census listing could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she was born in one year or the other. Until then, consensus was to keep both years in place when there are multiple legitimate publications supporting each, even if the majority seem to back up 1970. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. Reliable sources have different ages. We don't speculate about whether Carey's mother was right, or mistaken, or why Carey did, or didn't, need to correct her. Fact is that recorded cites are likely to be more accurate than what may, or may not, have been a misremembered fact or slip of the tongue in an interview. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Concur with SNUGGUMS and Escape Orbit. We go by reliable sources. Family members have an incentive to make the celebrity appear younger — it happens all the time — so they are no more or less reliable than other sources. I would argue less, since I would trust a disinterested, objective source more than a friend or family member.

Also, it was WP:OVERLINKING and WP:UNDUE of an editor yesterday to try to stack the deck with 10 cites for 1970 while leaving the extant five for 1969. I've restored the status quo, and ask that the editor respect WP:BRD. We can play nuclear arms all day, but Wikipedia's position is balance. We can find 10 cites for 1969 to match the 10 cites for 1970, but then why not 20 and 20? That makes no sense, nor does it make any difference as opposed to five representative samples each.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, Newsday, her hometown paper, has been covering Carey since the very beginning, and it uses 1969. I think the source that covered her from before she got famous is more RS than later sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ditto the People cover story that put "24"-year-old right on the cover in November 1993. If that age had been wrong on the cover, then there would have been a stink and People would have issued a correction. Ditto the fact that "1970" means she would have 16 most of her senior year in high school.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not need a game of "Count the Cites". We are not keeping a score to find a winner. Particularly if it involves sources that are more than likely simply copying from each other. All we need demonstrate is that there are differing dates on good reliable sources. Frankly, it's such a trivial matter anyway. A discrepancy of 1 year has no significance in her notability. We do not need it to be prominent on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree and I never expected this source on its own to entirely clear up the ambiguity nor did I ever intend to cause such a stir. If I'm being very honest, I also think it is an extremely trivial matter and I couldn't care less. I happened to watch this interview, heard that and simply came on the page to see if there was a reference to it and when I saw there was none, I thought, I'd bring it up on the talk page. I've suggested its addition to the references since, from what I l know, it appeared as one of the most convincing sources on the matter.

I think the arguments made about Newsday covering her since her very beginning is very strong. The age disparity between her and her classmates is an equally good one. As you maintained, a birth certificate would undeniably be the ideal source. Until such a source emerges, even though this interview is far from being a high-quality source, I'd argue it is one of the most convincing. I just presumed it would be beneficial to append it to the resources that are already in place. That being said, I certainly won't be the one fighting you on this. I thought this could be helpful, but now I clearly understand how foolish my friendly suggestion on the talk page had been and that not only it wasn't helpful at all, but even quite possibly detrimental.--AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 21:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Foolish" isn't the term I'd use as it was quite clear you meant well. Neither is "detrimental". If anything, it just had a disputed basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not foolish at all. Any attempt to clear up this long-running discrepancy is to be welcomed. But I'm afraid you've chosen to tackle an issue that has evaded all solutions over some years. It appears Carey isn't interested in clarifying this. (And why should she?) So it may never be resolved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Here in Sweden, peoples birth year are public records. Isn't it the same in the U.S.? Is it possible for a third hand to obtain her birth certificate such as was done with Doris Day a couple of years ago where we had the same issue. DrKilleMoff (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's Year of Birth

According to the birth certificate for her twin son and daughter, Mariah Carey was born on March 27, 1970, so can anybody here please change Mariah Carey's date of birth to "March 27, 1970" and remove "March 27, 1969"? http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/Mariah-s-Twins-Birth-Certificates-mariah-careys-lambs-22216353-605-792.jpg

No. (See the talk section immediately above.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bloating in a fancruft way again

12mahalu (talk · contribs), regarding this, it looks like you are bloating the article in a fancruft way again. See Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 16#Recent edits. You really need keep WP:Tone in mind. Why, for example, state "the singer" instead of "Carey"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why elaborating on Carey's achievements or referring to her as 'the singer' as a means of not repeating things too much amounts to 'bloating' the article. If anything, its giving a more accurate summary of her profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12mahalu (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

12mahalu, you don't understand because you aren't trying to understand. Wikipedia is not about adding an indiscriminate amount of information. Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Read WP:DIARY. Read WP:FANCRUFT. Read the pages I'm pointing you to, including WP:Tone. Wikipedia summarizes. We don't add everything about celebrities, and certainly not everything in extensive detail. We also have size issues to worry about per WP:SIZE. And there is no need to state "the singer" when "Carey" will do. Readers already know that Carey is a singer; we note that she's one in the very first sentence of the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

worldwide record sales

on one of the sony music japan pages for #1's they mention;

"A beautiful and sexy supermarket with a brilliant title and record, such as DIVA who fell in love with the world, the number one hit holder in the United States after the Beatles, worldwide single sales of over 65 million, album sales of over 170 million Singer, Mariah."

which would total to over 235m records sold. should this be added?

link: http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artist/MariahCarey/discography/SICP-20201 Geegeeyee (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

So please change the introductory line from this:

"Mariah Carey (born March 27, 1969[2] or 1970)[3] is an American singer, songwriter, record producer, actress, entrepreneur, and philanthropist."

to the following:

"Mariah Carey (born March 27, 1970)[3] is an American singer, songwriter, record producer, actress, entrepreneur, and philanthropist."

 Not done No reason to remove well-sourced information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

Mystery solved: Mariah Carey was born in 1970: 98.115.186.129 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. This doesn't seem like a reliable source in any case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Feedback on a Possible Lead Change

General thoughts on the inclusion/exclusion of Carey's 1993 marriage to Tommy Mottola in the Lead? If deemed necessary, perhaps a slight re-wording. As is, it implies the marriage is the cause for her success, which, while his mentor-ship and guidance were certainly important, had little-to-nothing to do with her legacy as a vocalist/artist.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I object to outright removing him from the lead given his involvement in her career and personal life. The bit on their marriage can be rewritten if desired, but he definitely warrants a mention. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has changed in the past couple days! I always found the inclusion of the marriage sentence slightly... sexist? I was okay with it at first but the sentence "Carey married Sony Music head Tommy Mottola, the man who mentored and discovered her, in a lavish ceremony in 1993" is really excessive in my opinion. Why does how big her marriage was matter in the lede? This should be trimmed.

Also, if it's going to be in the lede, then readers are supposed to expect more information about their relationship in the article. However, there's only one small paragraph about their personal life. If there was sufficient info about their marriage then I'd be more okay with it but right now there's really not enough content to warrant its inclusion in the lede IMO. He's actually barely mentioned in the article. I believe it should be removed altogether. Heartfox (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Her legacy was built through her exceptional talent and huge marketing from Sony Music under Tommy Mottola. Let's not fool ourselves here. She's not been who she is today if not for Mottola taking her to the label, so let's not undermine his role. I'm open for re-wording tho, like SNUGGUMS said. Also, mentioning "lavish ceremony" is unnecessary, it's too detail for a lede, which is supposed to summarize the article. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not her success would have reached the same heights without Sony/Mottola is neither here nor there. Its all speculative. She was already negotiating a record deal before Sony stepped in. Any good label does their best to promote their talent. As you can see by Michael Bloomberg's campaign, all the money and promotion in the world can't overcompensate when you don't have the goods. Anywho, I trimmed it a bit but agree with Heartfox that its unneccessary.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean... you could argue Walter Afanasieff had a major impact on her career as well (in working with her on those albums in particular), but why isn't he mentioned in that paragraph? Mottola guided (well, emotionally forced) her to make Music Box / Merry Christmas / Daydream appeal to a white... adult contemporary audience to sell a lot of records. But, again, I don't think their relationship is explained enough in the actual article to warrant the mention in the first place. It doesn't summarize anything because there's barely any text to be summarized in the first place. Heartfox (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You explain it well that Mottola "force" her to do AC music and conservative dresses. Why did she suddenly become very glamour and sensual during the Butterfly era. What about "Loverboy" sample scandal, Gliter mess, and that J.Lo thing? All is due to Tommy Mottola. The first decade of her career can't be separated from Mottola involvement. Both personally and professionally. Whether you like him or not, he deserves mention on the lede. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the marriage had an impact on her career, I just disagree that the impact has been thoroughly explained enough in the article to justify an inclusion in the lede. There's really not a lot of information present about his impact. Yes, there's a mention here and there but the personal life section is pretty empty... there should be an expansion. Also... is causing someone to wear more revealing clothes or trying to sabotage someone really that big a deal? Yes, it had an impact but I agree with Petergriffin9901—it probably would have been the same no matter the record label/person. She was always going to fight for creative control over things no matter what. Heartfox (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of content in the article's body is not a reason to remove him on the lead. Why don't you give him enough credit on the article's body then? Clothing is not the only thing Mottola did to her. He found her (ala Cinderella), signed her to his label, he married her, he chose which producers to work with her, what sounds of music she should make, what kind of image she should present to the world, he provides money for albums distribution, promotional campaign, etc. He is very involved in her professional career and personal life during the 1990s. Carey would still be successful even without Motolla? Well that's also a speculation that will never be proven. and vice versa. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, yes, lack of content in the article body is totally a reason to remove something from the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. If not in the article, then it shouldn't be in the lead. I'd remove mention of the marriage completely from the lead, her personal relationships within Columbia are not of more significance than her contract with Columbia Records itself. And making a point of mentioning them suggest an opinion that doesn't belong in the lead, and shouldn't be in the article at all without being sourced. If enough sourced material can be added to the article body that demonstrates a greater professional significance to the marriage, then it can always be re-added. It's worth noting that the Tommy Mottola article has no mention of Carey in its lead. I wonder why that is... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in the lead that is not sourced in the article's body as for now. Yes, WP:LEAD has to summarize the whole article. That's why one line or two about her mentor + husband wouldn't do any harm. Tommy Mottola wiki page is totally underdeveloped tho. Carey is definitely the biggest superstar he's ever produced (executively) in his entire career, as well as the most famous woman he had ever married, so definitely worth mentioned on his messy page. Clive Davis who mentored Whitney Houston is mentioned on her page, and he's not even part of her personal life (only career-wise). Carey and Mottola connection was both personal and professional. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mariah's birth year.

Mariah was born in 1970.

• David Lettermen interview from May 19th, 1994 where she clearly states she is 24 years old at the 5:09 mark:
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_dvWkrwMBA&feature=youtu.be&t=309
• Mariah's mother Patricia Carey confirms it again in this interview with Oprah at the 2:22 mark, "In 1969 we were in that neighborhood and in 1970 WHEN SHE WAS BORN we moved out of the neighborhood"
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4jfe7npKhg&feature=youtu.be&t=142
• Both her children's birth certificates were posted online shortly after they were born. They both reflect her birth year as 1970:
  • http://www.mundomariah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bc1.jpg
  • http://www.mundomariah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bc2.jpg
  • Nick Cannon, father of the twins, confirms that the birth certificates are legitimate on his Twitter:
    • https://twitter.com/NickCannon/status/71752891886604288?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIxj9 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1991 interview where her age is displayed as 21:
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IikGSJ3MlKY

If the words from her own mouth, her mother's mouth, two different birth certificates, and nationally broadcasted interviews are not credible enough, I would like to know what forms of proof are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIxj9 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No further proof is needed. What certainly would help is a convincing argument that what appears to be good evidence for 1969 is in reality not credible but instead fraudulent. Please see the RfC. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Net worth reliability

I am concerned over the lack of reliable sources being used in the article for Carey's net worth.

Infobox:

• Business Insider (there is no consensus on its reliability...) cites, in the first paragraph, some obscure Money Inc article. But even the Money Inc article only says $300 million.

Other Activites section:

• The Entertainment Weekly reference is broken and the article does not mention any net worth figure.
• The Belfast Telegraph link is a wire from Cover Media and says "reported $500 million."

I don't think these are acceptable references for a featured article. Heartfox (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how Business Insider got $520M from Money Inc.'s $300M, but perhaps the latter is a safer bet when used as a basis unless Money Inc. isn't deemed trustworthy in the first place. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a quote from the Celebrity Net Worth (which is unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES!) article on Carey: "Despite what many sites report (including, as of this writing, Wikipedia) Mariah Carey is not worth $520 million." LMAO this is embarrassing. I have started a discussion at WP:RSN. Heartfox (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Good call starting the thread. Celebrity Net Worth also definitely isn't a good source at all regardless of what Wikipedians such as ourselves insert into pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

An administrator and one other user has now said Money Inc is generally unreliable. Given this, I think we should remove the Business Insider ref which cites it. So now... we have a Cover Media claim of $500 million. What should we do? Heartfox (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about Cover Media. Are you any more comfortable with using Smooth Radio for $520M? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources:

• (July 2012) Cover Media: $500 million
• (Dec 2014) CNN Business, citing Wealth-X: $520 million
• (Aug 2018) LNP newspaper, citing Associated Press: $300 million
• (Feb 2020) Fox Business, citing Money Inc... and FamousBirthsDeaths.com: $300 to $520 million
• (Jan 2020) Smooth Radio: $520 million

Fox Business seems to be unreliable given its sourcing and I'm not sure about Smooth Radio. I think we should estimate it as U.S. $300–$520 million like how it's written on Madonna's page. Heartfox (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Heartfox's solution. In net worth subjects, I think we shouldn't consider just one reference (like Forbes) as the "absolute truth". Chrishonduras (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Artistry / Influences

Hello, please note Carey states in the reference provided that she was influenced by Sarah Vaughan, not Stevie Ray Vaughan. I think a a correction is needed. Kind regards

146.200.172.177 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Sarah

Thank you. This has been addressed.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

In the first line before, "American singer", add "legendary and iconic". Mariah Carey deserves that title for her impact on the industry and people. Please consider 222.164.116.110 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because both words are vapid. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

IP, puffery like that is inappropriate for the opening sentence when article text is supposed to be neutral and your suggestion would introduce a blatant personal opinion. See WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery for more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)