Talk:Cher/Archive 1

Meaning of the name Cher
Doesn't the primary meaning of the word "Cher" in English refer to the vocalist? If so Cher (entertainer) should go here and everything else should be in a disambiguation block. --mav


 * Correct. "Cher" should be moved here, and what's currently here should be moved to "Cher (disambiguation)". -Silence 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. See also the discussion at Talk:Cher (entertainer) --Qirex 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC) nevermind, I see it got done.. whoops


 * Wait, why is this a redirect from Talk:Cher? --Qirex 03:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a link to Cher (disambiguation) at the top of the page? JimmB 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) cher is so awesome chelsea is her biggest fan!
 * Agree, added link --Adhominem 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cher's name(s)
I cannot work out from Google exactly what here name is/was. She appears to have had a muddled childhood with many step fathers. Sarkisian seems to be her father's name. What was here mother's name? One step father was LaPiere/LaPierre/Lapi ere or similar. Google refers to all of these as well as throwing Bono and Allman in for good measure. A para on here names would be good. -- SGBailey 14:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sarkisian was her birth name from her biological father I believe. I think her mother's name was Georgia Holt. LaPierre/LaPierre was her stepfather's name. Then of course she changed her name when she married Bono and Altman, and some time after the Altman divorce she had her name legally changed to Cher, with no last names at all. "Just plain Cher", as she's referred to. (Entheta 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
 * According to the CABI, the name on her birth certificate is "Cheryl LaPiere".--Fallout boy 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Our article calls her Cherilyn, and the infobox calls her Cheryl...That really isn't acceptable. We need a definitive source. Michael 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Her name at birth was "Cheryl", and her current legal name is "Cher". Where did "Cherilyn" come from?--Fallout boy 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cherilyn" came from her book "The First Time" where Cher tells us that nobody called her by her real name "Cherilyn"
 * I have always heard Cherilyn, never Cheryl. COnfusing. Entheta 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

American Indian ancestry?
I always thought the song "Half-Breed", about being half-Indian half-white, was autobiographical, yet there's no mention of her having American Indian ancestry in addition to her Armenian ancestry. Does anyone know? --Angr (t·c) 13:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at her anecestry, it looks like it's European and Armenian. Ralph 31Jan06
 * Armenian is European.--Eupator 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Chers Mother is Half Cherokee


 * According to NativeCelebs.com, she is 1/16th Cherokee. Her mother would be, obviously, 1/8th. -- WiccaIrish 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sourced Cher, though, with this . Michael 04:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

POV
Although most of this article at least cites facts and figures, there are more than a few instances of heavy author bias--specifically the subsections titled "Solo artist, continued", "Fans keep believing", and "The future" which would be more at home on a Cher fan message board than an encyclopedia entry. ---Jackel 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, the article is totally fanboyish. I will make some quick revisions but I dont have a lot of time right this second. I'll put it on my to-do list. Pacian 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cher has fanboys?!

Yeah, it's still fanboyish. German fanboyish at that. I'll help to fix when I get a minute. Iamvered 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some pretty extensive expunging of accolades, but more is needed.  I'll get back to it soon, promise! Iamvered 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. (Entheta 21:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Cher's Longevity
I believe the line "her longevity is the inspiration for this quote, by gay impressionist Jimmy James "After a nuclear holocaust, all that will be left are cockroaches and Cher"." is very naive. The line is (presumably) inspired by the belief that Cher has had a great deal of plastic surgery and would therefore survive a nuclear holocaust - her longevity (perhaps serendipitously) makes the line easier for ardent Cher fans to tolerate. The source is obviously a little tongue in cheek. Either way, I don't believe it's entirely accurate - certainly not worthy of a place in an encyclopedia. Should be deleted/changed.

I agree with the POV above by the way.

The quote that Cher will survive a nuclear holocaust is definitely a reference to her strength and longevity, it in no way involves plastic surgery.

How come there's no mention of her plastic surgery anyway? (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) She's one of the few who was always very open about it. "If I want boobs on my back then I get boobs on my back", or something like that.

Infobox
Since Cher is a very famous singer, and has released quite a few albums, don't you think we should have an infobox for this article? It would really help and bring a sense of "organization", if you will, to the article. --Newguineafan 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is she mixed?

--- User IP: 152.163.100.10 stated on the 24th of March, 2006 that Cher died....this is clear vandalism.

==bull fn shit

George W. Bush "stupid" and "lazy" ==

Someone removed the sentence about Cher refering to George W. Bush as "stupid" and "lazy", in the "Political interests" section. I wonder why. If I remember correctly, this caused some controversy at the time. There are also several websites refering to it. (Entheta 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Fun fact
"Cher" is cognate with "whore", both ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *kāro-. I'm not sure whether it should go in the article, but it's cool to know. --Ptcamn 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is relevant in this article. Check Cher (disambiguation) and see if there's any other article where that may be relevant. (Entheta 10:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

It's a crude, insulting word levelled againgstjeanne (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) strong women by weak men.It should NOT go into the article!!!!

Images
Can we not do better than presently having just one picture/image of this almost legendary artiste ? Derek R Bullamore 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, we need a better picture at the top and a few picture of Cher throughout the article spanning the many years and looks of her career. Manufracture 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CHER SINGLES
this is a message to 72.141.104.171, stop and i mean STOP!!! u keep changing everything in this cher article that some of us have worked hard to keep up, your problem is that you change stuff and put wrong information instead, for example, bang bang the single no matter how much it was as promo it was still a single therefore it belongs there, consider this a warning next time ill ask for your blocking.

AWARDS
hey ppl lets make her awards section bigger by adding nominations either, this is only a suggestion makes her look better ;) Rsf7589 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discography
The gigantic Cher/Sonny & Cher album/singles disography tables are repeated on the Cher discography article. They are not needed in both places. As with many other artists, I'm proposing removing all of it from here with an approprate link to the discography page. -- eo 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many categories?
anyone agree that there are too many categories right now, im not suggesting that we erase content but we should keep them in less categories 66.30.14.0 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not At All. I Think It Is Easier To Go To What You Want To See And It Is Better Organized This Way. 69.23.90.37 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moonstruck Image
Does the Moonstruck movie poster have to appear twice in this article? --Iriseyes 17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cher's New Album
People keep adding information that a new album was recorded in 2006 and slated to be rock and due soon. Does anyone have an acredited source? Wikipedia requires the content to be verifiable. If not, it cannot be added. I will submit a request to lock the article if people keep adding misinformation. UPDATE: An article cannot be locked unless it's for protection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Locking_article Look under "Locking article". This is not used for an "edit war".] Swisspass 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening claims
64.131.196.204 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"Emerged" is an awful verb to describe a pop culture icon's status as an icon. Cher is such an icon because she has endured, not emerged. The "most respected" link is a joke; it's just some chess guy listing various celebrities and their tangential relationships to chess. Using that url as a "sourced" citation is nonsense. If the "respected" claim can't be backed up elsewhere, it should be dropped. Of course, if Cher is a much-respected chess grandmaster, that should be included. A 40-year career as an entertainer is definitely admirable, but not unusual. It is certainly nowhere near a record. Think of all the singers, actors, writers, et al who have remained in the public's affection for a half century or more. Changing "of all time," which is simply untrue, to "of her time" seems like meeting the Cher fans more than halfway.

64.131.196.204 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Gushing puffery combined with shaky writing is a rough combination. "Has emerged a legendary pop icon"? C'mon. "Has become one of the great American icons of the 1900s"? What does this even mean? Did Cher do vaudeville with Gallagher & Shean?
 * The idea that Cher's film directing career needs to be in the first paragraph is also nonsensical. Perspective, please.

24.239.177.167 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)The citations that keep being reinserted for the puffery in the opening section are for press releases and open-edit bio sites. Cher's longevity and accomplishments speak for themselves, and do not require half-assed urls and weird writing choices to prop them up. Should I go delete the poorly-chosen verb "emerged" from the other website so it will stop mesmerizing you? You're a big Cher fan, we get it already.

24.239.177.167 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)All I'm trying to say is, who looks at a concluding paragraph that reads "...career has surpassed 40 years... legendary pop icon... most enduring entertainers of our time... sold over 180 million records..." and thinks, "Hmmm, needs something a little more complimentary"?

24.239.177.167 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Greco, your single-minded User Contributions page, and your insistence on re-re-re-re-posting bad edits supported by shaky links, are doing you little credit. What can be done to convince you that an "icon" does not "emerge"?

24.239.177.167 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Oh, look! Cher doesn't "emerge" anymore! That was some ironclad source!
 * http://www.last.fm/music/Cher/+wiki?action=view

Guinness Book of World Records
24.239.177.167 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Can we get something more solid on the Guinness citation for Cher's highest-grossing tour? "Nearly $400 million" is unnecessarily vague, and obviously doesn't come from the book. Guinness doesn't list the world's tallest man as being "a bit over 8 feet."
 * As best as I can tell, Guinness cites the $192.5 million figure, and that has since been extrapolated in order to include the extended dates for the tour.
 * Speaking of math, perhaps someone could explain how the additional 52 concert dates grossed as much money as the previous 273.


 * You need to cite a source. Currently, it is correct to say that Cher is listed in the Guinness Book of Records, and it is correct to say that she sold $192.5m in ticket sales. It is not correct to say that she has the biggest selling female tour ever, as other sources state differently. Billboard have upped the Modonna figure to $260m . I also disagree with the logic, that they would have stopped counting ticket sales midway through her tour. Whether she is 270, 350, 400, 1000 concerts, the figure logically is in total. That however is POV. 60.234.242.196 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cher's record in the Guiness World Records 2007 is based on the North American chapter of her tour, according to one researched source (a forum, so non-referenceable). There is no figure given for the worldwide tour ticket sales. Madonna has been given a total for all 60 of her concerts, of $260 million. As there is no actual figure given for Cher's total ticket sales, then this world record title will always be in dispute.Maggott2000 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Samples File Format
Do we really believe that the audio samples (at least in the first two boxes) are in OGG format? My illiminable OGG codec refuses to play them, and looking at them using a binary editor, they look awfully like RIFF WAVE files. At a minimum, the extension should be change to wav. Or better, re-encode the file with an OGG codec. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.199.120.109 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Pete Burns
In the section about her being a gay icon there should be something about him! He copies her soooo much. He used to wear the same wig as her, he often has the same makeup, he's had his facial structure modified to the point where his face looks like a clone of her, his clothes are very similar, some blatant rip-offs of her legendary outfits AND he even has the same tattoos as her! I mean, come on. Look on deadoralive.net in the 'press' section and you'll find loads of interviews with bits about Cher... 80.41.104.38 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moonstruck
The fair-use rationale for the Moonstruck artwork clearly states that it is fair use to use it only to illustrate the movie. Should it not be removed from this article?--Eva b d  21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"List ofs" in See also
Do we really need to list 16 "List of...." entries in the See also section? Wouldn't the first three of those be enough? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery
I'm surpised there is no section about her plastic surgery. She has had some extensive work done and she doesn't even look like the cher from back in the 60's and 70 MRGQ 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
The copyrighted images need fair use rationales or the article will be quick failed. The rationale must say specifically on the image page for what pages it will be used on. Look to other GA/FA articles for examples. --Nehrams2020 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you list the images which are copyrighted so that we know which ones need this issue to be addressed? Thanks. SP-KP 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They would include: Image:Sonnyandcher1.JPG, Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG, Image:Cher time cover.jpg, Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg, Image:Moonstruck PUB02.jpg, Image:Believe1998.jpg, Image:Cherasgod.jpg, and Image:Greatest-hits-1965-1992.jpg. --Nehrams2020 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is what I propose is needed for each of these images:
 * Image:Sonnyandcher1.JPG - retain, with justification that it is no longer possible to create such an image as Sonny Bono is dead
 * Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG - remove from article, as I cannot find an FA which includes an album cover with a fairuse justification
 * Image:Cher time cover.jpg - remove from article, as I cannot find an FA which includes a magazine cover with a fairuse justification
 * Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg - remove from article, as I cannot find an FA which includes a film poster with a fairuse justification
 * Image:Moonstruck PUB02.jpg - retain, looks as though this is freely available on the web?
 * Image:Believe1998.jpg - remove from article, as I cannot find an FA which includes an album cover with a fairuse justification
 * Image:Cherasgod.jpg - retain, looks as though this is freely available on the web?
 * Image:Greatest-hits-1965-1992.jpg - remove from article, as I cannot find an FA which includes an album cover with a fairuse justification

Any comments?

SP-KP 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail
I have failed the article for GA status. My reasons are: Once these fixes have been made, the article would stand a strong chance of obtaining GA status - • The Giant Puffin •  18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still many [citation needed] templates throughout the article
 * Over 15 of the 59 references are not formatted correctly
 * Early life is pretty short, and could do with extending with more content and references

Fair use rationale for Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg
Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG
Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg
Image:Chermoonstruck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG
Image:Cher-all-i-really-want-to-do.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greatest-hits-1965-1992.jpg
Image:Greatest-hits-1965-1992.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sonnyandcher1.JPG
Image:Sonnyandcher1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pope???
Umm ... I'm going to assume that Cher did't really assassinate the Pope, so can we perhaps get rid of that??? - LK

Pic
where is the pic?

Cher's Album Sales
What's with the unrealistic numbers the bio has?

First it said CHER sold 3million in the US and 10 worldwide. Then, that Love Hurts sold over 10 million worlwide (discography states 1.4 million).

Finally, It's A Man's World is stated as having sold 3 million copies worldwide while the discography says it sold just 0.1million. I can understand It's A Man's World selling more than the discography states but not Love Hurts. I find it doubtful that she sold 500,000 in the US and 9.5 million in Europe alone. It would be quite the feat but highly unlikely.

LIVING PROOF also states it sold six million copies worlwide but the discography says 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.125.45 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a unique form of Wiki vandalism that inflates chart positions, sales figures, and awards. Blondie has been going through this for some time, among others.  I can't figure out if the reasoning behind this is insecure fans who feel their favorites need such things to look even better than they are, or run-of-the-mill vandals who are trying to make Wiki an unreliable source of accurate information. Abrazame 08:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From what, a week off to do the laundry and take in the mail?
Love Cher, want to get that out of the way. The 1989 album is referred to as "her most successful comeback yet," or something to this effect. Yet the 1989 album was a continuation of the successful working relationship with Bolton, Bon Jovi, Warren et al, which had been established on her previous 1987 album, and its 1987 and 1988 hit singles (as is duly mentioned in the article). Cher has had more legitimate comebacks than just about anyone I can think of, and I would certainly consider 1987 a comeback in the field of music even though she was already hugely in the public eye for her acting work. But 1989 was not a comeback, musically or otherwise! It was a progression further along a road traveled both of the two previous years. Can we reword that somehow? Abrazame 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Colleges
During this time, the duo was a big hit on diverse college campuses across the country, including Stanford University, a large university in California, as well as St. Lawrence University, a small Upstate New York college.

Why do these two colleges merit a special mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.157.241.42 (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is Some errors in the text!!!!
There is some somebudy that writing some stupid things ilke The Album Living proof Sold in totle 745,000 copies Worldwide and Allso in Love hurts, heart of stone and The Very Best of Cher if it's okey so i corrected it if it okey thank you and can you plase Cheak How Was That person

And sorry for my English Thank you DennyCt —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennyCt (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher in dark lady.JPG
Image:Cher in dark lady.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher in one by one dance.JPG
Image:Cher in one by one dance.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2000-2002 subhead; "Sales" ranks
The subhead read "Career established". Well, gee. I kind of think that, this being the 12th subsection of Cher's career bio, the suggestion that Cher's career hadn't been established until the turn of the millennium is a little behind the curve. I'm not in love with my change, "Legacy of achievement," so if someone can come up with something that better captures the spirit of this three-year span in Cher's career, by all means go and change it, just not back to "Career established"! The lifetime achievement awards, Cher's inclusion in the Diva concerts, and other awards and collaborations seem to suggest this was an era where others embraced her as a survivor, recognized the longevity of her contribution, and exalted her to something beyond celebrity, I was trying to capture that in four words or less, and didn't want it to read as fan-boy-ish.

In another note about this section, it seems to read with a preconceived determination, or perhaps an ethnocentric perspective. If the data at The Music's No Good Without You is accurate, this song was top ten in the UK and eleven other countries around the world, including several top 5s and two #1s. That doesn't sound like a resounding defeat. And again, if the numbers at Cher discography are correct, the singles from Living Proof duplicated the success of the singles from Believe in that three of them hit #1 on the U.S. Dance airplay chart, and—contrary to what would be gleaned from the bio—actually exceeded the sales success of the Believe singles, by having three peaking at #7 in sales and two at #11. Not only is this better than the Believe singles, it's comparable to the ranking of the singles sales for Heart Of Stone. That radio no longer plays pop music (and so the songs combined points didn't take them up the Hot 100) doesn't take away from the fact that she still had bestselling singles; if anything, it's a greater testament to her public's connection to her material. ...Unless what is being called "sales" for the Heart Of Stone singles is the Hot 100 singles sales chart, and what is being called "sales" for the Living Proof album is actually the Dance Singles Sales chart. The bio should be changed to reflect the actual success of "The Music's No Good..." and then either the sales figures should be split into two distinct columns (if the figures aren't comparable), or the article should be further altered to acknowledge their U.S. success. Abrazame (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cher's age?
She just said she's 52 on David Letterman????? How come she's 61? Why would she lie on national television about her age which is (presumably) easily verifiable ? Capricornis (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could it be because the episode they aired tonight was first aired on Nov 18, 1998? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the writers strike! ta-daaaam! Capricornis (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
Of course I am completely in favor of citing sources. However, it is visually obnoxious and unpleasant to read text wherein "Citation needed" is attached to the end of every single uncited sentence. A better approach would be to find a suitable banner saying something to the effect of "Please help this article by adding references". All these tags were apparently added by the same person in December of 2007, but to such a degree that, even if done with good intentions, the effect was counter-productive even to a person like me who is not a big Cher fan and was not even reading closely. It was like reading a homeopathy article that had been discovered by an evangelical skeptic. Sauda d e 7  09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher in if i could turn back time.JPG
Image:Cher in if i could turn back time.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cher in the shoop shoop song.JPG
Image:Cher in the shoop shoop song.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

200 million
the 200 million figures for her record sales are ludicrous. yes I realize there is an article there but that is hardly a reliable source for album figures and we all know certain sources inflate or report figures without even checking. sources from billboard or even her record company (which could inflate figures anyway) would be more reliable

the reason I say this is that one of cher's best selling albums, believe, only went 4x platinum in the US. in her decades long career she's only sold 12.5 million albums in the US, there is no way that translates to freaking 200 million worldwide (even if you're counting records and therefore albums and singles she wouldn't reach that far). it's ABSURD. Radioalertbits (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal wealth
In the Personal Wealth section, this sentence appears:

"Her current wealth easily reaches over US$1000 million by now."

A thousand million is a billion. So is Cher worth a billion? This seems like sheer conjecture. Sources anyone? Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Album sales
The sales listed here are very very inflated. The sources offered are meaningless sources. Come on now..no one in their right mind would believe Cher sold that much. Nothing in official sources like the RIAA would support that. Tubesscalle (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cher in gypsys tramps and thieves.JPG
The image Image:Cher in gypsys tramps and thieves.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown
How many folks have won an Oscar, Emmy and Grammy? Is there a category for this? Thanks. //Later: Ok, found it and added to the See also. Thanks.
 * I've always thought the triple crown was for acting, and included Oscar, Emmy and Tony awards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CHER SALES FIGURE!!!
Could we be serious? Cher 275 million records sold? It's ridiculous! Madonna, Celine Dion and Mariah Carey are the best selling female artists of all time and they sold respectively 190,185 and 170 million records. Cher has sold an estimated 80 million records plus 20 millions singles (including 10 for "Believe"). So please, the 30 million records sold in America are totally falses. RIAA certified her sales at 12,5 million in United States for her entire career. In the entire world, her biggest success album is "Believe" at approximatively 20 million units, followed by "Heart of Stone" and "Cher" at 10 and 9 million units respectively. So please, correct that, or I'll do it everytime I'll go on this false article. Fans should not be able to change the figure sales of their favorite artist like they want. My idol is Mariah Carey, do I change the article? No, I'm correcting the false sales, that's it. And I'll do it for a lot of other artists... Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.11.176 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, please dial back your attitude. The numbers are sourced, which makes it verifiable, which is exactly what WP:VERIFY requires. You seem to pull all sorts of numbers out of somewhere, but you aren't providing a source for any of them. RIAA certifies Madonna at 63.5 million, Mariah Carey at 62.5 million and Celine Dion at 50 million, so your numbers appear inflated. The article notes that the numbers include music recorded with Sonny Bono. Beyond that, RIAA only certifies recordings that are submitted by music companies for certification and there are no statistics on the RIAA that confirms what recordings were submitted for certification and what was not. In any case, you can't just stick in numbers based on the logic based above. Meanwhile, see List of best-selling music artists, Sonny & Cher discography and Cher discography. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You obviously know nothing about music charts. The reason his figures seem "inflated" is because he is listing estimated world sales, not US sales. RIAA ONLY TRACKS US SALES. What's more, your argument about albums only being certified which are submitted by record companies can be claimed for every artist out there, not just Cher..so why is it magically so that only Cher's figures are so shockingly low when she has actually sold "275 million records" according to you? that is just so absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable. Anyone with any knowledge of music charts or sales knows that Cher has sold NOWHERE NEAR that amount. You're dreaming. All artists' sales are inflated by their record companies but in the case of artists like Madonna or celine it's backed up by equally high RIAA certifications AND high world certifications (though there exists no official body to determine global sales).

Again, your argument that only the the recordings submitted for certification count is soo moot and lame. If we went by your logic then we should multiply other artists' sales by 10 x if not more to get their "true" sales based on what their certifications are. So if cher's 12.5 million certifications in the US equals 275 million worldwide, then someone like Madonna with her 62 million certifications must have "actually sold" over a billion records or something going by the same argument. Trombondoar (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are new here, so let me clarify a couple things for you. First of all, comment on the material, not the user. Your tone is inappropriate. Secondly, removing a block of material because you don't agree with it is unacceptable. Part of what you removed has nothing to do with this discussion. Then, because a citation link, when opened, says "This page is unavailable at this time" with further indication that the site is being updated, does not mean you just remove it. There are procedures that are outlined in such cases. If you have verifiable sources to contradict the ones that are included, then by all means, produce them. The article says the figures include solo work as well as work with Sonny Bono. By your own statement, worldwide figures aren't included, but it's an estimated world sales figure? Then please, find sources that directly refute the numbers. Some of the recordings from 40 years ago are still selling. At what point do they stop counting? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian script in name?
It looks like 'Սարքսյան' is her father's name in Armenian, but is there evidence that she ever used this name in Armenian herself? If not, it seems out of place here. Ther Armenian scripted name is not even her father's (stub) article. Lkleinow (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How it could be 12.5m Sales in USA???
How could it be that she sold so little so i did a little Search the RIAA Are wrong Because : 4m(Believe album+ 2m(Believe Single)+ 3m Heart of stone+ 2m(The Very Best of Cher)+ 1m(cher the album)+ 0.5(Living proof)+0.5(Love Hurts)+0.5(Take Me home) + 0.5(The Sonny Side of Cher)+1m(If I Could Turn Back Time)+0.5(Dark Lady Album)+0.5(Dark Lady Single)+3m(Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down))+ 0.5(If I Could Turn Back Time: Cher's Greatest Hits)+0.5(Half-Breed Single)+ 0.5(The Way of Love)+0.5(Take Me Home)=21m Sales in USA so how did they get to 12.5 and is There A Chance they will Correct The Error??(Soory For My Bud English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.236.41 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

12.5 million is for minimum album sales
The 12.5 m sales that RIAA stated is for SOLO MINIMUM ALBUM sales in the U.S. so it does NOT include singles. It is based on the certifications of Cher albums (4x plat, 3x plat, 2x plat, plat n 5 gold) this does not include the other cher albums which all sold less than 500,000 in U.S. THEREFORE, Cher sold AT LEAST 12.5m albums in the U.S. alone Sonnyandcherfan (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cher 62!!!!
I can't believe it! She's 62 years old!!! She looks - 25, 30? How come the average bus-pass OAP dosnt look like her? I wonder how many face lifts shes had. 78.146.21.74 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Please note this page is for discussing improvements of the article, not for discussing Cher's amazing ability to remain young in appearance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image and Enduring Popularity
I tagged this section as being out of date due to the sentence "The event was held in Las Vegas in 2002 and 2004, Los Angeles in 2006, and will be held again in 2008, August 11 & 12th at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada?. Did it happen? And is there an event for 2010? Free tickets gratefully accepted :-) Davidelit (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

is the gay icon paragraphy really necessary?
alot of entertainers are "gay icons". its not like all her fans are gay, in fact she didn't even become a gay icon until she started making dance albums in the late '90s. a paragraph like this should be on madonna's page instead. i think it should be deleted from this article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Real182 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is a fact that she has become a gay icon. It by no means implies that all of her fans are gay. There are notes on many articles for performers who have become gay icons, Madonna included, who has a separate page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Untrue and unreferenced claims in "Influence" section
According to this article, Cher's first TV special with Sonny (before their weekly series) was in 1970. I Dream of Jeannie ran from 1965 to 1970. When was it Cher is supposed to have shown her bellybutton on TV, influencing Barbara Eden? Was it not Eden who paved the way for Cher? And I don't know what the Victoria's Secret models have to do with anything, there were thousands of women with bare midriffs on television in the interim...did you ever see Charlie's Angels? Baywatch? Any MTV video?

Furthermore, the Cher video was not the first to be banned by MTV. Laura Branigan's "Self Control" was banned in 1984, and after some resistance her record company cut a few seconds from the video. Other videos were shown by the network only on their late-night Headbanger's Ball or 120 Minutes programs, much as the Cher video was at first only shown during a late-night hour. Abrazame (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dropout Film, do not delete
Cher obviously stated on the Ellen show that she was making a new film therefor there is no reason why it shouldn't be under post-production in her filmography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marylynn 03 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One issue is that while she stated the name of the film, it hasn't shown up on the radar yet, I see no sources for the name of the film, that it is scheduled for 2009 and as such, certainly isn't in post-production. That would indicate the filming is finished and it ready to move toward release. That Cher has signed to do a film does not mean it is in production, that it will be made or that there is anything definitive available for it to be included in the filmography. Besides her very early comment about it, do you have any reliable source for it to be included as a definite fact? WP:Crystal covers this addition. We aren't a crystal ball. Putting this in the filmography as it has been is reading the crystal ball. Please don't insist on returning this until there is verifying reliable sources besides her statement on Ellen. It's nowhere else yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

problems with the article
There is a problem with this article. There are too many small paragraphs like "fan base", "plastic surgery", and "tattoos". They should either be added on or deleted. The plastic surgery paragraph and tattoo section isn't really needed as it can easily be added to another paragraph and make the article less jumbled. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie keeping a Dead Link since July 2008?
Why do we need to keep a dead link since July? If a replacement hasn't been located yet, perhaps, it's because no reliable source ever wished to get engaged in publishing such an illogical figure for Cher's single "Believe". You seem to have covered here everything that WP:DEADREF speaks of except for the three final key-lines which clearly explain what needs to be done in case a substitute source is not found: ''If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link. Whether a dead link can or cannot be repaired or replaced, remember that Wikipedia policy (including policy on sources and biographies of living persons) still applies. Consider doing further edits of the citation and cited material, if appropriate, to improve the article''. In addition, the original article which supposedly came from this web site cannot even be regarded as reliable as alike sources are known for inflating record-sales to draw the attention of readers.--Harout72 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple points for you, and I will say outright that I don't have much patience for how you proceeded on this, so don't expect flowers and candy. If you are challenging a fact, then put a on the statement and give editors who have worked on a page longer than your nine days to find the source. No one had challenged the statement to date, the dead link tag was placed there when the link was noticed as dead, and your action to cut the statement and the ref because it was "unsourced" was wrong and deceptive. Running to AN/I and calling me a disruptive editor instead of approaching it here was an extreme act of bad faith and can't be put off as a newbie mistake. You're a newbie to the article, but not to Wikipedia, so you know the policies about good faith and discussion. Your innuendo that I'm a barrier to your keeping this article "clean" and your fear that "he might start edit warring with me" (and I'm a she, thanks) were simply and blatantly fabrications. There is no basis for your claim that the source that was there is unreliable based on other sites inflating figures. That is synthesizing your argument after the fact. "Believe" sold in excess of 6 million copies in 1999 - I have no reason to doubt that sales in the subsequent 10 years, of that particular recording and inclusion on other compiliations, would push it near the 10 million mark, if not beyond. But, I found the web archive of the page and have put in that archive url. That seems to make the "unsourced" point moot. I don't know what to do about my being "disruptive". Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandchildren?
Does Elijah Blue have any children?He's well over thirty now,so I wonder if Cher's a grandmother yet?


 * This has been here for quite some time. Can we get a date on this post and other undated talk page sections that are not frequently discussed or fundamentally unresolved issues so they will eventually make their way to an archive?  I thought there were bots that automatically signed and dated these things.  How do we get one of those up in here?  Abrazame (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

seperate article Cher in pop culture
I would suggest doing this because there's a lot of stuff just about the impact she's had and what not. The article is a bit long.--Levineps (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This Article Is Ridiculous
I often visit this ever-changing article to catch up on the most up-to-date nonsense information that Wikipedia decides to display for the entertainer Cher. Instead of the Wikipedia participants arguing and bickering about silly ways to "clean" up the article, you need to get rid of the awful mistakes on the page, for example, it states that the hit Love and Understanding reached number 3 in the U.K. which is completely untrue. The ever-changing number of millions of records sold for the artist is also ridiculous, it should never sink as low as 100 million. Simply by using one's initiative, one can figure that an artist who has been releasing top ten worldwide material for 5 decades has sold more than this number. Also, massively significant information for this entertainer is nowhere to be found, yet we get ridiculous information about Clive Anderson and equally stupendous nonsense, aswell as multiple repetitions. Get it sorted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.126.47 (talk • contribs)
 * Then perhaps you specific recommendations and the sources and references to back them up? Your suggestion to use "one's initiative" to deduce the sales number would be considered original research and is not allowable. The note regarding the number of sales was removed for just that reason, no one definitive source that was both reliable and verifiable could be found. Editors cannot just come up with a number. That Cher has had clashes with talk show hosts is a valid inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

# of albums sold
Cher has sold nearly 275 million albums. Just google it, about every single site you find will say so. Why do you keep reverting my edits? Everything is sourced. By the way, I added a lot of stuff to the intro. Just take out the parts you don't like instead of undoing the entire thing4Real182 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See this discussion: Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_8. Because Cher's sales figure's are completely inconsistent, we have to use exceptionally reliable sources. Current consensus is that MSNBC Reuters and International Herald Tribune cite her sales at 100 million records worldwide. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bookkeeper. I have participated in discussions of this issue on a few occasions here and on the talk pages of other artists including Talk:Donna Summer and Talk:a-ha, and would point out in addition that even the three sources Bookkeeper cites are likely regurgitating a single claim made in her own official promotional material, rather than that each or any assigned a reporter to research the issue independently.  It is a dicey issue when a figure is not coming directly from SoundScan (which is impossible for releases prior to their date of inception in the early '90s).  Prior to that date, figures were often taken from how many copies were reported by the label as having been pressed minus how many were reported by the label as returns, a figure which does not always add up to the number sold.  On the one hand, a label can take a tax loss if the returns are high; on the other hand, claiming a higher sales figure (and not reporting the returns) is often worth more in PR for their artist than realizing the loss.


 * Incidentally, "records" means albums, singles, remixes, CDs, cassettes, mini-discs, 8-tracks, etc., combined. The reason I sometimes doubt promo material is that if an artist has a song featured on a soundtrack or other multi-artist compilation, an overzealous manager or PR person will sometimes add these sales to the artist's overall tally.  This is sometimes the reason for vastly differing claims.  Of course, other times the difference is due to fans' speculation due to various misunderstandings, such as shifting thresholds for sales certifications, and mere presumption regarding sales subsequent to charting and certification.


 * On a tangentially related note, I have noticed that editors and, worse, bots increasingly archive talk pages on a chronological basis when they reach a certain length or length of time. It would help new editors (and longtime editors who are pressed to comment again) if a comprehensive discussion of frequently discussed issues could remain on the talk page as less popular issues are archived.  Alternatively, a header and summary paragraph could be added when a frequently brought-up (legitimate and respectful) topic is archived, with a link to that archived discussion.  Abrazame (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Small correction: all three sources specify album sales, not combined records which in my opinion in entirely possible for someone who has released 25 albums. In addition, tracking systems like soundscan only track US sales, which makes in increasingly difficult to estimate globals sales for an album based on a single country. Plus, record labels have to pay for certification, so if the company is at odds with the artist, or simply don't want to put up the cash, legitimate sales may never be certified. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting yourself. "Albums", then, means vinyl albums, CD albums, cassette albums, mini-disc albums, 8-tracks, DualDisc, etc.  It may or may not be construed to include EPs including ten-track remix discs like "Believe".  Again, depending upon who made this determination, the tally may be finessed to include multi-artist soundtracks and compilation albums.


 * It's particularly interesting to see the album metric used in three different sources for an artist like Cher, as she is primarily considered a singles artist (which basically means her singles usually charted higher and/or sold more copies at the time than did her respective albums), as opposed to album artists who rarely release singles or whose singles aren't successful (for example, progressive rock or metal acts). Given that all three sources specify album sales, I interpret the likelihood as being greater, then, that these sources simply reprinted a claim made in promo material.  If each had been independently interested in determining the sales success of Cher, it's almost certain that at least one of them would not each have arrived at a metric of album sales alone, given her mainstream success with singles.  Given that pre-SoundScan era sales are so hard to accurately gauge, particularly overseas, it's even more likely that guesstimates and biased sources are being used.  (But this is the case with all artists from the pre-SoundScan era whose bios make such claims.)


 * A technical quibble, SoundScan measures Canadian sales as well, but you make a salient point. Foreign figures should have the same level of inscrutability as SoundScan's Point of Sales barcode scans.  There are some foreign entities that do such a thing, and when these are available they should be used.  When they are not, they are suspect.  I also support the point you make that an artist who has left a label or otherwise doesn't have the full faith and support of that label may not receive the interim sales certifications they deserve.  Yet, in those cases where there are legitimate entities tallying mid-line sales, it's possible to cite those sales.  For example, if we know an album was certified in country X for sales of 500,000 in 1987, and we know that SoundScan or its foreign cousin legitimately tallies more than 500,000 additional sales since their inception in 1991 (or whenever), then we can accurately cite both sources to support a claim that the album has sold "in excess of one million".  Yet we cannot suggest it is "Platinum", nor can we presume how many were sold between 1987 and 1991.  Unfortunately such presumptions are rampant in publicists' material (not to mention fansite claims).  Of course, why wouldn't it be?  Fans are entitled to speculate on such sites, and publicists have to overcome all the exaggerations about rival artists.  Given that we are an encyclopedia however, and not a puff piece promoting a concert or album release in the entertainment section of a newspaper, if we use it at all, we should be wary about how we cite such suspect material.  Abrazame (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * resolution: "She sold a lot of stuff worldwide." :) The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovin' it! ;)  I'd also accept "oodles" and "scads".  Abrazame (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I support that. Just be sure and reliably cite it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe, a small correction needs to be made within the beginning of the article. The article states that Cher has sold 100 million albums, which needs to be changed into records. As far as I can see the statement largely relies on this article by MSNBC which does not necessarily speak of only albums having sold 100 million; instead, in the given context it would mean: 100 million copies (records)-meaning singles, albums, videos etc.-sold off all 25 albums. If one looked at other reliable sources such as CBS, Reuters which also talk about the same event, one could see those two use correct wording when mention the record-sales. And I would like to make a point as far as Certifications go. Ordering Gold/Platinum Certifications in the States is not expensive (as one of the editors assumes above), it costs only $350 dollars per Certification for major record companies. However, it would cost them awfully lot more if they didn't obtain the Certifications which is often one of their main marketing tactics when promoting an upcoming material. And when I studied her sales through the Certifications months ago by taking the larger music markets (US, UK, Germany, France, Canada), I became convinced that it would be impossible for Cher to have sold more than 100 million records (singles, albums, videos). --Harout72 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If These Walls Could Talk
cher has a "filmography" section and a "television appearances" section. ITWCT is a movie that was made for HBO. normally this should be listen in the TV section. However, since ALL of her television appearances with the exception of ITWCT have been as herself on a variety show or a televised concert, i think ITWCT could easily be listed under filmography with "made for HBO" as a sidenote.Excuseme99 (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think away. If These Walls Could Talk is a film made for television, the awards given for it are television awards and when a filmography has separate television and film sections, television appearances, whether series, specials, variety or films, goes in the television section. Is there some reason why everything has to be a point of contention for you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Net worth and world records
why does cher's net worth keep being erased? rolling stone does not have an online archive for its previous issues. there are several online sources that verify her net worth at over $600 million, including THE BIOGRAPHY CHANNEL website which is 100% legitimate, even cher herself contributed to the documnetary they made about her, which states that she is worth over $600 million. also, it should mention that she has had top 10 hits for 5 consecutive decades, and that she is the oldest female artist to reach #1.Excuseme99 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it is well known that Cher is worth over $1 Billion; she was woth about 750millions not too long ago, but with her $250 million contract with ceasars palace, she is now the female version of Paul McCartney, both being the richest singers of all time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.244.107 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"She is the only female artist to have had Top 10 hits in every decade of her career" ???
See, that's the trouble with celebrity bios. Any female with one Top 10 hit can claim they had a Top 10 hit in every decade of her career if her career has only lasted one decade so far. Same with someone who has two Top 10 hits, one in '89 and one in '91. Someone could retire for a decade and have a comeback hit and claim she didn't have a career in the interim. It doesn't matter that it's been posted verbatim at US online, it's nonsense. I don't want to just remove it, but we need a sourced statement on her hitmaking longevity that actually says something. For example, Cher hasn't had a top 10 on the Hot 100 since 2000, yet I suppose the sentence means "on some chart or other".

But Tina Turner can make the same claim then, for the same number of decades, with her 2005 #10 hit in France; so can Barbra Streisand on U.S. albums alone, not to mention Kylie Minogue (for fewer decades, in the UK) and probably some Asian singer nobody in the Western world knows, and...

It's perfectly fair to make such a claim, as long as you indicate what you're talking about, such as "Cher is the only woman to have had a Billboard Top 10 single as a solo artist in each of five decades." I think there's probably a better way to word it, but my point is that this doesn't specify Hot 100, and it makes the longevity impact. Of course, making the claim that she is the only woman requires a citation. If you simply say that she has had the hits, I should think a perusal of her discography is enough to support that, without a citation. I'm going to change it to this generic version and if someone can find a citation for the stronger statement, by all means please add it and change the statement to support the citation. Abrazame (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was trying to do the same thing but it kept being reverted. The main thing I wanted to establish is that she made the top 10 for 5 consecutive decades and that she is the only female artist to do so. and its good that the "top 10" part was made specific. i.e. Cher had her last top 10 SINGLE on the "hot 100" in 2000. she had her last top 10 ALBUM on the "200" in 2002.


 * as for her net worth no one is replying to the section i made on this page. many many many sources say that rolling stone estimated her net worth at over $600 million. since rolling stone does not have an online archive for their magazine issues, i found an extremely reliable (biography channel, which cher herself cooperated with) that says the same thing. wildhartlive isn't satisfied, and i'm afraid if i try to add it again i will be blocked. i have good intentions and i am in no way trying to damage the article, i just want all of the records that she holds be made clear.Excuseme99 (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are threes issues at work here, one of them is being taken to WP:SSP. One is that her additions to the lead take it further away from the guidelines for leads. It is beginning to go further away from the scope of what the article covers to only be filled with endless superlatives. The other is that the above editor was asked for sources for the way he or she was wording things. The contention that the above added said "She has had Top 10 hits for five consecutive decades and is the only female artist to do so." The ref added for that was here, which says she was "the only female recording artist to have Top 10 hits in every decade of her career." A picky distinction? Maybe, but it is qualitatively a different statement, which another editor said on the editor's talk page: "There is a difference between "for five consecutive decades" and "in every decade of her career"." However, I still would like to see a source to support the current version of the statement "As a solo artist, she has had a Billboard Top 10 song in each of five decades", just for clarity and support.


 * As for the net worth, I've seen a couple of points made. One is that the editor's changes have focused a lot more on the dollar amount of the edits, to the detriment of the other content. I'm not at all convinced it is encyclopedic to include an estimate of a singer or actor's worth anywhere in the article, much less in the lead. However, a source doesn't have to be online to be used, and using a second hand source - one that only says another place gave an estimate - isn't good sourcing. So the Biography Channel in the UK repeated the Rolling Stone estimate. In this case, I really think the only proper source for including that anywhere in the article needs to be the Rolling Stone article itself. Someone else pointed out to the editor that it's the person adding the content who is responsible for sourcing it. The Rolling Stone issue particulars, article name and author can be found. If not online, well, then wait until you have it. Again, I'm not entirely sure we should be including a plethora of statements about how much money Cher has made for each phase of her life. Her notability isn't based on how much money she makes, it is made on her career of acting and singing. Success isn't measured solely or sometimes at all, on the dollar figure. This is also something that could arguably be included in every article on a performing artist, but it's not clear that is necessary or even correct. It's only an estimate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Play the devil's advocate: while an artist's net worth isn't the sole measure of accomplishment, there is encyclopedic value in reporting it, depend on the context.
 * Example one, Michael Jackson: In March 1991, Jackson renewed his contract with Sony for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time...In 1995, Jackson merged his Northern Songs catalog with Sony's publishing division creating Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Jackson retained half-ownership of the company, earned $95 million upfront as well as the rights to even more songs...Forbes placed his annual income at $35 million in 1996 and $20 million in 1997...One of Jackson's first documented public appearances since his trial was in November 2006, when he visited the London office of the Guinness World Records. He received eight records, among them "First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 Million Dollars in a Year" and "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time".
 * Example two, Madonna: In 1992, Madonna founded her own entertainment company, Maverick, consisting of a record company (Maverick Records), a film production company (Maverick Films), and also music publishing, television, merchandising and book-publishing divisions. It was a joint venture with Time Warner as part of a $60 million recording and business deal. The deal gave her a 20% royalty, equal at the time to Michael Jackson's...Guinness World Records list her as the world's most successful female recording artist of all time and the top-earning female singer in the world with an estimated net worth of US$490 million, having sold over 200 million records worldwide...Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge (2000) stated, "Madonna may have preached control, but she created an illusion of sexual availability that many female pop artists felt compelled to emulate". The book further documented she served as a role model as a businesswoman, "achieving the kind of financial control that women had long fought for within the industry" generating over $1.2 billion dollars in sales within the first decade of her career.
 * Example three, Janet Jackson: With the release of Rhythm Nation 1814, Jackson fulfilled her contract with A&M Records. In 1991, after being approached personally by Virgin Records owner Richard Branson, she signed a highly publicized multi-million dollar contract with the label. The contract value was estimated between $32–50 million, and she became the highest paid female recording artist in contemporary music...In January 1996, Jackson renewed her contract with Virgin Records for a reported $80 million dollars. The contract established her as the then-highest paid recording artist in contemporary music, surpassing the recording industry's then-unparalleled $60 million dollar contracts earned by her brother, Michael Jackson and Madonna...In January 2007, Jackson was ranked the seventh richest woman in the entertainment business by Forbes magazine, having amassed a fortune of over $150 million.
 * Basically, if the networth is tied to their influence on the direction of the recording industry itself, or is calculated by expert financial sources such as Forbes, its more than notable enough to be included...just not necessarily in the lead. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of these issues could be solved by creating a "Legacy" section towards the end of the article (such as those found in Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, R.E.M., Sex Pistols) which is designed to give the artist an endless amount of praise. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All good points, and the article includes specific mentions of income - like the Caesar's Palace contract. I'm not sure we can say that Cher's net worth is particularly tied to her influence on the recording industry, it comes from too many sources, including film work payments, video sales, etc. I'm not so sure what the Rolling Stone article cites as points for their estimation, it's not available to readily consult, but I'm not thinking it was necessarily done from expert financial sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuseme99, you don't seem to have read what I'd written here. It's problematic to say she is the "only woman" unless you have a citation to that effect.  If this is a record, it should be easy to find a citation.  Guinness book?  I do agree with you the longevity was important to include.


 * My source shows Cher's last Top 10 on the Hot 100 was "Believe", which dropped out of that chart in the summer of 1999. She had no Hot 100 Top 10 hit in 2000.  Stunningly, after the best-selling single of 1999, she has yet to return even to the Top 50 of the Hot 100, much less the Top 10.  She has done quite well on other Billboard charts since then.  Living Proof was her last Top 10 studio album, but the Cher discography states that her last Top 10 album on the 200 was a hits collection in 2003.


 * I guess now I get the point of the net worth thing. One-upmanship.  Given the Madonna bit, the Cher $600 million estimate would seem to be a record too?  You do understand we have been in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it is foolish to presume anyone to be worth in early 2009 what they were in any previous year—unless you go back to the '70s and don't adjust for inflation ;).  I personally find it crass to note an artist's net "worth", and find the section entitled "Personal wealth" to be silly.  Is it among the most notable facts about this personality that she was once listed as having a certain degree of wealth?  Saying "Elizabeth Taylor was the first actor to receive a salary of $1 million for acting in a film" is notable.  Saying "Cher paid $3.5 million for a condo once" is decidedly not.  I didn't remove the Rolling Stone mention but I don't condone its addition, and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead.  If it belongs in the article at all, it would be further down in the article.


 * For what it's worth, I would vote to take the "Personal wealth" section out of the article entirely unless some figure is truly a record or a part of a larger story. For example, I love that she held an auction with the intention of donating the prodeeds to a cause; in this case it's notable in this larger context that her Bentley and her clothes sold for X dollars.  I would be interested to know precisely what causes were "close to her heart", and think that could use a ref.  But I would include that whole bit chronologically or in the "Humanitarian work" section.


 * As to the issue of decades, I wonder if the definition of this word is escaping somebody along the way. Clearly rational mathematics are.  Even if you're suggesting that it means any span of ten years, the statement is untrue: she had at least one Hot 100 hit in the decade between 1965 and 1975, in the decade between 1975 and 1985, in the decade between 1985 and 1995, and in the decade between 1995 and 2005, but she has not yet had a hit in the decade from 2005 to 2015, at least not as we stand in the center of that "decade".  I don't doubt she will, but she has not yet.  If you acknowledge that we can say she hasn't had a hit in the decade of the 2000s, even though there is one year remaining, you must acknowledge that we can say she hasn't had a hit in the 2005-2015 period even though there are six years remaining.  This, then, is not a Hot 100 hit "every decade of her career" no matter how "picky" you are about where you start your decade (and I thought the controversy was does it start in years ending in 0 or in years ending in 1).  Perhaps the reference was from 2005 or earlier, or perhaps the writer was finessing bio material and didn't pay it the same degree of attention as one would a "serious" news item, but contributors to an encyclopedia need to scrutinize the statements they wish to add with their own faculties of reason, even if they are sourced.


 * Having said that, I don't understand Wildhartlivie's call for a source to support the statement that she has had a Billboard Top 10 song in each of five decades when it is abundantly evident from a glance at her discography. You Wikilink "Top 10" to a page which defines it as:


 * "The Top 10 of the Top 40, a music industry shorthand for the currently most-popular songs in a particular genre"


 * Dance music is a "particular genre", and her 2002 and 2003 hits on the Billboard Dance charts—each peaking at #1—are indeed safely in the Top 10.


 * Bookkeeper, I agree with your proposition, and I would point out to anyone who might act upon it that the "Influence" section already in the article is essentially a "Legacy" section. Abrazame (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think one of my problems is that yes, how decades are being defined is a problem. We don't have one. I am asking for a reference for it for two reasons. One is to clarify what the decade means, and the other is based on WP guidelines, wherein we should be working toward a good or featured article status (even if that never happens) and thus, any fact should be referenced. That there is disgreement/non-clarity on how the decade is defined stresses that.


 * The personal wealth section can go as far I am concerned. There is so much that goes into the indefinite word "wealth" that it becomes ambiguous. All we can really be certain about is specific income at a given time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wildhartlivie, honestly, did you even read what I wrote in my fifth paragraph above? No matter how you define a decade, the statement is incorrect.  What, then, is the point in determining how a decade should be defined?!  You can't use the quote.  Even if you could argue that it was true in 2004, it is no longer true now, four or five years later, in your "new decade".  Why do you not grasp that?  Do we all agree on the necessity for the electoral college?  I think Ken Lewis should not be blamed for buying Merrill Lynch after the truth about them came out, as he was coerced by the Bush administration to go through with the deal.  I don't drink tap water as I don't like the taste of chlorine.  None of that has anything to do with the fact that Cher has not had a Top 10 Hot 100 single in ten years and has not had a Top 10 of any kind in anyplace in the world—in fact, she hasn't released anything that has charted at any position at all anywhere in the world—in the past six years.  In one estimation of decades, the first fact in that sentence negates the statement in question.  In the other estimation of decades, the second fact in that sentence negates the statement in question.  Milk or lemon with your tea?  Abrazame (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Abrazame, honestly, there is no need to be derisive or condescending. My point is that it has ambiguous meaning, depending on the reader. It is confusing, it is unclear, and it needs to come out. And if you can support the sentence that she has had a a Billboard Top 10 hit in each of five decades, then it needs a reference. That is the responsibility of the editor who adds it, it isn't up to the reader to go glance at her discography, or go look for lists of top 10s. You're asserting a fact, a fact needs a cite, even if it is abundantly clear. You will not get an article close to a GA status with unsupported facts, even if they are true. I'm not sure why it is that people don't understand that concept. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abrazame, be nice. *pinch!* The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. Great to see with the detached obtuseness and exasperated sarcasm going on up here, we've got a real editor at work! (Do I have to apologize again?) Seriously, Wildhartlivie has been a trooper at this article. For levity, before I proofed my above post it had read "...I don't like the taste of chorine." I almost decided to leave it that way! ;) Great job, Bookkeeper!  Abrazame (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's often difficult to pick up tone from the written word. I think I'd have gotten the chorine a bit quicker. No worries. Thanks to Bookkeeper for the perfect references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vocal type — "Deep contralto"
"Deep" is redundant; it's inherent in the definition of a contralto, which is the lowest female voice type. What may have been meant by the original editor is that it is a low contralto, meaning it doesn't reach the higher parts of the contralto range, and can't sing a full "alto" part, limited to the "alto 2" line. However, without a reference, specifying that fact is not an essential or necessary distinction to make. People most familiar with the subject of voice type will tell you that pop singers often have less than a full range as would be classified for a classical voice. Conversely, many use amplification and forcing, for lack of a better word (somthing like a blues shouter), to hit notes respectively below and above their natural range that a classical artist couldn't get away with. "Contralto" is sufficient unless there is a notable citation qualifying this. Abrazame (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Three not Top Ten
The article states that she had Top 10 hits in each of the previous four decades. "I Got You Babe" was #1 in 1965. In the '70s she had three #1 hits: "Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves," "Dark Lady," and "Half Breed." "If I Could Turn Back Time" was #3 in 1989. "Believe" was #1 in 1999. I will change it to top 3. I am changing the chart span listing to 34 years, because "Believe" debuted very low during its initial release in November 1998 and did not reach #1 until March 1999.Excuseme99 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Top Ten is simply a category not an indication of every placement for each individual song. Besides we can't change the wording of what the source says, you'd have to find an alternate source specifying the changes you're claiming. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the way it is phrased now seems appropriate. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  05:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuseme99, you can't change cited references without checking that your changes are supported by the article cited, or offering a contradictory citation. There's not too many times can get away with paraphrasing what they infer from a statement before you might as well just remove the reference and slap a cite tag on it.  33 years was the reference, not 34.  Do you have a reason for changing that?  Also, "Top Three" is not A Thing, it's the top three of A Thing.  Abrazame (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rib missing from her rib cage???
I came to the Cher Wiki entry seeking clarification on whether or not she has had a pair of ribs removed from her rib cage in order to stay looking thin. It's either true or false. If it is false, then it is one of these "urban myths", and I would have thought that it would have been disclosed as such. As it turns out, there is no mention of it in her Wiki entry. . . . . and not even any mention of it here on Cher's discussion page. Is it true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer you question, wikipedia only reports notable information as reported by reliable third party sources. Unless it is something of particular importance discussed in mainstream media news, we do not comment on it at all. As such, urban myths have no relevance to wikipedia. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1987 Cher album
Why is this said to be her "biggest" album "yet" in 1987 when other albums reached higher peaks in both the U.S. and the UK and this album did not reach its Platinum certification for five years after its release, after the successive album, Heart of Stone, was already certified Double-Platinum? Abrazame (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I've about given up trying to track and check the flurry of changes that go on with this page and the changing/replacement of references. Some of them are absolutely not from reliable sources (whosdatingwho, IMDb, etc.) and other things that don't need cites keep getting them. It's not true that every sentence needs a reference and personally, I think that needs to stop, unless something is challenged regarding veracity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, it can get really pedantic around here. I just had someone tell me a reference that the lights would be dimmed on Broadway for Bea Arthur on April 28 wasn't good enough to put the mention into past tense on the 29th.  So I found a reference, from a TV station in Memphis.  Something tells me they didn't independently verify that the lights were, indeed, turned down, yet the several sources available for the announcement just weren't enough for this guy.  That's not the sort of thing that just falls through.


 * On the other hand, there are plenty of things that just don't ring true, even if the source would seem to be legitimate... Abrazame (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And then there were none?
I appreciate the fact that we're talking about Time, but on the other hand, we're talking about a eulogy. The quote is "By the end of 1967, Sonny & Cher had sold 40 million records worldwide and become rock's "it" couple." For one thing, we can't put that exact same line in our article without crediting it to the Time writers. That's plagiarism, Kekkomereq.

It's also very hard to believe. Looking over the Sonny & Cher and Cher discographies—and I don't really think those figures are believable either, and most are not cited—the worldwide sales of all their pre-1967 titles maybe add up to 40 million sold NOW. Forty-two years later. Are you telling me that this amount sold prior to 1967 and then, despite their hit series and pop culture status all these decades, never sold another million more of all of these combined over the past four decades plus? According to the RIAA, the duo only had one Gold album and one Gold single prior to 1967 in the U.S. The article for "I Got You Babe"—their biggest hit—doesn't claim it has been certified anywhere else but the U.S. and it is only Gold in the U.S.—though the Sonny & Cher discography claims it has been certified Platinum. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it had, but I can't find the ref.

The surprise is the overall number. How can it be claimed that they have sold 40 million in their first five years and another 40 million in their next seven when they never had a Platinum album or single anywhere in the world, had only three Gold albums in the U.S. (and apparently none anywhere else) and only a few Gold singles in the U.S.? Abrazame (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added the name of the time's writer. I know that this is very hard to believe that the couple sold 40 million until 1967, but the article doesn't specify only in the U.S., and if you see their discography, their released also many singles in Europe and Canada. For example see "Little Man", that reached #1 in five european country.


 * Also during 1966-1968 they have issued some singles exclusively for canadian, french and italian marketing (Je M'en Balance Car Je T'aime, Mais Tu Es à Moi, Piccolo  Ragazzo and others...)


 * Of course its hard to find cit. about Gold or Platinum singles in Europe and for this, needs to be done an approximate count of sales of Sonny & Cher. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 7:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that putting the writer's name into the cite doesn't address what Abrazame was talking about in any way. "By the end of 1967, Sonny & Cher had sold 40 million records worldwide and become rock's "it" couple" is a direct copy and paste from a copyrighted source and in doing so, it violates copyright law. It can't be presented this way without breaking the law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no way in 1966 or in 2009 that going to #1 in five European countries bolsters a claim of 3,000,000 sales.


 * You admit that you're using guesses and approximations. That is unencyclopedic and unacceptable at Wikipedia.  But beyond that, your approximations are highly illogical and hugely inflated.  Let's look at this logically.


 * Let's say hypothetically that "Little Man" went Gold in each territory where it went #1. (You have no data to support that it did.  I realize such data is hard to come by.  That doesn't mean we're allowed to presume it, it means the article must have less information than what fans may speculate about on blogs.)  Still, using current thresholds, that would mean 75,000 sales in France, 30,000 sales in the Netherlands, 15,000 sales in Belgium, 20,000 sales in Sweden, and 15,000 sales in Norway.  So those five #1 positions, if they each earned a Gold certification as well (which is not a given), would have netted the duo 155,000 sales.  This is for their biggest European hit.


 * Let's even give the record Gold in Germany, for 100,000 sales, where they went to #2, and another 100,000 sales for Gold in the UK, where they only went to #4. I'll even give them Gold in Canada, where they peaked at #6, for 40,000 sales.  None of these certifications are likely.  Still, this adds up to a total of 395,000 copies.


 * So even if "Little Man" was successful in an additional dozen smaller countries (that likely didn't have charts, Gold records, or a significant record-buying public in 1966), it could not possibly have sold three million. Even if it was Platinum in all these countries, that still doesn't take it to one million, much less two or three.  You have no reference for any sales claim (except "I Got You Babe" and "The Beat Goes On", and that is not linked or appropriately specified).  Peaking at #21 in the U.S. it might have sold over a hundred thousand here and if we give it a very generous couple hundred thousand elsewhere in the world, this maybe takes it over three quarters of a million.


 * So now extrapolate this mathematical logic to the other entries. If a record can hit #1 and the top 10 in as many places as "Little Man" and still not add up to half a million sales, then clearly you can't imagine the rest of this discography should claim hundreds of thousands to upwards of a million for their European (or "Worldwide") sales when the chart peaks were significantly lower.  "All I Ever Need Is You" didn't hit #1 anywhere, and only made the top 10 in three countries.  You list it as having gone Gold in the U.S., yet it did not.  (It was the album that went Gold.)  So there's no way this single sold even half the figure you suggest, 2.25 million, worldwide.  Again, maybe that's three quarters of a million worldwide, and most of that based on greater U.S. sales reflected in the higher U.S. chart position.  My estimations would cut that discography down to between 10% and 30% of most of the numbers appearing in the article.


 * Do your estimations take some factor into account that I'm missing? Can you fundamentally refute any of the logic or data points that I incorporate into these estimates?  Can you take one title (other than "I Got You Babe", which was their signature hit; which did particularly well in the three biggest music markets of the U.S., UK and Germany; which was presumably a moderately good-selling "oldies series" catalog title; and which I would guess probably did sell three million worldwide as the discography claims) and show me the building blocks you use to arrive at the figure given in that article?


 * Take a look at List of music recording sales certifications. (Bear in mind, the world's population in 1966 was less than half what it is now, and certification thresholds—if certifications even existed back then in all these countries—may actually have been lower then.  Bear in mind, too, that in 1966 a few of the countries on this list did not even legally sell Western music.)  You'd have to go Gold in a few dozen European and South American countries in order to add up to one Gold certification in the U.S.  So being released "worldwide" does not automatically take sales into the stratosphere, especially when U.S. sales are not particularly high.  When U.S. sales are particularly high, then worldwide sales are an even smaller percentage of the whole.  (In other words, you don't just double or triple the U.S. sales number to arrive at a worldwide estimate, you maybe add half again as much.)  That discography makes claims of half a million even for records that only charted in the U.S. and peaked in the seventies on that chart.  It is not only unencyclopedic to offer guesses or estimates, the guesses that appear there are absurdly unrealistic.


 * Please source and alter or remove claims as necessary, from both the discography and the respective album and single articles. I know you spend a great deal of time researching and editing these articles and would like to give you the opportunity to do this yourself and/or with other knowledgeable fans.  If those regional singles charted, please find those chartings and list them with refs.  If they did not chart, then they obviously did not sell significantly enough to count here, as I've already illustrated that even #1-charting, Gold-selling singles in some of these countries means only in the low tens of thousands of sales.  You're incorrect, Kekkomereq, that we "need" to give approximate counts of sales figures; in fact, we don't need sales figures at all, especially when they are as spurious as these.  Abrazame (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This editor, Kekkomereq4, did not respond to me here or on his own talk page (where I left a post), nor did he take responsibility for the erroneous edits he spread across Cher's numerous articles. This despite the fact that he has made almost 350 edits to Cher-related articles since I called this to his attention.  I've attempted to remove as many of the false claims as I could catch.  Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abrazame. Yes, I've read the whole discussion about the Times cit. But I've see also that the Times cit. is used also in others article like Kylie Minogue, Madonna and other singers. Furthermore before my edits, the article about Cher had 70 cit. and now it got others 70 cit. For example, here Career#1971–1975: TV and musical stardom, Career#1976–1981: Solo career and misses, and here Career#1987–1989: Return to musical success, I've added about twenty cit. for section. And I don't think that this work is useless. I remember you also that the section about 1970-1975 and 1982-1987 had this alerts:, and now also the section about Believe have this alert, for the lack of cit. since DECEMBER 2007!!!

I don't understand why you talk about me in another section, (here 1987 Cher album) because if all my cit. are wrong why u don't delete all?? In addition, some aticles of wikipedia are full of cit. and I don't think that is so stupid to add a citation for every sentence!! I also don't think that there is a sentence most important of others! Other administrators have deleted my citations when those one wheren't reliable like the whosdatingwho.

As for this discussion, after I've read that, I realized that your thinking is right, and I haven't responded more for this reason. I have also updated and added many info in the Sonny & Cher discography and I've see that see position in the charts were wrong, like for the "Little Man" song. As you see, I'm a fan of Cher (I know that Wikipedia isn't a Fan-Site) and I'm trying to make the article more detailed. Only his bio I haven't in my watchlist, that's why I don't check ever the discussion about the page! Kekkomereq4 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actor or actress, # of copies sold
1. why does it say that cher is an "actor"? she is an actress. i know that "actor" is a gender-neutral term, but why not used the word "Actress" when the page exists and is more specific?

2. it says belive sold ten million copies worldwide. regardless of the source, people do not buy singles. singles may have been purchased on records a long time ago, but in 1999 there were no individual discs with just one song on it, nor could they purchase the song online. i am not going to change it right now, but this phrase needs to be reworded or removed.Excuseme99 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actress redirects to actor, it has no separate page on Wikipedia. Singles sell in many forms, there have been single tapes, single CDs, downloadable singles sales, and it is a valid designation still in use within the recording industry to chart and report sales. Because it doesn't seem right to you doesn't make it incorrect especially since it is the way in which those sales are reported. Meanwhile, the lead section changes you made aren't per consensus. This has already been determined and discussed ad nauseum above and the wording is what has been decided to be most valid. Please stop changing this against consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Single cassette tapes and CDs have been available for purchase since those items were invented, so the idea they weren't around in 1999 is ridiculous. The only recent advent is internet/download sales, but those did not under any circumstance usher in the ability to buy individual songs. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The albums itself may have sold those copies, but the individual songs are not released on CDs or bought in stores. Excuseme99 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:OVERLINK: In short, Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link
 * 1) plain English words;
 * 2) terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
 * 3) items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement.
 * I'm all for removing commonly known words throughout the article (see Lead/infobox of Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson) and specifying Cher as an Actress (Janet Jackson). The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the album BELIEVE sold 10 million copies, but people did not buy discs containing the individual song. The lead says that the single song sold 10 million copies worldwide, which is not true. People did not buy the individual song. This was long after people bought 45s with just one song on them and before they would download individual tracks. Excuseme99 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, it comes down to prove it. You are completely wrong to continue to change this wording in absence of providing backing for your contention. More than one other editor has contradicted your claim. Please stop your editing against consensus and in a tenditious manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuseme, It's absurd that you would so vehemently repeat such a thing as individual songs (were) not released or bought in 1999. How old are you?  The singles market had been poisoned by the record companies in the early '90s, who withheld singles in favor of driving interested buyers to the higher profit-margin albums at the same time as they shifted away from the still-popular vinyl format.  But the public still wanted singles, and several dozen were widely available each year, a few of those particularly popular titles heavily stocked and becoming massive bestsellers.


 * I personally can attest to the fact that Cher's "Believe" was available, as I bought it at the time. The CD maxi single came in environmentally friendly packaging and featured ten mixes of the song.  The song was also available in the U.S. in a briefer CD version, as well as on 12" vinyl, and I'm pretty sure we had a cassette single version as well.  Several of the available versions are shown | here.  The RIAA site certified the single Platinum for U.S. sales of over 1 million (during the 1990s they lowered the singles sales criteria; Gold used to be 1 million and Platinum was 2 million in the 1980s).  (Why does the song's article claim Double Platinum, with no ref?)


 * I am very much against exaggerated sales claims, and have a long history of edits reducing, re-sourcing or reverting such claims. The ref for this claim states that it was Warner's biggest single ever, so there ought to be another ref out there somewhere just from the Warner standpoint.  As I said, Platinum singles of the 1980s sold 2 million and Cher's has apparently not been certified for U.S. 2 million for that one (unless the RIAA site is wrong on that—that site is not perfect).  But "Believe" is apparently the best-selling single by a female in the UK ever.  And it was Billboard's #1 single of the year.  I would point out that the bestselling single of 1998 is claimed to have sold 12 million, the bestselling single of 1997 has a claim of 34 million.  All these numbers are astounding and could very well be exaggerated.  Frankly I don't like the ref we have for "Believe", it looks a little dodgy.  I would prefer we track down a better one.  |This link, from Billboard, is apparently about the album, and may be the root of some of the confusion here.  I'd like to get to the bottom of this, but declaring that singles were unheard of when there are RIAA awards in the millions isn't the way to get taken seriously.


 * I would point out that "Believe" is only certified Triple Platinum in the UK even though the sales claims are nearly twice the 900,000 threshold for Triple Platinum there. Here is my speculation on why this could be so.  When a track that has been released as a single is featured on a multi-artist compilation, each sale of that compilation is considered as some fraction of a sale of that single.  (This would not be the case with sales of the album on which the single first appeared, i.e. that artist's album or a film soundtrack album—though, in turn, sales of a soundtrack album upon which an artist appears is by some accounting measures considered an album sale credited to that artist.)  So "Believe" would likely have sold over 900,000 as an actual single, and the bulk of the rest of that number comes from these compilation sales.  I seem to recall having been told this by someone who would know, but I can't swear that this is the way it works, and if it does I can't be sure this accounting measure is the same everywhere around the world.  I'd love to hear someone from Billboard or SoundScan weigh in on that—or perhaps somewhere down the years they already have.  Is it possible that Maxi-singles sales are counted double.  This should be considered pure speculation on my part and should not be recounted as fact.  Abrazame (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Each of the previous four decades"
that phrase leaves the possibility that another female artist had that same success in four different decades. Since Cher is the only one to do so, it should be changed to "four consecutive decades."

also, it already mentions the dates of "I Got You, Babe" and "Believe." They do not need to be repeated in the sentence that says she holds the record for the longest hit-making career span.Excuseme99 (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to grasp that this is the wording that consensus determined should be used. The wording establishes the time period and does not imply in any way that someone else did that in any other decades. "In each of the previous four decades" is quite specific. This is the third time that you've tried to ram through your interpretation on this page alone and it has been discussed to the point where everyone was quite satisfied with the wording. That you didn't bother to participate in the discussion you started isn't going to change the fact that three other editors were satisfied with the results. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What record, precisely?
The current statement "She holds the record for the longest hit-making career span, with 33 years between the release of her first and most recent #1 singles, in 1965 and 1998" does not stand up on its own. British singer Cliff Richard has had #1 singles in 1959 and 1999, a 40 year career span. Shouldn't the statement for Cher therefore be amended to "She holds the record for the longest American hit-making career span, with 33 years between the release of her first and most recent #1 singles, in 1965 and 1998"? This is after all a worldwide encyclopedia is it not? 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 04:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC) She's going out on top, or near the top at least. In April, Song For The Lonely, the latest release from her CD Living Proof, slipped into the top 10 on Billboard's singles sales chart. During her triumphant 1999 tour, Cher became the singer with the longest span of hits in pop music history -- 33 years between the platinum single "Believe" and "I Got You, Babe." Cher is the only female singer to score a Top 10 hit in each of the past four decades, including I Got You Babe (as half of Sonny and Cher) in the 60s, Gypsys, Tramps And Thieves, Half Breed and Dark Lady in the 70s, After All (with Peter Cetera) and If I Could Turn Back Time in the 80s, and Believe in the 90s. Cher offers several numbers from the recent Believe, her first hit album in a decade. In case you didnt know, Cher rates as the only female singer to earn Top 10 hits in the last four decades, with the longest span between No. 1s in history, back to I Got You Babe 33 years ago. Who says camp cant last? As indicated from previous discussions above. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * citation:
 * citation:
 * citation:
 * Ah now THAT makes sense. As stated in the references you quote "...the only FEMALE singer to...". So our current statement in the article is wrong and not in accordance with the available references. Excellent, thank you for clarifying the situation Bookkeeper. Do you want to make the change, or shall I? 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about an American singer and the U.S. market is by far the largest in the world. It is presumptive that one is talking about the most notable record chart in the world, the Billboard Hot 100 charts, unless otherwise specified, and not someplace like Morocco or the Philippines.  If that doesn't strike you as a given in the abstract, I would point out that every other subject of the four paragraphs of the lead address U.S. achievements.  If it still isn't sinking in that she's an American being judged by American standards, we already specify that we're talking about the Hot 100 earlier in that paragraph.  That record is for female solo artist, and so guess what: that's already specified there.  This record is for any artist of any sex, number or origin.  If we alter anything, it will be to belabor the point that we're talking about the Hot 100, as her sex is irrelevant to that record.  If she holds some female record in the UK, or the Solomon Islands, we can add that further down in the article.  Abrazame (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I will point out again that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not one limited to the shores of a single country. The current statement implicitly implies that Cher holds a career longevity record that does not stand up when viewed globally. It is not labouring a point to simply add a single word 'American' or 'Female' into the current erroneous statement, and the references actually specify it is a female artist's record. Richard's record of a #1 in each of five decades and a 40 year spread between the first and last #1 is recorded in the Guiness Book of World Records. <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 06:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course, this is a Wikipedia talk page and so the interested party didn't read my whole post. The qualifier would be "Hot 100", not "female" or "American".  The "female" qualifier—and the ref to which you refer—is for the Top 10 record.  Remember "What record, precisely".  Abrazame (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting aside any reverence for anyone's "national pride" (UK or US), technically, you're both correct, since 1) all wikipedia articles are meant to give the reader a worldwide view of the subject and 2) the sources are indirectly specifying the Billboard Hot 100 which only applies to US records. 3) we have two sources specifying she holds the record (on the hot 100) as a female artist, so adding that fact does not diminish her achievement. There is no shame in stating Cher is the only female artist in the history of the Hot 100... etc. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  06:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me, Thank You <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 06:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, Richard's "We Don't Talk Anymore" is one of my all-time favorite songs of its era (though I'm unfamiliar with most of the rest of his prolific catalog). The first time I heard Laura Branigan's "Shattered Glass" (another favorite) it called to mind the Richard song in some melodic and chord respects. I would again point out to my friend Bookkeeper that the "female" qualifier is not used for the span record, only for the decades record. Abrazame (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a particular fan of his body of work actually. I bought his first album in 1959 (and the one by his backing band The Shadows, which remains a favourite instrumental showcase) but, similar to Elvis's career, once they started scrubbing him behind the ears and putting him in stupid musical movies I lost interest. Thanks for your efforts on achieving a more accurate Cher entry. <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 07:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Top 10s
I've just seen the discusion above, and I think the sentence "only female artist to have top 10 hits in the last five decades" is more corect than "top 10 hits on the Hot 100 in the last four decades", since she did had top 10s in every decade of the past 50 years, outside the US - "All I Really Want to Do" (1965, #9 UK), "Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves" (1971, #1 CAN), "If I Could Turn Back Time" (1989, #1 AUS), "Believe" (1998, #1 GER), "The Music's No Good Without You" (2001, #8 UK; 2002 #5 Romania). So, something like "only female artist to have top 10 hits worldwide in the last five decades" should be allright. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Nanny
She was on an episode of the Nanny, episode #36 ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC) [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

LaPierre or LaPiere???
Why her sister's surname is LaPiere and the surname of Cher and Gilbert is LaPierre?? Kekkomereq4 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is her Armenian ancestry left out?
I'm wondering why her Armenian ancestry is left out? It's even on her imdb page, and her last name is Armenian? There are some funny rules on Wikipedia in regards to what is acceptable for "notable". If this is like an online encyclopedia, or mini-biography, then that's an important fact, if not SUPER DUPER Significant to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeSoul7981 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what article you're reading. The second sentence of the article body (distinct from the summary lead) states that her father was an Armenian refugee, and gives a reference.  Later, it is noted that she participated in humanitarian efforts on behalf of Armenia in 1993, repeating the fact that her father was a refugee from that country, sourced to three references including an Armenian paper.  Finally the article is listed in the Armenian Americans category, as noted at the very bottom of the page.  Have you ever tried a word search?  You'd have gotten seven hits for "Armenia" on the page.  I don't know that anything else is relevant to be said in such a brief bio, but you're welcome to make a specific, concise and reliably sourced suggestion.  On her mother's side she's Cherokee, French and English, but each of these gets only one text mention, and apparently no ref.  I'd say we need to beef up that side a little before we add more about Armenia, unless it's vastly more important to Cher and her notability.  One of those funny rules is encyclopedia writers have to be a little more on the ball.  ;) Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's okay. Apparently, I'm blind. I thought I didn't see Armenian-American listed as a category. Nice to know, I'm losing my vision. I have a little over a year an a half before I hit 30. That's a few years before 50 (joke, no offense). And you're right. It's not something that's super important, but I thought it was something to at least skim upon seeing as how so many people assume she's full Cherokee.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hey, I got several years to go before 50 myself, lest anybody mistake your comment...but I was recently caught deeply involved in a discussion at a talk page completely missing two major points!  I was still right about the central issue, but I felt r-e-a-l-l-y sheepish.  Best, Abrazame (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

filmography
Could you explain why you reverted this edit? link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.193.191 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is already a properly constructed filmography in the article and that page is extraneous and likely subject to being deleted as a duplicate of existing material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe it would be better to put the link to the full filmography article instead of the current table (like with discography)? sorry for spelling --92.37.193.191 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why would we do that? As Istated, the filmography on the Cher page conforms to the standard table formatting used in Wikipedia, it contains the information reccommended for filmography and is complete. As I also stated, the filmography article is improperly constructed, redundant content subject to deletion as duplication of existing content. The entire last part is unacceptable content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits
Wildhartlivie, please don't revert my edits.

WikiProject Musicians clearly stated what to put in infobox: "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list. Omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article."

I've also removed voice_type from infobox. This option is not for use in infoboxes for contemporary singers. Look at the version before I deleted it and you'll see that it not appears in article.

Previous image shows a man on behind, new version is better with close-up of Cher.

Alias section is for official stage names only.

1964 is the year she released her first record, not 1963.

For Links see WP:EL. Last.fm couldn't be used because it's social networking website. Discogs is user-generated portal and it doesn't needed since we have Allmusic which covers information about Cher music. Warnerbrosrecords.com contains nothing at all, and we already have Cher.com which runs by Warners. The same with Officialcherfanclub.com, and by the way it requirs registration. Cherconvention.com is unauthorized tribute. Ccakids.com has nothing useful for whole article.

Official website plus IMDb, Allmusic and TV.com is more than enough. See examples of good external links: Madonna, Celine Dion, Elton John, Meryl Streep.

Sorry for my bad spelling. --92.37.172.117 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please desist, you are edit warring over retaining your changes. You are incorrect. Starting from the bottom: the links to her official fan club and links to charity sites which she in involved in are perfectly acceptable. Aliases also include names under which the subject is known. Your interpretation of labels is erroneous, the other labels are not parenthetical, they are directly linked. You removed Sonny Bono as an associated act, and your blow-up of the image is fuzzy and of poor quality. And finally, you remove valid genres. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Charity sites are not notable, especially two. Also Cher.com have a link to Officialcherfanclub.com, and Officialcherfanclub.com have a link to Cherconvention.com so we don't have to put all of them to Links.
 * I left Sonny & Cher and removed Sonny Bono from associated acts in infobox because their relationship, both professional and personal, started and ended with Sonny & Cher. He had no solo performing career notable for mention aside their duo.
 * For your pleasure I just uploaded the greatest version of the second photo.
 * I've also specified Genres section from encyclopedic entries on phenomenons to exactly the musical genres. Please check articles carefully: Folk music -> Folk rock; Pop music and Rock music -> Pop rock; Dance music -> Dance-pop. And I decided to delete Disco because she did it for just one year of her forty five years career, not like those genres above.
 * And I guess I understand about labels right: they should be without dates and without
 * And I guess I understand about labels right: they should be without dates and without


 * Agree with you on Aliases--92.37.172.117 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, please stop preaching about your interpretation of valid external links. Any charity site linked to being supported by Cher is absolutely acceptable and in fact the only difference between the last revert you did and the one before that was to remove her full birth name. There is no difference otherwise  so all you are doing is continuing your edit war with minimal changes. Labels are fine as they are, there is no need for you to interpret your view of them. I do not require the guidelines for external links to be posted here, these are valid links and will stay. As for genres, if she did that typew of music, it is valid. And Sonny Bono is an associated act. He is associated with Cher, indelibly. Now, if you can't cool your jets, we will seek input from authoritative editors who work with this all the time. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Warner Bros. (US) (2003–Present) ". This info should be in main article.
 * Article is about Cher's recording history, film performances, life etc, and Ccakids.com is not represent a lot, since she was not that much involved in the organisation. In EL it doesn't help reader to learn further about Cher or to editor to take information from it. CCAKids already mentioned in ==Humanitarian work==.
 * Infobox should show brief summary of article and not those untidy Labels block. Why do we need to extend this part vertically with extra details and scroll it to see this blank spaces around? This part is especially unnecessary: " ... Warner Bros. (UK) (1995–2003)
 * Genres. In different times she did many different types of music. Soul on 3614 Jackson Highway, Torch on Bittersweet White Light, New Wave on Black Rose and was even a singer-songwriter on Not.com.mercial. I deleted Disco because she did it for short time, and what I puted сomprehensively shows her primary styles. And we already have Dance-pop.
 * Sonny Bono wasn't really an act. He (alone, by his own) was a congressmen, and before that he was half of the duo Sonny & Cher, which is already reflected. This is musical infobox.
 * The only thing I've changed in my edit along the way is LaPierre in Aliases, I still sure in the rest of my contribution. I guided by what is relevant to Cher, by Wikipedia rules and by what I see at others good and featured articles. You are not own this article so I may consider your edits as edit war as well.--92.37.172.117 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't have a solid rationale for anything you've said, and since you are determined to continue edit warring, I am going to start considering it tendentious editing and vandalism. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not valid in this article. You are conjecting and it is more than time that you stop. The article is about Cher's life, it is a biography and anything relevant that she has done is fair game for inclusion. There are two different recording companies related to Warner Bros. recording and because she was carried by one company and was switched to the other is relevant content. She was wildly popular as a disco artist during that shameful period of music history and it is absolutely inclusive. It was a Renaissance period for her music career. It brought her *back*. Sonny Bono was part of her career and is relevant for inclusion. You are edit warring from a very misguided perception and are flatly wrong in your reasoning. Stop reverting this or be reported for edit warring and violating 3RR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * O RLY? What aspects of the recent editing are you seeing as WP:VANDALISM? I'm not seeing it. Also,  It is not up to you to decide what is or is not valid in this article. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, Jack, unless you missed the multiple persons on WP:AN/I who all stated they didn't support these changes or would have reverted it themselves. When changes are incorrect and that has been explained but an editor continues to revert back to those changes, it eventually crosses into vandalism. And because Jack posted here, VT-88, he did not state at any time that he agreed with your edits, he just said he'd look at it. I notice that you revert my last edit, but mostly incorporated the issues. He apparently paid attention to a degree. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I see you've edited to address specific concerns, rather than wholesale revert others; that's a bit of progress. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because he didn't change the multitude of content he changed before. The other reverts were because there were issues with the edits, as was supported by multiple editors who responded at WP:AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's consensus now. I didn't touch Disco, Sonny Bono, CCAKids and old labels format. Also I made another changes to labels, please see Cher discography and Sonny & Cher discography.--Vt-88 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit.

What additional " Warner Bros. (US) (2003–P—present) " means? She didn't released records since 2002. Even if she changed from Warners UK to US it's not the reason to indicate it. This is the same label and those records were released in both countries. If we would include every label she was linked to, the list would be very large because there was even more.

Warnerbrosrecords.com/artists/cher/ is blank. We already have Cher.com which runs by Warner Bros.

Officialcherfanclub.com requirs paid registration and contains rich media. And this site linked by official website so we can't put both Cher.com and Officialcherfanclub.com--Vt-88 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They were separate labels, operated in different countries and are not considered the same company. It doesn't matter if Cher.com is linked from her website or not, WP:EL permits official websites and doesn't address in any way whether it's accessible from another website, the policy says "For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject." It's includable. I can access the Warner Brothers site for her. While routine fansites aren't permitted, her official fansite falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4. I don't get your rationale that And this site linked by official website so we can't put both Cher.com and Officialcherfanclub.com. What's your rationale? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what more reasons can I give about labels. You are simply want to find fault with me.
 * Links. WP:ELOFFICIAL: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." I've already cited this above, in quotation block, in my second post.
 * Warnerbrosrecords.com/artists/cher/ contains nothing but the picture of Cher on the background and two links: to Cher.com and to Wikipedia. Why does it needed for here?--Vt-88 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to assume good faith instead of claiming that I "simply want to find fault with" you. You are wrong about the different recording labels. They are separate companies, that's the bottom line of it. There is only one official link, and that inclusion is supported by policy. Period. None of the other links are official sites, the Warner Bros. link is to their page for Cher. It's proper. But let's back up to where you said that it was a blank page, it isn't blank. To follow your lead, I think you are just arging about these sites, all of which are supported by policy or guideines, because I disagree with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on, WHL. You swing that claim yourself quite regularly. Try a spoonful of good faith yourself sometime. Jack Merridew 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion, Jack, or is this just another of your drop-in disparagements? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Officialcherfanclub.com? And Warnerbrosrecords.com/artists/cher/ is empty and shows only two links when you go there, that's what I mean. Where's the text on it or something? Is this page proper? Did you really opened it??--Vt-88 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I addressed the officially sanctioned fan club before, and yes, I said that it opened for me when you claimed it is blank. Kindly don't repeat the same question over and over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank doesn't means that I can't open it - that means it doesn't contain information at all.
 * Then issue with fan club. WP:ELOFFICIAL: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." We have Cher.com. If you open it there's link to Officialcherfanclub.com. We can't put Officialcherfanclub.com to EL. --Vt-88 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, there is content there from what I see. And please don't misinterpret what the policy said, there is no "we can't" contained. We cannot depend on a link being contained on a page other than Wikipedia to provide a way to access an official fansite. We most certainly can, and I am unaware of anyone challenging its inclusion except you in this way. It is acceptable to link to an official site. That IS the only link to an officially sanctioned fan club. It isn't the same thing as her own official website. Both are acceptable. That site DOES provide something besides Cher's own website. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)