Talk:Cher/Archive 2

And it continues
VT-88, you are continuing to do it. Please stop doing it. The Warner Bros. contracts are SEPARATE contracts, they are separate divisions of a company, they are not the same contract. Please stop removing the officially sanctioned fan club site and please stop removing her record label's official page for her. It's extremely poor faith to pretend to discuss something and come back in when you think no one is looking and reinstate your POV on this article. Knock it off or it will go back to WP:AN/I. There is valid rationale for the retention of all three of these points and all you seem to be doing is edit warring back to what you want it to say. And one more thing - Cher is the national chairperson for the Children's Craniofacial Association, that is significantly more involvement than simply "supporting it". Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And it still continues, after returning the content, which I gave rationale for above, VT-88 returned and removed the article content, this time without bothering to even give a rationale. He is blatantly ignoring the rationale given here and has stopped responding to it above. This must stop, there is no valid rationale for combining two separate contracts and making it appear as one contract, nor is there valid rationale for the removal of the official artist's page at Warner Bros. website nor is there valid rationale for the removal of Cher's officially sanctioned website. Yet, VT-88 continues to do so. Again, this must stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And he has reverted without edit summary or responding here, yet again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * She didn't released records since 2002, so what ("2003-present") means? Anyway this should be avoided because this is the same label.
 * Warnerbrosrecords.com/artists/cher/ is empty and contains no information at all. Just open it and see.
 * Officialcherfanclub.com requirs paid registration and contains rich media. And this site linked by official website: "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." — WP:ELOFFICIAL. We have Cher.com which has link to Officialcherfanclub.com.--Vt-88 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, everything you've repeated in this section was explained to you in the above section. Point by point, see here. You're just yammering on as if none of this was addressed. There is a branch of Warner Bros. in the United States, and there is a branch of Warner Bros. in the UK (United Kingdom). They are not the same company. They are different operations under a main title. The contracts are separate. Whether she has recorded or not is not an issue, the contract is there and there has been talk about a new album. You don't even seem to realize that I told you quite plainly that the Warner Bros. link is not blank, it has content for me. I told you above that a link being given on an external link is NOT the same thing as listing here. It doesn't matter if her cher.com has a link to officialcherfanclub.com. That DOESN'T MATTER, it's the fan club, it is NOT her official web page. We are linking to it here, we aren't displaying her official website content. It doesn't matter if other pages are linked from her website or not, WP:EL permits it 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," it can be linked here. It doesn't MATTER. It's includable. That covers your objections to the fan club. I can access the Warner Brothers site for her. While routine fansites aren't permitted, her official fansite falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4. None of this much matters, though, because I have reported you for violating 3RR AGAIN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Vt-88, you have reverted 5 times tonight, on edits by more than one editor. You have been reported to WP:AN3. Please stop edit warring to push your POV. Your reasoning is incorrect and invalid and your reverts are bad. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list of editors who have reverted Vt-88. Vt-88, the onus is on the editor wishing to make a change to justify that change. It seems clear from the above that you do not currently have any consensus for your proposed change. You also seem to have strayed far over the WP:3RR line. TFOWRpropaganda 10:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the line of reasoning presented by Vt-88, which I guess is another way of saying that I disagree with it. And yes, the onus of justification is on the editor wishing to make the change.   "She didn't released records since 2002, so what ("2003-present") means? "  Well, it means she's under contract to the label/s and whether or not she's released any material is of no consequence.  The infobox lists labels she's signed to and the date range of her contracts, not the periods in which she has released material.  They don't necessarily coincide.   A question for Wildhartlivie : what do you see when you go to Warnerbrosrecords.com/artists/cher/?   You say it's not blank to you, but when I click on it, all I can see is a picture of Cher.   A nice picture, no doubt about it.  There's nothing else but a couple of links, one of which is right back here to Wikipedia.  Rossrs (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I see links to relevant content including recordings. The link to Wikipedia is on a pop up with a link to her official site. The other editor kept insisting the page ws blank. Is it possible that some content is blocked to other geographical areas? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see only the pop up and the photo of Cher. Perhaps it is blocked to some geographical areas, although I can't imagine why Warner Bros. would want to restrict content.  I'm in Australia.  I don't know where Vt-88 is.  Not in the U.S. I guess.  Perhaps that's the explanation. Rossrs (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the geolocate on the IP he was using, he's in Russia. I was under the impression that some countries in that general area have some web content restricted. Dunno. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But AUSTRALIA?????????? That's way south of Russia, and even a bit to the east.  We had MacDonald's.... like, 30 years before Russia, and now I find out I can't even read what Warner Bros. says about Cher before people in Russia!  Sure, I can look at the photograph.  Great.  I've done that.  Was "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" number one for ...  like, 7 weeks in Russia?  I don't think so.  This is so unfair!  I'm not happy about this.   Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you stamping your feet and throwing an Aussie tizzy fit?? See, it just goes to show you ... you never write, you never call. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. All I can say is  - wait until Cher hears about this!  ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll tell her to call you next time we talk. I know she gets very upset when her fans are disappointed, 'cuz, you know, she's like that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is. Cher cares and Cher shares.  While you're at it, tell her to put out a damn album.   Dance, rock, showtunes, an album of covers, a Lady Gaga duet to ensure a hit single - I don't care.  She hasn't put one out since 2002 and it's been clearly established that she's got a contract, not only in the U.S., but the UK too.  Two contracts.  Or maybe she put one out and Warner Bros. didn't release it in Australia or Russia.  Something else you could mention to her.  Rossrs (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you've followed the drama of this article's progression, you'll know that there are rumors afoot regarding a new album. But Lady Gaga?? Oh dear. Cher usually does duets with male singers, you know how she is. I'll let her know this guy in Australia would like an album personally delivered, if you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure there'll be some soundtrack material from the Burlesque film if nothing else, and a personally delivered copy... I would like that. Yes, she usually duets with males, but did you happen to see her Oprah appearance with Tina Turner?  Great interview, by the way, but also a superb duet.   As for Lady Gaga - well, she's everywhere right now isn't she?  A couple of weeks ago, she was onstage at Carnegie Hall as part of an odd ensemble with Deborah Harry and Shirley Bassey, (and Bruce Springsteen, Elton John and Sting, so I guess the oldies have accepted her, and it's on You Tube of course, if you're interested) doing a version of "Don't Stop Believin'",  so I don't think we can rule out Cher.  Anyway, getting back to the original comments here, I think we should leave it as it now stands on those points.  I was thinking maybe the Warner Bros. link should go, but as it appears to be a regional/geographical thing, it obviously should stay.  Rossrs (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If we would provide every label she was linked to the list would be large. Add Reprise, Kapp, Liberty and more that deserve to be included rather than uk/us separated warners. But I doubdt that Wildhartlivie knows about it. Could you provide a link showing her 2003-present contract?--Vt-88 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to doubt what you believe you know about my knowledge. And in case you aren't aware, current contracts aren't generally posted on web pages. No, I do not have a link, but that does not mean that she doesn't have a contract with Warner Bros. UK. Please contain your comments to what you know and not your speculation about what you believe others know. That fall under the realm of WP:NPA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't kidding me with NPA. I've always stayed polite in discussions while you speak bad to me. I don't have faith in your knowledge about Cher, I think that what you do is reverting everything no matter how useful it is and then pick up any arguments to it just to leave this article how it was. And no, you need to proof somehow separate 2003-present contract. You didn't answer about Reprise, Kapp, Liberty labels, why are you don't put them in infobox? (I don't want more labels, but to put two Warners and none of those make no sense) --Vt-88 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me add what I was adding when you jumped in to respond. And no, you don't seem to understand WP:NPA, or you would curtail your comments. Pleas read here, a link to a Billboard Magazine article, the Bible handbook of recording contract knowledge, where the change from the UK division to the US is discussed. I quote: "In a little twist, Cher, who parted ways with Warner U.K. last year, has been picked up by Warner Bros. in the U.S. ...He says there were "no politics at all" when it came to signing an artist that the Warner UK division had released." And another Billboard article: "The response to the show indirectly led to Cher signing with Warner Bros. America after a stint on Warner Bros. UK. That deal ended with her Living Proof release in 2001. Scott says Warner chairman/CEO Tom Whalley came to a Cher show and observed the response. He thought if she "comes with the right record, it could do very well. So she's a Warner Bros. America artist now, a new deal." THEY ARE SEPARATE CONTRACTS. She was not signed with one label from 1995 to the present. And here: "However, Warner Bros, in the US continues to work the current album and released remixes of "When the Money's Gone" to the dance format this month. "Cher signed with Warner UK in 1994, and the deal ran out a few months ago," says her manager, Lindsay Scott. "We've already had interest from Warner America and several other labels." Enough? THEY ARE SEPARATE CONTRACTS, dude. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough. :-) with labels.--Vt-88 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I went to the link that Rossrs put up above and there was a picture of Cher with a popup over her. But there were also tabs at the top.  I clicked the home tab to see that a new release is happening for June 15, 2010.    I'm not sure if this is what all of the conversation is above but I thought I would throw this in to the mix in case it is not known.  To be honest, the conversations above are hard to understand.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with Cher? Link you gave is Warners website and it talks about someone else's release on june 15.--Vt-88 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry please ignore. When I looked at it yesterday there was Cher, a link which I clicked and I made an assumption which was wrong. Sorry, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Plastic surgery
It seems highly relevant to mention her extensive plastic surgery and its recognition in the media and popular culture. Among younger generations she is FAR better-known for her "plastic," mannequin-like or "robotic" appearance than for her musical career, and in popular culture said appearance is almost universally referenced as an addendum to any mention of Cher. Including no mention of any of this in the article makes it seem egregiously incomplete and unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.69.226 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The lede gives the pronunciation of her name as /ˈʃɛər/, but shouldn't that be rendered in IPA as /ˈʃɛ:ɻ/ or /ˈʃɛ:ɹ/? The reference for the pronunciation is not using IPA for transcription, but its transcription basically matches the above suggested IPA, as well as Cher's own pronunciation in interviews. — al-Shimoni  ( talk ) 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Most Succeful Tour
Madonna have the most succeful tour not cher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.111.2.37 (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Age
Cher's Age in the background info. box on the right of the page says she was born in 1901. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.229.214 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Baby Don't Go
I'm not sure the link to the song Baby Don't Go should be linking to an article on Fabolous - Though I'm not familiar with Fabulous' body of work and may be mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.51.102 (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cher also did some racy commercials in the 80's for Chicago Health Clubs, now Bally Total Fitness.
The commercials showed off her body while working out then finished with her saying "Face it, if it came in a botlle, everyone would have a great body." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.162.4.21 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

250 million records sold worldwide
Please change that number of sales of 100 million albums sold worldwide, she has reached the milestone of 205 million albums + singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.67.22 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 250 million is just a promotional figure tossed about for marketing purposes. Cher's certifications from numerous larger markets do not suggest anything over 100 million in record sales, that is albums, singles and videos. Therefore, we should leave the 100 in place as it is a realistic figure.--Harout72 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cher has sold over 180 million albums worldwide solo and 80 million as part of duo, Sonny & Cher ^ Cher has sold over 180 million records worldwide and an estimated 70 million solo singles, becoming one of the biggest-selling artists of all time. ^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.116.200 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tthat's not a reliable source. And according to Cher's certifications as I have mentioned above nothing above 100 million in record sales (albums, singles, videos) would be realistic.--Harout72 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized.
Born	January 20, 1906 (age 104) Instruments	Tromboner

''Cher began her career as a backup cocksucker and later came to prominence as one half of the pop rock duo Sonny & Cher with the success of their song "I Got Your cum" in 1965. She subsequently established herself as a solo recording artist, and became a television star in 1971 with The Sonny and Cher sex Hour, a variety show for which she won a Golden Globe. A well received performance in the film Hardwood earned her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Transvestite Actress in 1984. In the following years, Cher starred in a string of hit films[7] including Mask, The Witches of Eastwick, and Moonstruck, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 1988. This page should be locked from editing except for registered users.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the Wikipedia article for Cher is NOT from November 2010.
The picture is from sometime in 2006, can someone change it because it won't let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyer2000 (talk • contribs)

✅ It's correct now. Thanks for bringing it to the attentions of everyone. Please remember to sign your posts, thanks for that too. :) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cher's name
Cher's name used to be Bonnie Joe Mason she changed it after the single ringo i love you

http://www.youtube.com/user/TVsCraigFerguson#p/u/15/mFXBuNME_FE link to the man who gave me the info he starts talking about it at 10:30 correct me if im wrong please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.184.238 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * that was her stage name used to release that song only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Television Appearance.
A late 70's Monaco-based variety show featured Cher, to include her son who was acting up, she took her kid beyond the cameras and gave her kid a quick spank, which was audible and made the audience laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.200.149 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthname
Cher was born Cherilyn Sarkisian, see this article on The New York Times. The other names that we sometimes see and have even been printed by some news services are simply names she has used at one point or another including Cherilyn La Piere, Bonnie Jo Mason; however, none of those are her birthnames.--Harout72 (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I think "Sarkisian" is correct. Wasn't her father Armenian? I know everyone thinks she's full or half-Cherokee, but isn't she only 1/4 Cherokee? I could be wrong, though. I know I read a biography of her in a magazine, but it's stored somewhere right now. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The California Birth Index lists her as having been born Cheryl Lapiere (searchlable here), which is also what a 1972 newspaper article states. The New York Times reference someone gave out is just a web bio from All Music.com. It's not a definitive source. I think we should leave her birthname out of the article until we can come to some kind of consensus as to what is going on here. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have provided more sources (Britnnica and Daily mail) supporting Cherilyn Sarkisian, although, I'm not sure if the bio by The New York Times deserved a removal and challenging regardless of that it is not originally their work.--Harout72 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving things as they are. I will try to find the article from (I think?) Biography Magazine though. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I just thought I'd check with Biography.com which only lists "Sarkisian." So, is everyone in agreement to leave it "as is," including "LaPiere" in the box? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These are all just websites, or newspapers. None of them are definitive sources. You can find websites and newspapers that support many different birthnames, including "Cheryl Lapiere". None of them are more reliable than an actual birth records index. Again, barring a definitive source that explains this, we should leave it out. Circular web references don't help. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are very reliable. Please stop removing information supported with highly reliable sources. You have absolutely no proof that the name you are inserting in the index brings up the person in question here, Cher.--Harout72 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All Hallows Wraith is correct, the California Birth Index has to be the more definitive source as the multiple web, newspaper and magazine sources may simply be repeating and mirroring the same error. The article should be left neutral for the time being until the situation is cleared up and the current edit warring by editors should cease. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 13:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with All Hallow's Wraith and also 21stCenturyGreenstuff. The birth index is a stronger source than newpapers articles or even the other websites, which has been said, could be duplicating an error.  I think it should be left out for now.  Has anyone tried to look for her birth certificate?  I'm actually quite lousy when it comes to doing searches (I'm just trying to be honest here.).  A birth certificate would be quite helpful at this time.  Until this can be resolved with teritary sources, I think it should be left out.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But all the birth index shows is that someone named Cherilyn LaPiere was born on that day in California. Certainly there are a number of girls named "Cherilyn" born each year, and occasionally days where two of them are born. You need a source that ties the two together.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1972 newspaper article states that her birth name was "Cheryl Lapiere" (and that's a crucial distinction - not "CherylIN", but "Cheryl"). That newspaper article matches the birth index. I can find no other potential matches in the birth index. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do the other commenters think? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it still doesn't prove that it is the person we're after, Cher. You're basically dictating us to disregard highly reliable sources and rely solely on birth index which doesn't bring up no other substantial information but a name "Cheryl Lapiere". I'm afraid that's not enough evidence.--Harout72 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.59.16.106, 15 April 2011
Cher filmography addit: Also starred in and directed " if these walls could Talk" 1996 TV movie

202.59.16.106 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ I'm sorry but I've declined this request as it is not verifiable. Please provide a source for this and show why it is notable in the context of her long career. Woody (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Her directing credit for If These Walls Could Talk is listed in her IMDb entry. 84.244.183.120 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cher is not dead
Despite what Kim Kardashian said last night, she is very much alive. --The lorax (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Funnyrob, 28 May 2011
Please remove the second incidence of the word 'the' in the second sentence of paragraph two ("She is the only artist to reach the number one on the Billboard charts in each of the previous six decades, and also holds this record for four and five decades"). It is grammatically incorrect.

Funnyrob (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved with David Geffen???
How could she possibly have been involved with David Geffen. I know she knows Geffen well, and he has represented her, but Geffen is openly gay - he's not bisexual. Their "involvement" is contrived, yes? She was acting as Geffen's "beard"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.22.190 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Early life - is this for real?
Can the following be deleted? I honestly cannot see that it adds anything of value. At the very least, Cher's name was not and - according to all the research I have done - never has been David. I cannot find anything at all about being raised by bears who were married to a tiger.

Am I just being picky here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Byford (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cher has Sold More than 250 Milions Disc Worlwilde
from her solo carrier comes about 190 Milions Disc WorldWide (80 Milions only in North America) and if you add the Sonny & Cher records sold There are 280 Milions Copies of Records Selled Worldwilde — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobiCher (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your figures posted above are incorrect based on Cher's available certified sales. Also, when sales figures are supported by reliable sources, you can't just change them into something else. See WP:Verifiability and WP:RS.--Harout72 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1° You must add Sonny & Cher Records Sales (Over 90 Milions) 2° Cher has sold in many other country, more Album and Singles, and more more more! I've scearch, and Cher has sold between 270.000.000 and 290.000.000 Milions With Sonny and Between 180.000.000 to 200.000.000 Milions on her SOLO-Carrier


 * The RIAA is the only certifying body that seems to have anything for Sonny & Cher, total of 2,500,000 units certified, (Singles=1,000,000, Albums=1,500,000). The total certified sales for Cher changed by 2.5 million, which still disagrees with the figures that you're claiming.--Harout72 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Children
Apart from the well-known Chaz Bono, does Cher have any other children ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The entry for Chaz Bono asserts "(Chaz) Bono is the only child of American entertainers Sonny and Cher, though each had children from other relationships."    Is this correct ? Eregli bob (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the article on Cher. It clearly says Cher has a son with Gregg Allman, named Elijah Blue -- fdewaele, 23 April 2012, 11:55 CET.

Cher Golden Globes
Hi, I Don't Know what to Do to Add the resource, but I Know that she Won 4 Golden Globes Award
 * 1° 1974 - The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour (Best Actress)
 * 2° 1984 - Silkwood (Best Supporting Actress)
 * 3° 1988 - Moonstruck (Best Actress)
 * 4° 2010 - Burlesque, You Haven't Seen the Last of Me (Best Original Song), Shared With Diane Warren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.21.101 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pt article
Hi. You guys should take a look on Cher's pt wikipedia article. It's complete, very well-written and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. Could you guys translate it to english? Lordelliott (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal or Rewording of "She is the only person in history to have received all of these awards."
Please bear with me; I'm new to Wikipedia. I believe I have found another person that has received the same awards: Martin Scorsese. Oscar: 2006 - Best Director, The Departed (http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1336146620211) Grammy: 2005 - Best Long Form Music Video, No Direction Home (http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=Scorsese&title=&year=All&genre=All) Emmy: 2011 - Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, Boardwalk Empire (http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=scorsese&program=&start_year=1949&end_year=2011&network=All&web_category=All&winner=All) Golden Globes: (All for Best Director - Motion Picture) 2003 - Gangs of New York 2007 - The Departed 2012 - Hugo (http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/29674) Cannes Film Festival: 1986 - Direction, After Hours (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en/archives/1986/awardCompetition.html) All this because I got a question wrong on trivia night! Thanks for your help, 76.116.82.219 (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cherilyn, NOT Cheryl
Look at the sources. Cher's birth name is Cherilyn and not Cheryl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.105.228 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cher 2012 Updates
Cher's tour will start on Feb. 14th, 2013

Cher will be featuring several songs written by Pink on her album.

Cher's new album will be released on December 18,2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chermepleasecher (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

69.142.163.53 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages..  RudolfRed (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

New version
Hi folks. I'm working on a all-new version of the article to be finished in early december. If you want to help, please contact me. Lordelliott (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's done. Lordelliott (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery
Rumors and gossip have no place in a BLP article, stop posting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops

Neosiber (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cher herself admitted having plastic surgery. She denies most of the rumours, not all the rumours. She admits to having her nose, teeth and breasts done and this is written on the article. Lordelliott (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See Michael Jackson, which is a featured article. His plastic surgery rumours are cited because they are relevant, people talk and want to know about it.


 * By the mid-1990s several surgeons speculated that he had undergone various nasal surgeries, a forehead lift, thinned lips, and cheekbone surgery—although Jackson denied this and insisted that he only had surgery on his nose.


 * It's pretty the same with Cher. It shows the rumours and it shows her point of view. That's the point of impartiality. Lordelliott (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And that section about Michael Jackson should be removed as well, but he isn't living so it is slightly different. Rumors/gossip have no place in an article about a BLP. Again read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops
 * It's called gossip, and it is libelous. She has denied it and their is no proof of it, just rumors.
 * Neosiber (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there's no difference. These are not rumours, just opinions of reputed authors discussing the plastic surgery she has had. It has to do with the "intense scrutiny" mentioned in the beginning of the section; it proves it. If it sugests that's "a lot of plastic surgery", there's her point of view thereafter. Cher's plastic surgery is a relevant topic about her. This section shouldn't contain just her opinion. Lordelliott (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Except they aren't reputed authors, the first is a blogger who wrote a book, he was discussing the plastic surgery he thinks she has had, but he doesn't have a source or any evidence. The way it was before you changed it was correct. If you can find a news article saying what surgeries she has had fine, but beyond that its just rumors of bloggers. Neosiber (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He is a blogger, which doesn't mean he isn't an author. He is also an anthropologist. If he had published this in his personal blog I would understand you, but that's not the case. Lordelliott (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it was almost the same until you changed it. Just going back to what it was. Lordelliott (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I removed the gossip before, him being an anthropologist is irrelevant. He has no source, which makes it gossip/rumor. Again he has no source, he just used a few weasel words. Neosiber (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not "weasel" words. He discussed her plastic surgeries and drew an interesting parallel between her surgeries and the transformations on her career. Him being an antropologist is irrelevant, yes. I just meant to say he isn't merely a "blogger". "Just" bloggers usually do not have Wikipedia articles. Lordelliott (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will nominate Cher for featured article soon. Let's leave the decision to users, right? Lordelliott (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Neosiber, I've reinstated the information. Please keep in mind that currently you have no consensus to remove it again -neither here nor on the BLP noticeboard. Discuss on this talk page and seek consensus before edit warring, okay? Thanks. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities influenced by Cher
I'm wondering if this reference of Drew Barrymore praising Cher is relevant to place her between the celebrities who were inspired by Cher. By now, I will keep this out of the article. Lordelliott (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ccakids link
The link to ccakids in the External links section doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:EL. Should it be removed? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Lordelliott (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

New lead image suggestion
I think this photo of her would be better for the lead, since it was taken when she received her Oscar for Moonstruck, an important moment in her career. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it wouldn't be suitable for the lead because it's a black-and-white image and because this is from 25 years ago. Correction: the image was taken during the making of the film, not when she received her Oscar. Lordelliott (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About the taking of the photo, is this a promo still or was it just a frame from the movie? It makes a difference on the licensing aspect. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think this is a promo still. Lordelliott (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on religion
I would accept moving but not deleting the information I re-added about Cher and her interest in Buddhism. It is sourced to an absolutely reliable source (Condé Nast) which I saw with my own eyes. What the heck does "Removed per PR." mean? (It doesn't mean Peer review I take it.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I haven't edited this bio much, I was dumbfounded to read the rationale for the deletion: A consensus was reached in the current peer review: religion is not a point to be explained in an entertainer biography. If we mention religion, we'll have to mention her collection of art, expensive homes, etc.


 * There are so many levels to this rationale, that I find it hard to believe there was a "consensus" that decided "entertainers," or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't have their religion mentioned if it's sourced. I will be bold and restore the mention and assume that someone will link to the consensus that equates religion with home furnishings. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Wikiwatcher1. Lordelliott, first allow me to quote from Wikipedia policy on BLPs:

..."Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: We must get the article right."...
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * No original research (NOR)


 * Would it not be original research to omit Cher's statement about her interest in Buddhism? It would certainly not be a neutral point of view.


 * Second, allow me to ask, what is the "current peer review"? We have only one peer review listed above. That has closed, and has been archived. I couldn't find the word "religion" in it. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also allow me to wikilink the publisher, Condé Nast Publications. Lordelliott, I'm sorry if you don't have them where you live. Their parent company, Advance Publications, used to publish a business journal for just about every major U.S. city. If we can't believe them, then Wikipedia is out of business. I would like to quote what was deleted in October 2012. Below, I struck out what other people have added over time, without adding any sources. I fully support your efforts to advance this article to GA or FA, and don't want to stop you in any way. I agree with your deletion up to a point, because I too don't like "drive by" editors who add some bit that is not in the source. Only two facts remain in my memory of Architectural Digest's article and those two facts are all I am asking to be restored. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC) "'I've played around with Buddhism for years,' Cher said in 2010. 'As corny as it sounds, the soul of the universe, everything that I need, I can find in its practice.' She is a devotee of Pema Chödrön, an American Buddhist nun whom she calls 'a genius in Sheldon Leonard’s body'." Oh boy was I ever wrong about that. The article is online at Architectural Digest. Both quotes came exactly as quoted from the article! So sorry for my confusion, and for going on about drive by editors. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, I don't want to keep this war edit, so your edits can stay. Anyway, if any other user complain about this, I will imediatly link to this section or to your talk page, SusanLesch. In fact, I was the one who inserted this on the article; I only removed it because other users questioned its relevance. Sorry for my english, I'm brazilian. Lordelliott (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice to "meet" you. I've never met a Brazilian person before. Your English is great and I wish you good luck with your editing. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you too! Thanks. Lordelliott (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just logged in to check if things were going OK. I'm glad to see this has been settled. I am one of the peer reviewers (my review is in the Wikipedia talk page), but my comments are never set in stone, of course. It might be nice to consider renaming the section the "Religion" subsection is in. Would "Other interests" instead of "Other ventures" work? Best wishes. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion WP! I will rename the section. Lordelliott (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it's trivia. She's not an important aspect of Buddhism, nor is Buddhism an important aspect of her life. Her being Buddhist is of roughly the same importance as her shoe size: verifiable, probably mentioned at least once in her career, but there's no particular reason to mention it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is "career" and "life" merged?
Relating to the previous section about mentioning religion, and based on the assumption that this is a biography, why is "life" and "career" combined in a separate section called "Life and career"? I couldn't see any clarification about this in the peer review, and no mention of religion at all.

The bios that seem best organized IMO, such as Elizabeth Taylor, include, at a minimum, separate sections for early years, career, and personal life. The "personal life" details typically includes what, in this article, is in the strangely titled "Other ventures" section, religion, philanthropy and politics.

But the most relevant personal life details, such as marriages, divorces, children, health, etc. are in this article combined with her career. This makes it extremely cumbersome for anyone to find out about her personal life, such as who or when she married or details about her children, for example. Can someone point to any discussions about these decisions, since they could be setting a precedent about other bios? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue the other direction: the worst articles are those that try to artificially separate a person's life into arbitrary categories. The best ones present the facts in roughly chronological order with a minimum of segregation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kww. Furthermore, her personal life is directly linked with the events in her career. Lordelliott (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Discography Filmography
Please don't touch the discography on 2 column. when somebody stata Made changement Made this Voice of wikipedia so weird! Out the film out of Only filmography! Please! You are ruining this section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.60.234 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cher Record Sales
On Yesterday Episode of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" Ellen said that Cher Have sold more than 200 Milion copies, so i think that now finally we can change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robiyacher (talk • contribs) — Robiyacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Why? Something DeGeneres said on her talk show is not a reliable source. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  16:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cher recently tweeted this link and the official facebook itself said it sold 200 million albums. http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/18-reasons-why-cher-is-fundamentally-awesome/ And this is her official facebook page https://www.facebook.com/cher/posts/600231666675915

Picture
Why would you rather use that photograph from the Burlesque premiere, on which she seems "frozen" and unnatural to me, instead of some nice concert shot from the 80s? On the former she is also wearing that orange wig, which is not her usual look; therefore it's kind of inappropriate for being the lead picture. Before starting an edit war or something like that, let's rather ask for a WP:3O? --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because a more recent picture is better for the lead. She doesn't look like 20 years ago anymore. But OK, I agree with you on asking for a WP:3O. Lordelliott (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you do that? I'm unfamiliar with the treatment and as I said before my English isn't the best... --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm quite busy right now, so I'll have to ask you to do that. We can wait until Wikipedian Penguin returns too. He's doing a peer review. Lordelliott (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sure, Wikipedian Penguin's opinion will be helpful, too. 18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Karloff II (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with Boris, that the present candid is not worthy of her lead photo, and probably not worthy of even being published anywhere, IMO. It looks like a rejected paparazzi photo. The personal opinion that a "recent picture" is better for a lead is unsupported and not logical, especially for actors. For them, a photo that most reflects their notability should be what's best. Luise Rainer is 103, but notable due to her career as an actress. An ealier career photo of Karloff Sr., who lived to age 81, is also best. Lead images showing them during their career is most relevant. Per section above, "New lead image suggestion," there are better images available. There was a similar discussion for a Peter Sellers photo a while ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher1 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2013‎ (UTC)
 * I would normally prefer a photo of her recent career, but the quality of this one is not great since she looks a little stiff and the hair style is not a notable one of her career. The most objective way to approach this would be to find a photo that identifies her for what she's known most well for, as has been said above. I would personally that prefer the photo be in color, but that's not a main priority, and most of the photos of her "prime" are monochromatic. I hope my words offer any helpful insight. Thanks, — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe one of these:, ? Although it is in b/w I would still prefere the one from 1989! --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Or Cher in 1988 for Moonstruck, her first Oscar-win. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I agree. In my personal opinion, isn't good for the lead. I would prefer  Cher in 1988 too. Lordelliott (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I would still prefere the other one. But I'm fine with this, too. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think, Wikiwatcher1 and Wikipedian Penguin? --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind the 1989 photo. Any thoughts on Heart of Stone tour 1990 (3).jpg? It's not your everyday Cher outfit, but it depicts her very well (direct shot of face, color). But we could argue that the 1989 one is more natural-looking. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think the 1989 one looks better as the lead image, but would also be happy with the 1990 one. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian Penguin, isn't the 1990 one "illegal"? I tried to use this shot on the article, but someone told me that this picture does not meet the Commons standard. As for the 1989 pic, I think that the 1987 picture is better because it is more "centered" on her face (do you get it?). Also, the 1987 pic is from a defining moment of her career: her Oscar-winning film. The 1989 picture shows her singing in a charitable event (it is not from a solo show). Sorry for my errors. Lordelliott (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article already has mostly photos of her singing on stage, and few of her acting (on TV,) the Moonstruck photo adds balance. And many fewer people have actually seen her perform than have seen her in films. I also like the "Heart of Stone" image, which would be a valuable addition to the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the current image is out of place and awkward. This image File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (2).jpg would be perfect with some cropping and brightening. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Came across this new one, which looks to be pre-1987. The "Heart of Stone" photo, when cropped, has too much grain for a portrait. Also, her eyes are closed. The new one may be better for her lead, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think File:Cher-portrait.JPG may be the best one, but the edit looks awkward. The "Heart of Stone" photo is awkward too, and it looks like it does not meet Commons standards. I really don't feel how the Moonstruck photo is out of place and awkward. Lordelliott (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the current image would be fit better if it were flip-flopped. Would someone be able to do that? This way, she faces towards the text, and it's less distracting. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be done, but I doubt if that kind of alteration is allowed, since it creates a new image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The recent 2011 photo of Cher with red hair could, if anywhere, be included within the article under recent events, but not as a lead image, IMO, and as discussed above. This is supposed to be a full biography of a singer and actress, covering a 50-year period, not an article focused on recent newsworthy appearances with candid images more suitable for today's tabloids, where papparazzi swarm and click away. A photo representing the biography and more closely relevant to her notability would be one like File:Cher - Casablanca.jpg, which shows her as she appeared during a key period in career, rather than as a one-off dyed redhead.

Hence, the rationale given by an editor, more current photo generally preferred to antediluvian image, is wrong on all counts: It is not generally preferred, except for news stories, not a biography. This is especially true of people in the entertainment field. The previous, more natural and authentic image, should obviously be restored. --Light show (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources
Per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot use material sourced to tabloids on this article. I have three times removed a reference to the Daily Mail, a tabloid, from the article. It should not be restored. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Significant career events
(Moved question from User talk:Light show) Hi! John Kalodner and Rob Dickins were not Cher friends, they were record executives. The song "Believe" marked an extreme departure in Cher's career, just like the Broadway play and film "Come Back to the Five..." and her 1987 comeback album. Also, Robert Altman did not convince her to do movies; she was looking for roles for seven years when he agreed to cast her. It is quite obvious that without him, she would not have a movie career. I think we don't need a long quotation from her to show that. I'm doing peer reviews since the last year and everybody told me this article is overlong. I pretend to nominate this article as FA, and I don't want to start a fight with editors again. So, is this quotation (in which Cher calls Altman "Bob") really necessary? Sorry for my english. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Both the fact and the supporting quote are important. The 1st sentence of this article states she "is an American singer and actress." When a famous Oscar-winning actress is quoted saying, "Without Bob I would have never had a film career," you bet it's important, and will probably contribute to any peer review. If her recording studio executives were also critical to her singing success, that should also be added, IMO. If the article is too long, a lot of the minutia can be trimmed down. For instance, the following set of quotes are not nearly as important to her career, are much longer than the other one, and could be trimmed without losing anything of much value, IMO:


 * "Still finding her solo singing voice, Cher sang the song in a very low key; she commented, "I sounded too much like a boy. Everyone thought it was a faggot song." Sonny recalled, "I didn't notice her till I heard her sing. She was so good and I just had to know her better ... When I learned she was also an actress I thought ...'Now, there's another one of those cool, dedicated career types who is so bent on becoming a star. She wouldn't give the time of day to a guy like me.' I couldn't have been more wrong!"--Light show (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)"


 * OK, I agree. But we'll have to make clear who Bob is; I find it quite confusing for a casual reader. Lordelliott (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you lord. But "Robert Altman" or "Altman" are stated three times right before the quote, so I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. But feel free to modify if you think it will help. --Light show (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Birthname
According to the California Birth Registry online, her birth name was registered (or recorded) as Cheryl Lapiere. Any opinions?? Quis separabit? 23:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cher's father is named John Sarkisian. Cher was adopted by Gilbert LaPiere when she was 11 years old. So, how could her birth name be "Cheryl LaPiere" if her mother only met her stepfather 11 years after her birth? Lordelliott (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it. But as I pointed out on your talkpage; "I also thought Cherilyn Sarkisian was her birth name but her birth name was registered at the California Birth Index as Cheryl Lapiere (or LaPiere). Maybe her stepfather with the same surname was actually her biological father.". Quis separabit?  20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe California Birth Index is wrong. How could we know? If CBI is right, then all of Cher biographies ever publicated are wrong. It is a difficult question.


 * Maybe CBI registered her adoption name instead of her birth name. Lordelliott (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In the United States, most adopted children are given amended birth certificates that have only the names of their adoptive parents." While this would primarily apply when neither birth parent continues as a post-adoption parent, knowing how governmental bureaucracy works, it's likely that all adoptions in at least some states have amended BCs issued. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ETA: Yep. See Step 8 on this form for Sacramento County. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Quis separabit?  23:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

School yearbook image
Ok, this is a bit confusing. There is an image purporting to be a yearbook photo of Cher from when she was attending Fresno High School in 1960 and claims she was a junior at the time. First of all, she could hardly have been a junior in high school in 1960 as she would have been 14 years old at the time. Seems likely there is another error in that I have not read anything indicating she was attending Fresno High School in 1960 so if the image is from 1960 then it is likely not from her time at Fresno and if it is from Fresno then it was likely not taken in 1960.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)