Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Being neutral: Voice section etc.

The thought of altering this section of the article has popped into my head a few times, but with recent months, I think it's time to at least discuss it and hear what everyone thinks. It's been the elephant in the room for years. Since 1996, no matter how good of a performance, live or on record, Carey's voice is in some way flawed, with its tone and power pretty much diminishing with each passing album. We have here a great article, but I think it's unfair to list her records and legacy as a vocalist, and not include info on a 'vocal decline'. Obviously I would never imply a scathing and non-neutral "Carey's Holiday performance was a critical bloodbath", but there is plenty of neutral third-party journalism documenting her vocal transformation. Off the top of my head, Allmusic made several points on her vocals on Charmbracelet's review dating to 2002. I'm sure there are plenty more, and honestly, I don't even know what to say about whether or not it is neutral to talk about critical backlash in recent years over lip-synch accusations? There several bad performances that have been heavily documented on in the last 6 years; Carey's "I'll Be There" in 2009 for Jackson's funeral, GMA, AI and White House performance in 2013, the 2014 Asia Tour debacle and now Jamaica. unfortunately. As a fan, but also not delusional, I really am not sure where to run with this. I'd love some feedback. The same should be said for Whitney Houston.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please tag this conversation on Pop music contributor pages or such to attract a large number of participants in this discussion? Forgive me, but I'm a bit rusty on Wikipedia and don't remember a few things ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified WP:POPMUSIC and WP:MIMI. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Petergriffin9901:, I just <3 you for bringing this up, this shows how unbiased you can be with her article. Deluded fans are greatest drawback of the music articles to be frank. Thanks, again. Yes this was also going in my mind, but never fully expanded on how to incorporate it. One thought, lets not go overboard with the lip-synching accusations, we will cover it basically. What we will put emphasis on is the critical analysis (if we find) of reasons for deterioration in her vocals (scientific, physical, emotional etc) —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate it :) I really think it's the right thing to do. We can't keep ignoring the tons of coverage the topic keeps receiving. I completely agree with the points you made as well. Needs to be kept neutral and encyclopedic.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having a sub section could work on how her voice is not what it was pre-1996 (To be honest though, her vocals on Glitter, The Emancipation of Mimi and Merry Christmas II You were fantastic, and other albums post 97 also had great moments). Of course, her nodules have a huge part to played, and she understandably refuses to have them surgically removed in case of her losing range. I think that it would be wrong to say that critics have noticed a decline in her voice as a whole, because it's actually only her Upper belting register which has been affected. She doesn't really do belts above Eb5 to G#5 anymore. Everything below Eb5 and above G#5 (her low register, lower belts, and falsetto/head voice/whistle across all notes, are actually fine, but critics don't pick up on that, obviously). I think the title of the section/sub-section needs to be thought about extremely carefully, and how the prose would be phrased. Could also bring in how people have said she should retire, and also include people who have defended her.  — ₳aron 09:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should include criticism regarding how Carey's voice is today. When Whitney Houston was still alive, I felt that the Whitney Houston article should have commentary on how Houston's voice had drastically changed and was not the same gold standard it used to be. Since Houston's death, the WP:BLP concern that editors might have had about mentioning such a matter is obviously gone. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would still be for including a section on Houston's vocal decline on her article.  — ₳aron 09:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Since we have a voice section in the Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston articles, it's in those sections that I think vocal decline should be mentioned; a paragraph or two will do it. Creating a subsection for it could be argued as WP:Undue weight, even if added as a subsection of the voice section, given that their vocal talents have been far more prominent (media-wise and legacy-wise) than their vocal declines. Flyer22 (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Her talent and her voice should be recognized for what she has done, but unfortunately people talk more about her decline now :(  — ₳aron 09:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your starting point should always be sources. Are there good sources that specifically note this as a "decline"? If there are none, then this section is a non-starter. Is this decline of particular note? It's hardly unusual for singers' voices to age. Most "mature" singers can't hit all the notes they did in their youth. So why make it a particular point of it with Carey? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from Whitney Houston, I don't think anyone else has garnered as much coverage about vocal decline, not hitting notes and lip syncing as much as Mariah Carey has. It's a particular point with Carey because of how much her voice has changed, specifically her belting.  — ₳aron 16:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lot's to say on the matter, much of which I'm sure can be sourced. I'll try and keep it encyclopedic, but putting on my fan hat for a second. Since you mentioned it @Calvin999: Aaron, her nodules are unfortunately not at all the real reason her voice has "changed" so much over the years. In fact, it lies with her rhinoplasty procedures, of which she's had a minimum of two of which I'm certain, possibly another. The first was somewhere in late 1992-early 1993, prior to her wedding and the recording of Music Box. There lies the much softer tone on that album, and following decline to the Music Box Tour later that year. I'm sure you've heard them, that's the first sign of significant vocal damage/transformation. By 1994, she gets it somewhat together and promotes the album in Europe etc. Her voice is noticeably different from her soulful growl pre-1992. Fast forward to 1996, her voice (to accommodate her breathing changes and altered nasal canal) in much more girlish and pop-music esque. Could you imagine her singing "Fantasy" in Unplugged? She might hit higher notes in "Hero" and whatnot, but... Now 1997 and onward, just decline. By 1998 she's more hoarse, 1999 even worse, 2000 is beat to a pulp. 2001 is a better year for her vocally, but its already a different animal from what it was maimed beyond repair. Comes 2002. Voice is unrecognizable. Thin, weak, raspy. Rhinoplasty number two sometime before the recording of Charmbracelet. You can even tell by the indent on the left side of her nose. Anyway, fast forward and by 2006-2007, her voice completely declines and since then she's been sounding different each year, but never as good as 2006. I'm sure nodules didn't help the situation, but alone would have never caused it. Also, it's not just her upper belts that are different. It's everything; her tone, power, reliability and yes, her whistle register is completely different as well. I think her vocal situation reflects her personal as well. She seems so insecure and out of sorts lately, I'm sure it has to do with the elephant the the room.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Now @Escape Orbit:, of course we have to keep this encyclopedic. I'm positive there are sources noting the use of her breathy register post 1997, and how its (I guess in their journalistic opinion) a sign of "waning vocal prowess". There are sources noting her thinner voice post 2002. Add to that all the questionable press she's received on various live performances over the last 5+ years. I'm sure we can muster something adequate and appropriate. Maybe we can make a sandbox @IndianBio: and start from there :) As for Whitney, there are definitely appropriate sources noting the correlation between her post 90-92 decline and her addiction to illicit drugs. Whether in news articles or biographies, or hell, even her Oprah interview, its out there.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter, lets start adding sources in this sandbox, Talk:Mariah Carey/vocal problem. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Funnily enough some idiot on YouTube was trying to tell me that Leona Lewis having a nose job in 2011 hasn't affected her voice, when clearly it has. He said that 2012 was Leona's best year vocally, when it was in fact her worst. It's weird with Mariah though because on Daydream, Butterfly, Rainbow, Glitter, Charmbracelet, TEOM, MOAIP and Merry Christmas II You there have been lots of moments which are reminiscent of 90/91/92 vocally. I'd never thought Mariah had had a nose job to be honest. When she sang "Looking In" in 2013, it sounded just like 1997 and it was all live. Parts of her voice are unaffected but others aren't really. She can still hit the highest whistle notes, they just sound a bit thinner now. I think a lot of people don't understand what a strain it is on her voice to sing the songs she writes, they are incredibly taxing and difficult. Even "My All" is very difficult. There's a reason why Madonna sounds exactly the same and Mariah doesn't haha. Christina sounds awful now because of her shouting and screaming, but Beyoncé doesn't because she never pushes her voice.  — ₳aron 08:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering, are we going forward with this change? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion in infobox?

Since it seems to be an ongoing issue of revert/restore/revert, would like to know other editors' thoughts on why this information should be included or should not be included in the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious affiliation tends not to be included unless it is a defining trait for someone; something that they are noted for. Carey isn't noted for her religious affiliation, so it should be left out per Template:Infobox person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, my mistake. It should be removed on Celine Dion since it is also seen added there. Smarty9108 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to worry about. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what the Infobox page states is that
  • religion should be supported with a citation (which this is, multiple sources)
  • Include only if relevant
so, is the editorial consensus that the information is relevant? Or is it irrelevant? Relevant means "directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered". I tend to think that a person's stated religious beliefs are important to understanding their story, their biography but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not relevant in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So the editorial consensus is that religion doesn't need to be in the infobox of this WP:BLP. Seems odd to me but ok. Shearonink (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not in citation given

There are a number of sources with the "Not in citation given" tag attached to it. That means the provided source do not have the content supported. Now since this is a featured article, we have to be very careful not to allow such content be present or source it adequately. I myself found random three of them to be true indeed. Who knos, content might have changed from its promotion to FA drastically. So is someone willing to help me rectify such sources? Else this might need a FAR. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Birthyear disputed. Pls include BOTH 69 & 70

MC's Mother on the Oprah show stated her daughter was born in 1970. If you go on Youtube you will find a video entitled "Mariah Carey's Mother Set's the Record Straight on Mariah's Father!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.182.58 (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

MC birthday is listed as 3 27 70 in the article. This is disputed. The current source is a bias book by a fan that speaks over glowingly of MC. Please correct the article to 1969 or 1970. I feel both need to be included here bc her birthyear is disputed. People magazine(published by very reputable/reliable TIME INC) is a reputable source. Per them here http://www.people.com/people/mariah_carey/biography her bday is 3 27 69. Since MC came out in 1990 People has had her bday as 3 27 69. They based this not just on the info given to them by Columbia Records but also off of MC's NY ID(they got it in the 90s before the US made all drivers license and state's ID information private). Both years of 1969 or 1970 need to be included here. Thanks. Thanks. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) 71.191.244.33 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: People.com is incorrect on her birth year. The vast majority of published reliable sources, including recent ones celebrating her birthday and mentioning her age, have it correct as 1970. Teammm talk
email 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
We cannot unilaterally declare a Time Inc. publication that specializes in celebrities and their biographies to be incorrect. People is a highly reliable source and can't simply be ignored or discounted. Likewise CBS News and the New York Daily News.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Mariah Carey#Sources for March 27.2C 1970. Weigh those sources, including the Grammys, Rolling Stone, A+E, MTV, VH1 against People Magazine and any other source. I'm reverting the addition of 1969 and citing these strong sources. Teammm talk
email 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Both editor have been on borderline WP:3RR on this. Either cease and continue discussing here else this page would be locked and you know how tolerant admins are about breaking 3RR. —Indian:BIO · [[[User talk:IndianBio|ChitChat]] ] 03:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Date has been restored with modern books and encyclopedia sources - cant use a synthesis of primary sources to change a date that can be seen all over by everyone. -- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Amazing all this effort expended and nobody apparently has bothered to consult the public record of the birth. Or rather would be amazing if one made assumptions about the intelligence of the masses that this shows to be false. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And yo, Sr. Carey, congrats on being twice-born. Lycurgus (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

According to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002036/?ref_=nv_sr_1, Mariah Carey was born on March 27, 1970. Aaron Saltzer (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia disallows the wikia IMDb to be used as a reference citation. That's why we have four WP:RS citations each for each year.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As the previous poster has explained, Patricia Hickley, Mariah's Mother cleared the air on her birthdate, She was born in 1970. Link to Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnyGcVk0Oo she states this @ 2:25 How does this not supersede any of the other sources mentioned?? Isaiaahm (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because much documentary evidence indicates otherwise. The final consensus on the Request for Comment, as closed by an admin, is archived here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it easier to just see the birth certificate? omg, she's not from the 15th century --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mariah's mother said live on Oprah in the 90s that Mariah was born in 1970. End of.  — ₳aron 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the end of anything. Go to the archived WP:RFC and the admin-approved consensus. People can lie. Documents don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Patricia Carey knows when she gave birth to her daughter Mariah. That, coupled with the birth certificates of her twins, confirms 1970.  — ₳aron 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We've been all over both these points. Before wasting any more time, please see the consensus decision reached by the formal Request for Comment process. Wikipedia is including both reported birth dates. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consensus was achieved on this matter in 2013: Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Since WP:Consensus is a policy (not simply a guideline), we should adhere to that consensus until new consensus is formed. How many times must this topic be discussed before editors simply go with the compromise of including both birth dates without disputing it? Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe she really born in 1970 not 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypillsjr (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dutch Mariah Carey wikipedia article clearly states that the YoB is indeed 1970. The cited sources for this statement are the published birth certificates of the Monroe and Moroccan twins which contain the birthdates of both Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon.
--Mischa The Evil (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, in Archive 9:

The alleged birth certificates that have appeared online have already been addressed in the closed RfC discussion and elsewhere on this page. Please see, for example, the post signed "Hoary 01:20, 22 January 2014". Also, as previously noted: Hoax documents have been known to circulate on the Internet, and these particular ones aren't posted on any official County of Los Angeles site so the question arises: Where did they come from? Who outside the family could have obtained the children's birth certificates and scanned them? And if it was the family, why didn't the family post and announce it, rather than have them mysteriously "show up" at a couple of minor sites and not a mainstream publication that would have vetted them? --Tenebrae (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Tenebrae, thanks for your quick response. I hadn't searched the complete Archive 9, only its "Request for Comment: Birth Year"-section and the current discussion. Neither of them referenced these documents hence my comment. I should have looked deeper...
I've reported the issue (in the Dutch article) in the article's talk page.
--Mischa The Evil (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Personal life section

I expanded this section slightly [1] the other day. The personal life section needs at the least some reorganization, perhaps even some improvement and expansion. The biggest issue is the shorter paragraphs, one being only two sentences.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this and welcome any expansion from you, just make sure it does not fall into gossip and fancruft territory. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Your welcome, though I doubt I'll really be doing much more here for the time being. Noticed the more recent bit of info I added here after arriving at the Nick Cannon article through a means which I don't recall. I thought I'd see if the newer info was included here. More or less mentioning the issues with the section here and passing the buck. I only decided to comment on this talk page because I noticed this was a Featured Article. I agree with your sentiment in the above section (after a further quick perusal), that perhaps this article is due for a Featured Article Review.
—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

File:Mariah Carey.jpg
Mariah Carey

Derixx (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Just a more recent photo of mariah onto the page

 Not done That picture has no licensing or OTRS that you are the owner of it. Please first get proper licensing and OTRS assigned to the image and then it can be added. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015

Date of birth: March 27th, 1970 Selkat (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the article, sources differ for her year of birth. Stickee (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Update on her birth year

I have looked at several of media pages and confirmed her exact birth year. Those media pages tell me that her birth year is 1970. So only 1970 should now be put in the article since I just now confirmed it. Thank you. Ptb1997 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to share which sources you used with everyone else? Or do we just take your word for it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It is 1970. Mariah's mum said live in an interview with Oprah that she was born in 1970. I said this so long ago but no one replied.  — Calvin999 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a very very long discussion which you can find in the archive which contradicts only 1970. Consensus came up that both 1969 and 1970 is to be listed. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I can think of more than a few reasons why her mother may wish to be mistaken about the year. It would be great if we had the definitive factual answer here. But years of trying hasn't uncovered one, unless someone has a great new source they can produce that settles the matter? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You tried. National Enquirer claimed she was 46 according to a regular news update... http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/mariah-carey-comes-out-play-her-sister-rots-away-looney-bin Personally, I believe she was born 1969, according to ATRL, number of members claimed to seen her birth certificate leaking claiming her official age to be 1969 with the similar birth date. Because of the long-running discussion currently in place, I also feel that the current revision she be left the way it is. Smarty9108 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ATRL is a forum and therefore not reliable. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha, at least I'm agreeing to leave the revision the way it is. @SNUGGUMS Anyways not to get offtopic, a very reliable source, Dish Nation has also claimed she is 46 years old. http://dishnation.com/mariah-carey-las-vegas-show-ny-times-review/ While browsing, AXS also said she was 46 http://www.axs.com/mariah-carey-s-arrival-at-caesar-s-palace-in-vegas-set-for-an-elaborat-50944, as well as International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mariah-carey-heading-middle-east-hero-singer-earn-half-million-dollars-israel-performance-1512274. Smarty9108 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I am aware that there are reliable sources supporting 1969, just pointing out that we can't base it off of ATRL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I know, I know... :sigh: Smarty9108 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on an interview that Oprah conducted with Mariah Carey's mother Patricia (clip of interview is also available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnyGcVk0Oo), Mariah's mother mentioned Mariah's birth as 1970. The birth year was mentioned in the context of Patricia's relationship with her own family and having to move to various neighborhoods because of her mixed marriage and the difficulty in fitting in during the latter 1960s. Mariah's mother mentioned that the family moved again before Mariah was born in 1970. Therefore, the birth year for Mariah Carey should be stated as 1970 in this article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 11:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone already said that though. Plus, her family is messy so they could be lying. Smarty9108 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. In any case, we cannot simply change the closing decision of an RfC. The decision was rendered here. Unilaterally changing an RfC consensus decision to one's preferred version is considered vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk)
I wouldn't go so far as to call that "vandalism", but it would be disruptive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with "disruptive". --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a smugness to Mariah's page

 – Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does there seem to be a smugness on Mariah Carey's wikipedia page. She has stated she did not have an emotional breakdown and the page seems to try and discredit her success. Does the author not like Mariah for some reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.134.213 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please give some examples.  — Calvin999 19:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Where henny? troublednbored (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Mariah Carey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

Can't we add that she has/is dating Aussy Billionaire James Packer? They even went down a red carpet together last week and she's more than confirmed it.--2602:306:C400:1A60:C04F:37BB:6908:3195 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it's noteworthy enough to include yet, confirmed or not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Forbes 9th Highest Earning Female Musician 2015; $27 million

Please include this in the article.--2602:306:C400:1A60:A877:CD38:A4D9:F9BA (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Buyout figure

The lead says she was bought out of her contract for $50 million. Checking the article, it says the same thing, but the problem is the refs only partially agree. One is an archive and I can't see the whole thing but the summary mentions the $50 million but suggests it's a rumour which the company denied at the time. The other ref is a report from the company to the LSE but puts the figure at $28 million. So shouldn't we report the $28 million figure? Unless it's possible that the for some reason the company didn't have to report the entire amount to shareholders. Alternatively it could be the BBC article is incomplete and our poorly worded, perhaps she was paid $28 million to cancel her contract, and $22 million for the first/failed album or work to date. But even if this is true, it seems to me we need a better source than one which appears to be just reporting a denied rumour. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happier if our remaining source was secondary rather than an internal document, but I agree that if the other source seems to have been reporting on a rumour and we have no way to check it's exact reading, we should probably default to the other figure. But in doing so, we should find a way to reference the fact that the sourcing for the exact amount is somewhat uncertain. Snow let's rap 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mariah_Carey/Archive_12&oldid=1140145718"