Jump to content

Talk:Cher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCher has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 29, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 5, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 13, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
June 21, 2016Good article nomineeListed
June 19, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 20, 2017, and May 20, 2023.
Current status: Good article


Giving birth to Chaz

[edit]

Cher did not give birth to Chaz Bono. She gave birth to Chastity, a girl. Chastity's choices later in life do not change her birth gender. I believe the proper reference to any changes is "Cher gave birth to Chastity Bono (now Chaz Bono). 2600:1009:B006:7232:0:47:8830:E301 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not engaging in conjecture about the difference between recorded "birth gender" and subjective gender. But I added the birth name of Chastity to complete your request. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:GIDINFO Chaz Bono's birth name is not appropriate here. Removed. PianoDan (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error. To say that Cher "gave birth to Chaz Bono" is untrue. If Wikipedia EVER expects to be usable as a reliable source, it needs to print the truth. You need to reinstate the statement, "Cher gave birth to Chastity Bono (now Chaz Bono)." 174.26.239.88 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly Jorge.bradshaw (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

[edit]
Jorge.bradshaw (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add Cher's recent new information with her new memoir

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Her name has been changed to Cheryl. It was indeed originally Cherilyn, and she has said this before! I’m sure it’s mentioned in her original book “the first time” will have to dig this out! 2A04:4A43:907F:FD6C:14AB:372F:EEDA:B5EC (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

[edit]

Cher's birth name was Cherilyn, not Cheryl as the article contains. Mradrian92264 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2024

https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/cher-shocked-to-discover-her-legal-name-when-she-applied-to-change-it-1.7121358

Current version implies wrong info. Cher and her family intended for her name to be Cherilyn and consider Cheryl to be an error.

Possible: (born Cherilyn Sarkasian, birth certificate name of Cheryl Sarkasian in error. Ref.....) Canapple900 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/23/entertainment/cher-first-name-memoir/index.html
19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Canapple900 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done by another editor - a note has been added to the lead and Early life section explaining the mixup. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://californiabirthindex.org/
does not have Cheryl Sarkisian or Georgianne Southall
it has
https://californiabirthindex.org/birth/cheryl_lapiere_born_1946_3214561
https://californiabirthindex.org/birth/georganne_elizabeth_lapiere_born_1951_4419702
... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/cher-metropolitan-museum-1974
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/georgianne-lapierre
69.181.17.113 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail

[edit]

This article is well in excess of the recommendations outlined at Wikipedia:Summary_style#Article_size, and needs significant trimming to reduce wordiness and excessive detail. A couple of examples are the anecdote about Pink and the exploration of the motivations of the Cher Fan Club in creating an AI video. On the former, Cher has influenced a considerable number of performers in various ways; this specific detail might merit discussion in the Pink article, but there's no indication it warrants being called out specifically here. Similarly with the fan club: whatever their motivations in creating the video, they aren't relevant to Cher's biography. Both of these claims should be omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concerns here. I believe reaching a consensus is preferable to placing tags unilaterally, as per WP:BECONCISE, which advises against dismissive behavior and recommends discussing changes politely on talk pages. Additionally, WP:TAGBOMBING states that tagging articles requires sufficient reasoning on the talk page, which only occurred after repeated requests via edit summaries.
Addressing your points:
  • 1) According to WP:SIZERULE, articles exceeding 15,000 characters "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", while those between 9,000 and 15,000 "probably should be". Currently, the article stands at 14,938 characters, falling in the latter category. Considering Cher's multi-decade career spanning music, film and television, along with her overall achievements and other topics of public interest, a comprehensive article is both expected and justified. WP:SIZERULE acknowledges that some topics warrant added length, and WP:HASTE reinforces the need for breadth in complex subjects. Moreover, WP:TERSE cautions that conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information. Thus, this article is not "well in excess" of size recommendations.
  • 2) Your trimming efforts are appreciated and often improve the article. However, some removed content provides context essential to understanding Cher's career. For instance, the anecdote about girls dyeing their hair black in 1965 underscores the cultural impact of her looks during a time when blonde stars dominated. Omitting such details risks reducing the biography to a dry list of facts, stripping it of its depth.
  • 3) The fan-made AI video and Cher's criticism involve opposing views. Per WP:VOICE, disputes should be described without bias, presenting all perspectives accurately. Including the Fan Club's response ensures neutrality, aligning with WP:5P2, which calls for balanced representation of multiple viewpoints.
  • 4) Pink's inspiration from Cher is not a random mention but a tangible example, within the "Films, videos and stage" subsection, of Cher's impact as a live performer—so significant that it helped redefine the career and public image of an already established artist. This brief example provides depth in a way that a generalized statement, like "Cher inspired other artists", cannot.
As mentioned earlier, your trimming efforts are appreciated, as they are improving the article's quality and readability. However, some removals risk losing the depth and context essential for a comprehensive biography of Cher. I would again kindly ask that future concerns or suggestions be brought to the talk page first, so we can collaboratively reach a consensus before adding tags to the article. This ensures a more constructive and respectful editing process. Thank you. Cherfc (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for presenting your reasoning here. I believe reaching a consensus is preferable to removing tags or restoring disputed content unilaterally. Addressing your points:
1) Per WP:CANYOUREADTHIS, articles longer than 10k words (and this one is well over that) are more difficult to read, and readability is key. The reader would be better served by an article that does a better job at presenting a concise summary of the sources and avoids unnecessary digressions.
2) This article is not anywhere near being a dry list of facts. In fact the opposite is true: the article disproportionately overuses quotes. In the specific instance you mention, Cher's style and appearance is already well described, making it sufficient to note emulation.
3) Given that the topic of this article is Cher rather than the fan club or the event described, the expanded description gives this exchange disproportionate emphasis. In fact, at this point discussing this event at all presents a NOTNEWS problem, as there's no evidence of enduring significance to Cher as a subject.
4) The influence of Cher within the narrative of another artist's career definitely merits discussion in that artist's article. But here, extracted from that context the example absolutely comes across as being a random mention.
This article should not be an in-depth presentation of every detail about the subject, but a summary - see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. While I appreciate you may not share that perspective, asking for consensus before adding tags isn't a constructive approach - instead we should work towards addressing the issues raised by the tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]