Talk:Charlotte Church

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charlotte Church article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Cardiff High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedia

Of course it is excellent that people contribute to Wikipedia! However, Wikipedia policy states that any claim has to be verifiable - there has to be documentary evidence for it! Articles should also be written from a neutral point of view and in an encyclopaedic tone - they shouldn't sound like an editorial in the Sun. Kieron a m 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes here and there. Someone had her birthplace wrong. - NEDave

...k someone has re-added some of the claims I removed (which is fine ^_^ ), and I have put ^{[citation needed]} on all the bits that need referencing. I think person/people who wrote most of these claims are not signed-up users, so I can't contact them - so I thought I would just delete the claims after a while if no-one adds references, if no-one has any objections? Kieron a m 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...nope, oki, they're gone now kieron 12:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've tagged some things with {{Fact}} again. If there are sources, please put them in. If not, I'll remove them after a while. Thanks. kieron 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions her badmouthing the Pope and the Queen, but skips her badmouthing (and later denying she had) Paul McCartney.Sussmanbern (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

What exactly did she say about Sept 11? --Gbleem 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

she said something about how too much of a big deal was being made about the firefighters and shit. 07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

She just said that they were only ding their job. --Duphin (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firing her manager

I remember some controversy about firing her manager also. --Gbleem 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When she was 13 or 14 her family took her manager to court. She got a new manager before she made the album Dream A Dream. FellowWikipedian

Welsh or British?

Personally i feel that it's best to be as specific as possible in these cases. Quite apart from the fact that Church strongly identifies as Welsh, anyone clicking on the "Wales" wikilink will immediately be told that Wales is "one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom". I've added a source for her 'Welshness', and reverted it to "Welsh". Amo 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight?

I'm not sure her weight is a source of controversy. It's mentioned in the article in relation to her winning Rear of the Year and the Sensations ads. While some small controversies did arise from both, I don't seem to remember it being related to her weight. It seems a tad un-NPOV to claim her weight is the source of controversy, especially since she's gone on record as saying if you think she's fat you need to, and I quote, "get a life". --L T Dangerous 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would agree. what would you write instead? kieron 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese

Does anyone have a reputable source for that? All I can find are wikimirrors, etc. Mad Jack 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

I've made a number of reverts to this page, resulting in my breaking the three revert rule in rolling back vandalism. Please make sure that I didn't delete any legitimate content in the process, although I don't believe that I did. --Stephen e nelson 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to the whole "topless" incident?

I was quite surprised to see no reference to the whole big topless photo incident that she's been associated with in the past. When was it removed? I'm sure there was something in here once. --Deskana talk 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That paparazzi got pics of her sunbathing? In no way notable, surely - David Gerard 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discography link

The official SonyBMG Masterworks discography link for this artist is as follows

Discography at SonyBMG Masterworks

It (in most cases) contains a full listing of in-print CDs released on the SonyBMG labels within the US (for the moment), along with track listings and in some cases audio clips (which will become more robust in the new year). Ecommerce links are provided inobtrusively.

I have been informed that it creates a conflict of interest to post these links directly from my account, so please consider adding the page to the link section. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Softlord (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Free-content pic on the way

The promo pic will go very soon - a pretty good shot that's licensed under CC-by has been found on Flickr - David Gerard 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand there we go! - David Gerard 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a PR agency cleared through here...

Why has the critisism of the Charlotte Church show "vanished"? Sounds a bit Patrick Holford to me...

We're being told about her pregnancy twice!

We're being told about her pregnancy twice! 65.93.16.4 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)A.K.[reply]

Prematurely aging

Wow.. She's only 21 years?? Why does she look so OLD?? I've met women 35 who looked less weathered than she does. Is that what smoking can do to a person? YIKES!

i doubt it's cos of smoking. i know people who smoke and look younger than other people their age. probably the stress of starting a career so young. she doesn't look old either, tbh, she looks about right for her age! Geeness 10:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree she looks her age, doesn't look old to me at all... --Duphin (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She might look old to an American - she hasn't had her face rebuilt as most American celebrities would have done.

I hate to agree with the initial comment. In 2007 she ran a show on Channel 4 and she seemed as if caught up by her age. Her more recent looks seem more in line with her age, she did not quit that show a moment too soon. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CharlotteChurch-tissues.jpg

Image:CharlotteChurch-tissues.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 Wikipedia: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) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Rear of the Year' award in 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_of_the_year#Controversy

The wikipage for 'Rear of the Year' says she got the award in 2002 when she was 16 and it was a controversy. But, I do not find any mention of it on her own page here. Does somebody want to put it up? I presume its safe to do so now that I hear she's over 21.

Abhishek ~~ 18 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.87.3 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Opera Song (Brave New World)

I recently created a page for the Charlotte Church song from 2003, The Opera Song (Brave New World) which she did with Jurgen Vries as I noticed that there wasn't a page for it. Could someone please help me to improve it. Thanks. 92.3.174.235 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03md (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 March 2008 [reply]

The picture on that album, was that supposed to be Charlotte Church wearing a Kangaroo beret, where the animation picture seems dated? I do have fond memories of 1999, but that is nothing to do with Kangaroo berets. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original name

I added that her original name, prior to her stepfather adopting her, was Charlotte Maria REED. I added links to prove it. It is an important fact, which most people are unaware of, and a necessary part of an encyclopedia article about a famous person. It was removed by someone who believes it is 'too private' to be on the article! It's not a secret, and it is needed to complete the biographical article on this young woman, who has spent many years courting the media and pursuing fame. That is why I'm re-submitting the info this evening.

I thought her birth name was Charlotte Maria Cooper -- not Reed. According to her autobiography Keep Smiling, she went by the surname Cooper before she was adopted by James Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.57 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is determined by what can be verified in reliable sources. There are thousands upon thousands of websites that confirm the birthname of Charlotte Marie Reed. You would need to bring specific sources of her birthname being Cooper and discuss the reliability of the sources here on the talk page prior to making any changes. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I've made some stylistic changes around here, but I want to get around to copyediting the entire article soon.. there's quite a lot of bad grammar and writing in here... »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Raised a Roman Catholic"

I wonder if she had been "raised an Anglican" (or some other Protestant denomination), would it be worthy of special mention? What next? Pointing out that somebody went to a "Roman Catholic" school, but not mentioning the schooling of somebody who did not go to such a school? Such polite prejudices, no matter how ingrained they are, are far too parochial for an international forum like wikipedia. 86.44.1.115 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to a person's life what religion / denomination they are raised as. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native speaker?

Is Charlotte a native speaker of Welsh? Could/should we add her article to Category:Welsh-speaking people?--Dub8lad1 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't speak Welsh. --Duphin (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Church's children

Her children's names, as well sourced and well known by now, are Ruby Megan Henson and Dexter Lloyd Henson. For future reference, please do not change those names from the text of the article. I am assuming the changes are vandalism, but just in case people genuinely believe that the names are something different, please be reassured that they have been confirmed on Church's own website as well as others. Sky83 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album sales & wealth

I must query the numbers; 100 billion albums?? What's that, fifteen albums for every human alive today, Aborigines included? I think not. And her fortune? UKP 20 billion?? A lot for one so young. Divide my 1000, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Taylor (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's sold 10.5m albums and is worth at least £20m i think. --Duphin (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of albums sold can be relatively accurately estimated. However per assets is another matter. Duphin- do you have any basis for the estimate of £20m value, or is that purely a guess?

Smoker

Should the article mention that she is a smoker? (92.3.98.99 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No. It's irrelevant. TheScotch (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know just as much about tobacco as she knows about moralisations. In short: Not relevant. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial?

What is controversial about Church referring to Americans maudlin attempts to profit or link themsleves to the Twin Towers attack - they have indeed overdramatised and lost perspective! This is more than a bit sick. As for the rescue workers becoming celebrities, that really is bizarre. This entire episode should be deleted.

Leveson Inquiry statement

In light of Church's statements under oath to the Leveson Inquiry, would it be pertinent to rearrange the Personal life and Controversy sections to reflect her statements at this? She speaks of how many tabloid stories of her have been entirely fabricated. In particular the Ground Zero story, where her words were taken completely out of context. Would it perhaps be useful to separate out tabloid controversy from personal life into a section such as that which exists on the Hugh Grant article, In the media? Church's full statement will be available here soon: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/ in pdf form. Kaleeyed (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the remarks she contests having made should be removed from the article entirely. TheScotch (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Welsh.

Do we really need this??? It's common knowledge that she's Welsh and this isn't contested, even by the woeful "everyone is British" camp. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

The proposed text fails WP:NPOV because it uses inflammatory language, taken from a tabloid article, to describe events rather than taking a neutral view of the subject. The NPOV policy states, Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. The events can be summarized, rather than described in detail. Also, consider finding a better source to support the text. Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Committed blasphemy.

Unless Miss Church has said categorically that she is currently a Christian, can we really say that she's committed blasphemy? An atheist can't commit blasphemy, just as I can't be arrested in the UK for smoking a joint in the Netherlands. 188.221.130.74 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University gig flop

In September 2013 played to half empty student's sports hall! Career Meltdown(Coachtripfan (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you flop at one gig, is that an equivalent of a career melt-down? Anything that recently has happened that confirms a career meltdown? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost her millions

Charlotte Church has spent her millions according to this report. (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Just wondering if I can win the Lottery, and burn it within this month. Just eerie to think of it. However much of this story is or not true, someone has to gain from her spendings. Am I supposed to have bought stocks and shares in tobacco or something? I was actually thinking, the latest news on her would be an indication that she is sensible, more as such when it comes to personal finances.

PS: Your money is worth none at all, unless you spend it. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5aWxoHiRP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riaa.com%2Fgoldandplatinumdata.php%3Ftable%3DSEARCH_RESULTS to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029171528/http://www.hellomagazine.com/music/200906011327/charlotte/church/exclusive/1/ to http://www.hellomagazine.com/music/200906011327/charlotte/church/exclusive/1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919191549/http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/charlotte-church-returns-with-new-ep-o-n-e/ to http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/charlotte-church-returns-with-new-ep-o-n-e/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy of names

This edit seems to be in contravention of WP:BLPNAME, which stipulates: "[t]he presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". --217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Back With Style" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Back With Style. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 20:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

The infobox image was changed by @Helpfulwikieditoryay:. I am not sure if this is an improvement. The simple fact is that this is a very old photo - it is 21 years old and Church was 13 when it was taken. Our standard practice is to maintain a current, recent photo in the infobox, while other photos can illustrate the biography below. The image that was replaced is from 2005 - still 15 years old, but did show her matured image. I think the current infobox image is quite appropriate for elsewhere in the article, but we need a recent one in the infobox, please. Elizium23 (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age

Age is wrong born in 1986 makes her 35 not 45 176.27.210.74 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]