Talk:Celine Dion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Introduction

I don't understand the need to change the intro of the article from convention. No lead sentence should read

"Céline Marie Claudette Dion OC OQ (born March 30, 1968 in Charlemagne, Quebec) is a five-time Grammy-winning Canadian pop singer, and is the best-selling female artist of all time, having sold over 200 million albums worldwide."

• For one, we have already discussed that the statement "five time Grammy winning artist" and other such statements are unacceptable because

1. It is POV and unencyclopedic to gloat on their award success in the first sentence;
2. It's not supposed to define who the singer is: She is a Canadian pop singer, first and foremost, not a "Grammy Award winning Canadian pop singer";
3. It presupposes that the Grammy Awards are more important than any other music awards that she has won. Celine Dion is a French-Canadian. RIAA sales and Grammy Awards are international awards that have no transcendence over other awards from other countries, like her native Juno Awards for example. Wikipedia articles should conform to a universal worldview, not American.
4. Introducing statements like these is just an invitation from inexperienced editors/fans to inflate the introdection with achievements.

• Celine Dion isn't necessarily notable because she got an award for being the world's best-selling female artist. Sure, that is a laudable achievement. But who is to say that she isn't notable because she makes good music? Or because she is regarded as one of pop music's great female vocalists, or because she is an entertainer and shrewd business woman? Should all of these be included in the into also?
  • According to MOS:BEGIN#First_sentences, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?". However, "notability" is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity,". In other words, the subject is not necessarily notable because it is famous or has achieved success at a gargantuan level. Such statements can be made in the rest of the introduction. For now, it's safe to say she is a Canadian pop singer, songwriter and actress.

• Most music articles, especially featured articles, aim for simplicity (Mariah Carey, AC/DC Kylie Minogue, Gwen Stefani, Alison Krauss, Janet Jackson).

I don't think the intro should be changed at all. Orane (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is rambling with talk of her family and husband. An opening section should be consise and clear and should basically sum up who she is and the reason why she has a page. By the way, Madonna has sold more than Dion, but I'm not going to get it into that now.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction should be left as it is. Other pages such as Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston are much longer in size. They are hardly "simplistic." There is only one sentence of her halting her 1999 tour for her husband's cancer. That is not rambling at all. It was a very important part of her life, and shouldn't be change in any way or form.Pat 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalticPat22 (talk • contribs)

It's changed. Her husband's cancer maybe an in important part of HER life - but it's not important to us. If Mariah Carey etc is worse - then that needs simplifying too - let's get this article proper.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2010 UPDATE RELEASE OF REMIXES FROM CELINE ROBERTA AND PEABO BRYSON FROM DEF JAM MUSIC GROUP WHERE LA REID IS THE PRESIDENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.47 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where Does My Heart Beat Now

I've put this in the discography talk page, but perhaps it will gain more attention here, but my question is this: When was this single originally released? She performed it at the 1989 Eurovision Song Contest in May in front of an audience of several hundred million, surely it would have been released then as a single given that the potential promotion was the reason for her performing it? And it was a mimed performance - to the studio version (as featured on the Unison album), so it was certainly ready to go. The discography says late 1990 - 18 months after this performance. Anybody know?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Record sales

OK people, let's get this record-sales thing done once and for all. In every single interview Celine was, they always said: "She has sold over 200 million copies worldwide and is the best-selling female artist in history." Oprah, David Foster and most importantly Sony said it. She has released over 35 albums, 65 singles in english and 56 singles in french and Madonna released like 10 albums and 40 singles or something (it is clear that Celine sold more). In 2004. with over 175 million copies sold worldwide, she has been awarded the Chopard Diamond Award for becoming the best selling female artist of all time. Someone put it on Celine Dion albums discography page here on Wikipedia (along with the source). It says:

In 2004, after selling over 175 million albums worldwide, Céline Dion was presented with the Chopard Diamond Award at the World Music Awards for becoming the best selling female artist of all time(and here's the source: [1]). In April 2007, Sony BMG announced that Dion has sold over 200 million albums worldwide. (and here's the source: [2]).

Listen, Guinness proclaimed Madonna The World's Most SUCCESSFUL female artist and BEST-PAID female musician in world. It doesn't mean she's the BEST-SELLING. For MOST SUCCESSFUL you count album sales, single sales, DVD sales, tour grossings, tickets sales, money earned and so much more. But for BEST-SELLING, you just count album sales, single sales and DVD sales. Sony announced Celine had sold over 200 million records worldwide in 2007, and that was almost 2 years ago. I'm sure she has sold more than that to date. Iggy Ax (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you'll find plenty of sources which state that Madonna has sold over 200 million. How far over either of them are is unknown -or ever will be. Of course Sony will say she's the biggest seller - they love saying thisngs like that. Truth is, we'll never know for sure because sales are always exaggerated. I'm also sure that Celine Dion has not stated this in 'every single interview' as you say. As for Madonna's tally - she's had 21 albums and 80 singles (official releases). Don't forget only a handful of Celine's albums were released worldwide. There is no way of knowing for sure who's sold the most because you could probably find 10 notable sources for each claiming the same - unless one goes on to significantly outsell the other. One thing we can look at is longevity of success and chart positions and Madonna wins hands down in both (Celine's career is in freefall at the moment, while Madonna continues to hit the top of the charts -and I say this as a Celine fan, but I'm being realistic)(Guinness World Records states it's Madonna - certainly a more reliable source than Oprah!). Certainly there are reliable sources, but perhaps it could say something like: "She has been named as the biggest selling female singer in the world, although reports also give the same accolade to Madonna". This way it at least shows that if she's not the biggest - she's the 2nd, which is certainly no small thing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but Guinness says Madonna's the most-successful one and it doesn't mean she's the biggest-selling. Iggy Ax (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Astley at Celine's wedding

This is hardly encyclopedic (yet) but I want to know if this has ever been mentioned before. Anyways, I live in Montreal, and a teacher of mine, who is also a nutritionist, told a story about a prank that happened at Celine's wedding. Apparently, one of my teacher's clients, who looked like Astley (I have no idea who he is, by the way), decided to crash Celine's wedding. So he went to the reception and said he was Astley, and they let him in, even though he didn't have a ticket. He went in and actually spoke to Celine and Remi, and then left without exposing his identity. My teacher said she heard this from clients other than the impersonator. Has this been told anywhere, and if evidence where found, do you think it should be put in the article?bob bobato (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

No, even if it were true. Sorry. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) F.Y.I. Dion got a makeover to start her carrer nice and calm.

Most biography articles do not include every aspect of every event in some one's life. Ribbit Naveen 1000 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Celine Dion Awards- Grammy's and Juno's...

Most other major female artsts, regardless of their nationality have their awards given in the lead section. I think it is completely ridiculous that neither the Juno Awards nor the Grammy Awards are included in Celine's lead. Shania Twain has her RIAA certifications in her lead as well as her Grammy Award wins. Gloria Estefan has her Grammy Award wins, also. I would like to add the amount of Celine's Grammy and Juno Awards in the lead section. It is certainly pertinent enough to add, and is quite absurd not to include at least one award ceremony in her lead section. Also, Celine has the second most Juno Awards won, ever. Only Anne Murray has more. BalticPat22Pat 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How can you not mention that she has won more prestigious awards than anyone else in the world? Mkdw^talk 06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Second pregnancy

On August 18th, 2009 the Montreal newspaper Le Journal de Montréal announced that Ms Dion was pregnant with her second child. The news was later confirmed by her press officer. Should we put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.183.27 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I already added it in the personal life section; and it's been confirmed by nearly 500 news and media sources from across the globe already. BalticPat22Pat 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New section needed

The section "Back to studio and world tour" is getting very long. It has information that has ntohing to do with the header title. I suggest we make a new section from late 2009 onwards to place already stated information about her brief hiatus, pregnancy attempts, and anything that doesn't have to do with her tour, which ended almost a year ago. If people are okay with that, I'll start on a new section. Feel free to give any suggestions along the way. BalticPat22Patrick 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Range

Since her range is reported variously by various sources, we should report that fact rather than choose one we (or her publicists) "prefer". Until such time as we've formulated that verbiage, I've placed a disputed tag on the article. Part of the variability may be in the definition of range, with those who want to report the broadest possible range accepting any sound at a given pitch, while others use the more usual definition of musically useful tones. - Nunh-huh 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Place the tag on the section, not the article. The problem is for the "Voice" section and not the article itself. The article is featured, and you cannot place tags without a consensus from other users. There was already a vocal range in place before you made it an issue. BalticPat22 Patrick 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Don't remove tags before an issue is resolved. I have reworded the sentence in question; if this is acceptable wording, then we are done. - Nunh-huh 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal life? Current residence?

60% of the time, it works all the time. This article needs a Personal Life section. It also needs to mention where she currently lives. What city does she currently live in? Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Celine Dion's personal life is not notable enough to warrant a personal life section. She married when she was 26 and had a child at 32 via in-vitro civilization. There is really nothing more to it. A personal life section is only necessary when the singer's personal life is as notable as his/her music, like Madonna or Britney Spears.

I'm not a big Dion fan, but this kind of comment is absurd. Celine Dion is a famous singer, selling millions of records and selling out arenas around the world and her personal life is "notable". No where in the Wiki guidelines does it say that a biographical figure needs a "notable" life to have a personal section. That doesn't even address the problem of deciding what is "notable". In fact, the guidelines state the exact opposite of that. Dion is a Grammy award winning artist with millions of fans and they would have a lot to say (and have) about whether or not her personal life is "notable". Moreover, your opinion of whether her personal life is "notable" is irrelevant, millions do consider it "notable" and that is all that matters. As someone else observed, it is a sad commentary on our popular culture today that one must act like a nutjob or be engaged in outlandish publicity stunts to be considered "notable". Supertheman ^(talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't have a personal section - almost every biographical article I've seen has one. I would think it would just need a brief one though.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Added one. Some crazies here have been deleting the subsection every time it is added. Axxn (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Celine's parents are NOT of French Canadian decent, the ARE French Canadians. The term "decent" is used to denote people who come from some other country, which they have usually left, i.e. Italian-Americans are of Italian decent and Angelina Jolie if of French-Canadian decent (partially). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.67.252 (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree - why is it descent when they are, simply, French Canadians? (talk)

Just an observation: whether or not there is much to her personal life or not (which I think is arguable - just because it is not scandalous and bad, does not make it a void - it might actually be nice to see a description of a star that is not all negatives), one would think that her marriage was noteworthy (beyond saying refering to her financier as her "future husband") and that the birth of her first child was also noteworthy (via in vitro), not just her failed pregnancy 8 years later. One has to wonder if the only thing that is viewed as noteworthy is scandal and misfortune. Hm. Not good biographical work. 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Needed

I cannot believe the sheer bias and negativity that is in this article. There is a massive amount of one-sidedness that is completely unnacceptable. Even some of the statements and sentences that are written with a reference are biased, because the source that is given tells a much different story than what was written in the article. Some of the sources that I clicked on, were either the opposite tone of what was written, or contained none of the wording that was given in the wikipedia article. People, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia website that is free of prejudice. Almost every section has some form of criticism of her albums, and is written in a way that makes it seem like that was the overall consensus of the music critics. Well, if only one side of a review is given without a balance, then the whole point of the "review" is redundant. I have already corrected and added sentences and references to try to make this article seem even somewhat less biased, but the incredible amount of it is nearly impossible to fully correct. Wikipedia.com is supposed to be, as I have stated before, a neutral encyclopedic reference website. If this prejudice and unsourced material continues to not just be tolerated, but encouraged, then the integrity of this website will cease to exist.Pat 02:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalticPat22 (talk • contribs)

I completely agree with you. This 'featured' article is greatly biased against Celine Dion. The sources almost always say the opposite of what is put into the article. I have sometimes made small changes but they are always undone. Also, Celine Dion is a Canadian, yet almost this entire article gives information about Celine on the American Music market. Not to mention Europe and Japan (which by the way is the 2nd biggest music market in the world) are not even given proper mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.142.40 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was once the featured article??? It needs a Major overhaul by someone who has subject knowledge. The content section titles do not summarize the sections and some of the sections suffer from misspellings or possibly mistranslations. For instance,under the content title "1.5 Career break: 2000-2002", the text reads: "It was during a concert of this tour that she broke the voice for the first time, she immediately taken consultation with an ORL, the late Dr. William Gould (ORL of Luciano Pavarotti, Frank Sinatra, John Kennedy) which put her in front of an ultimatum, to have surgery or keep silence for three weeks. An operation of the vocal cords sucitant risk irreparably change the voice and to degrade the timbre, Celine Dion preferred silence. Next, she had to undertake a difficult and quotidian restoration work, with Dr. William Riley (singer himself), work would bear fruit after five years at least. The singer had to start from scratch, she relearned "articulate, breathing, moving, walking, stand upright sitting or standing"[32]." Sojournaling (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision 1988

Can someone explain to me how did Dion get to represent Switzerland at the Eurovision 1988, despite the fact she is Canadian. Last time I checked, Canada was nowhere near Switzerland (being sarcastic). Norum (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A singer of any nationality can represent a country in the Eurovision - it's more to do with the writers of the song. The song is what wins - the performer is not really important.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you said is not exactly right then. As long as the song is composed by an European then. Dion wouldn't represent Switzerland if her song was composed by an American for example. Norum (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See also the previous discussion here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The writer of Celine's song was Swiss is what I'm saying. In the Eurovision, the final result would be announced : "and the winner is Swizerland with "Ne Partez Pas Sans Moi"..." - the composer and performer take third and fourth billing. An American writer would not be eligible to enter Eurovision. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WRONG! In 2010 "Satellite" co-written by Judie Frost, who is American, even won the contest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manialf (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Celine's voice

I think her voice is mezzo-soprano, not soprano!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.68.4 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Celine is a Lyric Soprano her voice is clearly too light for a Mezzo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.152.23 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

She's a mezzo soprano, her singing confort zone is clearly on mezzo's register. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.116.128.146 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

She's definitely Lyric Soprano. Her range stretches far above the treble clef. Disney09 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing that completely bugs me is why singer's voice types aren't included in the info-box anymore? Prior to 2008, the world's most influential singers all had their voice types listed - Dion, Streisand, Knowles, Carey, Aguilera, Franklin, Keys, Houston and so many more! I just want to know why they've all been remoeved Disney09 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Singer, songwriter

The impression given in the lead sentence, "occasional songwriter", is a stretch, but in the infobox, a complete exaggeration, as the distinction "occasional" isn't made. A check of the 26 studio and live recordings in her discography on allmusic.com indicates that Dion has had co-writing credits on only two songs in a nearly 20-year career and no solo song-writing credits whatsoever. As for the citation on this in the infobox, the main body of the referenced Encyclopedia Britannica article does not depict her as a songwriter, though I can't tell if some of the article is missing because of Brittanica's "premium service" requirements. Given the contentious history of the WP article, I refrained from removing or qualifying the term "songwriter". It strikes me as odd, however, that the rest of the article provides nothing to support the claim and neither does the lengthy bio available on her website. Any feedback? Allreet (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - very much a stretch (I think she co-wrote a B-side!), the other qualifications should be removed as well really. She's a singer and famous as that - if there is any acting work, that could be mentioned later as a lesser factor in her career. Ask anyone in the street who Celine Dion is - they'd say she's a singer, not one would say she's an actress.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you both even read the whole article, you would realize that in the section titled, "Artistry and Image", a sentence remarked that she became more involved in the writing process during the mid-1990's and helped co-write songs from Let's Talk About Love and These Are Special Times. The statement you give about her being an "occasional songwriter" is 100% valid and should not be changed. BalticPat22Patrick 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "occasional" should be dropped entirely. If you write songs, you should be credited as a song-writer. The adjective "occasional" undermines and diminishes this achievement. At what standards and by whose rule would we measure the frequency or infrequency of an endeavor? Shall we term Robert Jordan as an "occasional writer" because he only published a few works over the course of his long life? Or should we say that Ridley Scott is an "occasional director", because he only directs a few movies every few years? It should either be included as simply "songwriter" properly, or omitted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.212.115 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Best-Selling Female Artist of All-Time ?

I know that the source stated it, and Wikipedia support the verifiability than the TRUTH. But, we cannot always forget the fact. Celine received WMA Chopard diamond award, yes that's true fact. But is she the best-selling female artist because of received the award? No,! Check the WMA site and read, Chopard diamond is given for artist who has sold "100 million". Well, there are many females who sold 100 milion, so can we say they all are best-selling female artist of alltime, too? See list of best-selling music artists and you can see there are also 2 other female artist, reported by reputable sources, sold more than 200 million: Madonna and Nana Mouskuri.Bluesatellite (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Celine has sold over 200 million albums...making her the B. S. F. A. O. A. T.

76.64.15.141 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:LegatoXxXxXxXx and your recent edits.

I don't understand your way of editing. You have been told time, and time again that you cannot simply revert massive amounts of info, and delete sentences, without giving any reasoning towards doing so. It's getting to the point of extreme irritability. You are showcasing signs of WP:DE. You were given a notice on the WP:ANI, and you still did not change your ways. You refuse to discuss anything with anyone, and instead make personal insults and continue doing your own editing, with exact knowledge that it may jeopardize this article's featured status. Unless you begin to change the way you edit, and enagage in open discussions with users, I will be forced to contact an administrator, once again, and see if they can help with this situation. BalticPat22Patrick 15:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeping FA level

• Ok i have fixed all the dead links pls double check -->here
• Ok we need alt text for pictures..i will do this soon but i am not good at it ..if some would like to help :) would be appreciated

Ps i am sure you guys noticed the new portal=Portal:Celine Dion---Template = {{Portal|Celine Dion}} Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing live a reviewer

I am not sure how we should handle this odd edits what are this -->[...] ???...lets let him edit and when all quite we can go over his additions and remove all the POV and odd English statements..I do believe hes trying in good faith ..he/she is just not aware that this is an encyclopedia and not a music review site..I see he has also edited some other singers and they were also reverted. Poor guy if only he would respond to hes talk page instead of deleting it ...My guess is he is very young or not English. So let be nice wiki needs all the editors it can find.. I will post on his talk page Reference rules!!...those quotes have to be in the reference template not in the article its self ..we have copyright law we have to adhere by.Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but this is the second user in less than a month who has been using WP:DE like behavior. I understand their enthusiam towards editing, but he is potentially jeopardizing the FA status. The user is ignoring any conversation that is attempted towards him, and makes edits without any explanation, whatsoever. The other user who did the same exact thing (ignored conversations, edited on his accord, made personal insults), was banned by WP administrators. I sure do hope that doesn't happen to this user, but if he doesn't begin to change the way he edits, then some type of intervention may be neccessary. BalticPat22Patrick 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

are you thinking this user and User:LegatoXxXxXxXx are the same person????Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I find it too much of a coincidence for this to happen. Like I said before, it has been less than a month since the other user was banned, and another user has been acting in the exact same manner. The behavior is nearly identical. Also, the user has been using the same inline citation over and over again. It's getting ridiculous. So to answer your question, yes I do believe it may be the same person. BalticPat22Patrick Patrick 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok i am going to read all of this --> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations....see if its time yet...i am going to look deeper into both of there edits..I will post here get your opinion..LONG before a submit anything - if we even should... Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange capitalisation

Hopefully the regular editors here can help me. While reverting some inappropriate edits at J'attendais, I noticed that many/all of Dion's songs and albums with French-language titles only have the first letter capitalised in the article title, rather than (for example) "J'Attendais", D'Eux, and "J'Irai Où Tu Iras", which I thought to be correct and what is currently used in the lead section titles. Is there a reason for this discrepancy that I'm not understanding? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to refactor my question, given that the inappropriate edits at "J'attendais" were apparently made to a number of Dion's articles, capitalising titles in the prose of multiple articles. Why then does Allmusic, for example, use the uppercased examples above, yet our articles do not? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in french we do not capitalize the first letter of every word in titles. That is an english rule. In french, capitalization is applied only to the very first letter of the title. So it is those websites that capitalize french titles according to english grammar that are incorrect. For the examples you gave, proper capitalization would be: "J'attendais", "D'eux", and "J'irai où tu iras". Me, I've always found the english titles strange... Hope that helps, 184.175.0.20 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"This article is about the musician"?

That's just plain silly. Technically a singer may be a musician, but nobody thinks of Celine Dion as a musician - people think of her as a singer. When you start a Wikipedia article with "This article is about the musician" you just make people confused and wonder if they're at the wrong article. That was certainly my reaction. --RenniePet (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively it could maybe say "the performer". But why not keep it simple, i.e., "the singer". I'm convinced that "the musician" is confusing. --RenniePet (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New Albums

The Associated Press announced that Celine was working on new French and English albums. Would it be okay to add this into the article? Here is the Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gb8lDyeCMFKJqPxGVcP2nOmnJc8A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden White (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added the information. Thanks for bringing it up.BalticPat22Patrick 16:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Her name

Her name is French and is spelled Céline NOT Celine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.25.0.133 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but no one can type that! Except for users with (relatively rare) French keyboards. English QWERTY is far more common worldwide. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a very strong argument. Anyway, creating é is actually very simple on most keyboards... If you google her name, you'll see that her official website also spells her name correctly. Having a quick look through some news organisations, usage seems to be mixed, even within the same organisation. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Modified_letters does not swing either way, but precedents such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Naming_people suggests we should use Céline. Her website after all is pretty authoritative as to what she would use. Louis-Ferdinand Céline is perhaps another precedent that would suggest moving the article to Céline Dion. Hrcolyer (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as well. You have my consent towards changing it. Also, it's just a matter of copying and pasting her name. BalticPat22Patrick 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth taking a look at how her name is spelled in English media, for example on her album covers.—Kww(talk) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But that is only for her Anglophone albums. They (meaning Sony) did that to make her more "American looking". On her Francophone albums, she has the accent mark. [3] [4] The bottom line is, this is her actual name, regardless of what it's written as on album covers, or by American magazines, or news articles.BalticPat22Patrick 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia, and "é" is not a character in the English alphabet. We tend to use English transcriptions, especially if the person themselves uses it. That's true for pretty much any non-English character: I was born in 入間市, for example, but our article is named Iruma, Saitama. That's despite the fact that any modern computer can easily create all of the characters found in 入間市.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, her name still is spelled Céline. It is not a question of transcription, the letters in French are pretty much the same. In fact it is easier to create an é than to make a @, and you Americans don't seem to have any difficulties with that... Look around on Wikipedia for articles about Czechs, Poles, Swedes, Germans, Croats et al. Although the English alfabet doesn't have any Ř, Ź, Å, ß, Š - we spell those names in the correct manner with the diacritics. Look up the section about Citroën, the automotive company. Are you really suggesting that the section should be "Citroen"?! How naïve can you be? Or, is it "naive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.232.112 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Her name is "Céline Dion" ... period. "Celine Dion" should redirect to it for those who can't figure out how to put the accent on the "e". I just tried correcting this situation and it was reversed. Hmmmm ... I was unaware that Wikipedia was being run by American Nazis. Heck, why stop with this error? Let's change the "ş" in "Nicolae Ceauşescu" to an "s" for these morons. What's that strange character in "Börje Salming"? Duh, that ain't an American letter ... away with it at once! SARCASM INTENDED! Smratguy (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to support the actual spelling.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So, is there a solution to this? It's been over three months, and there hasn't been an outcome. Again, I'm in favor of her name being changed to "Céline Dion." It's not a matter of how the name is perceived in the media or on her albums...it's the way it is actually spelled. Furthermore, for those who don't have the diacritical marks on their computers, a redirection of the name "Celine Dion" can be implemented. It's done for many, many other persons and this should not be any different. In my opinion, there is no need for further discussion, because there is nothing to debate. "Céline Dion" is her name...period. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Support the change. I can't really see the problem, it's her actual and correct name. Or should we also renamed Beyoncé article to Beyonce Knowles? Bluesatellite (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to move the article. What's happening here has no justification. Céline Dion's name is Céline Dion. Celine Dion should redirect to Céline Dion in order to make it easier for those who cannot spell her actual name. I hope I don't get banned for this. Sanfazer (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The joke's on me. I'm still not able to move pages. ANYONE? Sanfazer (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New photo in need

The photo that is being used is not the right one to use, in my opinion. First of all, it doesn't even show her singing, like the previous one and also doesn't look good. The coloring is off, and it doesn't show her complexion correctly. She's also in a very weird position/pose, that only shows one side of her. I would rather have the other photo back up, but if that isn't possible, then maybe another photo could be uploaded. I just do not think that this current one is suitable for the article. I do not mean any disrespect to Journalist, but I do not approve of this current photo in any way, shape, or form. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think this should be discussed. If people have a problem with the current photo (which I don't), then please speak up. But, you must have a good reason to want to change the photo. The photo that I recently reverted has been up for several months, and I didn't understand the reasoning towards chnaging it in the first place. Anyway, if anyone has any input they want to convey, then feel free. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The current picture is good, it shows her full face at a relatively close distance, while singing. Looks good.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting that a more recent photo of Dion be used in the article, preferably of her in Las Vegas during 2011. The current photo, while providing a mostly clear image of her face, is quite dated. It is from over three years ago, and I believe that a newer one is in order. If anyone, (who agrees with this request) has a photo that fits into the requested category, please submit it to Wikimedia Commons, or here so that we can have a consensus on which photograph is best. I have been trying to find a public domain photo of her from this year, but alas to no avail. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

five octave vocal range

Celines Vocal range is about 3 Octaves its been shown several times on Youtube, she never hit higher than Soprano C on all of her records,and this is a proper source,nobody can denied that! The only artist who is known for her 5 Octave range is Mariah Carey and she displayed her 5 Oct. like 1000 times!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.152.23 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the edit war continues, and the real problem here is extremely poor wording in the source. She does not have a 5 octave vocal range in the sense of being able to sing from, for example, E1-E6. Think of it: that would be from the low string on a bass guitar to the high string of a piccolo mandolin. Physiologically impossible. What she has is a three-octave plus range: three octaves in the middle, a bit in the octave below, and a bit in the octave above. That got described as something like "extending into five octaves" and ultimately misrepresented as "five octave vocal range." Can someone track down a source that describes her range in terms of notes, and then we can drop the "x-octave" description?—Kww(talk) 15:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Even so, several reputable sources from long-standing newspapers and articles cite her vocals as indeed having five octaves, including ones already cited in the article. What we need to do, (which is a no-brainer), is to write statements that directly reflect what was given in the sources. I would not mind if the wording was something like, "Dion posseses a large vocal range (source), with some critics stating it extends into five octaves (source)." I think that would give the reader two choices to draw an inference from and would be most appropriate. We already have source stating that she indeed possesses a five-octave vocal range, so it wouldn't be difficult to find references. What we cannot do, is to simply delete information and statements without a discussion, especially one that is crucial to the article, and the person. Let me know if that makes sense. BalticPat22Patrick 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I would rather find a source that describes her range precisely, and just replace the vaguer descriptions with it. While we can't just delete information from sources, there's nothing at all that prevents us from using the most precise source.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, completely. Would you like me to try to find sources that explicitely state her vocals as five octaves, as well as ones that give an overview of her vocals i.e. powerful, large range, prowess, etc? I am a bit busy today with stuff, but I would be happy to try to find some. Just let me know. I want the article to give a good, speicifc overview of her voice, and not ones that are semi-vague and open to interpretation. BalticPat22Patrick 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too excited by adjectives. What I would like is a reliable source that states her precise range, i.e. "B2-D6" or whatever the actual values are.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's very possible, or feasible to find. Unless the editor or author holds a Bachelor's Degree in Music or is a professional musician, I don't believe they would know that specific musical terminology, nor would they include that in a reputable article or news source.BalticPat22Patrick 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the full biographical books probably would. I agree it isn't going to show up in USA Today.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't know where to start finding information in her biographical books. What can be said, is that there is already a large pool of informatonal sources that cite her possessing a five-octave range. I have sources from USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, People Magazine, and the America's newspaper of record, The New York Times, among others. Now, I am going to be honest. This issue would not be one if it were not for an editor who obviously has some sort of thing against that first statement in the "Voice" section. The mere fact that they delete the sentence in question without providing any explanation should be a red flag, anyway. I do agree that the wording could be tweaked, but when there are several reputable sources from various spectrums of the media stating that she does indeed possess a five-octave vocal range, I don't think it's keen to want to change it with wording that isn't even readily available.BalticPat22Patrick 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that editor's objection: the claim is impossible. As I said at the beginning, I think a possible (and quite impressive) range of over three octaves has been twisted into "five octaves" by popular press. Note that my example of B2-D6 includes notes in five octaves (2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), but is only three octaves and two steps wide (B2, C3-C4, C4-C5, C5-C6, D6), and I'm confident that the truth is something similar to that. These situations are always awkward: your desire to keep well-sourced language is quite sensible, and the other editor's desire to delete an impossible claim is also sensible. That's why I was hoping someone could find a technically precise description of her range, as that should satisfy both desires.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I want that to. I just don't think finding both information regarding her vocal range in the actual keys given, and getting that information from reputable sources is all that feasible. I'm not saying that it's impossible to find that specific type of wording, I'm just saying it's not very probable. The bottom line is, we need to be realistic in our search for statements that reflect sources, which I believe is paramount. Also, I would very much like the other user that doesn't like the "five-octave" word-choice to give their opinion on the matter. Not that I don't enjoy discussing this with you, of course ;).BalticPat22Patrick 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hand gesture?

There could be something in the article on her trademark little hand sign, or whatever it should be called. It was featured on the David Letterman show a few years ago, with Dave trying to analyze and imitate a video playback of the gesture (without much success)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable enough to be included in the article. BalticPat22Patrick 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How to add names of her husband and children to the box?

I added her husband René Angélil and her son René-Charles Dion Angélil to the box, but it does not appear.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page, per discussion. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Celine Dion → Céline Dion — Céline is the "correct" spelling, in that it's what she uses. No policy proscribes the use of diacritics, and we have numerous articles which use diacritics. ÷seresin 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - from what i can see it is her proper name. Moxy (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Personally, I don't think this is an issue about diacritics. The Use English guideline does not mean that the words in an article title must be stripped of diacritics; it merely means that the title needs to reflect actual English language usage (thus, we have have article titles such as Jean Chrétien and Jean Béliveau, because that's how their names are most commonly spelled in English, as any survey of the media will show). Moreover, we are not bound by the "correct spelling". The question I have is whether Celine or Céline is the most common English usage. That is the issue we need to consider. How is it spelled in the media? How does the record company spell it in English-language promotional materials? Is there a difference between how it is spelled in English-language materials in, say, Canada versus the United States or other countries? etc. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: She uses "Celine" in English on her own material:File:Celine_Dion.jpg. Certainly we have no policy forbidding diacritics, but we do tend to conform to normal English usage.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any more evidence of usage than one album cover? Please not just a Google search - this is a very, very well known figure in the English-speaking world - what do reference works and the wider press use? Knepflerle (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment she's very popular in the US, where they do not use accents, so unless you're talking about her early Canadian career, it's very likely it's accentless. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think she prefer "Celine" (see all her musical cover) only a few (french-albums) of her albums can be seen "Céline". Inclusive her english official website she uses "Celine" and the french "Céline". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Actually, the English version of her website seems to use both Céline and Celine at random, without any logic. On balance, I would tend to go for the "official" version of her name (Céline): it's not as if anyone is going to have difficulty finding the page, is it, as search engines don't differentiate anyway between e and é? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both the shop and main websites use Celine Dion all over the first page. The exception appears to be when we switch to usage in French. So what I find very clear is that Celine Dion is used when the site is in English and Céline Dion is used when French is being used, even when the French merchandise is listed on the English language pages. So there is no evidence that she uses Céline Dion when writing in English. To make this change would require clear and convincing proof and there apparently is none. If anything just looking at the first page of her main English language websites clearly shows only one spelling in use. That is the current one for this article. So there is no case to change. Additional support for the current name is the music listing site allmusic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Specific "Soundscan" figures in Lead Section.

I do not want an war, Petergriffin9901 and that's is why I am writing on the talk page (which I requested you to do, beforehand). That said, I do not think that having specific Soundscan figures for both of them is is wholly neccessary. First of all, Mariah Carey is already mentioned in the lead section. To add more information that doesn't contribute to the article, and is non-notable in nature, is uneccessary, in my opinion. Like Kww said, not every lead section from an artist has specific Soundscan figures, and those articles don't seem to be in any worse shape than those that do. Also, the need to constantly update the figures is tiring. Furthemore, I higly doubt that you will be openly willing to update the numbers, seeing as you do not edit the article on a regular basis. I'm done with my talk, and I encourage you to speak your mind on the matter. Also, if anyone else has any input, feel free to add to the conversation. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello BalticPat22, I do understand your views on mentioning Mariah Careys SoundScan sales, but still do believe Dion's to be necessary. It is a big accomplishment to have over 50M albums sold in the US, a feat I believe should be specified in the article.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the need to include specific figures as a comparison of sorts (when there's already sufficient info present) is wholly uneccessary, especially in the lead. Furtheremore, not having Soundscan figures in the lead isn't detrimental to the article; it's not adding anything notable enough to warrant inclusion. BalticPat22Patrick 02:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed Mariah Carey name for the lead...I also believe that any mention of SoundScan should be removed. They are not credible as they do not have a wide way of tracking sales. For one only stores, retailers, etc, who have registered with SoundScan will have sales tracked. So in other words they only have figures for a portions of real sales numbers. SoundScan should not be used as a source. Moxy (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why we must mention Nielsen SoundScan in the lead, especially to state "behid Mariah Carey" and write the exact number, so what!! She is not an American artist, she's a worldwide superstar and widely popular more than USA. There're many more indicators of her success other than Nielsen number. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)==Voice== Why the statement of Riley, Pavarotti, Streisand, and Goldman is reverted? This vocal description is very relevant, I think. When I added that, it has been accepted by different Wikipedia users, but, all at once, BaltickPat22 reverted. Why? I would like that people who wish that my contribution stay answer to this post. 80.125.175.214 (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an inline citation, and cannot be readily verified. Also, I highly doubt that Streisand, Pavarotti, and Goldman all said that about Celine. It's one statement quoted by all three people? I think not. Also, before users create any large changes to a section, they need to use the talk page. That way, a discussion can be had about whether it's necessary or true (which I completely believe it not to be). BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dion's belting voice is thin and entirely placed in the nose, in all her songs, for example "I Hate You Then I Love You" or "Be The Man". In songs like "All By Myself" or "Have A Heart" or then again, "With This Tear", she also scream; her voice is forced, scratchy. 92.90.21.1 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not a verifiable fact.BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, No, No, it's not "just my opinion", it's the opinion of Rolling Stone, Le Devoir and Dion's singing teacher William Riley, and Barbra Streisand, Luciano Pavarotti as well as Jean-Jacques Goldman.

Rolling Stone's statement : "Alas, her cat-strangling whine is still a remarkably ugly sound, no matter what she's singing" "Taking Chances Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic"

Le Devoir's statement, "[The] vowels [are very] closed [...] When she passes in upper register, what she does sooner or later in most of her songs, the timbre become nasal, even shrill." "D'elles ne vaut pas plus qu'elles"

Riley, Pavarotti, Streisand, Goldman's statement :

"The low register is ample but tired, forced in her lowest notes. The medium and the belting register are thin and nasal; the belting reister is also forced, scratchy in the highest notes. Regarding the head voice, it's, like the medium and belting, thin, but pure and bright. Althought her voice is not very lovely, her technique is wonderful. Her staccatos are marvel of accuracy, eurythmy, even in the trickiest intervals; her legato is perfectly sweet and pure. And her trill is beautiful and magnifically solid, flexible." [Dupuis, Georges (2010). Celine Dion, a voice, a life. p. 250.]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.17.5 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to edify you; read WP:V and WP:NPOV. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Holden of The New York Times also describes her voice as "thin" and "nasal". And music critic Neil Mc Cormick "The timbre of Callas's belting register, considered purely as sound, is essentially ugly: it's a thin and very nasal sound, without any warmth or roudness, without the tiniest lovely, pleasurable harmonics. But Dion's fame and succes is, in part, due to this fact. Why? Because for all its natural lack of varnish, velvet and richness, this voice could acquire such distinctive colours as to be unforgettable."[Celine Dion: A voice, a life. p. 251.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.17.5 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That source by the NY Times is already in the section. By the way, be careful of quoting correctly and not taking quotes out of context. The editor said Dion is "a belter with a high, thin, slightly nasal, nearly vibratoless soprano and a good-sized arsenal of technical skills." That said, What are you trying to explain, here? I do not understand your point. Also, if there are any other users who are reading this, please feel free to join in. I don't want this to be a one-on-one discussion, because it pertains to everyone who contributes to this article.BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All these "sources" are false, but yes Dion don't know who to belt properly. Instead of sing "in the mask", she place the belting register in the throat, and the nose, and above D5, she screams. Her voice is really thin, nasal, throaty. She can use the mixed voice, but most of the time, she's really heady from G5. In 90s, this register was heady even with an E♭5. Dion can do staccato and legato] runs with control and precision, and possesses an atonishing breath control, but definitively, her voice is badly placed.

Support for environmental causes

Celine Dion’s Florida Mansion Used 6.5 Million Gallons of Water in Two Years by Stephanie Rogers

The Palm Beach Post verified Celine Dion's water usage at her Jupiter, Florida home and what they found is astonishing. Over the past two years, 6.5 million gallons of water were used at the home. And that’s just one home of many she owns.

According to ABC News; that’s nearly 18,000 gallons of water a day, about 100 times more than the 170-gallons-per-day the average resident uses every day, according to the Florida-based U.S. Water Institute. Dion’s annual water usage could fill more than 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

For the past few years, according to Graham, Florida, along with much of the southeast United States, has experienced a water shortage due to increased population and record-low rainfall. In addition to causing a spike in water prices, the drought has created a tug of water in the northern part of Florida with neighboring Georgia, over water from Georgia’s Lake Lanier.

“If we want to protect our ecosystem, we’re certainly going to have to be more careful,” Graham said. “Definitely, anything like 6 million gallons per year is way out there.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.5.104 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really notable enough to be included? I really don't think so. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You would like to add this crap into the article? "Celine Dion spent $100,000 at Blooming-dales today," is that notable or of any importance? No, and besides, she pays for all that water usage, their is nothing wrong with it, besides I don't believe this crud either, you haven't even provided sources.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth Place

Regarding the birth place, the photo book "Autour du monde" by Gerard Schachmes (2009) displays a picture of Celine's ID. It is written she was born in Repentigny, a commune by Charlemagne. Same on the Book "For Keeps" by Jenna Glatzer (2006) on page 13: hospital Le Gardeur in Repentigny. Should not it be corrected ? Still of course Charlemagne should be mentionned as this is where she spent her childhood.

BTW I would like to say this article truly deserves its "FA" status. I hope it will keep it. It is complete and very well documented, including both her achievments and the sometimes tough critics! It is therefore well balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.15.230.190 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice

Sources 186 and 187 says absolutely nothing about Dion's "technical virtuosity". It must be reverted. 92.90.17.1 (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The childhood and early beginnings section says that "Her brother Michel Dondalinger Dion sent the recording to music manager René Angélil". The Personal life section attributes this same thing to "she and her mother sent him a demo tape of a song they had written". Debresser (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

after surpassing 175 million in album Y not its got good sources?

Ok so lets talk about this. First it would be best not to delete refs but incorporate them all (this would be y i reverted). What i see with the edit is an attempt to change a number that is well cited. This is being done with a generic reference that is not specific to the subject, but an over all statement about the award its self. I think its best that as an encyclopedia we present the best facts of the situation as possible. I assume we all agree that she got the award for surpassing 175 right? If so y would we not state this fact (as its well sourced). I do have a problem with "for becoming the best-selling female artist of all time" as i have stated before, but consensus was in favour of leaving it as per Just the facts! example. I see after looking at the page history (i did not look before my revert) that we have 4 people with 2 people one way and 2 people the other way (again did not know others had already reverted this). Could we get comments from all if possible and what you think one way or the other. Moxy (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Moxy, let me explain so you understand. I have absolutely no problem writing "best-selling" (as long as we quote the source, like According to Sony, Dion is etc.) or 175 M, obviously, considering we have 200M. My issue is writing that she received the Diamond Award at the Wolrd Music Awards for becoming the best-selling and selling 175 million albums. This is not true. Look here at the WMA official website, and press "Diamond Award", you'll see 2 other artist won it before her, and it clearly states the award is in recognition of over 100 million albums sold, not 175, or best-selling. Kww has already reverted Baltics edit, and he keeps re-adding it. We go by how reliable the source is, well their official website holds more ground. Thats the only issue.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI press from the time viewed the Diamond Award and the best selling thing as 2 separate awards. Like you say its for selling over 100 million albums - but we know what the number was at the time so y would we not say it? (as all the artist have the number mentioned when receiving this award some for 120 some for 155 and so on) Your using a generic references to change a well cited number. You do know that the number 175 did not come for the air its well published everywhere (since its so old) Not sure how a generic ref that you have to search for is better? But lets see what others have to say before you guys go on a reverting rampage again. PS should never use artist official web pages for refs. Moxy (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The ref still does not say the Diamond Award for best-selling artist, it says it honestly in a confusing both for both way. Anyway, I'm not using an artists official website, I'm using the WMA website, so not sure what you mean.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets watch the show and get it from the horses mouth shall we --> CELINE DION: The Best Selling Female Artist Of All Time. I believe all concerns raised have been solved. You agree about the numbers and the fact its was for best selling...right? So unless you think it needs to be presented in the article in a different manner then it has been for years ....we should fix it back i would guess. Moxy (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Users are combining both accolades. The "100 million albums sold" statement was explicitely for the WMA's Diamond Award. The "best-selling female artist" was a seperate accolade that she received the same night. Michael Douglas gave her the award and stated both accolades. It's been stated in countless sources, which are provided in the article. On a side note, I do not know what started this issue. The statement has been in place for a long, long time and why it is an issue now is beyond me. If someone is so interested in placing correcting sources, then they should practice what they preach. The WMA website that Peter gives states nothing about "100 million albums sold." It's vandalism, period. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you high off your rocker Baltic? Press on the flippin tab that says "Diamond Award" on the homepage I listed and it clearly says its for 100 million albums sold. Thats it. If thats the case, then you can't write that the diamond award was for that. You should write, Dion received the Dimond award for selling over 100 million albums, and an award for becoming the best-selling female artist.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Watch yourself with the personal quips, Peter. That said, users shouldn't have to search within a website to find a statement. It defeats the purpose. But that is entirely beside the point. Dion received the Diamond Award for selling over 175 million albums worldwide. Those aren't my words, they're from the award body, themselves. Watch the source Moxy sent, and read the sources that have been used to back up the statments of those two accolades. Denying one set of information and agreeing with another can't be tolerated. Every news article (which are all entirely reputable) cites the WMA ceremony, the Diamond Award award given to Dion, and the statement of either "175 million albums" or "best-selling female artist." I don't know how else to explain it to you. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look into it later, however you should as well watch yourself, before accusing other editors of vandalism. Actually, your quite wrong. We go by most reliable source, not the easiest to navigate. And I wouldn't call pressing on a tab hard work.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate threats given to me. What Peter has done does not fall under WP:GF editing. He knows that you must use reliable sources that reflect what's stated, and that clearly was not used with his sourcing of the WMA. Also, did you not even read my statement? I said the WMA source was "beside the point," which it is. In addition, I am well aware of the aspect of reliable sourcing. I strive to maintain providing reliable and relevant sources in every reference I provide, something that other users ovbiously have a difficult time doing. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Side note there is a parameter |format= you can use for this types of links that need more info to be found (I dont think this links are all that good, but they are clearly allowed. I do it like this |format= Requires navigation to Diamond Award section. There is also {{Subscription required}} that you just add the the end of refs if this type of action is needed. Moxy (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Range

She doesn't have a Five octave range. Her range is 3.4 octaves. B2-E6. Who keeps changing it back to five octaves? It isn't true and it's vandalism. Does anyone know who is doing that? They need to be suspended for a while because this is starting to bug me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that your change will be reverted again- Y? because you did not provide a reference for the change while deleting 2 that did support the exciting vocal range. pls see Wikipedia:Verifiability - See also Wikipedia:Verification methods on a how to.Moxy (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But I do have a reference. I video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsC1WYJoLOI this video shows that she has a 3.4 octave vocal range not 5 octaves Are you kidding me? I'm not the one who is vandalising. That person who keeps reverting it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.170.113 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A video on Youtube is not a reliable source, nor the octaves you are hearing on them. I would recommend you to read what a reliable source is, that we cannot accept your self-thoughts and what vandalism is. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the issue about her range. The fact is that she does not have a 5 octave vocal range, neither does Whitney Houston. Anyone who can read music and etc., will know that only Mariah Carey has that range. While you have reliable sources, you could not ever prove it. It can be proven by the highest and lowest live and studio notes that are available, which is nothing close, more like 3.4 as said above. I think it should be removed. You all know perfectly well it isn't true.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case it means, that she can sing in 5 different octaves (2,3,4,5,6). The lowest and the highest notes in her songs have nothing to do with her range. The truth is that nobody knows what is her true vocal range, because no one measure it (profesionally), therefore, uses a simplified expression. So Celine = 5; Whitney = 5 and Mariah = 6. Someone uses only the modal range for the total range, so it would be even more complicated. The question of her vocal range I'd leave, because nobody really knows it (exactly).MaricS198 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Source would be good guys ..as of now there are many saying five - is there anything that says differently??Moxy (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Voice2

OK i have had to revert some additions (as have others) ..from the edit summary the IP says this is sourced...Is this sourced in what is there already (as i cant read the french)...If so i guess we should tlak about its merits and if its to be included the statements should make sense in proper english..However if this is a quote we may have a problem in its translation.Moxy (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of books used as sources in this article. I have nothing against you or Celine Dion. I just read these statements in the books I used as sources. I have not invented these statements. It's not my fault if the sources can't always be websites. I also added websites as sources for Goldman's and Le Devoir statements. 92.90.21.1 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok are you saying the source is already there in the articles? Or are you saying the references is something in your hands?Moxy (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I have is quoting sources correctly, especially if this source is in a language other than English, which, in that case, makes it quite difficult to translate properly without delving into WP:POV problems. Since lanuages cannot be directly translated into English, an amount of subjectivity must be used, and that's where I find a large issue with the most recent edits by the IP user. I only reverted statements that make no grammatical sense (and kept the ones that did, albeit having to correct additional grammatical errors from those). To make things more difficult, the sources the IP user provided are not only in French, they are from inline citations, which makes it very difficult to verify. The sources that cite Dion's vocal range are sufficiently reputable, and any argument that attempts to contradict that is simply ridiculous. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Source 203 (Le Devoir has described her voice as "nasal, or screamy.") is review about her french album D´Elles. It´s not about her voice in general, but about this album, songs and how she sound only in this ablum! Please delete it.

Is there a consensus on whether that statement should be deleted? The quote "nasal, or screamy" indeed references the album, and not specifically her vocals (I just re-checked the source). In fact, the entire Le Devoir article is a review of the album, D'elles and not a critique of her voice. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can translate it with google translator. It´s obvious. And text from 198-202 looks out of context. Citations would be more credible.MaricS198 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I know how to read French, that's not the problem. If no one has any objections to keep the "Le Devoir" statement, then I am going to delete it. The article is a review of her 2007 album, D'elles, and the article's title which reads, "ne veut pas plus qu'elle" means "it is not worth it" exemplifies that the critic isn't talking of her voice, as much as he's generalizing personal opinions against the album. Also, what makes this editor notable in any way? He's writing an album review (which has nothing to do with her vocals).BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. You're a blind fan. Dion try to sing in the upper face (the mask), but tight a lot the throat, so the the voice sounds very nasal and throaty. Listen to All by Myself, in the refrain, her voice sounds nasal and tight, and she do the F5 at 3:15, her voice is throay and scratchy. Or listen to her high notes in Next plane out or Be the man or Love Is On the Way Tell Him, A World to believe in, her voice sounds SO NASAL AND TIGHT in these songs. In reality, ALL HER SONGS SOUNDS NASAL. And from Eb5 her voice sounds so throaty and scratchy. Listen to ALL her live of To Love You More. As always, her voice sounds very nasal, and when she does the E5 (on the phrase "We find a way"), she forces her voice, she takes the note with her troath, when you do that on your highest notes (the highest belted note of Dion is the F5), the sound is inevitably forced and scratchy. And when she does the "aaaaaaaaaaay aaaaaaaaaaay" after the E5, she tight the throat, it sounds so nasal. Christina Aguilera also do that, and listen to her song, you'll hear her belting voice is throaty and scratchy. Streisand, Carey, Houston never sounds throaty or scratchy, because they supported their voice with the diaphragm and project the sound in the mask (the upper face). Streisand sometimes tight SLIGHTLY the throat, so she sounds a bit nasal, but she has a great technique. Her voice is strong, bright, rond,vibrant. She has such a great sense of rythm, such a perfect legato, such a breath control. Yes, as Goldman said, Dion "has no problem of accuracy or tempo", yes, as TYN said "She can deliver tricky melismas ...", but her voice is very badly placed. It's thin, nasal, tight, throaty or scratchy, with no resonnance all is in the nose or the throat. I know you'll not put up my contribution, but I wanted to write this. 09:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Eric Arceneaux, profesional vocal teacher: "Nasality is generally a result of a tight/clenched throat, which leads to both vocal damage and an unpleasant vocal tone. ...Celine Dion is a product of a Francophone environment. Nasality in pronunciation of certain words is simply a part of the French language. However, Celine's "nasality" is not caused by excessive muscle tension.". She is not nasal, it´s twang. It´s not bad placement. It´s style of singing.MaricS198 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the song i quote are in ENGLISH and Lara Fabian, Chimène Badi, Nana Mouskouri, Barbara (singer), Ginette Reno sing in French and never sounds nasal. Also listen to people inpersonnate her, they always make a nasal sound. Celine Dion tight her throat. 92.90.19.21 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OH and Dion herself said in her autobiography Ma vie, mon rêve that she hurt herself in All by myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.19.23 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

She can sound "nasal" in every register, not only upper belt. It´s twang, not nasality. It´s kind of diction and singing style. Stop speculate. And she hurt herself, because she had to do this 12 seconds F5 belt like 10 times, because Foster "like he said" was stupid. Stay objective.PS:screamy=vibratolessMaricS198 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Screamy is screamy not vibratoless ! You're just a blind fan. Sorry, but nasality is a sign of bad placement. She tight her throat and she scream from Eb5. Listen on SoyHang interpretation of The Power of Love she sounds resonnant, and pure on the final Eb5. Celine Dion always sounds throaty and scratchy on this Eb5. Also listen to It's All coming back to me now. She sounds so nasal in this song. It seems like a baby who scream. French singer Julie Zenatti also sung All by myself and she doesn't sounds nasal or scratchy on this song. It's not the length of the note that injure Dion, because she also sounds throaty and scratchy at 4:07. Listen I hate then i love you Dion sounds tight and nasal in belting on this song, while Luciano Pavarotti sounds resonant and pure. You can also listen to The Prayer, it's the same story, Dion = Nasality on all the high notes. Andrea Bocelli = Supported, resonant and pure. It's you that is not objective. Mireille Mathieu is also a French singer and doesn't sounds nsal or throaty, but strong, full, pure, brillant. Listen to those videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdGS8JHOsQE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC0wyiySV9w&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yfdCO_ZM9w&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei5940AUlM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oiZ_jEkW6s&feature=related 92.90.23.32 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is pop, in pop does not exist bad placement. You can resonate where you want. Pop is not opera or theatre singing. I don´t know what is your problem? "Lyric voices are light, but heavier than soubrettes. Some lyric singers are able to belt (such as Celine Dion), although their voices tend to have a thinner, possibly more nasal sound." All these facts are mentioned in article, so what do you want?. You can´t compare dramatic voices (like Mariah or Whitney) with lyric voice. Your youtube videos show that autors know nothing about different singing styles, different genres, different timbres, etc. SoyHang sounds theatrical and emotionless with her resonance (it´s not desirable in pop music). Resonant is not better than "thin" and visa versa (in pop). Put here only things which are objective and verifiable! PS: I´m not fan at all. MaricS198 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch this for twang explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14EbdjfnhFQ MaricS198 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bad placement does not exist in pop"! LOL LOL LOL XD Stay in your ignorance, and keeps to listen "wonderful" voice of Celine Dion. I don't care. I have no problem at all, it's just that is flagrant that Dion has a BAD placement. According to you when a pop singer supported his voice with the nose and the throat like Jessica Simpson, or scream like Christina Aguilera it's not a bad placement! Are you serious ?PS: I'm French and I can talk to you French language doesn't make your voice nasal. Twang or not, nasality appears when your place your voice in the nose or tight the throat! 92.90.23.21 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Range - With other sources that claim 3

I oppose this "several sources" idea. I have found a few book sources that are more reliable that USA Today, and claim 3 octaves. National Performance: Representing Quebec from Expo 67 to Celine Dion claims 3 octaves, as well as Five and a Brass Pair. So I suggest we mention both numbers into the article. Maybe "Dion's vocal range has been cited as both three and five octaves by various sources."--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We should go with what is reported most often ...like with Mariah Carey not all claim she has 5 octaves...Some idiots even say 7 and 8 (even thought thats inposible) here says 7 and 7 here again - and here agian with 7....this one says 8 - as does this one. That all said i do see both 3 and 5 said often for Celine DionBook search ..... Moxy (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How can an obscure book (or books) be more "reliable" than USA Today, the largest-circulating newspaper in the United States? The New York Times and three other sources state the "five-octave vocal range" statement- and all are wholly reliable sources. I don't see why there is a need for this, especially since the sources are in accord with WP:V, and are frankly some of the most reliable media sources in the world. Furthermore, I only placed the "Various media sources" statement, because petergriffin9901 apparently had a "beef" with it, and used actions (and ridiculous arguments) not in accordance with WP's MOS. However, I tried to appease his objections, regardless. However, I don't believe that specific statement is in need, nor do I think that a statement "balancing" the five-octave accolade is in need either. There's no WP policy stating something needs to be refuted or clarified frankly because others have a bias against it, or don't believe it to be true. In addition, the sentence is long-standing, and it was only until this week, (with the intervention and biased grievances of a few users) that this issue has sprung up. Indeed, other WP articles that have the "five octave vocal range" accolade don't have a disclaimer stating other sources that state the contrary. Why the need for one, here? BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, how does USA Today newspaper have any authoritative claims on vocal range? Are the editors vocal coaches or music writers? No, they are regular people that are in the media and gossip section. They quote that from other ridiculous sources. Next, if Moxy would like to add the same thing with 5,7, and 8 with Mariah Carey, than go ahead. Its just that no one claims 3 for Mariah. Also, yes those books are just as authoritative when it comes to this subject as a newspaper. Also, don't insult be, be civil, I know its hard for uber fans. My argument is not at all ridiculous, yours is. Whether or not Wikipedia runs on truth or not, we all know that Dion does not have a 5 octave vocal range. Anyone who reads music or vocal range knows that she isn't even close. So stop acting like you believe it. Yes reliable sources claim it but you and I both know its not true. When there are many sources claiming both, what I posted above is necessary.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We realy should go with what is sourced by the best sources and the one they say most often. Think we need more info on both octaves ranges before any major changes are implemented.Moxy (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Well Moxy, we have found sources for both. Honestly, I have already looked. Just to show you something, Dion has never even performed a real and solid G note, other than scratchy squeaks, neither has Whitney, aside from the fact that Dion has almost no falsetto and weak low notes, devoid of any whistle register. Anyone that can read music, vocal range or anything of the sort can verify that Dion's range does not span anything near there. Baltic, since you're so sure of it, prove it. Find me a song, even a studio performance, let alone live, of her lowest and highest note. It is not even close and you know it. Look at Carey's range, it is fact, listen to her records, watch her performances. Aside from that there are reliable sources claiming otherwise. Whether or not Youtube is reliable, this should just give you guys an idea. Look here, Carey's is proven. The only reason I even bring Carey into this is because you have already done so Balto.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did I mention Mariah Carey? Tell me exactly where I mention her. I'm curious, because I'm pretty darn sure I didn't (loved the "Balto" quip, too). Also, everyone knows you cannot use Youtube as reliable sources. The reason you're bringing it up is beyond me. It doesn't help with the discussion, and cannot be verified. Also, When did this become a Mariah/Celine comparison? Why feel the need to bring up Mariah Carey Youtube videos (of all things) to prove something against Celine's vocal range? In addition, there are many sources that state Mariah's vocal range as being less than five octaves: here, here here, which states three octaves and here that says "multi-octave," (there are many of these) Also, yes I am a fan of Celine, I will wholly admit that. However, if you judge from my history of editing and improving this article, you'll be aware that I've been more than accomodating to other user's grievances over the years. I've wholly added to the article's reputability and readability, so do not overgeneralize and call me an "uber fan." It's insulting, false, and disrespcectful. Also, how do I know that your books present a more authoritative source than ones that are already given? Will you at least present the links so that other users can see whether they're warranted and of authority? If we're going to create sources that provide the "three octaves" then they need to be at least as authoritative as the ones that state the "five octaves." Otherwise, it's an imbalance that creates a host of policy problems. I don't want to see an obscure vocal training book (or something to that effect) that's from a person or persons who cannot be verified from their "expertise," and I don't want to see sources that are inaccessible; it won't reflect the sources that state the contrary. Lastly, if were are to place the three octave or four octave vocal range in addition to the five octave vocal range, there must be consensus on the wording, and disclaimers in place that deter vandalism. I say this because making statements like these creates an opening for vandals to edit them, just as they are doing now to the five octave statement. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you might like that. When you wrote other WP articles that have the "five octave vocal range" accolade don't have a disclaimer stating other sources that state the contrary. Why the need for one, here its obvious from your past discussion, even right above this that you are implying Mariah Carey. Next, your above sources are not exactly what you wrote. one says four, one says three and the others say multi or many. However, when you put it into count with the sources that write 5 (many more than Dion) it more than balances out. If you would not like me to call you an uber fan, than please stop #1.) Bringing Carey into everything #2.) Assume that I do this out of harm or dislike for Dion (she happens to be one of my favorites) #3). Calling my claims ridiculous. Next, here are more reliable sources for Carey's range BBC which is quoted by a vocal trainer and researcher. There are countless, I ca post 30 reliable sources for her. You posted two, whereas I have two to counter.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm assuming the whole "Be polite" guidelines of discussions don't pertain to you. Also, I wasn't the user who used Mariah Carey first, and I didn't mean specifically Carey. There are other articles that state "five octaves," not just Carey's. Secondly, you have no right to mock other users regardless of their personal opinions. Do you think that you're above other users, here? What gives you the right to judge? If you think your history of editing reflects your authority, then you need to sort your priorties out. Lastly, if you have nothing to provide but sarcastic comments, biased judgemeents, rude and mocking behaviors, and antagonisitc tendencies (like the "Balto" quip) then you need to either stop the discussion or delve into another topic because I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend arguments from people who obviously don't take this article seriously. And if you personally insult me, again I will report you without hesitation. I haven't utilized disrespectful behavior against, you. I even accomodated myself to appease your grievances! And this is how you treat other users? BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This voice section in all this bios cause nothing but problems...Sooooooooo many different well recognized critics say sooooooo many different things and change there views over time thus contradicting themselves sometimes. Wish we could just eliminated this sections altogether. But that's another topic all together. Does anyone have a proposal to solve this? Moxy (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you have some serious issues. I have not insulted, judged you, or in any way reflected that I have superior authority here. You are seriously bringing in ridiculous accusations. And yeah, my history shows 2 FLs, and like 18 GA articles, yours shows nothing except an old block lol. So don't talk to me about my past or authority, considering you obviously don't command any yourself, or you wouldn't have asked Moxy for his help. Anyway, please stop igniting the fire, drop the personal issues! Back to the topic and only the topic. My solution is we mention both claims. Or, if preferred, make a note which at the bottom says both claims.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot admit you actions exemplifies to me that you are incapable of editing and analyzing the tasks at hand here. I already outlined the specific quips and antagonistic remarks that you used, which by the way, were after I appeased your opposition to the wording of the section, something which I did not have to do, but nevertheless, had the decency to perform. As for the section, itself you know my stance on it. I am against changing the five octave range because it opens the floodgates for interpretation of the wording, something that almost always results in vandalism. You have several extremely reputable sources, some of the most awarded media sources in the world as references, and I do not see how anything else that is not up to par with those sources will suffice being named in the article. In fact the whole argument at hand, was begun from a biased POV. Indded, the entire issue on this arose from an opinion that the sources given to the "five octave" range statments are "wrong." This not only showcases a breach of NPOV, but does not create an argument for revising the entire section, especially when they are adequately sourced and have no WP issue or breach of policy. Again, I am against it, wholeheartedly. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I am for-sure incapable of editing, which is why I am the sole author of over 18 GA articles. Sure, keep talking to the wall buddy. I have never acted in a way that did not respect your opinion or show my superiority, never. I only engage once you make some quip remark or accusation. Anyway, like I've sad 3 times already back to the topic. And yes, unless you want it changed, you do have too, you aren't doing it from the goodness of your heart. Anyways, I still stand by what I said. I thought of something else, which I don't see an issue with. We can write "According to various newspapers, Dion has a five-octave vocal range..." then have a little note that reads at the bottom, "some sources only credit her with three" and lead them to the sources. This is totally fair, I believe this is a good compromise.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"I have never acted in a way that did not respect your opinion or show my superiority, never." Then I assume that these do not mean anything, and shouldn't be taken personally:

• 1. "Yes, I thought you might like that."
• 2. "I know its hard for uber fans."
• 3. "[..] because you have already done so Balto."
• 4. "Honestly, you have some serious issues."

It doesn't matter to me how many GA you've assisted in revising/creating. That exempts you from nothing. You keep wanting to go "back to the topic" but you insist to deny mocking my username, questioning my mental stability, and using antagonistic remarks against me. I keep saying this because it shows that you cannot have a NPOV, especially in a section like this. Furthermore, the fact that I tried to help your argument by editing the wording in the section (against my own opinions) just solidifies my beliefs that much more. I also want to point this out to all other users who may want to state their opinion on this issue of Dion's "octaves." Again, the issue at hand, here is not whether the sources stating "five octaves" are reliable. That's been settled time and time again, and is exemplified by the disclaimer right under it. The issue, here is whether other sources that state something other than "five octaves" need to be included. I have already stated my opinion (that it is not warranted and is not necessary). Specfically, using questionable self published sources are not reliable in the eyes of WP. Anyone can have a book published. Also, the sources must be in proportion to each other, which is another issue that I have. There are other grievances that I have (and have listed above), but those constitute the two main ones. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)