Jump to content

Talk:Cher

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


Excessive detail

[edit]

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

Thank you for raising your concerns here. I believe reaching a consensus is preferable to placing tags unilaterally, as per WP:BECONCISE, which advises against dismissive behavior and recommends discussing changes politely on talk pages. Additionally, WP:TAGBOMBING states that tagging articles requires sufficient reasoning on the talk page, which only occurred after repeated requests via edit summaries.
Addressing your points:
  • 1) According to WP:SIZERULE, articles exceeding 15,000 characters "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", while those between 9,000 and 15,000 "probably should be". Currently, the article stands at 14,938 characters, falling in the latter category. Considering Cher's multi-decade career spanning music, film and television, along with her overall achievements and other topics of public interest, a comprehensive article is both expected and justified. WP:SIZERULE acknowledges that some topics warrant added length, and WP:HASTE reinforces the need for breadth in complex subjects. Moreover, WP:TERSE cautions that conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information. Thus, this article is not "well in excess" of size recommendations.
  • 2) Your trimming efforts are appreciated and often improve the article. However, some removed content provides context essential to understanding Cher's career. For instance, the anecdote about girls dyeing their hair black in 1965 underscores the cultural impact of her looks during a time when blonde stars dominated. Omitting such details risks reducing the biography to a dry list of facts, stripping it of its depth.
  • 3) The fan-made AI video and Cher's criticism involve opposing views. Per WP:VOICE, disputes should be described without bias, presenting all perspectives accurately. Including the Fan Club's response ensures neutrality, aligning with WP:5P2, which calls for balanced representation of multiple viewpoints.
  • 4) Pink's inspiration from Cher is not a random mention but a tangible example, within the "Films, videos and stage" subsection, of Cher's impact as a live performer—so significant that it helped redefine the career and public image of an already established artist. This brief example provides depth in a way that a generalized statement, like "Cher inspired other artists", cannot.
As mentioned earlier, your trimming efforts are appreciated, as they are improving the article's quality and readability. However, some removals risk losing the depth and context essential for a comprehensive biography of Cher. I would again kindly ask that future concerns or suggestions be brought to the talk page first, so we can collaboratively reach a consensus before adding tags to the article. This ensures a more constructive and respectful editing process. Thank you. Cherfc (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for presenting your reasoning here. I believe reaching a consensus is preferable to removing tags or restoring disputed content unilaterally. Addressing your points:
1) Per WP:CANYOUREADTHIS, articles longer than 10k words (and this one is well over that) are more difficult to read, and readability is key. The reader would be better served by an article that does a better job at presenting a concise summary of the sources and avoids unnecessary digressions.
2) This article is not anywhere near being a dry list of facts. In fact the opposite is true: the article disproportionately overuses quotes. In the specific instance you mention, Cher's style and appearance is already well described, making it sufficient to note emulation.
3) Given that the topic of this article is Cher rather than the fan club or the event described, the expanded description gives this exchange disproportionate emphasis. In fact, at this point discussing this event at all presents a NOTNEWS problem, as there's no evidence of enduring significance to Cher as a subject.
4) The influence of Cher within the narrative of another artist's career definitely merits discussion in that artist's article. But here, extracted from that context the example absolutely comes across as being a random mention.
This article should not be an in-depth presentation of every detail about the subject, but a summary - see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. While I appreciate you may not share that perspective, asking for consensus before adding tags isn't a constructive approach - instead we should work towards addressing the issues raised by the tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the size of this article? Does this tool say 14,268 characters or 14,268 words? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2024 Cher was the castaway on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs.[1] Perhaps there are other shows in which she has discussed individual pieces of music that have been personally significant across her life, but none seem to be mentioned in the article so far. She also discusses her childhood and significant events in her career. The link might be particularly useful for users who are visually impaired. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC) p.s. she announced that her next album would "probably be her last".[reply]

References

  1. ^ "BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Cher, singer and actor". BBC. Retrieved 16 December 2024.

Why does it claim her mom has Cherokee ancestors?

[edit]

This was admitted as a lie for marketing purposes long ago

https://dnaconsultants.com/cher-the-half-breed/

https://www.cherfanclub.com/post/half-breed-cher-and-the-problem-of-cultural-appropriation 72.181.161.33 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was also wondering about that. But then, you know, the first four letters of Cherokee are Cher, so hey, you never know, do you.... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Connie Berman (2001) says on page 17 of her book that Cher's mother "is part Cherokee Indian". But that was published 24 years ago? Not sure there would have been any DNA testing to back that claim up. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the argument that supports it's continued inclusion runs along the lines of: "a published book biography is a more reliable source than a commercial DNA company or a fanclub post". Neither of the sources above deny the claims made by Georgia Holt ("an occasional model and bit-part actress who claimed Irish, English, German and Cherokee ancestry"), or provide any scientific refutation. I guess the place to challenge these claims would be at the Holt article. The controversial aspect here is that Cher in some way artistically "cashed in" on being a "half-breed" outsider, for some of her song personas, by using her mother's supposed heritage. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes it clear that "Half-Breed" was not written by Cher, nor did she record it to purposely cash in on her supposed Cherokee heritage:
  • Cher#1971–1974: Television stardom and first musical comeback: That year [1973], lyricist Mary Dean brought Garrett "Half-Breed", a song about the daughter of a Cherokee mother and a white father, that she had written especially for Cher. Although Garrett did not have Cher as a client at the time, he was convinced that "it's a smash for Cher and for nobody else", so he held the song for months until he got Cher back. "Half-Breed" was featured on the album of the same name and became Cher's third US number-one single. Both the album and the single were certified gold by the RIAA.
  • Cher#2023–present: Christmas, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction and memoirs: To celebrate 60 years in music, Cher released the greatest hits album Forever (2024), available as a 21-track standard edition and a 40-track digital edition, Forever Fan, featuring Sonny & Cher songs and lesser-known tracks curated by Cher. Rolling Stone noted the absence of "Half-Breed", her third Billboard Hot 100 number-one, linking it to a trend of artists reevaluating their catalogs in light of changing cultural sensitivities.
I don't see the controversy. Cherfc (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not controversy. But "a song about the daughter of a Cherokee mother and a white father, that she had written especially for Cher", sounds to me a bit like commercialising her heritage. Sensible to ditch that song 60 years later. There seems to have a bit of controversy about her wearing Indian headdress on stage? I still think that "actress of Irish, English, German and Cherokee ancestry" is a bit misleading. The only evidence we seem to have of this supposed Cherokee heritage is Holt's own unsupported claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the lyricist intended to reference Cher when writing that song, but Cher was not involved in its creation. In fact, she wouldn't even know the song existed until her record label managed to replace Sonny Bono as her producer and bring Garrett back. While the song does, in some ways, commercialize her heritage, the article explains how it came to be. Therefore, there's no basis to suggest Cher herself had this intention. Perhaps this point would be relevant in an article about Mary Dean, if one existed?
Regarding the controversy over her wearing an Indian headdress on stage, this only became an issue in the late 2010s. When someone raised the topic on Twitter, Cher promptly retired both the song and the costume from her subsequent concerts. If the controversy had occurred at the time of the song's release and significantly impacted her career, it would merit a mention. However, a minor Twitter debate over a 50-year-old song and video—one that fizzled out as Cher no longer performs the song—seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't warrant inclusion in the article. The Rolling Stone quote about Cher excluding the song from her latest compilation seems to hint at, in my interpretation, the broader cultural shifts often referred to as "cancel culture". This sufficiently addresses the "controversy" without requiring further elaboration (see WP:UNDUE).
As for the ancestry claim, we would need reputable sources to change it. Unfortunately, none of the websites you've referenced meet that standard. Cherfc (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article explains the circumstances of the song very well. I'm suggesting that Cher wholeheartedly agreed to use the song, knowing it's significance in relation to her own supposed heritage. We can't just blame Mary Dean, nor just Cher, nor just Garret. It was a joint enterprise to produce a massive hit, and it worked. Regarding the headdress controversy, a later controversy is still a controversy. And these can stem from very meagre beginnings, like Twitter posts. But as far as I can see, this all stemmed originally from the song. Yes, controversies can just fizzle out. Regarding the two websites offered by the IP editor, I quite agree they are not comparable with a published book. But the description here seems to be presenting Holt's claim of Cherokee heritage as established fact (unlike the Irish, English and German parts?) when it certainly isn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assign blame or speculate, as this would fall under WP:NOR. As editors, our role is to rely on verifiable, reliable sources rather than personal opinions. Regarding the source for her mother's ancestry, it seems there is some confusion. The current source is this 1993 article from People magazine. If anyone can provide a more reliable source that contradicts this claim, the Cherokee statement will be promptly removed. Until then, it remains as is. Cherfc (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This piece from the March 17, 1972 issue of Life magazine describes Cher as a "part-Cherokee girl". The song "Half-Breed" was released on July 23, 1973, more than a year after the article was published. The claim that "Cher pretends to be Cherokee" appears to have originated from a blog post by Mental Floss published in 2008, which boldly states, without any cited sources, the following:
Prior to 1973, Cher's biography always listed her father (John Sarkisian) as being of Armenian heritage, while her mother, Georgia Holt, was of Irish and German extraction. But when Cher's single "Half Breed" started climbing the Billboard charts (it would eventually hit number one), suddenly she remembered that she was 1/16th Cherokee on her mother's side."
It is important to note that Mental Floss is not considered a reliable source, particularly when compared to an authoritative publication like Life magazine. Given the timeline and the lack of credible sourcing in the Mental Floss post, I believe this matter is adequately addressed. This should clarify the issue moving forward. Cherfc (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have used the word "blame", which seems to have set you off on another mini-rant. All I meant was that the production of that hit record wasn't just down to the songwriter. Is this "confusion" you mention about the factuality of Holt's claim or about how this claim is referenced in this article? I'm surprised that page 17 of Connie Berman's 2001 book is not used. But you also mention the 1971 Life article, which is named as a reference in the text. So there are currently those two sources - People magazine and Life magazine? Should more weight not be given to the Life article, as that was the first public statement on the subject? Perhaps that source was re-used by People magazine and then later again by Berman? Or does Berman say her material is based on her personal interviews with Cher? Given the delays in getting the "Half Breed" song released, I'm not sure why it matters that it was released "more than a year after the article was published." But of course, that's just my opinion, not something that can necessarily be proven as true. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this issue has been sufficiently addressed in this discussion, and we are now delving into unnecessary theorizing. While such speculation can be engaging, it is ultimately irrelevant to Wikipedia's purpose. That said, let me clarify my point: between March 1972 and July 1973, Cher released two studio albums, Foxy Lady and Bittersweet White Light. During this period, as noted in the article, her demanding schedule required her to record entire albums in just a few days while simultaneously touring and filming The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour.
The origin story of "Half-Breed" further confirms that the song was written by Mary Dean in 1973. This timeline makes it highly unlikely that Cher was involved with the song as early as March 1972, much less fabricating a backstory about Cherokee heritage to promote a song that wouldn’t even be released until after two additional albums. This timeline alone should suffice to refute any claims suggesting Cher invented her heritage solely to market the song. However, all of this theorizing—on both sides—remains irrelevant to Wikipedia.
Regarding the sourcing confusion, while Connie Berman's book mentions that Georgia Holt has part-Cherokee ancestry, this statement has been obviously disputed over the years, thus requiring a stronger, more reliable source. A People magazine article featuring an interview with Cher herself is clearly more authoritative than a third-party biography. Additionally, I recently added the 1972 Life magazine source after conducting a quick search for printed materials containing the terms “Cher” and “Cherokee” predating 1973. This was to verify my suspicion that the Mental Floss narrative—suggesting Cher fabricated her heritage to market the song—was inaccurate, which the evidence appears to support. Furthermore, I have just found another reliable, pre-1973 source that corroborates Cher's heritage—this one is from (gasp!) 1969.
Ultimately, I don't see any issue with including more than one reputable source to support a statement that has often been disputed. Do you? I hope this explanation provides the necessary clarity and resolves any remaining concerns. Cherfc (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a detailed reply for an issue that has already been "sufficiently addressed in this discussion"! But I appreciate the efforts to clarify. And thank you for clarifying the recording chronology. I'd certainly never claim that "Cher invented her heritage solely to market the song". I'm just saying her mother's heritage claims fitted in rather nicely with the song's general theme and that this wasn't just some strange coincidence. Thanks for clarifying about the sources. Yes, I have no problem with having more sources for contentious subjects. Sorry that latest one doesn't seem to work for me (in the UK). I'd be intrigued to see what it says; so feel free to copy the material here, if you feel inclined and it's not too long. If you were going to use it as another source, you might want to check on its availability outside US and/or add a quote? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't addressing your comments specifically, but the 2008 Mental Floss post that, I believe, originated the recurring online drama about Cher's Cherokee heritage. As for incorporating the source, I don't think it is necessary really, but I will leave you with a quote from the material:
"Armenian, French, and Cherokee." said Cher (of Sonny and Cher) in answer to a query about her ancestry during a recent "questions from the audience" sequence on Joey Bishop's TV show, Being part Cherokee, Cher is certainly more "American" than most of us, but hers was nonetheless a very American reply.
Thanks for the chatter. Cherfc (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actual name and birthday

[edit]

Cher does not show up in the ca birth index as she says with the birthday she uses. Could someone please research this further. The only Cheryl was born in the 50’s. Something is not adding up. 2601:204:200:4F30:2C57:8DBC:E419:49BE (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She appears with her adopted name, "Cheryl LaPiere", which she took following her mother's marriage to Gilbert LaPiere in 1961. Her birth name is Cheryl Sarkisian, derived from her biological father, John Sarkisian. Cherfc (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]