Talk:LeAnn Rimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quantification of terms

one of the most successful songs in American music history - How is this quantified? -- Zoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 May 2003 (UTC)

By sales of the single. See List_of_best-selling_singles_(USA), as well as riaa.com to verify the actual numbers.--patton1138 23:47, 27 February 2005 (UTC)

Removed links

removed links to song titles because I doubt if they would ever justify articles.Tiles 06:37 17 May 2003 (UTC)

This profile on LeAnn is all wrong

Who wrote this? LeAnn didn't write "Probably Wouldn't Be This Way" and "This Woman" was received very well by critics. This profile on LeAnn is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeiLongEX (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

edit: I fixed the errors and included the songs that LeAnn DID write off "This Woman" — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeiLongEX (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the personal details e.g her marriage etc?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.51.89 (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a better picture of her to put up on her profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickhenry (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to Albums

Hi, I was just wondering, why are there no links to any of LeAnn's albums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.57.166 (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it! Camcallister 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New CD

Is that new CD of hers "Whenever We Wanna" only being released in the UK? If so, why? Just wondering because I haven't heard anything about it except on here.

--Faris b 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography

This needs to be completely transformed it is an absolute mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0555 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... I've tried to semi-completely transform it. I think all the peacock words are gone, and to be honest, getting married "at the tender age of 19" isn't all that tender... I'd love to get rid of the Greatest Hits paragraph, since an album like that isn't a landmark in anyone's career, but there's that photo... Rahga 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to make an apology for experimenting with the article and saving it,. --0555 16:46, 25, September 2006 (UTC)

New album?

She's releasing a new album in 2007 called Family? Where is the source of that statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.195.53 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammy nomination

She was nominated for a Grammy for "Somethings Gotta Give." Why that not be in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.246.37 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, look for it at the bottom of the biography... Rahga 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bio needs help

Oh this bio needs help. I know so much about LeAnn and know some sources, but I just don't know how to edit Wikipedia articles. If there's anyone who has the time and energy, please do an overhaul of LeAnn's page for her sake! I know it sounds daunting, but if anyone can do anything, it would be great. I am willing to help as much as possible with sources and information. Re-post here if you want to chat about this...

I am slowly learning how to update on Wikipedia and doing some minor changes and updating some links, but this Biography Project is still very large. Any help would be appreciated!

Free_Mind301 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Strong"

LeAnn released "Strong" as a single (that's why there's a video) in Germany if anyone knows how it did on their charts...

Free_Mind301 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Santelli reason?

Is there a reason the name "Tommy Santelli" is next to the album I Need You for the single "Written In The Stars?"

Free_Mind301 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

US Country

Could we add a column under albums for the US Country Album charts? I'm just wondering if this is accpetable...thanks! Free_Mind301 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

We've had some vandalism, everyone please keep your eye open for it! Thanks! Free_Mind301 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Organizing Biography

Somehow we need to get LeAnn's biography organized and with sources. Anyone have any ideas on how to split up the bio? Free_Mind301 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I completley agree with the above user. This article is absouloutley terrible. The article doesn't talk about the story behind "Blue", and how it was originally supposed to be for Patsy Cline. Well, I have added that new category. I have split up the article by adding "The Success of the Blue Album" category. I'll find other ways to split up the article. Don't worry, I'll work on it! As for references I'm trying to add the most I can, so can you guys, get involved! Dottiewest1fan 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RIAA & Blue

RIAA's searchable database shows Blue only received an award of 4x Platinum. We need to either fix this in the article and the article Blue (LeAnn Rimes album), or find if the source (RIAA) is incorrect. Free_Mind301 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sadly it was me who put 6x platinum, on the Blue (LeAnn Rimes album) article because that is what the LeAnn Rimes article stated. My opinion is that we sould go by the RIAA's information because it is official, and the people who say it is 6x platinum should add a source that is reliable. Lillygirl 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1982 birth date

I'm not a big fan, but I thought she was a bit older..? 66.116.4.140 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit?!?

What was the Roger Rabbit category doing on the article? By the time she got started IIRC, Roger had all but been phased out by Disney. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Too US-centric

This article has obviously been written by people who are USA based, because very little is documented of her success and releases in Europe, particularly the UK. Also I detect somewhat of a country-music BIAS. The sections on her pop career and remixes seem somewhat scant/dismissive in comparison.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distant Cousin (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

US-centric

I'm from the U.S. and I don't know a whole lot about her European success. I do know about the Whatever We Wanna and I purchased it from iTunes, only to have it revoked (kind of)... but that's another story.

Her pop/rock success isn't that great though. Twisted Angel and Whatever We Wanna aren't notable at all because they each had a grand total of one good single. I liked the albums, personally, but I could see why it's dismissed in the article.

Having said that, this article needs to be locked. The grammar is atrocious, the organization is always changing and messed up, and the content is never completely correct. I'd fix it, but I don't want to put my time and effort into it only to find it cockamamy again.

PWNificated. (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No notation on "I Need You?"

You editors do not know Rimes if you do not appreciate that particular tune! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.14.192 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumors on alleged affair

Before ANYONE decides to add this info in the article, I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, which is why I have removed any mention of this "affair". Furthermore, these are unverified rumors propagated only by tabloids, which are not reliable sources. So please, do not put it back in the article. Thank you. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So the security video showing Rimes kissing what's-his-face multiple times, holding his hand throughout the entire tape, and licking his fingers isn't a good enough source that she's carrying on with another man? Because I think that would be proof enough for my husband that I was having an affair. 72.90.49.34 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For her husband, perhaps. But not us. (There is, for one, no indication that Us has attempted to verify that those people are them on the tape. Yes, they say they have the credit card receipt, but that would only prove that they ate there, not that it's them on the tape). Daniel Case (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How are you supposed to verify it? US, in fact, obtained the video tape from a security guard who verified, by his eye-witness account, that it was Rimes and Cibrian. 2 servers at the restauarant also gave their personal accounts, and confirmed it was Rimes and Cibrian. The receipt just serves as another verification that not only were they at that restaurant eating, but that the servers who handled the couple can put the receipt and the credit card to them as a couple.. so wouldn't that verify it's them? If they never admit it, does that mean Wikipedia can never discuss the video or that it's them?

I understand Wiki isn't about reporting celebrity news and gossip, and it tries to maintain neutrality by using definitive sources.. but it's a video tape where it's clear it's Rimes and Cibrian snogging and licking each other's fingers to anyone who views it and knows what they look like. I'm not saying cite US as a source, I'm saying the video independently should serve as a source that it's them in the video and what they were doing.

Sometimes, I feel like the the court system is more lenient about sources and proof than Wikipedia o_0 72.90.49.34 (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the videotape itself cannot serve as a reliable source, because the outlet that is citing it should be a trusted and believable source, which it is not. Second, the tape doesn't show their faces that clearly to prove it really is them and third, it is not the scene of a crime (which makes me wonder why they would publicly release a security tape to prove something that is nobody's business) so the waiters aren't required to give an accurate account of what really happened. They can exaggerate what they feel like. Question of proof aside, Wikipedia is not about reporting salacious details of people's personal lives. Unless this results in a messy divorce for either party and reliable sources cover it, or they address this issue publicly, we shouldn't be adding such irrelevant details. Even if it becomes appropriate to add it in the article, care must be taken so that it not slanted towards a certain point of view. And for the record, I'm not interested in making LeAnn and Eddie look good or bad, I'm only interested in making sure this encyclopedia doesn't resemble an entertainment blog. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you sure don't sound like you're interested in making LeAnn look good. I agree with you generally about it not becoming a tabloid, but let's not get too excessive in our claims of neutrality. I think it's pretty clear that you have an agenda to keep this clearly-eloping woman in as good a light as possible. I concur with your general assessment though. By the way, just for your own knowledge (but maybe you already know) - she has been asked about it and has steadfastly refused to deny it. No one - not even her - has denied it. But yes, not Wikipedia material - at least not yet.Jm131284 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your accusations of me having an "agenda" are very wrong. I have made every logical explanation as to why this rumor doesn't belong in the article, in what circumstances would it be appropriate to add it in the article and how it must be written should it be encyclopedic enough, so your statement that we shouldn't "get too excessive in our claims of neutrality" is also quite wrong. There's a fine line between including important facts that are verified by reliable sources and including rumors that are on the front page of gossip rags. Second, I do know that LeAnn neither confirmed nor denied the rumors; in other words, she refused to talk about the matter altogether. Refusal to address a certain subject publicly is not an automatic admission of guilt, and to treat it as such is original research. Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I should tell you that accusing someone of having bad intentions simply because you do not agree with their viewpoints is not an acceptable way of making an argument. Please try to assume good faith from others, even if you personally think otherwise. Failure to do so will only cause you to have friction with other editors. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that she has “refused to talk about the matter all together” is patently false. In response to a T.V. show host’s question “How are you responding to the rumors about you and Eddie Cibrian,” Leann replied “You know what, everything is so not black and white.” And on another show (Regis and Kelly), the same response: “Everything people read is not… it’s not as easy as black and white.” Also noteworthy is her statement on her blog that “This is a difficult time for me and my loved ones” –again with a complete absence of any denial of the affair. No one has seriously argued that it was not her or Eddie in the video, and I submit that any attempt to do so would simply call into question either the arguer’s intelligence (cf. Moon landing hoax), or else his or her neutrality. But really none of this matters, because – as I said – I completely agree with you that this is currently not Wikipedia material. This is not to say, of course, that it won’t become Wikipedia material. I’m not going to lecture you on what might cause this to become Wikipedia material, because – assuming that you’re as experienced an editor as you say you are – you will already know. Suffice it to say, however, that there are myriad entries of affairs on Wikipedia profiles, and even a cursory look at any of them sheds light on some common features of all. I am sorry if I offended you by calling into question your neutrality. As Wikipedians, we should all strive toward verifiability and away from bias. In keeping with these tenants, I can guarantee you that if this affair rises to the level of verifiability and importance, both in terms of mainstream media attention and cultural impact, that warrants inclusion, I will not be alone in fulfilling my duty as a responsible Wikipedian to support inclusion of said affair. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I almost forgot. A few comments on your remarks about the video evidence are in line. First, your statement that the waiters’ accounts cannot be used to support what is independently evident on the video merely because “it was not the scene of a crime” have absolutely no basis in either logic or Wikipedia guidelines. To conclude that a person’s statements must have been made under oath before they can be used to corroborate anything – let alone an event that is independently captured on film (and which lends credibility to the waiters’ accounts itself) – is nothing short of a fiction. I strongly recommend that you re-read WP:CITE and WP:RS. I haven’t dug around for mainstream media outlets reporting the news or the video and its authenticity for that matter (primarily because I just don’t care enough at the moment), but rest assured that if they have or do, I will recognize – compliant with Wikipedia guidelines – any Wikipedian’s citation of it. In fact, I’m likely to support its authenticity on its own accord, though I’m still debating the matter. Best, J.M. Jm131284 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I did say that the only way this could be considered for inclusion is if this results in a divorce for either party and the parties involved in the matter address the issue specifically, and reliable sources cover it, which is why LeAnn's comments cannot be considered as a confession to the affair, because she does explicitly confirm or deny anything. See Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". To conclude that because LeAnn does not deny the rumor outright that it must mean she is guilty falls under that criteria. And as for the video, the faces of LeAnn and Eddie are never clearly shown, and relying on so-called witnesses to confirm it is them when they have no legal obligation to do so is also unreliable, so there is nothing fictional about what I said. I am very well-read of the policies on reliable sources and what is considered such, and so far the only sources that are covering it do not fall under that category of reliable. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LeAnn Rimes didn't release any CDs in 1991 and 1992

LeAnn Rimes didn't release any CDs in 1991 and 1992. I check Amazon.com and eBay. However, she does have a rare 2003 CD Single on eBay called "We Can". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Rimes did release albums in 1991, 1992 and 1994 and all have been sourced on the discography page. Swifty*^talk 00:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not for Cline

I have removed the claim from the lead that Bill Mack wrote Blue for Patsy Cline. As the Blue article states, Mack denied that she was the inspiration for the song and here's what Mack said. User talk:Moriori (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent unsourced editing

Recently, an anonymous user using several related IPv6 addresses has been repeatedly adding a claim which is unsourced, giving edit summaries saying "he source is wrong then." We have many people coming to Wikipedia and claiming to know things, saying in effect that we can take their word for it. Some of these people are right, but a good many of them are wrong. We have no magic way of knowing who is right, so we accept information only if it is supported by reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source that supports the change you have been making, then that will be fine, but otherwise you must not keep on doing it, even if you are convinced that you are right. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)