Talk:Luis Miguel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

        • Mr Luis Miguel denies were he was born.... Puerto Rico !

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.


Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri → Luis Miguel (singer) — Luis Miguel the singer may qualify the primary usage of Luis Miguel page, but i think Luis Miguel should just like to disambiguation page Matthew_hk tc 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
  • Oppose — No other notable person goes by "Luis Miguel" other than the singer, therefore he should have the Luis Miguel article.
    • The singer is a Grammy Award winner and Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree
    • Even if the singer was not notable for his profession, he is because of his romances with very public figures such as Mariah Carey and Daisy Fuentes.
    • A Luis Miguel disambiguation may be created as "trivia" for all those Luis Miguels included in the page now that do not even go by "Luis Miguel" themselves (Luismi, Miguel Monteiro, etc.). Since they do not go by Luis Miguel or Luis Miguel X, it is highly unlikely that someone would enter "Luis Miguel" just because that happens to be part of their birth name.
    • The disambiguation page should also include the handful of others that go by Luis Miguel X (Luis Miguel Sánchez Cerro, Luis Miguel Martín). None of which, again, goes by Luis Miguel but use their full name. --FateClub 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Luis Miguel" — This world-famous Latin singer, is simply known as "Luis Miguel". And there are no other significant "Luis Miguel's" out there.--Endroit 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Luis Miguel" I agree with FateClub and Endroit. Have a dablink to Luis Miguel (disambiguation). Joeldl 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move (back) to "Luis Miguel" (or to Luís Míguel, depending on which research supports; in either case, one of those two should be a Rdr to the other.) GTests (cited in detail below) show Web presence of the singer, under that name, about 200 times that under the full name "Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri". (While the Dab intimates that Miguel Monteiro is known as "Luis Miguel", his own bio article asserts that he goes by simply "Miguel", and none of the other blue-lk'd articles on the Dab page mention any use of a given name w/o surname in their lead 'graphs. The recent new title Luis Miguel (singer) could in theory be justified, but not simply by the possibility of someone else well known by that double given name. If such a figure emerges later, the titles can be rearranged, but until then, there is no justification for differing more than as to diacritical marks from "Luis Miguel".) Further supportive details in a following section.
    --Jerzy•t 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

A survey would be a wildly inappropriate obstacle to the speedy resolution of this matter, so i have suppressed the tag into text, and struck thru the infrastructure for the survey. See the following section Restoration of status quo. [pending as you read this]
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)"Pending..." notice struck thru, now that what i promised is done.--Jerzy•t 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ A helpful colleague has
  1. renamed "#Restoration of status quo" (i correct here my bad syntax from above) to "#Statement by Jerzy",
  2. implemented what i was in practice unequipped for, in terms of mastery of MediaWiki template and box markup: recasting the terms of this process from
    a strawman that no one favors into
    more open-ended consideration of the appropriate title, and
  3. argued forcefully and persuasively (below and on their talk pg) for my participation in this process.
_ _ I have already roughed out below much of my position, which under current conditions amounts to restoration of the status quo ante, namely Luis Miguel. When reasons, at least as cogent and relevant as User:FateClub's & mine, below, have been put forward by others, i will argue, more tersely & specifically, within this section.
--Jerzy•t 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jerzy[edit]

  1. The article Luis Miguel was created by an IP 3 years and 5 months ago (to the day!) with the content
    He is considered to be the best Latin singer of the world Also know as “El Sol De Mexico”.
    (I could be wrong, but it think the Spanish phrase means "The Sun of Mexico".) Within 24 hours, Viajero (talk · contribs) formatted it, including a standard lead sent that suggests the title was "Luis Miguel"; nothing in the history suggests a renaming until that by Matthew hk (talk · contribs) in the last 24 hours. It's not easy to trace old links to a page, but as an example, at the creation of Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album, when LM was 6 months old, it lk'd him as "Luis Miguel" without piping, and did so until 203.185.57.117 (talk · contribs) byp'd the new move-tool Rdr, 69 minutes after the move i cite below.
  2. At 15:32, M-hk renamed the article, and converted the resulting Rdr to a supposed {{hndis}} Dab page. (He seems to have followed up with prompt Dab-bypasses of about 10% of the references to LM, and perhaps most of the rest later.)
  3. At 20:39, i objected as follows:
    == The singer Luis Miguel ==
    Just two Google tests,
    356 for "Luis Miguel Gallego " OR "Luis Miguel Gallegos "
    and
    773 of about 106,000 for "Luis Miguel " singer OR musican
    suffice to convince me that your move of Luis Miguel to Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri utterly ignored WP:COMMONNAME. I have not yet researched whether the correct title is
    but if you don't fix it quickly, i will do so without further communicating with you.
    --Jerzy•t 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At 23:35, a user objected, AFAIK independently of my note, saying
    == Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri ==
    I would consider your move from Luis Miguel to Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri as a highly controversial renaming of an article. Please do not take offense, but I am positive that you are not familiar with this topic, or Spanish culture in general. Here are my thoughts on this:
    • Luis Miguel is a singer of worldwide fame and much more notable than the other four Luis Miguels that you included in that disambiguation list.
    • Luis Miguel is much more of a public figure than any other Luis Miguel, since he is a Grammy winner and is often romantically associated with big stars, such as Mariah Carey, Daisy Fuentes, etc.
    • Please also note that "Luis Miguel" is his professional name, and that is why he is notable, he is not a scientist or politician or any other profession where a full name is used.
    • Also only one of the other Luis Miguels has an article, therefore people looking for "Luis Miguel" will be taken to that disambig page while almost all of them will be looking for the singer and not anybody else.
    • In addition, none of the other Luis Miguels go by "Luis Miguel" only the singer.
    I will strongly suggest you moved the page back to Luis Miguel and create another Luis Miguel (disambiguation) page.
    Respectully, --FateClub 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As to response to those,
    _ M-hk has made no response on his or my talk page or via EMail.
    _ AGF requires me to say that M-hk has made no response here that refers to my msg: my treating the {{move|Luis Miguel}} tag on this page as referring to my msg would be accusing him of a self-serving lie about either his competence in English, or about what i said.
    _ M-hk has made no response on FC's talk page.
  6. On this page, M-hk took a position on a move no one (else?) has argued for, tho i'm not sure what position that is. He had included (what i presume to be) boiler plate that
this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight
but neither endorsed nor countered the reasons FC and i offered against his original approach, and offered for his own new or old one this reason:
i think Luis Miguel should ...
That unexplained personal preference is a reason, but it's a bad reason, no matter what (concerning WP) it's his reason for.
--Jerzy•t 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why i'm restoring the status quo[edit]

_ _ If the idea M-hk had is a good one, it will be a good idea next week or next month when there's been a chance to given it thorough consideration, but putting it off that long offers no significant harm, compared to the years that WP has limped along with Luis Miguel being an article on the singer. On the other hand, it will be surprising if we've run with a bad idea for three and a half years without anyone else suggesting that. And two people quickly came up with different reasons (or different versions of similar reasons) why the old way was a good one, once the new one surfaced. The burden of proof lies with M-hk, and his suggestion of in effect waiting around while he solicits someone else to defend it for him is offensive.
_ _ In fact, i'm confident that his idea is a bad one. There is not even a consensus, i think, that pages concerned with people who share given names are encyclopedic. IMO they have been tolerated for two reasons:

  1. PAPER, and
  2. their advocates have generally been satisfied to have such pages' visibility subordinated to that of more widely endorsed pages, via dab'g suffixes on their titles.

I've already cited COMMONNAME, and i remain open to someone giving evidence that there is another Luis Miguel who can muster more than 100K G-Hits, or something close with more than 77% uniqueness (in the first 1K). In the meantime, we are going back to having an article with his common name. I will add a ToP Dab to the low relevance page that M-hk has created, bcz it's hard to show how close to worthless it is, and i've got more important work to do than to try to show it.
--Jerzy•t 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you have voiced an opinion. However, I must stress that it is not your place to withdraw another user's move request. By all means state the reasons why such a request may be flawed, but you should under no circumstances remove the request. If your arguments are strong, then the page will not be moved, but we must allow the discussion to take place, without involved parties deciding whether or not the discussion should take place. You may suggest in the move discussion that the article be moved to Luis Miguel, for the reasons you stated above, and if a consensus forms that that is the best solution, then it will be done. Being open and transparent and involving many editors lends more weight to a decision than the opinion of a single editor. Please do not strike the move out again; contact me if you have any further comments about this. I have changed the boilerplate to allow a wider choice of names to be considered; I hope the original proponent will not be too put out by this. --Stemonitis 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

magiciandude's statement[edit]

We COULD just put on the Luis Miguel article (This article is about the Mexican singer, for other uses, see Luis Miguel (disamgution [not sure how it's spelt]). I'm pretty sure when someone types Luis Miguel, they are more than likely looking for the Mexican singer, not the others. magiciandude 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This article has been renamed from Luis Miguel (singer) to Luis Miguel as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel is Mexican?, Puerto Rican? ......American?[edit]

Luis Miguel was born in Puerto Rico and therefore he is Puerto Rican, simple as that! He was, however raised and educated in Mexico and considers himself Mexican, I'm O.K. with that. Luis Miguel enters the United States and Puerto Rico without a passport because he never renounced his U.S citizenship even though he considers himself Mexican. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that requires verifiable sources, I have the following good-faith questions with the intention of correctly informing myself and others.

1. When did Luis Miguel apply for Mexican citizenship as required by all those who are forgien born? Is there proof that he indeed is a Mexican citizen? Is there a reliable source which can show us proof of his Mexican citizenship?

2. If, let's say, George W. Bush and his parents and family moved to Mexico and lived there for forty years and all of a sudden he declares himself Mexican, would he be Mexican? Wouldn't he have to apply for citizenship and renounce his American citizenship?

3. I believe that Luis Miguel did apply for Mexican citizenship, but since he never renounced his Puerto Rican nor his U.S. citizenship, wouldn't that make him a Puerto Rican-American-Mexican?

Remember, I don't care what Luis Miguel is or claims to be, what I care is for verifiable facts that can be posted in Wikipedia. Tony the Marine 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Essay might be useful to explain why he is Puerto Rican-Mexican instead of just Mexican, its basically a more detailed explanation of the situation because Luis Miguel in fact has three nationalities with his adoption of the Mexican nationality. -凶 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel is of Mexican descent. He was born in Puerto Rico because his parents were vacationing/living there for a little while; therefore, he is by no means of Puerto Rican descent just because he happened to be there when his mother gave birth. He is a Mexican that was born outside Mexico while parents of vacation, and thereafter, moved back and was raised in his native Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammorrossa (talk • contribs) 07:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative his desent is European, if you are born in Puerto Rico you are Puerto Rican regardless of ethnicity, he is Puerto Rican-Mexican because he adopted the Mexican nationality on his adulthood, if he had Mexican heritage it would have been automatically granted to him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really doesn't make sense. So if Bruce Lee's parents were vacationing in Puerto Rico and he was born there, he would European or Puerto Rican? The way many bios do this, is to say the person is a XZY-born ABCer based upon a bunch of factors. I still would like all the questions I asked above answered so we can get a handle on it. I seriously don't know enough about this guy but I am trying to treat the LEAD sentence in the most NPOV as possible. Cheers, --Tom 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I read your essay on being Puerto Rican and don't get it. Can you point to a RS for this. I think the jist of it is sort of like the US. You can be born here but can be of many other ethnicites? The lead sentence is about Nationality and not ethnicity, anyways, --Tom 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)pss Bottomline, what nationalities does this guy hold, and of what nationality was he when he did the bulk of his noteworthy work? Cheers --Tom 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, there is no such thing as Puerto Rican citizenship. Anyone born on the island of Puerto Rico is a natural-born US citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the mood to go into political debates, however there is a recognized Puerto Rican citizenship, the article is a neutral as possible under the current format lets leave it like that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Miguel is as Puerto Rican as I am from Botswana. Of course, I'm biased. Demf (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that you should just search yourself for this information youd like. All your going to get here is commentary and opinion. As far as I am concerned, Luis Miguel is in fact Mexican. Hes born from Mexican parents that happened to be in Puerto Rico when they gave birth. He considers himself Mexican because his roots and decent are from there. Its like foreign people that are born in a different country, they carry that pride of their country of origin always. I was born here in usa from Mexican parents. And well i consider myself Mexican-American because i was raised here but my descent is mexican and i love it. But luis miguel cant consider himself Puerto Rican - /mexican because he wasnt raised in Puerto Rico and his descent is not from that country.76.175.222.163 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

  Nope, sorry, he was not born of Mexican parents. His father was Spaniard and his mother Italian.
    : There are millions of Mexicans who have ancestry from other parts of the world so no YOU are wrong my friend, as Luis' parents are 
      Mexican Nationals and have Mexican citizenship. --74.100.106.119 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career section[edit]

Can we get some reliable sources for this material? The section has ZERO sources and appears beyond bloated with much commentary. Anyways, I will try to work on this over the next few days. If this person is as famous as the article current reads this really should not be hard. If material can added with sources that would be awesome. TIA --Tom 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles in English that mention the sources on this site (http://www.luismiguelsite.com/pubhtml/ingles/profengl.htm). Too bad that the original articles are probably already gone by now. Good luck hunting for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFaye (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bar brawl incident[edit]

A while back, Luis Miguel was involved in an incident in a bar in Colorado. This was covered in the press, and even the court dockets were available in the 'Net. I included it in the article because the context could provide some evidence to the fact that LM has a dual nationality, something that could put to rest some of the discussions above. Yet, it was yanked out soon after. The article right now reads more like a pop fan blog than a Wikipedia article... NPOV comes to mind. Demf (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal life" section[edit]

Why do you need this section if the most of the material comes from amarilistic media? Who informed you that Luis Miguel was engaged to Myrka Dellanos? La revista Fama? He himself did not mention the names of any of his novias in any of his interviews, neither they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFaye (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is missing information in this Section!! It is well known that Luis Miguel is married-with Aracely Arambula a mexican actress and have 2 children! He's as well the father of a 21 yr old girl.... MISSING INFO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natca (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico en la piel Tour[edit]

As far as I rememebr on Luis Miguel's official site the series of concerts from April 2007 - September 2007 was called simply Tour 2007. But who cares about it after all, call it whatever you want, it's your pet project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFaye (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free image in infobox[edit]

I think that the article needs a free image of him in the infobox, given that fair use images of living people can't be used in the infobox. David Pro (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures[edit]

To the anonymous user(s) who keep changing the sales figures from 50 to 90 million, please stop and discuss it. There is a source for the 50 million figure so don't just change it without providing a better one. If you continue, you can be blocked and the article can be protected. I don't think asking for some dialogue is unreasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is a big difference between 50mln and 52mln in this case, so the artists cite might be cited as well. And yes, I know that is not the best source, but as a secondary source I wouldn't raise a brow over it. The source stating 90mln might have been mistaken, but on the other hand I do not see how you can remove it. It is after all a source. Especially since the article specifies that it represents a different opinion.

And please don't scare editors, even anonymous, with blocking. You yourself are trespassing here when you remove sourced material. Consider Wikipedia:Newbie#Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, the one removing that sourced material was not you, that was User:Harout72. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sources must be third party reliable sources, having said that, official web sites cannot be used to support statements nor can they be used to support sales-figures as it's the case here. If you are really concerned about a removal of a sourced information and seeing it replaced by another, then you should familiarize yourself with these edits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Do you see anything wrong with that picture? If not, then I'll try and point it out to you. A reliable third party source (coming from Germany's Warner stating 50 million) was replaced by an official site of the artist. I believe, it's 88.22.234.97 who needs your lessons. Regards. --Harout72 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you that those edits were done not in accordance with Wikipedia rules. But yours was also. You removed sourced material from a "third party reliable source", namely the University of Texas at Austin. In stead, you should have tagged it as "dubious" at most. Or just left it in peace, since it was explicitely mentioned that it represents another opinion. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to discuss the use of Miguel's website as a source. Not because I agree with you, but because this is the proverbal thin ice. I would like to repeat that in my understanding of the relevant Wikipedia rules using it to support a third party reliable source, as in this case, would not have been problematic. But please, take this as my opinion and let's not discuss this here, because this is not my main point. The main point is that we editors should not remove sourced information (exept in specific cases).Debresser (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, by way of compromise with this anonymous user, you could say "about 50mln" and bring both refs? That might stop the issue without doing any great injustice to the truth. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem quite new to wikipedia, let me just put it this way, wikipedia is not a place to have dubious statements nor it is a place for opinions. This article published within University of Texas site presents an awfully inflated sales-figure of 90 million units for Luis Miguel which, in fact, what makes their reliability dubious, not to mention they are no experts in Music Industry. If you were really trying to prevent editors from replacing sourced materials (especially highly third party sources), you would have first tried and warned user 88.22.234.97 for replacing third party source (coming from Warner Music) with an official web site. I am quite convinced now that your motives are entirely different. Regards. --Harout72 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Harout. Frankly, I don't see why we should believe that the University of Texas press office would have a better idea of worldwide sales figures than Warner Music. If there is an unreliable source, there just isn't a need to use it, period. That's it. It doesn't seem necessary. If the anonymous users showed an interest in actual compromise and discussion, I would be more interested in continuing but I don't feel like playing games with people who don't want to have a discussion and just want to edit war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your opinion. But your opinion seems to be at odds with Wikipedia rules. We should be civil, and try to evoke discussion in order to reach consensus. Even with editors who violate rules we should assume good faith or ignorance. I rely on you that you know these rules as well as I do, but if you'd like me to, I could provide you with the links here.
I agree with you that the figure of 90mln mentioned by the Un. of Texas sound a little high, and I'd even agree that as a source it is less reliable than Warner Music on this subject and in this case. On the other hand, you will have to admit that it is a reliable source according to policy. As soon as an article includes a reliable source there are ways to question it (add other opinions next to it, add a {{dubious}} template), but you shouldn't just take and delete it. That was my point. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility requires discussion and compromise. Civility doesn't mean adjust and bend to every attempt to shoehorn arguments. Just because one person is absolutely determine to get what they want doesn't mean we work with them. If you are arguing for the other figure, say so. If you are just pointing out that someone else wants that figure, then let them argue for it. If they aren't willing to discuss things, then I'm sorry, their views aren't likely to stay. How do you propose to evoke discussion? We are on the talk page. The person warring to delete the Warner reference isn't here. If you want, mention the talk page to every IP address that gets reverted. If some of them look interested in compromise, I'm game. Otherwise, I think it's silly to compromise with someone who doesn't seem at all interested. Next, just because two sources meet the minimum standard of reliable doesn't mean we have to include them both. It's a question of weight. I have no issues with the page for other information but what exactly do you have in mind? Do you want "has sold between 50 and 90 million"? "between 50 and 52 million" is just plain odd? Do you want to remove it from the lede completely? I might agree with that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases claims over 60 million sold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a party in this discussion per se, I'm just having a look how the discussion is being handeled by the involved parties. Deleting it might be a nice way of resolving this problem. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal but criticizing the conduct of others and then claiming you have no actual opinion is not productive and just aggravating to deal with. If you have an opinion as to how you want the text, then offer something. Frankly, I'm just looking for more sources right now and may put something back when there's more settlement. I see 50, 60 and the 90 that's more questionable, but if you are not a party, Harout72 and I will just work something out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. But I do hope you mean Harout72 and I and that anonymous user. Do not repeat the mistake of Harout72 and avoid edit war or deleting sourced information. Present all the sources here, talk it over, try to involve perhaps some other editor whom you respect and who has not been involved in this article yet, and act upon consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you a bit Debresser, you hope that this matter gets resolved through you, I and the anonymous but yet you don't consider yourself an involved party? And what do you mean by I'm not a party in this discussion per se, I'm just having a look how the discussion is being handeled by the involved parties, this discussion has been going on for three days only because you think you have changes to offer. Also, why did we need to remove a highly reliable source supporting the total sales-figure? Debresser what makes you think there ever was a problem Deleting it might be a nice way of resolving this problem. Yes we had vandals hovering around this page changing sales figures back and forth; therefore, I requested a semi-protection for the page. One more thing, it's time for you to comprehend the fact that removing poorly sourced material cannot be tagged as a mistake; especially, when it was replaced by a more reliable source (and you admit to that above). I hate to repeat this for the tenth time but you might want to consider going after those who removed the original citation along with the original statement (which was the only reason why you received a bit harsh response from me), regardless of whether they are anonymous IPs. And lastly, please get used to seeing the use of the German language since it's the second most widely used language online. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Debresser, I meant you. Either you are an involved party or you are not. Don't be coming by making complaints and then ignoring the issue when people ask you to make an actual opinion. Was you discussion just "I don't like what Harout was doing" and not at all caring about the sales figures? I don't get it. Harout, I admit removing the sales figure is a cop-out but I wonder if instead there should just be a mention of his awards and emphasis on the phrase "Sun of Mexico" like I did. I think that seems a little more impressive than his total sales figures. Do you have an idea if he's ranked somewhere? Perhaps in the top twenty among Latin America sales or some methodology? Something more specific than "one of the most popular singers in Latin America"? I think that's a better achievement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that Miguel is considered the most popular Latin Artist since 1990, and Billboard mentions this about him in their site, the original work of which is done by All Music Guide, perhaps we could use that [6]. There should be more info available on him (since he's earned 304 platinums), maybe in Spanish though (I'll look around). He's had his first Grammy by age of 14, I think that's rather a great achievement we should mention [7]. It's just for some reason I am having a hard time locating a sales figure for him published by a prominent English language news service; however, I never thought the German language source should be discounted (which I am assuming is the main reason behind Debresser's presence here).--Harout72 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. When I said "But I do hope you mean Harout72 and I and that anonymous user." I was quoting you. You said "Harout72 and I". I did not mean myself. :) Debresser (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading and i found out that he sold around 100 million copies, maybe i'm wrong but there are a lor of articles that say so Xtinafanxz (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation[edit]

"Me Gustas Tal Como Eres" (You Like Me Just As You Are)

The English translation in parentheses is wrong. It should be "I like you just as you are" or "You are pleasing to me just the way you are." Something. Just not that. "You like me just as you are" both wouldn't make sense and would be "Te gusto tal como eres" instead. Unless, of course, the actual title includes the mistranslation, then we'd be on a whole different topic. --GMSuerte (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Walk of Fame[edit]

In 1996, Luis Miguel became the first Latin artist to receive a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.[2] -- this is incorrect & record-company hype. Several people preceded him:

Vikki Carr, 1981 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/vikki-carr

Desi Arnaz, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/desi-arnaz

Celia Cruz, 1987 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/celia-cruz

Xavier Cugat, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/xavier-cugat

Placido Domingo, 1995 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pl%C3%A1cido-domingo

Gloria Estefan, 1983 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/gloria-estefan

Julio Iglesias, 1985 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/julio-iglesias

Pedro Infante, 1993 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pedro-infante

Jose Iturbi, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/jose-iturbi

Perez Prado, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/p%C3%A9rez-prado

Tito Puente, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/tito-puente

Lalo Schifrin, 1988 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/lalo-schifrin

Ritchie Valens, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/ritchie-valens

Carmen Miranda, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/carmen-miranda Tclpups (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Luis Miguel is NOT a Mexican citizen, he is still a Spanish citizen[edit]

According to the CURP database, Luis Miguel still holds Spanish nationality and is not a Mexican citizen. The CURP is the national identification number for all Mexican citizens and legal residents of Mexico. After plugging in Luis Miguel's statistics, here is what his CURP info produces: http://consultas.curp.gob.mx/CurpSP/curp1.do?strPrimerApellido=GALLEGO&strSegundoAplido=BASTERI&strNombre=LUIS%20MIGUEL&strdia=19&strmes=04&stranio=1970&sSexoA=H&sEntidadA=NE&rdbBD=myoracle&strTipo=A&entfija=DF&depfija=04

As you can see, Luis Miguel is still a Spanish citizen due to being of a Spanish father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.52.166 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 28 October 2011[edit]


Primeriso1 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello I am writing to persuit you into adding another category. I am a new member and I cannot do it myself. The new category is "DUETS" in which list Luis Miguel and other singers singing an specific song. EXAMPLE: Luis Miguel & Lucho Gatica > NO me platiques mas LUis Miguel & Lola Beltran > Mexico Lindo y querido Luis Miguel & Yuri > YO te pido amor

please consider this new category , if you need help finding out all the duets, I can contribute you with the information.

Not done for now: I am a little confused as to what you are wanting me to add? I've looked at Category:Duets but this doesn't really fit into an article about a musician, and Category:Vocal duets covers the songs themselves. I even looked at a few articles of singers that have done a lot of duets, for example Barbra Streisand. Could you provide me an example article with the category you want to add? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

If his birth date is actually April 18 (though he celebrates his birthday as April 19) shouldn't his birth date be April 18, 1970 not April 19, 1970?? 67.9.143.66 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Luis Miguel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Luis Miguel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Luis Miguel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel[edit]

Luis Miguel has identified as Mexican his whole life. Losplateados (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah we don’t care. --217.149.173.248 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not Miguel[edit]

The singer's name is Luis Miguel Gallego. His given name is Luis Miguel. His family name is Gallego. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: MOS:SURNAME covers this if I recall it correctly. Although Luis Miguel is his name, he is technically using Miguel as the surname (i.e. Gaga, Lady; Dogg, Snopp, etc.). (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to what reliable source? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to our manual of style? Asking for an external source makes nonsense ans I would kindly ask you to not waste my time with such requests. If our manual of style is incorrect for your standards, then change the manual of style. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not wasting anyone's time. I'm simply requesting a source to confirm the claim that this singer uses, or has ever used, the name "Miguel". To be sure of my position, I checked his biography, which refers to him consistently as "Luis Miguel", and never as "Miguel".
  • I don't see a problem with the MOS. We just need to follow it. Why do you think the MOS might be in error?
Dondervogel 2 (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, as apparently you didn't understand the meaning of "he is technically using Miguel as the surname" and somehow you tranformed it into "Luis Miguel changed his name and now he uses Miguel as his surname", I leave you a link from 7 years ago. If you believe that this, and every related article, needs to be changed from "Miguel" to "Luis Miguel", as you did here. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression you are misinterpreting the MOS. His full name is Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri.
In Spanish-speaking cultures it is customary to use two family names, the paternal family name (in this case Gallego) and the maternal one (Basteri). It is also customary to drop the maternal family name, so that he could be referred to as Luis Miguel Gallego, or (dropping the first name) just Gallego. Correct alternatives, depending on circumstances, include Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri, Luis Miguel Gallego, Gallego (paternal family name), and Luis Miguel (given name). Miguel on its own is incorrect because his given name is Luis Miguel. What matters most of all is that he is known as a performer by his given name, Luis Miguel, so you need a good reason to depart from that. I don't see one here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Spanishplaining me my native language. Lovable. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notes requesting feedback at the Spain and Mexico project talk pages. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively second @Dondervogel 2:'s opening assessment and ensuing interpretations in this thread (I have always had the impression that this is a similar case to María José, Luis Enrique, Dulce María, Silvia Gabriela, Víctor Manuel, María Isabel, and so on..., that is: people known by a "mononym" that happens to be a compound given name). Is there sound evidence suggesting otherwise?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be taken to MOS:BIO as there has been discussions on this matter such as Juan Gabriel. Erick (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel's sales figures[edit]

@Josemi5000: Please stop changing the sales figures, 100 million is inflated and his certifications don't reflect it. Get consensus on this talk page instead of edit warring with other editors. Erick (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that Luis Miguel hasn't sold close to 100 million copies? The 60 million that you put are old data from more than 10 years, that is misinforming, lying to Wikipedia readers. Josemi5000 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Josemi5000: Please note you have reverted more than 4 users and this conduct could be considered disruptive. You have been already explained why the claim of 100 million is not accepted, regardless your opinion with Martin or Iglesias. If you want to prove it, consider focus find individual sales for his albums for individual markets. Erick or Franlm14 you guys may help open this to Administrator's noticeboard. I'm don't usually like to open up a bureaucratic procedure tbh. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel has sold around 100 million copies[edit]

Putting Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias with more sales than Luis Miguel is blatantly lying. Josemi5000 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel is the biggest seller of records in the Spanish language[edit]

Luis Miguel's albums have been released in America, Europe and Asia several times. For example, Romance from 1991 is the best-selling album in the history of the Spanish language with more than 12 million units. Your bolero albums have more than 45 million copies sold, almost half of all your physical and digital sales, greetings.. Josemi5000 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel has more than 100 million albums sold[edit]

I give these tests with the following sources

https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/03/18/estilo/1489802675_350607.html https://elcomercio.pe/saltar-intro/netflix/series/luis-miguel-la-serie-cual-fue-el-disco-mas-vendido-del-cantante-el-top-9-de-su-discografia-aries-nada-es-igual-mx-noticia/

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-39637174

https://www.lavoz.com.ar/vos/musica/warner-music-demanda-luis-miguel-por-36-millones-de-dolares/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2015/11/25/negocia-disquera-librarse-de-luis-miguel/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Miguel&oldid=1218811203"