# Talk:Hard Candy (Madonna album)

How neutral can you be when you are stating actual facts? I can see what the complaints might be, but those have to be from Madonna haters. It is perfectly acceptable to say that "'Hard Candy' debuted in a record-breaking 37 countries"...because it did. I suppose  you could say "'Hard Candy; debuted at #1 in 37 countries, a current world record." But either way it's going to make someone mad (i.e. some Mariah Carey fans for example). And no matter what, information like that should be mentioned...otherwise all the facts concerning the album or single aren't discussed in the article. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I love Mariah Carey...I just think Madonna's pages get a lot more critism. 
I guess my point is, if actual records are broken and verified, how neutral can you be when stating them? And for someone like Madonna or Mariah for example, they are at the point where they are going to be breaking a lot of records. - MFA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.39.118 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 

The source given (an MSN article) that is attributed to that claim does not actually say it was a record. It merely states Hard Candy went to no.1 in 37 countries - it does not say this was a world record. Unless a reliable and impartial source can be found to say that this was a world record, then it cannot be included in the article. 80.47.39.118 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard Candy has been certified Gold in the UK. This is confirmed by the British Phonographic Industry's website, and the BPI are the only source that can be used for UK certifications. There are various editors (and you know who you are) who are regularly changing this detail to "platinum" status without a valid source or reason other than they want to make it appear that the album has sold more than it actually did. This constitutes deliberate vandalism, and if anybody changes this certification again, they will be reported and the page will be blocked. 88.104.21.202 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I have a kitty. TbhotchTalk C. 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh you doo?? what kind? Can you let him play with mine? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The source given for this (UKchartsplus.co.uk) is not an official UK Charts Company website, despite the fact it incorporates similar logos. They are an independent website run by four music fans (or "chartwatchers" as they call themselves). Their "FAQ" section makes it clear that they are not affiliated with the Official UK Charts Company, as does the "Background" section (here: http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk/background.htm). The website was used as a source to claim that "Hard Candy" was the 36th best selling album in the UK in 2008. However, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - who are the offical music industry authority in the UK - compile their own year end charts, and "Hard Candy" is not even in the Top 40. Considering it only went "Gold" in the UK (100,000 copies) its not surprising that it didn't make the year-end Top 40. The BPI year-end charts (from 1999 onwards) are here: http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/Yearly%20best%20sellers%20-%20albums.pdf 88.104.21.251 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

UKchartsplus has been deemed to be unreliable and has now been added to the list of sites to avoid at WP:CHARTS. 88.104.21.185 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following text and reference:

Neil Tennant revealed they were contacted again the same week and were told that Warner had changed their mind. "We got told to forget it as they decided to shove her down the R&B route".
Bourgeois, David (2007-04-13). "Pet Shop Boys asked to write and produce Hard Candy". Spin. 25 (12). Spin Media LLC. ISSN 0886-3032.
David Bourgeois never wrote the cited piece in Spin. Instead, the quote comes from the madonnalicious fansite: http://madonnalicious.typepad.com/madonnalicious/2009/03/pet-shop-boys-asked-to-write-and-produce-hard-candy.html
The fansite is not sufficiently high quality to be used in regard to WP:BLP concerns. 
This problem is traced to Legolas2186 who added the text and cite. Other such problems are discussed at User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. If you find any more of these problems, take them to that workpage. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The British Phonographic Industry have had a system of automatic certifications in place for some time now. When an album reaches a certification threshold for silver, gold or platinum, it is automatically certified. If Hard Candy had sold over 300,000 copies in the UK, it would have been auto-certified as Platinum. An archive (Highbeam) that is not the original source of the claim (Music Week) does not meet the standards for inclusion as anybody could have written it. 88.104.27.160 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That is true that BPI has raised certifications automatically for sales, however, there are many albums which are not re-certified. The archive shows that it is from Music Week and you are not providing any proof that HighBeam Research is unreliable whereas Wikipedia highly approves it. This is your WP:OR I feel and unless you can actually prove that highbeam is unreliable. Please check WP:RS, archives of many sources are there and we use it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hard Candy (Madonna album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 09:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 17:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe some of this info can be used on either of those sections and maybe even in some HC related articles --Chrishm21 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is amazing, thanks for finding. —IB [ Poke ] 04:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome :D --Chrishm21 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The article states that Hard Candy "refers to the juxtaposition of toughness and sweetness". Has there been any reporting that the title refers to the pedophilic term that refers to hard core child abuse material? The term was well known at the time, even being used as the title for a 2005 film of the same name. There is no reference for the 'toughness and sweetness' explanation. 122.58.126.24 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:No original research. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times: CD cover comment


### Sales and chart performance
UK First-week: 94,655 copies
Canada First-week: 58,000 copies or 57,000 (including 25,000 in Quebec)
Denmark First-week: 11,000 copies
Denmark: four-consecutive weeks in the first spot
Czech Republic: Four-consecutive weeks in the first spot
Japan: Seems 300K ringtones sold from the album (but the reference is from Warner Music; July 2008)
France: some chart performance
Poland: Gold (less than two months)
Worlwide: 2 million copies in two months


### 10 years
Why 'Hard Candy' is Madonna's Last Great Album by Billboard
Madonna’s ‘Hard Candy’ Turns 10: A Look Back at Madge’s Midlife Meditation by Entertainment Tonight Canada
--Apoxyomenus (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI-generated tag here, as the recent rewrites by Chrishm such as this show strong indications of possible LLM use and are thus suspect.
@Z1720 @SNUGGUMS This should have been caught at the time and the article definitely should not go to FA with these issues present. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Chrishm21 should be using ANY artificial writing aids in an attempt to improve our articles. The result is rarely an improvement. Chrishm21 should stay away from GA and FA campaigns, or stop asking for robotic assistance. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I personally had no clue what signs of AI to look for, or I would've brought them up sooner during PR. My apologies for anything that I overlooked. I regardless fully agree with Binksternet on writing aids and all pursuits Chrishm21 makes of FA/GA nominations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
No need to apologize -- this isn't any one person's fault, so much as the FA/GA guidelines not being written with AI in mind, and this is more a suspicion than proof (although spot-checking some of the text is indeed revealing some problems).
WP:AISIGNS is a good starting point. With the newer AI tools especially the more common problem isn't making up fake sources so much as mischaracterizing what is actually in them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Spot checked some of the AI-languaged claims and other new additions, found at least two:
"Devil Wouldn't Recognize You" begins with a lullaby-like calm before building into a lush, brooding arrangement that underscores its themes of deception and emotional denial. -- Neither source mentions themes of "emotional denial," and "deception" is a stretch (the Blond Ambition book mostly talks about that in regard to "Voices." The sources also do not claim that the arrangement itself has anything to do with "underscoring" anything -- but AI claims this kind of thing all the time.
Madonna officially announced her departure from Warner Bros. Records, the label she had been signed to since the beginning of her career -- The last part is a gloss on the former wording "longtime label," and introduces an inaccuracy; where "the beginning of her career" falls is debatable but Warner was her second record label (she was signed to Gotham Records first).
Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
That's damning. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)