Talk:Whitney Houston

Vocal Profile

I think the vocal profile section should be removed until viable sources can support the information. D#3-C6 is not five octaves, it's one note below two. And she is definitely not a full dramatic soprano---she doesn't even sound like a soprano. Maybe in her early career she was a soprano, but right now her vocal color is dark enough to suit a mezzo, possibly a light contralto. I hesitate to completely remove the section because it contains possibly useful information, but it needs serious cleanup.

Whitney hit whistle notes with Mariah at the end of "When you Believe".They are in the background so listen carefully[1]. Mariah even admitted it on an interview with Soul Train.

Where is this interview? I have never heard of it, please provide a source from which I can see it. (Trent Jones 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree with most that Whitney has an incredible voice (although that's a little irrelevant, hehe), but I find it hard to believe that she can access the whistle register. Although, I'd love to see or read the interview Mariah had with Soul Train, because I always thought the whistle at the end of "When You Believe" was Mariah's only (it sounds like her). In fact, most reports I've read about Whitney state that her range is C3-C6, exactly 3 octaves. I believe it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, so we'll need strong proof that Whitney sings the Eb6 and Bb6. But the vocal profile section is definitely worth keeping.

I feel that the vocal profile shoud not have been removed. Whitney's voice is definitely worth mentioning. If this were my first time reading about Whitney Houston, I would not know that she had a great voice from reading this article. Her voice is not mentined at all and it should be. Whistle register isn't everything. She is not known for whistle register, so it is not necessary to mention it at all. She is known for her vocal power. You can still be a great singer without whistle register. It is possible to speak about her voice without mentioning it or her exact highest and lowest notes. She made a big impact on music with her voice and skill, not just her accomplishments. She is very much a dramatic mezzo soprano. She may not sound like a soprano to you due to her rich, deep natural voice, but she is a soprano because she sings notes of that of a soprano. Her high notes are very clear even with her deep singing voice. She has many musical strengths including lots of vocal runs, vocal acrobatics, and making smooth transitions between her registers. She is great at live performances which in many cases has ended in a standing ovation, much audience participation, and tears even from other singers (I've seen this myself)[2]. When live, she does different renditions each time; she doesn't have to do the studio version to sound great. She has a way of making even the most difficult arrangement seem effortless. Even her a capella is phenomenal. I remember seeing her do about just 15 seconds of impromptu a capella singing Guide Me O' Thou Great Jehovah on The Arsenio Hall Show. There were so many vocal runs and variety in just those 15 seconds; she blew the audience away. I am not just saying this as a fan, it's just what I have seen. She evokes so much emotion and passion through song and it needs to be noted. I am not comparing her to anyone or trying to biased, I just feel a voice section needs to be added to talk about her great voice. - Autumn

The Bodyguard

Whitney is a talented singer who has sold millions of albums, but let's not get lose perspective. The soundtrack to the bodyguard was hardly "groundbreaking". See the new draft on the neutral point of view over on meta.wikipedia.com. --Robert Merkel

Sorry, I was reading an article about her, and it said the soundtrack was 'breathtaking' and 'enormously successful'. Well, I just tried not to plagiarise! But I can see where you're coming from- the term 'groundbreaking' should be reserved for research into cancer and stuff like that.

No problem. Music can be groundbreaking - for instance, Bach's "Well-tempered Clavier" was IMHO groundbreaking, as was "Rock Around The Clock" (as the first rock and roll song to reach a mainstream white audience), or Kraftwerk (as a significant inspiration for modern electronic music), or "Shaft" by Isaac Hayes (anticipated the disco sound), or "Heebie Jeebies" by Louis Armstrong as the first recording to feature "scat" singing. There's nothing wrong with the soundtrack to "The Bodyguard", but it's nothing that hadn't been done before plenty of times before. --Robert Merkel

I'm going to have to disagree with Robert here. I believe that the soundtrack to "The Bodyguard" was exceptionally groundbreaking in that it was the first time ever that a soundtrack had had such a huge amount of success. (Success had been seen before in films like "Saturday Night Fever," but never to this degree.) It was the first time music producers realized that they could have an entire market based on soundtrack albums, and it set a precedent for a huge amount of soundtrack albums to come.

The above comment is just the usual junk one can expect from Houston fans. Saturday Night Fever has actually sold more worldwide than The Bodyguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide). 82.44.74.32 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The above might have been a valid point if Purple Rain hadn't come 9 years before it. [rm negative insult--I'll bring the food 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

"Breathtaking"? It was conventional & unmemorable, with all of 1 song making an impression. Compare "The Blues Brothers" soundtrack, or "The Commitments". "Groundbreaking" I might agree with, but that suggests the album had special qualities, like introducing new production techniques; perhaps "landmark"? Without Whitney's voice, & starring, it would have been nothing special, & would never have become the #1 soundtrack album of the '90s. Trekphiler 09:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bodyguard is definitely a memorable album. For someone to say it is not is ridiculous. Perhaps groundbreaking is not the word that is appropriate to you, but unmemorable deifinitelty is not either. It is also very ignorant to call what was said "junk" from a Whitney fan. How do you know that was a Whitney fan? Just because something nice was said, is it impossible to say something nice about The Bodyguard album or Whitney? I think it is just as crazy to receive thoughts from people who aren't fans of her at all. Who says a non-fan's thoughts are more important than a fan's. It's all about how well the soundtrack did. Maybe it didn't do as well as Saturday Night Fever, but it did extremely well for itself. Besides Saturday Night Fever, how many other soundtracks did as well? One, two? Not many, right? So give it the props it deserves. You're right, if it wasn't for Whitney, the soundtrack would have been nothing much, but that's the point. We are talking about Whintey here. She brought the soundtrack to major success which is why it should be mentioned here on her page. It sold 37 million copies for a reason, because it was incredible. I am not saying this as a fan, just as a person with common sense. When I Will Always Love You and I Have Nothing and Run To You all came out there wasn't a soul in this world who wasn't singing it and loving it. Aside from sales itself, it was a great love album. No one can dispute that. She outdid herself and it deserves good ratings in all fairness. - Autumn

Fair use vs. plagiarism

Houston cemented her superstar status on her next album, Whitney; despite the unimaginative title, it became the first album by a female artist to debut at number one, and sold over nine-million copies. [3]

This needs to be either quoted word for word or thoroughly rewritten. We can't just include snippets of text lifted from another websited and still "promise you wrote it yourself", now, can we? --Uncle Ed 01:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Relations with Unification Church

Houston is known for her charitable bent, making significant contributions to the United Negro College Fund, the Children's Diabetes Fund, St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and several AIDS-related organizations, and she established the Whitney Houston Foundation for Children, Inc., a nonprofit organization whose work assists homeless children and children with cancer and AIDS. One noncharitable appearance the diva was supposed to make was at "Blessing '97" on Nov. 29, 1997. The event, billed as the largest mass wedding ever, was to earn the diva a cool $1 million for 45 minutes onstage. But when the press seized upon the pending appearance for the Moonies (the controversial Unification Church started by Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han Moon), Houston released a statement declaring that she didn't know "Blessing '97" was a Moonie affair. Two hours before the wedding began, she backed out citing "illness," leaving both the Moonies and her own band, which had already set up, in the lurch.[4]

records section

I started trying to copy-edit and wikify the following, but it's too obscure in places, and I'm not at all sure what was meant at times:

==Records==

Houston has held the record for the most consecutive number-one hits for a solo peformer for thirteen years.

Before Whitney, BOYS II MEN's record breaking "End of the Road" stayed at Number One for 13 weeks, 2 weeks later, Whitney's new song broke the record. (Boys II Men and Mariah Carey's duet broke Whitney's record for having 2 more weeks in 1996.) Althougn One Sweet Day stayed longest at Number One in US up to date, it could not reach number one outside US while the international hit "I will always love you" which occupied 14 weeks on Number One in the US, 10 weeks Number One on UK Singles Chart, 10 weeks Number One on Australia Singles Chart, 6 weeks on German Singles Chart, and 8 weeks on France Singles Chart. [[5]]

2) Whitney Houston also has been holding the most consecutive Number Two hit for 10 years up to date, as the release of "Exhale" became Number One for one week and was taken down by Boys II Men and Mariah Carey's collaboration duet "One Sweet Day" but remained at Number Two for 11 weeks.

3) Whitney Houston also has been holding the record for most consecutive Number One by beating Beatles and Elvis Presley and depose Madonna as Queen of Pop, as the GUINNESS WORLD RECORD described: "Her first number one in the US was with "Saving All My Love For You" - this was a prelude to a string of six more consecutive No. 1s that saw Houston depose Madonna as the queen of pop." [6]

Mogul music produceer Clive Davis earlier announced Whitney would be back since she got out from rehab in May this year and he said another release from Whitney will be in 2006 as they are currently working.

Any comments? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also unclear what this means: "battling spousal abuse with her husband". Any translat--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)ions?

In the "records" list above, I think it needs to be reworded a bit. Essentially, Whitney Houston scored 7 consecutive #1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 from 1985 to 1988 and this is a record which is still unbroken. As far as Whitney "depos(ing) Madonna as the Queen Of Pop" - I think this wording is too subjective and can be easily challenged. Guinness Book Of World Records has also widely reported that Madonna has sold far more albums worldwide than Whitney Houston has.

Whitney Houston's "Exhale" did spend the most weeks #2 of any single on the Billboard Hot 100 for about 10 years, but that has since been exceeded. I'm not even sure "Exhale" would count towards this record (the "longest-running #2 single") though since it actually peaked at #1. 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Please, stop changing The Bodyguard's worldwide sales to 30 million, it actually sold 37 million copies according to everyhit.co.uk (a very realiable website). Here's the link (the information can be found at the bottom of the page): http://www.everyhit.co.uk/recordalb.html

Top 10 Singles

Just to clean this up a bit, I notice that under the "Top 10 Singles" header there is far more than 10 singles! I have changed the title to "Top singles in date ascending order" as I have no idea as to which singles were most popular or not. I'll leave this for anyone else to improve - user:pa-merynaten 0036BST 21.5.2006

LOL, I'm pretty sure it means singles that made the top 10.

Oscars

Whitney Houston has never been nominated for or won an Academy Award. Pacian 22:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

- Well, she won the 1999 award for "Best Original Song" for When You Believe, but depending on if the award is given to the performer or songwriter, she may have won the award. Tdawgfive5six9 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UCT)

The Oscar for "Best Original Song" is given to the song's composer, not the performer. RobbieNomi 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay icons source

http://whitney-fan.com/nr/mags/039.shtml --RobbieNomi 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Fan pages are generally not accepted as credible or authoritative sources of information for encyclopedias. This article should remain removed from Category:Gay icons until something more substantial can be provided. Hall Monitor 23:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a transcript of the May 2000 interview Houston had with Out magazine, a popular national gay publication. The fan page is simple reprinting it in its entirety. It is also a well known fact that Houston is an icon among the gay community as much as Madonna, Cher, Mariah Carey, and Diana Ross. But, if you absolutely MUST have more sources, here you go: [7] [8] (--RobbieNomi) 05:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The references you have provided are appreciated, but I still fail how any of the citations you have linked suggest that this figure is a "gay icon". For example, if a musician such as Houston performs at a fundraiser or benefit for the gay and lesbian community, are they then considered to be an icon? What specific qualifications is Whitney Houston meeting in order to be defined as such? Hall Monitor 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, here we go again! [9] [10]

Please note that the actual phrase "gay icon" is used before Houston's name.

FYI- The Advocate is the nation's #1 gay/lesbian news publication.

This should be enough evidence here to support the "icon" status. If you need more, note that Whitney Houston has scored 12 #1 hits on the Billboard Dance/Club Chart. Please refer to the Wikipedia article Billboard Dance/Club Play Chart about the Billboard Dance/Club Chart. The list of artists on there with the most #1 dance hits (of which Whitney Houston is included) is essentially a "who's who" of gay musical icons. 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You Give Good Love

The article on this song has been nominated for deletion on 5 October 2005. As this is a notable single by Whitney Houston as her first hit, I would be grateful if contributors to this article and other Whitney Houston articles could have a look at the article that I have rewritten and add your view to the discussion. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Whistle Register Singers

Whitney Houston does not own this ability or for sure she would have displayed it in at least one song. I know someone who argues like hes never heard of being wrong that whitney does do this so I have to believe its untrue. Whitney Houston is one artist Who i appriciate greatly but although someone says she can i doubt it. I'm taking her off. 67.181.94.96 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whistle Register

I can understand why you removed her from that list because she never uses the whistle register in her studio versions but i have a performance of her hitting some very week high notes. She hits a G6 and then a A6, therefore I am reinstating her into the whistle register category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snail456 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

I will remover her from the category. The fact that she is not known for using this register means that she cannot be considered as a "whistle register singer". You might have a recoring of her hitting whistle register, but this isn't enough. Including her would conflict with Wikpedia's policies, namely Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia:no original research. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So if I put a link on here then it would be ok?

Who removed the 2006 section??

Who removed it. Ok, maybe we could cool it on the album plan news. Because who knows if she'll ever release it, but we could at least add the part about the divorce rumours, cuz thats a big part of her life and we could also add she appeared at the 2006 winter olympics. And the rumours about the relapse into drugs after she was photographed at 4 in the morning in her PJ's and a fur coat.

You're never going to get some article in here that may question the perfectness of la Houston. Wikipedia main fault is that most articles like this are written by fanboys/girls who have no interest in anything that doesn't toe the party line. So she may be a crack addict, but you won't read it here first. Kellster71 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Drug addiction

The Sunday Times in South Africa has reported that Whitney is struggling with a drug problem. The SABC has quoted Quincy Jones and reported that Whitney is now beyond help and that she has hit rock bottom and spends all her time in Crack houses. Part of the content I added today was removed yesterday. She obviously need help from her well meaning fans now.. Gregorydavid 09:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please stop removing my posts about her crack addiction. We all know it's true, and as she says "It's not right, but it's okay". Josh

What's going on? This article keeps changing...someone's working overtime to keep the drug allegations away from this page. Now is not the time to act like we are ostriches with our heads in the sand!We HAVE to report the news...UB

-- Something is definitely up. I tried to put the drug news in TWICE and twice it was deleted by someone with an IP address, not a Wikipedia logon. Grrr. Very frustrating. Far as I can tell, there are several of us trying to post it and only one person trying to take it down. -- Jo

This is ridiculous...I am going to give up...there's no point trying to post it if someone's going to take it down as soon as I put it up. UB

I have been watching this page closely, and I noticed that any additions on her drug use were removed within minutes. I see it's up again, but I am unsure how long it's going to stay. I hope Whitney makes some kind of a comment so we can lay this to rest. One way or another. UB

I'm not really a fan of Houston's, but I am a fan of Wikipedia and the improvement and quality of articles herein. If we do not have her well-publicized drug addiction mentioned in the body of this article, then Wikipedia has failed to deliver a neutral and informative article. To have her fans repeatedly remove the "negative" information is undeniably unacceptable, and it tremendously degrades the integrity of Wikipedia. I recently proposed that the article be placed under protection, but I was told that there were not enough recent reverts to warrant the semi-protection. So, if the anonymous IP addresses further continue to remove this information, then they're only making it easier for us to better protect the article from them by warranting a page protection, which will ban all anonymous and new users from even editing. —Notorious4life 22:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I too was amazed at the lack of information re. her drug problems, with only "rumours" being mentioned. Surely her crack addiction is now fact, not rumour?

It's probably WHITNEY HOUSTON who keeps deleting the drug accusations from Wikipedia! LOL! seriously Twentyboy 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg

I don't see why Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg, which is under a free-license, keeps being removed from the article. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says that we should try to use free images wherever possible. What is wrong with the image anyway? It's not as if it is of low quality. Extraordinary Machine 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Highest Selling Female Debut

I changed the article and put that Whitney has one of the best selling female debut albums. Worldwide sales are just an estimate and aren't exact, especially since these albums are being bought and sold everyday. The top three (from my knowledge) would be Alanis', Britney's and Whitney's.

Actually, Alanis Morrissette doesn't classify, because that wasn't her debut. She did have other albums before that, just not as successful. Like Janet Jackson... "Control" was CONSIDERED her debut reelase, but it wasn't the actual one. Just her first big one.

Both Britney's and Whitney's debuts were highly successful and continue to influence a lot of aspiring singers today. As for Janet, yeah, "Control" was huge and many people don't even remember her previous two albums that she released before that.

Blanking talk out

Hi, Wiki is virtually edit proof, so I don't know why we find talk being blanked out or modified. There is place to add what needs saying under a new or existing subject heading. Cheers Gregorydavid 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article reads like an ad. The language is consistenly favorable to WH and the article does not mention recent scandals and allegations about crack abuse Virgule82 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Crack Abuse Allegations reverts

The reverter (or at least one of them), posted this in the main article: The previous is tabloid fodder and has no place in an encyclopedia article. The National Enquirer, (along with The Globe, The Examiner, and many others) are not respected publications in their journalism field. Only material from reliable sources (such as Newsweek, People, Us, Time and national daily newspapers, or any other reliable publications) should be considered. Please do not vandalize this article by using tabloid stories as sources, or "quotes" from someone who "sold" the story to them yet claims to do drugs herself. And if you must write the caption "although this has not been proven" then there's no need to make mention of it in the first place. This article makes references to Whitney Houston's drug use, but it is not a big portion of the article as her two decade career is much more than what's been reported in the last few years, and it is not out of synch with other singer's articles such as Madonna, Mariah Carey, or Celine Dion to name just a few. So consider what you are entering. This article does not need gossip. Thank you.

A couple of problems. The allegations WERE reported in the mass media. It took no time at all to find mention in Salon, Fox News and various newspapers. No one in Houston's camp has denied them. Friends of Houston (Mary J. Blige, Beyonce) who know the truth have said they are praying for her. Houston herself has not made any form of appearance, let alone a retraction. Much discussion on this talk board has taken place about the reversions among signed, registered wikipedians. The reversions have all lacked any form of comment (until now) and have all been done anonymously. The vast weight of opinion says mention of the allegations should remain. You should respect that. -- Richfife 04:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Try this for precedent on Wikipedia.. George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

Cheers Gregorydavid 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is with this. There's a hidden comment, that repeats *many* times. This isn't a game, to play with. Also, the references of this article, especially this section, need to conform to Wikipedia:Footnotes format with the "ref/references" element. The wording and citation is done very poorly. We should be very precise about who says what/where/when, and avoid weasel words. It seems worth mentioning, but frankly I'm as unimpressed by the amateur approach of inclusion, as I am about the amateurish attempt to remove it. I expect those silly comments in the text to be removed promptly be the editor who added them. --Rob 07:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at this above and agree that such behaviour is unacceptable and thanks for cutting it out so that others do not have to waste time reading it. As far as the weasel bias goes, I could add that all the images on the article are biased if one considers those images that are not shown, for example the picture of Whitney published in The Sunday Times South Africa, or Oprah in her pajamas..

Gregorydavid 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out the repeated in line comments. However, there's a larger question: How do you deal with a fan that will not engage in discussion and will not allow negative data in the article? The repeated comments were a (failed) attempt to hammer home the seriousness of their hourly removals from the article and draw them into discussion. They did not affect the finished appearance of the article and were never intended to stay longer than necessary. -- Richfife 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is one thing, but this article in its current state tries so hard to be neutral that it minimizes many of the things that make Houston notable. For instance, there's virtually no mention of the main reason she is notable, and that is that she is one of the most influential female pop vocalists of our time. She has been cited countless times as an inspiration to both famous and non-famous(American Idol, etc) singers. There are also blatant inaccuracies and omissions which minimize her accomplishments, including the fact that she co-produced Cinderella and had a large hand in its direction, or the fact that her rendition of the Star Spangled Banner is considered one of the best by virtually countless sources. I understand the need for NPOV, but this takes it too far, especially when compared to the article for Mariah Carey(who has cited WH as an inspiration). The Carey article gushes over her, and even has a section devoted to her philanthropy. There needs to be a healthy balance here. 64.12.116.71 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)SuperDav

So let's work this out.

I say: The allegations of drug abuse by Houston were initially reported by the National Enquirer, a magazine that (I believe) makes it's living by implying half truths to make minor things look like big scandals. That being said, as another editor mentioned, they are probably more aware of where boisterous journalism ends and libel begins than any other newspaper. And they point blank said that Houston is fighting drug addiction. The Enquirer would be swimming in lawsuits by now if they it wasn't true. Not a one has been filed. No one who knows has denied it, and you better believe they had A LOT of reason to. Other, more mainstream, news sources (Salon, etc.) have accepted the story as true. I feel the allegations represent an important part of any overview of Houston's life and rise well above the bar for inclusion. Every talk post but one has been in support of the allegations being included. I believe consensus has been achieved. -- Richfife 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I Will Always Love You

This article suggests that Dolly Parton covered the song. Dolly wrote the song and released it first. Whitney covered it. At least that's what the page for the song says. Did I misread something?

On reading it carefully, I think the writer didn't intend to suggest Houston was first. It wasn't suggesting the "Dolly Parton original recording" was spawned by the movie. It was suggesting the "Dolly Parton remake" was spawned by the movie. Note, it didn't say it spawned "Dolly Parton's remake". Anyway, I changed it, so please check it. I don't know if this is too much detail for an opening paragraph. --Rob 18:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Crack & Being beat up by her husband - Censorship?

Apparently Wikipedia is the only place in the world where the subject Whitney Houston and Drugs and Spousal abuse don't come up. Censorship much? Wiki's liberal bias showing up? Again...?

This place is starting to become a joke. rename it to what it is Liberalpedia, grab the domain name while it's there.

Umm...this place has always been a joke because random idiots can edit all they want.

That's wikipedia. Bad administration is a big part of it. Random people can be administrator's for having a little good rep here too. It's the administration that allows them to get away with it. Twentyboy 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of attempts to remove pro-Houston POV

Over the past few months there appears to have been a circle of anon editors assiduously restoring POV/pro-Houston (and often inaccurate) statements after they are removed. The best example of this can be seem in the above disputes involving Houston's alleged recent substance abuse, but there's been "glossing over" in other sections of the article (see [11] and [12], for example). Sorry, but a little research every Houston single is not a hit; every album released by her is not a strong seller. These are facts, and it's a blatant violation of the neutral point of view policy to put any sort of "spin" on them. Extraordinary Machine 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I've added the {{citations missing}} and {{not verified}} tags to the article. From just a quick scan of this article, it is seriously in need of additional citations; even if they are to already existing references. Statement after statement is written with no reference to the source for the statement. If a statement of "fact" isn't attributable to a reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article.—Chidom ^talk  01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting

Tried to clean up this article and its narrative - it was a mess.

The general formatting I followed was:

• I. Personal life (family life, and marriage)
• II. Music career summary
• III. Film career summary (acting and producing)
• IV. Summary of awards and recognition
• V. Controversies (drug allegations, dispute w/father, Robyn Crawford, health issues)

Still needs a little work, but I think breaking it down by subject, then summarizing the subject chronologically, will make this easier to read. NickBurns 15:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected the outline I posted here.

NPOV tag

I've tagged this article for not respecting WP:NPOV. Repeated PoV edits by IP's have made this article one of the worst I've seen on the 'pedia. I'll try and participate in cleaning up this article over the course of the week, but I could do with some help. yandman 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mansion foreclosure

Someone keeps removing the information about the forthcoming sheriff's sale of Houston's mansion. This is a sourced fact from the Associated Press and can also be verified from other media sources online. Unless more than $1 million in unpaid mortgage payments and taxes are paid by Houston, the property will be sold at public auction.[13] Speculation about "money is not at issue" and the like is unsourced and POV editorializing. This article is an encyclopedia article about Ms. Houston; it is not a fan page. You may not like that her home may be sold at sheriff's sale, but please don't distort the facts by removing them and replacing them with your personal opinion and speculation. Thank you. Carmela Soprano 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You say this is not a fan page, and rightfully so, it shouldn't be. And by all means its not. After all, everything in here are things that Houston has actually accomplished. And there are things that need not be in here basically because they happened so many years ago and are really not revelant anymore. For instance, the incident with her father. Well he tried to sue her but he didn't win. That's old news now. Lot's of celebrities have been taken to court. Look at Mariah Carey's article. I believe one of her family members tried to sue her but you don't see it in her article. Carey has also been called into court before on charges that she stole someone's song (this I remember) but she settled out of court. That's not in her article either. It was widely reported that she tried to commit suicide during her breakdown but that too is not in her article. But if any of these things happened to Houston it would be in her article, and someone would be complaining if it were removed. And things such as Houston taking a drill and drilling in the door of her own home's bathroom so she can watch out for people coming and going (which doesn't make sense because she would just be looking into another room) are in her article. Just because someone doesn't refute what the media says doesn't make it true. At one point, someone stated in her article that her sales were meager (which is ridiculous because she is one of the highest selling artists ever.) Meager is a strong word and her sales have never been meager. Many artists would love to have their albums sell as many copies as "Just Whitney" (4 million) but the fact that Carey's Greatest Hits didn't even go gold in the U.S. is simply brushed over.

And there are a couple shots taken at both Houston and Celine Dion about them not writing as many songs as Carey or something, but it doesn't mention in Dion's or Houston's articles that they have done much more touring work than Carey (and if it did someone would remove it.) Carey has rarely toured in her entire career; a few concerts here and there, baby tours basically. Shots against Houston and Dion are unnecessary in Carey's article. You state these should not be fan pages and I agree, but come on; Carey's page is a fan page. And it's time for everyone to wake up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.7 (talk • contribs)

If you see problems with the Mariah Carey article, then you should edit accordingly. Because another article is problematic is not a valid reason to import those same kind of problems to this article. 209.179.168.56 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Mariah Carey's article should be edited accordingly. But when you do this, it is changed right back to the way it was. Try it for yourself, you'll see. So since all articles should be on par with each other, and someone refuses to let anyone put in anything they consider damaging to Carey or let anything be put in that's irrelevant (that part I understand), than Houston's article deserves the same treatment. Right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.7 (talk • contribs)

Your statement is illogical and incorrect. You said, "since all articles should be on par with each other." That's not correct. That's not a Wikipedia policy. If one article is weak, that doesn't mean all articles should be made weak to "balance." The sole issue here is the accuracy of the Whitney Houston article. The possible inaccuracy of the Mariah Carey article -- or articles on grasshoppers or calendars or French toast for that matter -- is irrelevant. If someone is making unconstructive edits to the Mariah Carey article, you should alert an administrator who can take the appropriate action. Please also indent your replies properly under the entry to which you are responding and sign your comments with four tildes. 209.179.168.52 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Best-selling remix albums

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure.

Sawyer interview

Houston gave an interview with Diane Sawyer (where she discussed drug allegations and marital issues

It would be extremely interesting to know what exactly she said in that interview, since all the other statements in the "controversy" section are just unsubstantiated claims by media outlets of dubious reputation.AxelBoldt 06:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will always sue you

Believe it or not, Whitney sued Saddam Hussein for using "I Will Always Love You" as a campaign song.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs) 05:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

How? It isn't her song it's Dolly Parton's.70.147.145.165 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she could sue him for liking a song, but it doesn't matter if it's Dolly Parton's song. It's Whitney's version that he likes, not Dolly's so Whitney could take issue with that. Also, if you went out and re-recorded, say, the entire "My Love Is Your Love" album, singing and pausing in exactly the same moments as Whitney, and using exactly the same instruments, and the same song sequence, not only could the songwriters on each individaul song sue you (that's what the little "c" with the circle around it means on the album), but the record company could sue you (that's what the little "p" with the circle around it means on the album).

Repeated blanking vandalism by 68.113.96.151

User 68.113.96.151 continues to vandalize this article by blanking the same portion over and over again. Could an administrator please step in and block that account to prevent this repeated vandalism? Thank you. 4.232.195.113 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Your Baby Tonight Tour

The tour was voted worst tour by Rolling Stone Magazine yet fans of Miss Houston continue to add in that it was hugely successful for which they have no source. Stop putting that because there is no source to it's truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.145.165 (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The I'm Your Baby Tonight tour was wildly successful and sold-out. Just because one magazine (Rolling Stone) voted it worst tour of the year doesn't mean it wasn't successful. Beside, that magazine mostly catered to rock fans in the 1980's early 90's, not R&B acts, so its no wonder that a very high profile R&B artist, as Houston was, would receive "worst tour" by that magazine. (Today they do cater to more hip-hop and R&B.) There were also plenty of other publications that gave the tour superior marks, considering that she was actually singing live and not lip synching and all. So if those publications are not going to be cited for there good reveiws, it only makes sense to balance her "worst tour" nod with the fact that it was a successful tour. Otherwise you're making the reader come to an incorrect conclusion about the tour's success.

The same magazine issue cites the tour's low attendance and many cancellations. So even though they mention that I left it out. The tour was not that successful and had low attendance in over 50% of the venues according to the magazine. So no, the tour was not a success. That said, I showed my source for the quote yet you show no source for it's success. Therefore it cannot be submitted. Please see Wikipedia standards if you have any further questions concerning this issue. Thank you. 70.147.145.165 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Voice

I have removed this section since there is no source of her vocal ability. Wikipedia standards mention that there must be a published source so until there is one verified there can be no mention of how many octaves she supposedly has.

Clean up needed

I have submitted a form on the main page. This article is in desperate need of clean up. There is too much fan pov and not enough sources and the article is poorly written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.145.165 (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

This trivia was moved here for discussion. It should go in the existing text, not it's own section. Trivia sections are inappropriate, see WP:TRIV. John Reaves

'Trivia Houston established an imprint record label called Better Place Records in the 90's that once had distribution deals with Elektra Records as well as Capitol Records. Among the signees were R&B songtress Shanna, featured on the Waiting To Exhale soundtrack and R&B girl group Sunday who released a single in 2000 entitled "I Know" on the label.

Who edited the page????

Who edited the page and made it sooo short? It is about half the length it was before.(Trent Jones 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Ok I checked it..but something is wrong. If you try and edit the page you will see a long listof information that normally is on the page, that is good but when you look at the page the information is not showing and i don't know why....please someone fix it!(Trent Jones 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

POV-pushing in "financial problems" section

I've removed unsourced POV-pushing claims in this section as well as returned the former subhead name, deleting the "Recent news" subhead as it says nothing and, in itself, is POV-pushing. Several users keep trying to delete or dillute this section. It's fully sourced. Every sentence is documented. If you're claiming Houston is allowing all these financial issues voluntarily, you need to source that with documentation. 207.69.136.203 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased edits

Is there someone we can complain and report the IP addresses of the people who are CONSTANTLY removing information because it isn't Pro-Whitney Houston? This is wikipedia NOT a fan page. EVERYTHING must be documented and quotes such as "profitable" or "successful" must be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.26.117.1 (talk • contribs)

Producing role

The article stated, "Houston undertook other producing assignments." This is incorrect. Brownhouse developed these projects internally, notably under the direction of Houston's development executive at the time, Debra Martin Chase. As with many celebrities who have development companies in Hollywood, Houston received a producing fee and a screen credit. However, it's not like she went out seeking "assignments." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how film development works. Many stars have development companies and overall deals with studios like Houston had. The executives at those companies -- not the stars themselves -- are the ones who develop and produce the projects. The article also gave the impression that Houston was the sole producer on the films for which she received a producing credit; that is not true. On every film, she shared a producing credit with a number of other producers. 209.179.168.56 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)