Talk:Whitney Houston/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Whitney Houston: The Voice; Obvious POV

Who the hell added this section? It sounds like some crazed Whitney fan trying to make her into the greatest singer of all time. This is blatant POV pushing if I've ever seen it and goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Someone please either take it down or edit it so it looks like a professional vocal profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's what she's actually been called, so why take it down? Also if Christina Aguilairia has a vocal section on her profile, why doesn't Whitney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a vocal profile, it was a paragraph praising Whitney as the best singer in the world. A vocal profile goes into the technical aspects of a person's voice. It lists things like a person's range, voice type, highest note, lowest note, longest note, and it may go into different registers as well. She's called "The Voice" but if it was already mentioned in the heading, you don't need another section about it. Citing a music or voice expert's opinion about Whitney's voice is another matter. Whitney deserves a voice section, but it should sound professional and not fan-made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The section doesn't even give any citations to her being called "The Voice". It only put her in a few lists as a successful singer. There are unverified statements in it (like her being an influence to other singers), and I call for a motion to delete the section due to a violation of WP:POV as well as a lack of information and statements that do not deal with the section at hand. BalticPat22Pat 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody Please Make A Vocal Profile Better


The page is being vandalized by the minute. Why don't you lock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One biography

I'm going to combine music career, movie career, personal life, and philantroy into one biography. Since that is what the madonna, janet, michael jackson articles are like. Shoop85 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Who keeps changing the heading from "Global rise to prominence 1985-1986" to "rise to prominence 1985-1986" ? If Mariah Carey's article can have a heading like "Worldwide popularity", then surely Whitney Houston's can have one too as Whitney became known internationally upon her debut release and it took Mariah several albums. Also Whitney is well-known and established in dozens of international markets, as Mariah is well-known and established in a handful of countries outside of America. As such, Whitney deserves a "global" or "worldwide" in her heading.

Who keeps putting in the article that thanks to the success of "The Bodygaurd" soundtrack, the movie did well. This is basically an attacking remark and it doesn't belong in the article. The movie did extremely well when it was first released, so there's no proof it was simply because of the soundtrack. Madonna has released plenty (and I mean plenty) of soundtracks that did well but the movie performed poorly. So just to state that "The Bodyguard" did well mostly thanks to the soundtrack is not true or proven. It could be, as I suspect, that people went to see the movie because she's was widely internationally known, photogentic looks for the big screen, and people wanted to see her in a medium outside music. The movie most likely would have been successful even without an adjoining soundtrack, so that "thanks in large part to the soundtrack" remark needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No discography

Is there a particular reason why there is no discography on this page? That was my initial reason for visiting the article, seeing as all other artist pages have discographies. (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There was one but some idiot keeps removing it for some reason. They are trying to be funny. Shoop85 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


This article was locked for a long time. Ever since it became unlocked, people have been inserting garbage. Someone is always making crack jokes, some are calling her the N word, someone remvoes the discography, someone keeps making up info about a movie. Can we get the article locked again? I think all big name celebrities should have their pages locked because there are always idiots going around messing things up. Shoop85 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

List of awards received by Whitney Houston has been nominated for deletion, on, apparently, the grounds that List of awards received by Michael Jackson does not exist. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Whitney Houston is the most awarded female artist ever, so I think it should remain. Are Madonna, Mariah Carey, Beyonce, or Janet's Award list pages nominated for deletion too?Shoop85 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

best selling soundtrack of all time??

This article states that the soundtrack to "The Bodyguard" became the best-selling soundtrack of all time: "Houston continued her success into the 1990s, starting with the box office hit The Bodyguard. The soundtrack to the movie is the best-selling soundtrack of all time ...." and yet, the Wikipedia article for Saturday Night Fever: states that that soundtrack was the best-selling soundtrack of all time: "A huge commercial success, the movie significantly helped to popularize disco music around the world and made Travolta a household name. The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, featuring disco songs by the Bee Gees, became the best selling soundtrack of all time." SO which one is the best selling soundtrack of all time??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

People have many different opinions to what is the best selling soundtrack. Many different sources say many different things. We will never know which album actually sold the most, partly because of inflated sales from falsely created facts and partly because it is simply impossible to accurately figure out the worldwide sales of albums of such scale and magnitude. BalticPat22Pat 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy / Impact

This page definitely needs a section on Whitney's legacy, impact on other artists, and maybe even her influences. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I already had started writing one a few months ago. I'm still looking for more information. I'll try to finish it before the new album is released though. Shoop85 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Shoop85


According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Whitney Houston is the most awarded female artist of all time with 411 awards. Why isn't this achievement in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A source would be nice. miranda 03:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Biggest selling gospel album??

I am wondering how is The Preacher's Wife soundtrack the biggest selling gospel album??..The are pop songs on this album so the entire soundtrack was not gospel...So that info would be incorrect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketlow (talkcontribs) 07:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason is because it is a gospel album. "I Believe In You And Me" and "Step By Step" may be the only songs that could possibly be not considered gospel, but even they have a theme and message which one can take as religious. An example, let's say I made an album and 12 of the songs were rock songs on the lines of Daughtry or Bon Jovi. For the last two songs (#13 and #14) I covered a Michael Jackson and a Lionel Ritchie song, respectively. I didn't sing them as those artists did, but they were not arranged as rock songs with blaring guitars; just more pop. My album would still be considered a rock album due to the overwhelming theme of the material; i.e twelve of th 14 songs are rock songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Why is there no image? Surely there must be a free image of Whitney somewhere that we can use? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the picture back. FotoPhest (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The picture couldn't go up here. Now we do have to find another. FotoPhest (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

4:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If you need help cropping and uploading the image, as well as copyright help, please e-mail info-en@wikimedia[dot]org. miranda 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why images of Whitney Houston are removed is because she is alive. Thus, free images are preferred rather than fair use (copyrighted images). Unless circumstances are rare, (For example, she trips on stage. Someone uploads a picture of her tripping on stage and mentions the incident in the article) this would satisfy fair use. With the late Michael Jackson, his circumstances are different, because he is not alive. However, Wikipedia has enough free images to include in his article. If a famous person who is alive has an image on Wikipedia, it is a free image. Please see this page for additional help. miranda 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a picture of her. This entire article has no pictures of Whitney Houston in it. She has been in the music industry for 25 years; there's no reason pictures should not be there; and also one need to be at the top in the beginning of the article. Everytime a picture is put in the article, someone removes it. I personally think someone is trying to be funny. And keep the nonsense about there are no pictures to put in the article. Surely in the nearly three decades of her career, there are pictures that can be used. How can it be explained that Mariah has pictures in her article plus links to hear those songs of hers, but Whitney doesn't have pictures or links. The links are just shameless promotion, and I notice they're not in most recording acts articles so they should be taken out of Mariah's article. Stop trying to spruce up her sales! I've said it before and I'll say it again; I believe the administrator who oversees this article is a big Marey Carey fan and allows things like no pictures in Whitney Houston's article to happen. Even promotional pictures from her album covers can be used. Someone needs to get on it and stop this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of Whitney on tour etc

I added from Flikr, they have been reviewed and they are fine to keep, do not delete them.

Also, I don't know how to categorize them so if someone could do it it would be greatly appreciated! Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Waiting to Exhale" is not a Houston album.

  • I am getting sick and tired of reverting vandals and their efforts to lie about her compilation discography. "Waiting to Exhale" is NOT a Houston album. It's not included in her RIAA total, nor her IFPI albums total. No reputable source states this album is hers alone. If users continue to vandalise the discography section, then I will personally report them to administrators. It's time-consuming to revert them, and my patience is ending. Please feel free to reply if you have any questions or comments on this issue. BalticPat22Patrick 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm still waiting on a reply from the user that deleted them but it seems everytime the photo's are uploaded somebody delete's them. It's highly annoying and I can't be bothered to go through and upload them again. They were reviewed via Flikr bot. The only reason I can think of is that somebody doesn't like Whitney Houston and doesn't want to look at her. Jayy008 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Or jealous of her success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1996 Tour?

There's no mention of this. I don't have any details but she did some kind of small European Tour in summer 1996, with one UK date in Manchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's Not Forget The Purpose Of All This

In this article I have removed silly things like a strap or button breaking on her gown, silly things like when she was performing on X-Factor and it was "weird" (what was weird about it?), and things like her redeeming herself at the next perform because it was good (whatever). There are thousands of magazines, newspapers, television shows, radio programs and so forth around the world, so unless something is universally loved or panned by nearly all those media outlets, just shifting through thousand of comments so you can find a bad comment doesn't justify putting it in the article; neither does a good one. I don't want to resort to name calling but, basically, these stupid things have no place in an encyclopedia article.

Encyclopedia articles are meant to inform the reader of important facts that the reader may not have known, not relaying trivial information. This was the same reason the powers-that-be decided it wasn't necessary to put in Beyonce's article that Beyonce fell down a flight of stairs while performing in Orlando (okay, so be it). But putting in Whitney Houston's article that a strap on her back came undone while performing, and her performance being weird when there was nothing weird about it, and then redeeming herself, is nonsense. There's no mention of the important facts like Whitney Houston is the only female artist with a 40+ million selling album; "The Bodyguard" is the top selling album of the entire 1990s; she is the most awarded musical act (male or female) with 412 awards, just receiving the last one Nov 22nd 2009 at the American Music Awards. How can you possiby justify not having this accomplishment in the article but you can put a button broke on her outfit while singing a song?

Also, during the 1989 time frame, there's even a line that says "many black critics 'reasoned' she was selling out". Well first of all, who expected black people to just be regulated to the R&B charts. Whitney Houston, along with Michael Jackson, Run DMC, Salt-N-Pepa, and MC Hammer broke that stereotype as they all had received silly comment like that. Now today, there is not a black artist out there who doesn't want pop hits. They know with that comes money and power. So those aforementioned acts deserve credit for correcting the next generations mind set, not having things written about them saying some black people incorrectly 'reasoned' something. Obviously she did it correctly because black artists today are making pop, hip-hop pop, rock, and musical acts like Jay Z teamimg up with rock bands. The correct phrasing on this topic should be: "some black critics didn't understand or appreciate her pop undertakings at the time". That would be more accurate and a correct statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of her being the only female act with a 40+ million selling album, which is quite an achievement, or that "The Bodyguard" is the best-selling album of the entire 1990s? Seems to me these are encyclopedia worthy comments. Much more worthy than a strap breaking on a dress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


As far as the pictures being removed, this has been an ongoing issue. But the administrator of this article cannot separate business from personal feelings. He states he cannot keep going in the article an uploading the picture each time it's removed. But if something is changed in this article, like, comments that have no business in an encyclopdeia article or things that are not actually true or unnecessary, he finds the time to go in and revert it back to the way it was stated previously. Hmmm... Seems to me if you have time to go in and change the wording of the article back to the way it was 'everytime' it's changed, then you have time to upload the deleted pictures as well. But then again, he's a Mariah Carey fan, so he doesn't care if Whitney Houston's pictures are deleted. But he will make sure those unnecessary / un-encyclopedia portions stay in the article. As an administrator, he's suppose to know to keep personal feelings out of all articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You have no or zero knowledge of images on Wiki(p/m)edia i think. The problem is not that someone not likes images, the problem is that there are no copyright free images. If you know an photographer who has a good photo and is willings to donate it so that everyone on this planet can reuse the image for every purpose including commercial exploitation of the image under the terms of a free license - well, ask him to donate. --Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way a person who has been on the music scene for like 30 years has no images that can be used. I just don't believe it. Even pictures from each of her album covers can be used when those albums are referenced in the article. But it makes no sense that Whitney Houston (one of a handful of extremely accomplished recording artists) has no pictures throughout her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


207 references.. what's that about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Biggest selling gospel album..

How does Lil Wyane hm ave the biggest selling gospel album when the The Preachers Wife soundtrack only had 6 gospel songs on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketlow (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is confirmed by many sources. Novice7 | Talk 13:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Inventor of ice cream?

From the article: "Following Bobby's breakthrough, other African-American female artists such as Janet Jackson and Anita Baker were able to find notable success in popular music." Given the list of dozens of female African-American singers who topped the US charts before her, this sentence either says nothing else but "she was yet another one" and is therefore irrelevant, or it is plainly wrong! -- (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sugar-coated profile

How is it possible that this article says absolutely nothing about the fact that Whitney Houston's voice has deteriorated immensely during the last ten years, that her last concerts were a disappointment because she didn't sing but talked and many concert-goers complained and demanded their money back? Even the section about I Look To You, about it being so anticipated...and no words about the lack of success that was expected (due to the condition of her voice)? This article is a joke, someone needs to balance it and add information about crash her career has had. This is not personal, but the way the article is now you'd think nothing has changed since the early 90s and she is still at the top of her game, which is far from the truth. Even the introductory paragraph is too kind, it lacks a neutral point of vueDollvalley (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. The article should mention the noticeable decline in her voice - not out of malice but just in reporting the facts. Virtually every news story or article on Whitney Houston in the past five years has been largely concerned with it, and on this page "glancing mention" would be putting it kindly. NPOV please! - (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
We will fix it soon. Thank you for pointing the issue out. Novice7 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also nothing here on Houston going back to the clinic. FotoPhest (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitney Houston Images

I saw some pictures on Flickr. But I remember once an image of Whitney Houston in Germany being deleted from this same page. They are not in Commons. Is it okay to upload them? Novice7 (Talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Range

Are we talking now, or in her prime? If we're speaking about her vocal range now, it's C#3-G5, which is just under 2.5 octaves. If we're talking about in her prime, her range was C3-C#6/D6 which is just over 3 octaves. And she's belted up to F#5 in her latest tour, and in her prime, belted several G#5s.

You may be correct, but we need a source to verify it. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates are all wrong

Someone needs to edit the entire Whitney Houston page. All the dates are off by 20 years. Notice the birthdate in the box on the right is 20 years different from the date in the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Death date is off one year...February 11, 2012, not February 11, 2011. (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)dgdave1977

She's died at the age of 58 not 48... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, she was 48. [1] [2] [3] (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The time of death is off.

Reports say that Whitney Houston had been pronounced dead at 3:55pm. It's a shame she passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you change the photo

Can you upload a new Whitney photo? maybe a nice one from this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo671 (talkcontribs) 12:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard to get new photos of Whitney. I'm trying my best to get one though. Novice7 (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the top of page image.

I think there's a bug on the page. The image of Whitney doing a performace in 2009 now has the following text associated with it:

"Whitney Houston performing on Good Morning America, Central Park, New York City, on September 1, 2009 and died on February 11th, 2012."

I went to edit the page to remove the strange text (yes, I know she died yesterday but but that's not really relevant to the picture) but I the text associated with the pic ended at the 2009 part and I couldn't find the phrase "and died" anywhere. (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Whitney houston, death: Her publicist announced that she was dead. Cause is not being released because cops are "investigating" the case. Dwkarate (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


I can't seem to edit... I keep getting edit conflicts. Publicist Nancy Seltzer has denied that Whitney is dead, saying she is alive and well in New Jersey. [1] --Cowlinator (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

She is very much dead. The article you have posted is dated from the 13th of September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantmitch1 (talkcontribs) 01:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
...oops --Cowlinator (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is still wrong. It cites the 13. September source now. Can someone undo this please? (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Typo in Whitney Houston death section. The cause of her death *was unknown, not "were unknown."

She died at the Beverly Hills Hotel, not in Canada.

Should be 'the cause of death is unknown' :) (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)wtf80.42.236.255 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC) (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Already fixed. Pinkadelica 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Death rumors are merely rumors. Please refrain from editing that information until all news sources confirm the SAME story. We are not a gossip site and don't want to change every 30 seconds. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN, CBS News, and USA Today all confirm. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto Talk Talk newsfeed which reads "Publicist Kristen Foster said that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unclear. However, Beverly Hills police Lt Mark Rosen told KABC-TV that Houston died in her room on the fourth floor of the Beverly Hilton and Beverly Hills detectives were investigating." (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The BBC is also reporting what the IP user mentioned. I'd call that not a rumor, but a well documented fact. Thanks to those who added the information to the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
" We are not a gossip site and don't want to change every 30 seconds" Lol. Not sure if you've noticed but when a death occurs, the corresponding wiki page is edited every 30 Milliseconds. Coradon (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@chilemasgrande was the first person that tweeted about Whitney Houston's death, prior to it being announced on the mainstream news media at 4:30pm, Feb 11, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stng1 (talkcontribs) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

edit place of death (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is needed

She died at 3:55 PM Pacific Time in her Beverly Hilton Hotel according to the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergamer22 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Watching several differents news, BBC is live in a helicopter above the hotel with a lot of media and police outside. Speculation is now circulating her boyfriend found her. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Speculations without reliable sourcing cannot be added to the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps try <> if you are not happy with US media as reliable sources???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Drug Use

There should be info on her long use of drugs-- (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

References to drug use can hardly be called specutlation. Did her taking up with Bobby Brown have anything to do with her involvement with heavy drug use. Something like Amy Winehouse being introduced to serious drug use by the love-of-her-life Blake Fielder-Civil. If not actively introducing them to drugs, at least driving them to it ?

Microphage (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - and I'm sure it will all be mentioned at aCoroner' s Inquest - there is bound to be one: insurance companies nowadays insist on one, as they did with Amy Winehouse, as the payouts involved after the death of someone who brings in this much revenue are massive. Most insurance policies in the industry contain 'no drug use' clauses. They insist on thorough toxicology reports after a sudden death, so a background containing details her known use (with reliable references to newspaper reports etc ) might be worth someone working on, perhaps separately , and adding to this section. The drug abuse spans the past 2 decades now. (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There IS mention of drug use scattered all through the article. Mentioning it further, in the death section, would be pure OR and speculation. As she died from a non-apparent cause (per BBC reporting) with no sign of criminal activity and the fact that she's a "VIP", there will be an autopsy. Leave speculation for the trash news papers, magazines and blog sites. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic information.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely aside from her death, wouldn't significant drug use spanning more than a decade be relevant to mention in this article anyway? Even if she had not died, i would expect to find that information in any comprehensive article about her, or any other highly influential public figure. Rustysummers (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Rustysummers

Of course. There are also no longer any BLP issues to consider. There should be a section dealing with her struggles with abuse and related issues. There are plenty of RS, and a failure to document it would be a failure to live up to Wikipedia's ideals. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia even remains a neutral source. Her Drug abuse is all over the internet. And her death might as well be related to drugs. However, I very much doubt if the article would ever contain that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It is too eraly to hipothetise. There are other possibilities. When at stake is shipload of money (range of many trylions) all option may have suficient reason which cause that moves people to induce a potential crime. (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

No there is no illegal drug use mentioned in this article whatsoever. Someone in this thread says "there is drug use scattered all over the article". Actually its not. Illegal drug means crack/cocaine. There is lots of material on internet which suggests she has been doing illegal drugs for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree need info on this - not a section - incorporated into the article as per time of events.Moxy (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Body found by brother

CNN is reporting that her body was actually found by her brother who was part of her entourage. It was not found by Ray-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

edit place of death (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise continuing to use the BBC reports as to detail, as there are several conflicts between various US sources.12 Feb: 02:52 GMT79.70.228.142 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) According to Talk Talk newsfeed: "Publicist Kristen Foster said that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unclear. However, Beverly Hills police Lt Mark Rosen told KABC-TV that Houston died in her room on the fourth floor of the Beverly Hilton and Beverly Hills detectives were investigating." Feel the police source is more reliable than a publicist who may not even be on the scene. Would the publicist ask for edits for a specific reason ??? (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Please remove external link to "" which was added [4].

Per Wikipedia:EL and Wikipedia:BLP policy; that site does not add any fact that could not be added to the article with a reference. Its either a reliable source, or it is not. Wikipedia:V (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Already removed. Pinkadelica 04:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and death

This comes up every time someone dies and articles are edited, replacing present with past tense. The problem here is that the present tense should stand in many cases. Witney still IS "the most awarded female act of all time", her death in and of itself does not change that fact. What would change that, and mean a change to the past tense would be appropriate, is if some other female was to gain more awards than Whitney. Whitney also remains "one of the world's best-selling music artists, having sold over 170 million albums, singles and videos worldwide", so this, too, should remain in the present tense.

Just because a person dies, it does not make all their achievements null and void. Certain facts will remain forever true. (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a 'localization' conflict - there are many English variants worldwide - all have rather unique (often contradictory) grammatical niceties and spelling variations. Its up to the page editor to choose which he/she/they use as their native language. UK English uses the past tense - see for example the BBC report at <>....." Houston's background WAS steeped in soul and gospel music...Her mother WAS gospel singer Cissy Houston and she WAS cousin to singer Dionne Warwick, and goddaughter to Aretha Franklin". -- (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You're entirely missing the point. None of those are ongoing achievements; they all require past tense in any English "variant". But "the most awarded female act of all time" remains Whitney Houston. -- (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you would use the present tense in talking about Elvis Presley's achievements, or most people wouldn't in most circumstances. --JBH23 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary: the Elvis Presley article states, for example, "He is the best-selling solo artist in the history of popular music". Though I suspect this was already the case during Elvis' lifetime, this ongoing record includes posthumous sales, and to use the past tense in such an instance would imply that the record had been surpassed. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Think Michael Jackson is now the best selling solo artist80.42.236.255 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)wtf80.42.236.255 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection question

Do we need to protect the talk page? We've had some vandalism here, easy to revert, and i dont want to unnecessarily keep sincere IP's from making edit requests.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To judge by the vast number of non-registered users and speculation, protection may be a good idea. I'd suggest protecting the article, lest it become a butchered mess (such as with the tense discussion above).Wzrd1 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

There is extremely offensive material at the end of the 'Death' section. Please remove it. (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Had already been deleted before your request got posted (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.228.142 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

February 11, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge0112 (talkcontribs) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the cause of death: Beverly Hills Police Lt. Mark Rosen said there were "no obvious signs of criminal intent" and that the cause of her death is being investigated (

Jorge0112 (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any none gossip sites reporting this? Gossip websites such as star-spin and TMZ aren't considered reliable sources. Secret account 04:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss something, Secret? Or are you mentioning some other section with gossip sites? CNN is reporting, as Jorge posted, which is most certainly NOT a gossip site, but a news site. The BBC is also reporting the death, a bit more accurately than CNN apparently initially did, even IF it cost them the "scoop". Thankfully, the article is now semi-protected, as it looked like there was going to be a bit of an edit mess by non-registered editors.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done It Is Me Here t / c 12:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Rolling Stone biography

Note that in several parts of the article there are references (some with citation tags) to one or more Rolling Stone biographies, the most current of which is this, but some citation extracts refer to what is much the same Rolling Stone biography, only dated earlier and with different wording, such as:

Houston "redefined the image of a female soul icon and inspired singers ranging from Mariah Carey to Beyoncé." (emphasis mine)

The current version of which sentence is this:

"Houston became one of the most successful female recording artists of all time, redefining the image of a female soul icon and inspiring singers ranging from Mariah Carey to Rihanna."

In such a case, it should be preferable to keep the original reference, with an link.

Unfortunately, I discovered the earlier reference is also a deadlink and has no capture and so while it's probably better to refer to the earlier reference, then its being a deadlink introduces difficulties... Possible solution is to find a reference that still contains exactly the same text that was extracted for a citation. -Mardus (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this being Wikipedia, it might now be the only place on the Internet to contain the exact same extract from the earlier reference. -Mardus (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


This entire portion "News of her death elicited a flood of reaction from fans and fellow celebrities. Aretha Franklin said, "It's so stunning and unbelievable. I couldn't believe what I was reading coming across the TV screen". Dolly Parton, who wrote "I Will Always Love You" said, "mine is only one of the millions of hearts broken over the death of Whitney Houston. I will always be grateful and in awe of the wonderful performance she did on my song and I can truly say from the bottom of my heart, 'Whitney, I will always love you. You will be missed"." is a copyvio of the source, look at it:[5] It needs to be properly paraphrased. I removed the content once and don't intend to edit war at this time. I'd rather see it fixed for proper inclusion. My76Strat (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've paraphrased. —David Levy 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and that is much better. To get this story right, we need to be diligent regarding the content as it comes in and correct cut and paste type entries. Thanks for fixing that one. My76Strat (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the relatively large amount of hostile commentary from non-US sources - e.g. in Australia and the UK, where there is a strong distaste for proselytising drug users, particularly since the apparent knobbling of the Amy Winehouse inquest verdict, which is about to be contested by the insurance company who were clobbbered for squillions. Whitney Houston had not been big 'box office' in the UK for over 12 years, so an entire generation of music fans there only really knew her for being a drug user. (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.236.255 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Honors section

Resolved: Topic is moving locations.Moxy (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No need to talk about this at this time and place "Navigational templates"

Recently, an editor removed her honors navboxes They appeared as shown above. I have restored them, but their inclusion is up for debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As per other times that this has come up - these templates are spam templates with links to hundreds of unrelated articles and artists ...Interwiki spam templates is the term. As has been said before ..Best to have them on the relevant song or album pages - No need for hundreds of links to albums and people completely unrelated to this topic page. Old talk that should be reviewed --> Talk:The Beatles/Archive 26#Options .07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs)
Beatles are a place that they have been removed, but many other places have kept them and collapsed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thinking about this more.. and its nuts - theses are placed on every article mentioned and there artists article as-well Grammy Award for Record of the Year 1990s. We have these templates linked on literally hundreds and hundreds of pages that are not related. Do we have any template limit problems? Think a much bigger talk needs to happen here - all these templates have main articles that are linked in most of the articles. I will move this talk to a new location and inform you where (soon next few days)... So lets leave the link spam templates for now until we get more comprehensive input from others Moxy (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not watching this talk page so ping my user talk. In terms of limits, the reason all these templates are formatted in 20 or 25 year blocks is so that limits won't be an issue even on pages with many more than are here (see Meryl Streep or Barbra Streisand). Let me know where and when. Maybe we should even find a mutually agreeable forum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vocal range

The statements in the article are full of mistakes.

- Firstly, Whitney started out as a soprano. Her tessitura lowered and the colour of her voice darkened to that of a mezzosoprano later in her career.
- Secondly, Whitney has sustained high C (higher than stated in the article) numerous times at different periods of her career. She could also sing lower than written here.. (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you can site credible references to this information, then it can be added. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

I'd like "OD'd" in the Death section changed to "OD'd (overdosed)".-- (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done It Is Me Here t / c 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Should we be citing TMZ? I don't edit much around celebrity gossip, but I have recently seen contentions that celebrity gossip sites are not to be used to source even known facts. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC).

I agree - verifiable details will eventually be reported on in more reliable sources than TMZ, so we need not use them - there's no rush. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting sources

The section called witness disapered , looking for link, and cant see in logs. Can oversight restore? (talk)


just next to the name has to say where she was born and die, not just the dates, are a traditional rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style, specifically WP:OPENPARA, says "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" [emphasis added]. matt (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

In the section of the reaction to Whitney Houston's death, there is a typo in the first sentence. It says "attened", when it should be "attend". Thanks for your time! (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 Talk 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the evening of Whitney's death, Elton John performed and dedicated Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me during his The Million Dollar Piano concert at The Colosseum at Caesars Palace --Dlahey (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Houston Died Today not Yesterday--------Thanks Anna-Lee Hookerson

Zebra25 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not so, check the sources--Jac16888 Talk 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

deep historical and cultural connections

personally i would like to see a change from 'american' singer to 'african american' singer. place of birth stays in tact but it is/was important to many people throughout the world of her being of african descent and a successful international entertainer.

simply having her be 'american' erases the deep historical and cultural connections as to why she was able to singer the way she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyat (talkcontribs) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree as per WP:OPENPARA - "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Its mentioned in the first section of the article and its clear by the pictures we have - Yes she is/was a famous "African American" but she is not famous because of her ethnicity. As implied in the current lead she is famous as a singer, actress, producer, and model who happens to be of African decent. Moxy (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy - many people with no African heritage can sing very well indeed! Conversely, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela are both tone deaf - if does not follow logically that she was (in your opinion)able to sing the way she did only because of her historical/cultural connection to Africa - in fact, the entire contention itself sounds a bit racist frankly. (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.236.255 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the extent to which she identified with the African American community and vice versa. We don't pay much attention to whether someone is a Republican, for example, if they are not very active in the party or otherwise known popularly as a Republican. In this case I think her identification is relatively notable.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

External links

Could we get all to watch over the external links. Because of what has happens we have a had a few additions of personal POV filled external links. See WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:MEMORIAL and WP:LINKSTOAVOID for more on this topic.Moxy (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Could i get a third party to look at this addition to a personal POV external link that I believe should be removed as per above policy - Guessing the editor needs more then one opinion to stop adding his personal web page here. Moxy (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, this website is definitely not what we want per WP:EL, I'll undo this edit. --Six words (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death section

Cause(s) of death given so far: (i) Found drowned in bathtub - drinking alcohol for 2 consecutive nights, with bottles of Lorazepam, Valium, Xanax and a sleeping medication found in the hotel room. The drugs were believed to have acted as sedatives, causing her to fall asleep in the bathtub once they had been mixed with alcohol from the previous evenings. Source: Daily Mail (UK) (reported by paper at 22.39 on 12/02/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source, as it tends towards tabloid journalism. It's best to avoid speculation on possible causes of death and wait until there is a definitive conclusion from reputable authorities.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Will Beback on this. Tvoz/talk 01:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone support the contention that the Daily Mail is NOT a Reliable Source? Unsupported claims do not make such a thing literally "true". Perhaps WP:RS has visited this issue? It's incumbent on the editor (Will Beback in this case) to support his contention that Wikipedia does not use the Daily Mail as a source. (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You'll find that the Wikipedia god-king doesn't rate the Daily Mail, for a start. There's this comment of his [6] and I've read him being much more scathing about it elsewhere on Wikipedia but can't find the quotes. (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont think you will find many that think tabloid newspapers are good source.Moxy (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Mail, bad as its journalism sometimes is, cannot really be any worse than TMZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. Daily Mail is what I would call "relatively reliable", they are not going to just make stuff up, but mistakes (as in all papers) and maybe hasty re-citing are a possibility. They are neither a tabloid nor a "newspaper of record" but somewhere in between. TMZ I understand we will not use at all - for one thing they routinely copy Wikipedia without attribution, so circular sourcing is a risk. Off to remove more TMZ form the article. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
I looked at articles on Daily Mail and others and they are citing TMZ as the source of the "She died from a drug cocktail" story. Whoever is saying it, it is speculation until the coroners report comes out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree - I've also removed some TMZ-sourced material. Tvoz/talk 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


13/02/12: Coroner's Office have sealed the evidence for a 1 month period before the inquest - so it would appear no 'foul play' was suspected, or he/she would have opened and suspended the inquest, pending police investigations. (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)twl17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the leaked finding that not enough water was in her lungs for her to have drowned, together with the found prescription drugs, is fairly conclusive albeit circumstantial. The actual autopsy has to be performed with alacrity, not just because of spoilage of evidence but so that the remains may be turned over for ceremonial purposes which has occurred. (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sticking to improving the article

I just want to say that I think we all agree that until we have reliably sourced information, we keep speculation and leaks out of the article. But we should try to keep it off of the talk page too - we need to focus on how to improve the entire article, not to discuss the sad details of her death, except as they relate to the article. There's just a lot to follow here, and we've had over 7 million views in the last two days - we need to keep a close eye on the article and make it as good as it can be, so limiting talk comments that are not directly related to improving the piece would be appreciated. Tvoz/talk 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment via OTRS

The following comments was sent to OTRS; with the sender's permission, I am placing it here: "Very interesting bio...but under Voice(section3 #3.1) her range is quoted as G3 to Bflat5 and@ times able to "belt out up to F5".. This is probably a typo as F5 is below Bflat 5 not above it... I unsuccessfully tried to check your reference #(#228) ..". Make of it what you will—I don't know anything about music, so I'm not qualified to judge if anything needs to be changed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See Belting (music). As far as I can tell, the text indicates that she can use her chest voice (i.e. belting) to reach an F5, but she can use her head voice (which can normally achieve higher notes) to reach a Bflat5. Graham87 07:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit because the cited source is not a reliable source because it's a forum, and especially because its writer thinks that 6 - 3 = 5. :-) BTW my background is in classical singing, where belting is prohibited, so I don't know much about this subject beyond what I've written here. Graham87 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand and agree with your rationale. My76Strat (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Graham87, that link shows that Moxy reverted My76Strat. Were you saying that you reverted Moxy? Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand what happened - I reverted the edit while in and then he reverted my edit by mistake. Basically an odd edit conflict because of external program.Moxy (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we have her vocal abilities described in terms of octave range? the current method is unclear for nonmusic readers, many other singers are listed by vocal range in octaves (she must have at least a 2 octave range, if not 3-5). Part of this is that there are categories for singing range for 3-5, which we could put her in. (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I Will Always Love You file sample

See debate at Talk:I_Will_Always_Love_You#Sample_change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need the recent deaths tag here?

I believe that Wikipedia is still using the recent deaths tag. Can we put it at the head of this one, as this article is getting a lot of viewings and at the time of her typing (February 14 2012), this is a case of "information might change as new information comes to light". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A very recent edit to the article removed the notice you speak of.[7] It is reasonable to consider that the recentness of this event has not expired. I and several others are monitoring the changes to this article accordingly, whether tagged or not. Personally I would have left the notice in place but haven't been moved to reinstate it. Your comments are certainly valid nonetheless. My76Strat (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Section news 233

The results had yet to be determined. The case is supposed to be sealed. But a leak from the dept a insider tells I ask the Wiki lock the pages until the results are released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Why was information about her death removed from the lead? That is definitely lead material, per WP:LEAD. Are editors waiting for the results for how she died? Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is written from the long view. Her death is big news now, but there is no reason to think it will be a notable part of her life. It might be though and we will have wait to see that. Currently the first sentence refers to her in the past tense and that is not likly to be interpreted any other way then she is dead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
How in the hell is her death not a notable part of her life? If she had died late in life from natural causes, you'd have a point, but look at the lede sections for people like Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain, Dee Dee Ramone, Amy Winehouse and others. (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent examples. I stand corrected. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that death should be in lede, it dominated national and international news reports for three or four days. I've restored info I added a couple of days ago.Lahaun (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with restoring her death to the lead - the issue, Richard-o-E, is not that people won't interpret correctly that she died - we have the date of death in the first line - it is that she was a very public person who died at a young age. That early death is notable, and will likely always be a part of her story - probably even more so when the expected details come out of how she died. See Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Clarence Clemons and sadly many, many more. I do think that we should not be speculating on the cause of death, so the sourced wording in the article as I'm writing this is appropriate. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring that portion, guys. Richard, nice to see you at this article. I don't understand your argument about not including Houston's death in the lead, though. It's not a part of her life. It's after her life, and including it in the lead is no doubt in line with WP:LEAD (per that guideline and the arguments by others above). Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I fix the lead a bit as we dont guess here for several days how is this possible she died 3 days ago . WP:LEAD "When a subject dies, the lead need not be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient." Good example Adolf Hitler when the facts are available. Moxy (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in the lead about Houston's origins, how she emerged on the pop scene, as seen in this diff? The Michael Jackson article also does this, in the first paragraph. To only have her achievements and death in the lead doesn't tell us who Houston was before that. Adding her origins/how she debuted also follows WP:LEAD, since we do dedicate a part of this article to her early life. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not having her struggles included in the lead is another issue. But whatever is done, just make sure to keep it no longer than four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Aretha Franklin says that she was not Whitney Houston's Godmother

During Aretha Franklin's interview with Al Roker of NBC's the Today Show, Aretha told Al that she was not Whitney's Godmother and she doesn't know how that rumor started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Darlene Love is Whitney Houston's godmother. She recently spoke out on the Nancy Grace Show
Nancy Grace spoke with Whitney Houston's godmother and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame singer Darlene Love.

Love remembers meeting Whitney when she was only eight-years-old. She describes Whitney as a caring, nurturing young child who always took care of others. Love begins to cry as she tells HLN's Nancy Grace how positive and full of life Whitney always was, saying, "...she was a light, that has been put out."

--Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I watched an interview by Shirley Caesar and she also mentioned being Whitney's godmother. I thought that was interesting. The Aretha thing was strictly PR. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Brown's departure from the funeral

Should we really say that Brown was invited but left early? That is Brown's story, when it may be that he was actually banned from the funeral like reports are acknowledging may have been the case. No source is saying that he was banned, except for (and they don't usually count as a reliable source here at Wikipedia, despite their having been right about many, if not most, things), but I would think that we should wait to hear from both sides. See if the other side confirms or refutes that Brown was banned from the funeral before we say that he was invited. I have no problem with saying that he attended and left early, but saying that he was invited has only been his story. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Acting white"

I think there should be criticism section about her numerous black critics who said she said she sounded too white when singing. I think this a significant part of her early career does anyone else agree.Here are some links I am thinking of using.[8][9][10] Dwanyewest (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that she was criticized for "selling out," "acting white," and not being "black enough," as the sources you provided show, but I never heard it stated anywhere that she sounded white/too white...until now. Information about her "selling out" and the "too white" accusations are already covered in the 1987–1991: Whitney, I'm Your Baby Tonight and "The Star Spangled Banner" section (although more about it should maybe be added there) and does not belong in the Voice section that deals with her vocal ability and the legacy it leaves behind, which is why I reverted your edit. If any criticism of her voice belongs in the Voice section, it's the material stating that (in the last couple or few years of her career) she lost her voice. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22 -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If your mother is black, and your father is white, I guess you just stay out of the racism and do your own non-racist thing. I personally don't feel that criticism from racist black groups is something anyone should have felt compelled to respond to. Neither did she. (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.106.204 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
IP, you're categorizing Houston's father as white? While I know of her Native American and Dutch descent, I've never heard/seen it reported before that her father was white. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never known of him as being white. However, I've come across claims online, over the years, that he was half white. If there's anything to cite, IMO, it would likely be in old publications from the 80s when, it seems, there was media coverage that positively highlighted the relationship he had with his daughter. It's a shame that people thought she was 'acting white'. I think this was around the time Michael Jackson was getting a lot of backlash from the black community over his 'new appearance'. I guess, people were noticing how certain crossover artist (cross over from being just known within the black community, to being known among other demographics) appealed to whites, not just in musical style, but in perceived looks as well. Whitney Houston was very thin, and many blacks, during that time, associated the body type with whiteness. She spoke proper English which was something blacks associated with being white, more so back then than now. She also had a very clean cut image. Her lyrical content lacked corruption, the blues element, struggle, misery, lust, vanity, conflict, human error etc... IMO, themes many blacks, prior to that time, were accustomed to hearing in music genres targeting them. She was just too clean cut in image for many people, and the type of public image she had was stereotypical of a white person. Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think as black people, we've been scrutinized and abused and mistreated for centuries that when someone like Whitney emerges, we think because of her manner from back then and her looks that she was trying to "not be black". When The Cosby Show aired, some blacks didn't appreciate it because "that show was not the reality of black people" as if they were the judge on what black really looks like. To me Whitney Houston in her heyday was a proud example of someone who was black and was also dignified. It's sad that people took it as if to think she didn't wanna be associated as such. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)