Talk:Whitney Houston/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: The Bodyguard

message: :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. 
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)
thread_title: Fair use vs. plagiarism

message: :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. []
: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." 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Records

message: Whitney Houston has never been nominated for or won an Academy Award. Pacian 22:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oscar for "Best Original Song" is given to the song's composer, not the performer. RobbieNomi 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscars

message: 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)
thread_title: [[You Give Good Love]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whistle Register Singers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So if I put a link on here then it would be ok?
                      Whitney Houston high Notes
Part 1:    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o971F30gkpI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o971F30gkpI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Part 2:    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMSl6UYawyA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fMSl6UYawyA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
I Am Changing Live in NYC:        <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CRLpzTvpD9o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CRLpzTvpD9o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Ill admit some of those notes are high but what notes constitute whistle register and is she actually hitting THOSE notes. I mean some, but not nearly all of those notes are pretty high but none of them seemed inhuman, as i have heard mariah hit higher, and others. XXLegendXx 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whistle Register 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who removed the 2006 section?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Drug addiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Blanking talk out

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
thread_title:  So let's work this out. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I Will Always Love You 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crack & Being beat up by her husband - Censorship? 

message: 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  and , 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)
thread_title:  Reverting of attempts to remove pro-Houston POV 

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surelyican (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whitney hit whistle notes with Mariah at the end of "When you Believe".They are in the background so listen carefully. Mariah even admitted it on an interview with Soul Train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. MagneStormix (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surelyican (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that the article shouldn't mention her voice, because it must since it's what she's famous for. My only problem is that the "vocal profile" section that used to be here was incredibly inaccurate and didn't source anything---it didn't even count octaves correctly. We know that she can't use the whistle register, and I agree that it isn't whistle register that makes her voice special. I just don't like questionable information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.21.142 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like the questionable information either. I must agree with you: she's definitely not a soprano because she does not sing in that tessitura most of the time. She only makes occasional leaps into that region. Even some alto roles ask for the singer to venture above the staff, but that doesn't make them soprano or even mezzos. Also the source for "coloratura soprano" is wrong. The interview touches on Whitney's coloratura, not her vocal range. I know some people assume a coloratura singer must be a soprano but that's not the case.Boipussi 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Earlier in her career, she was indeed a soprano.  A lyric (just as Streisand was).  She had some powerful qualities, but definately not fully dramatic.  She had no lower register and crackled at times when attempting low notes.  Around about 1987, there seemed to be one of the first dramatic changes in her tone color.  It seemed to darken a bit - typical with cigarette smokers (as she had been smoking for a while), i.e., her grammy performance of "one moment in time".  When comparing that performance to her earlier performances, her tone was slightly huskier.  By 1990 when "I'm your baby tonight" was released, it seemed that it took her much more effort to sing in her higher register (possibly due to more inflammation caused by smoking).  All of her live performances demonstrate the more forced high notes, more frequent hoarseness, etc.  She didn't sing notes above, hypothetically, an e flat with the same ease anymore.  There is a video on youtube somewhere where her then tour choreographer, Candy ---? (the black female coroner on CSI, sorry can't remember her name) said that she would see Whitney before shows with a mask on her face with steam in it to help open her up...  So, we know that whatever vocal profile she used to have would not be a permanent one, unfortunately, due to the damage of smoking and possibly drug use.  So, should the vocal profile chronicle different stages in her carreer of characterize her present profile?  I would say the typical "powerhouse" vocals we get from whitney are after 1987 when smoking has begun to affect the timbre of her voice, i.e., Bodygaurd, All the man that I need, and beyond.  What would you guys say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.57.139 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocal Profile

message: I've added the  and  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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reformatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tag