Jump to content

Talk:Whitney Houston

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 7 December 2019 (Replied. Just saw comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Sourcing in the lead, and conflicting sources

Bluesatellite, regarding this, while, per WP:CITELEAD, the lead doesn't need to be sourced, why did you remove the sources from the lead? We have had editors changing figures in the lead, and having the material cited there for easy checking helps combat inaccuracy.

And regarding this, if the sources conflict, we should see what the literature usually states on the matter and give more weight to the numbers that are usually reported. Adding sources that conflict beside each other, and only going by what one of the sources state, is not ideal. Anyone could come and change the material to what the first source states and ignore what the second one states.

If you reply to me in this section, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the removal of sources considered vandalism? Jcollins1018 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jcollins1018, no. See WP:CITELEAD. I was simply querying Bluesatellite on matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn, I took a look at your link, but also at the vandalism page. Broadly interpreted, I think removal of sources could go against the project of Wikipedia's "purpose". I think that there is no clear consensus on the removal of these sources: at least you and I are not clearly agreeing with their removal, and I don't see anyone else besides Bluesatellite calling for their removal. Isn't consensus required for removal of sources according to Wikipedia guidelines? Jcollins1018 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jcollins1018, it's not WP:Vandalism in any sense of the word. WP:Vandalism is clear about what vandalism is. All Bluesatellite did was move the sources out of the lead; the sources are still in the article. WP:CITELEAD is very clear that adding citations to the lead is a case-by-case matter. As for WP:Consensus, consensus is not needed to be bold; see WP:Bold. On a side note: Your WP:Ping didn't work, but, since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn, I didn't realize Bluesatellite only moved the sources out of the lead. I don't know if I'd call that "malicious," and I'd have to think more whether I'd call it "removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition"[1]. Thanks for helping me understand how editing Wikipedia works, I respect your experience on the site. Jcollins1018 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow, regarding this and this, are you sure that it's not sourced lower in the article? For example, in the "1985–1986: Whitney Houston" section, the following is there: "At the time, the album was the best-selling debut album by a solo artist." But that wording does say "solo artist."

Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead doesn't always need to be sourced. I don't see that the pieces you tagged as unsourced should be sourced in the lead if we aren't going to source anything else in the lead. Maybe we should restore all of the sourcing to the lead that Bluesatellite removed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I am not looking to add footnotes to the lede. I inserted "citation needed" tags in the lede today because I noticed that some information there does not appear to be sourced (or, in some cases, even mentioned at all) in the body of the article. Please note that I recently added some sources to the body of the article to support some information set forth in the lede. If I am correct that there are no sources in the article body for the information in the lede that I tagged, that information should either (a) be removed; (b) be sourced in the body of the article; or (c) be sourced in the lede (although that isn't preferred). SunCrow (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

____

References

  1. ^ WP:Vandalism

"Huston"

At one point early in the article her name is misspelled as "Huston". I'd have changed it myself, but there's no "Edit" function in the article, so I hope someone else can fix it.89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More inclusive and accurate description of Houston's influence in lead?

I'm wondering if the phrase "influenced several African-American women artists who followed in her footsteps" could be added to, as Houston influenced also people who might not be categorized as "African-American women artists".

I would suggest changing that phrase to: "influenced several African-American women artists, and artists across gender and nationality" or "influenced several African-American women artists, who followed in her footsteps, and artists across genders, ethnicities, and nationalities."

Cited statements in the influence section, support such a rephrasing, though I haven't checked those sources themselves. Another link supports some broader influence of hers too.

I'd also second that any citations be re-added to the lead, as in another talk post here. Jcollins1018 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly oppose it, but the point of that text is supposed to be Houston's impact on the music industry as a person/woman of color. She helped break down the color barrier. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that we should recognize Whitney Houston's particular and complex influence on women and persons of color in the lead. Perhaps "women of color" as you employ is a more inclusive and accurate phrase than "African-Americans", since the latter, narrowly defined, limits her influence to people of one nationality. Clearly, Houston's influence went beyond the American nations/continents [1] Jcollins1018 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on this matter stress the African American aspect. See the beginning of the "Influence" section in the article. We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state. The Twitter source is not a WP:Reliable source to state "beyond the American nations/continents." Like this Los Angeles Times source used in the article states, "But in 1985, a sophisticated pop-R&B singer named Whitney Houston surfaced. For black women singers she's the Messiah. With one multimillion-selling album, her first--'Whitney Houston'--she made black women singers fashionable again. At nearly the same time, there was another emerging star, Sade, singing an updated version of the soft Brazilian jazz that was popular in the early '60s. The Houston-Sade breakthrough paved the way for Patti LaBelle and Janet Jackson to become major stars in 1986. But last year's most significant new star was Anita Baker, arguably the most promising black woman singer of the '80s." This MTV source states, "The third single from Houston's debut album was the one that changed everything. The clip helped introduce the singer to a wider audience when it became one of the first videos by a black female singer to earn heavy rotation on MTV." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Flyer22 Reborn:, Sorry, but why specifically is the Ebony Magazine twitter source above not reliable? I appreciate the quote you shared from the LA Times link, as well as a quote of Anita Baker's following it in that article, but are you implying that the phrases "African-American" and "black" are interchangeable? Btw, I do agree it would be good to specify Houston's influenceon African-American women artists, I'm just trying to be as accurate and inclusive as possible. Also, btw I saw a couple articles today about Houston and Sade, claiming that their influence on people of color in America and Brazil were perhaps more nuanced than is clear here.Jcollins1018 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ebony Twitter source says nothing about Houston influencing women of color or people "beyond the American nations/continents." That is my point. We also typically should not be using Twitter sources. Have you taken the time to read WP:Reliable sources? The few times we use Twitter sources are for WP:Primary source cases like a celebrity stating what their birth date is. But only when there are no WP:Reliable sources reporting the same. If People magazine reports the same, for example, there is no need to use the Twitter source. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was stating that "African-American" and "black" are interchangeable, but they often are, as made clear in the African Americans article, although Black British people, for example, also exist. Yes, if we mean black people as a whole, we should state so. And if we just mean African Americans, we should state "African Americans" or "black Americans." And, again, since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. I ask that you don't ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does the LA times article then support a change of the line in question to e.g. "influenced several African-American artists, and other people of color"? I have read WP:Reliable sources, but am still confused. Is this Ebony Magazine link better than the Ebony Magazine twitter account link? Jcollins1018 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times source says "for black women singers she's the Messiah" and "she made black women singers fashionable again." As for the alternative link, which I had already looked at, the source must explicitly state she "influenced other people of color." See WP:OR, including its WP:Synthesis section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm think I'm still confused about the terminology here, but I appreciate you taking your time with me. Thanks Flyer22! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollins1018 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should Houston's influence on people of color warrant an entire sentence or paragraph in the lead? Maybe another paragraph should be added starting with the clause discussed here, eg. "Houston influenced several African-American women artists who followed in her footsteps. Anita Baker, for example, said "because of what Whitney and Sade did, there was an opening for me."[2]..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollins1018 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for quotes in the lead. The lead is meant to briefly summarize. And, per WP:Lead, it should typically be no longer than four paragraphs. The influence aspect is covered by "influenced several African-American women artists who followed in her footsteps." Above, we've been over "people of color." We need reliable sources that specifically state that, since the term people of color can be used broadly. Furthermore, Houston also influenced white artists, but we don't mention that in the lead because her influence on African American women is especially notable, per what I stated above about barriers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting response, Flyer22! Jcollins1018 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

____

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Film producer and songwriter

Whitney Houston wasn't just a singer and an actress. She was also a film producer and a song writer. Whitney Houston produced Princess Diaries, Cinderella and Sparkle. She also co-wrote Queen of the night, Count on me and Something in common. Swanhtet904 (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article setup

As seen here, I reverted this article setup since it is not how we usually format musical biography articles. We would usually keep the life and career material together. Or at least that used to be the most typical format for these types of articles. I'd have to assess other music biographies and see how much this might have changed. Reasons why we format this way are given at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article. The extensive quoting that was in the "Drug abuse" section was also unnecessary. I'm fine with most of the material being restored, preferably in a condensed fashion, but I disagree with that article setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the extensive quoting. I didn't add the quotes, I only moved what was already posted. I do think her personal struggles and her marriage to Bobby Brown should be in a separate personal life section, because it's a lot to consume going from reading about her album in one sentence to her drug addiction the next. I've seen plenty of musical biography articles such as Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, and Tina Turner which separate the career and personal life. In Whitney's case it seems like a better setup so if people want info on her personal struggles they can go to one section rather than read through the article for scattered info. Also, it makes for a better read for those who want info on her musical career and it looks less congested.Twixister (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that some music biography articles include a "Personal life" section, but that setup is more common for all other biography articles. I'm not sure how the trend started for music artist biography articles when it comes to keeping the life and career material together (other than their career also being their life). Maybe Moxy, who is one of the main supporters of such a setup at the Michael Jackson article, knows? But it does help keep sections or material that shouldn't have its own sections from becoming WP:Undue, especially in the case of contentious content, such as content on Houston and drugs and the new claim from Robyn Crawford that her early relationship with Houston had been sexual. See my comments about that latter aspect here in a discussion I started (now closed) and here in a discussion Praxidicae started. I'm surprised that other types of biography articles haven't been set up in this way as often (if at all), given reasons noted at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article for such a setup. But I've also seen this setup used for WP:Featured articles more so. For example, the Janet Jackson article currently uses this setup, but also has a short "Personal life" section. I don't know when that "Personal life" section was added (haven't yet checked), but we can see that it was not there when that article was promoted to FA. Similar goes for the Mariah Carey, which currently has a "Personal life" section, but also has material such as "Personal and professional struggles" in the Career section because it coincides with the career material. When that article was first promoted to FA, it didn't have a "Personal life" section; it also didn't have one when its quality was reviewed (WP:FAR) here and here. Editors have been adding such sections to articles when not needed and when the content fits better with the career material. I'm not stating that the personal life content always fits better with the career material. But I am stating that what setup to use is a case-by-case by matter and that, in the case of the Whitney Houston article, the setup it currently has is best for the article. We obviously disagree, and can bring in other editors for their opinions by notifying a few or all of the active WikiProjects this talk page is tagged with above to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding a Personal life section like in Janet's article? Wikipedia has evolved since 2008. The last 15 years of Whitney's life was shrouded with controversies due to her addictions and her tumultuous relationship with Bobby. It is better to put that in one section as I did before and claims such as Robyn's can be added there. The set up as Life and career and stay the same, I'm just suggesting to add a Personal life section so information on is easier to find and add. There would still be a short mention in her life and career such as I did in the edit, but the more detailed portion is better fitted in a separate section.Twixister (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I stated above, I disagree with having a Personal life section for this article. This isn't about Wikipedia having evolved since 2008, especially since not every Wikipedia musician biography has a Personal life section even today. It's about what is best for each individual article. What may or may not work for Janet Jackson's article doesn't automatically work for this one. And Houston's Personal life section, as also seen by your version, wouldn't be as short as Janet Jackson's. It wouldn't be short at all. Outside of Nipplegate, Janet Jackson arguably hasn't been as controversial as Houston. It is exactly because of the controversial aspects of Houston's life and the Crawford claim that I don't think we should have a Personal life section in this article. That section, especially if including subsections for these aspects, will be prone to editors adding and adding to it, making it WP:Undue, and it will be prone to dispute. And without subsections, someone would eventually come along and add them. Outside of you wanting to change the article format, there have been no complaints about the existing material being difficult to find. The subheadings are clear. And with that material mixed in with the rest, it's unlikely that people will unduly focus on those aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitney_Houston&oldid=929622098"