Talk:Whitney Houston/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Whistle Register Singers

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

Whistle Register

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

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


                     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)

Who removed the 2006 section??

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

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

Drug addiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highest Selling Female Debut

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

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

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

Blanking talk out

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

Neutrality

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

Crack Abuse Allegations reverts

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

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

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

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

What the heck is with this. There's a hidden comment, that repeats *many* times. This isn't a game, to play with. Also, the references of this article, especially this section, need to conform to Wikipedia:Footnotes format with the "ref/references" element. The wording and citation is done very poorly. We should be very precise about who says what/where/when, and avoid weasel words. It seems worth mentioning, but frankly I'm as unimpressed by the amateur approach of inclusion, as I am about the amateurish attempt to remove it. I expect those silly comments in the text to be removed promptly be the editor who added them. --Rob 07:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at this above and agree that such behaviour is unacceptable and thanks for cutting it out so that others do not have to waste time reading it. As far as the weasel bias goes, I could add that all the images on the article are biased if one considers those images that are not shown, for example the picture of Whitney published in The Sunday Times South Africa, or Oprah in her pajamas..

Gregorydavid 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I totally agree with you! Houston's article leaves out many facts that can be construed as being complimentary to her, but puts in everything that's negative to her, even if there's no proof it's true. All I see are jabs taken at her. Listing all the things she has accomplished as a singer/actress/movie producer is not giving her compliments, that's just stating the facts. But after reading that, the bashing begins. And why is Mariah Carey protected in the Mariah Carey article? As I said before, and it was erased by Extraordinary Machine so I'll say again -and hopefully you all get a chance to read it before he erases it again (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people should be removed from articles, user and talk pages. This is non-negotiable. - Extraordinary Machine 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)) It seems to me Mariah Carey is the one receiving favorable treatment, and this from an administator at Wikipedia! How insane. But if I'm not mistaken, Extraordinary Machine was the one who wrote Carey's article (he even had his own Wikipedia article bragging about this fact but now I see it's gone) and he is a fan so it's no wonder he's trying to protect Carey, but he accuses people of trying to protect Houston and he allows all these negative comments in Houston's article. Stuff he would not allow in Carey's article. (again, removed per WP:BLP. - Extraordinary Machine 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)) People would even be making up things as they added to it! And the comments in Houston's article about "Just Whitney" selling poorly and "One Wish" being her first album not to go gold in the U.S.. (Although it did because I'm a frequent reader of Billboard and I saw it on the Top 200 Albums at its time of release. It was in the Top 30 and it was gold.) But in Carey's article it simply ignores the fact that her Greatest Hits didn't go gold upon release. In fact, it sold so poorly many people I speak with didn't even know she had a greatest hits album out (not the #1's album, but an actual greatest hits.) And "Glitter" and "Charmbracelet" were no better. So that's three underperforming albums to Houston's two. And Carey lost her $80 million contract in the process, but Houston still has her $100 million contract, which goes again common sense that she would be having financial problems as stated in her article. But Carey's article has all these things happening as if she simply broke a nail, but they try to bring Houston through the ringer. Human nature.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people should be removed from articles, user and talk pages. This is non-negotiable. You can't claim things like what you did about Carey. Wikipedia could get into serious trouble for it; this has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of Carey or Houston.
Myself and other editors wouldn't revert you if you really were just "stating the facts" about Houston's accomplishments instead of doing things such as inflating sales figures and removing sourced negative criticism (such as the negative assessment of the I'm Your Baby Tonight Tour in Rolling Stone). Or you add positive material that is trivial, e.g. the "Try It on My Own" video single going gold - that's an incredibly minor accomplishment better suited to the Just Whitney and/or Try It on My Own articles. I don't recall you ever citing reliable sources for the pro-Houston claims you insert into the article; all you do instead is remove referenced negative claims and the {{fact}} notices that are there to notify editors and readers that certain items of information haven't been verified. For example, you added that Houston was the first artist to turn "The Star Spangled Banner" into a "pop hit" without citing a source, and removed the referenced part about her lip-synching the performance. The RIAA, which is the certifying authority for record certifications in America, does not list a certification for One Wish on its official website, as I've told you several times. Even when confronted with sources, you're still posting inaccuracies and exaggerations - One Wish went no higher than number forty-nine on the U.S. Billboard chart.
And there have been other editors undoing your edits and expressing concerns about them, so your claim about me trying to "protect Carey" and "bring Houston through the ringer" is completely irrelevant. Or are all those other editors fans of other singers and, like me, want to make Houston's career look "bad" in comparison? I like some of Houston's singles, so this isn't some kind of "hater" crusade I'm going on. I've already explained about the Mariah Carey article on the talk pages of your various IPs, and you've not chosen to listen to a word of it, so I won't bother getting into this again. Countless editors have read it, and you're the only one who seems to think the aspects of her life and career that could be considered negative (e.g. the Glitter, Greatest Hits and Charmbracelet failures) are swept under the rug. Again, poorly sourced or unsourced negative claims about her or anyone else have to be removed immediately, which is why I made sure I added referenced for the ones about Carey when I added or expanded on them. Do you realise how many times I have had to revert people trying to add POV and inaccurate information to, and remove negative material from, the Mariah Carey article, which is what you're doing here?
About record contracts: you'd be surprised by how little of that actually goes to the recording artist. According to this FOXNews article, singers get most of their money through touring and songwriting, and Houston hasn't done a lot of either, at least not in recent years. Extraordinary Machine 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First let me say, truly, I do not inflate Houston's sales. I would never do that. I simply put what her albums worldwide sales were versus just sales in the U.S. As her article states, she has sold over 140 million albums so it makes better since to put her worldwide sales of each album, (or both U.S. and worldwide) to show how we arrived at that 140 million tally. That's just better writing. Secondly, you say Wikipedia could get into serious trouble for reporting that (WP:BLP violation removed - Extraordinary Machine 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)), although that was widely reported by various magazines and news sources. Well, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to get into trouble but if you're going to not put that into Carey's article because of possible legal troubles even though it was widely reported, then how can you justify calling Houston anorexic, and "drug littered bathrooms" and "holes in doors" to watch who's coming inside Houston's article when there's no proof that's true about her. Wouldn't that subject you to the same type of trouble you are trying to avoid by not putting certain things in Carey's article? And as far as the "Star Spangled Banner" goes, Houston herself said she did not lip-synch. I don't think she was lying. In fact, if you look at the veins in her neck as she is performing the song, that alludes to the fact she was really singing, as you will not see veins if someone was lip-synching. And even if she was lip-synching, why mention it? Carey and many other artists have lip-synched throughout most of their entire careers from one performance to the next and the words "lip-synch" do not appear in their articles, so why should it appear in Houston's? And why the statement her albums in the 2000's have not sold as well. That sentence is untruthful. Shouldn't the sentence actually read: "her two albums since 2002 have not sold as well" since "The Greatest Hits" was released in 2000 and sold over eight million worldwide? That would be more accurate. And you are right, most artists do make more money from touring and songwriting, but then again most artists have not sold as many albums as Houston has (over 140 million) so a big chunk of her money is indeed from royalties. She also signed that $100 million deal to release five albums, so she gets $20 million for just turning in an album. Under that deal she would have released "Just Whitney" and the Christmas album "One Wish" so she received $40 million right there. Plus royalties from their worldwide sales; "Just Whitney" at 4 million worldwide and "One Wish" at about 1 million worldwide, at about, say $3 per album for an artist of her stature and longevity. And for the first twelve years of her career she did nothing but constant touring so she has money from that, and she did just tour in 2004 on the Soul Divas Tour, as well as the films she's starred in and produced. And then her extremely successful "Bodyguard" and first two albums. And just for good measure, toss in "I'm Your Baby Tonight" and "My Love Is Your Love" albums, each with very good worldwide sales. If she were really broke, we'd be hearing a lot more about that. So if somebody wants to put that in the article it really should read: "Alleged Financial Difficulties". That would be the proper heading as none of us has access to her funds. And yes, "One Wish" was in the Top 50, that's my mistake. And by the way, I didn't mean to imply you personally were bringing Houston through the ringer. Those people know who they are. I really don't mean to come across as angry or attacking, really I don't. But I believe we should just keep it fair, that's all.

If you post another WP:BLP violation, you'll be blocked from editing again. Your message above highlights exactly what the problem with your edits is: you constantly feel the need to defend Houston against criticism and the presence of information that presents her in a negative light, and you do this without concern for verifiability via reliable sources or the fact that no original research is allowed here. The executive director of the Super Bowl orchestra said that Houston and the band were lip-synching and finger-synching, as the source in the article will tell you. The FOXNews article I provided above explains very clearly some of Houston's recent financial difficulties - you wouldn't have written that epic explanation if you had bothered to read it.
I see you're again pushing your pro-Houston POV onto the articles on her albums, films and singles, into which you're inserting inaccurate information (again). If you continue down this path, you'll be blocked for a much longer period. Extraordinary Machine 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's been some drastic change to Mariah Carey's article, which I can't bear to read anymore because it was totally kissing up to her, (WP:BLP violation removed - Extraordinary Machine 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)) but you don't feel the need to put that in Mariah's article, now do you? And stating that Houston isn't going around lip synching everywhere doesn't make someone a fan, it's just stating a fact. My point was, even if she did lip synch, why mention it when Mariah lip synchs on nearly every performance she gives and her articles does not point out what a major lip synchers she is? NPOV would be to put she has lip synched through many performance in her career. And my long answer is to reply to points you made in your answer.

What is the point of replying to your points when a) your comments and edits here wreak of a pro-Houston point-of-view to the point where you're inserting inaccurate and libellous material despite countless warnings, and b) you'll just carry on defending Houston against myself and other editors, always wanting the last word on a talk page or the last edit on an article so that you can have the final say on what readers think of and know about Houston.
You've been trying to turn this encyclopedia into a whitewashing Houston fanzine/spin machine for over a year, and you've gotten nowhere, so why don't you stop wasting your time and everybody else's by taking yourself elsewhere, before your various IPs are blocked from editing for even longer. Extraordinary Machine 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

there needs to be more mention of her drug addiction. its totally ridiculus to ignore it as if it never happened. her downfall was one of the biggest stories of the 2000s, you can't just act like it never happened, its a big part of her career and of pop culture. the person that keeps removing it should be banned.

So let's work this out.

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

I Will Always Love You

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

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

Crack & Being beat up by her husband - Censorship?

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

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

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

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

I won't state my race because it doesn't matter, but why is it when a white celebrity does drugs people say they're doing cocaine or heroin, but when a black person does it, they are doing crack? I do not accept drug use as an okay habit so no need to comment on that, but as Whitney said -she makes too much money to do crack. When she said that, she wasn't denying having done drugs, she was saying it wasn't crack.

Reverting of attempts to remove pro-Houston POV

Over the past few months there appears to have been a circle of anon editors assiduously restoring POV/pro-Houston (and often inaccurate) statements after they are removed. The best example of this can be seem in the above disputes involving Houston's alleged recent substance abuse, but there's been "glossing over" in other sections of the article (see [1] and [2], for example). Sorry, but a little research every Houston single is not a hit; every album released by her is not a strong seller. These are facts, and it's a blatant violation of the neutral point of view policy to put any sort of "spin" on them. Extraordinary Machine 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

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

Reformatting

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

The general formatting I followed was:

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

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

EDIT: Corrected the outline I posted here.

NPOV tag

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

Mansion foreclosure

Someone keeps removing the information about the forthcoming sheriff's sale of Houston's mansion. This is a sourced fact from the Associated Press and can also be verified from other media sources online. Unless more than $1 million in unpaid mortgage payments and taxes are paid by Houston, the property will be sold at public auction.[3] Speculation about "money is not at issue" and the like is unsourced and POV editorializing. This article is an encyclopedia article about Ms. Houston; it is not a fan page. You may not like that her home may be sold at sheriff's sale, but please don't distort the facts by removing them and replacing them with your personal opinion and speculation. Thank you. Carmela Soprano 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You say this is not a fan page, and rightfully so, it shouldn't be. And by all means its not. After all, everything in here are things that Houston has actually accomplished. And there are things that need not be in here basically because they happened so many years ago and are really not revelant anymore. For instance, the incident with her father. Well he tried to sue her but he didn't win. That's old news now. Lot's of celebrities have been taken to court. Look at Mariah Carey's article. I believe one of her family members tried to sue her but you don't see it in her article. Carey has also been called into court before on charges that she stole someone's song (this I remember) but she settled out of court. That's not in her article either. It was widely reported that she tried to commit suicide during her breakdown but that too is not in her article. But if any of these things happened to Houston, you guys would be scrambling to put it in her article, and someone would be complaining if it were removed. And things such as Houston taking a drill and drilling in the door of her own home's bathroom so she can watch out for people coming and going (which doesn't make sense because she would just be looking into another room) are in her article. Just because someone doesn't refute what the media says doesn't make it true. At one point, someone stated in her article that her sales were meager (which is ridiculous because she is one of the highest selling artists ever.) Meager is a strong word and her sales have never been meager. Many artists would love to have their albums sell as many copies as "Just Whitney" (4 million) but the fact that Carey's Greatest Hits didn't even go gold in the U.S. is simply brushed over.
And there are a couple shots taken at both Houston and Celine Dion about them not writing as many songs as Carey or something, but it doesn't mention in Dion's or Houston's articles that they have done much more touring work than Carey (and if it did someone would remove it.) Carey has rarely toured in her entire career; a few concerts here and there, baby tours basically. Shots against Houston and Dion are unnecessary in Carey's article. You state these should not be fan pages and I agree, but come on; Carey's page is a fan page. And it's time for everyone to wake up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.7 (talk • contribs)
If you see problems with the Mariah Carey article, then you should edit accordingly. Because another article is problematic is not a valid reason to import those same kind of problems to this article. 209.179.168.56 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right, Mariah Carey's article should be edited accordingly. But when you do this, it is changed right back to the way it was. Try it for yourself, you'll see. So since all articles should be on par with each other, and someone refuses to let anyone put in anything they consider damaging to Carey or let anything be put in that's irrelevant (that part I understand), than Houston's article deserves the same treatment. Right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.7 (talk • contribs)
Your statement is illogical and incorrect. You said, "since all articles should be on par with each other." That's not correct. That's not a Wikipedia policy. If one article is weak, that doesn't mean all articles should be made weak to "balance." The sole issue here is the accuracy of the Whitney Houston article. The possible inaccuracy of the Mariah Carey article -- or articles on grasshoppers or calendars or French toast for that matter -- is irrelevant. If someone is making unconstructive edits to the Mariah Carey article, you should alert an administrator who can take the appropriate action. Please also indent your replies properly under the entry to which you are responding and sign your comments with four tildes. 209.179.168.52 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When I read an encyclopedia by book or internet form, I expect it to be consistent and on par with other articles in the same encyclopedia. I don't expect bashing of one person and praise of another, unless I'm reading about Hitler and Mother Theresa. Bottom line is this: If Carey's article is "weak" because it leaves out many things that are considered to be damaging to her or it distorts the truth, our resources would be better spent not defending the practice of including irrelevant events or half-truths into Houston's article but making Carey's article reflect the truth, not just the good stuff. And instead of debating to keep Houston's article the way it is, with tidbits added by haters, it would be much more understandable to get rid of the speculation and ignorant wording -financial problems (joke). Does anyone seriously believe she cannot pay a storage fee. We do not have access to her checking account to state she has financial problems. It could be the stuff in storage is years old and she doesn't want it, so she don't care if it's auctioned off. Now that's my speculation but you don't see it in the article. The event should be stated but the reader should be allowed to come to their own determination. For instance: "Houston's articles in storage will be auctioned off in (whatever month) for unpaid storage fees." That's it! But giving it the title "Financial Problem" and saying it will give her "much needed cash" doesn't even seem real. Then there's the John Houston section (joke, he's not even famous to warrant his own section). Houston knew her father her entire life and the last year of his life his company tried to sue her but lost. Carey didn't even have any contact with her father most of her life and a family member tried to sue her. Perhaps that deserves it's own section. So that's why Houston's article comes off as almost-bashing.

Best-selling remix albums

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