Talk:Dionne Warwick

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

WP:NPOV issue

      The section "1990s to present" begins with:

To explicitly refer to someone as a psychic is to express a personal opinion on a controversial and disputable issue.  I believe this violates WP:NPOV.  I would suggest three possible corrections.

      I would be interested in what other editors have to say about this.  (Before I change an existing article, I always like to allow time for others to express their opinions.)
Richard27182 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over a week since I posted the above and there has been no response, either for or against. I have gone ahead and made one of the changes I proposed. If anyone disagrees with it, please discuss it here.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Terrible Article

To which-ever of you grossly territorial little nerd phuks claims ownership of this horrendous piece: It's written like chit. It's all over the place. It's as if a high school, with no experience at all of '60s music, kid were assigned to write it because his mother was the friend of a friend who admired Dionne obsessively from a far. The article has no center. From the insanely cursory description of the women in the first paragraph, one would believe that were a failed singer turned diplomat.

The next section spends an enormous amount of wasted time, space and energy on the Drinkard Singers...and plays six-degree of Kevin Bacon to get to Whitney Houston--worst to her nobody daughter Bobbi (hah, with no mention of Mr. Brown, but, I guess that's your prerogative). If this were my piece, I'd be ashed to show my face in public.Y.Woodman.Brown (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of this date

The "Expert-subject" was added on this date after finding:

  • the whole of Mid-1960s to early 1970s subsection to be unsourced, and therefore in violation of WP:VERIFY,
  • the same with respect to the the astrology content in Personal life,
  • completely unsourced paragraphs in Early life and family, and
  • so on, throughout the article.

As well throughout, there are clear piecemeal unsourced additions of content, in several places not even good English (e.g., not complete sentences, see series of one sentence paragraphs in later Career subsections). Hence, the article is becoming an embarrassing and continuing accretion of unsourced, poorly sourced, or poorly presented information—all of these WP:VERIFY violations—whose sloppiness, on the whole, makes the whole of this BLP article suspect as to its authority on this subject.

This esteemed artist deserves the best of this encyclopedia, and not the worst, and the worst is what she currently has been given. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for the Future

I have begun to spend time revising all the content and taken on the Herculean task of sorting through all the information.

I encourage all users to avoid messing with any edits that are relevant and that are benefiting the general public's interest by supplying valuable information that is as accurate as possible.--JC (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Brittani?!

Dionne's "niece", but looks way too young to be Marcel's child (he died in 1968), and i see no evidence Dee Dee had kids.

Is she actually a 2nd cousin or great-niece or something else Dionne simply CALLS "niece"? Or did Dionne have OTHER siblings who are somehow never mentioned anywhere?

Amazed I can't piece this together googling. Even the girl herself in interviews mentions her show-biz family, but never ONCE specifies who either of her parents are! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]