Talk:Dusty Springfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Perfectionist?

The article claims that Springfield did many re-dubs because she was a "perfectionist". I'd suggest it was because she wasn't half the singer we have been brainwashed into believing she was. Her out of tune squawking on the tunes she recorded with the Pet Shop Boys are testament to this.

Guv2006 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Maybe she's just off key because of age. Edit: After checking my collection, the "A Love Like Yours" in the Beautiful Soul album (Originally unissued, session from 1974 unreleased ‘Longing') is a classical example of being out of tune, especially comparing to her 1978 version of the same songs in 'It Begins Again'. I thought sometimes singers are just doing Karaoke sessions as we ordinary people do.

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although it's not up to us as individual editors to "make a judgement" about Dusty's status as an icon (that would be POV) it is safe to say that she can be classified as one. Her biographies mention this, as well as a documentary produced in the UK. (for example, the Royal Albert Hall concert and her comments about "royalty isn't confined to the box" and "let out a manly growl or a girlish shriek, I don't care who does which" etc etc etc.) Frankly, I think the article should mention more about her sexuality, as that too is verified in the biographies and the documentary. This appears, however, to have been part of the article before and then deleted. But, back on topic, yes, I would say it's safe to categorize her as a gay icon. NickBurns 14:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why should there be more information about her sexuality? she was a fabulous singer and a talented woman, so why should it matter anyway?

It would be honest to mention that she was a lesbian. That is an important factor that shaped and guided her life. To leave that out leaves the reader with only a partial view of her. mptwiki 8:28, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The fact that mention of her sexuality is objected to (when references to the spouses and children of public figures is commonly accepted as biographical information) is proof enough that homophobia exists and needs to be rectified by such things as inclusive biographical information about public figures.

The oblique references to her "sexuality" are ambiguous. From the current text, a reader could assume she was a promiscuous heterosexual, and not a lesbian. She is well recognised as a famous lesbian, so this should be clear in the article.

I think it would be appropriate to list the fact that she was a lesbian in the article not in trivia! It would never be listed as trivia that someone had a husband or that they weer female. Gfad1 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to address the sexuality issue - especially vis a vis the last few comments. A lot of the resistance about listing her as a lesbian comes from her ***own inner circle***, particularly her close friend Simon Bell, who was a backup singer for her and runs the "Dusty Devotedly" site. I am not sure whether it's a matter of debate about whether she was or not - or, as I suspect, the fact that her friends feel it's "not important" and might tarnish her image. Please don't shoot the messenger...I'm just sharing what I've seen and read on some of the sites.

The other conflict is that we have two biographies of Dusty; one states she's straight (or implies she's more straight than not) and the second one completely pulls her out of the closet. So there is some debate there. (I am more apt to believe the second one, since it was co-written by her manager Vicki Wickham.) NickBurns 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to add a section on her sexuality. I attempted to address the fact that there is some debate about this, rather than make it black or white. NickBurns 03:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I admire the efforts of Dusty's dear friends to protect her memory, they are doing an incredible disservice to history, not to mention the very gay population to which some of them belong. It may be none of our business, but if she failed to protect it and it has entered the public eye (as George Michael's sexuality did in more infamous fashion), either by first hand accounts or skillful reconstruction, then it is now part of history. We cannot change the facts. (unsigned comment)

Agreed - but we also don't have definitive statements from the artist in question. Remember that under every editing window, the phrase "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" appears. Carole Pope appears to have been one of her lovers, but it's still second-person account. Yes, it should be mentioned, but it needs to be mentioned in context, not as the gospel truth. NickBurns 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that having a whole section devoted to her sexuality and called like that is wrong. I think it should be trimmed and integrated in her life section. Her sexuality was not such a big part in the public eye and therefore should not be give such a chunk of the article. It draws away from what she is known for, namely her TALENT. People not trusted with he read this article and might think that she was a lesbian singer, and no more. Dollvalley 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She was actively bisexual, which she admitted. I don't see why anyone is claiming that to not be the case. It is important: a biography is about the subject's life, not just their career. Though her career should comprise most of the article (which it does), relationships and orientation are correctly stated, where known. In Dusty's case, her orientation played a major role in her life, and influenced her career; her bisexuality gained her more LGBT fans, whom regard her an icon. F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way was she 'actively bisexual'? The only mention of relationships in the article is in connection with women. Indeed, a quote from Dusty in the article suggests she is incapable of loving a man! The 'sexuality' section of this article for some odd reason doesn't say she's a lesbian but implies she was bisexual. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"I know I'm perfectly as capable of being swayed by a girl as by a boy," clearly spells she communicated herself as bisexual. And she doesn't say she's incapable of loving a man but:"The catchphrase is: I can't love a man," meaning people say she's lesbian. Unless evidence is presented, she never was sexually attracted to a man, she's bisexual. --Erikupoeg (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding to the Sexuality section of the article a request for clarification of how the quote "I am glad to see that royalty isn't confined to the box" reveals anything about her sexuality. There must be some sexual meaning in those words that is unfamiliar to me, but if it is unfamiliar to me (a middle-aged gay man), it probably will be unfamiliar to many other people as well.--Jim10701 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In gay slang, queen is a term used to refer to flamboyant or effeminate gay men. In that light DS's quote can be interpreted as a her happily recognizing homosexual men but nothing more. AFAIK there is no use of royal-sounding titles for lesbians. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Hi Nick Burns... Just wanted to say that I thought the section on Dusty Springfield's sexuality was handled fairly and appropriately. The topic needed to be addressed -- you did so in a manner that allowed the several sides of the issue to come to light. Good show! jacinto2997

Ditto, despite my favoring grown-up honesty, this was well handled for all sides. tednor

Just seeing this now. Thanks for the comments. I do think in the absence of an "I am what I am!" moment from her, that this was the fairest way to deal with it. NickBurns 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Songwriters

There should be more mention to the people who wrote her songs. I had no idea that she was or may have been a lesbian or gay icon, or anything like that. I dont see how any of it is relevant. What is more relevant is who wrote the songs which are mentioned and the songs which she is known for. There is references to the Bacharach-David partnership, but no specific songwriting credits given when songs are mentioned. This is what is important and what needs addressing in this article.

Wishin' and Hopin'

No mention of this one even though lots of people like that song the best.

Story to steal topic, but I am "Wishin' and Hopin'" that more people continue to fill in the many gaps in the story of this incredible and most singular talent. I took immediate license from the "dive right in" advice of the Wiki. Every time I visit this page I come up with something to offer and know that if it is not right someone will fix it. There should be more here. Dusty accomplished and stood for some of the most amazing things in popular music, we owe it back to her that she be honored for each and every one! And please someone start gathering quotes from Dusty's peers so that her "excellence" is not dismissed as POV. She is perhaps the only singer who could draw wide and diverse quotes of praise from the broadest sampling of the industry, Let's put those quotes here for her please.tednor

11/30/06 Removing statement about Grammy win by the Springfield's. Please provide source for this information, if any.

People with absolute pitch

I would love to see Dusty added to this group, and I remember Jerry Wexler's mention of her "miraculous" pitch, but not sure the location of that quote. Can someones who knows of sources (or is qualified to quote himself as a professional musician) please place Dusty there if this is true? thanks--Tednor 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I just noticed that this article has next to no references in it. I'm not sure, but I think some earlier ones may have been deleted. I'm going to go through and try to re-enter those. In the meantime, I have temporarily added the references tag to the main article. NickBurns 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I close my eyes and count to ten.....

...and when I open them again.....there is STILL an insane content dispute going on in this article. *sigh*

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being a boss here, or if it seems like I'm being demanding. And I DO NOT OWN this artlcle. But I have major concerns....several things are happening. There are a lot of editors to this article right now who are new to Wikipedia - who have not completely gotten the hang of Wikipedia, who don't understand that statements in the article need supporting documentation, who want to make this a Dusty tribute (as well meaning as that is, it's a NO NO) and who don't understand basic Wikipedia formatting enough to even make comments on their talk pages or on others correctly. AND on top of all that, we have a content dispute over something relatively silly.

Those folks may want to read the following:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAME

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man. This was for whoever made the comment that "Dusty wouldn't like what you've added to the article". In other words, one doesn't need to overdo it.

I love Dusty's music a lot, believe me. But I am, first and foremost, an objective Wikipedia editor. I believe in this project and what it's capable of, and to do Ms. Springfield's legacy proud, it would be great to have a well-written, encyclopedia, neutral, objective article, rather than a mish-mash that gets edited every 20 seconds. I hope this can be resolved. NickBurns 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Swing out Sister

Given that substantial portions of the Trivia section have been trimmed, I cannot fathom why Swing Out Sister should remain. The fact is that Springfield had fabulous taste in songs and quite a few musicians have covered one or two or three of the same numbers (Dionne Warwick, Cyndi Lauper, Alison Moyet, The Carpenters, etc...). Seems to me an arbitrary chance to mention Swing Out Sister (or am I missing something?).--Tednor 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Last plea for peace in the links war

Okay, I've tried to help folks resolve this issue, or to get people to agree to disagree. There have been 250 edits to this article in the last month, and 95% were (a) about these links and (b) by the same half-dozen people. Differences of opinion are to be expected, but ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

I propose the following:

• Please work this out amongst yourselves and come to an agreement. Please do so in a week's time (by 1/12/07).
• If the link war is still going on then, but people are open to mediation, I will happily assist you by submitting the case for mediation. You would need to understand that the administrator's word is pretty final in these cases.
• If no one is willing to mediate and these edits continue, I will contact the administrators about EVERY editor involved (whether they have a user name or IP address).

In the spirit of what Wikipedia is about I would strongly suggest people work this out amongst themselves and make this a collaboration, rather than a war. NickBurns 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Plea for Ravenfire et al to leave the links alone

Hello,

I am Forum Admin at Let's Talk Dusty, and would like to stress that the teams behind the links listed in this article get along perfectly well, and are often members of each other's forums.

The person deleting and messing with the links is an outsider.

I have reason to believe (from IP number and choice of words on the Talk pages) that the person in question - known as Ravenfire et al - had his membership revoked on (at least) two of the forums due to misbehaviour, namely on Let's Talk Dusty (LTD) and Dusty Springfield Network (DSN). His behaviour here seems to be some petty revenge, and both the admins of LTD and DSN have tried to restore the links when they had been sabotaged by him.

If there is any way the links could be protected from further sabotage, it would be very helpful. Thank you for your assistance so far. LTD team 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I please say that the above is utter lies.

The person they think I am (they clearly have no idea about proxy servers) has made a statement on his old site:

• Dusty Springfield: White Lady Of Soul

I am not he, in fact I am a she!!!

I think the cruel nature of the post above is just cause for its removal.

Jan (Ravenfire 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Links

The constant adding and removal of the links on this article is driving me barmy. It really is very silly. I don't think that Message Board links are appropriate as they are only listed for advertising purposes. Links should only be listed that work as a reference to the actual article itself. We add that that criteria, then none of the links currently listed should be there.

What do other Editors think?

Jan (Ravenfire 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

No Response?

I'm trying to talk with you all here!?! I've removed the sales and promotional links once more, in spite of the vandals trying to mess it all up. Some chat on this discussion page would be good as I wish to work with fellow Editors and not fight with them. Janet (Ravenfire 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC))—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenfire (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Link wars

I'm going to ask this one more time. Have your forum wars on your forums. This page, or the article, is not the appropriate place. As to the question of which forums or fansites should be linked from the article, I have an easy answer. None of them. Please do not reinsert the links. WP:NOT a link farm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a great resolution, Seraphimblade. In the absence of an "official" website, this is probably the best route to go. NickBurns 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bits and Pieces

Wasn't "Bits and Pieces" composed by Dominic Frontiere? 74.103.207.88 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template and compilations discography

Hi there. I created a template for the original studio albums and added it to the bio and discography pages. Hope it's OK with you - if not just delete them. About compilations; with so many compilations being released and so few of them offering something new, how about a guide to the ones actually worth buying or searching for. Just an idea... (83.226.211.46 13:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC))dreamer.se

Fair use rationale for Image:Dusty Springfield Complete A&B.jpg

Image:Dusty Springfield Complete A&B.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recording

Dusty Springfield carried out some of her early U.S. track recordings at the 914 Sound Studios in Blauvelt, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyackhigh (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

This page seems to have had a lot of abusive external link additions and deletions, along with inappropriate comments aimed at various people. A standard way suggested by the encyclopedia's External link guideline, WP:EL, to deal with articles where there are many similar sites that could be linked is to add a link to the appropriate Dmoz category. I've added that. 2005 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, it's a good solution. Erikupoeg (talk) , 11:27 12 March 2008 (GMT)

Second Paragraph Opening Statements.

mm... I do realize that she is a soul singer and although I understand this comment "Dusty Springfield sang as if born with black American soul,[10] while making no effort in sounding black." it is a little offensive to both blacks and whites. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. PhoenixPrince (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker and I'm white, so I don't have any points to make, except for one: if any black person here on Wikipedia is offended by the terms 'black people' and 'black soul' used in Dusty Springfield article, please feel free to express that on this talk page. Erikupoeg (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm of mixed parentage, and I'm offended. Not so much by the sentiments, but by the bad writing. How about, "Dusty Springfield's distinctive vocal style was influenced by American soul and R&B singers such as (name a few examples)." 99.230.227.201 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if You provide sources for that. The present statement has got two. (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the criticism again. The poster isn't saying the material is unsourced. The poster is saying the material, sourced or not, is badly written and is trying to offer a reasonable alternative.

In fact, in this case the sources are irrelevant, as the statements are ludricrous. "Dusty Springfield sang as if born with black American soul" is utterly meaningless in any factual context. What definitive, factual source could possibly back up this statement? It's an opinion, masquerading as a piece of information. The statement "while making no effort in sounding black" is also completely unquantifiable -- who says so? And how could they KNOW what Springfield's intentions may or may not have been in this area?

The point is that the poster above is trying to make the statement both clear and factual: that Dusty Springfield's distinctive vocal style was influenced by African-American soul and R&B singers. Full stop. And there are many sources that could be pointed to that actually make this claim -- including the sources from which the above opinions about Springfield's style and intentions were sourced. 141.117.210.184 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but it still misses the fact that while singing soul music, Dusty sounded distinctively white. In other words, Dusty never did a good copy of black singers, but developed her own, white sound. I think, we should keep that in mind, while re-writing the section. Erikupoeg (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gushing...

In the section "A Girl Called Dusty", a claim is made that Her pioneering choice of material by the songwriters Burt Bacharach, Hal David, Randy Newman and Carole King was exemplary.

While the tone of this entire article is almost comically gushing, this particular statement simply beggars belief.

"Pioneering?" By 1964, Bacharach and David were well-established songwriters -- Bacharach was writing hit songs as early as 1957. Teaming up with Hal David a little later, by 1964, Bacharach and David had already penned many big hits for Dionne Warwick, Gene Pitney and Chuck Jackson (among others). Bacharach and Hal's brother Mack David also wrote the big 1961 hit "Baby It's You" for The Shirelles, which had been covered by the Beatles in '63. The point is that by '64, whether in the US or the UK, these guys were well-known, proven hitmakers -- covering their songs in 1964 was hardly pioneering.

Same with Carole King, who was also a well-established songwriter by 1964, having already co-written huge hits for Little Eva (The Loco-Motion, Keep Your Hands Off My Baby), The Shirelles (Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow), The Drifters (Up On The Roof) and even having had a solo hit as a performer (It Might As Well Rain Until September) as early as 1961. Covering King's work in 1964 may have shown taste, but not anything approaching a pioneering spirit.

Now covering Randy Newman in 1964? That would have been pioneering. However, the actual number of Randy Newman songs on A Girl Called Dusty -- even the CD version with bonus tracks -- is exactly zero (0). 172.132.3.163 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well caught 172.132.3.163 whoever you are. The unbelievable claim is removed but so also are several of the song writers it mentioned. Someone may like to name them in connection with their particular songs.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Is there any actual evidence that Springfield was of Irish origin or a practicing Catholic? Short of reliable sources, we will need to trim a couple of categories and a sentence from this article. And no, IMDB is not a reliable source for this sort of thing. --John (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the current source in the article, the Observer? 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...

Quite a bit of this article is fawning opinion, not fact. The worst offender (in my opinion), occurs in the opening paragraphs:

Her oddly erotic,[6][14] husky voice[10][3] communicated a sense of longing that demanded the listener's attention.[15] Springfield sung around her material, rather than taking possession of her songs.[11] Her singing had depth, while presenting direct and simple statements about love.[11]

It matters not a whit that these statements are 'sourced'. Everything presented in these sentences is merely an opinion that is not factually quantifiable by any source. In the interests of fairness, though, I haven't yet removed these sentences, as I believe that people should have a chance to respond to these concerns. But I strongly believe that these sentences seriously detract from the article and should be dropped -- not simply rewrtten, but completely removed from the article.

Any argument? 172.169.146.140 (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that the statements lack neutral point of view. An article about a singer needs facts about the way she sings. And there is no way in hell, that you're gonna get quantified data on that. Take the featured article of Kate Bush for instance. It claims, that Kate Bush's singing is 'surreal'. Although not quantifiable, the statement adds very well to the article. What an encyclopedia needs, is the 'general' perception of the person's singing style. Looks like the article does not catch it yet, but merely presents opinions of single critics. I encourage wikipedians to find sources, that present neutral statements about the general perception of Dusty Springfield's singing style. Until we do, I suggest to keep the present Artistry section and its summary in the lead section. Erikupoeg (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess one can pick and choose among adjectives in published sources (that no one has objected to). I like "intimate and heartbreakingly urgent voice" [3] and don't care for "husky" which I don't find sourced. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, picking and choosing among publshed sources is exactly the problem. Because before you know it, we'll get a list of adjectives from all over the place, which will include such patently unquantifiable things as "oddly erotic". Or (in the case of Kate Bush), "surreal". Counter to Erikupoeg above, I'd argue that describing Bush's singing voice as "surreal" is an utterly meaningless description to put in an encyclopedia. What does does that actually mean? I've listened to Kate Bush, and her voice has always sounded real to me...

Also contrary to Erikupoeg, I'd argue that keeping the Artistry section and its summary (in its current form) actually hurts the article. The argument that's being presented is that what's in the article is better than nothing -- but I beleive that, because it's NPOV and not especially well-written, it's actually worse than nothing. It damages the integirty of the article, calling everything that's written in it into question. So rather than keep something that (I think) we all agree is flawed, why not remove it until we can come up wth an acceptable alternative? 172.132.234.33 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In a sense we say that everything in Wikipedia is flawed, meaning that we go on working to improve it. It is notable that a singer, in this case Dusty Springfield, inspired a published statement such as the sultry intimacy and heartbreaking urgency of Springfield's voice transcended image and fashion - Jason Ankeny[1]. Whether you characterise this as admiration or fawning ("hear hear!" or "ugh ugh!") is POV. Whether it encapsulates well the perception of her listeners, that is the question.

I agree with 172.132.234.33 that "oddly erotic" does not bear scrutiny: the only way it should be included is in the form described once as "oddly erotic"[2] which is true but IMO insufficiently notable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There've been enough positive suggestions here on this forum not to delete the section but re-write it. I totally agree, that we should'nt go for a list of every possible adjective on the Web, but I can assure you guys, this is not the case here. I'll go with Cuddlyable3's idea to present notable statements about her singing style as quotes from established sources. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Before you hit the revert button...

I love Dusty, you love Dusty, we all love Dusty. I'm picturing her devotees feverishly adding TV appearances, rankings in newspaper and magazine polls, lost tracks salvaged and included on re-issue albums — which is all great, except for one thing: when you're adding this information, it should be in the correct format. TV shows are italicized. Newspaper and magazine titles are italicized (e.g., Rolling Stone, Guardian, New Musical Express). And album titles are always italicized (e.g., Dusty in Memphis), song titles are always enclosed in quotation marks (e.g., "The Windmills of Your Mind").

Kudos to all Dusty fans for knowing all this exhaustive information. I've learned a lot from all of you. But I grow weary of having to correct all of these style boners, which are clearly spelled out in WP:MOS. So add relevant information—with sources, of course—but please put it in the correct format.

One more thing: some of the more florid and tangled prose appearing here sounds as if it were written by person whose first language is perhaps German. Here's a suggestion, before any more unnerving reverts: German people are really good at obsessively cataloguing things (broad generalization); native English speakers (esp. Brits, and to a lesser extent, Americans) have a flair for the language. So let's each do what we do best to make Dusty a stellar Wikipedia entry. BTW, I'm American, so that's my take on my fellow language manglers. Thank you and goodnight. Kinkyturnip (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Artistry section

The artistry section in this article is extremely POV. (1) Wikipedia never has an opinion about anything. It is strictly neutral. So the following sentences (and pretty much every other sentence in the section) are major problems:

• "Dusty Springfield had an oddly erotic[6] husky voice."
• "Her voice communicated a sense of longing that demanded the listener's attention."
• "She created music that was evocative rather than overwhelming."
• "Her songs had depth, while presenting direct and simple statements about love."

The fact that these sentences are referenced don't help one bit, since all that conveys is "This is Wikipedia's opinion and this is where we got it from. What should be done instead is that this section should be changed to a critical response section, and specific opinions should be attributed to specific commentators. For example, Rolling Stone magazine called Springfield a great singer." According to the NPOV policy:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. ... By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion....

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

This is the standard of Wikipedia, and this has not been done here.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have begun to remedy the section by (a) rewording the opinions to attribute them to the source (3) merging the section with legacy and (3) removing all references to unreliable sites (IMDB and fansites, as well as celebrity sites like ElvisCostello.com).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status

This is an excellent article in my opinion, I'm a little surprised this hasn't even reached Good Article status, much less become a Featured Article candidate. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because this is not a prime Good Article candidate. The tone is far too fawning, and there are far, far too many opinions dressed up as facts. Plus, it's endless...this article needs some serious pruning. 99.254.220.44 (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When was the name "Dusty Springfied" adopted?

The article suggests Mary O'Brien was known as, or at least referred to as "Dusty" as a child.

She joined the Lana Sisters in 1958--presumably as Mary O'Brien, although perhaps still known as "Dusty" to some--before forming The Springfields in 1960.

Did Mary O'Brien become "Dusty Springfield" when The Springfields were formed in 1960? Or was it when The Springfields broke up in 1963, and Mary/Dusty began a solo career, that the name "Dusty Springfield" was adopted?

Please sign your posts. This reference says: Looking to expand [The Springfields]'s sound, Dion invited Mary to join the group, and they adopted new stage names; Mary became Dusty Springfield, while her brother became Tom Springfield. This means DS had taken her performing name before she debuted as a solo singer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan page

User:Humboldtbear has removed large chunks of text to the following reason which he posted on my userpage:"I'm surprised that if you love DUSTY SPRINGFIELD that you have deliberately gone out of your way to highlight in a crude manner some of Dusty's excesses. I will keep on deleting any unnecessary derogatory remarks. I’m all for truth and accuracy but stop at downright mischief making!"

Wikipedia is not a fan page dedicated to the good sides of somebody's pet singer. Deletion of significant facts about Dusty Springfield's negative sides will give the article undue bias per WP:NPOV. --Erikupoeg (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Erikupoeg is right here. User:Humboldtbear has also posted insult[3] and seems to threaten an edit war. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability not someone's perceived truth. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

The freshly added maintenance tags are not helping at all as there is no clear indication of what exactly is repeated and what should be reorganised what way. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ain't No Sunshine

I am not wiki-savvy.

I am not Dusty-savvy either.

I didn't even know her race, much less sexual preferences, just was curious what she looked like.

I am making a WILD GUESS here.

I suspect that the song referenced in 1967-68 section, "Ain't No Sun When She's Gone" is actually this classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_No_Sunshine

If she didn't cover it, she should have :-)

Somebody with a copy of the album could probably confirm/deny in seconds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.36.91 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Ain't No Sunshine Since You've Been Gone - Track 1, Side A from album "Dusty... Definitely" , UK 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The song referenced is in fact "Aint No Sun (Since You've Been Gone)" a 1968 composition by Cornelius Grant, Sylvia Moy and Norman Whitfield that has no connection to Bill Withers' "Aint No Sunshine" from 1971. "Aint No Sun" is actually one of the few Motown songs mega-Motown fan Dusty recorded. Although cut by several Motown artists - including Gladys Knight & the Pips and the Temptations - "Aint No Sun" was not a hit single; as there was no widely known definitive version Dusty probably wasn't too intimidated to cover it as she might have been with a classic Motown hit (just my POV!).--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)