Talk:Dirty Diana

Please go to

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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Sheryl Crow is not the woman (groupie) in the video. It is Lisa Dean.video.Mellotee (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. I read a review about the album and I came across an comment about "the misogynistic 'Dirty Diana'." Do you guys think this song is really misogynistic. If you do, why? If you don't, why not? Elemental5293 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this song about Diana Ross? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Tatiana Yvonne on her myspace. She says, "it's neither [me or Crow]. it was just some unknown model used for that" -68.121.165.58 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the two female guitarists in the music video? With the very high sprayed up hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.72.224 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #3 is a

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Dirty Diana/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The language was pretty poor in places, but I tried to copy-edit the article as much as I could, and it should be acceptable now. There are still some issues that need to be resolved though:

• "The songs lyrics pertain to groupies, and has a moderate tempo." - this gives the impression that the two clauses of the sentence are somehow related, which they're really not. It would be better to split it up into two sentences and flesh both of them out a bit; the lead could afford to be a bit longer.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chart performance: Denmark, Norway and Sweden are mentioned in the text, but not in the table. Is there a reason for this?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what's happened there. There's a "Danish Singles Chart" wikilinked to the Norwegian singles chart, and a "Denmark Singles Chart" not linked to anything. I guess the first one is just linked in error, but is there a wikilink to the Danish chart?

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve Stevens - can we have a ref for this?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling a song a "filler" is not a "positive review", perhaps you should say something like "though calling it a "filler", she still..."

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "in all of its major territories" - I'm not quite sure what this means

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"charted within the top thirty positions on music charts", should this not rather be "on several music charts", or something like that?

• ""Pepsi" is written in its logo." - again, don't understand

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "After showing a black screen, the video starts to show Jackson, who is shown from a distance" - this is an example of poor language; "show" is used three times in quick succession. Try to vary the language a bit.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "he would be working on the end of the performance" - unclear exactly what this means.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "engulfed by curtains ready to perform the next song" - first of all, the curtains will now be performing the song; it needs to be clear what/who the subject of the sentence is. Secondly though, it's not quite clear how being "engulfed by curtains" prepares him for performing the next song, unless he would perform the song behind the curtain. This needs to be rewritten in a more comprehensible manner.

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What's up with ref 20? Also, ref 21 isn't working.

 Fixed (I reformatted ref 20 and made ref 20 into a tee link) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is there a "Further reading" section? Why isn't Halstead just incorporated in the refs? Does the book contain a lot more info on this specific song?

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These should be relatively easy changes to make. I'll give the article a week, let me know if you have any questions, or if you feel the article is ready for another assessment. Lampman (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing I noticed that I didn't see previously: the screenshot File:Dirty Diana Music Video.jpg needs a specific fair use rationale, in addition to the standard template. The rationale is supposed to explain how the image complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I just did one for the image File:Flu shot.jpg, or you could look at File:Treehouse of Horror IIa.png; a short one like that is normally sufficient. Lampman (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't add the fair use rationale, and for some reason you removed the Norwegian entry on the table. Lampman (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the Norwegian singles chart to the chart table and fixed the non-free use for the image of the music video. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Lampman (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this. is. not. metal. MasterOfBucket (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty Diana" is also considered a heavy metal ballad, this information has a

--Newalf (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Aoe6cmpe39ffo

--CactusBot (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Song was planned with Give In To Me,In The Closet,Dangerous,Who Is It and Remember The Time for the Dangerous World Tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.33.93 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal here? U keep adding genres like gothic metal, darkwave and much more. Do u have the source for these genres. Michael Jackson is the king of pop not ska punk. Why do you add this genres? Neither He nor this song has nothing to do with these genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.13.64 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Does not approve of unfunny shenanigans.

Speak to me_{concerning my deeds.} 07:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

everytime i visit this page, the song has a different genre. at first it was labbeled as hard rock and pop. Now all of the sudden it is labelled as alternative metal, thrash metal, ska punk, jangle pop and something called symphonic/groove. What is this? can't u be a little specific? I bet u'll change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.4.83 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop this? It probably isn't coincidental that everytime YOU visit the page and post on the talk page, somebody from the same IP address as yours edits the page to your description. This is not funny or even slightly amusing. Changing descriptions to random genres does not improve the page at all. Feel free to contribute positively to Wikipedia, but this type of editing activity is attention-seeking bullcrap.

Speak to me_{concerning my deeds.} 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

SYnthwave.94 keeps changing the key of the song to Bb major, which is incorrect. G minor is the relative minor to Bb major, but there is almost no way to argue that the song is in a major key. It doesn't even contain a Bb major at any point in the song. How could it possibly be in Bb major? The sheet music for footnote 11 is evidence for my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.15 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to discuss the genre. Come to a consensus and it can be changed or kept the same. Any edits that need to be made in the mean-time can be achieved by messaging me or by using {{edit semi-protected}} and then specifying the change. References to reliable sources are the best way to present your case one way or the other. I will not be presenting an opinion on this genre but I will watch the discussion :) James086^Talk 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Michael Jackson does a rock song doesn't make it a pop rock song because it should be categorized on the basis of it's own style rather than that typical of the music artist — Mötley Crüe, Poison, Guns N' Roses and Bon Jovi each could've recorded this hard rock and heavy metal (but not pop rock) song. Examples of pop rock include Hey, Soul Sister by Train, Maps by Maroon 5 and Counting Stars by OneRepublic. According to their respective articles, the aforementioned songs are each pop rock songs, however, Dirty Diana, while having a commercially-oriented and radio-friendly sound, is nonetheless a bona fide hard rock and heavy metal song, and if it hadn't been recorded by the King of Pop it would not be described as a pop rock song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.5.125 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dirty Diana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thelavalizard.com/2013/04/dynamic-duos-10-greatest-duets/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.philly.com/1987-09-01/entertainment/26209287_1_1982-s-thriller-plastic-surgery-siedah-garrett
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/michaeljackson/albums/album/259584/review/6067877/bad
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.music.yahoo.com/read/review/12040814
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://musicseek.info/no1hits/1988.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/80s_files/19880702.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020025459/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=21533&pages= to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=21533&pages=
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/80s_files/1988YESP.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sample /covers section be important especially adding the weeknds cover of dirty diana and the sample that was used In Burna Boys monster you made (Ft Chris martin) Mr Boar1 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERG

.

Basically, we don't list everything that exists—see

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We only list important things. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(1) [2]https://www.stereogum.com/2147147/the-number-ones-michael-jacksons-dirty-diana/columns/the-number-ones/

(2) [3]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Number_Ones/Jk9jEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22dirty+diana%22+%22michael+jackson%22+%22glam+metal%22&pg=PT179&printsec=frontcover

Thanks! AgentKozak (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say No, to all your posts for "Glam". - FlightTime (open channel) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All? Please clarify? AgentKozak (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have issues with your sources, as with any genre source(s), they're just someone's opinion. Please wait to see what other editors say. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; AgentKozak (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Sony manufactured a headline for no other reason than they wanted to namedrop the princess. But it doesn't matter if there's a site e that says it. Saying "we thought about not performing the song, but in the end we performed it anyway" is NOT a story. It's utterly pointless. That's why this piece of trivia has been removed. 89.240.48.37 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While you may think it's pointless, three other editors disagree with you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]