![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Seems to me that this phrase "often cited as one of the greatest life performances of all time." in the Style and Performance section should read "greatest live performances". I'm not able to edit it myself so I thought I'd post this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.101.219 ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article contains much useful information, but its makeup and contents are very apologetic. The first thing the general public think of when they hear the name Michael Jackson is not the music, but the controversy surrounding his physical appearance and his private life. Almost all we get on this are quotes by Michael Jackson himself, which I do not think many people outside the fan circles will find particularly convincing. More extensive and more balanced sections are needed on these issues, whereas the albums section could do with some abridging.-- 84.190.49.142 ( talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh hush dude, your one of those people who merge his face with monkeys in photoshop and think its funny, Hold On, or try and make dodgy pictures of his nose dropping off when he's having serious problems with lupus, Hold On, or making lies up about him bleaching his skin, Hold On, i have heard enough from your kind Gao gier Talk! 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, excuse me. the poster has the right and the question has every reason to be asked, this page positively skirts around any of the more controversial issues that Jackson fans might choose to stick their heads in the sand about. I posted valid reasons before as to why many of the sources here are completely unreliable and there was scant disscusion from Jackson fans regarding it. For example, [1] used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. [2], [3], [4], [5] or most information from dedicated fan sites such as [6] and [7]. [8], [9]. Is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?
All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attempts at encyclopedic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references. Quite frankly, I have had enough from your kind too. Whilst we're at the childish "I will assume you to be, so I feel better" game I'd wager you're the kind of person to tastelessly release pidgeons into the air upon the announcement of Jackson's innocence following 'child molestation charges', ugh. This page is nigh on worthless than anything other than a fan site. (EDIT: Most of the sources have been changed since this was written I believe, so some of this is redundant.) OoohOoohAaah ( talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, i totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.27.129 ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
All the sources that remain are legitimate, all fan stuff has been resolved. Realist2 ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Realist2, what I have been trying to say is that the article only has "Wacko Jacko"; a demeaning epithet. It does not have "Jacko" (without the "Wacko") anywhere in the body. I thought that was clear in at least my 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) edit. Understanding that now, could you please provide answers to my last three questions or wait for a while to let me see someone else's opinion?-- Thecurran ( talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add the jacko part next to the wacko jacko part, as long as its not in the lead you can add "F**king W*an*ker" for all i care. so long as its legitimately sourced. Just not in the lead. Realist2 ( talk) 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The last mentions in this section are of his '93 oprah interview relative to his '88 book; should there be any mention that his appearance and skin colour have continued to deteriorte in the fifteen years since then? TheHYPO ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
His skin colour hasnt changed since 1993, its as white now as it was then. Infact ive seen pictures where he looks darker now than he did in 1993. Maybe thats lighting. Additionally its open to a large amount of pov editing, its a matter of taste and opinion. For example, I think his plastic surgery did get worse since 1993, i think his apperance reached a low point around 2001-2003. However i believe he looks a lot better now in 2008 than he did 6 or 7 years ago. Realist2 ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why was it removed? and Realist2 I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try my best. Σαι ( Talk) 04:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know your busy but please do try, its more important now than ever. Realist2 ( talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok but why was the image removed? Σαι ( Talk) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, readd it if you like. It should be in wiki commons. Realist2 ( talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no picture of MJ now, in all the pictures on the article they are outdated and he is still black. I don't know if any of you all major editors of this article have an issue with the fact he is no longer black but using an outdated picture is just wrong and in my personal opinion highly miss-leading. -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally it could never be used as the lead picture anyway. Its a mugshot, my should a mugshot of a person found not guilty be used as the lead picture. It would never happen to a white guy. It goes against NPOV by suggesting he was somehow guilty. As already noted, there is a picture of him from 1995. He was as light then as he is now, i dont see the issue. Realist2 ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Who cares your not getting the mugshot as a lead picture for a bunch of other resonses. Bore someone else. Realist2 ( talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What ever, the picture has a place yes, but thats not here, it should go to People v. Jackson. Realist2 ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Im also slightly concerned about a possible conflict of interest with this editer. He has made some, lets say, "interesting", edits on the African American article. Realist2 ( talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your mad if you think you can convince us that his mugshot should be the main picture of this article, it wont last 5 minutes. Oh and im not black, im latino. Realist2 ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, its great. Realist2 ( talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as we can use magazine shoots as lead pictures its fine. I know we cant use magazine covers. Realist2 ( talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like to say that I'm liking the new photo. It's up-to-date, high quality and it's clearly MJ. It's also just simply a nice pic. Try to keep it if you can. 86.146.233.103 ( talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bet you would like that but its ulikely to stay, notice how its a picture from a magazine and is off centre. Realist2 ( talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not acceptable and the article wont be able to pass FA with it. Realist2 ( talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If a lead picture portrays a living person in an unnessary bad light it wont be used. Realist2 ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu thankyou, i learn something new every day. ;-) Realist2 ( talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I added another picture. -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes i see, im going to look into getting it removed, as it was taken at his trial we know he was hospitalised twice, had a doctor in court to support him and had lost 2 stone in weight. It completely distorts what he looks like now in 2008. Realist2 ( talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually ive never had an issue with his skin tone, i for one am capable of looking beyond such issue's, also if you look at my user page you will see that i favour the music he did when he had light skin. I liked Jackson's appearance in the 90's. However this picture isnt good at all, i find it quite troubling actually that a picture could ever be used of ANY person when they were at the time in a terrible state of health. As i asked the opinion of admins on every occasion i cant quite see where i went wrong. Realist2 ( talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I re-uploaded the "copyrighted" image in a dramatically shrunk version as a fair use image.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He is not being rude or threatening, i remember you threatening me with a report? You have just reinstated the fair - use picture. Its not allowed, it must be free. You were told this but you continue. Please, i advise you to revert your own edit, you are being disruptive and are possibly in violation of the 3RR. Realist2 ( talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A rule is a rule ok, i would double check with the admin before reinstating if i were you. Realist2 ( talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cooljuno411, you are not allowed that picture in the lead info box, and you cannot add it to the lead text either. This is getting absurd. Realist2 ( talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also im a little confused. You keep saying in a car but he isnt in a car. There is a guy behind him holding an umbrella. Realist2 ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A dont know how you reached that conclusion to be honest, it seems rather an odd assumption to make. Realist2 ( talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He started becoming ill in 2003 when he was first arrested, he suffered for 2.5 years until June 2005. Realist2 ( talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And it wasnt until the following year that he had recovered. Realist2 ( talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a photo of MJ in a red 'Beat It' jacket and the picture description states it is MJ performing 'Bad' during the Bad Tour. The photo is clearly a few years after the Bad era. - Kaneite
Yeah its from the HISory tour and we already have a decent picture for that era. I removed it. I think we need something for the Dangerous era and then we have enough. Realist2 ( talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We did have one but it was deleted for copyright issues. Realist2 ( talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s" is not factually correct. It might arguably have have been so for a period of time, but that hasn't been the case for quite a number of years now.
Similary regarding, "often referred to as The King of Pop".
Most pop afficionados during the last en or more years would, if they knew of him, regard him as part of pop's history, rather the (current) king, or a still-dominant presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.229 ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To your first point, if you carry on reading down the lead it does say very clearly that album sales has been in decline since the mid 1990's. Secondly, so is elvis a part of music history and he's still called the king of rock an roll. Until either are outsold or either are officially de-crowned by some other artist they retain their statues. On and a crappy Thriller reissue has almost sold 2 million copies already with zero promo. It might make your cry but a new studio album by Jackson if handled correctly will easily outsell his last stusio album. Lol its as if that trial saved his career not finished it. Bye. Realist2 ( talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A hypothetical current album is not evidence that he is still a major current pop artist. The fact is, it's been 7 years since he released an album. The "King of Pop" moniker was appropriate in the 1980's, but not so much presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.121.89 ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like the king of rock and roll moniker isnt appropriate for elvis who hasnt released an album in decades right? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something or maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying. The Will.i.am article has the "W" capitalized in the title of the article and in both places where the article talk about him. Shouldn't we be consist with the subject's article when we talk about him in other articles such as this one? Jons63 ( talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
His page used to be lower case, it must have been altered. However if you go to his page again and look at his official website link its lower case. Lol I think no1 really nows. As every other letter in the name is lower case (even after a full stop) it makes sense that its all lower case. Certainly on the thriller album article we have written it as lower case. Realist2 ( talk) 14:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
History is spelled wrong in the menu... thought you should know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.151 ( talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Its ment to be like that. Realist2 ( talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time wondering why Michael's success has to be mentioned as "something a black artist had never experienced" and "Michael was rarely referred to as a "black artist", which is controversial within itself. Also the paragraph that starts off the "Bad" section should be given its own own section within Michael's personal life page. Sorry that I didn't voice out on this after editing it. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well its true, who gives a damn if its controversial, lifes a bitch, black artists were treated like crap before MJ changed the rules, so.... , as for the intro to the bad section, it used to come at the end of the Thriller section but as the Thriller section was so big i moved it. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But then again, you have to say had it not been for Berry Gordy's Motown Records label and its roster of artists, especially concerning The Supremes in the sixties and Diana Ross in the seventies, and for artists like Dionne Warwick, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye (even if his audience was still mostly predominantly black by the end of his career) and Isaac Hayes were the first black artists to sell well regardless of race and/or genres. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they sold well, but their sales were hampered significantly because of their race, its just a fact, no matter how unpleasant. What Jackson did was completely different, he ended the racial profiling, people forgot he was black because it didnt matter. Unfortunately for those other artists it was still a major issue. Remember one thing, those artists you mentioned, they could perform at the casinos for rich white folk but couldnt actually spend their money along side them. Go figure so to speak. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
True. As unfortunate as that is, you are 100% right about that. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Life is a bitch, but we have michael jackson to thank for changing things, because of him black people can not only perform for white folk at casinos but also spend their money there, still that the past, things have changed, but we should always be greatful for what he did. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Having being asked to cast a fresh eye over the article, here's some stuff from the lead that struck me as problematic but which I thought needed fixing/considering by others rather than just me changing it:
Will keep working through as I get time. Gusworld ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just made a large number of edits to the text. These are so numerous that I haven't justified them individually (most relate to expression and structure), but I'm happy to discuss the reasoning behind any of them on here. I've also added some more 'main' article sublinks throughout the text, and I put in a mention of Jackson's three most noteworthy albums in the lead, where they definitely needed mentioning. There's also a smattering of fact tags for specific information that lacks a source.
Some general observations on stuff I haven't touched yet but think need work:
* Some of the finances material would make more sense in the chronological section (especially since 2007 is conspicuous by its absence). The stuff on the loans in particular is still hard to follow (I may have another go at tidying this up).
* I appreciate that the general style used here has been to spell out all numbers, but I think that using numbers is more stylistically appropriate for chart positions, ages over ten and extremely high numbers (such as sales figures). I haven't made those changes for the most part but I'd very strongly advise them; "This album reached #39' is much easier to read than "This album reached number thirty-nine". That goes double with figures like $5 million, which I have changed. There's some debate in the Manual of Style over this, but there's no support for always spelling out numbers in every case as far as I can see.
* The VH1 and Rolling Stone accolades for Off The Wall seem unneeded, especially in an overview article. The general conclusion on the albums Wikiproject is that rankings such as '500 best albums' ever are best avoided, and the Grammy and other awards make it clear that this is a highly-regarded album.
* There's a bad case of recentism in the Thriller 25 material, which has far more detail on chart performance and contents than any release discussed in the article. I also think that there's a bit too much detail on the re-release in the lead (to put this in perspective, there's more Thriller 25 in the lead than on Bad or Dangerous, both markedly more successful albums). Is "For All Time" a new song or a newly released recording from the Thriller era? And a better source is needed for the claim that the new album will be released soon.
**There is a link to the brits incident, its not major outside the UK.\
* The section on James Browns' funeral seems overlong relative to its relevance, as does the information on Jackson's visit to Africa. Not saying they shouldn't be there in some form, but there's excess detail right now.
* The Wikipedia article on remix albums is highly suspect and not a good source for the claim that BIOTDF is the best-selling remix album of all time.
* There's no time frame ascribed to the beginning of the 'Wacko Jacko' nickname.
The review has six support (myself included) with three opposes. None of the content concerns remain with them, all they want is a good copy edit and to then call them back. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would rather do the copy edit, see if they change their minds, which they has expressed a willingness to do, if they request more well we can take it from there. No one however is calling for a structural overhaul anymore. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive taken this part off the article, its terrible, too bad to be on the rest of article right now. We need to work on it here before readding. -- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In 2005, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson as his $200 million in loans were due in December 2005 so were secured on the music catalogue he purchased in 1985. Jackson failed to pay and
Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson has not as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of twenty-five percent of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed Jackson will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalog of songs, including material by other artists such as
Bob Dylan and
Destiny's Child. As another part of the deal Jackson was given a new $300 million loan, and a lower interest rate on the old loan to match the original Bank of America rate. When the loan was sold to Fortress Investments they increased the interest rate to twenty percent.
[1] An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony."
[2]
Jackson owes a five million interest payment to Fortress Trust, the publicly traded hedge fund that bought his two hundred and seventy million dollar loan from Bank of America in April 2005. The loan has been refinanced to $325 milion by Fortress. The payment was due on October 31, 2007. [3] Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate. [4] Rumours of possible bankruptcy have been around for a decade but have not materialised. [5]
I'd propose something like this (uses the same sources but covers the material more succintly and in chronological order):
Gusworld ( talk) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how that picture gets allowed to stay up there. That picture seems a little private or from a fan who had it posted when he was doing the tour. I vote for it to be out of the page. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why, its free use, on wiki commons. Do yu have a better alternative? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I actually don't understand why that certain picture is being put there, lol. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article lacks pictures as it is, removing another that is completely free seems unwise. Like i said, if you can offer something better go right ahead. But there is no reason to remove the picture. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also the only picture in the article that actually shows Jackson's face (the main govt-sourced photo is a good iconic image but doesn't do that). Unless fans start offering pics up to Wiki commons, this is probably as good as it will get. Gusworld ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, we are in no position right now to be removing pictures, particulary those we have every legal right to host. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this segmant of the physical appearance section, its unsourced, although its hardly controversial, it could be written better, possibly expanded. I really think we need pictures to show his flamboyant cloths, particularly his military jackets of the 90's.
Jackson's outfits have been central components of his image. In the early 1980s he wore a sequined white glove, the jackets in the "Thriller" and "Beat it" music videos, white socks (with short pants to emphasize them) and other sparkling jackets. In the late 1980s to late 1990s Jackson shifted to wearing fedoras, military jackets, shin pads, sunglasses and plasters on his fingers (or occasionally a pair of black sparkling gloves). He continued to wear white socks with short pants. In the 2000s Jackson rarely appears in flamboyant costumes, occasionally wearing shin pads, but usually a red shirt, black full-length pants and sunglasses. Over time his hair went from short and curly to long and curly and then to long and straight.
-- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has been suggested to will readd to article. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Guardian document finances
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Seems to me that this phrase "often cited as one of the greatest life performances of all time." in the Style and Performance section should read "greatest live performances". I'm not able to edit it myself so I thought I'd post this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.101.219 ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article contains much useful information, but its makeup and contents are very apologetic. The first thing the general public think of when they hear the name Michael Jackson is not the music, but the controversy surrounding his physical appearance and his private life. Almost all we get on this are quotes by Michael Jackson himself, which I do not think many people outside the fan circles will find particularly convincing. More extensive and more balanced sections are needed on these issues, whereas the albums section could do with some abridging.-- 84.190.49.142 ( talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh hush dude, your one of those people who merge his face with monkeys in photoshop and think its funny, Hold On, or try and make dodgy pictures of his nose dropping off when he's having serious problems with lupus, Hold On, or making lies up about him bleaching his skin, Hold On, i have heard enough from your kind Gao gier Talk! 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, excuse me. the poster has the right and the question has every reason to be asked, this page positively skirts around any of the more controversial issues that Jackson fans might choose to stick their heads in the sand about. I posted valid reasons before as to why many of the sources here are completely unreliable and there was scant disscusion from Jackson fans regarding it. For example, [1] used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. [2], [3], [4], [5] or most information from dedicated fan sites such as [6] and [7]. [8], [9]. Is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?
All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attempts at encyclopedic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references. Quite frankly, I have had enough from your kind too. Whilst we're at the childish "I will assume you to be, so I feel better" game I'd wager you're the kind of person to tastelessly release pidgeons into the air upon the announcement of Jackson's innocence following 'child molestation charges', ugh. This page is nigh on worthless than anything other than a fan site. (EDIT: Most of the sources have been changed since this was written I believe, so some of this is redundant.) OoohOoohAaah ( talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, i totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.27.129 ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
All the sources that remain are legitimate, all fan stuff has been resolved. Realist2 ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Realist2, what I have been trying to say is that the article only has "Wacko Jacko"; a demeaning epithet. It does not have "Jacko" (without the "Wacko") anywhere in the body. I thought that was clear in at least my 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) edit. Understanding that now, could you please provide answers to my last three questions or wait for a while to let me see someone else's opinion?-- Thecurran ( talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add the jacko part next to the wacko jacko part, as long as its not in the lead you can add "F**king W*an*ker" for all i care. so long as its legitimately sourced. Just not in the lead. Realist2 ( talk) 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The last mentions in this section are of his '93 oprah interview relative to his '88 book; should there be any mention that his appearance and skin colour have continued to deteriorte in the fifteen years since then? TheHYPO ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
His skin colour hasnt changed since 1993, its as white now as it was then. Infact ive seen pictures where he looks darker now than he did in 1993. Maybe thats lighting. Additionally its open to a large amount of pov editing, its a matter of taste and opinion. For example, I think his plastic surgery did get worse since 1993, i think his apperance reached a low point around 2001-2003. However i believe he looks a lot better now in 2008 than he did 6 or 7 years ago. Realist2 ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why was it removed? and Realist2 I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try my best. Σαι ( Talk) 04:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know your busy but please do try, its more important now than ever. Realist2 ( talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok but why was the image removed? Σαι ( Talk) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, readd it if you like. It should be in wiki commons. Realist2 ( talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no picture of MJ now, in all the pictures on the article they are outdated and he is still black. I don't know if any of you all major editors of this article have an issue with the fact he is no longer black but using an outdated picture is just wrong and in my personal opinion highly miss-leading. -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally it could never be used as the lead picture anyway. Its a mugshot, my should a mugshot of a person found not guilty be used as the lead picture. It would never happen to a white guy. It goes against NPOV by suggesting he was somehow guilty. As already noted, there is a picture of him from 1995. He was as light then as he is now, i dont see the issue. Realist2 ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Who cares your not getting the mugshot as a lead picture for a bunch of other resonses. Bore someone else. Realist2 ( talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What ever, the picture has a place yes, but thats not here, it should go to People v. Jackson. Realist2 ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Im also slightly concerned about a possible conflict of interest with this editer. He has made some, lets say, "interesting", edits on the African American article. Realist2 ( talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your mad if you think you can convince us that his mugshot should be the main picture of this article, it wont last 5 minutes. Oh and im not black, im latino. Realist2 ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, its great. Realist2 ( talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as we can use magazine shoots as lead pictures its fine. I know we cant use magazine covers. Realist2 ( talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like to say that I'm liking the new photo. It's up-to-date, high quality and it's clearly MJ. It's also just simply a nice pic. Try to keep it if you can. 86.146.233.103 ( talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bet you would like that but its ulikely to stay, notice how its a picture from a magazine and is off centre. Realist2 ( talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not acceptable and the article wont be able to pass FA with it. Realist2 ( talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If a lead picture portrays a living person in an unnessary bad light it wont be used. Realist2 ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu thankyou, i learn something new every day. ;-) Realist2 ( talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I added another picture. -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes i see, im going to look into getting it removed, as it was taken at his trial we know he was hospitalised twice, had a doctor in court to support him and had lost 2 stone in weight. It completely distorts what he looks like now in 2008. Realist2 ( talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually ive never had an issue with his skin tone, i for one am capable of looking beyond such issue's, also if you look at my user page you will see that i favour the music he did when he had light skin. I liked Jackson's appearance in the 90's. However this picture isnt good at all, i find it quite troubling actually that a picture could ever be used of ANY person when they were at the time in a terrible state of health. As i asked the opinion of admins on every occasion i cant quite see where i went wrong. Realist2 ( talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I re-uploaded the "copyrighted" image in a dramatically shrunk version as a fair use image.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He is not being rude or threatening, i remember you threatening me with a report? You have just reinstated the fair - use picture. Its not allowed, it must be free. You were told this but you continue. Please, i advise you to revert your own edit, you are being disruptive and are possibly in violation of the 3RR. Realist2 ( talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A rule is a rule ok, i would double check with the admin before reinstating if i were you. Realist2 ( talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cooljuno411, you are not allowed that picture in the lead info box, and you cannot add it to the lead text either. This is getting absurd. Realist2 ( talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also im a little confused. You keep saying in a car but he isnt in a car. There is a guy behind him holding an umbrella. Realist2 ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A dont know how you reached that conclusion to be honest, it seems rather an odd assumption to make. Realist2 ( talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He started becoming ill in 2003 when he was first arrested, he suffered for 2.5 years until June 2005. Realist2 ( talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And it wasnt until the following year that he had recovered. Realist2 ( talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a photo of MJ in a red 'Beat It' jacket and the picture description states it is MJ performing 'Bad' during the Bad Tour. The photo is clearly a few years after the Bad era. - Kaneite
Yeah its from the HISory tour and we already have a decent picture for that era. I removed it. I think we need something for the Dangerous era and then we have enough. Realist2 ( talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We did have one but it was deleted for copyright issues. Realist2 ( talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s" is not factually correct. It might arguably have have been so for a period of time, but that hasn't been the case for quite a number of years now.
Similary regarding, "often referred to as The King of Pop".
Most pop afficionados during the last en or more years would, if they knew of him, regard him as part of pop's history, rather the (current) king, or a still-dominant presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.229 ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To your first point, if you carry on reading down the lead it does say very clearly that album sales has been in decline since the mid 1990's. Secondly, so is elvis a part of music history and he's still called the king of rock an roll. Until either are outsold or either are officially de-crowned by some other artist they retain their statues. On and a crappy Thriller reissue has almost sold 2 million copies already with zero promo. It might make your cry but a new studio album by Jackson if handled correctly will easily outsell his last stusio album. Lol its as if that trial saved his career not finished it. Bye. Realist2 ( talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A hypothetical current album is not evidence that he is still a major current pop artist. The fact is, it's been 7 years since he released an album. The "King of Pop" moniker was appropriate in the 1980's, but not so much presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.121.89 ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like the king of rock and roll moniker isnt appropriate for elvis who hasnt released an album in decades right? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something or maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying. The Will.i.am article has the "W" capitalized in the title of the article and in both places where the article talk about him. Shouldn't we be consist with the subject's article when we talk about him in other articles such as this one? Jons63 ( talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
His page used to be lower case, it must have been altered. However if you go to his page again and look at his official website link its lower case. Lol I think no1 really nows. As every other letter in the name is lower case (even after a full stop) it makes sense that its all lower case. Certainly on the thriller album article we have written it as lower case. Realist2 ( talk) 14:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
History is spelled wrong in the menu... thought you should know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.151 ( talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Its ment to be like that. Realist2 ( talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time wondering why Michael's success has to be mentioned as "something a black artist had never experienced" and "Michael was rarely referred to as a "black artist", which is controversial within itself. Also the paragraph that starts off the "Bad" section should be given its own own section within Michael's personal life page. Sorry that I didn't voice out on this after editing it. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well its true, who gives a damn if its controversial, lifes a bitch, black artists were treated like crap before MJ changed the rules, so.... , as for the intro to the bad section, it used to come at the end of the Thriller section but as the Thriller section was so big i moved it. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But then again, you have to say had it not been for Berry Gordy's Motown Records label and its roster of artists, especially concerning The Supremes in the sixties and Diana Ross in the seventies, and for artists like Dionne Warwick, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye (even if his audience was still mostly predominantly black by the end of his career) and Isaac Hayes were the first black artists to sell well regardless of race and/or genres. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they sold well, but their sales were hampered significantly because of their race, its just a fact, no matter how unpleasant. What Jackson did was completely different, he ended the racial profiling, people forgot he was black because it didnt matter. Unfortunately for those other artists it was still a major issue. Remember one thing, those artists you mentioned, they could perform at the casinos for rich white folk but couldnt actually spend their money along side them. Go figure so to speak. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
True. As unfortunate as that is, you are 100% right about that. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Life is a bitch, but we have michael jackson to thank for changing things, because of him black people can not only perform for white folk at casinos but also spend their money there, still that the past, things have changed, but we should always be greatful for what he did. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Having being asked to cast a fresh eye over the article, here's some stuff from the lead that struck me as problematic but which I thought needed fixing/considering by others rather than just me changing it:
Will keep working through as I get time. Gusworld ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just made a large number of edits to the text. These are so numerous that I haven't justified them individually (most relate to expression and structure), but I'm happy to discuss the reasoning behind any of them on here. I've also added some more 'main' article sublinks throughout the text, and I put in a mention of Jackson's three most noteworthy albums in the lead, where they definitely needed mentioning. There's also a smattering of fact tags for specific information that lacks a source.
Some general observations on stuff I haven't touched yet but think need work:
* Some of the finances material would make more sense in the chronological section (especially since 2007 is conspicuous by its absence). The stuff on the loans in particular is still hard to follow (I may have another go at tidying this up).
* I appreciate that the general style used here has been to spell out all numbers, but I think that using numbers is more stylistically appropriate for chart positions, ages over ten and extremely high numbers (such as sales figures). I haven't made those changes for the most part but I'd very strongly advise them; "This album reached #39' is much easier to read than "This album reached number thirty-nine". That goes double with figures like $5 million, which I have changed. There's some debate in the Manual of Style over this, but there's no support for always spelling out numbers in every case as far as I can see.
* The VH1 and Rolling Stone accolades for Off The Wall seem unneeded, especially in an overview article. The general conclusion on the albums Wikiproject is that rankings such as '500 best albums' ever are best avoided, and the Grammy and other awards make it clear that this is a highly-regarded album.
* There's a bad case of recentism in the Thriller 25 material, which has far more detail on chart performance and contents than any release discussed in the article. I also think that there's a bit too much detail on the re-release in the lead (to put this in perspective, there's more Thriller 25 in the lead than on Bad or Dangerous, both markedly more successful albums). Is "For All Time" a new song or a newly released recording from the Thriller era? And a better source is needed for the claim that the new album will be released soon.
**There is a link to the brits incident, its not major outside the UK.\
* The section on James Browns' funeral seems overlong relative to its relevance, as does the information on Jackson's visit to Africa. Not saying they shouldn't be there in some form, but there's excess detail right now.
* The Wikipedia article on remix albums is highly suspect and not a good source for the claim that BIOTDF is the best-selling remix album of all time.
* There's no time frame ascribed to the beginning of the 'Wacko Jacko' nickname.
The review has six support (myself included) with three opposes. None of the content concerns remain with them, all they want is a good copy edit and to then call them back. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would rather do the copy edit, see if they change their minds, which they has expressed a willingness to do, if they request more well we can take it from there. No one however is calling for a structural overhaul anymore. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive taken this part off the article, its terrible, too bad to be on the rest of article right now. We need to work on it here before readding. -- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In 2005, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson as his $200 million in loans were due in December 2005 so were secured on the music catalogue he purchased in 1985. Jackson failed to pay and
Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson has not as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of twenty-five percent of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed Jackson will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalog of songs, including material by other artists such as
Bob Dylan and
Destiny's Child. As another part of the deal Jackson was given a new $300 million loan, and a lower interest rate on the old loan to match the original Bank of America rate. When the loan was sold to Fortress Investments they increased the interest rate to twenty percent.
[1] An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony."
[2]
Jackson owes a five million interest payment to Fortress Trust, the publicly traded hedge fund that bought his two hundred and seventy million dollar loan from Bank of America in April 2005. The loan has been refinanced to $325 milion by Fortress. The payment was due on October 31, 2007. [3] Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate. [4] Rumours of possible bankruptcy have been around for a decade but have not materialised. [5]
I'd propose something like this (uses the same sources but covers the material more succintly and in chronological order):
Gusworld ( talk) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how that picture gets allowed to stay up there. That picture seems a little private or from a fan who had it posted when he was doing the tour. I vote for it to be out of the page. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why, its free use, on wiki commons. Do yu have a better alternative? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I actually don't understand why that certain picture is being put there, lol. BrothaTimothy ( talk · contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article lacks pictures as it is, removing another that is completely free seems unwise. Like i said, if you can offer something better go right ahead. But there is no reason to remove the picture. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also the only picture in the article that actually shows Jackson's face (the main govt-sourced photo is a good iconic image but doesn't do that). Unless fans start offering pics up to Wiki commons, this is probably as good as it will get. Gusworld ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, we are in no position right now to be removing pictures, particulary those we have every legal right to host. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this segmant of the physical appearance section, its unsourced, although its hardly controversial, it could be written better, possibly expanded. I really think we need pictures to show his flamboyant cloths, particularly his military jackets of the 90's.
Jackson's outfits have been central components of his image. In the early 1980s he wore a sequined white glove, the jackets in the "Thriller" and "Beat it" music videos, white socks (with short pants to emphasize them) and other sparkling jackets. In the late 1980s to late 1990s Jackson shifted to wearing fedoras, military jackets, shin pads, sunglasses and plasters on his fingers (or occasionally a pair of black sparkling gloves). He continued to wear white socks with short pants. In the 2000s Jackson rarely appears in flamboyant costumes, occasionally wearing shin pads, but usually a red shirt, black full-length pants and sunglasses. Over time his hair went from short and curly to long and curly and then to long and straight.
-- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has been suggested to will readd to article. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Guardian document finances
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)