![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I added a bit about Michael Jackson's new single and it was removed? Why? It's relevant. More relevant to Michael Jackson than alot of the stuff in the article.
When was DS released?
NO
Can this article please be reverted back to the way it was before the last edit? Someone has replaced a damn fine, accurate article with the words "he is gay". So can it be reverted back?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.196.138 ( talk • contribs) .
Should allegations about Michael being associated with the Nation of Islam be added to the main page in the list of controversies? I know there's a mention of it in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson#Arrest and investigation, but I feel it is worth having here in its own right. Andjam 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone edited the section in the article about Michael Jackson new single, "From The Bottom Of My Heart" saying, "However all the above mentioned artists have denied any involvenment with the song." This is wrong, so I deleted it.
Mariah Carey confirmed on a UK talk show that she will be a part of the single. James Brown, Snoop Dogg and Missy Elliot have also confirmed through their spokespeople that they will be participating in the single. Babyface is also another one who confirmed his participation in the single.
Do we really need to mention Jermaine Dupri's comments on Jackson's acquittal and SNL's Michael Jackson Show? It has no relevance to the article which is about Michael Jackson's career and life, it's not an article about Jermaine Dupri or SNL.
Oy. So Michael Ealy and Smokey Robinson don't have "the skin color of an African-American?" Fixing. -- FuriousFreddy 14:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
A search shows many cases of him being called the King of Pop, but not the longer version (unsurprisingly). Taylor might well have sed the longer form originally, but it was the shorter form that caught on. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it's just like Elvis Presley, the title his record company dubbed him as is "The King of Rock and Roll", but fans shorten it to "The King". It's exactly the same for Michael, the title Liz Taylor labelled him as, and the title his record company has used to promote certain musical releases is "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul", but fans and peers shorten it to "The King of Pop". Street walker 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added, known by his fans and peers as "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul" (most commonly shortened to "The King of Pop") Is this cool with everyone? This is the most fair statement as in it shows what his official title is, and what fans shorten it to. Street walker 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You refer to KoP as MJ's "official title", I don't understand this. How is it official? Secondly which peers refer to him as KoP? I believe it is marketing by MJ that has been accepted by his fans,but not by the general public. Media reports often say "self-styled King of Pop". Thirdly, KoP should also be mentioned under Controversies because of media claims [wish I could find them] that MJ's PR people have insisted on a journalist refering to him as KoP, in order to gain access. (ie. example of hubris and media spin). Design 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I say "official title" because it is the title his record company used to promote various releases (Dangerous and HIStory). No where on the net have I found credible info that states Michael Jackson's PR team influenced media to call him KOP. Anyone around at the time know that after the success of Thriller, DJ's started calling him the KOP, then the public picked up on it, and then the media picked up on it. It wasn't until after MJ bought the Beatles catalogue that the media tried to strip him of this title. The Self proclaimed KOP is just a rumour, it has no place in this article. Street walker 07:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Any tagnames, whether admiration or discourteous, is only superficial. Whether it's fact or fiction can be argued or over-argued in our case. I suggest, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me, that we place it in more approiprate section(s) than that of the intro.
Placing such nicknames in the intro of this article only makes our jobs harder, because it encourages vandalism. Because of it's very nature to be stated as fact is difficult, it will cause further vandalism. People are less likely to vandalise articles if facts are being stated. Therefore, nicknames must be placed at more approiprate sections.
As a result of the slew of recent edits this article is suffering from major POV issues. Just in the "Invincible" section alone there are comments about "musical genius" and "haunting melodies"; I have neither the time or the inclination to revise this lengthly, fanboyish article, but SOMEONE has to do it. Pacian 05:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it up a bit. If there is still some POV in this section, feel free to edit it. I tired my best. Street walker 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So what if Michael Jackson is reffered to as a "musical genius". That is not totally unexplainable and unfounded. I would disagree on calling him a genius a POV. There is definitely a cause to call him a genuis. Many articles in wiki refer it's subjects as "genius" including Bernard Herrmann, Roberta Flack, Charles_Mingus & Prince. If these articles mentions its subjects as geniuses, why on earth can't Michael be referred as a genius. Many well known people as well as musical artist have referred to MJ as a genius. E.g Lenny Kravitz referred to Jackson as a genuis. Before u come here talking about POV, do your research.
Put it in the article then. If you know a specific case where someone else referred to Jackson as a genius, say that by all means. But first go to history, and see what the Invincible section was like before it was edited. It did have major POV issues, so Pacian's comments weren't unfounded. Street walker 20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand an article on Michael Jackson is going to be long, no matter what is done to it (he's been a high-profile celebrity since 1969, and has released a lot of top-selling music). However, it doesn't need to be longer. No more information on any of Jackson's music should be added to this article, until he releases new recordings. Rewording is fine, but extra wording (anything that makes the file size go up) is bad. Hmmmm...perhaps we could (should?) lose some of the Neverland trivia and the personal information. -- FuriousFreddy 00:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
FFreddy - youv'e cut down the artcle. I think it would be preferrable to have Main Articles (located elswhere) for all albums & other subjects such as Controversies. This would allow fullsome but accurate trivia to be added in each Main Article.
You cut out the Intro I wrote for Controversies. It did make the current article longer but I didn't think it was POV. To have no mention of the controversies surrounding "King Of Pop" and "Whacko Jacko" lessens this article. Design 01:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone has gone and changed BOTDF and Invincible again. I reverted the article back to the way it was, but I would advise that the user who keeps editing these two sections, 218.101.65.23 , should be banned from editing this article because he/she has edited it numerous times with the exact same text, major POV issues, and lack of fact. Street walker 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What is POV about the voice section? MTV did declare Michael the 11th best voice in music, Michael can sing stacatto, Michael has got a wide range. What's POV about it? Street walker 10:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
These 2 sections have major POV issues. They have been fixed up time and time again, but people keep editing them back. Someone please revert back to the way this article was before these two sections were changed?
This paragraph seems very POV:
Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005.
The truth of the matter is that he has been accused of sexual abuse and the media covered it. Yes, they gave it a great deal of attention, but this is not "despite" his success but because of it. If he were not so successful the media would not have paid attention to the allegations. Millions of men are accused of sexual abuse every year, and the media ignores most of them because they are not famous. The above paragraph reads like it is written by a diehard fan. -- Dancemaster 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The IFPI website doesn't seem to have any mention of this honour/certification - if there is a link or information to prove this claim, please include it, otherwise the proclamation is best removed. -- 172.212.73.140 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The World Music Awards awarded Michael Jackson the biggest selling artist of all-time based on IFPI certifications. Street walker 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Request for expansion: [1] -- Striver 03:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
how we talk about one person so much we forget ourselves...
These sections have been moved to Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies. All mentions of "wacko jacko", child abbuse allegations, plastic surgery and skin color have been moved to a seperate article. This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career. Street walker 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career... uh, no it's not, it's a biography. This is yet another blatant attempt to remove all criticism and controversy from the article. a ndroid 79 07:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
1) It is way too lengthy, hence the article split
2) The image in the intro of Jackson performing at the 95 MTV awards is too big and throws out the allignment of the whole article. It looks dodgy.
3) It has no mention of Jackson's upcoming releases (i.e. "You Are So Beautiful" and yet-to-be-names next album).
p.s. "Wacko Jacko" is here be mentioned in the intro. Satisfied? Street walker 07:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually I read the whole thing and tried to follow it closely. Obviously I failed to satisify. Fine, I will make further changes.
Anything else?
Street walker 07:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have not reverted this article. All I did was copy and paste sections from the Personal Life & Controversies article. As a result, I also had to delete some of the talk of personal life * controversies in the albums sections. I did not revert this article. The article should now satisfy everyone. Street walker 08:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
KrisW6, what undiscussed blanking and changes made by me are you talking about? Basically, the only changes I've made is adding new information that has just surfaces about Jackson new single titled, "You Are So Beautiful", and I fixed up some politcally uncorrect terms like gay and black (I changed them to homosexual and African American). Street walker 08:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, but shouldn't "gay" be "homosexual"? Street walker 00:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Some people believe that Jodie Foster dated Michael. I know for a fact that they were friends, but now I'm not totally sure on that either. I saw some pictures back in the 1970s with Jodie and Michael holding hands and laughing. I don't think she ever dated anyone really. The quote from Jodie Foster came from Rolling Stones magazine, 1982 when they were doing this thing with Michael Jackson. I think that quote describes Michael completely. Who ever found that quote from 1982 is a complete nerd. 70.149.126.233 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Jodie Foster was friends with Michael from what I have heard in her biography. What quote are you talking about? Jade 19:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that Jackson has permanent legal residence in Bahrain, and Joseph has stated his son will never return to America to live (ecause he doesn't feel safe in America), should this part...
By changed to...
If so, then what is someone who lives in Bahrain called? Is Bahrainian the correct termonology? Another possibility might be, Bahraini (like Iraqi).
Street walker 09:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This stuff about "Resurrection" is horribly wrong.
Firstly, the supposed album was called "Force" not "Resurrection".
Secondly, "Get Out Of My Mind" was not a Michael Jackson song, it was recorded by a french Michael Jackson impersonator, with a similiar voice.
Thirdly, this album was never confirmed by Michael Jackson. It is nothing but speculation, and should be deleted from this article, unless it can be better written with more accurate facts.]
I'd also like to add that "You Are So Beautiful" will not be featured on the "Force (or Resurrection)". It's an entirely new album which Michael has started from scratch. Also, the album will not be released through 2 Seas Records, it is more likely to be released through Island Def Jam records (as LA Reid is currently in talks with Jackson about signing a recording contract).
Regards, Street walker 05:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I hear there will be a Janet and Michael Tour entitled THEIRstory. Maybe that should be added.
Thank you umm... street walker. Lol, but i heard the Michael Jackson and Janet performing at the 2006 grammy's the single Scream and going on tour together. I dont know how true it is though
There is no mention of Michael Jackson's instrumental skills anywhere in this article, so I took it upon myself to add some. You will see in the HIStory section and the Invincible section, I have added info about the instruments Jackson plays on these albums. I feel this sort of information is useful for those doing research on Michael Jackson and his musical skills. Please, if you disagree don't edit this information out of the article, simply look at the credits for the HIStory album and the Invincible album, and you'll see Jackson plays a wide range of instruments on both albums. If you go to other artists' articles, you'll find sections on the artist's vocal skills, instrumental skills, songwriting skills etc. Some artists have whole sections on these topics. Whereas the Michael Jackson article has very, very little mention of his vocal skills, songwriting skills and instrumental skills. Instead the articles flooded with mentions of plastic surgery, skin tone, alleged child abuse etc. There's too much information about controversies, and not enough about Jackson's musical skills. Street walker 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Regards, Street walker 22:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
"Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005."
It seems like a really dodgy thing to say. Can we either find another word for "dogged", or leave this passage out all together, or replace it? Street walker 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is there nothing on NOI in this article? -- Striver 11:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Because Jackson's involvement with the Nation of Islam has not been proven. Furthermore, it is not important or relevant enough to be added to this allready over-sized biography of Michael Jackson. Street walker 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Threre have been angry reactions in Barhain on 14 November, against Michael Jackson, due to the fact that he entered a woman's toilet in Barhain, to reapply his make-up. The women have been calling for Michael to be arrested for performing an "immoral act".
Don't worry, I'm going to be bold and delete this nonsense information myself. Street walker 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if this information comes from a reliable source, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Seems a bit trivial to me. a ndroid 79 13:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont like the way this is put after "King of Pop". I think both should be explained - i.e. King of Pop because of his incredible musical prowess (thats not a POV, thats just fact - he is extremely talented), and then Wacko Jacko because of his sometimes peculiar behaviour and actions.
Both should be explained IMHO, or taken out completely.
How about, "...known as "The King of Pop" for his successful musical career, or alternatively "Wacko Jacko" for his sometimes eccentric and controversial lifestyle."?
I'm not sure about this, but if I remember correctly, MJ is the "King of Pop" because he made a deal with MTV on the title. MTV got the right to play one of his videos exclusively for a while and MTV would start calling him King of Pop. The video might've been "Black or White". -- 213.169.7.210 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I edited the “Whacko Jacko” epithet for the following reason. I fail to see how referring to Michael Jackson as "Whacko Jacko" an extremely derogatory slur, should be implemented here. It gives the impression that Michael Jackson is officially known was "Whacko Jacko". This is a title largely used by Michael Jackson critics. That being the case, if mentioned at all it should designated to an area where it is relevant.
52 KB article + lots of images + inherent slowness of wiki = really slow load times. I think the number of images needs to be cut down substantially. IMO it would be good to get a progression of images of Jackson from the Jackson 5 days to present-day to show his change over the years, and if possible get shots of him in the various getups/costumes he's made famous. Are the album covers really necessary? They appear in the articles about the albums. a ndroid 79 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. What pictures aren't necessary? It's allready been established that not all the album covers are needed, what about the personal pics (MJ with Debbie & Prince, MJ with Oprah, MJ telecast, MJ with Brooke Shields etc.)? Street walker 08:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking for something to trim, I suggest the image in "Alleged Anti-Semitism" of Jackson waving an Israeli flag, and captioned "showing support for the Jewish people", or something similar. There is already too much confusion between Israel the state and the Jewish people in general. This does a disservice to non-Jewish Israelis and to Jewish people around the world who disapprove of Israel's policies. The Israeli flag is not the "Jewish flag", and the caption here should certainly be changed if the photo remains.
I have tried to improve the page - I changed the first image to what I thought made the page look more dynamic. I think it showed Michael more as he is traditionally known, especially with the hair etc. The picture was found through google on someones site page, so it is very unlikely it is copyrighted whatsoever.
I also tried to put a picture, done by top of the pops of michael when he was young, and put it in the early childhood section. This too has been removed. I stated I was unsure of the picture status, but that it was done by top of the pops.
The page is going nowhere if everything people try to do is removed, or reverted. I am a Michael Jackson fan, huge fan - but I understand the page has to be neutral and factual rather than opinionated. I put the bit about him liking kids - that was just fact, yet even that was changed slightly.
I like the whole dynamic changing nature of wiki's, but it is frustrating to want to add value to the page myself, only to find it is all removed within two days.
Everyone should have a right to add information that they think will add value to the page. Just because someone doesnt like what it is saying, doesnt mean it should be deleted.
Otherwise, why don't the main editors entirely create the whole page, adding/deleting as they want and not give a damn to what other people want to add. That is the way it seems to be going.
can you fill me in? -- 161.74.11.24 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Many fans, and some professional MJ researches/experts, believe that Dangerous could've outsold Thriller to become the biggest selling album of all-time. Let me explain:
The last official sales for Dangerous was 27 million copies (as of 1997), making it Jackson's 2nd best selling album. But since then, considering the rate of Dangerous's weekly soundscan sales results (200 per week on average), some say its total worlwide sales would be closer to 30 million (29 million is the closest estimate).
Thriller has sold well over 60 million (54 million as of 1997). This is double Dangerous's sales, so if you are reading this, you are probably wondering why in hell anyone would think Dangerous could've outsold Thriller.
In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour, and a 10th single from Dangerous was planned for release (the title track). But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour (which had not yet reached the US), and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it probably would've sold over 10 million if the tour reached the US, and the 10th single was released. So it is very possible that if it had not been for the allegations, Dangerous's total sales would be at 37+ million, or even 40 million.
Something else that got in the way of Dangerous's sales was grunge. Nirvana's Nevermind knocked Dangerous from the #1 spot in 1992. Dangerous was going strong at this point, and was selling millions each week. It's estimated, that if Nirvana's Nevermind didn't take the attention away from Dangerous, the album would've sold over 10 million more than it did. This means, it had the potential to sell over 50 million in total.
So if not the best selling album of all-time, then Dangerous could've easily become the 2nd best selling of all-time. This is what I propose should be included in the Dangerous section of the Michael Jackson article, and the Dangerous album article:
"In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour (which had not reached the US), and a tenth single from Dangerous was planned for release. But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it's possible that it could've sold alot more if promotion of the album was not ceased in late 1993. As of 2005, it is possible that Dangerous could've sold over 40, or even 50 million if it had not been for allegations of child abuse, and the new Grunge fad (headed by Nirvana and their 1991 album Nevermind (which distracted music fans from Dangerous)."
What do you think of this?
Street walker 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have adjusted the introduction to what I feel is a bit easier to read and smoother than what it was before this.
I think having three paragraphs splits the info up into sections, which is good for the reader - jackson five, then solo career, then about thriller.
IMHO, the part about the media dodging him/child molestation thing has no place in the introduction - it is exactly that, an introduction. The Thriller bit is good though because that gives readers a scope of his success as a singer etc. I was actually the one who put the bit about him liking children (which was deleted), but in heinsight that is not relevant in the introduction.
I am not sure about his age when he began as lead singer of J5, but I think that is important as it shows his talent, leading a band at whatever young age it was (I put 10 but I think this is incorrect).
I hope some of the changes stay - I am expecting for all my changes to be deleted or reverted within 2 days, but hopefully some of it will be useful and stay.
Andrewh01 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
That's near to the version that I started with when I made some changes this morning, though I included the nicknames. I edited down " singer, songwriter, butcher, baker, candlestick-maker" ad nauseum into simply " entertainer" and shortened the list of Jackson-influenced artists. That's about it. It could still use a lot of work. It needs to be a better overview of the entire article with less detail on sales records, etc. a ndroid 79 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Why another revert? That's three today; please be mindful of the 3RR rule. Once again, previous consensus was to include "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko" in the intro. The other changes I made make things less cluttered. a ndroid 79 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's all of the images in the article. As I mentioned, I think some of these should be taken out for size and readability concerns; please discuss the quality usefulness of each one below. If I missed an image, please add it to the list. The server is very sluggish this morning, and I'm having a tough time accessing the image description pages. Some of these may have copyright issues that need to be addressed.
How many images should go at the top of the article, and which ones should they be? a ndroid 79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Why the 1000 changes to the introduction? I altered the introduction and it was reverted, as I expected. Why though, are others wasting their time changing the intro (before me even), then quickly retreating back to an old version???? What is the point of changing something, only to change it back to an older version later - how is the article developing/improving???
I feel maybe there is a problem that some people have added lines which they absolutely want to stay in the article - especially intro. Therefore, regardless of how "their line" is changed, they change it back.
The page isnt going anywhere. Get rid of the egos, and instead concentrate on working together to create a good page on Michael Jackson. Once again, I am a huge fan of his - but this doesnt mean I am trying to get rid of all criticisms.
If things don't change, I expect to see basically the same article in a year. Every time something is change it will be reverted if the people who wrote the original don't like it. Its a shame... the page isnt going to go anywhere. Self-destructing really.
138.130.208.179 06:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
"His 1982 album Thriller currently holds the title of being the best-selling album..." - Forget "of being", change it to "Thriller currently holds the title of best-selling album..".
"In addition to his albums, Jackson has also recorded thirteen number-one Billboard Hot 100 solo hits.......". - Most of the "solo hits" actually come FROM the albums, the songs were on the albums when they were released. Therefore, it sounds silly to say "in addition to his albums..". I think something like "From his albums, Jackson has achieved thirteen number-one etc. etc...." - or something like that, change the 'in addition to' though.
Just some of the things I think should be edited. I have also said before his age when starting as lead of J5 should be included in the intro as well.
There is way too much info on BOTDF and Invincible, most of which is POV. Remember there is allready alot of information on theses albums' articles. Go to those article and add info there, not on this article which is a biography of Michael Jackson, not a detailed description of each and every album he's released. Street walker 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Why did the bit about Michaelgate have to be deleted? Geraldine Hughes is an accomplished author who worked in the office of Rothman (The 93 accusers' lawyer), so she witnessed everything. She also witnessed everything this time around and wrote a book about it, just like she did after 93. The article mentions Eleanor Cook thinking Mike is guilty, so why not mention Hughes thinking 2005 was a conspiracy. You have the for him being guilty, but you chuck out the against. Completely bias. Street walker 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I liked it better with all the pictures. It looked good. It looks kind of uneven and messed up now. It was neat and aligned, and now it's all over the joint.
" Marriage and Children"
I hate the part where you say parentage has not been proven. It has been proven so there is no need for such statements Jamgirl86 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of dual discs on sale and have been for over a year. Just because MJ's publicist is saying it is a first DOES NOT make it true. Go to any large music retailer and dual discs are already on sale -- 86.135.187.125 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
"Thriller" is going to be the first commercial single released on DualDisc, according to Sony/BMG.
WHY ON EARTH WAS THIS PAGE MOVED FROM "MICHAEL JACKSON" TO "MICHAEL JACKSON (ENTERTAINER)". I'M MOVING IT BACK!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this does need to be moved, and it certainly shouldn't be moved without discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves first. sjorford (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC).
Lastly, User:Ianblair23 as a fellow Administrator, I would adivse that you contain yourself; the shouting/Caps was very unnecessary —and immature, might I add. Please remember that Admins need to keep their cool in all situations. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
When the name "Michael Jackson" is mentioned, regardless where it is mentioned,, I'm sure over 90% of the time people mean Michael Jackson the entertainer. In the same light, over 90% of user on this wiki will have the entertainer in mind when the search is made. Besides, the other Michael Jackson's are not widely known, whilst MJ the entainer is officially the most famous individual on the planet. Moving the page is totally unnecessary, and uncalled for! -- 161.74.11.24 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I recently saw Tatiana Thumbtzen on a TV bio program. I think it was the " True Hollywood Story" on Michael Jackson. Tatiana described how she performed with Michael during " The Way You Make Me Feel" on the Bad Tour. She describes the unusual "relationship" that they had. One night, she decided to stray from the usual stage performance and surprise Michael with a kiss during the song. She claims to have received a warm expression from Katherine backstage afterwards, followed by an angry, cold glare from Michael's then-manager Frank DiLeo. According to Thumbtzen, she was subsequently not allowed to visit Jackson's trailer and was removed from the tour. By this point in the interview, Tatiana was in tears and said that it was the last time she ever saw him (Michael). (If she is lying, then that's too bad (and predictable)... such a gorgeous woman scrounging for MJ spotlight like a gold-digger groupie, tsk tsk)
Two weeks ago, I heard it announced on a radio station (
WHTA Atlanta) that Michael Jackson's former wife Deborah Rowe had revealed that Michael was, in fact, not the genetic father of his first two children, Prince I and Paris. It seems that everyone who hears this is not surprised whatsoever, but previously did not discuss it openly. Can anyone confirm that Debbie made such statements? I would do a little research of my own, but I already have too many tabs open and this rumor doesn't appear to have been brought up in here before. Thanks! --
Crnk Mnky
20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The story can from the National Enquirer. In her own words, Debbie said, "Why on earth would I speak to such a low-rate tabloid?" Street walker 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I'll be adding {{ fact}} where ever a citation is needed. The best way to do source this article is to find a few large references on Jackson, cite those whenever possible, directly in the article, and list them under the References section. Once that is done, then the citations can be cleaned up using {{ ref label}} and {{ note label}}. I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-15 23:19
"The information reported on Wikipedia.org is incorrect and inaccurate, including the name of Mr. Jackson's Hurricane Relief song."
Thank you. Raymone K. Bain
Street walker 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It is good to know that you have been visiting and reading the page, being Michael Jackson's publicist. Your opinions on exactly what is incorrect and inaccurate would be extremely valuable. Our collective goal in this page is to create a factual, accurate and detailed account of Michael Jackson's life, music, success and controversies. Please feel free to either change items yourself to their 'correct ways', or organise with a moderator to modify the incorrect parts. Indeed, this would be excellent - as all the information would be then correct. Even better, spend some time with the man himself - Michael Jackson - and ask HIM what he wanted to change, regarging incorrectness etc. This is would extremely valuable to say the least.
I have changed this...
to this...
Before reverting it back to the way it was, hear me out.
Most artists pages have these titles and subtitles (Title: year-year) and IMO that looks better and sounds better than "Blood on the Dance Floor and the late 1990's" or "Number Ones to The Essential Michael Jackson" for example. I think most of you will agree that the new titles are better. I never liked the old titles.
Not only did I change the titles, I changed some of the content in each section. I put Early childhood and all the Jacksons sub-sections into one section (Early years). Because I never understood why Early childhood (being such a sort section) was its own section and not a sub-section. I also put the Say, Say, Say with Thriller for the same reason I merged Early Childhood with the Jacksons sections. I merged Caption EO with Bad, because some of the songs from that film were from the Bad album and it's pretty much considered in the "Bad era". I merged BOTDF with HIStory because BOTDF is part of the HIStory project. I also merged Visionary with Katrina single and You Are So Beautiful.
Hope you like my changes. If you don't, then by all mean change it back.
Street walker 08:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
What is going on with half of the articles. Why delete the most recent picture for something older. We should be representing Jackson how he is today, so I suggest the previous picture replace this one.
Someone removed the real picture of him waving an Isreali flag for just a typical M.J. pic, anyone have the original to revert this change? Mike 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, looks right again ;) Oh yeah, it was probably your browser's cache getting in the way (I've had it happen a few times editing Wikipedia articles). See necessary documentation for clearing your cache. Mike 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I added a bit about Michael Jackson's new single and it was removed? Why? It's relevant. More relevant to Michael Jackson than alot of the stuff in the article.
When was DS released?
NO
Can this article please be reverted back to the way it was before the last edit? Someone has replaced a damn fine, accurate article with the words "he is gay". So can it be reverted back?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.196.138 ( talk • contribs) .
Should allegations about Michael being associated with the Nation of Islam be added to the main page in the list of controversies? I know there's a mention of it in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson#Arrest and investigation, but I feel it is worth having here in its own right. Andjam 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone edited the section in the article about Michael Jackson new single, "From The Bottom Of My Heart" saying, "However all the above mentioned artists have denied any involvenment with the song." This is wrong, so I deleted it.
Mariah Carey confirmed on a UK talk show that she will be a part of the single. James Brown, Snoop Dogg and Missy Elliot have also confirmed through their spokespeople that they will be participating in the single. Babyface is also another one who confirmed his participation in the single.
Do we really need to mention Jermaine Dupri's comments on Jackson's acquittal and SNL's Michael Jackson Show? It has no relevance to the article which is about Michael Jackson's career and life, it's not an article about Jermaine Dupri or SNL.
Oy. So Michael Ealy and Smokey Robinson don't have "the skin color of an African-American?" Fixing. -- FuriousFreddy 14:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
A search shows many cases of him being called the King of Pop, but not the longer version (unsurprisingly). Taylor might well have sed the longer form originally, but it was the shorter form that caught on. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it's just like Elvis Presley, the title his record company dubbed him as is "The King of Rock and Roll", but fans shorten it to "The King". It's exactly the same for Michael, the title Liz Taylor labelled him as, and the title his record company has used to promote certain musical releases is "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul", but fans and peers shorten it to "The King of Pop". Street walker 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added, known by his fans and peers as "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul" (most commonly shortened to "The King of Pop") Is this cool with everyone? This is the most fair statement as in it shows what his official title is, and what fans shorten it to. Street walker 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You refer to KoP as MJ's "official title", I don't understand this. How is it official? Secondly which peers refer to him as KoP? I believe it is marketing by MJ that has been accepted by his fans,but not by the general public. Media reports often say "self-styled King of Pop". Thirdly, KoP should also be mentioned under Controversies because of media claims [wish I could find them] that MJ's PR people have insisted on a journalist refering to him as KoP, in order to gain access. (ie. example of hubris and media spin). Design 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I say "official title" because it is the title his record company used to promote various releases (Dangerous and HIStory). No where on the net have I found credible info that states Michael Jackson's PR team influenced media to call him KOP. Anyone around at the time know that after the success of Thriller, DJ's started calling him the KOP, then the public picked up on it, and then the media picked up on it. It wasn't until after MJ bought the Beatles catalogue that the media tried to strip him of this title. The Self proclaimed KOP is just a rumour, it has no place in this article. Street walker 07:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Any tagnames, whether admiration or discourteous, is only superficial. Whether it's fact or fiction can be argued or over-argued in our case. I suggest, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me, that we place it in more approiprate section(s) than that of the intro.
Placing such nicknames in the intro of this article only makes our jobs harder, because it encourages vandalism. Because of it's very nature to be stated as fact is difficult, it will cause further vandalism. People are less likely to vandalise articles if facts are being stated. Therefore, nicknames must be placed at more approiprate sections.
As a result of the slew of recent edits this article is suffering from major POV issues. Just in the "Invincible" section alone there are comments about "musical genius" and "haunting melodies"; I have neither the time or the inclination to revise this lengthly, fanboyish article, but SOMEONE has to do it. Pacian 05:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it up a bit. If there is still some POV in this section, feel free to edit it. I tired my best. Street walker 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So what if Michael Jackson is reffered to as a "musical genius". That is not totally unexplainable and unfounded. I would disagree on calling him a genius a POV. There is definitely a cause to call him a genuis. Many articles in wiki refer it's subjects as "genius" including Bernard Herrmann, Roberta Flack, Charles_Mingus & Prince. If these articles mentions its subjects as geniuses, why on earth can't Michael be referred as a genius. Many well known people as well as musical artist have referred to MJ as a genius. E.g Lenny Kravitz referred to Jackson as a genuis. Before u come here talking about POV, do your research.
Put it in the article then. If you know a specific case where someone else referred to Jackson as a genius, say that by all means. But first go to history, and see what the Invincible section was like before it was edited. It did have major POV issues, so Pacian's comments weren't unfounded. Street walker 20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand an article on Michael Jackson is going to be long, no matter what is done to it (he's been a high-profile celebrity since 1969, and has released a lot of top-selling music). However, it doesn't need to be longer. No more information on any of Jackson's music should be added to this article, until he releases new recordings. Rewording is fine, but extra wording (anything that makes the file size go up) is bad. Hmmmm...perhaps we could (should?) lose some of the Neverland trivia and the personal information. -- FuriousFreddy 00:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
FFreddy - youv'e cut down the artcle. I think it would be preferrable to have Main Articles (located elswhere) for all albums & other subjects such as Controversies. This would allow fullsome but accurate trivia to be added in each Main Article.
You cut out the Intro I wrote for Controversies. It did make the current article longer but I didn't think it was POV. To have no mention of the controversies surrounding "King Of Pop" and "Whacko Jacko" lessens this article. Design 01:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone has gone and changed BOTDF and Invincible again. I reverted the article back to the way it was, but I would advise that the user who keeps editing these two sections, 218.101.65.23 , should be banned from editing this article because he/she has edited it numerous times with the exact same text, major POV issues, and lack of fact. Street walker 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What is POV about the voice section? MTV did declare Michael the 11th best voice in music, Michael can sing stacatto, Michael has got a wide range. What's POV about it? Street walker 10:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
These 2 sections have major POV issues. They have been fixed up time and time again, but people keep editing them back. Someone please revert back to the way this article was before these two sections were changed?
This paragraph seems very POV:
Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005.
The truth of the matter is that he has been accused of sexual abuse and the media covered it. Yes, they gave it a great deal of attention, but this is not "despite" his success but because of it. If he were not so successful the media would not have paid attention to the allegations. Millions of men are accused of sexual abuse every year, and the media ignores most of them because they are not famous. The above paragraph reads like it is written by a diehard fan. -- Dancemaster 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The IFPI website doesn't seem to have any mention of this honour/certification - if there is a link or information to prove this claim, please include it, otherwise the proclamation is best removed. -- 172.212.73.140 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The World Music Awards awarded Michael Jackson the biggest selling artist of all-time based on IFPI certifications. Street walker 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Request for expansion: [1] -- Striver 03:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
how we talk about one person so much we forget ourselves...
These sections have been moved to Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies. All mentions of "wacko jacko", child abbuse allegations, plastic surgery and skin color have been moved to a seperate article. This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career. Street walker 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career... uh, no it's not, it's a biography. This is yet another blatant attempt to remove all criticism and controversy from the article. a ndroid 79 07:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
1) It is way too lengthy, hence the article split
2) The image in the intro of Jackson performing at the 95 MTV awards is too big and throws out the allignment of the whole article. It looks dodgy.
3) It has no mention of Jackson's upcoming releases (i.e. "You Are So Beautiful" and yet-to-be-names next album).
p.s. "Wacko Jacko" is here be mentioned in the intro. Satisfied? Street walker 07:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually I read the whole thing and tried to follow it closely. Obviously I failed to satisify. Fine, I will make further changes.
Anything else?
Street walker 07:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have not reverted this article. All I did was copy and paste sections from the Personal Life & Controversies article. As a result, I also had to delete some of the talk of personal life * controversies in the albums sections. I did not revert this article. The article should now satisfy everyone. Street walker 08:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
KrisW6, what undiscussed blanking and changes made by me are you talking about? Basically, the only changes I've made is adding new information that has just surfaces about Jackson new single titled, "You Are So Beautiful", and I fixed up some politcally uncorrect terms like gay and black (I changed them to homosexual and African American). Street walker 08:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, but shouldn't "gay" be "homosexual"? Street walker 00:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Some people believe that Jodie Foster dated Michael. I know for a fact that they were friends, but now I'm not totally sure on that either. I saw some pictures back in the 1970s with Jodie and Michael holding hands and laughing. I don't think she ever dated anyone really. The quote from Jodie Foster came from Rolling Stones magazine, 1982 when they were doing this thing with Michael Jackson. I think that quote describes Michael completely. Who ever found that quote from 1982 is a complete nerd. 70.149.126.233 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Jodie Foster was friends with Michael from what I have heard in her biography. What quote are you talking about? Jade 19:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that Jackson has permanent legal residence in Bahrain, and Joseph has stated his son will never return to America to live (ecause he doesn't feel safe in America), should this part...
By changed to...
If so, then what is someone who lives in Bahrain called? Is Bahrainian the correct termonology? Another possibility might be, Bahraini (like Iraqi).
Street walker 09:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This stuff about "Resurrection" is horribly wrong.
Firstly, the supposed album was called "Force" not "Resurrection".
Secondly, "Get Out Of My Mind" was not a Michael Jackson song, it was recorded by a french Michael Jackson impersonator, with a similiar voice.
Thirdly, this album was never confirmed by Michael Jackson. It is nothing but speculation, and should be deleted from this article, unless it can be better written with more accurate facts.]
I'd also like to add that "You Are So Beautiful" will not be featured on the "Force (or Resurrection)". It's an entirely new album which Michael has started from scratch. Also, the album will not be released through 2 Seas Records, it is more likely to be released through Island Def Jam records (as LA Reid is currently in talks with Jackson about signing a recording contract).
Regards, Street walker 05:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I hear there will be a Janet and Michael Tour entitled THEIRstory. Maybe that should be added.
Thank you umm... street walker. Lol, but i heard the Michael Jackson and Janet performing at the 2006 grammy's the single Scream and going on tour together. I dont know how true it is though
There is no mention of Michael Jackson's instrumental skills anywhere in this article, so I took it upon myself to add some. You will see in the HIStory section and the Invincible section, I have added info about the instruments Jackson plays on these albums. I feel this sort of information is useful for those doing research on Michael Jackson and his musical skills. Please, if you disagree don't edit this information out of the article, simply look at the credits for the HIStory album and the Invincible album, and you'll see Jackson plays a wide range of instruments on both albums. If you go to other artists' articles, you'll find sections on the artist's vocal skills, instrumental skills, songwriting skills etc. Some artists have whole sections on these topics. Whereas the Michael Jackson article has very, very little mention of his vocal skills, songwriting skills and instrumental skills. Instead the articles flooded with mentions of plastic surgery, skin tone, alleged child abuse etc. There's too much information about controversies, and not enough about Jackson's musical skills. Street walker 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Regards, Street walker 22:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
"Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005."
It seems like a really dodgy thing to say. Can we either find another word for "dogged", or leave this passage out all together, or replace it? Street walker 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is there nothing on NOI in this article? -- Striver 11:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Because Jackson's involvement with the Nation of Islam has not been proven. Furthermore, it is not important or relevant enough to be added to this allready over-sized biography of Michael Jackson. Street walker 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Threre have been angry reactions in Barhain on 14 November, against Michael Jackson, due to the fact that he entered a woman's toilet in Barhain, to reapply his make-up. The women have been calling for Michael to be arrested for performing an "immoral act".
Don't worry, I'm going to be bold and delete this nonsense information myself. Street walker 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if this information comes from a reliable source, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Seems a bit trivial to me. a ndroid 79 13:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont like the way this is put after "King of Pop". I think both should be explained - i.e. King of Pop because of his incredible musical prowess (thats not a POV, thats just fact - he is extremely talented), and then Wacko Jacko because of his sometimes peculiar behaviour and actions.
Both should be explained IMHO, or taken out completely.
How about, "...known as "The King of Pop" for his successful musical career, or alternatively "Wacko Jacko" for his sometimes eccentric and controversial lifestyle."?
I'm not sure about this, but if I remember correctly, MJ is the "King of Pop" because he made a deal with MTV on the title. MTV got the right to play one of his videos exclusively for a while and MTV would start calling him King of Pop. The video might've been "Black or White". -- 213.169.7.210 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I edited the “Whacko Jacko” epithet for the following reason. I fail to see how referring to Michael Jackson as "Whacko Jacko" an extremely derogatory slur, should be implemented here. It gives the impression that Michael Jackson is officially known was "Whacko Jacko". This is a title largely used by Michael Jackson critics. That being the case, if mentioned at all it should designated to an area where it is relevant.
52 KB article + lots of images + inherent slowness of wiki = really slow load times. I think the number of images needs to be cut down substantially. IMO it would be good to get a progression of images of Jackson from the Jackson 5 days to present-day to show his change over the years, and if possible get shots of him in the various getups/costumes he's made famous. Are the album covers really necessary? They appear in the articles about the albums. a ndroid 79 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. What pictures aren't necessary? It's allready been established that not all the album covers are needed, what about the personal pics (MJ with Debbie & Prince, MJ with Oprah, MJ telecast, MJ with Brooke Shields etc.)? Street walker 08:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking for something to trim, I suggest the image in "Alleged Anti-Semitism" of Jackson waving an Israeli flag, and captioned "showing support for the Jewish people", or something similar. There is already too much confusion between Israel the state and the Jewish people in general. This does a disservice to non-Jewish Israelis and to Jewish people around the world who disapprove of Israel's policies. The Israeli flag is not the "Jewish flag", and the caption here should certainly be changed if the photo remains.
I have tried to improve the page - I changed the first image to what I thought made the page look more dynamic. I think it showed Michael more as he is traditionally known, especially with the hair etc. The picture was found through google on someones site page, so it is very unlikely it is copyrighted whatsoever.
I also tried to put a picture, done by top of the pops of michael when he was young, and put it in the early childhood section. This too has been removed. I stated I was unsure of the picture status, but that it was done by top of the pops.
The page is going nowhere if everything people try to do is removed, or reverted. I am a Michael Jackson fan, huge fan - but I understand the page has to be neutral and factual rather than opinionated. I put the bit about him liking kids - that was just fact, yet even that was changed slightly.
I like the whole dynamic changing nature of wiki's, but it is frustrating to want to add value to the page myself, only to find it is all removed within two days.
Everyone should have a right to add information that they think will add value to the page. Just because someone doesnt like what it is saying, doesnt mean it should be deleted.
Otherwise, why don't the main editors entirely create the whole page, adding/deleting as they want and not give a damn to what other people want to add. That is the way it seems to be going.
can you fill me in? -- 161.74.11.24 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Many fans, and some professional MJ researches/experts, believe that Dangerous could've outsold Thriller to become the biggest selling album of all-time. Let me explain:
The last official sales for Dangerous was 27 million copies (as of 1997), making it Jackson's 2nd best selling album. But since then, considering the rate of Dangerous's weekly soundscan sales results (200 per week on average), some say its total worlwide sales would be closer to 30 million (29 million is the closest estimate).
Thriller has sold well over 60 million (54 million as of 1997). This is double Dangerous's sales, so if you are reading this, you are probably wondering why in hell anyone would think Dangerous could've outsold Thriller.
In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour, and a 10th single from Dangerous was planned for release (the title track). But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour (which had not yet reached the US), and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it probably would've sold over 10 million if the tour reached the US, and the 10th single was released. So it is very possible that if it had not been for the allegations, Dangerous's total sales would be at 37+ million, or even 40 million.
Something else that got in the way of Dangerous's sales was grunge. Nirvana's Nevermind knocked Dangerous from the #1 spot in 1992. Dangerous was going strong at this point, and was selling millions each week. It's estimated, that if Nirvana's Nevermind didn't take the attention away from Dangerous, the album would've sold over 10 million more than it did. This means, it had the potential to sell over 50 million in total.
So if not the best selling album of all-time, then Dangerous could've easily become the 2nd best selling of all-time. This is what I propose should be included in the Dangerous section of the Michael Jackson article, and the Dangerous album article:
"In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour (which had not reached the US), and a tenth single from Dangerous was planned for release. But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it's possible that it could've sold alot more if promotion of the album was not ceased in late 1993. As of 2005, it is possible that Dangerous could've sold over 40, or even 50 million if it had not been for allegations of child abuse, and the new Grunge fad (headed by Nirvana and their 1991 album Nevermind (which distracted music fans from Dangerous)."
What do you think of this?
Street walker 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have adjusted the introduction to what I feel is a bit easier to read and smoother than what it was before this.
I think having three paragraphs splits the info up into sections, which is good for the reader - jackson five, then solo career, then about thriller.
IMHO, the part about the media dodging him/child molestation thing has no place in the introduction - it is exactly that, an introduction. The Thriller bit is good though because that gives readers a scope of his success as a singer etc. I was actually the one who put the bit about him liking children (which was deleted), but in heinsight that is not relevant in the introduction.
I am not sure about his age when he began as lead singer of J5, but I think that is important as it shows his talent, leading a band at whatever young age it was (I put 10 but I think this is incorrect).
I hope some of the changes stay - I am expecting for all my changes to be deleted or reverted within 2 days, but hopefully some of it will be useful and stay.
Andrewh01 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
That's near to the version that I started with when I made some changes this morning, though I included the nicknames. I edited down " singer, songwriter, butcher, baker, candlestick-maker" ad nauseum into simply " entertainer" and shortened the list of Jackson-influenced artists. That's about it. It could still use a lot of work. It needs to be a better overview of the entire article with less detail on sales records, etc. a ndroid 79 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Why another revert? That's three today; please be mindful of the 3RR rule. Once again, previous consensus was to include "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko" in the intro. The other changes I made make things less cluttered. a ndroid 79 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's all of the images in the article. As I mentioned, I think some of these should be taken out for size and readability concerns; please discuss the quality usefulness of each one below. If I missed an image, please add it to the list. The server is very sluggish this morning, and I'm having a tough time accessing the image description pages. Some of these may have copyright issues that need to be addressed.
How many images should go at the top of the article, and which ones should they be? a ndroid 79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Why the 1000 changes to the introduction? I altered the introduction and it was reverted, as I expected. Why though, are others wasting their time changing the intro (before me even), then quickly retreating back to an old version???? What is the point of changing something, only to change it back to an older version later - how is the article developing/improving???
I feel maybe there is a problem that some people have added lines which they absolutely want to stay in the article - especially intro. Therefore, regardless of how "their line" is changed, they change it back.
The page isnt going anywhere. Get rid of the egos, and instead concentrate on working together to create a good page on Michael Jackson. Once again, I am a huge fan of his - but this doesnt mean I am trying to get rid of all criticisms.
If things don't change, I expect to see basically the same article in a year. Every time something is change it will be reverted if the people who wrote the original don't like it. Its a shame... the page isnt going to go anywhere. Self-destructing really.
138.130.208.179 06:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
"His 1982 album Thriller currently holds the title of being the best-selling album..." - Forget "of being", change it to "Thriller currently holds the title of best-selling album..".
"In addition to his albums, Jackson has also recorded thirteen number-one Billboard Hot 100 solo hits.......". - Most of the "solo hits" actually come FROM the albums, the songs were on the albums when they were released. Therefore, it sounds silly to say "in addition to his albums..". I think something like "From his albums, Jackson has achieved thirteen number-one etc. etc...." - or something like that, change the 'in addition to' though.
Just some of the things I think should be edited. I have also said before his age when starting as lead of J5 should be included in the intro as well.
There is way too much info on BOTDF and Invincible, most of which is POV. Remember there is allready alot of information on theses albums' articles. Go to those article and add info there, not on this article which is a biography of Michael Jackson, not a detailed description of each and every album he's released. Street walker 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Why did the bit about Michaelgate have to be deleted? Geraldine Hughes is an accomplished author who worked in the office of Rothman (The 93 accusers' lawyer), so she witnessed everything. She also witnessed everything this time around and wrote a book about it, just like she did after 93. The article mentions Eleanor Cook thinking Mike is guilty, so why not mention Hughes thinking 2005 was a conspiracy. You have the for him being guilty, but you chuck out the against. Completely bias. Street walker 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I liked it better with all the pictures. It looked good. It looks kind of uneven and messed up now. It was neat and aligned, and now it's all over the joint.
" Marriage and Children"
I hate the part where you say parentage has not been proven. It has been proven so there is no need for such statements Jamgirl86 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of dual discs on sale and have been for over a year. Just because MJ's publicist is saying it is a first DOES NOT make it true. Go to any large music retailer and dual discs are already on sale -- 86.135.187.125 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
"Thriller" is going to be the first commercial single released on DualDisc, according to Sony/BMG.
WHY ON EARTH WAS THIS PAGE MOVED FROM "MICHAEL JACKSON" TO "MICHAEL JACKSON (ENTERTAINER)". I'M MOVING IT BACK!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this does need to be moved, and it certainly shouldn't be moved without discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves first. sjorford (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC).
Lastly, User:Ianblair23 as a fellow Administrator, I would adivse that you contain yourself; the shouting/Caps was very unnecessary —and immature, might I add. Please remember that Admins need to keep their cool in all situations. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
When the name "Michael Jackson" is mentioned, regardless where it is mentioned,, I'm sure over 90% of the time people mean Michael Jackson the entertainer. In the same light, over 90% of user on this wiki will have the entertainer in mind when the search is made. Besides, the other Michael Jackson's are not widely known, whilst MJ the entainer is officially the most famous individual on the planet. Moving the page is totally unnecessary, and uncalled for! -- 161.74.11.24 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I recently saw Tatiana Thumbtzen on a TV bio program. I think it was the " True Hollywood Story" on Michael Jackson. Tatiana described how she performed with Michael during " The Way You Make Me Feel" on the Bad Tour. She describes the unusual "relationship" that they had. One night, she decided to stray from the usual stage performance and surprise Michael with a kiss during the song. She claims to have received a warm expression from Katherine backstage afterwards, followed by an angry, cold glare from Michael's then-manager Frank DiLeo. According to Thumbtzen, she was subsequently not allowed to visit Jackson's trailer and was removed from the tour. By this point in the interview, Tatiana was in tears and said that it was the last time she ever saw him (Michael). (If she is lying, then that's too bad (and predictable)... such a gorgeous woman scrounging for MJ spotlight like a gold-digger groupie, tsk tsk)
Two weeks ago, I heard it announced on a radio station (
WHTA Atlanta) that Michael Jackson's former wife Deborah Rowe had revealed that Michael was, in fact, not the genetic father of his first two children, Prince I and Paris. It seems that everyone who hears this is not surprised whatsoever, but previously did not discuss it openly. Can anyone confirm that Debbie made such statements? I would do a little research of my own, but I already have too many tabs open and this rumor doesn't appear to have been brought up in here before. Thanks! --
Crnk Mnky
20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The story can from the National Enquirer. In her own words, Debbie said, "Why on earth would I speak to such a low-rate tabloid?" Street walker 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I'll be adding {{ fact}} where ever a citation is needed. The best way to do source this article is to find a few large references on Jackson, cite those whenever possible, directly in the article, and list them under the References section. Once that is done, then the citations can be cleaned up using {{ ref label}} and {{ note label}}. I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-15 23:19
"The information reported on Wikipedia.org is incorrect and inaccurate, including the name of Mr. Jackson's Hurricane Relief song."
Thank you. Raymone K. Bain
Street walker 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It is good to know that you have been visiting and reading the page, being Michael Jackson's publicist. Your opinions on exactly what is incorrect and inaccurate would be extremely valuable. Our collective goal in this page is to create a factual, accurate and detailed account of Michael Jackson's life, music, success and controversies. Please feel free to either change items yourself to their 'correct ways', or organise with a moderator to modify the incorrect parts. Indeed, this would be excellent - as all the information would be then correct. Even better, spend some time with the man himself - Michael Jackson - and ask HIM what he wanted to change, regarging incorrectness etc. This is would extremely valuable to say the least.
I have changed this...
to this...
Before reverting it back to the way it was, hear me out.
Most artists pages have these titles and subtitles (Title: year-year) and IMO that looks better and sounds better than "Blood on the Dance Floor and the late 1990's" or "Number Ones to The Essential Michael Jackson" for example. I think most of you will agree that the new titles are better. I never liked the old titles.
Not only did I change the titles, I changed some of the content in each section. I put Early childhood and all the Jacksons sub-sections into one section (Early years). Because I never understood why Early childhood (being such a sort section) was its own section and not a sub-section. I also put the Say, Say, Say with Thriller for the same reason I merged Early Childhood with the Jacksons sections. I merged Caption EO with Bad, because some of the songs from that film were from the Bad album and it's pretty much considered in the "Bad era". I merged BOTDF with HIStory because BOTDF is part of the HIStory project. I also merged Visionary with Katrina single and You Are So Beautiful.
Hope you like my changes. If you don't, then by all mean change it back.
Street walker 08:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
What is going on with half of the articles. Why delete the most recent picture for something older. We should be representing Jackson how he is today, so I suggest the previous picture replace this one.
Someone removed the real picture of him waving an Isreali flag for just a typical M.J. pic, anyone have the original to revert this change? Mike 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, looks right again ;) Oh yeah, it was probably your browser's cache getting in the way (I've had it happen a few times editing Wikipedia articles). See necessary documentation for clearing your cache. Mike 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)