Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 15

message: why? this is Wikipedia not a fan site. why were those pages deleted?
Sai2020 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. They were deleted for a good reason. I asked the admin who deleted it and here's what he says. Sai2020 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child molestation charges pages deleted! 

message: The photo of Mr.Jackson on top of the page has LOW QUALITY.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOW QUALITY PHOTO 

message: I went through alot to get it! 
* Struggleing to size it  
- Gaogier
It's good, but I don't know how much credibility "my uncle's friend" holds (The Elfoid (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ummm what exactly is wrong with the white house pic? Sai2020 06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: We need a new picture for the Thriller Era, this is because it is the same as the main picture and as no1 seems to want to remove the main picture the Thriller era picture must be changed.
We need a new picture for the Dangerous/History era for the reasons i said above earlier. Realist2 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture for Thriller and Dangerous/History Era 

message: Michael Jackson has (or had) copyright ownership of a large catalogue of other singers/groups work.  I feel that it would be appropriate to summarise some of the most important material in his collection, in this article (unless it is in another wikipedia article, in which case should be linked from this article).
217.35.75.188 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson Collection 

message: I have removed the following bit of opinion from the Invincible section. Do not revert it unless you can find a reference to cite (and not a reference from 10 years prior to the release of the album).
 Of those that were negative many focussed on the singers  eccentric image rather than the music ()
This doesn't belong on wikipedia, save it for your fanpage. DiggyG (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invincible reviews 

message: Under topic HIStory, it is claimed: "In June 1995, Jackson released HIStory: Past, Present And Future - Book I,[76] which went on to sell 18 million copies (36 million units) worldwide,[29] making it the greatest selling multiple-disc album of all time." I think this should be removed as incorrect. Counter-example: Wikipedia and RIAA has this to say of Pink Floyd's double album The Wall: "by 1999 The Wall had shipped 23 million copies through the United States alone, making it their best-selling album there." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wall . 23 million copies in USA certainly is more than 18 million copies worldwide. However, I didn't want to make this change by myself just in case I've understood something wrong. RealLeo 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIStory sales figures 

message: I just noticed that Thriller was not listed under the #1 US singles under the discography section.  I couldnt find any info on the actual single, but seeing as how the Thriller album was at #1 for almost nine months and was proclaimed the best selling album of all time by the Guinness Book of Records... I would assume that the song hit #1 at some point.
--Sublime5891 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thiller was not a #1 single? 

message: This section is a complete mess the info on new release is all over the shop mixed up left right and centre between , the award ceremonies , the james brown funeral and the photo shoots. Can we sort it out, maybe we should take all the info about the new music out, now that this new thriller edition is out no1 really no`s about the new album dates keep getting changed. I say we remove all the stuff on the new album because no1 honestly no`s anymore. Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 New Album 

message: I think that Thriller 25, the February 2008 release of a new version of Thriller (not a special edition, not just one or two unreleased songs), should have a page of its own, for the following reasons:
* Notability - Thriller is not any old successful album. It is THE GREATEST SELLING ALBUM OF ALL TIME. And this is not just a 'special edition' version with remastered tracks, a few unreleased tracks and an interview. This is a 25th ANNIVERSARY release, and that's gotta count for something. Don't use the same old argument of 'it's not notable enough' for it's own page or 'other album re-releases' don't have a separate page. Of course they don't - they're 'special editions' or whatever. We don't have separate pages for the special editions of each of MJs albums. But this is different, and I think that per the above reasons we must realize that. 
* Collaborations - Thriller 25 has got some really notable collaborations with other highly successful contemporary pop artists. These include Kanye West, Akon, Fergie and will.i.am. This further adds support to the above idea that this product, Thriller 25, has enough notability APART FROM ITS CONNECTION WITH THRILLER that it deserves a page of its own. These collaborations are part of that notability which does not rely on the original Thriller album, and justify Thriller 25 having its own page.
I think that for these reasons, no one in their right mind can dismiss Thriller 25 as "just a special edition" or "just a re-release of Thriller". It is MUCH MUCH MORE and I have outlined why above. This is no special edition. This is a product which has enough importance by itself, as opposed to having importance solely in relation to the original Thriller, through COLLABORATIONS with HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL POP MUSIC ARTISTS. And that's gotta count for something.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller 25 

message: We need to make something to replace the lack of a page. I agree it needed deleting - what was there before was a shambles, filled with POV. Very messy and if anything was to be done, it needed starting from scratch. Once work on Thriller 25's done, anyone up for making that? We can do it now, before the 2008 promotions really kick in...it'll be a busy year and much harder to get done not long from now. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child molestation accusations 1993 

message: I don't have control over editing the page, so to someone who does, you might want to replace the n-word typed in several times under the Thriller section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpuliva (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller section needs fixing 

message: Uh, realist, reply to me dude. You dropped out of the debate higher up.
A sales quote from recent years can be counted on as a recent sales figure, if it comes from the right place. A writer may be misinformed, even if it unlikely. Officially recognised sales are more reliable since they come direct from somewhere. A writer has read that somewhere and interpreted it. That's why the sales figures are more reliable than press quotes (The Elfoid (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIStory sales 

message: which is correct? the article has both the versions.. which ought to be removed?
Sai2020 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  will.i.am or Will.I.Am? 

message: We should make an article on Jackson's songs attacking the paparazzi. I don't think any other singer has so many songs attacking them. Obviously they deserve his venom; he's treated like crap for the most part and obsessively stalked by reporters and photographers alike. I think it would be worth looking at combining articles about these songs, possibly into the MJ page or a new page. We could look at how his attitude has changed from song to song, if it has. I always felt the way "Privacy" uses a guitar solo shows how Jackson  felt no longer able to express his rage through words alone. A guitar solo talks from the soul. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs about the press 

message: the Nov 2007 ebony cover is a great choice to be on the Michael Jackson page.
WHY DON'T YOU USE IT AS THE TOP IMAGE?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We" suggests a majority, not so. My name is not elfloid. If I could understand the rest of your sentence I'd attempt to respond to it. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOOD IMAGE 

message: there is no longer a mugshot on page.thank you.wow  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.14.50 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a happier new year 

message: I added the following commentary the other day about Michael Jackson, because many people question his sexuality. Many say that he is gay, and so I added the following snippet to clarify: 
"After the two molestation trials of Jackson, many people have alleged that he is homosexual or bisexual. The allegations that he is a homosexual have come from several different sources, including former employees of Neverland Ranch. Although Jackson has had sexual relationships with women, Jackson has allegedly had several sexual relationships with male children. If those allegations proved true, Jackson would be considered by definition, a homosexual pedophile. Many have also attributed his feminine characteristics, high-pitched voice, and allegations and assumptions of excessive plastic surgery as further evidence for these claims. However, since there is no definitive proof of his molestation, and under American law he has been found innocent of the charges, the allegations that Jackson is a homosexual remain unproven."
It was subsequently removed. Does anyone know what the problem is with including this. Aside from the sentence about his feminine characteristics, these are all based on established facts and opinions that exist. I left in the end that the allegations of homosexuality are unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 
:As I explained to you on your talk page: you cannot add this content to the article. It is uncited material, your own personal opinion and full of weasel words. Please do not use Wikipedia articles to promote your own opinions of Michael Jackson or any other figure. Thanks, Gwernol 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: Is it helpful?
Sai2020 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Archiving Bot 

message: I heard Michael Jackson 
recently converted to Islam 
while in Bahrain.
Is this true? ----Kim 12/17/07
who no`s ? who care`s ? he has the right to any religion and it shouldn`t be made a deal of .Realist2 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson--a convert to islam? 

message: This is the tabloid stuff we hate but why is he bandaged up?, I hope if he has had plastic surgery... (which i highly doubt) ...that he has not messed his face up.
Below is taken from the article, picture included on article its self.
What do you belive has happened?
 
Source
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/12/18/2007-12-18_bandaged_michael_jackson_in_buy_spree.html
Gaogier (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on that article about MJ's face in bandages 

message: :Image:Dontstopvideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Dontstopvideo.jpg 

message: I would like to know who was resonsible for removing the semi protection the other day while i was away. Whoever did it should be appauled with their actions. Please address this as ithttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png
Subscript cannot be aloud to happen again. Realist2 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the logs and tell me who removed it - no-one. It got removed when the article was deleted to make way for a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What? I'm sorry, but we spent ages last night trying to get the article restored, it took ages because there were too many revisions to manually restore, and now you come here and suggest one of us should be demoted? Are you joking? I've protected it again now, but you should really consider your words before you speak. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Get over yourself, you don't own anything here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nah, you're just arguing over things you don't understand, then to top it off, asking for one of us to be demoted when we worked hard last night to get the article restored. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of semi protection 

message: I tried to slash (no pun intended) a couple of sections of the article, but the changes were reverted: i.e., I took out the middle paragraph of the intro and most of what struck me as an overlong section about MJ's work with the guitarist Slash.  Jackson has used Slash to good effect on several songs, including his last big hit "Black or White", but this occasional partnership has hardly been a major focus of either performer's careers.  And even though they have been working together a long time, they have really only collaborated on two all-new albums (the second of which was a major flop) and Slash only appears on a few tracks on those albums.  He has never toured with Jackson, although he has made some cameo appearances on stage and TV.
As for the intro, the middle section was full of questionable (and badly written) assertions, and even though each assertion was properly footnoted, none of them added much to the article.  (The Slash section also has plenty of footnotes, some of them attached to stuff which doesn't need to be in the article.)  Did Michael actually "establish "high-profile album releases and sales as a new trend for record companies to generate profits"?  (There were many high profile albums before Thriller.  In fact, the Beatles put out The White Album and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band back when the Jackson 5 were still unknown.  And, in some ways Thriller marks the beginning of the end for the album qua album, since it was basically just a collection of really great singles packaged in a colorful sleeve, without a whole lot of cohesion between the singles.)  Did he actually lead MTV out of obscurity?  Are the Guiness World Records people really the definitive authority on who is the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time"?  Did his dance moves really "redefine mainstream dance and entertainment"?  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I terribly care or have any actual information about the subject at hand, but y'know, Realist, if you were to provide some kinds of references for these claims -- actual sales figures, that is -- you'd probably end up arguing a lot less. Just a thought. (Conversely, if you cannot do so, it'd be interesting to know how you can make that claim.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of sales figures are "known" on Jackson fansites and have circulated so long no one recalls the source. Most are reliable, but can't be proven to be. (The Elfoid (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of changes which got reverted