Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 3

message: When was DS released?
:It was on the HIStory album AmishThrasher 07:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DS

message: 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) .
:Uhhh...looks fine to me...--chris.lawson 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine here, too. Try refreshing your cashe. Shanes 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert back before last edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michael and Nation of Islam 

message: 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?
:Yes--whoever locked it, please revert back those two sections. THanks. --FuriousFreddy 04:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected it. Go ahead and edit. Shanes 13:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you stop changing these sections!!! There are individual articles for both these albums, so nothing more than a brief outline of the album's story and success needs to go on the main Michael Jackson article.Street walker 10:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed need to be made to BOTDF and Vince 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Dogged" by the "media" for sexual abuse allegations?

message: :It's probably best to split the "Personal life" and "Controversies" sections off into a subarticle, i nthe interest of maintaining page legnth. --FuriousFreddy 02:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur--161.74.11.24 07:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Street walker 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page split? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Biggest Selling Artist of All-time" 

message: Request for expansion:  --Striver 03:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOI 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Resurrection 

message: I hear there will be a Janet and Michael Tour entitled THEIRstory.  Maybe that should be added.
:I have not heard anything about this supposed tour. I have heard of a Jacksons reunion tour titled "Celebration Tour". I've also heard of a Jacksons album. The only upcoming projects which Michael Jackson himself has confirmed are, the charity single titled "I Have A Dream", and a solo album with a song on it titled, "You Are So Beautiful". Street walker 06:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THEIRstory Tour 

message: "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)
replies: text: I rephrased it. It suggests that being prosecuted it no problem, and that only the media attention is rather unpleasant.--Patrick 01:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting it back the way it was. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word "dogged" in this context. In fact, it works a lot better than the re-phrase did. (No offence, Patrick.)--chris.lawson 01:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this saying that the trial is due to the media?--Patrick 01:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I slightly re-worded it. I noticed that issue, too. I think the way it is now avoids any confusion that the media attention caused the trial.--chris.lawson 01:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is better. But why "Despite"? It is natural that a famous person gets more media attention on such issues.--Patrick 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but we all know a lot of celebrities have gotten a free pass on their eccentricities before. I'm not wedded to the word "despite" in there, though. The entire dependent clause of that first sentence could be nuked and it wouldn't make much difference to me.--chris.lawson 01:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a better way of saying this? 

message: Why is there nothing on NOI in this article? --Striver 11:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOI

message: 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".
*You can't put this in the article because it comes from a tabloid source. It's not been proven, it's false information, furthermore, there are spelling mistakes. But can someone else remove this false information? Because last time I removed Kris' false information I was reported. Street walker 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstrations in Barhain 

message: 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.
*I agree, both should be given some context. I'll be taking an axe to the intro here sooner or later; I'll keep this change in mind... android79 13:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wacko Jacko 

message: 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.
:I'm sorry, I removed the picture of young Michael Jackson. The size of the article is too big, and I tried to reduce it by removing some of the pictures. If you think the young MJ picture improves the article, then feel free to put it back in. Also, what picture are you talking about that you put in the intro? Is it the picture currently in the intro of Beat It-style MJ? The part about MJ's love for children is still in the intro. If you want to improve the article, please do so, and if your contributions are removed, I'm sure they will be put back if another user feels they improve the article. Street walker 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give up trying to improve the page 

message: can you fill me in? --161.74.11.24 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the 'need' for recent changes to intro?

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually that wasn't my intention at all andriod79 - not one bit. I fully realise it is important, and never had the intention of removing all criticisms. When I put the bit about children visiting neverland, it was immediately reverted - as if I was putting some criticism. The whole point of the article is to not have any POVs. I dont think, and I stand by it, that the two lines about the child molestation should be in the intro. If that is put in, then the parts about plastic surgery, about world tours, about everything else should be put partially in the introduction. Do you see it there? No. 138.130.208.179 06:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What was the need to change the intro in the first place from what it was? The previous intro was fine. It had a short and balanced summary of the artist. My question is, what was the need for change. The current intro isn't particularly well put or structured. It's contents encourage vandelism. Why the NEED for the changes made? --161.74.11.24 13:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which version of the intro are you talking about? I haven't been particularly pleased with any of them. I had planned on a massive rewrite of it; if you've got a suggestion for a version that I should start with, by all means, let me know which one it is. android79 14:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This Version as recently as 11 Nov 05. Why the NEED for the changes made? --161.74.11.24 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Change 

message: 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.
#:Image:Mjbeatit.jpg
#:This is a good representation of the "Beat It"-era, but it appears to be a poor-quality scan. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with this. The album sections are one area we can probably pare down significantly.--chris.lawson 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut down info on BOTDF and Invincible. It's surprising because there was a few hundred words on BOTDF, but that album's article only had one or two sentences. If you have extra info about Michael Jackson's albums, go to that album's secion rather than this article. There's too much info on this article and not enough on the individual albums articles. Street walker 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it up. Anywhere you can expand the individual album articles, while simultaneously paring down their respective mentions in this one, is just great. That'll help a lot in getting this article to a more manageable size.--chris.lawson 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much info on BOTDF and Invincible 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michaelgate: 2005 trial conspiracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dual Discs 

message: 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)
replies: text: Debbie Rowe spoke out about these rumours. She said they were untrue and why on earth would she give an interview to such a low-rate tabloid. Street walker 07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, which low-rate tabloid? I heard it on the radio, but I should've known better. Lol, it's like that episode of "Fresh Prince" where Hilary and Ice Tray (Don Cheadle) pretend that they're getting married and Aunt Vivian's true opinion of Tray comes bubbling up! -- Crnk Mnky 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPDATE Debbie Rowe & Tatiana Thumbtzen?? 

message: I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I'll be adding  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  and . I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 23:19
*Asked by whom? Not that I don't support the effort... android79 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need citations

message: 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.
*Err, no. Bain can remove unsourced information per WP:V, and indeed we should encourage him to do so, but correctly-sourced items should not be removed or changed without discussion here. Wikipedia can only rely on published, reputable sources for content in articles – the say-so of Michael Jackson or his publicist is not verifiable. android79 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously tho. I want this article to be accurate too, for Michael's sake. But I don't consider Raymone K. Bain and Michael Jackson to be reliable sources on Michael Jackson... at all. They've kinda proven that over the months and years. I won't go any further for risk of sounding like an MJ hater, lol. Bottom line: MJ and RKB had their own Internet resource for telling his side of the story... if they can't keep their MJJsource server up, we can't link to them. I'm talking far too much when my opinion needed no further emphasis. -- Crnk Mnky 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO RAYMONE BAIN 

message: I have changed this...
:1 Early childhood 
:2 The Jackson 5 
::2.1 Group founding and early years 
::2.2 Motown success 
::2.3 The move to Epic 
:3 Solo career 
::3.1 The Wiz and Off The Wall 
::3.2 Thriller 
::3.3 "Say Say Say" and Captain Eo 
::3.4 Bad 
::3.5 Dangerous 
::3.6 HIStory 
::3.7 Blood on the Dance Floor and the late 1990's 
::3.8 Invincible and "What More Can I Give" 
::3.9 Number Ones to The Essential Michael Jackson 
::3.10 Katrina Single and "You Are So Beautiful" 
::3.11 Visionary - The Video Singles 
to this...
:1 Early years 
::1.1 Childhood: 1958-1961 
::1.2 Beginnings: 1962-1966 
::1.3 The Jackson 5: 1967-1974 
::1.4 The Jacksons: 1975-1990 
:2 Solo career 
::2.1 Off The Wall: 1978-1980 
::2.2 Thriller: 1982-1986 
::2.3 Bad: 1987-1990 
::2.4 Dangerous: 1991-1993 
::2.5 HIStory: 1995-1999 
::2.6 Invincible: 2001-2003 
::2.7 One More Chance: 2003-2005 
::2.8 Visionary: 2005-present
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)
thread_title:  Change of section titles and sub-titles 

message: 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.
:: I fail to see how a picture of Jackson wearing a crown is anything but an in-joke on the part of Wiki editors. Who cares what he looks like now being shown at the beginning when it is present elsewhere in the already-bloated article?--Manboobies 21:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: fixed.  there's a section on the image page (to access, simply click on the picture) which has all versions of the image that have been uploaded.  simply download one of them, click "upload a new version of this file", and re-upload.  for some reason it didn't work for me the first time, but that might have been some function of the browsers cache.  or something.  --jfg284 you were saying? 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewishflag.jpg