Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 12

message: Let me just say, in much stronger terms than has been said before, that this article is a prime example of how celebrity culture has infiltrated our encyclopedia. Just now, a paragraph was added about Michael Jackson's trip to Japan. We have to end this people; we can't keep covering Michael Jackson in this article every time there's news about him. This applies to some of the bs this article has on the last few years; much of that has to go. Cover the prominent issues and move on. We don't need to know every last detail of Michael Jackson's life; that's not an encyclopedic approach to writing articles.UberCryxic 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: the video games section just kind of 'appeared' under biography, and I'd like to know why. When I edit, it doesn't come up as being where it is in the article, so I really don't know what to do. Also, some footnotes have disappeared and ceased to function (113) and I have no idea why. I'd like to have an explanation, if anyone knows what happened. --Paaerduag 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  video games section 

message: After watching media coverage of the Berlin event, a California attorney and radio talk show host, Gloria Allred, wrote a letter to California's Child Protective Services, asking for an investigation into the safety of Jackson's children. She also spoke on CNN about the subject. Child Protective Services does not make their investigations public, so it is not known whether any action was taken as a result of Allred's letter.
When a reporter asked Jackson what he thought of Allred's complaints, he remarked "Ah, tell her to go to hell."
No offense but who really gives a damn what this bitch thinks? I mean, we don't even know who she is, and radio talk show hosts are always trying to bring attention to their boring pointless lives. It should go out. This is an article concerning Michael Jackson, not some random talk show host's opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn what this girl thinks.
:You may not, but as Gloria Allred was an important person in the 1993 molestation case, it's staying.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gloria Allred 

message: On December 18 2003, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony, in February and March 2003, all regarding the same boy under 14. The felony complaint stated that Jackson had seven times "willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act, upon and with the boy's body and certain parts and members thereof, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires" of Jackson and the boy and that this sexual conduct has been "substantial". Also, that on two of these occasions, Jackson had administered to the boy an intoxicating agent, with intent thereby to enable and assist himself to carry out the previously mentioned act. Jackson denied and said that the sleepovers were non-sexual. He still described the boy on whose statements the accusations were based as "a sweet child"; he said the boy was manipulated by greedy parents.
Surely this isn't necessary in this much depth. There is a WHOLE ARTICLE dedicated to this kind of anti-Michael propaganda, in case you all forgot. It's called People v. Jackson How about the below sentence, which is actually randomly featured later in the article, for some bizarre reason. It should suffice:
The People v. Jackson trial began in Santa Maria, California on January 31 2005 and lasted until the end of May 2005.
:That ones staying in the article. You may move the others.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Allegations 

message: Marlon Brando informed Jackson on February 8, 2004 that the declarations made by Jordy Chandler relating to the 1993 child molestation allegations had been published on the internet site The Smoking Gun. This happened when Jackson was about to start an interview with journalist Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes. Jackson immediately left the studio and did not conduct the interview. Jackson also attended Brando's memorial service in 2004 along with Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.
If this happened in 1993, why isn't it under the 1993 section? Why is it there at all? Is it really relevant? I don't think so, hell no.
:Of course it's relevant. He was going to be questioned over 1993 sexual abuse claims against what was at the time a little boy and he bailed out because of all fucking people, Marlon Brando told him not to do the interview. You don't think him escaping the interview is important?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1993 Allegations 

message: Rapper Eminem parodied new allegations raised against Jackson by Gavin Arviso in his music video for "Just Lose It" in 2004. The clip caused controversy and fueled Jackson to make a statement.
Relevant? I don't think so, considering nothing of what Jackson said was even mentioned in this article, which is, believe it or not, called 'Michael Jackson'. Eminem is a miserable lowlife to attack Michael in such a horrendous way, and unless some strong retaliatory words from Michael are featured in this sentence, I think it should be out.
:I've already tried deleting this, it's unsourced. Somebody, i think Ubercryxic put it back.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eminem's Attack 

message: In September 2005, it was reported that Ray Hultman took legal action against the publisher of his book about experiences in the trial, claiming heavy portions were plagiarized from a Vanity Fair article. Hultman also stated he felt "threatened" by the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez and regretted acquitting Jackson.
This is laughable. I mean, does this have ANYTHING to do with Michael Jackson at all? This one's simple. REMOVE IT
:Hultman was a juror against Michael Jackson. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray Hultman's Book 

message: An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife. The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children. As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.
Thouroughly unremarkable and irrelevant. What happened to that DNA test that was supposed to happen? I mean, there appears to be no deal reached, so why keep this in? It is just too much scandal. Only put it in if it actually has a bearing on Michael! He hasn't lost his children, so what's the biggie?
:There was a deal reached in the end, Rowe was paid her allowance again as demanded.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debbie Rowe's Parental Rights 

message: On July 31 2006, a federal judge allowed a $48 million claim against Jackson and one of Jackson's trusts for unpaid fees and breach of contract. All parties were ordered to reappear in court in September.
PUT IN FINANCES!!! It should NOT be in the main article!!!
There, I hope that this is all acted on, because it should definately be acted upon. In relation to the majority of the above, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." --Paaerduag 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information better had not been removed with only 2 of you discussing it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on your complaints I made some cuts, moved some info to Michael Jackson finances. Do not do anything further without discussion with me. 
"On April 18, 2006, Michael Jackson signed a management deal with English music producer Guy Holmes. Holmes is the recently appointed CEO of Two Seas Records, with whom Jackson has signed a recording contract for one album. The album is set for a fall 2007 release."
Additionally I removed this, it's not relevant, he's not with Two Seas, and he's no longer with Guy Holmes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: another thing I'll Bring the food - don't say "it's staying" or "you're not moving that one" because you have no authority to just say things like that. All the above material is subject to consensus, not subject to I'll Bring the food. You cannot just make decisions. You are not the boss, get the picture, and get it quick mate, because the sooner you realize that you can't always just say something and get it your way, the more productive you will be on wikipedia. refrain from such demanding language, because you are an equal like everybody else (excluding administrators, but they are still subject to consensus, for damn sure they are) and you cannot and will not shunt other people into your view points. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, so don't use demanding language in the future in concerning the article itself. Oh, and if you are about to accuse me of using demanding language, that's because this is not related to the article, but is rather a spat which needs to be dealt with. I hope that you understand, and don't make a big issue of it. --Paaerduag 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: What is Prince's full name? Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. or Prince Michael Jackson or Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.? I saw all of those. What's Blanket's full name? Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II? So, Blanket is legally Prince but Prince is not? Kinda confused here. 
http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/10148762/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news
http://www.michaeljackson.ro/infomj/interviews/an-1997/13 Israell 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince and Blanket's names 

message: I'm currently in a lot of hurry, and will have a look at it later, so pardon me for my current inaccuracy.
I currently have a project about Michael Jackson at my school, and used these papers for my written assignment, but after reading them over a couple of times, I spotted several contradictions, but I can't point my fingers at what it is right now. I added Template:Contradict to the article (please remove if unnecessary).
I'm pretty sure it was in Early Life and Career or The Thriller Era.
- Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: I have seen the past changes on the intro in the last 2 years. I even contributed by adding " Artist of the century" for the American Music Awards,Bambi Awards and the first videography for jackson to the intro months back. Now the intro looks much better than it did before. It doesn't say to little or it doesn't say too much. This is the way it should stay.
Yes I agree. Now it's finally respectable and does justice to Michael Jackson's musical influence, which has been sadly ignored by this article, generally speaking.UberCryxic 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intro finally looks good 

message: The intro picture of Michael jackson in 1984 is an ok picture. Maybe there is a better picture we can find that doesnt look like so cut-and-pasty. Maybe a picture with Michael in a dance step in concert. What do you guys think?
I like the one we have now. It is encyclopedically relevant because it shows him at his height.UberCryxic 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro pic has been discussed X times before. Please see the archived entries at Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Why_was_the_picture_changed.3F and Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Main_picture to learn why the present intro picture is a fair compromise - between "mugshot MJ" and "black MJ". Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Picture 

message: do you think that the album names will suffice? because who's to say which events take precedence in each section? I certainly don't think that martin bashir's name should be included. I don't personally believe he should receive that kind of notability because of that rubbish he made. I cut it back to album names, but If you want to flesh it out, try to do it without simply saying 'controversies' or 'bashir'. I will try to add more about his musical influence, because I have had it with negativity towards poor Michael. This article needs an overhaul, and I think it's well underway. --Paaerduag 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtitle headings 

message: The following users have begun a string of vandalism, and I recommend that blocks be implemented if any of these users vandalise this, or any, article again.
*User:Gmaurer40
*User:Chuck norris6996
*User:Littleweb1
All three of the above users have added profanity to the article, and must be stopped from further damaging wikipedia. --Paaerduag 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article doesn't seem to mention MJs frequent and extensive plastic surgery even tho it's obvious from a couple of photographs.
Surely there should be some reference to this, no? SmokeyTheCat 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about some mention of what has been dubbed a "Michael Jackson complex" - that is to say a (probably subconscious) tendency to emulate caucasians among non-caucasians, presumably due to the influence of caucasian dominated media.--Timtak 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastic Surgery 

message: Isn't anyone else disturbed by the horrendous levels of vandalism which have been occuring over the last few days? something needs to be done to stop this disgusting, dehumanizing trend, because this article is about Michael, not some hater's bloody opinion of him, because I don't give a damn what any haters think. More needs to be done, because reverting vandalism seems to have become the 'norm' on the article. thank you to those who do revert the rubbish that others put, but I'm trying to say that there must be SOMETHING we can do to stop this. please, we can't put up with this, it's just plain wrong. those who perpetrate must be punished. --Paaerduag 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you were kind enough to consider my observations somewhat I will be kind enough to allow you to deal with the article for a while, I certainly have no time to deal with it myself. The vandalism is due to the overly glowing nature with which the intro deals with him. People are antagonised by it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM 

message: This biography is fairly all-right currently, but it could do much better in terms of explaining MJ's historical status. I talked earlier about adding a few sections highlighting MJ's influence in music and pop culture. I basically think there should be two sections, both related to his music career: Influence (or Legacy) and Criticism. This is in line with the articles of other famous musical acts, like the Beatles and Elvis, so I'm not proposing anything controversial, at least I don't think. Anyway, let me know what you guys think. We'll have a week of conversation on this or something and see where we go from there.UberCryxic 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence, legacy, criticism

message: 04-05-2007
World Tour Rumours Not True
Asked about recent rumours that there are already detailed plans for a new world tour by Michael Jackson, Raymone Bain told MJFC the following: 
"This is a hoax. Please let everyone know." 
Source: MJFC / Raymone Bain, spokesperson for Mr. Jackson
The comment mentioning a possible world tour should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.128.201 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting MJFC is an unreliable source? --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Tour Rumors Not True 

message: Please no more pictures....I beg you. There's way too many already.UberCryxic 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. FOr a page exceeding 90 kilobytes, the number of images are fine. -Phoenix 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough!

message: I noticed an editor nominated this article for Good Article review a month ago or so. Well he was supposed to leave a note here to notify the editors but didn't, so I moved it back to the top of the list and am notifying everyone now so that the editors will have a chance to respond and address any concerns. If you'd like to comment just click here. Make sure to read and understand the criteria please. Quadzilla99 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say that the article could be delisted.--88.105.24.166 16:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: just wondering, when the title of the new album is released, we'll be changing the heading of that section to "____ Era" right? also, has Michael launched any promotional material himself or is all the material coming out just information and fan speculation? I can't wait for a site to come up with the new album. any plans for a site to support the album from a promotional point of view? by the way, what is Michael's OFFICIAL site? cause there's lots of sites, but what's HIS official site? --Paaerduag 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new album 

message: regarding the awards section within influence, i think the fact that he is almost definately the single biggest selling artist in HIStory should be mentioned. also, more awards should be mentioned, to show the scope of this incredible, remarkable and above all innocent man, Michael Jackson's, achievements. definately the fact that thriller is the biggest selling album in music HIStory should be mentioned more prominently, but crucially more awards must be mentioned. He is the most popular artist in HIStory no matter what people say, and the influence section is a major step forward for this. But, we must not make it sound like he's a 'dried-up star' because he's still selling multiple-platinum records. His career consistency should be mentioned. People may say that 8 million is a flop, but it ain't. 8 million is a damn big number, which most artists don't even achieve. as Raymone Bain said, he's sold about 750 million albums, which is more than any aritst in HIStory. So his constant multi-platinum achievements should be outlined. Also, a section which describes the unfair and bias media could also possibly be added, regarding all the negativity which was truly unwarranted. But mainly more awards should be listed, and his constantly shining career as well, because of course all big stars can't keep up the MASSIVE hit albums, but he's still churning out damn good music and no one can deny that. If anyone actually listened to invincible they'd realize it's actually not as bad as the media made out. It's damn good and the 8 million sold show that. But of course Sony's racist campaign put a halt to one of Michael's strongest albums of his career, which is sad, but that's HIStory for you. Anyway, think and please consider the changes per above. --Paaerduag 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  influence section and awards 

message: many people nowerdays are questioning if he can still dance like he used to as they have not seen a new video or performance of a dance in a long time, i think it should be mentioned that it was very noticable in the documentary living with michael jackson, that he can still dance better than ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.14.228 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can he still dance 

message: While I know the sales figure comes from a "reliable source" and nothing I say will change the fact it can and shall be used in the article. I find the claim that MJ has sold 750 million highly amusing; when you consider the fact that in 1999 it was claimed he had just passed sales of 250 million singles and albums including his efforts with his brothers as well as solo material. 500 million since 2000 eh? MJ's never been so hot....
You're right. MJ has not sold anywhere near 750 million, just like the Beatles or Elvis have not sold the 1 billion they are claimed to have sold. But in Wikipedia, on this issue, claims predominate, not attempts at ontological reality. And not even claims from reliable sources, which is what we normally go by. Just claims. If you can basically find something about sales that's not in a forum or a blog, you can put it on Wikipedia. It's not fair or right, I think anyway, but that's the consensus people came up with a long time. We'd have to change that consensus before we started giving more realistic figures for these people (MJ stands at over 300 million records currently - just by himself, not including the Jackson 5 - same with the Beatles and Elvis).UberCryxic 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughable sales

message: I'd be interested to read more about the specifics of who wrote and arranged the various number one hits Jackson had.  I've always been under the impression that he played a much more active role writing his music than most recent pop artists (no idea if its actually true), and if the article commented on that, I think it would be great.  Thanks!  71.231.7.133 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote the songs? 

message: I just really wanted to clear this up. From where or whom did this ridiculous rumor that Michael Jackson is planning to build a 50-foot five-story high robot originate? I would just like to know, because I've seen it written about all around the internet. Of course it's rubbish, but who the hell made it up? And what was Michael Jackson's official response (most probably Raymone Bain said something on the matter). Anyway, I am not suggesting that this go in the article. I just wanted to clear it up because I'm not sure what to make of this highly-proliferated rumor. Thanks. --Paaerduag 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50-foot Robot 

message: how can you possibly reference this horribly bias man who's attacking Michael Jackson? It's not just a little bit bias, it's just stating as fact that he's a megalomaniac... the themes and genres section is disgusting and filled with this lunatic pareles' rants against Michael. he is the true psychopath here. I'm going to be personally rewriting the themes and genres section. I am not going to allow this freak's lunatic rants to be translated onto this page. I hate this pareles fellow, and I am not going to let his bias crap fill this page. I almost cried when I read his horrible ravings. Oh by the way, the Sneddon reference was a NEWS ARTICLE on a Michael Jackson site, and was unbiased. --Paaerduag 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jon pareles references are disgusting and horribly offensive... 

message: There is a new book out listing every song connected to Michael Jackson. It is quite interesting and worth reading I think. So it should be included on the page.
Information:
http://www.cadman-halstead-musicbooks.com/fortherecordpage.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jackson-Record-Chris-Cadman/dp/0755202678/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to "Further reading" 

message: I think it would be a good idea to split the article into Michael Jackson (person) and Michael Jackson (artist). One article is about his life. Another article is about his music, his influence, his style etc. It's just that there is so much on him that it's hard to contain it within one article. Street walker 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: Normally I practice restraint but was this article written by Jacksons PR? A mediocre "star" with a tinny voice and did nothing musically that Stevie Wonder did not do at least 10 years before-hand. Comparisions with Elvis are a joke as is the claim of him being "one of the most famous people on the planet". Comparing his latest studio Album sales with that of Madonna she outsold him by almost 8 million. This article MUST be more objective and as the individual below stated "is not encyclopedic" this site is to share useful knowledge when needed, it is not a fan site (172.216.80.56 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God help us! 

message: There seems to be very little obvious mention on here that he has vitiligo:
"On The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1993, Jackson claimed that the change in his skin color was due to vitiligo.[48] In the interview, Jackson stated that his skin was, at first, black with white spots which he used make-up to cover. But later, some time after Thriller, his skin became increasingly white with black spots; he then used white make-up to cover the black spots."
...Seems to be about it. To be honest this is a major factor in his image and I think it deserves a greater mention. I think at least a summary of vitiligo and more about the subject and him should be inlcuded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fitz05 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory, La Toya could have bleached her skin too... Not that I don't believe the 1993 skin tests, but La Toya is not a sound argument. Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.228 (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will ignore the above line (apparently written by someome very gullible to tabloids :-< ). Paerduag: I do believe MJ has vitiligo. (I have seen too many ”spotty” photos to doubt it.) Yet still, why is it unlikely that two Jackson siblings would both bleach their skin, if such a method indeed existed? I mean, both MJ and La Toya have had nosejobs, and Janet has seemingly also had some minor surgery. Once again, I was just disputing your argument, not the vitiligo itself! Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.228 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitiligo 

message: Most sources point to the fact that Michael Jackson's legal middle name is Joseph. However, on all court documents in the case People v. Jackson, his legal name is listed as "MICHAEL JOE JACKSON". Is his middle name "Joe" or "Joseph"? Does anyone have an image of his birth certificate or another legal document to establish his true legal middle name? Rhythmnation2004 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name? 

message: Why has the link under the 'Studio Album' section got Michael's new album as '7 Even'? What does that even mean?--Paaerduag 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "7 Even"?