Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 9

message: I noticed the image change on the main page - and im sure this has been discussed before - but personally I think that the image should be left as the most recent photo of Jackson. I understand the new image is free (and Im not sure what the wikipolicy is regarding this) but I think it makes sence to show Jackson as he currently looks. If not then at least the Japan photo should be at the end of the article at the section where it mentions his appearence. Also if the 1984 pic is left I feel the description at least needs to be better flushed out (Jackson in 1984 seems lackluster - perhaps include where the shot was taken?). Also - and this is just a matter of taste - is there a version without the crop of Jackson and the shadow? Like I said - that part is totally bias but I just think a full photo would look better. Any thoughts? :: ehmjay 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point of information. PD should always be used in preference to Fair Use wherever possible. This is a strong requirement. Tyrenius 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out Wikipedia:Fair use and especially the talk page there. Tyrenius 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image on Main Page 

message: The article needs to mention Jones more prominently. The success of "Thriller" (47 million copies sold as of 2006) owed as much to Jones's producing as it did to Jackson's vocal and songwriting skills. Once he got rid of Jones, his career not surprisingly declined a lot. This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him.
:While I agree that Jones should be mentioned as he did an excellent job of producing, you cannot argue that the loss of Jones is the reason jackson's career has declined. Dangerous is considered to be an exteremly fine album  - and Jones did not produce it. :: ehmjay 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all 47 millions is wrong.  Jacksons career declined after he got rid of Jones? Well maybe in America but there is a world outside of america you know. "This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him", ridiculous, this is only your opinion. Jones helped thrillers succes very much, but Jackson did write and co-produce the 3 biggest song of that album. Aeneiden-Rex 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No it hasn't. That number is from the 90's.Aeneiden-Rex 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quincy Jones

message: Ok, we all know that there are three types of people in regard to Michael Jackson: Haters, Fans, and neutrals who don't care or want to remain objectional. I'm wondering what his family thinks of him? We know that he has friends like the famous Elizabeth Taylor and Chris Tucker, and was friends with Marlon Brando, but what do Janet and the crew think of him? Does janet try to distance herself from him, or does she stick up for him? Did she even turn up for the trial? And what about the brothers? Were the jealous of his solo success, and still hate him? or are they supporting him? or do they not really care because he looks weird? I'm just interested about the situation with the family. --Paaerduag 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they all support him now but the eighties and the 90's was tumultuous decades. I mean Jermaine didn't write the song Word to the Badd! just for fun, and MJ later wrote Money. And La Toya made some weird statements about the 93 allegations and other things about her family that I don't think the rest of the family liked. I think Janet and MJ always had a good relationship. I think that the brothers were jelous of MJs succes, but I don't think that they ever hated him. I think that the situation is good now, they're a family again. Already in the eighties MJ was reluctant about performing with his brother. He didn't want to perform at the Motown 25th at first. About his looks I don't know what the brothers think of it. His parents also claims that MJ has vitiligo, it was on his fathers side according to Joseph. I believe the situation is fine now. Aeneiden-Rex 11:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many members of the family turned up at the trial last year (Janet, Jermaine, Joe, Katherine for sure...not 100% sure about the rest...pretty sure LaToya did once or twice) and they constantly have supported him. I remember also there was an interview the other year with Joe and Katherine in which they stood behind Michael. LaToya did make some comments about Michael in the early nineteens but if my memory serves me correctly, she later came out saying that she was pressured by her husband/boyfriend at the time to do so. I think all in all - the Jackson family stands behind Michael. :: ehmjay 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the comments she made it doesn't sound like she was pressured, more like speaking her mind. Probably legal threats caused her to hush up. Arniep 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LaToya's alright now I think, she claimed she was pressured by her boyfriend, but I don't know if it's true. it seems like she has always tried to look like MJ. Janet is also nice, what do u mean nipplegate? do u mean that thing that happened at superbowl?? I don't understand the big deal. Aeneiden-Rex 08:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She try to look like MJ? LOL. Arniep 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Um I don't think she's the weirdest of the Jacksons at all, she just has tried to disassociate herself from them and has been branded an outsider/traitor etc. Arniep 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To Aeneiden-Rex: I don't actually think that Nipplegate should have been publicised. I mean, the breast is the first thing a child sees when it want's to drink. It's not anything new, I agree, what's the big deal? Janet and Michael are the biggest musical talents in the family, and seem to be close. I also think Jermaine is a nice person. --Paaerduag 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the book "The magic and the madness"; MJ didn't forgive Latoya for her statements around 93 until the trial in 2005, if I remember correct. So it is as Arniep said, shw was considered to be an traitor. Aeneiden-Rex 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you know it's the truth??  Aeneiden-Rex 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And just how do you know that? Aeneiden-Rex 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That is well documented elsewhere so there shouldn't be any problem finding sources for it. Arniep 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious as to who exactly wants citations for all this information? I will go and find it for my post, but seriously I don't exactly have the time on my hands. I think that this site should help anyone who wants to know about who was where at the Jackson trial. Honestly - the number of citations requested in this section alone is a little bit rediculous! :: ehmjay 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Who the h*ll has put so many "citations needed" here? It'just ridiculous + some stuff here was peoples own opinions and thoughts and there's no need to put sources to peoples own thoughts. I wrote f.ex. "I think that the situation is good now" and someone added a "fact" after that, why? Aeneiden-Rex 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jacksons view of Jackson 

message: Today there was a number of edits by new users removing most of the text on Jackson's media problems. Please note whitewashing is vandalism. I reccomend one of the admins active here look to the previous edits before my reversion to my last version for who did it. They clearly are in need of a ban.--I'll bring the food 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That guy stopped after a second level warning. No need for a block, much less a ban. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass vandalism

message: I wonder if Michael's brother Marlon was named after Marlon Brando and that is part of the reason they became friends? Or is Marlon a fairly common American name? Arniep 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol...actually Tito's full name is Toriano Adaryll, work that one out. Arniep 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being serious for a minute... I just wondered whether MJ's parents may have been Brando fans as films such as A Streetcar Named Desire, The Wild One and On the Waterfront all came out just before Marlon Jackson was born. But if the name Marlon is really common there may be no connection. Arniep 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it only a common name after Brando became famous though? Brando was a big sex symbol in the 50s, alongside James Dean and Presley, he got the reputation for being eccentric later. Arniep 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway I just checked the 1880 census and the Marlin spelling is much more common than Marlon. There were about 980 Marlins as opposed to about 70 Marlons in the whole of the U.S, so it is possible that Brando made the Marlon spelling more popular. Arniep 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These websites seem to confirm that Marlon only became popular name from 1950 onwards with a peak in 1970 (before Brando's reputation went somewhat awry) , , . Arniep 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marlon

message: Jackson is on the "Oz Actors" category. As far as I know, his only Oz related performance was "The Wiz". Is that normally considered an Oz movie? I may be wrong, but I think it was an unofficial parody. I think he's also the only Wiz actor to be in the category.--Agent Aquamarine 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably correct. The Wiz is not an official part of the "OZ" series - much like the currently popular novel/musical "Wicked". However, since it is a musical/film to be based on "The Wizard of Oz" it may technically belong. :: ehmjay 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oz Actor 

message: I think the Michael Jackson webpage should be unprotected. Nobody has edited it with lies.
:I think there's a reason why there's not been much vandalism and I think it's because of the protection. I don't want to make assumptions, but an unsigned comment wanting to unprotect a controversial article is a sign that one may want to vandalise. Sorry if I'm wrong -A Shade Of Gray
:: Not only that - its only from newly register or annon. users. We've had a lot of trouble with annon. users in the discussion page alone so thats part of the reason why they locked the article itself. If you have something you feel should be added you can always tell a more experienced wiki-user who would be more than glad to insert it for you. :: ehmjay 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it should come back 

message: the clip for Somebody's watching me should not be under Michael Jackson because he did not sing it.    It should be under Rockwell.
:But Jackson did feature in the song - and many claim that the song would not have gone anywhere if it weren't for Jackson's appearance in the chorus. I personally think it's a great song either way. But either way that's why its under Michael Jackson - but you're right...it should be under Rockwell aswell. :: ehmjay 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  somebody's watching me 

message: I read this article about jackson and his song 'what more can I give' and how he refused to give the royalties to charity which I think is wrong. [http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/showarticle.cfm?articleid=7879Mr. mister 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I had not seen that before. However - it is important to bear in mind that he wanted to retain the "publishing rights" - which is slightly different. The way the article is worded makes it sound that any royalties at all would not be donated however merely royalties from publishing rights. The article does state that "If the track was to be released, only physical and digital sales would generate revenue for the charity.". In other words - proceeds from sales would go to charity, proceeds from the song being translated, transcribed, printed, performed publicly - would go to whomever holds the publishing rights. In other words - if the single were released there would be more money from sales than there would be from owning publishing rights...remember we're talking about one song. If it were an entire album things would be slightly different. In the end its somewhat of a moot point because the song wasn't released. For more info about publishing rights visit this site :: ehmjay 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  refusing royalties 

message: The song was originally intended as a duet with longtime rival Prince. Prince was approached and briefly considered taking part in the project, but eventually decided against it. Prince claims he did not want people making gay jokes about the first line "your butt is mine", which Jackson refused to change. Years later, Quincy Jones told a different story when he said that Prince told him and Jackson that he hadn't wanted to participate because "it would be a hit without (him)". Allegedly, Prince said of the album, it was called "Bad" because "they didn't have enough room to spell 'Pathetic' ". 81.155.77.170 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify why you posted this - was it because you're proposing to have it added to the article or just because you wanted to post this to anger people? It really has no place on this page and I wouldn't be surprised if it's deleted. :: ehmjay 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not that - it's just that there are certain rules in place in the discussion section - the most important that any claims be sourced. I will admit I am a Jackson fan and as so do not like to see negative comments about him, however I accept the fact that there are negative things that have occured. However - what urks myself and many others is when things are not cited. So please - cite your sources when you contribute information and all should be well. It is important to keep in mind (and you do mention this) that this is all alleged. :: ehmjay 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince/Bad 

message: This user is back to the old tricks of defamatory posts. Please delete on sight. Tyrenius 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:195.93.21.66 ]]

message: I was just reading through the last bits of the article and noticed the following section:
These Court proceedings also brought to light unsuccessful projects planned with the actor Marlon Brando, including a dual interview at the actor's private island near Tahiti, and a DVD on acting.[65] Brando's son Miko Brando, a long time bodyguard and assistant to Jackson stated "The last time my father left his house to go anywhere, to spend any kind of time, it was with Michael Jackson,", "He loved it ... [He] had a 24-hour chef, 24-hour security, 24-hour help, 24-hour kitchen, 24-hour maid service.".[66]
I personally do not think that this is really nescicary to the Jackson article. Perhaps it could be worked into the Brando article, but personally I feel it has nothing to do with Jackson and has no place here. Any thoughts? :: ehmjay 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-needed Brando Related Information? 

message: this user has replaced the recent 2006 pic with me with a pic from 1984.
while it is a decent pic, i have an issue with the fact that just days ago when i posted a pic from 1983 my edits were reversed and the reasons given dealt with a wiki standard of using the most current pics as primary photos.
now we have Arniep who keeps changing the pic to one from 22 years ago...and NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. if there's a wiki standard then everyone needs to be held to it right?
i just thought i'd give everyone a heads up and ask that you help enforce the "wiki policy" that was spoken of to me when i attempted to use a 1980s era pics as a primary photo...as Arniep is getting away with doing. Drmagic 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some confusion about Wikipedia:Image use policy here.  Anyone insisting that we use "the most current" image because of policy is confused.  There is no such policy.  What is policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria), is that images under a freely-reusable license are used whenever possible.  One can see a small selection of images with such licensing at :commons:Michael Jackson.  Uploading unfree images, or images without verifiable source and licensing information, is just creating more work, as freely-licensed images exist and unfree ones will be deleted.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arniep's edits to Michael Jackson page