Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 16

message: The lede states that MJ's videos on MTV had the effect of "leading the relatively young channel out of obscurity." The source, an ABC News article about the devotion of MJ's fans only mentions MJ and the early days of MTV in one sentence, when it states that MJ put MTV "on the map." I have changed the lede so that it accurately states what the source says (put MTV "on the map"), but an editor has changed it back to the "out of obscurity" wording. Paraphrasing content is a legitimate and good technique. If the source had several paragraphs discussing the relationship between MJ and MTV in the 1980s, you could try to paraphrase it. But since the source only mentions the issue once, I argue that it is misleading to claim that the source says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity" when the source has a different tone, of saying he put MTV "on the map." A subtle difference, perhaps, but an encyclopedia has to be reliable.Nazamo (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, here is the sentence from the ABCnews article: "They may fondly recall how Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................I argue that the editor is adding POV (point of view) by purporting that the article says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity." The article never states that MTV was in a position of obscurity. Instead, it states that MJ's pioneering videos "put MTV on the map."Nazamo (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not true at all.  This is OR, but I was sort of there (well, a viewer, anyway, in those days).  MTV was a well-known network that was being criticized for not showing any black artists.  Michael Jackson's videos were a breakthrough in the race area, but not in the ratings area.  Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I just did research on the whole MTV and MJ connection and the big issues, as identified by Tom McGrath in  "Michael and MTV" from  MTV: The Making of a Revolution (Philadelphia: Running Press, 1996) (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id127.htm) are: A) MTV executives believed that MTV was a "rock" channel, so they didn't initially want to play black artists such as Rick James or  Michael Jackson....then, after much protest and criticism from black artists, "on March 2, one week after the song hit No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100, the "Billie Jean" video debuted on MTV."...B) When MTV executives saw the "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" videos " they were absolutely floored by "Beat It."", with its choreography and dancing...." Never before had there been a video like this one. Almost single-handedly, this shy former child star had taken the entire field of music video and lifted it up a notch artistically. The reaction to both clips once they'd been aired -- and to the songs, and to the album, and to Michael himself -- made that clear. All across the country, in bars and basements and breakfast nooks and anywhere else that the MTV pipeline reached, people were watching the two clips and nodding that, yes, these were the best they'd ever seen, these were what video had the potential to become. Certainly record sales reflected people's excitement. Thriller had already sold more than two million copies by the time MTV first played "Billie Jean," but after the video went on the air, the album began to sell at a remarkable eight hundred thousand copies per week."....C) MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.... "Michael Jackson was the hottest pop star on the planet in nearly twenty years -- and you could see him almost hourly on your favorite music video channel. While Michael and MTV were both absolutely on fire, the two weren't competing with each other; they were helping each other. Some would turn on their televisions merely to catch "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," and then find themselves mesmerized by the rest of what they were seeing on MTV. Others would tune in merely to watch MTV, and then find their jaws dropping at Michael's videos. The synergy was phenomenal. It was as if a couple of supercharged rockets had somehow hooked up in midair, and now the two of them were hurtling toward the heavens, linked together and moving faster than anyone could ever have imagined."...........................................................To summarize, the story in a BOOK about MTV and MJ is that MTV wouldn't play black artists, then MTV saw MJ's amazing videos, and played them, and the videos became super popular, and then MTV and MJ were "helping each other."  Based on the guidelines for Wikipedia, the most reliable sources should be emphasized. I argue that the storyline from a BOOK about "Michael and MTV" from 
MTV: The Making of a Revolution is a more reputable source than ONE SENTENCE in an ABC news article about the dedication of Jackson's fans, which states that "Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................As such, I argue that the line "put MTV on the map" should be replaced with the history outlined by Tom McGrath, that MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.Nazamo (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Realist2, thanks for your message.  Can you get more detail on the ideas and statements from the book Magic and Madness. As I am sure you are aware, Wikipedia articles must be based on the most reliable sources. You state that the source that I have proposed using is incorrect, based on what Magic and Madness has. Fine. That doesn't mean the source I am proposing can't be used in the article. Rather, when there are 2 points of view, both from reputable published sources, the Wikipedia article should acknowledge both points of view. I am going to add a paragraph on MTV and MJ which outlines the points of view put forward in the Tom McGrath book. Then you can add the ideas from Magic and the Madness, which claim that MTV's viewing figures were decreasing, etc,  and the different ideas will all be there. In the past, you have reverted changes that I have made to this article, particularly this "MJ and MTV" section, in which I argued that you were not using the correct wording, based on the ABC News article source (the article says "put MTV on the map", not "MJ led MTV out of obscurity"). In this case, I have done research, and I have found a published source to back up my proposed changes. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I would ask that you not revert changes that are made based on reputable published sources. Thank youNazamo (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MJ and MTV in the lede section 

message: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MJcopyright_free.jpg
Sai2020 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  replacement for mugshot is proposed for deletion 

message: hi I changed my signature.. just thought you all should know
Σαι (  Talk ) 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of signature 

message: There is no mention of songs he has written or produced for other people. Notably "Do the Bartman", "Happy Birthday Ashley", "Muscles" or some of the songs on 3T's first album. - or am I mistaken and it is featured somewhere else. If not, please can someone set this up, I haven't got the sources and honestly I don't know much about it, which is the reason why I think it would be good information to have. Thank you! TwinqleTwinqle (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Songwriting/production credits section? 

message: IMDb says HIStory IS the largest selling multiple-disc album of all time..
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/bio
"His album "HIStory: Past, Present and Future - Book I" has sold 16 million copies worldwide since its release in 1995, making it the biggest selling multiple-disc album of all time."
Sai2020 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIStory 

message: The version of the article that Realist2 is insisting on is not NPOV.
Prior to my edit it read:
Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music. That said an album that sells 8 million copies is still considered a huge success in the majority of cases.
There may be a source for this opinion, but it is still an opinion and does not belong here. The last sentence is also not NPOV as it reads as being defiant, and dismissive towards negative opinions of the album. Just let the facts speak for themselves: 8 million in sales is a large number, there is no need to belabor the point.
I have changed it to:
Despite the middling reviews, the album still sold 8 million copies, making it one of that year's most popular albums.
This is, I think, a more evenhanded treatment. Before undoing this edit, I think it should be discussed here on the talk page to see how other editors feel.
DiggyG (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably appropriate to state the sales figures for the album. However, it is not necessary to insert commentary addressing the worth of published reviews. Michael Jackson has received a huge amount of press coverage, and more books have been written about him than most other public figures. Out of all of those articles, websites, and books, it is not surprising that it is easy to find a source for opinions such as "the negative reviews of this album were unfair" (I'm paraphrasing) - nevertheless these opinions do not belong in the article. DiggyG (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NPOV]] in Invincible section 

message: After having gone through this article, I found quite a few problems. For one, there is quite a bit of unsourced material. I found one citation that did not contain the information it states and that has been tagged accordingly. Also, when a book is given as a reference, a page number or numbers needs to be included for verification. Two citations were also tagged because they're from IMDb. IMDb is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used to reference a biography (See here for a discussion regarding the matter). I've also tagged those accordingly. Lastly, there are quite a bit of POV statements and peacock terms. For instance:
Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music. That said an album that sells 8 million copies is still considered a huge success in the majority of cases.
Saying that a review is "unfair" is a point of view statement. What one person sees as unfair, another can see as perfectly fair. Statements like this should not be in an encyclopedia whether they are sourced or not. A reliable source will sometimes include an opinion, but those opinions need to be left out in the context of Wikipedia. I removed the last sentence because that is clearly an opinion and there was no way to reword to make it acceptable. Plus, that information isn't really needed. A reader can make up his or her own mind once they read a neutral statement. It is fine to state that the album was given harsh reviews and people focused on the person, not the album, but it is not necessary or acceptable to assert an opinion to make the subject appear sympathetic. I know Jackson is a controversial figure and it seems that some statements are attempting to defend him or his actions. Looking back on the edit history, it seems that if changes are made, they are quickly reverted. These issues need to be addressed and fixed BEFORE the tags and templates are removed. I'd like to point that that I did not remove the statements I had issues with, but instead tagged them so the original author has the chance to reword the content. The only substantial edits I made were regarding grammar, peacock terms, text formatting, and overlinking. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to dispute what the book said because I don't have the book. The fact is, a book can have an opinion as well. A person writes a book and a person, by nature, has opinions. As I stated earlier, it is acceptable to say that the reviews did not focus on the album content, but the person and their behavior. Why you're arguing that point is beyond me because I said that was fine to include. I said the last sentence of those few sentence I used as an example was not acceptable. Words like "huge success" are peacock terms and very hard to prove as success is relative. As far as page numbers, you can go here and follow the directions. If you have any trouble, let me know and I'll help you. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's skewed to be anti-Jackson. More importantly no single editor has veto rights over this page, if you disagree with the current edit, that's fine, but it's poor manners to immediately revert edits that you disagree with. DiggyG (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Issues 

message: I would like to submit for the FURTHER READING section an analysis of Michael Jackson, entitled Machind In a Promised Land.
Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2005_v4_n4/lewis-17.htm
Thanking you for the consideration,
Artsandopinion (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futher Reading 

message: Hi, According to the Wikipedia policies that govern our contributions here to Wikipedia, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (seeWP:REDFLAG). The policy states that "Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material."  The policy also says that this requirement "especially applies..." for "biographies of living people."................................................................There are some exceptional claims in the MJ article (e.g., that he has "planetary influence", the most famous entertainer, etc), which are sourced from websites that are not independent, reputable MEDIA sources. For example, there are several exceptional claims which cite  the BMI.com website, such as the "planetary influence" claim. BMI is a performing right organization that collects license fees on behalf of its songwriters, composers and music publishers. BMI represents songwriters, including MJ. BMI is not a good source for exceptional claims; it is not a music magazine, it is not a newspaper, it is not an academic journal... but most of all, BMI is NOT INDEPENDENT FROM Michael Jackson. ............................................................BMI represents MJ and his songs, and gains its revenue from the use and licensing of these songs. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. If you want to have claims that "MJ has planetary influence", which is an exceptional claim, the source should be TIME magazine, The New York Times, or a similarly, highly-respected source...................As such, I argue that the claims which are sourced to non-independent websites such as BMI should be removed, unless an exceptional, reputable source can confirm them.Nazamo (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources 

message: Also look at the credits of the Vince album. Here's proof:
"We also asked SLASH about the song "Privacy" on Michael Jackson's forthcoming album, Invincible. We told Slash that it sounds like Michael says "SLASH" right before a short guitar solo, but SLASH insists he did not play on this album. He said maybe they borrowed something from HIStory or Dangerous, but he certainly would remember if he had played on the album. " http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72735147381551&mkt=en-GB&lang=en-GB&w=9d3f596c&FORM=CVRE
just to settle that issue once and for all. :) Marnifrances (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slash does not play on invincible 

message: I did it. Please support the nomination. Thank You
Σαι (  Talk ) 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article nominated for FA 

message: What other sources do we need and where is neutrality disputed?
Σαι (  Talk ) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above sections "NPOV in Invincible section" and "Article issues", both of which focus on one sentence in the "Invincible" section, which already has an inline neutrality tag, along with a few borderline "peacock terms" that are sourced. I've removed both tags because I think dispute-tagging the entire article is overkill in this case. In regards to the request for additional citations, there are more than 180 inline citations in this article, so I'm not convinced there's a systemic problem with sourcing. It would be much more helpful to use the  tag to mark specific sources. szyslak 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what i meant was that there are no current issues with article.. Σαι (  Talk ) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm the one who tagged the article and I'm fine with it being removed. I originally added the tag(s) when there was quite a bit of POV, peacock terms and missing/bad citations. Since that time, everyone has done an excellent job of addressing the issues, so the huge tag is no longer needed. Pinkadelica (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Tags 

message: one of the problems pointed out in the nomination is the article's size. the influence section is the biggest i think and im going to start a new page Michael Jackson's influence on the music industry. ill start tomorrow.. i will cut down things from here and put them there. i need your comments and your help. so let's start!
Σαι (  Talk ) 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great so I'll send over Legacy of Thriller to the Thriller article. Σαι (  Talk ) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: Well virgin media have put this image up on their site to download and i just wondered could it be a free use image?
* http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/desktopwallpapers/michaeljackson.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Download, is it copyright 

message: Where has it gone, it was okay! why have we lost the bad era image? --Gaogier Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Era Image 

message: Several sites claim that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam. I don't see it anywhere in the article. Chenzo23 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to Islam 

message: " However, Jackson's controversial appearance and actions have damaged his reputation in the eyes of some of the public and album sales have been in decline since the mid 1990s"
Can someone make it more clear which public it is referring to? Cause, I know that his reputation is like dead in the US. But what about Japan? I remember reading something years ago, and it seemed his rep was not as damaged as in the US
If someone can make this more clear, I will be so gratful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damaged rep 

message: The article states that he received from WMA an award for this, yet the reference quoted states he did not. This should be removed. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist of the Millennium Award 

message: We have two government pictures here, they are the only pictures that we truly know will stay stable, any chance we can find more.
Gaogier Chat! 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: we should include this info in the article "
The 2006 show which also featured the legendary Michael Jackson was held at Earls Court in London, United Kingdom. The show is broadcast to North and South America, all of Europe, the Middle East, Japan and South East Asia, all of mainland China, some other parts of Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Africa reaching an estimated worldwide audience of around one billion viewers, in over 160 countries. http://awards.montecarloresort.com/03/w03pre00.asp  "
at least include how around one billion people watched it. Radiohumor (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the WMA award show 

message: Should 'Bad in Japan 1987' be added to the video releases at the very bottom and a page created for it? - Kaneite
I heard that its been shelved now, Realist2 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Question 

message: There is a part titled "Return to music" though Mr. Jackson always insists that he's never stop makin' music and there are news about him workin on his forthcoming album since 2003. i think this is what some people and some media like very much to label artists with. however he's realy never paused.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.92 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NON-STOP 

message: I noticed the 'further reading' section contains some books. How about including some documentaries in there too. I know there are plenty of them. They're just as informative.
Shoop85 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: According to the Michael Jackson biography 'The Magic & The Madness' by J. Randy Taraborrelli, Michael has earned at least $240 million from ATV.  In 1993, EMI paid him $150 million to administer the songs from the ATV catalogue.  And another $90 million was paid to him in 1995 when he merged it with Sony, creating Sony/ATV.  Jackson still owns 50%, and the catalogue is supposed to earn $80 million in revenue annually, which technically earns Michael $40 million.  So I think Jackson's financial situation is made out a lot worse than what it actually is.
Yes jacksons financial situation is complex, both sides spin on this issue and it probablt wont be even known for sure. Realist2 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATV 

message: This section is terribly sourced and written. Most is also speculation based on tabloid rumour and Roger Friedman's "inside sources". I recommend we take out all but the sourced info until someone can supply sources for the other information. Marnifrances (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed some of that information can be found in the trial transcripts, however they are not on this computer.  I am leaving a message on my talk page to help source the top part of the section.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances Section 

message: The last thing I want is to get into an edit war.  I have asked to please discuss this on the talk page because I don't want to get a 3R warning.  I have yet to see a legit reason for these  five words.  Until my experience with Jackson fans, I had associated MJ with Michael Jordon. Could someone simply please explain to me where this info comes from and give me the quote from the source?  As I stated above, newspaper headlines will often abbreviate, and thats not always a good source when an article is already way too long. I really would love to see this read as an encyclopedia article and not a fan page. So I there is a legit reason for these five words, I'm all for it. --DizFreak  talk Contributions 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read them, and from what I can see, there is no consensus at all.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I am opening a new discussion on this issue, as well as several other points.  I would like this article to be shortened and more encyclopedic as I've stated earlier.  I admit we probably won't agree on each change, but I think we both would like a good article on the subject.  I noticed you referenced a book that uses the term MJ.  Can you share the context with me?--DizFreak  talk Contributions 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a notation inside the code that references a book.  That is what I was discussing.  The USA Today article does not speak to the MJ nickname at all. It simply uses the initials in the Headline, and the name "Michael Jackson" inside the body of the article.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Replied on my talk page.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to throw in my two cents: MJ has often been referred to as MJ. His current team is called or referred to as "Team MJ"; he is referred to as MJ in the book "The Magic and The Madness" and by writers J Randy Taraborelli and Roger Friedman, and other writers and columnists, as well as amongst fans and has been for years. I'll find a couple of page references from my ridiculous MJ book collection. Marnifrances (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Often referred to as MJ 

message: Hey guys, was there ever a discussion on the references section using 3 columns? I didn't want to change it unless there was, but I'm gonna point out that the references are almost illegable (and one or two are totally illegable) in the three column format. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should throw in that I'm aware theres loads of them, but really, which is better; readability or compactness? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: MJ is still claiming he has vitiligo, but his sister LaToya is almost white too... so does she have vitiligo too? Or does she have the same bleaching treatment? Me!20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does LaToya have [[vitiligo]] too? 

message: As with the Thriller page, it is clear that you obviously haven't learned anything from your 24 hour ban for edit warring. The moment the ban is over, here you are once again reverting genuine and CORRECTLY made edits. It is obvious that you do have the maturity to edit Wikipedia responsibly. I will once again make the point clear that you do not own the Thriller or Michael Jackson articles on Wiki, and if you persist in continuing to edit war just to force your own personal opinions across, then I will report you again and ensure you receive a far longer ban. The information that Jackson made the claim himself about Thriller's album sales is RELEVANT to the article as it, in itself, is POV (namely his own). Your opinion that user:Elfoid is a neutral editor is your own POV, and one that I do not share. In fact I am not even convinced you aren't one and the same person.MassassiUK (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits 

message: The article has this statement: "At the World Music Awards in 2006 Beyonce announced that Jackson had given $300 million to charity.[191](more than any other celebrity apart from Oprah Winfrey)[192]". However, this doesn't seem like it can be true, as Bill Gates has given $300 million to India to fight AIDS, among many other projects with his foundation. In fact, according to the Bill Gates article, he has donated $29 billion from 2000-2004 alone. Citation 192 is his IMDB biography, which says that this is only his claim (and is not sourced), not that he has actually donated this much, and perhaps even meaning that he was under the mistaken impression that Oprah was the #1 donator to charity. Merick (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity donations 

message: Hey I suggest we remove the "Theme and Genre" section. Its hugely unsourced and pov tagged. This artickle is huge and its removal would cut things down. We can put music samples throughout instead which would allow ppl to make their own judgements on it rather than giving out pov slated opionions. Thought? Realist2 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes and Genre Section 

message: Hey I suggest we remove the Jackson 5 section. The article is so big we should really stick to his solo stuff with a link to the Jackson 5 article. What do ppl think? Realist2 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be foolish to exclude that. The Jackson 5 are as much a part of Michael's history as his solo career is. I say leave it in there. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Think about it, it'll be like taking out The Supremes section in Diana Ross' page, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: its an essential aspect of his overall biography. it needs to stay. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson 5 section