Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 10

message: Is any info on the following link notable: --Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: probably not. :: ehmjay 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't think so.--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this relevant? 

message: Take a close look at the definition of 'comeback.'  It can mean 'a return to popularity,' or a 'return by a celebrity to some previously successful activity.'  Also do a Google search for "comeback failed" and you'll see that a comeback can either fail or be successful.  Dionyseus 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Dionysus, you do make a very good point. I think it's inevitable we will get new matrial - whether or not he achieves the same status he once had (like many previous stars have done) will remian to be seen. And cheers to I'll bring the food, nice to know I'm not alone here! I'm having to deal with him over at the Brando page as well now! :: ehmjay 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same guy? Why? --I'll bring the food 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right...this I gotta see! :: ehmjay 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How does a book from 1976 contain Brando's thoughts on Jackson being a pedophile? Also - what happened to some of the comments here - someone has removed them...:: ehmjay 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No I have not, I don't really give a darn. Just so you know, next time you respond make it so it makes sence. No where did I not think Brando was gay, (although technically he's bi) I was refereing to the part where you said that Brando called jackson. :: ehmjay 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, because Female First is such a reliable source, and a quote like that couldn't be taken out of context. :: ehmjay 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: From which trial? And aren't you the one who claimed that Brando WAS a pedophile? :: ehmjay 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I still do not see what a photo of Marlon Brando engaging in phelatio has to do with Michael Jackson. :: ehmjay 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to ehmjay - please can you name someone who has been sucesfull in making a comeback that equaled their previous successes. Snowbound 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, when you get right down to it, I don't think any star truely does reach the same level of sucess they once had (Sure, the rolling stones are very sucessfull but not to the same degree the once were). However there are some artists who make a comeback and are extremely sucessful (not AS succesful perhaps ie the Rolling Stones) and those who don't really make much of comeback at all (now I cannot think of any specific examples off the top of my head and don't want to try to because I wouldn't want to be called a liar or something however clearly there are some artists who have tried to comeback and have not been sucessful. Also - it also depends on the types of artists we are talking about. Just musicians or do actors and such fit into that category aswell?). Hopefuly that clears up my comment from before - which I admit was not well written and should be clarified. :: ehmjay 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frank Sinatra in the mid-50's, for one.Guidedbyalan 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 'Comeback' does not necessarily mean it will be successful 

message: The drunk driving campaign isn't mentioned in the article but probably did happen. It needs padding out. Is there an official US site on it?--I'll bring the food 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Jackson was personally thanked by then-President Ronald Reagan at a White House ceremony in 1985 for donating his Grammy-award winning song "Beat It" for use in Drunk Driving Prevention television and radio PSAs. Other celebrities have also helped to bring attention to the problem of drunk driving. PSAs created in conjunction with Recording Artists, Actors, and Athletes Against Drunk Driving (RADD) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) featured such talent as Aerosmith, Barry Bonds, Brian McKnight, Dennis Franz, Faith Hill, Jamie Lee Curtis, Shaquille O'Neil, Stevie Wonder, and Tim McGraw. -- []--I'll bring the food 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All very well and good but it's not what the source says. I think you're probably right but this thing needs real sources.--I'll bring the food 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt very much that THE AD COUNCIL is wrong...seeing as they are responsible for this stuff...:: ehmjay 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drunk driving campaign

message: I figgured we should discuss this before I made a change,  but I noticed someone removed Jackson from the "Cultural Icons of" 1970-1990 citing it as POV. I think it is safe to say that Jackson is a cultural icon from those decades - particularily the 80s. I think that if one would argue these then he should at least be in the 80s icon group. Either way, couldn't one argue that anything in those categories TECHNICALLY is POV so that the groups don't belong period, and since they do exist then you might as well classify people (I know that may not make sence but in my heda it does lol). Just wondering what others think. And please - discuss not make comments. :: ehmjay 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's POV? And Jackson is an icon of the 70-90's, there's no doubt about that).Aeneiden-Rex 09:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category should be deleted, or each icon should be sourced by a reliable source as an Icon of that era.--88.105.98.172 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if the categories are allowed to remain then anyone in it should be cited as why they are there. But what are you oging to cite? The fact that they appear in a book of "80s icons" or a rollingstone article or what. How should we handle this? :: ehmjay 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Icons 

message: Please state whether or not you would like either both nicknames ("The King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko") or just "The King of Pop" to be present in the lead section.
:The King of Pop; it's a phrase that many media personalities use, whereas one rarely hears the words "Wacko Jacko" (though it is often found in print).--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: I think the section heading "Visionary and Tokyo: 2006–Present" needs to be changed. Any thoughts?--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, having been around a number of musicians and other personalities's articles, I think that there should be a "Controversies" section--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The controversies actually have their own disambig page :I Michael Jackson controversies. Arniep 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of these are good reasons to not have a "Controversies" section; I also thought it might not be NPOV, but I was just wondering what people thought.--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And the citation's aren't completely done; there are two refs (32 and 38) that go to dead links--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am extremely interested to see you have checked them properly. Good. Actually I'll give you a barn star for this at some point. 32 and 38 did work, the wankers at Guiness have changed their bloody site to make it crippled so you either buy the book or look it up via txt message. Of course I have a library near me and I will of course source the information at the nearest op, so don't worry too much. We'll do it via book.--I'll bring the food 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked each individual site and made only one major mistake (I had to put some mirror sites in as well and remove possible copy vio links (those that go to Jetzi).--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section heading 

message: I don't think the new image is necessary. Though it is recent it doesn't (a) have any importance (b) show MJ's face. These two factors make it a pointless picture.--Ashadeofgrey 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you can see part of his face including his lips and nose in the top one. In the lower one you can see his whole face. It is very hard to get an up to date free image of Jackson so we should be grateful for these (we can never show press photos as these are not allowed on WP). Arniep 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm hoping that other wikipedians will get involved. Both images aren't really good or useful.--Ashadeofgrey 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing all recent images. IMO there are too many on the page and I don't think they really add anything to the article. Whether they stay or go, the linking to usernames in the captions needs to be deleted. I've never seen that done elsewhere and I don't see why we should do it here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: i've removed the user name. Looking at the pictures again, I strongly agree with removal. neither of the images show his face clearly enough and the second one is too far away to be useful in an article like this. I don't think being able to see his "lips and nose" warrants inclusion. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are not perfect but many free images aren't, however, we are encouraged to use free licensed images above fair use images so these should really stay and some of the copyrighted images should go. Arniep 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK I removed them for legal reasons as they were taken on private property. Arniep 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't think that the pictures being "free" makes it a good reason to have them--Ashadeofgrey 10:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current free pictures as of right now are appropriate and quite dashing to the article. It actually has a real FA quality to it at the moment which is fantastic.--I'll bring the food 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually, it does look ok. I guess I just needed to get used to them. (I still think we don't need them, though ;) but there's a lot of text and it makes it colorful :))--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images 

message: Lots of little things -
* References - references should be correctly formatted (please see WP:CITE for various methods) into one style, and not left as wild links. 
**Example - This is how refs should be laid out -
  [www.example.com Example title] Example.com. URL Accessed September 16, 2006.
*** They should be after the full stop, and commas, like this -
 . [..... 
 ,<ref> [..... 
*** Not -
 . <ref> [.....  
 . 
 </ref>, 
*** Furthermore, multiple refs should be like this - 
 . [..... 
 ,<ref> [..... 
*** Not -
 . <ref> [.....   
 [.... 
 <ref>, 
* Fair use - all fair use image should have a Fair Use Rationale, see WP:FAIR for more information. To add a fair use rationale to an image, edit the page, and add , details of how to implement this template are on the talk page.
* The article seems good prose wise, but there's so many minor inaccuracies with this stuff that it needs a wee bit more work. Fix this up, and then re-apply. Happy editing, Highway Daytrippers 08:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failure 

message: People on this page have claimed that the legitimacy of Jackson's children has been tested. What was the outcome of that test? last month, people said it would happen before september! what was the result? shouldn't the result be incorporated into the article. if the test has not yet happened, when is it going to happen? shouldn't that be in the article? --Paaerduag 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read there was no such test taken because both parties (Jackson and Rowe) knew the legitimacy of the children. However they have been in a courtroom "battle" for custody. You can get some information here and here. However like I said - I have never heard any official word about these so called tests. I've only seen them mentioned by trolls on this wiki-talk page. Of course I could have just missed that newsflash. :: ehmjay 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson's children 

message: Please note that when citing the same source twice please follow these instructions (i have noticed that "the times" is cited 3 times in a row towards the end and that the official jackson site is used as a source 10 million times for the same page.--I'll bring the food 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to cite the same source twice

message: If the text below belongs anywhere, it doesn't belong where I found it (the section dealing with Jackson's trial). I removed it and placed it here, maybe there is a place for it elsewhere (but to be honest it sounds a little silly to me).--Pathlessdesert 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in a trivia section or something along those lines - but it certainly doesn't need to be in the trial section. However it is really well written and somewhat interesting infomation. :: ehmjay 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation 

message: The following statement is taken from this site, which is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page for Michael Jackson:
"As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."
The statement nicely highlights the musical importance of Michael Jackson, and I believe it should be included in the opening paragraph of the lead (after the first sentence). Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is subjective opinion and not fact.  Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I object in the strongest possible terms to this quote being inserted into an otherwise neutral introduction. The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the article and this quote heavily slants the article. It took months for us to negotiate the introduction. It is currently as NPOV as we could possibly get it. I believe that inserting such a slanted quote into the introduction would start another war as people attempt to balance the article to re-achieve a NPOV intro. Such a slanted opinion does not belong in the introduction. Again, strongest possible objection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to your statement that "it does not matter that some here do not think that it is true," for me personally, whether I think it is true or not is completely irrelevant. It is simply a matter of having an article which conforms to neutral point of view policy. I am not a Jackson fan or hater and am not interested in pushing one side or the other. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with including that information.  Perhaps it should be added in the second paragraph, at the end after it mentions the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame provided that the clause comes from the R&RHoF.  Michael Jackson truly is up there with the Beatles and Elvis.  Also, I'd consider the R&RHoF a good source.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine with me if it reads something like that.UberCryxic 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO I think that this information is relevent and should be included in the article, 'however' not in the opening paragraph for reasons that Sarah Ewart mentioned above. The article does not do a good enough job of looking at Jackson's career as a musician on the whole, thus I think the quote is relevent - however the first paragraph is not the place for it. As you said - this is an opinion but one of a rather respected source and is just as valid as having anything in the Elvis article refering to him as "the king of rock and roll". Perhaps we should discuss where it belongs? :: ehmjay 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, this is not a nickname at all, whereas Wacko Jacko is. By the policy that previous users have reached, Wacko Jacko will be promptly removed.UberCryxic 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous agreement was to remove both. Both used to be in the lead sentence. Both were removed.  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not neutral enough for a lead. Sorry. And I won't be helping you write it now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't changed my mind. I told you I wouldn't object to it going in the body and I don't. I have said from the start that it does not belong in the lead becuase it slants the article The lead needs to be neutral. Trying to put this in the lead is simply POV pushing. Taking "Accoring to..." in front of it doesn't make it any less POV. I could just easily get a quote and say "according to...Michael Jackson is frequently referred to as Wacko Jacko." Such things are slanted POV and do not belong in the lead.  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so I understand before I make my reply, are you supporting for body then? Or are you waiting for further consultation?UberCryxic 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go so far as to say I support it being in the body, however, I do not object if it is included in an appropriate place, such as the mention of the Hall of Fame, as we discussed the other day. If you put something like that in the lead, it's going to start up another edit war, which is something I'm really opposed to. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to clarify because if you are, in principle, supporting for body, then I see no reason why we're arguing. Ideally I would like this to be included in the lead because it is very general information, but I'd be fine if it was included anywhere.UberCryxic 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then likewise, there should be no problem including negative views to balance out your POV. Can't you see why what you're trying to do is so contentious? I don't think you can compare MJ to the Beatles or Presley articles because, though they had controversies, they did not polarise people the way MJ has. We need a neutral intro or the edit wars will start up again. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: <after edit conflict> No, you were just comparing the articles. Also, I didn't say I had a problem with you highlighting, through sourced comments, what many people consider the musical importance of Jackson. I just have a particular problem with you doing it in the lead. I said I don't object to it being in an appropriate part of the article. On an unrelated point, would you mind changing your preferences Special:Preferences so it stops marking all your edits as minor. It is very misleading having content changes etc marked as minor. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I SUPPORT BODY because I think that the quote is relevent, although not needed in the leading paragraph. However, UberCryxic does make a very good point that this article does not do a good enough job of highlighting Jackson's importance in the music industry. Once again, I must point people in the direction of Encyclopedia Britannica's Article on Jackson which does highlight Jackson's career as a musician very well. Also it is important to note that in their leading paragraph it does make claims such as "who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s.". If a professional encyclopedia can make such a bold statement in their leading paragraph - the statement we are discussing should not be so tough to put into the body of this article. But that's just my opinion. :: ehmjay 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Minor_edit. Minor edit means you're making trivial changes. To knowingly mark content changes as trivial is extraordinarily dishonest. Some people's watchists don't even display minor edits. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead statement

message: Hi, I'm the author of the pictures. Initially, they were (wrongly) attributed to jmorelo, which is my nickname in Flickr. I changed that and, since I'm also a wikipedist, I put a link to my wikipage. Then they were both removed. I'm OK with removing whatever link (I just thought that was informative), but since the pictures (see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atalaya/169436395/ ) have a cc-by license, you do have to attribute them. Be it to jmerelo (my Flickr nick) to Jjmerelo (my wikipedia nick) or to JJ Merelo (my real name), they have to be attributed. 
Besides, I have seen in the stream of changes that somebody has already done so, but his changes have been reverted. So instead of doing it myself, I prefer to leave the position clear, before we start a change-and-revert war. JJMerelo 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they have to attributed per-article. The images are attributed to your Flickr link if you look at the image file descriptions.--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I hadn't seen that. OK, then. JJMerelo 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MJ at Disneyland pictures 

message: The link to the sentence in the introduction says 60 million. I'm tired of all this changing, it started at 50 million and in the last few months its doubled, its ridiculous! The sentence should be changed back to 50 million, or at least the 60 million that are certainly more realistic! Alaka 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Million Sales for Thriller 

message: io:Michael Jackson  oc:Michael Jackson . Thank you201.0.66.19 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add io and oc

message: So I just read this article on the BBC which discusses that Jackson's performance was cut short due to time restraints and the like. I think this should be added to the article...however I'm not the best at adding this sort of stuff (especially when it comes to citations). Anyone want to add some more info? :: ehmjay 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Music Awards Controversy