Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 2

message: Jackson's extensive history of plastic surgery is never even mentioned in this article. That seems like a big oversight to me. Is the omission intentional? --Osbojos 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No plastic surgery here... Mga 01:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastic Surgery 

message: "He is a generous children's friend, but he has also repeatedly been accused of sexual abuse of children and is, as of March 2005, on trial for alleged child molestation and other offenses."
Does this strike anyone else as a bit less than optimal for the second paragraph of the article? I don't know anyone who would use that phrase. Also it seems a bit less than neutral really, I know what is meant, but what exactly do those words really mean? Perhaps it needs some editing to something more intelligible?
:What is confusing? Generous refers to friend, it does not mean friend of generous children, was that the problem? You mean generous is not neutral? Or friend?--Patrick 11:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been rephrased.--Patrick 09:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing syntax 

message: This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate. Squiquifox 22:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed article split

message: I cleaned up the discography/filmography section. Two things to note:
*"State of Shock" is a Jacksons song, not Michael Jackson featuring/with the Jacksons. Michael was still a member of The Jacksons in 1984.
**For that matter, the same with the "I Want You Back" remix in 1988. Both are listed in the Jackson 5 article.
* "Albums are italicized and songs are in quotes"
--b. Touch 05:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to discography 

message: There are two sections called "Miscellaneous", should they be merged or one renamed? --OGoncho 22:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Sections 

message: LEAVE THESE PHOTOS OFF. I don't want to start an edit war, but these pictures clearly have no right being on here. Only Fair Use, PD, Creative Commons, GNU... images should be shown in the article. Discuss this matter if you don't think I'm right, before reverting my corrections. -- user:zanimum P.S. These photos do look fantastic, and enhance the article, I'm not debating that by any extent. I simply don't want Wikipedia to get it's butt sued off by Michael or any professional photographer.
(Photos removed -- they were interfering with the formatting of this talk page and probably don't legally belong here either. 128.61.70.49 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos that shouldn't be

message: Does Michael Jackson really write his songs on his own, as he states f.e. in the Bashir interview, or does he let other do that job? Thanks, --Abdull 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson has been writing his own material since Off the Wall in 1979. He wrote a number of the songs on that LP and its two follow-ups, and has written the bulk of his material since 1991. He is very much a songwriter; in fact, he has written for other artists as well, including Diana Ross ("Muscles, 1982). --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song writer 

message: I eliminated the phrase "the most successful artist in black music history". Michael Jackson does not write and sing black music. He sings music. He himself is black. If someone else wants to indicate this information somewhere else in the article, they are welcome to, but the former usage was unsuitable, for many of the same reasons as discussed above. Michael Jackson is plenty famous in his own right, he does not need dumb qualifiers to pump up his success.
Furthermore, that link was completely irrelevant. I was expecting to see a chart with record sales or something and instead I read about Eminem. 128.61.70.49 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to find attribution with that link; that was as close as I got. I reworded it to state that he is the most successful African-American solo artist in music history, a fact which is very much true. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black Music History" 

message: Aren't there too many pictures at the top of the article? The whole text becomes distorted. Why not move two of them to other places in the article, or delete them completely? Luis rib 16:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Anyone notice the freaky yelling among the fans at the court scene?
Is this simply the dark side at the far end of a screaming "tradition" started by Elvis and the Beatles fans?
Not to mention Frankie Sinatra and Franz Liszt.
--Scroll1 07:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bad" Fans. 

message: It says:
# Highest note: E6
# Lowest note : E3
# Vocal range: 3.5 octaves
E3 to E6 is 3 octaves exactly, not 3.5.  Anyone with any musical training whatsoever can recognise this.  What gives?
:That would seem to be an anomaly, but if corrected I think the 'vocal range' section makes for an interesting addition to the article. Adambisset 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, the lowest note is purported as Bb3, reducing the vocal range to a 2.5 octaves. Why has this note been changed? This data is very easy to make verifiable: add the song and m:ss location where we can hear a "record" note. So please: give us this source data when you make a statement what the highest or lowest notes are. In a very limited search (8 songs), I was able to find F5 as the highest note in "I'll be there" (1:18), pre-breaking of the voice, and D5 post in "Human nature" (3:38). As well as a Bb4 in belting style during "Earth Song" (6:06). Lowest note: F2 in "Blood on the Dance Floor" (0:35). All data with A3=440 Hz. The section might also add that vocal range is purely a technical thing and doesn't make somebody a better entertainer. Peter S. 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still problems with the current version ("E2-C6"): 1. No example is given for the low notes, 2. all data is shown without a reference point (like "A3=440 Hz"), 3. he is definitely neither a baritone nor a bass, 4. it would have been nice to see a timecode for the high notes. Peter S. 12:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocal range section makes no sense 

message: He started singing career at the age of 12? ("born in 1958, began his career in 1960s") That seems a bit weird to me...Could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks:) --Eternal 06:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Jackson started his professional singing career at the age of five, in 1963, as a member of The Jackson 5. The group got its first record deal in 1967 with a local record label called Steeltown. In 1969, The J5 signed to Motown and began a successful, long-running career of hits. When they had their first hit, "I Want You Back", Michael had just turned eleven. For the full story, please see the article on The Jackson 5. --FuriousFreddy 15:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start singing 

message: The introduction in this article states that he is a pedophile. it is of no interest to this article in particular to decide if he is or not. Therefore, that statement must be erased in order to preserve the neutrality of it. With that being said, webmasters must decide. Thank you.
: Erm, actually, I've just read the intro and it doesn't state that at all. No change required. (adidas)
:This article has been the subject of some severe vandalism in the last day or two, including replacing the entire article with one on pedophilia.  You may have seen a vandalized version. Shoaler 11:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Jackson's "love" of children is stressed more than anything in the background and introduction. I count 4 or 5 times that the word "children" is used (besides Jacksons' children and mentions of his siblings). No big deal, just seems to stress that an awful lot - and I guess we know why. JoeHenzi 02:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is biased 

message: The reason Jackson has a Wikipedia article is that he is a famous singer.  Every famous singer has, or should have, an article here.  He is not in Wikipedia because he is an alleged pedophile.  Not all alleged pedophiles have, or should have, an article in Wikipedia.  I would argue, therefore, that the material on the alleged pedophilia should come after the sections on his music.  Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing that we should whitewash the article by removing the pedophilia accusations.  I am merely suggesting that we should recognize that readers are primarily interested in the pedophilia accusations because Jackson is a famous singer. Deleting Unnecessary Words 23:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an unrelated FYI, there's a website that lists convicted sex offenders in the USA.  DyslexicEditor 01:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. What needs to be done is that the article should flow in chroological order. It talks about all of the adult Jackson's peculiarities before talking abvout The Jackson 5. --FuriousFreddy 02:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where would this Computer Generated Age Progression if Jackson didn't have plastic surgery fit in?  DyslexicEditor 03:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Material in the Article 

message: Some, who follow changes, may have noticed periodic links to "isitscary.com" have popped up.  I placed a comment in the discussion page, to discuss the validity of it's claims of "official" status.  The "isitscary.com" person comes from a changing IP address (like 172.201.82.10).  S/he has deleted all the discussion (after initially editing my words).  So, first, to whoever did this, a non-admin should never edit/delete another person's discussion, without their knowledge/consent.  If links to isitscary.com re-appear, with unsubstantiated claims of being "official" they will be promptly deleted.  Oh, and please sign your comments.  --rob 22:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  isitscary.com editor 

message: Elvis - Tεxτurε 22:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Music Video 

message: The introduction section contains too many BEST words and looks more like fan-page or advertisement. - Vorash 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Vorash recently excised a large amount of text from the introduction as "POV." Included were:
*"He is known as the King of Pop, a nickname that Elizabeth Taylor gave him in 1989 during an awards ceremony." This is a verifiable fact, not POV.
*"His innovative dance moves, music videos and diverse musical tastes have inspired and influenced many of today's singers, such as Usher, Beyonce, Missy Elliot, Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake." This might be interpreted as POV, but probably just needs to be sourced.
*"Many music industry critics consider his Thriller video to be the greatest music video of all time and a large step forward in artistic quality for music videos." This might be interpreted as POV, but probably just needs to be toned down and sourced.
*"MTV and Rolling Stone magazine, in a list compiled in 2000, named four of his songs ("Billie Jean" #5, The Jackson 5's "I Want You Back" #9, "Beat It" #22, and "Rock with You" #82) among the 100 greatest pop songs of all time. " These are verifiable facts, not POV, with a reference linked right there.
Two of these are clearly not POV at all, and the other two are debatable. Please discuss this here rather than removing the text from the article unilaterally. Thanks. android79 17:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::What happened to Britney Spears being listed as one of the influenced artists? User:W wanderers
Also, "He has sold about 250 million records worldwide as a solo artist and another estimated 170 million records with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons" was removed in an earlier edit by Vorash. While I agree that this fact needs to be sourced, and that it should probably stay out of the article until it is, this information is useful, and if reliable numbers for Jackson's sales can be tracked down, it would be good to have. android79 17:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
King of Pop is POV, its the same thing as saying that Madonna is a Queen of POP, clear POV statement !!
*"MTV and Rolling Stone BEst songs belongs to Trivia section not to entry section !!! If it appears in entry it's a POV ! Vorash 17:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction (More) 

message: I took care of the NPOV concerns noted by Vorash, in both the header and otherwise. I also re-structured the article  so that information about Jackson's musical career prefaces the information about his personal life (which is the standard for most other music articles; there's no reason why we jump from Gary to neverland and then BACK to Gary). Also cleaned up and expanded the "Misc. controversies" section (does anyone know the date of Jackson's post-arrest press conference from the eary 90s?) --FuriousFreddy 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit as of July 27, 2005

message: ...is there any particular reason why Michael Jackson cannot be labled an African American? It's a verifiable fact, it's not POV in any way, and it helps when you start talking about transracial changes, skin color changes, etc. --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason not to mention that he's black, but we normally place a person's nationality in the summary, and "African-American" isn't his nationality, but a reference to his ancestry. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "...an () American singer?

message: Then what is to be added then isnt he an African American man, all the other singers who are African Americans are listed as such, so Mel Etitis what is your problem?
:If other articles give "African-American" as a person's nationality, then they're wrong, not this article.  It's certainly not true that all articles about black American singers do that, though. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: Is there any particular reason why all of Jackson's music statistics were moved to a new article? The main aritcle on a musician should have at least some of his hit singles and albums listed. --FuriousFreddy 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page shortening