Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 8

message: I noticed that in the filmography Jackson is listed as appearing in The Jeffersons episode. However to my knowledge that is not his voice and therefore I don't think it should appear in his Filmography. Any thoughts? --:: ehmjay 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jeffersons 

message: Can anyone explain why the link from the Michael Jackson section "Visionary and Tokyo: 2006 –" that says "Deborah Rowe" links right back to Michael Jackson?  She does not have her own page, but still...
:No "but still," she is otherwise non-notable.--88.105.103.134 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that because she does not have her own page it links back to Jackson. It should probably link to a section of the Jackson page that mentions her. :: ehmjay 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deborah Rowe isn't Michael Jackson 

message: I was just wondering, after reading parts of the article and this talk page in which people are asking for sources - what exactly constitutes a source? Does it have to be a link to a webpage that everyone can access, or could it be a reference to a book that has this information that one would have to locate? How about a televison program or documentary? The reason I ask is that: 
a) it appears that in most cases these sources are websites 
b) websites can be extremely non-reliable as anyone can make them
c) There are numerous books that are full of reliable facts (I noticed someone removed information regarding Captain Eo from the main article because it was unsourced. I have a book on Disneyland that talks all about it - could this be used?)
d) What about television programs that count down "the top 10 greatest artists of the 80s" - if Jackson makes the list could I site that for him being one of the greatest artists of the 80s? Would this be considered POV?
Like I said, I don't honestly know what the policy is - obviously you want something that anyone can check - in which case a book might be hard to track down. But as I mentioned, its a lot easier for a website to post "lies" than it is for a book to be published that isn't factual. There are flaws either way, so where exactly does wikipedia stand?
Anyway's I'm just curious.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) .
:Yes, books and articles from reputable newspapers or magazines are usually considered acceptable, have a look at WP:RS for more info. Arniep 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use programmes and documentaries. Just make sure you reference them properly. See CITE. If there are conflicting sources, it is quite possible that they should both be used and the different points of view stated. Deciding which is right and which is wrong may well be OR. NPOV applies to wiki editors, not to sources. Tyrenius 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Constitutes as a Source? 

message: "No it wasn't. The Dangerous album in 1991 was his last hugely successful release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'll bring the food (talk • contribs) ."
I did not post that comment. This is a complete fabrication. Somebody please look through the talk page history and discipline the person that did this fabrication!--I'll bring the food 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one second, I think this was a misunderstanding on Dynesius' part. Because you were the one who started the topic he assumed you posted that comment however you did not. You noticed that Dynesius posted in his comment to be sure to sign your posts assuming that you had just forgotten. I have a feeling that the post was contributed by our mystery friend who never signs his posts. I will make the change. Once again a misunderstanding. However it reminds us: SIGN YOUR POSTS! :: ehmjay 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Ehmjay explained it was an honest misunderstanding.  I looked through the history and found out it was actually 195.93.21.66 who made the comment.  Dionyseus 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figgured that's what happened. Thanks for doing some cleaning up Dionyseus. :: ehmjay 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LIES!

message: I just added some much needed info about the Schaffel trial. Since I have never actually done anything like this before, I may have done the formatting wrong or something, so someone who is less new to the editing process can go and clean up any mistakes I did. I tried to be as unbiased as possible stating only the facts. :: ehmjay 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good! It was in the wrong place so I moved it.--I'll bring the food 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added update on Schaffel trial 

message: I'm not sure who added the tag to the main page - but just curious as to what they were having troubles with. (I'm mainly adding this because the tag says there is discussion on the talk page - but there wasn't before this tag was added - so we should do so now.) :: ehmjay 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag. I don't see what anyone can do about it if no details are not given on the talk page. --OnesixOne 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words? 

message: Jyank91 has being reported to an admin. If he vandalizes again , he will be blocked. --OnesixOne 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked Jyank91 indefinitely as a vandal only account, but he might be back.... Tyrenius 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal

message: Um, there is a very famous beer expert named Michael Jackson.  I went to a beer festival here in Oregon with 5,000 other people just to hear him speak.  I think he deserves a notation on the MJ page?   --Mrtobacco 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that he has his own WP page (Michael Jackson (beer expert)), as do a number of other "Michael Jacksons", I'd say there is no logical reason to list him on this page. --Mhking 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the OTHER Michael Jackson 

message: The article contained the following text:
On June 10, Jackson's African American publicist Raymone Bain was fired
I've removed "African American", because I think it refers publicist's race, which isn't relevant here (and the connotation could be considered non-NPOV).  If, however, Raymone Bain's job was to publicize to African-Americans, and if it is relevant to the article, then somebody should state so here and re-edit the page.—Wonderstruck 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree - there is no need for it to mention her race. :: ehmjay 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "African American" publicist Raymone Bain 

message: I request the statement claiming that Ms. Bain continues to make "unofficial" statements regarding Michael. I believe she is his PR again. MaJic 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Raymone Bain

message: Michael Jackson's last no. 1 in the US is not One More Chance. One More Chance only reached no. 40 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks. Who Is It is the last no. 1 in the US. It went to no. 1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart. Butterflies from 2002 went to no. 2 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart and must be considered his last hit so far. For further info plaese see the singles discography
:You mean "You Are Not Alone", right? - A Shade Of Gray
I agree with gray. You Are Not Alone was the last No1 hit in the US. MaJic 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No. 1s

message: This article should be nominated for candidacy, it is completely suitable. It's probably one of the most heavily sourced and well written articles on Wikipedia. --I'll bring the food 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would make the chop. It's a bit controvercial for starters.--Crestville 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very well written article though I think it needs some changes before it's nominated. Aeneiden-Rex 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article potential candidate.

message: I would like to remind the anon IP who keeps saying "check the nielson soundscan figures" that these A) only count US sales, B) are in a private database which you need to pay to access. Therefore expecting people here to pay to view such figures is not acceptable as a sourcing plan --I'll bring the food 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nielson soundscan

message: How did he change from black to white?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.182.212 (talk) 
: According to Jackson, he suffers from the skin disease vitiligo which causes a loss of pigment in the skin. Originally he was able to even it out using brown/black makeup but eventually there were so many white patches it made more sence to use white makeup to even everything out. While many people say this is a load of crap, and that Jackson bleached his skin because he no longer wanted to be black, his makeup artist Karen Faye has confirmed that he does have a condition in numerous interviews, and has explained how they went about covering it up with makeup. Now dont be surprised if this whole section disapears rather quickly though, as this is a topic just waiting to be vandalized. :: ehmjay 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you know, you could just point them to the article on it.--I'll bring the food 15:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, that's true. I sorta forgot about that... I guess I just figgured if they posted it they would come here for an answer. Anyways, as I'll Bring the Food said, if you're really interested just check out the article...but my "synopsis" gives the basic rundown. :: ehmjay 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article here Physical appearance of Michael Jackson. Either he has vitiligo or his skin has been damaged by him bleaching it- take your pick. Arniep 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin Colour 

message: I was just wondering, this page is getting pretty long. Would it be possible to add some more of it to the archive so there is less scrolling required to get to the newest posts? Just a thought. :: ehmjay 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived as much of the older stuff as possible as well as the off-topic editor stuff. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving Some of This Page? 

message: Could someone (perhaps the person making the comment) what exactly is POV about the Discography? Or exactly what the tag is refering too? I would gladly go through and make the changes, but I don't know what needs to be changed. :: ehmjay 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I realize that all of those are different things that need to be fixed - not "Format NPOV Discography" but "format", "NPOV" and "Discography". Needless to say, if someone wants to inform me what needs to be done to the Discography I'd love to do it. I'm looking for somethign to keep me busy this week. :: ehmjay 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who thinks this article needs a clean-up? I don't think it needs much clean-up. Who put the tag up there and why? What is wrong with this article? Aeneiden-Rex 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Discography? 

message: The Oprah Winfrey Interview was in 1993, however the information regarding the interview is in the 1985-1990 section.
It was very much more related to the Dangerous era.  After the interview was screened worldwide, sales of the Dangerous album soared.  It was a little after this that the allegations came out.  What does anyone else think about moving this information?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleDragon (talk • contribs) 
:Makes sence to me. :: ehmjay 15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oprah Winfrey

message: Jackson has sold over 215 million records (singles, albums, downloads) as a solo act. 
:It must be more than 215 millions if you count in singles, albums and downloads, as a solo act. It's up to 300 millionsAeneiden-Rex 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no way, that's not true..  MJ has sold way more than 170 Aeneiden-Rex 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: where did you get that number from?Aeneiden-Rex 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As it stands, the wikipedia policy is not to accept independent research. :: ehmjay 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone has claimed he is the biggest selling artist. And he does continue to sell albums, one only has to look at the charts to see this is true. :: ehmjay 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look here or here to show that jackson is still in the charts. :: ehmjay 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MJ has not sold 170 millions as of 2006 as a solo-act, where do you get this number from? he's at least sold 215 million. MJ still sells very well. , maybe not in america, but is that a wonder? You need to be more objective.Aeneiden-Rex 08:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jackson may get it the charts when he has something new out, but this quickly falls off. This is not "selling very well" for an artist of his stature and limited discography. It would be selling very well if it was someone like Mick Jagger, who can't even sell a solo record, but not for someone like Jackson. ehmjay please don't give us links to mickey mouse charts. 74.65.39.59 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's just wait for his new album and you'll see how well that record will sell.Aeneiden-Rex 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will probably sell as well as his most recent efforts, so it will hardly be a blockbuster success 74.65.39.59 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invincible might not have been a blockbuster but it was still not a failure. Let's just wait and see, I don't count on MJ becoming as popular as before, in America, with his new album, but it will still sell very well, because he still MJ.Aeneiden-Rex 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I never said it was a faliure, it was a #1 album (for a week) but lets not forget it was sold with something like 5 diffrent covers, when his other albums such as "Thriller" and "Bad" came out they old had one - meaning it was less well recieved by the public at large than the sales look. 74.65.39.59 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: His dispute with Sony & Mottola resulted in less promotion of Invincible. Promotion is very important, and Jackson wanted to release more singles from it but they were all cancelled.[ Anyway Invincible was a succes, not as big as Thriller and Bad, but it still went up to no 1 in 13 countries, so I don't understand when some people call it a failure.  Aeneiden-Rex 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are always two sides to a story. Sony promoted the album for 6 months spending $55 million on promotion and production . Needless to say, they were not going to contine to promote it forever, they have other things to do that concentrate on one artist. Sony probably didnt release any more singles because they had a lot of other acts who were selling better and having much bigger hits than Jackson was having at that time. So while it's true Jackson may have wanted to promote it more, Sony had a right (and one that could be justified) to pull the plug. 74.65.39.59 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they had a justified right to do it, I just think that they don't consider MJ to be priority no 1 anymore. Invincible has sold well, and "You Rock My World" was a big hit, though the dispute resulted in only 1 single released.  Aeneiden-Rex 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  No, there was another single issued after You Rock My World, it only made something like #13 in the UK and din't fare much better elsewhere - hardly a big hit. You Rock My World was not a big hit either, a medium sized hit, yes, big hit, no. It didn't last too long in the charts or the publics memories. Sony had a lot of other stars that were selling both more singles and albums than MJ at this point and as Sony run a commerical business, not a Michael Jackson fan club, the reason for pulling the promotion on the album after half a year seems justified. 74.65.39.59 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Millions