Talk:Michael Jackson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Michael Jackson has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
|---|---|---|
[edit] Recentism
Let me just say, in much stronger terms than has been said before, that this article is a prime example of how celebrity culture has infiltrated our encyclopedia. Just now, a paragraph was added about Michael Jackson's trip to Japan. We have to end this people; we can't keep covering Michael Jackson in this article every time there's news about him. This applies to some of the bs this article has on the last few years; much of that has to go. Cover the prominent issues and move on. We don't need to know every last detail of Michael Jackson's life; that's not an encyclopedic approach to writing articles.UberCryxic 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
UberCryxic, why is this being brought up now? Why wasn't it brought up when every single little lawsuit against Jackson was put down - and is still there - in the 2006 section? Why can't there be a similar display for his positives? I think that if you want to start removing the stuff about Japan, you had better first remove a LOT of the lawsuits above. Because the lawsuits are what really give this article a virtuosic anti-michael streak, and i am going to continue to add what he's doing positively because it just darn is not happening at the moment. Everyone adds every little scandal (animal abuse, workers suing, each little detail of child molestation which has its own TWO ARTICLES) and no one adds positives. Well I'm not for it. I want this article to portray Michael fairly, not like some monster. And if the redundant sexual abuse and other scandal details stay, in my mind so should the positives about japan and the coming year. People did it for the scandals, I'm doing it for michael's positives. --Paaerduag 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
also, why on earth is there a reference to the simpsons under the 2007 section? what on earth is happening here? the reference to the simpsons doesn't even turn up in edit mode! --Paaerduag 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to remove some of those silly things in these recent years....those include those lawsuits and blatant rumors. We are here to discuss what should go and what should not. Do you have any opinions on what you want to remove? Let's get consensus on it here in the talk page and move on from there. From the 2006 section, I want the following statements completely deleted, and I'm pleading encyclopedic irrelevance as the reason:
An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.[79] The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.[80][81] As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.
(This is a complete non-issue. Michael Jackson has full control of his children.)
On July 31, 2006, a federal judge allowed a $48 million claim against Jackson and one of Jackson's trusts for unpaid fees and breach of contract. All parties were ordered to reappear in court in September.[94]
Irrelevant. Remove.
On March 9, 2006, California state labor officials closed the singer's Neverland Ranch and fined him $69,000 for failure to provide employment insurance. The state "stop order" bars Jackson from "using any employee labor" until he secured required workers' compensation insurance. In addition to being fined $1,000 for each of his 69 workers, Jackson is liable for up to 10 days pay for those employees who now are no longer allowed to report to Neverland for work.[82] Thirty Neverland employees have also sued Jackson for $306,000 in unpaid wages.[83]
Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate.[84] There have been many reports of a possible sale of Neverland, but nothing tangible has been reported yet.
Just replace all this (essentially) crap with a curt statement clarifying that financial and other worries led him to close Neverland Ranch. Should take one sentence....
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.[89] 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... 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."[90]
Minor stuff. Irrelevant. Delete.
I also want the two images from the 2003-2006 section deleted. They have no encyclopedic value. Also from that section, the following statements should go or be modified:
On December 17, 2003, there were media reports that Jackson converted to the Nation of Islam.[65] However, in January 2007, Jermaine Jackson said that Jackson was considering converting to Islam.[66] Later, in 2005, it was also reported that he built a mosque on land adjoining the Bahraini royal family's home.[67]
Useless, forgettable, non-notable. Delete.
Marlon Brando informed Jackson on February 8, 2004 that the declarations made by Jordy Chandler relating to the 1993 child molestation allegations had been published on the internet site The Smoking Gun. This happened when Jackson was about to start an interview with journalist Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes. Jackson immediately left the studio and did not conduct the interview.[68] Jackson also attended Brando's memorial service in 2004 along with Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.
Also on August 6, 2004, Man In The Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story debuted on VH1 starring Flex Alexander as Michael Jackson.[69]
Rapper Eminem parodied new allegations raised against Jackson by Gavin Arviso in his music video for "Just Lose It" in 2004. The clip caused controversy and fueled Jackson to make a statement.
Per above, useless and forgettable. All of these can go.
In September 2005, it was reported that Ray Hultman took legal action against the publisher of his book about experiences in the trial, claiming heavy portions were plagiarized from a Vanity Fair article. Hultman also stated he felt "threatened" by the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez and regretted acquitting Jackson.[74]
Not about Michael Jackson, at least not too much.....can be let go.
In 2006, allegations of sexual assault were made against Jackson by a man who claims Michael Jackson molested him, intoxicated him with drugs and alcohol, and forced him to undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended him against allegations of child molestation in 2005, said "the charges are ridiculous on their face. They will be vigorously defended."[77]
Rumor, propaganda, and just talk, talk, talk. Delete.
Those are my suggestions. Any thoughts?UberCryxic 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] video games section
the video games section just kind of 'appeared' under biography, and I'd like to know why. When I edit, it doesn't come up as being where it is in the article, so I really don't know what to do. Also, some footnotes have disappeared and ceased to function (113) and I have no idea why. I'd like to have an explanation, if anyone knows what happened. --Paaerduag 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Scandals: Over the top, wouldn't you agree?
There are SEVERAL scandals and details of scandals which are redundant and make this article read badly. RECENTISM, that's what this is about. And an anti-Michael streak which cannot be ignored. Here are 'bits' that I have a problem with:
[edit] Gloria Allred
After watching media coverage of the Berlin event, a California attorney and radio talk show host, Gloria Allred, wrote a letter to California's Child Protective Services, asking for an investigation into the safety of Jackson's children. She also spoke on CNN about the subject. Child Protective Services does not make their investigations public, so it is not known whether any action was taken as a result of Allred's letter.
When a reporter asked Jackson what he thought of Allred's complaints, he remarked "Ah, tell her to go to hell."[1]
No offense but who really gives a damn what this bitch thinks? I mean, we don't even know who she is, and radio talk show hosts are always trying to bring attention to their boring pointless lives. It should go out. This is an article concerning Michael Jackson, not some random talk show host's opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn what this girl thinks.
- You may not, but as Gloria Allred was an important person in the 1993 molestation case, it's staying.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2005 Allegations
On December 18, 2003, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony, in February and March 2003, all regarding the same boy under 14. The felony complaint stated that Jackson had seven times "willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act, upon and with the boy's body and certain parts and members thereof, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires" of Jackson and the boy and that this sexual conduct has been "substantial". Also, that on two of these occasions, Jackson had administered to the boy an intoxicating agent, with intent thereby to enable and assist himself to carry out the previously mentioned act. Jackson denied and said that the sleepovers were non-sexual. He still described the boy on whose statements the accusations were based as "a sweet child"; he said the boy was manipulated by greedy parents.
Surely this isn't necessary in this much depth. There is a WHOLE ARTICLE dedicated to this kind of anti-Michael propaganda, in case you all forgot. It's called People v. Jackson How about the below sentence, which is actually randomly featured later in the article, for some bizarre reason. It should suffice:
The People v. Jackson trial began in Santa Maria, California on January 31, 2005 and lasted until the end of May 2005.
- That ones staying in the article. You may move the others.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1993 Allegations
Marlon Brando informed Jackson on February 8, 2004 that the declarations made by Jordy Chandler relating to the 1993 child molestation allegations had been published on the internet site The Smoking Gun. This happened when Jackson was about to start an interview with journalist Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes. Jackson immediately left the studio and did not conduct the interview.[2] Jackson also attended Brando's memorial service in 2004 along with Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.
If this happened in 1993, why isn't it under the 1993 section? Why is it there at all? Is it really relevant? I don't think so, hell no.
- Of course it's relevant. He was going to be questioned over 1993 sexual abuse claims against what was at the time a little boy and he bailed out because of all fucking people, Marlon Brando told him not to do the interview. You don't think him escaping the interview is important?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eminem's Attack
Rapper Eminem parodied new allegations raised against Jackson by Gavin Arviso in his music video for "Just Lose It" in 2004. The clip caused controversy and fueled Jackson to make a statement.
Relevant? I don't think so, considering nothing of what Jackson said was even mentioned in this article, which is, believe it or not, called 'Michael Jackson'. Eminem is a miserable lowlife to attack Michael in such a horrendous way, and unless some strong retaliatory words from Michael are featured in this sentence, I think it should be out.
- I've already tried deleting this, it's unsourced. Somebody, i think Ubercryxic put it back.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Raymone Bain Fired
On June 10, Jackson's PR, Raymone Bain was reportedly fired.[3] Jackson's now-defunct website cited that "MJJ Productions regretfully announces the termination of Raymone Bain and Davis, Bain and Associates. We thank you for your services." Bain later told the Associated Press that she had not been fired and that only Michael Jackson, not his production company (operated at the time by his brother, Randy Jackson), could fire her.[4] Bain continues releasing press statements and answering media enquiries on behalf of Michael Jackson, and was named general manager of the Michael Jackson Company, Inc. on June 27, 2006.[5]
She's not fired, so why the big scandal? Why don't y'all put that bit of info in the Raymone Bain article? It needs a bit more flesh. She doesn't though... Anyway, I think that because the allegations were false, why put it in there? Sure keep the part about her being named general manager, but is the whole 'scandal' (if you can call it that) necessary?
[edit] Ray Hultman's Book
In September 2005, it was reported that Ray Hultman took legal action against the publisher of his book about experiences in the trial, claiming heavy portions were plagiarized from a Vanity Fair article. Hultman also stated he felt "threatened" by the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez and regretted acquitting Jackson.[6]
This is laughable. I mean, does this have ANYTHING to do with Michael Jackson at all? This one's simple. REMOVE IT
- Hultman was a juror against Michael Jackson. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Sexual Abuse Allegations
In 2006, allegations of sexual assault were made against Jackson by a man who claims Michael Jackson molested him, intoxicated him with drugs and alcohol, and forced him to undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended him against allegations of child molestation in 2005, said "the charges are ridiculous on their face. They will be vigorously defended."[7]
Has everyone in America started claiming that Michael has abused them? Why is this looney's comments on the Michael Jackson page? Does anyone actually believe them, and this is the stuff of tabloid fodder, not of a respectable encyclopedia site.
[edit] Debbie Rowe's Parental Rights
An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.[8] The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.[9][10] As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.
Thouroughly unremarkable and irrelevant. What happened to that DNA test that was supposed to happen? I mean, there appears to be no deal reached, so why keep this in? It is just too much scandal. Only put it in if it actually has a bearing on Michael! He hasn't lost his children, so what's the biggie?
- There was a deal reached in the end, Rowe was paid her allowance again as demanded.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neverland
On March 9, 2006, California state labor officials closed the singer's Neverland Ranch and fined him $69,000 for failure to provide employment insurance. The state "stop order" bars Jackson from "using any employee labor" until he secured required workers' compensation insurance. In addition to being fined $1,000 for each of his 69 workers, Jackson is liable for up to 10 days pay for those employees who now are no longer allowed to report to Neverland for work.[11] Thirty Neverland employees have also sued Jackson for $306,000 in unpaid wages.[12]
Yes, say that the Ranch was closed, but why all the detail? There are PAGES devoted to his financial problems, why litter a respectable article with them? Just saying that the Ranch was closed is suffice, I should think
[edit] Sony and the Catalogue
In exchange, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson. Jackson's $200m in loans were due in December 2005 and were secured on the catalogue. Jackson failed to pay and the Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson hasn't as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of 25% of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed the singer will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalogue of songs including material by other artists such as Bob Dylan and Destiny's Child. As another part of the deal Jackson was given a new $300 million loan, and a lower interest rate on the old loan to match the original Bank of America rate. When the loan was sold to Fortress Investments they increased the interest rate to 20%.[13] None of the details are officially confirmed. An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony."[14]
should be under the financial page about Michael, not this page. It is irrelevant financial detail which surely should be removed.
[edit] Marc Schaffel
In 2006, F. Marc Schaffel, a former associate of Jackson, filed a suit for millions of dollars allegedly owed to him after working with Jackson on an unreleased charity record named "What More Can I Give" and documentaries. Florida businessman Alvin Malnik, who had advised Jackson, appeared in court and stated that Jackson appeared to be bewildered by financial matters. Schaffel claimed to have made frequent loans to the singer totaling between $7 million and $10 million. Schaffel had received an urgent plea from Jackson for $1 million so that Jackson could buy jewelry for Elizabeth Taylor so that she would agree to sign a release for her involvement in a Fox special.[15]
On July 14, 2006, the jury awarded Schaffel $900,000 of the original $3.8 million he sued Jackson for, which Schaffel later reduced to $1.6 million, and finally to $1.4 million.[16] The jury also awarded Jackson $200,000 plus interest of the $660,000 that Jackson claimed he was owed by Schaffel. The trial revealed that Schaffel had been dismissed after Jackson learned of his past work as a director of gay pornography. Schaffel claimed that Jackson "once wanted him to go to Brazil to find boys for him to adopt. He later modified that statement to "children" to expand Jackson's family."[17] Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mundell said that he had never heard the allegation during the pre-trial investigation and that "it was an effort to smear Mr Jackson with a remark that could be interpreted to hurt him in light of the case against him last year."[18]
Put it in financial or scandals or something. It is irrelevant for this page. Any who cares? This whole thing reeks of RECENTISM
[edit] Finances
On July 31, 2006, a federal judge allowed a $48 million claim against Jackson and one of Jackson's trusts for unpaid fees and breach of contract. All parties were ordered to reappear in court in September.[19]
PUT IN FINANCES!!! It should NOT be in the main article!!!
There, I hope that this is all acted on, because it should definately be acted upon. In relation to the majority of the above, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." --Paaerduag 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The scandals are over the top, yes. I already addressed some of your concerns. Look above for my suggestions on what to delete.UberCryxic 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, just because previous editors of this article have made these mistakes does not mean that we have to make them as well. There is a nice Turkish proverb that says, "If you've gone down the wrong road, just turn back." Michael Jackson's personal life does not deserve such scrutiny. This includes the scandals and events like his visit to Japan. Seriously people get a grip; all of you.UberCryxic 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- This information better had not been removed with only 2 of you discussing it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Based on your complaints I made some cuts, moved some info to Michael Jackson finances. Do not do anything further without discussion with me.
"On April 18, 2006, Michael Jackson signed a management deal with English music producer Guy Holmes. Holmes is the recently appointed CEO of Two Seas Records, with whom Jackson has signed a recording contract for one album. The album is set for a fall 2007 release.[20]"
Additionally I removed this, it's not relevant, he's not with Two Seas, and he's no longer with Guy Holmes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you've already done quite a bit without consulting us. This is strange to say the least. You also claim that you made these decisions based on "[our] complaints," but there are actually many things (most, in fact) that we raised that you did not really bother with (if anything, you removed information relating to Michael Jackson's professional career, so that the article is now more biased towards his personal life, at least those last years). I request that you revert yourself and that we have a discussion here before anyone removes anything. If we agree to the proposed changes, then we can go ahead and apply them. We will then start a process in which we consider individual statements and what to do with them. This will be long, arduous, and difficult, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't sit our buts down and come to some fruitful agreements.UberCryxic 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the new information on his "billionare status" is contrived beyond belief, seemingly meant to add insult to injury. I do not understand how it is encyclopedic at all, but that aside, such a major addition should require conversation here. I will again request that the better angels in our nature prevail and that someone, preferrably yourself, take this article back to the state before this ruckus.UberCryxic 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I will actually go ahead and revert you myself in light of your inappropriate actions. I believe you also would have done it, but as long as someone can take care of unjust changes on this encyclopedia, someone should.UberCryxic 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree: I'll Bring The Food, we don't have to answer to you, because you are not the leader of this article. Everyone here has a right to air decisions, and neither myself nor UberCryxic, I believe, was even planning to change the article. This section was designed to bring light to the unfair amount of material about Michael's scandals, and how this problem has grown out of control. I think that you going through the article and deleting things proves that you are a hypocrite. How dare you say that, "based on your complaints I made some cuts, moved some info to Michael Jackson finances. Do not do anything further without discussion with me." We do not answer to you, and by we I mean every single editor on this article. And who puts you above the law to make changes and then demand that no one else can. How dare you say this? I think that most editors here would be offended that you so are so blazé in telling people not to change things, implying that you are the only one who can. Your edits will be reverted, as I think UberCryxic has already done, until editors come here and discuss a resolution to this problem. Don't you dare change anything and then tell everyone else they can't. You are not going to install yourself as a dictator here. not on my watch. --Paaerduag 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- another thing I'll Bring the food - don't say "it's staying" or "you're not moving that one" because you have no authority to just say things like that. All the above material is subject to consensus, not subject to I'll Bring the food. You cannot just make decisions. You are not the boss, get the picture, and get it quick mate, because the sooner you realize that you can't always just say something and get it your way, the more productive you will be on wikipedia. refrain from such demanding language, because you are an equal like everybody else (excluding administrators, but they are still subject to consensus, for damn sure they are) and you cannot and will not shunt other people into your view points. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, so don't use demanding language in the future in concerning the article itself. Oh, and if you are about to accuse me of using demanding language, that's because this is not related to the article, but is rather a spat which needs to be dealt with. I hope that you understand, and don't make a big issue of it. --Paaerduag 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals for moving forward
Ok we can sit here and argue all day long, but let's try to get something done for a change. Since I was the first one that suggested anything concrete on this issue, I think my ideas should get first consideration.
First thing up for debate is this statement in the 2006 section:
An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.[79] The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.[80][81] As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.
I think all of this should be deleted. The reason why is because it is non-notable in the grand scheme of things, by which I mean that nothing came out of it. Decades from now, no one will ever remember this incident. Furthermore, per my earlier comments, MJ has full control of his children.
Ok now what are your thoughts? Let's try to follow this model for this section. Somebody proposes something they would like deleted or modified (or added) and then we have a conversation on it. If we come to a consensus, we can go ahead and implement to make it policy. If we do not come to a consensus after a few days (four or five or maybe up to a week), then we can have straw polls to see where people fall on the issue. At that point, I recommend that we either abide by the decision of the straw poll or that we forget that specific issue entirely and move on to something else.UberCryxic 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be easier if consensus was reached under each individual section of complaint. After all, there is a lot of material to be dredged through, and many of your complaints are identical or similar to the ones that I posted. By the way, I have been planning to do this for a long time, and the fact that you have done it in no way influenced me, UberCryxic, it was absolutely my own decision. BTW, I think it is in my rights to ask I'll Bring the food to stop his demanding, dictatorial nature. But asides from that, I've set up nice sections for each complaint, so It would be more efficient for people to post complaints under each section, in my opinion. --Paaerduag 07:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a longer way to go about it, but a much more definitive one as well.UberCryxic 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which one of you nominated this article for GA status, got it there over a process of 4 months, and got users working together to change all the reference tags - me. Which one of us is trying to argue for the deletion of anything remotely negative to jackson - both of you. My self importance and ownership issues with this article are justified. You're dragging it into the ground. The billionaire statement is fully sourced, not written by me, is taken from the black billionaires article and is i think - a fully justified addition.
- Secondly, this separation between Jackson's personal life and life as a musician that's going on in the pair of your headspaces - what? Jackson's personal life is up for grabs, it's reported on, he's become a media side show. Sorry - it's the truth. If you don't want the info there, go write your own article somewhere else. His article reflects negatively on him because he's done A LOT of questionable things. You know, before I came and checked the article recently, I noticed there wasn't even a section on the multiple charges of child molestation given to him. The trial was mentioned as ending, a rough hint that it happened was given, but no actual solid information on it was given. Now that's bias. Do you think it's not at all odd that none of the counts of child molestation were mentioned in this article? Why do you think vandals come along and replace the entire thing with statements about him molesting children? It's because this article wildly veers into how brilliant he was, skipping why he fell from grace. And even the VH1 article on him says he fell from his height and was embroiled in child molestation, but that doesn't support your agendas, so you don't discuss that, just the nice stuff about how great he was 20 odd years ago.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's all calm down first of all. We understand your concerns and no one here is hesitating to accomodate them. If you review our qualms with the article, you'll find they are not fully related to what you are arguing here. My position on the lead has been consistent from the beginning and is in line with Wikipedia's policies: the lead needs to highlight the notability of the subject (in this case, show why people care about Michael Jackson, including his personal life). The body of the article needs to do the same. This does not mean getting rid of "negative" things about Michael Jackson or what have you; it simply means keeping a historical perspective on the article and making additions with encyclopedic context in mind. On these last two counts, the body fails miserably, although admittedly less than the lead used to, which is why I wanted to take care of that first. Furthermore, most of the body is actually fine; it's just these last few years that wiki editors got a bit carried away I'm afraid. Like I said, celebrity culture and recentism. That's fine for Access Hollywood, but no one needs to remind you that this is an encyclopedia. What I want to remove includes material that I find encyclopedically irrelevant. I myself am not too sure as to how you should interpret that comment in the context of the article because I haven't gone through the sections of the past few years and made a thorough accounting of what is a "positive" paragraph or sentence on Michael Jackson and what is a "negative" one. I have seen many things, however, that as a genuine Wikipedia editor I sincerely do not think should be there. Per my statements before, Michael Jackson's personal life deserves coverage here because it has been covered so thoroughly in the media and, as the article states, is itself a major part of pop culture. The specific objection on my part is that it does not deserve equal coverage to his music career, mainly because the world remembers him mostly for the latter. Regional differences can be debated, but they should not be used to represent global viewpoints, which is what's happening with this article.
Please do not make this personal. That can only hurt in the long run. I realize the amazing dedication you have given to this article and for that I thank you. No one is here to subvert your work. We are your fellow editors and we are trying to help; I do not assume that you have an agenda, and you can rest assured that neither do I. The best that we can do here is to address each other's arguments, not our motivations, otherwise we would not be assuming good faith.UberCryxic 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to say something? Because I darn well am allowed to say whatever bloody hell I want. I'll Bring the food, this is what you said: "My self importance and ownership issues with this article are justified". Self Importance and Ownership issues are NEVER JUSTIFIED, and I want you to get that through YOUR HEADSPACE, cause you don't, and you never will, own this article or have greater say than everybody else about it. You have ownership issues, but they ain't justified. You will not be treated as some great editor who deserves more power, cause you ain't. Your argumentative nature, and automatic accusational streak seem to be outdoing any past 'positive work' you have done on the article. A bit of a fall from grace, eh? You were a good editor some 20 years back (maybe) but your current behaviour is appaling to say the least. You have done some questionable things. And you don't own the article, and you'd better understand that quickly, because I, for one, will not have you lording over this article like some [p/m]atriarcal figure. This article, thanks to your 'good work' now has an anti-Michael streak, and I want to resolve this peacefully. These overly long posts achieve nothing, and I want everyone to take a chill pill and get into some work through these issues. Remember this, I'll bring the food: YOU ARE ONE EDITOR; YOU DO NOT HAVE POWER; NUMBERS BRING CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS BRINGS POWER; YOUR DECISIONS ARE NOT SET IN STONE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. --Paaerduag 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and don't impose your views of Michael on other editors here. You say that he was good but isn't anylonger, but obviously the Japanese people don't seem to think so, who crawl over him to touch and hug him, and are absolutely loyal and devoted to him. What about the fans who sacrificed JOBS to support him at the trial? What about the throngs of fans who met him in Caesar's while he was shopping in Vegas? I think that you are blind to miss all this. Are you saying that Japan doesn't exist? The Japanese love him, but you say that he was great. They don't think so. Forgot about Japan? That's pretty rude. --Paaerduag 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Japanese have a fascination with Michael Jackson that is all too common throughout the world. Really the only country where Michael Jackson's popularity has deteriorated significantly is in the United States, which is ironic considering he's an American, and I argued before that an American-centric viewpoint is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. By the way, just to highlight what I mean with a specific example, here is the very first sentence of the lead in the Michael Jackson article on the Japanese Wikipedia:
マイケル・ジャクソン（Michael Joseph Jackson、1958年8月29日 - ）は、アメリカ合衆国インディアナ州ゲーリー市出身の男性ミュージシャン・歌手。身長176cm。エリザベス・テイラーがthe true king of pop, rock and soulと称し、一般的には短くKing of Popのニックネームで呼ばれている。イギリスのゴシップ誌からはGod of Popというニックネームをつけられている。
Now I'm not asking us to be as enthused about Michael Jackson as the Japanese are (I had never heard of "God of Pop" until I saw it in that article), but I am asking for a balance between what they have and what the English Wikipedia has, which has been mostly disappointing up until the time that the lead was fixed.UberCryxic 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok so enough of these distractions already. Let's get back to my proposal. What do you all think about that?UberCryxic 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To further buttress sociological support for my general arguments here, I would like to note another precedent. Look at the Encarta article on Michael Jackson: [1]. It's fairly clear that they devote the majority of the article to Michael Jackson's musical career, not half-and-half.UberCryxic 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I have now deleted the Rowe paragraph. Up next for consideration:
On March 9, 2006, California state labor officials closed the singer's Neverland Ranch and fined him $69,000 for failure to provide employment insurance. The state "stop order" bars Jackson from "using any employee labor" until he secured required workers' compensation insurance. In addition to being fined $1,000 for each of his 69 workers, Jackson is liable for up to 10 days pay for those employees who now are no longer allowed to report to Neverland for work.[82] Thirty Neverland employees have also sued Jackson for $306,000 in unpaid wages.[83]
Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate.[84] There have been many reports of a possible sale of Neverland, but nothing tangible has been reported yet.
Irrelevant sums of money. Didn't really impact Michael Jackson as he wasn't there at the time. I want this removed. Your thoughts?UberCryxic 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh...well there is no discussion going on here at all, so I will actually go ahead and arbitrarily implement my suggestions above in the hope of getting people to start conversing on this stuff.UberCryxic 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ubercryxic, I have already suggested the removal of several paragraphs in the later sections, many of which you have also suggested, so I believe that if no one else is commenting, concensus must be reached with all present active users. there is no other way. --Paaerduag 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. You certainly have a point regarding activity: I'll Bring the Food's last edit on Wikipedia was on March 17, many days ago. On the other hand, that user also had some complaints regarding the points you raised. I don't think we should move on this too quickly because of that. Let's give him or her a few more days (like the 25th maybe?), and then we can go from there. I will also drop a message on the user's talk page.UberCryxic 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want this bring the food fellow to think that the article revolves around himself. Whoever's here should be doin' the decidin'. Why wait for him? This ain't HIS article and his damned opinion means NOTHING in the face of concensus. Sorry if I sound blunt, but I am passionately against ownership of articles, and this bring the food fellow is gonna have to change his ways, cause I ain't gonna stand for no ownership rubbish. --Paaerduag 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll Bring the Food was probably frustrated and likely did not fully mean what was stated. Let's just try to move on from that.UberCryxic 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh and for your changes: the Schaffel stuff can easily go, but his dealings with Sony are pretty important. I'm not so sure we should get rid of that paragraph, although a lot of it is uncorroborated information sprinkled with tabloid rumors.UberCryxic 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I did that because I thought that those paragraphs were irrelevant, but also because info about Japan was removed. you can re-add the Sony paragraph, but I'd highly advise that it was concised a bit. I understand that it is pretty important, but not THAT important for such a long Paragraph. concising it is certainly a viable solution. --Paaerduag 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well the article already covers Michael Jackson's personal life ad nauseaum, so I'm not really sad to see that paragraph go altogether. By and large, I thought it was not encyclopedic, but it might have been important in the larger context of the article, which devotes some time to his finances. I guess this is an issue that we can tackle in the future. I'll Bring the Food has not been here in the past week or so and both you and I agree that a lot of this stuff has to go. I'm generally happy with this article at this point, but I think it still needs to highlights more of MJ's musical accomplishments. I'm going to try to add some analysis of his musical evolution in his Epic albums. And we also need some sort of "Influence" section, separate from the biography. I don't think anyone can imagine pop music today without Michael Jackson. His vast legacy must be highlighted more thoroughly.UberCryxic 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're on the wrong foot here. The reason why I wanted to keep the Japan paragraphs was because it was POSITIVE about him, and displayed that he still has millions of fans. What I'm trying to get rid of is incessant scandal, which is what I think you mean when you say 'personal life'. I just wanted to clarify that. I just wanted to keep something positive amidst all this horrible negative about Michael, and I think that by personal life you mean the scandals. Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what's happening. --Paaerduag 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify, I want to add more stuff about his positive fan base, influence, and definately music. That's why I'm avid about all the positive album stuff happening, but of course I really want to dive into thriller, bad and dangerous to really develop them more. I agree totally, less scandals and more about how great his musical accomplishments are is definately what this article NEEDS. --Paaerduag 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm well I think some of those efforts may be misguided. We are here to add material on MJ that is encyclopedically relevant, not necessarily "positive." I also think some of your recent changes are going a bit too far; they are too sweeping. We should discuss much of that stuff here first before you unilateraly change it.UberCryxic 06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry... I didn't realize that what I was doing was well... sweeping. If that's the way you feel, I'm all for it. But as long as we get something done. I'm not sure you'll agree about the subtitle things, infact you probably won't. I went to far. I admit I went too far, and that was wrong. But please, try to build something positive, like don't just revert. If you want to change something, it'd be good to actually make it from scratch. Like the headings... maybe changing them isn't that bad, maybe we could focus on different aspects.
Also, just to be clear, by positive I generally mean music. Because everything about the music is positive. Scandals are negative. That's just my wording. Sorry, i'm probably taking up half the space on the talk page... ;)--Paaerduag 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well actually not everything about the music is positive. In fact, years from now, when all this hooplah and madness surrounding his personal life dies down, this article deserves a criticism section. Michael Jackson's music has been heavily influential, but it has also been criticized (a common thing I hear directed against MJ is that he was trying to beat the records set by Thriller so badly that he took his musical work over the top). But that's for much later. I think your changes are kind of all-right, but they have to be heavily cited.UberCryxic 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh also something else: the 2003-2006 section is a complete mess right now. There's way too much repetition and it needs a complete rewrite. There's basically one sentence devoted to the trial, even though it should be the main focus of the section. I'll let you take a crack at this first and see where we can go from there. Basically what I think is appropriate here is greater coverage of the trial itself, not just the events leading up to it. We should also try to stay as NPOV as possible. Calling the charges against Michael Jackson "outlandish," however accurate ontologically, is not suitable for an encyclopedia.UberCryxic 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the word outlandish is a bit POV. (I had to look up what ontologically meant :) ) but I think that the trial section shouldn't go into TOO much detail, because there is the People v. Jackson article. apart from that, I'm fine with all the changes. And about the intro, as long as King of Pop is in the first line, I'm happy. --Paaerduag 07:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
My standard for how much "detail" it should have: it should be the main part of that section. This means the main part in length and encyclopedic tone. This means we should make clear what the charges against Michael Jackson were, how the defense responded, and so on. We can also cover the media circus that was the trial. I believe this was the most covered event in human history (as in, more media personnel were there than for anything else before or since). So it basically should focus on the court proceedings as well as the battles raging on in the court of public opinion, both in America, which was not so warm to Michael Jackson, and the world, which largely thought he was innocent.UberCryxic 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree. Michael experienced what his spokesperson called a "silent majority" in the US. And what about the fans that were at the trial? They supported him. I think the majority of America supported him, but it was the louder, more opinionated 'haters' which received all the media spotlight. I'd say the media was against him, but not the people. And we musn't confuse that up. Also, I'd rather like to expand the thriller and bad and dangerous eras instead of making the article focus on the trial. I think his music is more important than the trial, and I wouldn't want the trial to take precedence. I'm going to try and expand the thriller, bad and dangerous sections. --Paaerduag 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My point was that coverage of the trial should be expanded in the 2003-2006 section. This was one of the biggest trials in human history, so it's a reasonable request. I already did something along those lines by putting up information regarding the media and the fans who were there. As for the "silent majority"....perhaps, but I really doubt it. This Harris poll in February 2004 found that 55% of those polled believe that Michael Jackson was guilty, 18% thought he was innocent, and 27% were not sure. A Gallup Poll one day after the verdict found that 48% disagreed with the jury, 34% agreed, and 18% had no opinion. I'm not saying these polls definitively contradict what you say, but they are something to think about before we make any pervasive and confident-sounding pronouncements. At best, Americans felt very ambiguous towards him.UberCryxic 01:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, I just really respect Michael and cannot understand why idiots think he is guilty. But that's my opinion. That's just what Raymone Bain, his spokeswoman, said. She said that for every fifty letters of support there was only one hurtful letter. Maybe that was just her, but I'd like to think (and I do think) that that's the truth. Those fans at the trial, they cancelled jobs and moved home... that's what I call a true fan. lol, anyway, I guess as an article it should be 'ambiguous' as to whether america supported him or not. --Paaerduag 09:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh she could've been easily telling the truth on that, but it still doesn't mean anything. That would've been a voluntary response sample, so to speak, and those are statistically insignificant because the people likely to reply are those interested in the subject (in this case fans of Michael Jackson). It can't be denied, however, that amazingly dedicated fans and supporters from all over the world showed up day in and day out, virtually putting their lives on hold for Michael Jackson.
Regarding your latest edits: I think you are making some of the same mistakes that I'll Bring the Food did, namely those relating to recentism. I would hope that any material that we keep adding to this article has a healthy level of encyclopedic relevance and historical context. Try to imagine five years from now, after Michael Jackson has released an album or two: do you seriously think this trip to Japan should deserve that much coverage then? I honestly doubt it. Think about all the places that Michael Jackson has visited in his life and the commotion that he caused while there; why aren't those covered? Why do we not cover his coronation as King of the Sani tribe in Nigeria back in the early 1990s? Well, we mainly don't because including stuff like that would make this article very long. I'm sure you could come up with exceptions for specific cases, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I'll let the edit stand, but it's a mistake. In the future, when this article undergoes some more transformations, the segment that you just added will probably be one of the first things to go (and you'll agree with me then!).UberCryxic 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prince and Blanket's names
What is Prince's full name? Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. or Prince Michael Jackson or Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.? I saw all of those. What's Blanket's full name? Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II? So, Blanket is legally Prince but Prince is not? Kinda confused here.
http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/10148762/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news http://www.michaeljackson.ro/infomj/interviews/an-1997/13 Israell 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article contradicts itself
I'm currently in a lot of hurry, and will have a look at it later, so pardon me for my current inaccuracy.
I currently have a project about Michael Jackson at my school, and used these papers for my written assignment, but after reading them over a couple of times, I spotted several contradictions, but I can't point my fingers at what it is right now. I added Template:Contradict to the article (please remove if unnecessary).
I'm pretty sure it was in Early Life and Career or The Thriller Era.
- Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah I've removed the template now. It's a little difficult to keep it there when you don't explain exactly what is being contradicted. I mean, if you were in a hurry, you should've probably waited until after you got back before you smacked a tag onto the article. Also, unless it's a blatant, notable contradiction or something (or a series of contradictions), there's no reason to add a tag and make a huge fuss about it. Just bring the issue up on the talk page and I'm sure that we can fix it by working together. Thank you.UberCryxic 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Intro finally looks good
I have seen the past changes on the intro in the last 2 years. I even contributed by adding " Artist of the century" for the American Music Awards and Bambi Awards to the intro months back. Now the intro looks much better than it did before. It doesn't say to little or it doesn't say too much. This is the way it should stay.
Yes I agree. Now it's finally respectable and does justice to Michael Jackson's musical influence, which has been sadly ignored by this article, generally speaking.UberCryxic 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intro Picture
The intro picture of Michael jackson in 1984 is an ok picture. Maybe there is a better picture we can find that doesnt look like so cut-and-pasty. Maybe a picture with Michael in a dance step in concert. What do you guys think?
I like the one we have now. It is encyclopedically relevant because it shows him at his height.UberCryxic 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
His mugshot from 2003 is very good.
A police mugshot? And an unsigned comment? Seems to me like whoever made that comment dislikes the King of Pop, Michael Jackson (I support you Michael!). Well, that picture serves to reinforce the trial, which unfortunately, and disgustingly, takes precedence in this article along with a lot of other tabloid rubbish aimed at tainting poor Michael's reputation. Michael Jackson is a great man, and to put a picture relating to the trial is just... disgusting. I for one don't support it. It is my mission to return sanity to this article, because I don't give a fuck what everyone or anyone thinks about Michael. This is not some tabloid article which just 'slips in' anti-Michael phrases or biased comments. I'm gonna remove 'em all, and there will not be a mugshot for the title pic, not on my watch. --Paaerduag 11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The intro pic has been discussed X times before. Please see the archived entries at Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Why_was_the_picture_changed.3F and Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Main_picture to learn why the present intro picture is a fair compromise - between "mugshot MJ" and "black MJ". Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
The one we have now is quite legitimate and appropriate.UberCryxic 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I agree with the original comment; that picture of Michael Jackson at the Whitehouse should definitely be replaced. It looks really unprofessional and I could tell it had been edited before I read the comments. A picture of him doing the "moon walk" would be best, as long as you can see most of his body, including his face. The worst thing about the current picture is that you can't see his face due to the big sunglasses. Owen214 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] subtitle headings
do you think that the album names will suffice? because who's to say which events take precedence in each section? I certainly don't think that martin bashir's name should be included. I don't personally believe he should receive that kind of notability because of that rubbish he made. I cut it back to album names, but If you want to flesh it out, try to do it without simply saying 'controversies' or 'bashir'. I will try to add more about his musical influence, because I have had it with negativity towards poor Michael. This article needs an overhaul, and I think it's well underway. --Paaerduag 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made some minor changes to the headings. I think they are fine now, but let me know your take on them.UberCryxic 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is should be Dangerous Era... i mean, the album eras are a good way to divide up the article and it would just look better.--Paaerduag 07:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm....maybe. I was trying to give notable controversies, and the 1993 allegations certainly are notable, their fair share in the title.UberCryxic 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
The following users have begun a string of vandalism, and I recommend that blocks be implemented if any of these users vandalise this, or any, article again.
- User:Gmaurer40
- User:Chuck norris6996
- User:Littleweb1
All three of the above users have added profanity to the article, and must be stopped from further damaging wikipedia. --Paaerduag 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plastic Surgery
The article doesn't seem to mention MJs frequent and extensive plastic surgery even tho it's obvious from a couple of photographs. Surely there should be some reference to this, no? SmokeyTheCat 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the article does mention something about that. Not quite sure how extensive the descriptions are though.UberCryxic 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely enough it does. Here it is (under the Bad era section):
Another significant reason for the change in appearance was the use of plastic surgery. Despite a number of surgeons' claims that Jackson had undergone multiple nasal surgeries as well as a forehead lift, thinned lips and cheekbone surgery, Jackson wrote in his 1988 autobiography Moon Walk that he only had two rhinoplastic surgeries and the surgical creation of a cleft in his chin, while attributing puberty and diet to the noticeable change in the structure of his face.UberCryxic 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VANDALISM
Isn't anyone else disturbed by the horrendous levels of vandalism which have been occuring over the last few days? something needs to be done to stop this disgusting, dehumanizing trend, because this article is about Michael, not some hater's bloody opinion of him, because I don't give a damn what any haters think. More needs to be done, because reverting vandalism seems to have become the 'norm' on the article. thank you to those who do revert the rubbish that others put, but I'm trying to say that there must be SOMETHING we can do to stop this. please, we can't put up with this, it's just plain wrong. those who perpetrate must be punished. --Paaerduag 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected. The level of vandalism has actually been quite low because of this. Contrast what's happening now with what happened last Friday, when this article was taken off from protection and suffered considerable vandalism. This is nothing. Don't worry about it. Just routine stuff; this happens for a lot of other articles on famous living people.UberCryxic 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia good articles | GA-Class Good articles | Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs | Old requests for peer review | Former good article nominees | Wikipedia good articles on performers and composers | Wikipedia CD Selection - People | Wikipedia controversial topics | Biography articles of living people | Musicians work group articles | GA-Class biography (musicians) articles | Top-priority biography (musicians) articles | GA-Class biography articles | Biography articles with comments | Biography (musicians) articles with comments
