CanadianLinuxUser (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by SDLexington (talk) to last version by Realist2 |
SDLexington (talk | contribs) →michael: new section |
||
Line 421: | Line 421: | ||
:The Jackson article attracts a high percentage of vandals, so adding material straight to the page isn't as easy as it normally is on Wikipedia. If your account has only just been created, you can't edit this page as it's semi-protected -- but if there's particular bits of the content you have objections to or think they can be improved, mention them here on the talk page, where they can be discussed and implemented if appropriate. [[User:Gusworld|Gusworld]] ([[User talk:Gusworld|talk]]) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
:The Jackson article attracts a high percentage of vandals, so adding material straight to the page isn't as easy as it normally is on Wikipedia. If your account has only just been created, you can't edit this page as it's semi-protected -- but if there's particular bits of the content you have objections to or think they can be improved, mention them here on the talk page, where they can be discussed and implemented if appropriate. [[User:Gusworld|Gusworld]] ([[User talk:Gusworld|talk]]) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Ive just checked this guys other contributions. [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#0f0">Realist</span><span style="color:#120A8F">'''<sup>2</sup>'''</span>]] ([[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#EF9B0F ">''''''Come Speak To Me''''''</span>]]) 11:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
::Ive just checked this guys other contributions. [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#0f0">Realist</span><span style="color:#120A8F">'''<sup>2</sup>'''</span>]] ([[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#EF9B0F ">''''''Come Speak To Me''''''</span>]]) 11:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
== michael == |
|||
Is it not one of the nice things Michael did, to invite young, poor, sick children to his house so they could play in Never Never land and have a good time ? |
|||
How is it then suddenly wrong for parents to allow their kids to go ? Maybe they thought Michael was great, just like you, and why would they then think their child was not safe there ? |
Revision as of 15:26, 28 April 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Michael Jackson has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |16 |
Corrections
"Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s" is not factually correct. It might arguably have have been so for a period of time, but that hasn't been the case for quite a number of years now.
Similary regarding, "often referred to as The King of Pop".
Most pop afficionados during the last en or more years would, if they knew of him, regard him as part of pop's history, rather the (current) king, or a still-dominant presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.229 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To your first point, if you carry on reading down the lead it does say very clearly that album sales has been in decline since the mid 1990's. Secondly, so is elvis a part of music history and he's still called the king of rock an roll. Until either are outsold or either are officially de-crowned by some other artist they retain their statues. On and a crappy Thriller reissue has almost sold 2 million copies already with zero promo. It might make your cry but a new studio album by Jackson if handled correctly will easily outsell his last stusio album. Lol its as if that trial saved his career not finished it. Bye. Realist2 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A hypothetical current album is not evidence that he is still a major current pop artist. The fact is, it's been 7 years since he released an album. The "King of Pop" moniker was appropriate in the 1980's, but not so much presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.121.89 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like the king of rock and roll moniker isnt appropriate for elvis who hasnt released an album in decades right? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Audio Samples
Should audio samples be added to the relevant sections in the same way that has been done to Janet's wiki page? - Kaneite
will.i.am (RESOLVED)
Maybe I missed something or maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying. The Will.i.am article has the "W" capitalized in the title of the article and in both places where the article talk about him. Shouldn't we be consist with the subject's article when we talk about him in other articles such as this one? Jons63 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
His page used to be lower case, it must have been altered. However if you go to his page again and look at his official website link its lower case. Lol I think no1 really nows. As every other letter in the name is lower case (even after a full stop) it makes sense that its all lower case. Certainly on the thriller album article we have written it as lower case. Realist2 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's in proper case (Will.i.am) in the official website that the i.am clothing site links to. Since, these contain his own writing, I assume they are authoritative. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
HIStory
History is spelled wrong in the menu... thought you should know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.151 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Its ment to be like that. Realist2 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It it intended to be spelled that way, however it does violate Wikipedia MOS for song names. Normal capitalization is required. Any objections? Nicholas SL Smithchatter 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Its fine as it is, if it comes up as an issue at its future FA review then it can be altered at that point. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest we should go with the spirit of 1.2 of this guideline and leave it as is. For one thing, readers will ask themselves "Why isn't it spelled as the original is?", and we should not mismanage their expectations. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, the album page itself is formatted in that way. So it would be kinda wierd to have it differently in different places. Besides HIStory has a meaning.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It may be fine by us - but there is no reason not to change it. It is compelled by MOS:Album Capitalization. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Compelled. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not compelled, MOS is a guideline and open to exceptions. Besides, WP:IAR exists to cover circumstances such as this. If, on the other hand, you think you can achieve consensus otherwise.... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just read the Titles and Section Headings guideline you referenced above -- good point. I wish this guideline applied to trademarks as well! Nicholas SL Smithchatter 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, this time it is resolved. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Some sentences and portions seem outta place... (RESOLVED)
I'm having a difficult time wondering why Michael's success has to be mentioned as "something a black artist had never experienced" and "Michael was rarely referred to as a "black artist", which is controversial within itself. Also the paragraph that starts off the "Bad" section should be given its own own section within Michael's personal life page. Sorry that I didn't voice out on this after editing it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well its true, who gives a damn if its controversial, lifes a bitch, black artists were treated like crap before MJ changed the rules, so.... , as for the intro to the bad section, it used to come at the end of the Thriller section but as the Thriller section was so big i moved it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But then again, you have to say had it not been for Berry Gordy's Motown Records label and its roster of artists, especially concerning The Supremes in the sixties and Diana Ross in the seventies, and for artists like Dionne Warwick, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye (even if his audience was still mostly predominantly black by the end of his career) and Isaac Hayes were the first black artists to sell well regardless of race and/or genres. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they sold well, but their sales were hampered significantly because of their race, its just a fact, no matter how unpleasant. What Jackson did was completely different, he ended the racial profiling, people forgot he was black because it didnt matter. Unfortunately for those other artists it was still a major issue. Remember one thing, those artists you mentioned, they could perform at the casinos for rich white folk but couldnt actually spend their money along side them. Go figure so to speak. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
True. As unfortunate as that is, you are 100% right about that. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Life is a bitch, but we have michael jackson to thank for changing things, because of him black people can not only perform for white folk at casinos but also spend their money there, still that the past, things have changed, but we should always be greatful for what he did. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Some copy editing suggestions (RESOLVED)
Having being asked to cast a fresh eye over the article, here's some stuff from the lead that struck me as problematic but which I thought needed fixing/considering by others rather than just me changing it:
- "along with a distinctive style and vocals" Not sure what's meant here. Guessing something like "distinctive musical sound and vocal style"? Also, I'd split this into two sentences after "moonwalk" unless the specific aim is to suggest influence on both dance styles and musical styles.
- Cheers, clarified
- Using the Hot 100 era to qualify number ones does come across as a sneaky way of overtaking Elvis Presley, who has more number ones in the so-called rock era. Not a major issue, but does suggest a slight lack of balance.
- Lol, completely legitimate, billboard, and many other sources say it when they praise jackson.
- Thriller needs to be mentioned prior to the Guinness Awards reference (as it stands, there's more lead content about the reissue, which I'm not entirely convinced needs to go in the lead at all, than the original album).
- But really, talking about the videos, influence etc, really that IS all about Thriller, it just doesnt say it.
- The whole sentence beginning "This making" should go, in line with the "show, don't tell" approach for Wikipedia. The figures are there for the reader to see; surrounding them with peacock terms isn't best practice.
- DONE
- "Slept in his bed or bedroom" sounds awkward, sentence could be rewritten.
- How, i think its important to be very precise with such an issue, i cant thing of anything
- "Countries such as Bahrain" isn't good writing; ideally we'd name more countries, or else say "a number of countries, including Bahrain".
- DONE
Will keep working through as I get time. Gusworld (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said with Presley, not a major issue (and the claim is properly specific). Sure, the videos/influence section is about Thriller, but it remains far and away the best-known achievement of Jackson's career, so I think it needs more prominence in the lead. For the awkward sentence, I think "revealed that children had slept in his bedroom" covers it adequately. If you really think both are needed, something like "children had slept in his bed or on the floor in his bedroom" would be better (no idea if the floor detail is correct, but I'm presuming the distinction was drawn somehow along those lines). Gusworld (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- DONE
- As I said with Presley, not a major issue (and the claim is properly specific). Sure, the videos/influence section is about Thriller, but it remains far and away the best-known achievement of Jackson's career, so I think it needs more prominence in the lead. For the awkward sentence, I think "revealed that children had slept in his bedroom" covers it adequately. If you really think both are needed, something like "children had slept in his bed or on the floor in his bedroom" would be better (no idea if the floor detail is correct, but I'm presuming the distinction was drawn somehow along those lines). Gusworld (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Copy editing and further thoughts
I've just made a large number of edits to the text. These are so numerous that I haven't justified them individually (most relate to expression and structure), but I'm happy to discuss the reasoning behind any of them on here. I've also added some more 'main' article sublinks throughout the text, and I put in a mention of Jackson's three most noteworthy albums in the lead, where they definitely needed mentioning. There's also a smattering of fact tags for specific information that lacks a source.
So you dont want american bias yet you put off the wall above dangerous in the lead. Blatant american bias. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I put in Off the Wall because it's one of the three Jones-produced albums, not as a deliberate snub to Dangerous. I'd actually make the case for mentioning more of Jackson's albums in the lead, probably including Dangerous and HIStory.Gusworld (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Put all 5 albums in lead.
- The biggest change I made was to the description of the Billie Jean performance in the Influence section, which was way too long for an encylopedia article. I trimmed this quite heavily but kept all the cited descriptions.
- Feel free to trim it, i just would like to see the difference, im insupport of cutting that down, there is more to his dancing that that one show. We can add so much more.
Some general observations on stuff I haven't touched yet but think need work:
- The structure of the article does go a bit haywire after the chronologically organised career section. In particular, the themes and genres section seems to lean towards OR and POV material a lot and needs editing (I didn't do much here).
- Have a go, generally i think it needs expanding anyway, it doesnt even talk about blood or invincible.
* Some of the finances material would make more sense in the chronological section (especially since 2007 is conspicuous by its absence). The stuff on the loans in particular is still hard to follow (I may have another go at tidying this up).
- Agree, the latter part of the finances it bad, i say delete the end part (events of 2005 onward) and completely rewrite that paragraph.
Infact im pulling it off the article now, im bringing it to the talk page (below) for us to work on.
- I appreciate that the general style used here has been to spell out all numbers, but I think that using numbers is more stylistically appropriate for chart positions, ages over ten and extremely high numbers (such as sales figures). I haven't made those changes for the most part but I'd very strongly advise them; "This album reached #39' is much easier to read than "This album reached number thirty-nine". That goes double with figures like $5 million, which I have changed. There's some debate in the Manual of Style over this, but there's no support for always spelling out numbers in every case as far as I can see.
- Some material seems a bit arbitrary. For instance, we have discussion of the non-collaboration with Prince, but nothing about the similar experience with Madonna on 'In The Closet'. (Quite possibly that means the Prince material should go too, but it gives the impression of a random approach.)
Why do we care what Mariah Carey thought about the fight with Sony? (Yes, she was married to TM, but I don't think her views are particularly relevant here.)Why do we need to know what song was performed at the Guinness presentation?Why so much detail on the Naomi Campbell Superbowl ad?- The in the closet stuff is only really known about by those like you and me, the prince thing was bigger and more people have heard of it
- Would need evidence for the claim the Prince thing is more widespread. More to the point, why aren't collaborations which did result in released records (such as Paul McCartney and Diana Ross) not mentioned? Those would be unquestionably better known but don't rate a mention here at all. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- You try finding the in the closet thing in "The magic and the madness", its not there, yet Prince gets 2 pages. Infact its not in Jacksons book but is in madonnas one. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would need evidence for the claim the Prince thing is more widespread. More to the point, why aren't collaborations which did result in released records (such as Paul McCartney and Diana Ross) not mentioned? Those would be unquestionably better known but don't rate a mention here at all. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The in the closet stuff is only really known about by those like you and me, the prince thing was bigger and more people have heard of it
* The VH1 and Rolling Stone accolades for Off The Wall seem unneeded, especially in an overview article. The general conclusion on the albums Wikiproject is that rankings such as '500 best albums' ever are best avoided, and the Grammy and other awards make it clear that this is a highly-regarded album.
- The presentation of chart data is
bothUS-centricand a little biased. When Jackson's albums are topping the US chart, this is delineated in some detail; when that stops happening, suddenly we get chart figures from other countries. The presentation should be balanced in each case (which probably means both adding figures for other countries and perhaps compressing some of the US material). Sameproblem with some of the Grammy detail: why does the History section name a category the album was nominated for but not the category it actually won?Because it had like 5 nominations and won 1. It does say what it one, video of the year.Sure, but in the current format the nomination for Album of the Year comes first, which isn't neutral (it comes across as noting the most prestigious award first even though it wasn't won). I'd say that noting it had 5 nominations and what it won would be better than highlighting a single category. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
* There's a bad case of recentism in the Thriller 25 material, which has far more detail on chart performance and contents than any release discussed in the article. I also think that there's a bit too much detail on the re-release in the lead (to put this in perspective, there's more Thriller 25 in the lead than on Bad or Dangerous, both markedly more successful albums). Is "For All Time" a new song or a newly released recording from the Thriller era? And a better source is needed for the claim that the new album will be released soon.
Sorted, cut it down quite a bit.
- No disputing Jackson has played percussion and other instruments, but I don't think anything other than vocalist belongs in his infobox -- Jackson isn't famous for being a multi-instrumentalist in the way that (say) Steve Wonder is.
- Disagree, people are really supprised to find out he does play instruments, he gets a bit of a hard time as people think he cant.
- The point of an encyclopedia article isn't to surprise people with unexpected facts. It's to provide an accurate and relevant summary of a given topic. Jackson's fame is primarily as a singer, a dancer and (I guess) a composer. But I'll leave it for now and look into what the general policy for that infobox is. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree, people are really supprised to find out he does play instruments, he gets a bit of a hard time as people think he cant.
- Topics that don't get mentioned or only get mentioned fleetingly which I would expect to find more thoroughly treated in a Jackson article: Diana Ross, his relationship with his family post-Victory,
the stage invasion by Jarvis Cocker at the Brits,Living With Michael Jackson. The latter pops up in the intro but isn't mentioned in the material on the 2003 trial; while this needs to be handled carefully and with respect for BLP policy, omitting it in the body clearly isn't justified.
**There is a link to the brits incident, its not major outside the UK.\
* The section on James Browns' funeral seems overlong relative to its relevance, as does the information on Jackson's visit to Africa. Not saying they shouldn't be there in some form, but there's excess detail right now.
* The Wikipedia article on remix albums is highly suspect and not a good source for the claim that BIOTDF is the best-selling remix album of all time.
- Will remove
* There's no time frame ascribed to the beginning of the 'Wacko Jacko' nickname.
DONE
The reference names aren't consistently formatted; some have quotation marks, some don't. (I'd argue using them all the time is better.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusworld (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Sorry i cant understand, can you rephrase what you are saying there, cheers.
- Well, I see that Realist2 has decided to revert my edits on the grounds that they make the article "completely fractured". Clearly I wouldn't agree with that -- I'd like some specific examples of what's been fractured given the amount of work -- and having been asked to copy-edit the article I'm a tad concerned that every change I made (most of which were to improve expression, which is the major problem with this article raised at FAC) has been rejected rather speedily.
- In any event, I'll just note that the issues I've raised above would definitely need to be addressed before the article would reach FA, regardless of whatever happens to the copy edits I made. Gusworld (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The FA review is fine with the content, only 3 people oppose the FA and thats purely on copy edit not stucture. The article is nearly there and doesnt need the overhaul you have suggested. 6 people support and 3 oppose. Those who oppose are not raising the issue of content. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how I'd read the FA review comments -- but even if you take that view, reverting the changes I made (which almost all concerned expression and structure) is not advancing the cause of clearer copy very much. And some of the comments above are about copy rather than structure. Gusworld (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The FA review is fine with the content, only 3 people oppose the FA and thats purely on copy edit not stucture. The article is nearly there and doesnt need the overhaul you have suggested. 6 people support and 3 oppose. Those who oppose are not raising the issue of content. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The review has six support (myself included) with three opposes. None of the content concerns remain with them, all they want is a good copy edit and to then call them back. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would rather do the copy edit, see if they change their minds, which they has expressed a willingness to do, if they request more well we can take it from there. No one however is calling for a structural overhaul anymore. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but as you've no doubt seen, now I've added myself to the 'oppose' list -- the issues I raised in my edit and above definitely need to be addressed. But even leaving that aside, we both agree the copy edit is still needed. Given that you weren't happy with accepting any of the changes as a group, looks like we might need to discuss them one by one. Gusworld (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Im quite upset that you would use the FA as a tool against me, rather hurtful. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was one of the opposers on primarily copyedit grounds. I am not that familiar with MJ's career beyond the scandals, so it is difficult for me to identify issues with comprehensiveness. If someone familiar with the topic expresses those concerns, then his/her opinion should be respected and the concerns addressed. Also, everyone is encouraged to participate at FAC. It is not a "tool against you", it is a way to make sure that an article meets the FA standards. Gusworld feels that the article does not meet those standards and gave you an opportunity here to address his concerns. After you expressed a complete disintrest in considering those concerns, he had a responsibility to state in the public forum that he felt the article was not ready. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ive removed the nomination, the article is clearly substandard. I will renominate when things are resolved. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack (and remember the WP:OWN policy); you suggested I get involved with the FA process, and that's what I've done. I wasn't thrilled to see several hours of editing work rejected summarily in half an hour either, but I'd rather continue to work through the issues I detect in the article with you (point by point if need be) rather than just give up because I'm annoyed. The article deals well with a complex and controversial topic, but it still has problems that need to be addressed to get to FA quality. Gusworld (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, ill get it done dont worry. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Need to slow down, take it slowely. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, ill get it done dont worry. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Finances - poor quality segment (RESOLVED)
Ive taken this part off the article, its terrible, too bad to be on the rest of article right now. We need to work on it here before readding. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In 2005, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson as his $200 million in loans were due in December 2005 so were secured on the music catalogue he purchased in 1985. Jackson failed to pay and Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson has not as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of twenty-five percent of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed Jackson will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalog 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 twenty percent.[1] An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony."[2]
Jackson owes a five million interest payment to Fortress Trust, the publicly traded hedge fund that bought his two hundred and seventy million dollar loan from Bank of America in April 2005. The loan has been refinanced to $325 milion by Fortress. The payment was due on October 31, 2007.[3] 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.[4] Rumours of possible bankruptcy have been around for a decade but have not materialised.[5]
I'd propose something like this (uses the same sources but covers the material more succintly and in chronological order):
- Reports of financial problems for Jackson become more prominent in 2006 after the closure of the main house on the Neverland Ranch as a cost-cutting measure[6] One prominent financial issue for Jackson concerned a $270 million loan secured against the music publishing catalog he originally purchased in 1985. Jackson had merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division in 1995 but retained half-ownership. After delayed repayments on the loan, a refinancing package in 2005 shifted the loans from Bank of America to debt specialists Fortress Investments. A new package proposed by Sony in April 2006 would have seen Jackson lent an additional $300 million and reduced the interest rate payable on the loan, while giving Sony the future option to buy half of Jackson's stake in the publishing company.[7] Jackson agreed to a Sony-backed refinancing deal, although full details were not made public.[8]
Gusworld (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, i dont unerstand his money issues, when it comes to these loans, so im happy with that.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- A related possibility would be to mention the sale of the half-share to Sony in 1995 earlier in the finance section (there's already a sentence about the original purchase there), which would make this section a bit less dense and make his business history with publishing clearer. That is, put the sentence "Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division in 1995 but retained half-ownership" with the same reference straight after the original mention of the purchase. Then use the rest of the rewritten para minus that sentence at the end. Gusworld (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, i dont unerstand his money issues, when it comes to these loans, so im happy with that.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be better. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1987 photo of Michael during "Bad" era
I don't understand how that picture gets allowed to stay up there. That picture seems a little private or from a fan who had it posted when he was doing the tour. I vote for it to be out of the page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why, its free use, on wiki commons. Do yu have a better alternative? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I actually don't understand why that certain picture is being put there, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article lacks pictures as it is, removing another that is completely free seems unwise. Like i said, if you can offer something better go right ahead. But there is no reason to remove the picture. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also the only picture in the article that actually shows Jackson's face (the main govt-sourced photo is a good iconic image but doesn't do that). Unless fans start offering pics up to Wiki commons, this is probably as good as it will get. Gusworld (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- True. Seems most like where it is too, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, we are in no position right now to be removing pictures, particulary those we have every legal right to host. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Physical appearance - poor segment
I have removed this segmant of the physical appearance section, its unsourced, although its hardly controversial, it could be written better, possibly expanded. I really think we need pictures to show his flamboyant cloths, particularly his military jackets of the 90's.
Jackson's outfits have been central components of his image. In the early 1980s he wore a sequined white glove, the jackets in the "Thriller" and "Beat it" music videos, white socks (with short pants to emphasize them) and other sparkling jackets. In the late 1980s to late 1990s Jackson shifted to wearing fedoras, military jackets, shin pads, sunglasses and plasters on his fingers (or occasionally a pair of black sparkling gloves). He continued to wear white socks with short pants. In the 2000s Jackson rarely appears in flamboyant costumes, occasionally wearing shin pads, but usually a red shirt, black full-length pants and sunglasses. Over time his hair went from short and curly to long and curly and then to long and straight.
--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pictures would definitely help. I also think that the clothing descriptions would be better within the context of the main chronology rather than separate, since those images are associated closely with performances at the time (particularly in the case of Motown 25 and the gloves/socks/fedora combo). Having the stuff about facial/skin appearance works well (and keeps it from distracting the main narrative), but the outfits are part of Jackson's performance history rather than personal history. Gusworld (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Infact, if we get picture, i dont think words are needed at all for his costumes. We need to get pictures with fair use rationals. Something I cant do. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead
lede should only summarize the central aspects of his whole career ,, not his albums charts and sexual things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMlove (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The lead definitely needs some work. Per Wiki policy, it needs to provide an overview of his whole career that (in theory) could be read without progressing into the main article. As such, it's inevitable that controversies such as the 2003 trial will need to be mentioned.
At the moment, the three paragraphs of the lead essentially boil down to (1) major career milestones (2) documented achievements (awards, sales) and (3) controversies. For that reason, the last sentence of paragraph 2 probably belongs at the beginning of paragraph 3.
There's still some awkward phrasing in the lead that needs work (the sentence about the major albums is a good addition but needs rephrasing, for example, and the charity mention doesn't fit at the end of the sentence it's added to). Thriller's status as the best-selling album of all time probably should lead off the achievements paragraph. And there are elements of Jackson's career which need mentioning in the first paragraph: there's nothing at all about the Jacksons or Motown, which clearly should be in there. Gusworld (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
All the personal life (including charity work)/controversy is now in the large bottom paragraphy. His early career has also been expanded. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
RIAA figures
Notice that US certification for #1s was just added. Rather than using a CD booklet, it'd be better to refer directly to the RIAA database (which would also be a useful reference for many other places in the article). Here's the link for all MJ's certs:
Also, the stuff about "owing to strong long term sales" comes across as peacock terms, and would be better omitted (ie something like "peaked at #13 in the U.S. but was certified platinum in 2005"). Gusworld (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not peacock at all, its his best selling back catalog album BY FAR. Even in america. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, i kept some of the sources in because they still give peak positions, something the RIAA source obviously doesnt. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My objection stands, because strong is being used to describe the record's sales performance (note that certification reflects shipments, not sales). Platinum certification in 2005 is a fact; calling this "strong long-term sales" is interpretation, which would need a reliable source (which the CD sleeve notes are not in this context, BTW).
Top-selling back catalog album is a messy term: what about Thriller 25? What about HIStory? If the claim is "best selling album in the US released by Jackson which contained no new material" then we're approaching indiscriminate information status. Bottom line: the fact should speak for itself.
Re peak positions, Billboard has useful lists at
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=4902&model.vnuAlbumId=497792 (singles) http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.chartFormatGroupName=Albums&model.vnuArtistId=4902&model.vnuAlbumId=497792 (albums)
which might also be helpful for US peaks. (Not objecting to additional sources for chart data, of course, haven't checked the specifics of the edits and they may all be overseas numbers.) Gusworld (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a collaborations section? Jackson has collaborated with a lot of very famous acts from all genres. However im not sure if its that important for the main career section. If all collaborations are together its something people can go right to. Collaborations i can think of are;
Diana Ross, McCartney, Janet, Steve Wonder, Slash, Freddie Mercury, (All those on Thriller 25), then you have the whole Prince and Madonna thing.
Maybe a section for it would be good? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The others that occur to me are Rockwell, Mick Jagger, Eddie Van Halen. For collaborations which charted, I think it makes more sense to put them in the chronology, because it helps convey Jackson's dominance in music during that period (except for Janet and Thriller 25, most of these were in the 80s, and most did result in chart records). Janet and the 25 stuff are already in there, as is "We Are The World", so if we create a collaborations section, then that information will either end up duplicated or need to be shifted. On reflection, I think the details about both Prince and Madonna belong in the articles on the relevant albums, not in the main biography, since ultimately neither resulted in a released record. There's enough detail to cover without adding in unreleased records that weren't widely publicised ("What More Can I Give" is a different case).
On the whole, I think it would be wise to resist adding sections if the information can be sensibly incorporated elsewhere -- the article is already very long and separate sections have a tendency to attract cruft. Collaborations are part of Jackson's professional career and it makes sense to present them in context, not as a separate group.
A separate collaboration issue is how Jackson's videos from Dangerous onwards (and also including Liberian Girl) made prominent use of guest stars. Don't think this needs exhaustive coverage, but it is probably worth mentioning as it's a major shift from the 80s videos. Gusworld (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In america Number ones has been his best selling album in 2006 and 2007 (maybe further back but i cant remember), it was outselling Thriller 2 to 1. Obviouly this year with T25 will change that but generally Number ones is still/was grossing more money for jackson than any of his studio albums. I will remove the Prince thing. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That celebraty thing is already covered in the michael jackson music videos article.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not that long an article anyway. It was 125,000 bytes, now its less than 90,000. It will probably peak at 95,000 which will be fine for FA. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sales: Even taking that as fact (and we don't have a source that says that), it's still an intepretative leap to describe the sales as "strong", because that also implies comparisons with other artists' chart performance. If we had a source stating Jackson's catalog sales over the relevant period (which would imply serious SoundScan access), then a sentence saying "#1s has been Jackson's best-selling catalog title in the US since 2005" would be defensible, but we don't -- and whether that should be in this article or the #1s article would also be an issue. (Further on in the editing process, there'll probably need to be a broader discussion of how much chart data is appropriate for each title, and the balance between US and other information, but there's a way to go before we get there.) Did you transfer the Prince ref into the Bad album article?
Re collaborations: self-evidently, the fact that it's in the videos article doesn't mean that it shouldn't necessarily be mentioned here. Re: length -- it's getting better but I still think it could cover more ground in the same or less space. It is definitely improving though, which is the main thing. Gusworld (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The prince info is already in the bad article, lol i dont think we should talk about the cameo appearances when we dont even talk about the videos much themselves. The article had a music videos section but it was sent over to the michael jackson music videos article per merger consensus. The reason for that was to cut the articles length down. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not suggesting that we need exhaustive information, but a brief mention of this change in approach might be worthy. Probably worth revisting further on in the article's development rather than getting hung up on it now. (Information migrated out of an article is generally summarised in the original unless it's patently unrelated, and the article does go to some lengths to establish Jackson's particular relevance to the history of music video.)
Still need to resolve the #1s sales description issue and reach a mini-consensus on musical collaborations. Gusworld (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts i removed the strong sales thing, since it only peaked at number 13 yet sold over a million copies, the reader can see for themselves that it must have had good long term sales. Im gunna look for a more up to date source than RIAA, sales are closer to 1.4 million. If you wanna do a cameo video thing it might be better to bring all that music video stuff back over. Im not infavour of a collaboration section on second thoughts, its not that important, i want to make other sections more comprehensive, such as the dancing and themes and genre section. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly -- the facts shouldn't need adornment. The cert is worth noting even if a more recent sales figure appears. The themes and genres section needs a lot of work -- I wouldn't look to expanding it until the issues with the existing text are resolved (and yes, I'll list the issues I've identified ASAP). Gusworld (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, we wait till the themes section is sorted and then expand it. It doesnt mention blood or invincible which is odd. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Themes and genres / music videos
Here's a far from exhaustive selection of criticisms of the section as it stands:
- There's really no discussion of musical genre in here at all. Categorising genre is a fraught activity anyway, especially with access to reliable sources, so I'm not suggesting much could be added here, but the heading might need changing to reflect what's actually present.
- There's not sufficient sources, and those that are present are rather selectively represented. The main thrust of the New York Times review, for instance, is to argue that Jackson's lyrics are not particularly personal or well-written, but that's entirely ignored in the citations, some of which don't appear to match claims made in that review at all.
- Similarly, the last sentence in the third paragraph doesn't make much sense, and the review it cites tends to suggest Jackson fails to work well with changing music trends, contrary to this section.
- There's loads of examples of weasel words like "some" (a serial offender here), "most" and "arguably". In part, I think it's because there's actually not enough sources to hold up the arguments the section wants to make and keep it from being original research. In this context, making sweeping claims based on a single review (and not citing those sources in the text as well as the footnotes) isn't sufficient.
- Something which is lacking in general in the article but which impacts on this section is discussion of Jackson's increasing prominence as a composer (a handful of songs on Off The Wall and Thriller, virtually all solo compositions on Bad, predominant co-writes on subsequent releases).
- The discussion of "Man In The Mirror" fails to mention that Jackson didn't compose this song.
- I think there needs to be a clearer statement of purpose for this section more before material gets added. Is it a discussion of Jackson's lyrical concerns? If so, then these need to be more clearly articulated (the obvious candidates being the perils of celebrity, statements about world affairs, and perhaps a general lack of love songs) and sourced. If the section is going to look more broadly at Jackson's evolution on an album-by-album basis (either in terms of their "sound" -- a tricky business -- or critical reaction), then the case could again be made that this should be treated in the main body of the article with each album, rather than placed in a chunk at the end.
- A final question to consider which might help clarify what the section is aiming to achieve: what precisely would be lost from the article if this entire section got deleted?
Whatever approach is taken, more care is needed with sources to avoid misrepresentation and original research. (One random thought: reviews from Robert Christgau, a well-regarded critics whose stuff is all archived online, might be useful here.)
Anyway, some food for discussion! Gusworld (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It should just be a section on the Themes and genres. Themes as in topics of discussion, genres as in rock, pop, jack swing etc. Nothing more, nothing less. But you need to start making some edits, i dont think these are things i can do alone, we still need that number conversion as well. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This from the mariah carey article would be a good guide to follow. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The Carey section limits its discussion of genre to Carey's comments about genres she admires. I'm not aware of Jackson having made that kind of comment about other artists in terms of his recent career (there's plenty in Taraborrelli about his influences up until 1978, but that's not very useful in terms of his most successful career period). Some of the other territory covered in Carey's Artistry section (pretentious section title, BTW) is dealt with here in Influence (another area to discuss . . .)
Anyway, I'm not inclined to do a major edit on this section right now because my immediate reaction would be to ditch the whole lot (per the last question), wait until the other sections of the article are all bought up to scratch, and then see if it was worth revisiting. I suspect (perhaps wrongly) that that's not the approach you want to pursue, and I don't want to incite a large-scale edit war. I will get onto the numbers though! Gusworld (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the last FA review, there must be some form of artistic commentry other than his dancing. Im really considering bringing the music video stuff back.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is going to be a section on artistic achievement (which the current section doesn't approach in any way really), then no doubt the videos will need to be part of it. Will leave it to you to decide whether it's worth migrating both sections onto the talk page for detailed discussion, killing the section and starting again, or leaving it for a while to address other stuff. Gusworld (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This was the section on Music videos. We could edit it on that page, when we are happy with it, we could then bring it back. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, could you do a fiar use rational for this, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a discussion of music videos has to be a bit broader than just looking at MTV, which is what a lot of that section is about. Not saying that shouldn't be in there, but the focus needs to be on what Jackson achieved and what distinguishes his music videos from others, not just that he was a staple of MTV (bit too US-centric for one thing). More positively, the sections on short films and group dancing are a good place to start. But I do actually want to sort numbers before I turn my attention to this (and the FU rationale). Gusworld (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes i agree it needs to be broader, but its a good template, and we can do all the work on that page, even discuss it on that talk page. Please do the numbers tho, i cant, i makes me sick to write " Michael is the 7th child of the jackson family", lol, its just not right.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Don't panic, seventh wouldn't change. The major change is in numbers above ten that can't be expressed in two words and chart positions. Gusworld (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarifying numbers policy
As discussed, I'm planning to edit the article to make the usage of numbers consistent. In particular, I want to ensure greater adherence to the following policy from the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]:
"In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)."
As per this policy, my preference is for using numbers for everything above nine (makes the articles easier to read), but there are doubtless contexts where the spelled-out form will remain for elegance or consistency with general Wikipedia approach.
More particularly, I'm going to change all sales figures and dollar references to numbers, and the vast majority of chart positions into the form #16, #2, #45 etc. Note this doesn't affect sentences discussing overall performance i.e. the article would still say "Jackson scored six consecutive number one albums".
FWIW, There's no consensus in featured articles about how to present chart positions; I've seen approaches from absolutely everything in numeric form to absolutely everything spelled out. This approach makes it easier to distinguish chart data at a glance from other numbers, which is why I'm advocating it.
This will involve a very large number of changes, but I'm not going to make any alterations during the "numbers edit" other than these, so no-one need worry about any substantive shifts in the text.
Any comments before I get started? Gusworld (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, go ahead, ill cry about it when i see the result. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
how do i write on the page
how do i put news on the page and remove lies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Jackson article attracts a high percentage of vandals, so adding material straight to the page isn't as easy as it normally is on Wikipedia. If your account has only just been created, you can't edit this page as it's semi-protected -- but if there's particular bits of the content you have objections to or think they can be improved, mention them here on the talk page, where they can be discussed and implemented if appropriate. Gusworld (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ive just checked this guys other contributions. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 11:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
michael
Is it not one of the nice things Michael did, to invite young, poor, sick children to his house so they could play in Never Never land and have a good time ? How is it then suddenly wrong for parents to allow their kids to go ? Maybe they thought Michael was great, just like you, and why would they then think their child was not safe there ?
- ^ "Michael Jackson Bailout Said to Be Close". The New York Times. April 13 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Jackson strikes deal over loans". BBC News. April 14 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' Plans". Fox News. October 17 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-17.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Jackson Closes Neverland House". CBS Corp. March 17 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Guardian document finances
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Jackson Closes Neverland House". CBS Corp. March 17 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Michael Jackson Bailout Said to Be Close". The New York Times. April 13 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Jackson strikes deal over loans". BBC News. April 14 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)