Talk:Michael Jackson

		Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Finances Section

This section is terribly sourced and written. Most is also speculation based on tabloid rumour and Roger Friedman's "inside sources". I recommend we take out all but the sourced info until someone can supply sources for the other information. Marnifrances (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree , unsourced material needs removing.--Realist2 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Download, is it copyright

Well virgin media have put this image up on their site to download and i just wondered could it be a free use image?

• http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/desktopwallpapers/michaeljackson.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can .--Realist2 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Era Image

Where has it gone, it was okay! why have we lost the bad era image? --Gaogier ^Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was replaced with a picture of the bad world tour. That picture was eventually removed as it wasnt free use but the old picture wasnt put back on. I tried to add it from wiki commons a week ago but i found it too difficult. Realist2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Put this one on for now?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_1988_by_himself.jpg

--Gaogier ^Talk! 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ok i will, but its not a good quality picture......--Realist2 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a good quality version on the net but would that still be counted as fair use?Gaogier ^Talk! 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

File:1987MichaelJosephJackson.jpg

Michael Jackson in 1987

There, Fix the image description for me Gaogier ^Talk! 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ill copy this on . Realist2 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a fan site

The article contains much useful information, but its makeup and contents are very apologetic. The first thing the general public think of when they hear the name Michael Jackson is not the music, but the controversy surrounding his physical appearance and his private life. Almost all we get on this are quotes by Michael Jackson himself, which I do not think many people outside the fan circles will find particularly convincing. More extensive and more balanced sections are needed on these issues, whereas the albums section could do with some abridging.--84.190.49.142 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hush dude, your one of those people who merge his face with monkeys in photoshop and think its funny, Hold On, or try and make dodgy pictures of his nose dropping off when he's having serious problems with lupus, Hold On, or making lies up about him bleaching his skin, Hold On, i have heard enough from your kind Gaogier ^Talk! 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, excuse me. the poster has the right and the question has every reason to be asked, this page positively skirts around any of the more controversial issues that Jackson fans might choose to stick their heads in the sand about. I posted valid reasons before as to why many of the sources here are completely unreliable and there was scant disscusion from Jackson fans regarding it. For example, [1] used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. [2], [3], [4], [5] or most information from dedicated fan sites such as [6] and [7]. [8], [9]. Is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?

All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attempts at encyclopedic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references. Quite frankly, I have had enough from your kind too. Whilst we're at the childish "I will assume you to be, so I feel better" game I'd wager you're the kind of person to tastelessly release pidgeons into the air upon the announcement of Jackson's innocence following 'child molestation charges', ugh. This page is nigh on worthless than anything other than a fan site. (EDIT: Most of the sources have been changed since this was written I believe, so some of this is redundant.) OoohOoohAaah (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FIXED. I have removed all statements with questionable, or sources classed as unreliable. Before the rabid fans start accusing me of being a "hater" etc, I suggest they read WP:RS.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

Several sites claim that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam. I don't see it anywhere in the article. Chenzo23 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because only the far right pay any attention to peoples religion, normal people aren`t interested. Realist2 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have recent photo of michael wearing a wonderful little silver cross round his neck while he looks down on the media in shame and sadness as they snap 1000's of photos of him, he tries to make me media leave him alone, he even makes songs like, Leave Me Alone, Privacy & Tabloid Junkie but still they don't stop, but back on subject he's wearing a cross so i question the religion thing.. Gaogier ^Talk! 02:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. Please read The ebony interview. He clearly speaks about God and even refers to him as "Jehovah". Please do research beyond tabloids for information like this. Marnifrances (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SUBJECT CLOSED Gaogier ^Chat! 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Damaged rep

" However, Jackson's controversial appearance and actions have damaged his reputation in the eyes of some of the public and album sales have been in decline since the mid 1990s"

Can someone make it more clear which public it is referring to? Cause, I know that his reputation is like dead in the US. But what about Japan? I remember reading something years ago, and it seemed his rep was not as damaged as in the US

If someone can make this more clear, I will be so gratful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Artist of the Millennium Award

The article states that he received from WMA an award for this, yet the reference quoted states he did not. This should be removed. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct I removed it. Realist2 (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

We have two government pictures here, they are the only pictures that we truly know will stay stable, any chance we can find more. Gaogier ^Chat! 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

About the WMA award show

we should include this info in the article " The 2006 show which also featured the legendary Michael Jackson was held at Earls Court in London, United Kingdom. The show is broadcast to North and South America, all of Europe, the Middle East, Japan and South East Asia, all of mainland China, some other parts of Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Africa reaching an estimated worldwide audience of around one billion viewers, in over 160 countries. "

at least include how around one billion people watched it. Radiohumor (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done --Realist2 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Question

Should 'Bad in Japan 1987' be added to the video releases at the very bottom and a page created for it? - Kaneite

I heard that its been shelved now, Realist2 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It (the DVD, Bad in Japan) was never an official release. Ever. It was "released" by a bootleg company. (Crime Crow). The same concert was, however, officially released in Japan on VHS in 1988. Marnifrances (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)