Talk:Michael Jackson
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
 | A fact from Michael Jackson appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 July 2009. |  |
 | This is not a forum for general discussion of Michael Jackson. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. |
Child abuse change
Should this section not be expanded? In many parts of the world, Michael Jackson is known as being someone who paid the families of children he sexually abused to not prosecute just as much as he is known for his music. Now that he is dead and we don't have to worry about libel, surely we need to stress how his fame because infamy due to his perverted sexual practices? 67.159.5.99 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we need to expand solely this section. The expansion may cast undue weight due to the article length. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Michael was found innocent of child abuse. He may be known for these things but on wikipedia we need to keep to the facts and not add any biased information. I find it unsettling that you would bring up this matter so soon after the death of the man. --Tb240904 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, he was found innocent; we have to go with that. It should be mentioned (true) but it should not take up more, or even as much, as any other section. fr33kman talk 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he was found not guilty. There aren't any courts competent to find anyone innocent (yes, there is a difference). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, about the libel issue - why would libel be any more appropriate in an encyclopedia for dead people than for living people? We may be extra careful with regard to BLPs, but you don't throw out the principles simply because the subject is dead. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The law in the US states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So if he was not found to be guilty, he was found to be innocent. Not that it really matters what term is used. fr33kman talk 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, about the libel issue - why would libel be any more appropriate in an encyclopedia for dead people than for living people? We may be extra careful with regard to BLPs, but you don't throw out the principles simply because the subject is dead. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he was found not guilty. There aren't any courts competent to find anyone innocent (yes, there is a difference). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(<-) TO be totally accurate: The one case that was brought before a jury was settled out of court, and later dropped, AFAIK. There have of course been persistent rumours about this subject, also about him being homosexual. These rumours are unrelated to the case mentioned beforehand. I do think that unless they can be backed up by a snippet of news, we should not let rumours clutter the article. And whatever may have been the case, please keep in mind he recently died. --Eptalon (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Infobox occupation section change
I added the infobox from EN. If someone wanted to simplify/shorten the "occupation" section, that would be great - I don't know enough about the music industry or Michael Jackson's career to do it myself. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
More about his actual life? change
This article focuses more on his death than his life. More should be added about his childhood, family, and adult life. Thanks! Cmann600 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Cmann600
Protection change
Owing to the persistent IP vandalism on this page, it may need to be protected again Purplebackpack89 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Beginning change
The first sentence doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy2 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)