WIKIPEDIA trying to make MJ sound guilty

Hey I visited wikipedia.. Because it's so popular I wanted to see what they said under the MJ 2004-05 trial..

They try to hide it, but it is filled with negitive/deragitory comments about Michael. NOT SAYING, but hinting to MJ being guilty.. It has many facts, but it's filled with lies as well..

THINGS LIKE: When they mention something said by the Arvizo family, they mention it like IT HAPPENED.. when it's the defence or MJ's team saying something they add words like.. "alleged" etc..

FOR EXAMPLE: When the Arvizo's left Neverland, they make it seem it was against the families will.. ".. Even though they did not want to"

When they mention Facts that MJ's defence brought up, they "Michael Jackson elleges that....."

I spent a good amount of time editing the page.. Adding in the FACTS. changing the words up, making it sound like the TRUTH.. MJ being the truth, and ARVIZO's being the ones ALLEGING.. etc. I added a lot of other things they kept out from court transcripts etc.. SO I put it in there... I checked it later yesterday night, and it was all edited back to the way it was before I touched it..

What can we do at this point?? Is there a way to report the page, and/or get it deleted?? When you edit it, you can see he/she who wrote it got the information from Randy Tarribarelli's books (sp).. Which we all know mixes alot of lies with facts to make a "good" story..

Here take a look... I find it rediculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_tr...ichael_Jackson

CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS???

What do you expect from stupid ass regular people can edit Wikipedia? Haters are just pathetic :tickingtimebomb

Wiki is hard to get around. I have been struggling with other fans for ages on the MJ pages. anyone can edit them. MJ's pages are semi- protected, but it doesn't help. Not only that, but fans get their pages vandalised constantly. (I have so badly that I had to ask for full protection so even I can't edit my own page).

All we can do is try and edit, or just leave it. There are some great fans who are part of the MJ pages project and they really work hard on changes every day.

we have a great project in Italy, we made the best italian encyclopedia at:

www.wiki.mjj.it

I think editing the page constantly will get very tireing, so I'll just keep going back and deleting it all... lol! EVERYDAY if I need to..

I'm just glad michaels main wikipedia page is protected from unauthorized editing

I was thinking about making a FAN MADE wiki page about the MOLESTATIONS ALLEGATIONS against MJ.. from 1993-2005. Putting in the FACTS.. For this, I would need a group of 5/10 people that can help.

Preferably ones that have read 'Michael Jackson: Redemption' and/or 'Michael Jackson: Conspiracy'.. Also the 1994 article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?'

Those who may be note takers, or simply have a great memory and remember a lot of key facts from these places. Also if you were the type to read court transcripts etc..

I want to start it off with the CHANDLER story, leading into the newer ARVIZO allegations.. We'll provide them links to find good material to read like court transcripts, the books, and article.. Even youtube links to videos that are benificial..


If you want to take part let me know.. Once I get 5-10 people wanting to take a section and work on it, we'll get started..

For example: One person would be assigned to type up the key facts from the 1994 article.. Others would send in key facts from the 1993-94 allegations.. Some will focus on the 2003-05 allegations.. That way one person does not get stuck with doing EVERYTHING..

This sounds fun to me.. How 'bout you?

This makes me cringe too:
Music catalogs and loans

Michael Jackson purchased ownership in ATV Music Publishing in 1985, which owns the publishing rights to songs written by The Beatles and many other acts. Paul McCartney of The Beatles, who had also recorded with Jackson, was reportedly angered by the 'surprise' purchase, and this led to the two becoming estranged.
In 1995, Jackson and Sony Music Publishing merged their two catalogues to create Sony-ATV. Jackson's 50% interest in the company (Sony Music Entertainment owns the other half) is estimated to be worth USD $500 million. Jackson also owns his own music catalogue called MiJac Publishing, which contains all of his songs and songs from Sly & the Family Stone.[163]
Over the past 10 years, Jackson has secured two loans for USD $200 million and USD $70 million. The USD $200 million loan was secured by using Jackson's share of the Sony-ATV Catalogue as collateral. He later secured the USD $70 million loan by using his MiJac Catalogue as collateral. However, because of his declining sales, his MiJac Catalogue's value declined to under USD $100 million, therefore he was forced to use his Neverland Ranch and Hayvenhurst as added collateral to keep the loan.
In April 2005, Bank of America sold the loan to Fortress Investments. Jackson continued to miss payments on the loan, and as of December 20, 2005, Fortress had the right to foreclose on the loan, allowing Sony Music the first right to buy Jackson's share of the loan. However, Fortress extended the loan, allowing Jackson time to get money together.
In a move named by Jackson's advisors as "refinancing," it was announced on April 14, 2006 that Jackson had struck a deal with Sony and Fortress Investments. In the deal Sony may be allowed to take control of half of Jackson's 50% stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing (worth an estimated $1 billion) which Jackson co-owns. Jackson would be left with 25% of the catalogue, with the rest belonging to Sony.
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 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 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%.[164] 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."[165]
Michael Jackson owes a $5 million interest payment to Fortress Trust, the publicly traded hedge fund that bought his $272 million loan from Bank of America in April 2005 (the loan has been refinanced to $325 million by Fortress). The payment is due on Oct. 31, 2007.[166]

KOPV said:

I was thinking about making a FAN MADE wiki page about the MOLESTATIONS ALLEGATIONS against MJ.. from 1993-2005. Putting in the FACTS.. For this, I would need a group of 5/10 people that can help.

Preferably ones that have read 'Michael Jackson: Redemption' and/or 'Michael Jackson: Conspiracy'.. Also the 1994 article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?'

Those who may be note takers, or simply have a great memory and remember a lot of key facts from these places. Also if you were the type to read court transcripts etc..

I want to start it off with the CHANDLER story, leading into the newer ARVIZO allegations.. We'll provide them links to find good material to read like court transcripts, the books, and article.. Even youtube links to videos that are benificial..


If you want to take part let me know.. Once I get 5-10 people wanting to take a section and work on it, we'll get started..

For example: One person would be assigned to type up the key facts from the 1994 article.. Others would send in key facts from the 1993-94 allegations.. Some will focus on the 2003-05 allegations.. That way one person does not get stuck with doing EVERYTHING..

This sounds fun to me.. How 'bout you?

Click to expand...

I think they already have someone working on the 1993 allegations. The last page was removed because it was poorly written and researched so there are some fans working on a new one (ones who are part of the Michael Jackson wiki project). I actually asked to be involved and they said yes, but the problem with fans making it is point of view and bias. On wiki, it needs to be neutral and factual.

1993 is one thing I "know" a lot about (I remember it like it was yesterday and I have done a lot of research on it) so I will be helping out if needed.

What really annoys me is that the Wikipedia article about the 1993 Chandler case was completely deleted a couple months ago. Originally, it went for several YEARS without question even though the content in it was clearly written by Ray Chandler and/or one of the Chandler supporters (there was no defense reported and it was all salacious tabloid stories, linking to Ray Chandler's site and book, etc.). In February 2007, I spent time to revise the entire article to make it far more neutral and to explain both sides clearly (allegations and defense). I cited court documents and official reports and the article factually cleared up a lot of myths and clarified the entire case. The revised article was fully approved by Wikipedia editors and remained without conflict until November 2007. At that point, someone supposedly completely destroyed the article and in its place they put a horribly written and unsorced one. Although I did not see the revised article, apparently it was written by a fan who basically trashed the Chandlers without warrant or facts. The article was then voted to be deleted because it lacked facts and was completely POV. So now none of the facts about that case exist on Wikipedia. You'd think they could've just reverted back to the good version of the article, but no. -_-

TSCM said:

What really annoys me is that the Wikipedia article about the 1993 Chandler case was completely deleted a couple months ago. Originally, it went for several YEARS without question even though the content in it was clearly written by Ray Chandler and/or one of the Chandler supporters (there was no defense reported and it was all salacious tabloid stories, linking to Ray Chandler's site and book, etc.). In February 2007, I spent time to revise the entire article to make it far more neutral and to explain both sides clearly (allegations and defense). I cited court documents and official reports and the article factually cleared up a lot of myths and clarified the entire case. The revised article was fully approved by Wikipedia editors and remained without conflict until November 2007. At that point, someone supposedly completely destroyed the article and in its place they put a horribly written and unsorced one. Although I did not see the revised article, apparently it was written by a fan who basically trashed the Chandlers without warrant or facts. The article was then voted to be deleted because it lacked facts and was completely POV. So now none of the facts about that case exist on Wikipedia. You'd think they could've just reverted back to the good version of the article, but no. -_-

Click to expand...

You didnt save your copy of it then i take it? We need to get all this fixed up once and for all.

TSCM said:

What really annoys me is that the Wikipedia article about the 1993 Chandler case was completely deleted a couple months ago. Originally, it went for several YEARS without question even though the content in it was clearly written by Ray Chandler and/or one of the Chandler supporters (there was no defense reported and it was all salacious tabloid stories, linking to Ray Chandler's site and book, etc.). In February 2007, I spent time to revise the entire article to make it far more neutral and to explain both sides clearly (allegations and defense). I cited court documents and official reports and the article factually cleared up a lot of myths and clarified the entire case. The revised article was fully approved by Wikipedia editors and remained without conflict until November 2007. At that point, someone supposedly completely destroyed the article and in its place they put a horribly written and unsorced one. Although I did not see the revised article, apparently it was written by a fan who basically trashed the Chandlers without warrant or facts. The article was then voted to be deleted because it lacked facts and was completely POV. So now none of the facts about that case exist on Wikipedia. You'd think they could've just reverted back to the good version of the article, but no. -_-

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's what I hate about Wiki- all your heard work just goes down the toilet because someone doesn't like it. I understand why the last one was taken down- it sucked. But yours would have rocked TSCM. It really sucks yours was re-written.

Did you save it?

What did you expect? Anybody can edit Wikipedia; because of that, it's not really a credible source. It's entertaining, but not really factual.

marnifrances said:

Yeah. That's what I hate about Wiki- all your heard work just goes down the toilet because someone doesn't like it. I understand why the last one was taken down- it sucked. But yours would have rocked TSCM. It really sucks yours was re-written.

Did you save it?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no. I thought I had an early draft of it somewhere on my computer, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

I just can't comprehend why anyone, especially a fan, would deliberately replace a quality and fully factual Wikipedia entry with something that totally went against all of Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements. So, now instead of having a credible entry which informed everyone about the facts and at the same time cleared up many misconceptions, there's nothing. If only I would have checked the modified entry before it got deleted it would've been so easy to revert back to the acceptable version, rather than have it removed completely.

It appears as if the revision that caused the deletion of the article was done on November 1st. The user who I believe was responsible for the rewritten article, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sai2020

^ Apparently, that user believes that nothing even remotely negative can ever be written about Michael Jackson regardless of the context or factuality, and he is constantly changing all sorts of Michael Jackson articles.

The discussion where people considered, and ultimately deleted that entry, is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...olestaion_allegations_against_michael_Jackson

TSCM said:

Unfortunately, no. I thought I had an early draft of it somewhere on my computer, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

I just can't comprehend why anyone, especially a fan, would deliberately replace a quality and fully factual Wikipedia entry with something that totally went against all of Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements. So, now instead of having a credible entry which informed everyone about the facts and at the same time cleared up many misconceptions, there's nothing. If only I would have checked the modified entry before it got deleted it would've been so easy to revert back to the acceptable version, rather than have it removed completely.

It appears as if the revision that caused the deletion of the article was done on November 1st. The user who I believe was responsible for the rewritten article, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sai2020

^ Apparently, that user believes that nothing even remotely negative can ever be written about Michael Jackson regardless of the context or factuality, and he is constantly changing all sorts of Michael Jackson articles.

The discussion where people considered, and ultimately deleted that entry, is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...olestaion_allegations_against_michael_Jackson

Click to expand...

Damn, that really sucks TSCM!

What's your user name by the way? Mines the same- I have actually had bad vandalism on my own user page and it's now fully protected. I have tried to get certain things changed on wiki, but it's hard on the MJ page. They just revert your edits the next day!
But a couple of them are working on the new 1993 page and I did offer to help if they need it. I just hope they do a good job.

I used to be really big on wikipedia. And yep - apart from writing 3 featured articles, the main thing I did was focus on the MJ page and associated pages. And let me tell you - there are a lot of haters on there. I had to campaign just to have "King of Pop" put in the first sentence. And it used to be focussed on just the scandals, with almost nothing about Michael's music. The haters even sink lower, saying stupid things like MJ made up the title "King of Pop" when it was actually Liz Taylor, and there was a big push to put *cringe* 'wacko j@cko' in the first sentence, which I vehemently opposed; this movement was fortunately annihilated.

What I'm trying to say is that it is very hard to remove all the hater-oriented comments and wordings on that page, but it has improved a LOT in the last year, and the key is - small things, here and there, by lots of people. Trust me, small things by lots of people, and you can become a force that is almost unstoppable. The problem is most fans couldn't be bothered to do anything about the wikipedia page. Well, that's my experience in the last few years anyway.

many people use wikipedia as a source. I can say everyone around me look up to wikipedia for information. so something needs to be done to avoid others/non fan being misinformed about MJ. but how can i help?

That's the thing. On something like the MJ page, it gets changed so often, it's scary to think that people rely on it so much. Wiki is good for things other than entertainment. :lol: Because fans and haters will always fight over the information. There's just no possible way to save the page as it is forever... it will always be edited. All you can do really is get involved (which is frustrating believe me) and change things where you can. But be prepared to be challenged and have your edits reverted. :yes:

They edit the "30th Anniversary" page alot aswell, Saying "Veiwers spotted his nose on the stage" Stuff like that gets boring though man, like a broken record.

ha... I actually created the 'Thriller 25' page, but I got so frustrated that this one user kept trying to remove anything positive about MJ in the page at all, and refused to even discuss his changes. I tried to combat this at first, but this lowlife scum LIVES on his computer, and I couldn't keep up with his hater antics. It's sad, but because fans don't seem to care about what happens on wikipedia, nothing much can be done about these kinds of people.

I have some Wiki stories of my own. In the vitiligo page, under the section of well known people with vitiligo, I had added Lee Thomas, and edited the "Michael Jackson claims..." bullet because it obviously intends that it isn't a fact. Finally now, someone was able to correct this once and for all, and included a citation. Still, the user in the discussion really was dumb as ****.

Its well known that those so-called court depositions were fudged to add some shred of credibility. Jackson never had vitiligo, he used it as an excuse to cover that fact that he was using de-pigmentation therapy to become to white.--124.176.59.2 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to go into detail how illogical that statement was, theres too many wrongs and full of things that aren't scientifically possible...its laughable. I let him have it in the discussion page, and still hasn't replied to my comment yet :lol:

TSCM said:

What really annoys me is that the Wikipedia article about the 1993 Chandler case was completely deleted a couple months ago. Originally, it went for several YEARS without question even though the content in it was clearly written by Ray Chandler and/or one of the Chandler supporters (there was no defense reported and it was all salacious tabloid stories, linking to Ray Chandler's site and book, etc.). In February 2007, I spent time to revise the entire article to make it far more neutral and to explain both sides clearly (allegations and defense). I cited court documents and official reports and the article factually cleared up a lot of myths and clarified the entire case. The revised article was fully approved by Wikipedia editors and remained without conflict until November 2007. At that point, someone supposedly completely destroyed the article and in its place they put a horribly written and unsorced one. Although I did not see the revised article, apparently it was written by a fan who basically trashed the Chandlers without warrant or facts. The article was then voted to be deleted because it lacked facts and was completely POV. So now none of the facts about that case exist on Wikipedia. You'd think they could've just reverted back to the good version of the article, but no. -_-

Click to expand...

TSCM said:

Unfortunately, no. I thought I had an early draft of it somewhere on my computer, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

I just can't comprehend why anyone, especially a fan, would deliberately replace a quality and fully factual Wikipedia entry with something that totally went against all of Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements. So, now instead of having a credible entry which informed everyone about the facts and at the same time cleared up many misconceptions, there's nothing. If only I would have checked the modified entry before it got deleted it would've been so easy to revert back to the acceptable version, rather than have it removed completely.

It appears as if the revision that caused the deletion of the article was done on November 1st. The user who I believe was responsible for the rewritten article, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sai2020

^ Apparently, that user believes that nothing even remotely negative can ever be written about Michael Jackson regardless of the context or factuality, and he is constantly changing all sorts of Michael Jackson articles.

The discussion where people considered, and ultimately deleted that entry, is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...olestaion_allegations_against_michael_Jackson

Click to expand...

Its sad that when I had rather encounter someone rewrite an MJ entry by some naysayer/hater than a overtly obsessed fan, that is so embarrassing -_-

vinniram said:

ha... I actually created the 'Thriller 25' page, but I got so frustrated that this one user kept trying to remove anything positive about MJ in the page at all, and refused to even discuss his changes. I tried to combat this at first, but this lowlife scum LIVES on his computer, and I couldn't keep up with his hater antics. It's sad, but because fans don't seem to care about what happens on wikipedia, nothing much can be done about these kinds of people.

Click to expand...

Fans should care, given the fact that Michael's Wikipedia entry is one of the top two results on Google, and Michael's main entry in the English Wikipedia (and presumably in many international versions) is typically within the top 150 most read Wikipedia articles of any given month. Though, it does become incredibly frustrating when so much time is spent creating content and making revisions, only to have those changes rolled back regardless of how factual and neutral they are by someone else simply because of their own seemingly uninformed POV biasness against Jackson. It's even worse when some of the higher ranked "reviewers" are straight-up haters.

Now, there is a new service on the horizon that brings even more concern to me. Google announced plans to deploy their very own Wikipedia-like service in the near future. However, instead of allowing the public to create and manage each article, they will instead select a designated (but non-affiliated) person to create and maintain each specific topic. In addition, these Google-hosted entries will be the very top search results for all matching queries. This causes concern because, from what I understand, ANY person regardless of their credentials or personal bias may end up being the official authority of the Michael Jackson entry, and any other entry for that matter. I think it is a very bad and unnecessary idea from what I have heard thus far.

TSCM said:

Fans should care, given the fact that Michael's Wikipedia entry is one of the top two results on Google, and Michael's main entry in the English Wikipedia (and presumably in many international versions) is typically within the top 150 most read Wikipedia articles of any given month. Though, it does become incredibly frustrating when so much time is spent creating content and making revisions, only to have those changes rolled back regardless of how factual and neutral they are by someone else simply because of their own seemingly uninformed POV biasness against Jackson. It's even worse when some of the higher ranked "reviewers" are straight-up haters.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what makes fans not care though, because their hard work gets thrown into the bin on a regular basis. And the "non fans" will argue that fans have a distorted POV and bias which is why we have no credibility and right to contribute. :lol: It's a bit of a joke and it ends up getting boring- all that struggling and fighting. It also makes it hard when Michael Jackson fans' pages are consistently vandalised.

Now, there is a new service on the horizon that brings even more concern to me. Google announced plans to deploy their very own Wikipedia-like service in the near future. However, instead of allowing the public to create and manage each article, they will instead select a designated (but non-affiliated) person to create and maintain each specific topic. In addition, these Google-hosted entries will be the very top search results for all matching queries. This causes concern because, from what I understand, ANY person regardless of their credentials or personal bias may end up being the official authority of the Michael Jackson entry, and any other entry for that matter. I think it is a very bad and unnecessary idea from what I have heard thus far.

Click to expand...

Now that is scary. :mello:

Wikipedia is a very biased site. All those asses out there just want to tell their idiotic opinions on every stupid thing. I usually skip the pages where one can have an opinion, cause those articles usually suck. But it's still a great resource of information on some things. Nowadays Michael's page looks pretty good.

I haven't read wiki's article on the case in awhile, but I remember last time I did, they were stating the Arvizo's account of what happened on a plane ride as factual. Literally passing off "Jackson licked the boy's face" and crap like that as if it's just historical documentation of what happened lol.

SmoothieCriminal said:

Wikipedia is a very biased site. All those asses out there just want to tell their idiotic opinions on every stupid thing. I usually skip the pages where one can have an opinion, cause those articles usually suck. But it's still a great resource of information on some things. Nowadays Michael's page looks pretty good.

Click to expand...

Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Just checked the Vitiligo discussion page, still haven't gotten a reply from the moderator who I challenged his so called 'well known..' explanation. However, the official text on the wiki page as listed is:

Michael Jackson, pop star, revealed himself as a vitiligo sufferer during his interview with Oprah in 1993. He is perhaps the most well-known celebrity clearly associated with the disease. Despite his claim to suffer from vitiligo, it is widely believed that the changes in his physical appearance result from deliberate lightening of his skin.[13]

Click to expand...

I guess thats good enough.

TSCM said:

Fans should care, given the fact that Michael's Wikipedia entry is one of the top two results on Google, and Michael's main entry in the English Wikipedia (and presumably in many international versions) is typically within the top 150 most read Wikipedia articles of any given month. Though, it does become incredibly frustrating when so much time is spent creating content and making revisions, only to have those changes rolled back regardless of how factual and neutral they are by someone else simply because of their own seemingly uninformed POV biasness against Jackson. It's even worse when some of the higher ranked "reviewers" are straight-up haters.

Now, there is a new service on the horizon that brings even more concern to me. Google announced plans to deploy their very own Wikipedia-like service in the near future. However, instead of allowing the public to create and manage each article, they will instead select a designated (but non-affiliated) person to create and maintain each specific topic. In addition, these Google-hosted entries will be the very top search results for all matching queries. This causes concern because, from what I understand, ANY person regardless of their credentials or personal bias may end up being the official authority of the Michael Jackson entry, and any other entry for that matter. I think it is a very bad and unnecessary idea from what I have heard thus far.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Where the heck are Evan and Jordan Chandler's Wiki pages?

Figures They're both gone.

Actually the main person on the wikipedia article was Me & Realist2, i idid most of the work till i got banned so most of the work done recently is by Realist2 and he's a big fan.

oh wait, never worked on that specific article

But hoe far are you going to get by typing this:
"THIS PAGE HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO RUMORS AND ONE SIDED VIEWS ON THE TRIAL. COURT TRANSCRIPTS ARE RELEASED FOR ALL TO READ. READ THE TRUTH........" wikipedia will just view that as vandalism, correct words don't delete.

Yes guys he changed it to that.

And then he got warned:

how about improving the article instead of deleting large portions of its content? -- ∂ (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like this place, Wikipedia has moderators. So not just anything can be put in a Wikipedia article. You have to have sources to back up everything. So first off, you can be assured there is no false information on Wikipedia, and if there is, it wont be there for long. Secondly, the Wikipedia moderators try to make every article as unbiased as possible. So if you ever come across an article that does seem biased, you simply have to tag and moderators will check it out. Also keep in mind, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, nor is a hate site. So the point of any Michael Jackson article is not to make him look good, or look bad. It's just made to present the facts about him in a very unbiased, unfiltered way. There are no sides in an encyclopaedic entry. So don't get angry just because the Wikipedia article doesn't make MJ look like God. It's not supposed to.