Arckangel
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2019
- Messages
- 110
- Points
- 18
Just a note... This is NOT an attempt at canvassing, which means inviting like-minded people to take part in a Wikipedia article. This is just a general complaint about the bias of that site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Vanity_Fair_as_a_source_of_facts
Somebody expressed concerns about the veracity of certain claims in Vanity Fair. An editor responded that Vanity Fair is a reputable source. I then replied by saying that though it may be a reputable source, its article aren't always 100% factual. And I used one of Maureen Orth's latest articles (mentioned by Taj Jackson) as an example. I provided linked sources incl. Taj Jackson's statements and Michael Jackson's autopsy report.
As usual, I was very polite and sensical. Another editor then responded in a catty way like I were off-topic, not making sense or something, and I retorted:
"My views? [...], instead of trying to ridicule other editors, I politely and respectfully suggest you learn how to read. This is the second time I quote somebody, and I am told it's "my views". I quoted Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew. Am I Taj Jackson? No! So why are you making it sound like it was my own statement? A Vanity Fair article claims Jordan Chandler correctly identified Michael Jackson's private parts when he did not. My point is, Vanity Fair articles are not always 100% factual. I provided sources incl. Taj Jackson's tweet, his interview and Michael Jackson's autopsy report. Is that clear enough for you or do you need a translator?"
Almost everytime I try to give my input in certain articles, I am met with cattiness or downright rudeness. This is why I won't give to their fundraisers.
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Inclusion_of_Aaron_Carter
That article included a list of boys who claimed to have been molested by Jackson, and a list of boys who stated they weren't. All I did was add Aaron Carter to the list, and I included a source, and an editor took issue w/ it and accused Carter of giving TMZ that interview (the editor called it a "publicity stunt") in order "to raise his public profile". A few more editors weighed in, and the list of supporters was erased from the article...
I argued the article needed to be balanced, but I was told that was "false balance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Vanity_Fair_as_a_source_of_facts
Somebody expressed concerns about the veracity of certain claims in Vanity Fair. An editor responded that Vanity Fair is a reputable source. I then replied by saying that though it may be a reputable source, its article aren't always 100% factual. And I used one of Maureen Orth's latest articles (mentioned by Taj Jackson) as an example. I provided linked sources incl. Taj Jackson's statements and Michael Jackson's autopsy report.
As usual, I was very polite and sensical. Another editor then responded in a catty way like I were off-topic, not making sense or something, and I retorted:
"My views? [...], instead of trying to ridicule other editors, I politely and respectfully suggest you learn how to read. This is the second time I quote somebody, and I am told it's "my views". I quoted Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew. Am I Taj Jackson? No! So why are you making it sound like it was my own statement? A Vanity Fair article claims Jordan Chandler correctly identified Michael Jackson's private parts when he did not. My point is, Vanity Fair articles are not always 100% factual. I provided sources incl. Taj Jackson's tweet, his interview and Michael Jackson's autopsy report. Is that clear enough for you or do you need a translator?"
Almost everytime I try to give my input in certain articles, I am met with cattiness or downright rudeness. This is why I won't give to their fundraisers.
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Inclusion_of_Aaron_Carter
That article included a list of boys who claimed to have been molested by Jackson, and a list of boys who stated they weren't. All I did was add Aaron Carter to the list, and I included a source, and an editor took issue w/ it and accused Carter of giving TMZ that interview (the editor called it a "publicity stunt") in order "to raise his public profile". A few more editors weighed in, and the list of supporters was erased from the article...
I argued the article needed to be balanced, but I was told that was "false balance".
Last edited: