Talk:Living with Michael Jackson
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
It's fine after all edit
Actually I think the article is fine. Bashir had indeed been very obviously biased by cutting out certain takes that highlighted Jackson's innocence. --tan prof (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline edit
Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
POV and factual inaccuracies edit
There were numerous inconsistencies between the content of the "summary" section and the content of the video, which have been corrected. There is also much editorial or opinionated language which I have attempted to neutralize. Please see the edits by me on 7/8 for specific examples. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"documentary critical of the musician" NPOV violation edit
The documentary is full of very critical opinion not based on fact, particularly at the end, and is not a neutral evaluation of the subject. To say that it is critical is merely descriptive and not a POV. To say that it is tabloid expose', while it might also be accurate, is a POV. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- With all leads, the first first line should always be used to assert what the article is no about. Wikipedia discourages labeling singers "grammy award winning" in the opening line because it sets an inappropriate WP:TONE. The lead should mention the critical nature of the journalist, but not right in the first line. — Please comment R2 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the descriptor as qualifying what kind of documentary it is. That is, as a sub-category. An additional reason for adding the descriptor is that the description of the piece as simply "documentary" leads one to believe that it is objective, when actually it is highly editorialized and controversial. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed obvious opinion statement about interview edit
Removed the statement "A more fitting title for this documentary would have been 'Martin Bashir judges and criticizes every move Michael Jackson makes because Martin knows best'" which appeared at the end of the Summary section. Clearly biased opinion that has no basis in a factual article. Evixir (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)