Talk:Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

Promotional single box
Awesome work, Pyrrhus. Everyone should be happy with it now. :3 Silver  seren C 01:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope so. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good. The older version was wrong- a "single" is very different from a "promo single", they mean different things, and so would always have been reverted. However, this infobox makes it quite clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.254 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Awesome Infobox Phyrrhus16! ;)OttomanJackson 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

Thriller Live Cast Version
Thriller Live Cast has released speechless as a digital download single in UK, what about to add this information? http://www.speechlessmjtribute.com/ Parabola1999 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a reliable source. Crystal Clear x3 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not have said a third party resource is required in the case of if a store is selling a product or not since it is pretty objective information. (The Elfoid (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Explain my edits to get a consensus
My edits were reverted because apparently, the state of the page when it went to GA/FA was agreed by consensus. The edit justification for a vast revert was that in these circumstances, I can't drastically change the page without first requesting a consensus. Normally when you edit a Wikipedia page, anyone can do anything, a revert can apply if the editor who does the revert disapproves of the edits made. This wasn't "your edits were bad, we can't have that!" with an explanation. It was "you didn't get a consensus to make major edits, so you can't do any" without exploring their correctness.

Upon enquiring, I'm informed I had spelling/grammar issues. Minor, trivial things to deal with - if I'd been asked to proof read it I coulda gone over it in 5 and probably found them all. And so far, looking over it, I've not spotted them. Another issue, apparently, was chronology. Again, not a major part of my edits - it was the content I edited that was the focus, anything else was to do with presenting my variant of the page better, but...if the layout had just been changed back to how it was, most of my edits would still have improved the page.

As it is, I was then instructed all my edits had to be discussed, in full, in detail, one by one on here, if I wanted any of them put back in. I don't approve of this posessive attitude towards a page, and I think a cynical mass revert which clearly indicates not every edit was looked at carefully, given how I carefully explained most of my changes as I went along and not one of them was deemed acceptable (including correcting of spelling errors). I did it gradually, step by step over a period of days and split into a number of edits so I could specifically include a full, detailed explanation for most of the changes, satisfying the picky-picky, protective nature of most editors of Michael Jackson pages.

At the same time, Realist2 and I's teamwork only worked when we disagreed with each other, so maybe some good can come of this.

The explanation of each edit made
The single was not available in CD AND radio airplay format. Promo radio versions were the only ones given. The actual track, "Speechless" is on the Invincible album, but this discusses the standalone release.

I changed the reception from positive to mixed, because the balanced examples here indicate that. I removed that commentary focussed on the lyrics, music and a capellas because that's just re-iterating the entire contents of the song. Almost any music review focusses on the central vocal spots, the lyrical content, and the background music, it reads like a definition of the word review. Are their any examples of what would be considered a standard definition example of a music review which do not cover this ground?

Layout disagreements I understand with - fine, keep it your way if you want, it wasn't the focus of my edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374812534&oldid=374660867 - this edit was fairly explained. Does it further the reader's knowledge or understanding, of the song having that information there? Does the contextual information explain the presence of the song in the preview, the possible reaction, or its inclusion in the preview's importance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374813194&oldid=374812534 - this contexualised and explained the song's presence in This Is It rather than giving the impression of it being trivial information. The fact it was going to be performed at the show is far more important than Jackson being heard singing it once. There was no explanation as to why this was notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374813346&oldid=374813194 - this corrects a spelling error, and the fact that stating it was released, rather than just mentioning it's existence, is really pushing the fine details into the extreme zone. If someone says "There was a Michael Jackson documentary", there really is no need to say "They did a MIchael Jackson documentary, and they released it too!". I also corrected the fact that a residency is not a tour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374813591&oldid=374813346 - this edit removes the repetition about the promotional single release, and the track-listing - both of which are directly explained twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374813817&oldid=374813591 - you can have that one back if you want, it's a minor quibble. Given the focus of the article is this RECORDED VERSION of the song rather than the song itself, I tweaked it to suit. But yeah, ok, keep that one if it upsets you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=374814165&oldid=374813817 - it's a bit of a weasel word, I think it sounds like it's trying to make the event into a bigger one than it was. The sentence states some people heard it, it implies nothing else, and no other sentences imply anyone else did. Explain the need for this explanative word!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speechless_%28Michael_Jackson_song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=375652845&oldid=374814165 - post production is something which involves the changing of a product after the main production but before release. That can include adding samples, possibly overdubs, mixing, editing, mastering. None of which is discussed in the section with this heading. And it didn't have a final release, it was only....released.

Now, this is far from the end of my sequence of edits, but I figured, that's enough to chew over for now. It can all be assessed as it is, because most of those edits stand up for themselves outside of the wider context of the article, so my later edits don't need referring to to justify why I made these changes. And, if any of them are put back into the article, further editing to make them fit would not be a significant obstacle to getting it done.

If User:Pyrrhus16 would be kind enough to glance this over and see that some of it is agreeable, we can progress.

(Chill (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Speechless (Michael Jackson song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021002023210/http://salon.com/people/col/reit/2002/01/29/nptues/index.html to http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/2002/01/29/nptues/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307074331/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/doc/333971244.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Jun%2019%2C%202001&author=Megan%20Turner&pub=New%20York%20Post&edition=&startpage=&desc=ACTION%20JACKSON%20-%20WILL%20THE%20KING%20OF%20POP%20REIGN%20AGAIN%3F to https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/74232671.html?dids=74232671%3A74232671&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Jun+19%2C+2001&author=Megan+Turner&pub=New+York+Post&desc=ACTION+JACKSON+-+WILL+THE+KING+OF+POP+REIGN+AGAIN%3F&pqatl=google
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307082426/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/doc/333969304.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Oct%2030%2C%202001&author=&pub=New%20York%20Post&edition=&startpage=&desc=HAND%27S%20DOWN%2C%20NOT%20OUT to https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/87003320.html?dids=87003320%3A87003320&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Oct+30%2C+2001&author=&pub=New+York+Post&desc=HAND%27S+DOWN%2C+NOT+OUT&pqatl=google
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109044622/https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/speechless-a-tribute-to-michael/id375774363 to https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/speechless-a-tribute-to-michael/id375774363

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)