Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 41) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{FAQ}}
{{WPBiography
{{American English}}
|living=yes
{{Article history
|class=GA
|action1=FAC
|priority=Top
|action1date=12:27, 27 January 2006
|musician-work-group=yes
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive1
}}
|action1result=failed
{{GA|89682320}}
|action1oldid=36933804
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{controversial}}


|action2=FAC
<!--Archivebox-->
|action2date=00:24, 31 January 2006
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive 2
|-
|action2result=failed
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|15px|Archive]]
|action2oldid=37434093
|[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]: [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 1|1]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 2|2]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 3|3]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 4|4]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 5|5]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 6|6]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 7|7]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 8|8]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 9|9]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 10|10]] | [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 11|11]]
|}
<!--Archivebox-->


|action3=PR
|action3date=08:49, 1 February 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive1
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=37648508


|action4=FAC
|action4date=00:11, 8 March 2006
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive2
|action4result=failed
|action4oldid=42709882


|action5=GAN
== Some thoughts from a fan ==
|action5date=08:47, 18 September 2006
|action5link=Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 10#GA Failure
|action5result=failed
|action5oldid=76194286


|action6=GAN
Okay, I'm completely new to Wiki so go easy on me. First off, interesting debate here and much more civilised than any MJ message boards! But I do think there's a lot of insider MJ missing from this encyclopedia write-up. I wish more of the message board people would come here and help out. Here are a few notes for now:
|action6date=19:30, 23 November 2006
|action6link=Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 11#Promoting GA
|action6result=passed
|action6oldid=89682320


|action7=GAR
This write-up is extremely unbalanced, not in terms of fact/opinion but in the weight that's given to the last 5 or 6 six years versus his earlier career. Obviously, writers have more fresh facts/data for this time period, but it's unfair to lump Thriller into a 10-year period and then give a special section to a 2-year period involving the Bashir video.
|action7date=22:34, May 11, 2007
|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 17#Michael Jackson
|action7result=kept
|action7oldid=130241415


|action8=PR
Here's how I'd divide this write-up to make it more encyclopedic. I'll give categories here with a few notes on things that might be changed/added:
|action8date=03:39, 18 January 2008
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive2
|action8result=reviewed
|action8oldid=185009939


|action9=FAC
"Early life and career: 1966 – 1981"
|action9date=03:17, 24 January 2008
Make end of title 1981 not 1980. You could even divide into "Early life and the Jackson 5: 1966 - 1975" and "The Jacksons and Going Solo: 1976 - 1981." Section needs some work. Where are all the details about the Jackson 5 and Jacksons? It's strange that we get a petty exchange between MJ and Gloria Allred (under "Berlin and Bashir"), but no real details or quotes here. Relationship between MJ and Berry Gordy (his second Dad), fact that MJ recorded so much and "missed out on his childhood" (common theme in later interviews), alleged abuse from father, blossoming dance talent, appearance in "Free to Be You And Me" video, robot dance move, Ed Sullivan appearance (!), more hits from Jacksons including "Shake Your Body (Down To The Ground)", emergence of MJ as songwriter on songs such as "Blues Away" (first solo writing credit, off The Jacksons) and "Heartbreak Hotel" (off Triumph) and "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and "Working Day and Night" (on Off the Wall). There's a lot to add here.
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive3
|action9result=failed
|action9oldid=186492444


|action10=PR
"The Thriller Era: 1982 - 1985"
|action10date=2008-04-18, 01:46:16
I'd make this a separate section. This is the era that defined his career and changed pop music! It's missing a lot of details; again, why do we get so many details from Bashir video and zero quotes from this era?! Motown 25 performance at the very least needs some beefing up. This was considered a revolution when it aired. Maybe add anecdote about Fred Astaire calling up MJ the next day and telling him he was a "hell of a mover." Maybe some quotes from MJ about the album, what he wanted to do with it? Maybe notes on impact of Thriller video (on other artists, commonly mimicked choreography, etc.), fact that he brought Emmanuelle Lewis and Brooke Shields to the Grammy Awards, fact that he started jogging with the military and wearing some crazy military garb. So much to add, so little of it here!
|action10link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive3
|action10result=reviewed
|action10oldid=206393290


|action11=FAC
"More Success and Controversy: 1986 - 1992"
|action11date=14:30, April 25, 2008
This would be a new section, possibly with a different title. Maybe "Bad and Dangerous: 1986-1992"? Seems cumbersome to list the album titles, but that's really the best way to chart his career. This section needs a mention of the fact that the National Inquirer claims MJ *gave them* the pictures of the hyperbaric chamber and told them to print it with the word "Weird" in the headline, meaning MJ wanted some "weird" tabloid coverage and toyed with the tabloids for a bit, though it obviously got out of hand. I've seen this mentioned in several biographies and (I think) the show 60 minutes. No mention of film Moonwalker?! Also mention fact that Oprah interview was a major television event, over 50 million viewers, I believe. Dangerous album gets majorly shortchanged here. And "which was accompanied by a controversial music video featuring scenes of a sexual nature, violence and racism" is weak; the controversial part was the dance sequence at the *end* of the video, and there was no "racism" just some KKK graffiti on a window that he angrily smashes (though I don't believe that was in original version). Should also mention morphing technology used in video, which was groundbreaking at the time.
|action11link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive4
|action11result=failed
|action11oldid=208111836


|action12=PR
"First Allegations and Aftermath: 1993 - 2001"
|action12date=00:40, 3 July 2008
If later sections are going to be really specific, this needs to be a separate section. Really, the allegations defined this era; all his music is a reaction to it, both HIStory and Blood on the Dancefloor. Lots of angry, weird music. And what about all the crazy promotion for the HIStory album?! He floated a statue of himself down the Thames, for crying out loud, and the promo video is totally over the top propaganda (in a fabulous way, IMO). Also, re: "Jew me, sue me" lyrics, I don't think this is encyclopedic because it gives a one-sided version. MJ has said "I was using myself as the victim" and identifying with the persecution of Jews or something to that effect; in other words, he's saying "Jew me" (or, persecute me the way the Jews were persecuted), and then he says "sue me" because...it rhymes. It's breathtakingly naive, but this is what he claims. Worth noting. For Invincible, you might note the efforts to bring MJ back to his earlier Off the Wall sound on a few songs like "Butterflies." It's also noteworthy that he *finally* started singing songs about relationships again and stopped singing about 1993 allegations. This section is missing Madison Square Garden 30th Anniversary shows, on 9/7 and 9/10/01 (a wealth of freakshow details, also noteworthy for pairing him with Liza and producer David Gest, and MJ was later Best Man at their crazy wedding). Might also note that MJ fled NYC after 9/11, and Corey Feldman claims he didn't offer him a ride in his limo, causing a rift in their friendship (petty detail?).
|action12link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive4
|action12result=reviewed
|action12oldid=223198298


|action13=FAC
Okay, I think rest of the sections can keep their titles, but the trial section needs beefing up! So many details worth adding there, including fact that E! re-enacted the trial scenes daily, tabloid coverage, snazzy Mr. Blackwell-approved outfits daily, pajama mishap, reports of physical/mental deterioation, anticipation of the verdict; really, in my mind, the frenzy over the trial is eerily almost as fervid as frenzy during Thriller era, like a counterbalance to his career. Not an encyclopedic theory, but worth noting for context.
|action13date=00:07, 28 July 2008
|action13link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson
|action13result=passed
|action13oldid=228280483


|action14=PR
That's all for now. Sorry to take up so much space. Feel free to comment, edit, delete, whichever. I'll be back to make some comments to the main text if people like my ideas. --[[User:Steverino|Steverino]] 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
|action14date=01:21, 23 April 2009
|action14link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive5
|action14result=reviewed
|action14oldid=285492613


|currentstatus=FA
:I agree with you Steverino, this article needs beefing up. [[User:Aeneiden-Rex|Aeneiden-Rex]] 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
|maindate=June 25, 2010
:I think u should change the article the way u've written here, it's good.[[User:Aeneiden-Rex|Aeneiden-Rex]] 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
|topic=music
|itn1date=22 April 2004
|itn2date=25 June 2009
|otd1date=2019-08-29|otd1oldid=912899852
}}
{{Afd-merged-from|Michael Jackson's religion|Michael Jackson's religion (2nd nomination)|16 November 2009}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Jackson, Michael|1=
{{WikiProject Michael Jackson|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes |filmbio-priority=Low |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=Top |core=yes}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject R&B and Soul Music|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Record Production|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Dance|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Janet Jackson|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=mid|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high|USMusic=yes|USMusic-importance=top|IN=yes|IN-importance=Mid|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=mid|portal1-name=United States|portal1-link=Selected culture biography/21}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
|author=[[Declan McCullagh|McCullagh, Declan]] |date=June 25, 2009 |url= http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10273277-93.html |title=Michael Jackson's death roils Wikipedia |org=''[[CNET Networks]]''


|author2=Rawlinson, Linnie |date2=June 25, 2009 |url2= http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/michael.jackson.internet/index.html |title2=Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him |org2=''[[CNN]]''
::I agree entirely. In all truthfulness, Jackson's career and height of popularity was in the earlier years and those sections should be far larger than the sections regarding recent controversies. There needs to be some work done. But the problem is if Jackson fans make any changes trying to ballance the early years non-Jackson fans tend to call it POV. If the controversies are made larger the Jackson fans get upset and then wars start and nothing gets done. I feel that fact is more important than rumours and possibilities. I'm not saying the controversies do not belong - but this article needs more about Jackson's career not his private/social life - he is afterall an entertainer. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


|author3=Boyd, E.B. |date3=June 27, 2009 |url3= http://web.archive.org/web/20090629065332/http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/wikipedia_tech_team_learns_about_king_of_pops_death_when_their_servers_crash_120046.asp |title3=Wikipedia Tech Team Learns About King of Pop, Rock, and Soul Death When Their Servers Crash |org3=''[[Mediabistro.com]]''
:::I actually disagree a bit and think that it's acceptable to list the controversies in detail. It's part of his legacy, whether fans like it or not. I believe more than 50 million people watched the announcement of the trial verdict, which is about the number of people who have bought the Thriller album (and same number who watched Oprah interview!). So I think the career and the controversy should balance each other out similarly in this article. The only thing I have a problem with is the fact that huge chunks of career are done in a few paragraphs whereas the last few years are picked apart year by year. I'll go into the article and edit a bit if I have some time this weekend. [[User:12.149.50.2|12.149.50.2]] 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


|author4=Shiels, Maggie |date4=June 28, 2009 |url4= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8120324.stm |title4=Web slows after Jackson's death |org4=''[[BBC News]]''
:Oh I totally agree that the controversies are nescicary to the article, however as you said, I do not think that they should be the largest section or that is to say they should be balanced out. They are an important part of Jackson's life however so is the music. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


|author5=Cohen, Noam |date5=June 26, 2009 |url5= http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06//with-jackson-entry-wikipedia-may-have-set-a-record/ |title5=With Jackson Entry, Wikipedia May Have Set a Record |org5=''[[The New York Times]]''
::::The controversies should be listed, but not too long. It gets boring and most of it is pretty much heresay anyway. [[User:Snowbound|Snowbound]] 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


|author6=Cohen, Noam |date6=July 19, 2009 |url6= http://nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html |title6=Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos |org6=''[[The New York Times]]''
The controversies have by far surpassed and ended his music career, which is why he's bankrupt and living in exile.


|date7=August 17, 2009 |url7= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title7=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 |org7=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |author7=(none)
I think what ehmjay says is right about people will claim POV is being used. However, personally I think Jackson had a great music career, and this should be described in great detail, but the controversies have indeed changed the way we view this man. I think his controversies have sadly overshadowed and blighted a great career.[[User:Littlepaulscholes|Littlepaulscholes]] 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


|date8=October 12, 2012 |url8= http://www.metro.co.uk/news/newsfocus/914761-edits-on-winehouse-skrillex-and-wile-e-coyote-the-role-of-a-wikipedian#ixzz296Ks68 |title8=Edits on Winehouse, Skrillex and Wile E Coyote: The role of a Wikipedian |org8=''Metro''
: I agree with Steverino. I think there should be more rigour and accuracy in the redaction of this article pretending for wikipedia (remember that it can be viewed by millions of people!). And it is nice to adorn the text with references, but they should be used more precisely, as for example in the case of the videoclip Black or White:
<blockquote>
In November 1991, Michael Jackson released Dangerous. The major hit from Dangerous was "Black or White". The single was accompanied by a controversial video which featured scenes of a sexual nature as well as violence and racism. The video was banned on most music-television channels until these scenes were removed.[31]
</blockquote>
Personally I think this redaction leads to negative misunderstanding. If you go to reference [31], you will find a text stating that the controverse arised from the somewhat violent and sexual scenes in the videoclip, as anyone would also slightly agree to by watching them. However in the article for wikipedia, these aspects are undelicately juxtaposed with "racism".


|date9=June 11, 2014 |url9=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/06/11/the-most-influential-person-on-wikipedia-is-someone-youve-probably-never-heard-of/ |title9=The most influential person on Wikipedia is someone you’ve probably never heard of |org9= ''[[Washington Post]]''
Another example of unprecision or lack of information leading to prejudice is the description of the whitening of the skin of Michael Jackson. Where can the reader find in the corresponding paragraph (see "1987-1990: Bad and controversies"...) a reference to the official claim by Michael Jackson that he is affected by the vitiligo? This skin condition affects at least one in every hundred people in countries throughout the world [http://www.vitiligosociety.org.uk/ Vitiligo Society UK]. There are also some photos of Michael Jackson in the 80's-90's where his hands appear with the typical heterogen brown patches on white skin.
}}

<!-- breaking color barrier for music videos (Billie Jean) -->
Finally the article focuses too much not only on controversial "facts", but also on financial aspects. As far as I know, Michael Jackson is a recognized musician and a person with humanitarian thoughts and actions, even if these aspects are not covered by some parts of the media. I wish the redactor to take more care in this article. [[User:83.59.24.28|83.59.24.28]] 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Gs/talk notice|mj}}

{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
== Inclusion of nicknames ==
{{All time pageviews|133}}
=== King of Pop ===
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2009 Top 50 Report|2009]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], and [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]]}}

{{Top 25 Report|Apr 17 2016|Aug 26 2018|Mar 3 2019|Mar 10 2019}}
I believe that there should be a reference in the starting sentence of the article to Jackson's fan name "The King of Pop". I THINK that this has been discussed before, but that was a LONG time ago and I wasn't involved in that. Below I will provide evidence as to why I believe a reference should be added.
{{Annual readership}}

}}
'''1)''' Other articles with common media/fan-dubbed names:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*[[Elvis Presley]] has an extensive 17 words explaining various naming conventions
|algo = old(45d)
*[[Steve McQueen]]'s nickname 'The King of Cool' is given
|archive = Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive %(counter)d

|counter = 41
'''2)''' When you type "King of Pop" into Google, '''the first FIFTEEN hits (the entire first page and half the second) solely relate to Michael Jackson''', proving that this nickname is in no way 'unused' or 'rare', but is in fact very much alive and well.
|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{tan}}
'''3)''' In front of THOUSANDS of fans in Tokyo, '''Michael Jackson is not only named the 'King of Pop', but also the 'King of Pop, Rock and Soul''''. Here's the link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy88VCY3wU0]
|minthreadsleft = 4

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
'''4)''' On CNN.com, when "The King of Pop" is typed into search under a Cnn.com search, there are more than '''50 pages related to Michael Jackson directly'''. The link is here, [http://search.cnn.com/pages/search.jsp?currentPage=1&query=King+of+Pop&sortby=Date], and it proves that '''"The King of Pop" is a label still used by the INTERNATIONAL MEDIA''' when discussing Jackson, and it is used quite frequently. This is no minority fan name. This is a name that is wide spread.
|target=Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive index

|mask1=Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive <#>
'''5)''' In terms of foreign language wikipedias, the following have the nickname 'The King of Pop' in the introduction (I'll put the links here so that you all don't accuse me of lying):
|mask2=Talk:Michael Jackson/Quotations
* Spanish Wikipedia [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson]
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
* French Wikipedia [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson]
}}
* German Wikipedia [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson]
* Swedish Wikipedia [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson]
The 2nd largest language by distribution in the world, French, gives the nickname. German, also a widespread language, gives the nickname. Spanish, still widely spoken in Mediterranean areas as well as foreign communities, gives the nickname. And Swedish Wikipedia, a language abundant in the Nordic countries and Scandinavia, gives the nickname. Obviously it is widespread. If anyone thinks it is not, look at the proof (use Bable Fish Translation if unsure of the languages).

I will be adding more evidence as time passes, as I'm sure many here will be quick to crucify my opinions. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:I swear this page is going back to like it was back in november 2004.--[[User:I'll bring the food|I&#39;ll bring the food]] 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::Can people just stop digging their noses in the past and actually bother to read the evidence, not just blatantly accuse me of stirring up trouble? Read the evidence at LEAST, for God's sake. It is really quite clever what some people here are doing; they are refusing to even COMMENT on this post, therefore making me unable to change ANYTHING, and therefore keeping the nick name out of the title. Clever, but unless you can tell me why we shouldn't have the title in here WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED, I don't see why I shouldn't just put it in. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I suggest you reach consensus first before overriding an already agreed consensus. As it already stands it was decided to remove BOTH well used nicknames, ie. King of Pop and Wacko Jacko. If you want to re-add one, you will have to be prepared to add the other as AGREED by consensus of all involved parties in this artcle. I have removed KOP until such time a FRESH consensus is agreed, this is per Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Funky Monkey|<font style="background: #CC9900" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Funky Monkey&nbsp;'''</font>]][[User talk:Funky Monkey|<font style="background:#CD00CD" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;'''</font>]] 08:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ditto Funky Monkey. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Funky Monkey, I agree we should wait until there is a concensus before we add it into the article, but Paaerduag does make some good points. Perhaps it's time we discuss it again? After all, that is the point of this discussion section. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Both nicknames by which he has been known are fully covered in the article. Frankly, putting KoP in the lead 'graph only serves, it seems to me, to make the days in which it was apt seem very long ago indeed. [[User:Robertissimo|Robertissimo]] 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::It is absolutely fine to discuss this issue, but it is absolutely not fine for Paaerduag to try to independently overrule the consensus and insert words which have been very contentious and were removed after an agreement was reached during a very, very long debate. Paaerduag needs to negotiate a new consensus if he wants to put the nicknames back in, instead of acting on his own and ignoring the existing one. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree Sarah. I hadn't realized he had gone and made any changes - which I agree was not a good idea to do before we had discussed it. Anyways - I agree that it is a change worth looking into - but not entirely needed. Either way, I'd love to discuss it (in a calm and reasonable manner).[[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear something up. I knew full well that what I was doing was wrong, and NOW I regret it in part. This is because people were simply ignoring my comments, and that is how they were effectively blocking my opinions (shared by others) out. This really frustrated me, and I apologize for my outburst. I hope that you don't hold that against me, because it was swiftly and justly reverted. Anyway, the consensus that was reached was that wacko jacko AND KoP would either both be kept or both gone. I was not aware of that until now, as I explained. Let me just say, if people are criticizing me for reopening this discussion, how can a 'consensus' ever be reached!? anyway, it is in my opinion that my next course of action is to justify why KING OF POP SHOULD STAY WHILE WACKO JACKO SHOULD NOT. I will gather evidence immediately, and add it shortly. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my evidence (more will be added):

'''1)''' Not a SINGLE other-language wikipedia even MENTIONS the derogatory name Wacko Jacko, so why should it be in the introductory sentence. On the other hand, KoP is mentioned in the intro several times (read above evidence)

'''2)''' Wacko Jacko was NOT coined by the people; it was a product of media imagination, which in turn was adopted by Jackson-haters. My point, if you are wondering, is that if nicknames are truly popular shouldn't they be coined by PEOPLE? People who's jobs don't involve spinning stories, but who are ordinary and adopt a popular name. That is the case with King of Pop. It was popular, and like Elvis' 'King of Rock', was not the invention of the media. You may think this is stupid (in fact, i'm sure many here already loathe me), but I'm trying to make a point.
* Wacko Jacko = Media invention.
* King of Pop = Name given by the people, not influenced by the media and its spinning webs.
--[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

# We aren't governed or even guided by what other wikis do.
# Please prove that "the people" coined the term "King of Pop" and not "Wacko Jacko". And please explain the relevance of the origin of the terms. I don't think the origin of words determines their notability. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One could have this argument indefinitely, and indeed I think a very good case could be made for exactly the reverse of Paaerduag's: "king of pop" is rather transparently a publicists' creation, one that the subject and his wranglers clung to long after it had become a faintly embarrassing reminder of better times (the photo of the star in his glory that leads off this article, after all, is more than 22 years old; older, in fact, than many of today's hitmakers). "Wacko Jacko," on the contrary, having gained currency in gossip columns and other popular media, would have faded away quickly if it had offended a substantial portion of their audience, and so might be considered as the actual "people's choice." [[User:Robertissimo|Robertissimo]] 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:If one traces the origins of "King Of Pop", I beleive it was first used by Elizabeth Taylor when she introduced Michael Jackson at either an awards show or a performance. Now it's no secret that Taylor and Jackson are friends - however that does not mean it was coined by a publicist, nor does is mean it was coined by Taylor herself. Needles to say "Wacko Jacko" is still used, however usually by the mainstream media. I think the most compelling argument for using "King of Pop" is to look at a professional article from a reputable encyclopedia: [http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9002498/Michael-Jackson Encyclopedia Brittanica]. Here it mentions "King of Pop" and does not mention Wacko Jacko - while this is not in the introduction of the article it does give clout to the legitimacy of this name. Now, as for the image being shown on the page - that argument is moot. The reason that image is used it that it is Public Domain and the Wiki Rules state that if a public domain image exists, it must be used. There was a period where a photgraph of Jackson accepting his recent award in Japan was used. Personally I don't really care if the "King of Pop" is mentioned in the first paragraph since it is covered in the body of the article. I wouldn't mind seeing it there, however I also don't mind if it's not. I do however think that Wacko Jacko has no place in the opening paragraph whether KoP is there or not. That's just my opinion however. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I can't edit below I will confirm that in no possible was has Michael Jackson sold over 60- million copies of thriller. The Guinnes book of records says 48 million, while the most says 52 million. As Michael's biggest fan you must really want it to be true, but it's rubbish, sorry.

=== King Of Pop ===

I just visited the Elvis Presley article and '''"The King of Rock 'n' Roll"''', as well as '''"The King"''' were included in the opening paragraph.

I believe that those titles should be added to both the Madonna and Michael Jackson articles, not just Elvis. Madonna and Michael might have been called that less but they were called that very often throughout their entire careers. Often enough to be included. [[User:Israell|Israell]] 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== ''Thriller'' sales ==
=== Worldwide sales of Thriller ===

I would like to know if this source confirming that Thriller has sold approximately 60 million copies is appropriate for the article. It is a news article from BBC here is the link.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4730407.stm]--[[User:Stardust6000|Stardust6000]] 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'd say yes, to me BBC seems like a pretty credible source. However I'm sure others will argue No, and will want to continue to use the out of date, inaccurate Guinness number (let me remind everyone that Guinness is not always correct, seeing as they have the run-time of the Thriller video incorrect, and Jackson made 2 other videos that were longer than Thriller, yet it's still credited as the "Longest Music Video") [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::The BBC is fine to use as a source. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your replies, I'll add this to the article now. Take care for now.--[[User:Stardust6000|Stardust6000]] 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly, Thriller according to most sources I've read are somewhere around 50 million, these sources include actual recorded figures of album sales. BBC is hardly a reliable source for gathering record sales data, it is just a rough estimate. Lets stop exaggerating, Thriller sold so many it hardly seems worth exaggerating it more. [[User:81.156.67.125|81.156.67.125]] 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well someone has already confirmed that BBC is a fine source. And most sources people use are the Guiness source - most people who reference are using it as their reference (be it any other articles). The fact is the guiness number is out of date and wrong. Stick with the BBC source. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:: The BBC are not only extremely reliable but their figure is also the most up-to-date.--'''[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]''' ([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]) 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:81.156.67.125: under our guidelines, the BBC is considered a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] and we may use it as a reference for [[WP:V|verifiying]] information. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 14:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm only stating there are better sources which pay closer attention to the actual figures. BBC is just an estimate, it is in no way accurate. I suppose whatever I say it will stay there because people will want it to seem Thriller sold as many as possible. Most sites Ive read put the figure at around 50 million, I hardly think the album has sold another 10 million in the time before BBC wrote the article. Ehmjay, I have a great respect for the work you have done on this article as it has not been easy I imagine with all the vandalism but I feel your now including unaccurate information which is a shame.[[User:81.152.225.36|81.152.225.36]] 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

: There is one link (BBC) that mentions 60m (excluding the MJ fansite), and all others, like Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, World Music Awards, specify 50m+. BBC is a credible source most of the time, but also can be a non-credible source also. They recently reported Boney M selling 800 million albums. What needs to happen is weight has to be given to articles on believability. As WMA is 2006, and MJ is attending, I would consider this far more reliable.

Here is an article from fox news that confirms Thriller has sold 60 million copies worldwide. As said before the 50 million sources are using the over a decade old Guinness estimate. I think that a news source is a better indication of sales than your opinion. This fox news sources is from this year.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193841,00.html?sPage=fnc.foxlife/jackson]--[[User:Stardust6000|Stardust6000]] 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:: POV has clouded judgement here. If the article by BBC was so fantastically accurate, why was there not a rush to amend 'downwards' Jacksons worldwide sales that were also mentioned. The arguement was that it was not a reliable source compared to more credible links. Wikipedia is supposedly based on factual information, not one-off inaccurate links. Nor are fan sites reliable as they push up figures. If I were to write a fan site on Sid Vicious and claim he said a trillion copies, does that make it right? No it says it's not credible. Also continually amending each wiki site with the data without any credible links was close to being vandelism [[User:Maggott2000|Maggott2000]] 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well your obviously a Jackson fan and are desperate to give him more credit, the thing that is annoying is I could find hundreds of recent references that say Thriller has sold around 50 million, but just because you have found a few links, the article is changed. Its funny because the article on the biggest selling albums of all time on wikipedia even says its 50 million. This supposed to be an encyclopedia, therefore you should use the most reliable sources, BBC is not official record of the sales, you really think BBC have done serious recording of thriller's record sales to write this article? [[User:Alaka|Alaka]] 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

=== New Stats for Thriller Sales... ===

So Jackson has just been presented with a new certificate from the Guiness World Records... from a recent news update:
"Michael received was a certificate for greatest selling album ever. The certificate itself (pictured right, click to enlarge) states the album has sold over a staggering 104 million albums worldwide since its 1982 release."
So I guess that 60 million is slightly off? Should it be updated to reflect this rather LARGE number? [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

: Yes (if you can source it) from me, and DenisRS also mentioned this but I haven't seen the source--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]]&nbsp;<small>•</small>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Please can you source this ASAP as this is impacting other pages mentioning Thriller too. There is no reference via Google nor the GWR homepage.{{unsigned|Maggott2000}}

::As of right now the only sites I can find that cite this information are MJ fan sites, however I have a feeling that the Guiness site has yet to be updated...and seeing that the diamond awards are tomorrow I have a feeling we will get more sites with this info after tomorrow. In the meantime [http://www.mjni.com/news/details.aspx?ArticleNo=1896 MJNI] and [http://www.mjstar.co.uk/asp_news/news_story.asp?key=3669 MJSTAR] (Which cites Guiness as it's source) [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Here's a [http://youtube.com/watch?v=Llcsuzr1ijg video of a News Clip] discussing it [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::::It doesn't specifically say that he's sold 104 million copies of ''Thriller''...and neither does MJStar.co.uk--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|{{{2|Ashadeofgrey}}}]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: As mentioned above, there is no credible information that Thriller has sold 60m, yet it is kept being pushed up to this figure. The BBC article was July 2005, a few years after reaching 50m (2002). How can this be substantiated as 'fact' if one report says it. Please keep to credible stats.{{unsigned|Maggott2000}}

: It is official now, I checked the guiness website, but it's weird, I can't find anything there now, but here's a link to some pic of the certificates [http://www.prince.org/msg/8/208418 Pics of 104 million certificate]Scroll down a bit and you'll see. [[User:Aeneiden-Rex|Aeneiden-Rex]] 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::It's [http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c106/Blanka84/guiness.jpg here]--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]] ([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::: We can't source to a picture, though. We should probably wait a while for a News source.--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]] ([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, we definitely need to wait until we have a reliable source. The image is not a reliable source. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::MJ, said 104 million at the WMAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4w3ZY3PahA).--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]] ([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::[http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/16112006/jackos_back MTV UK]--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]] ([[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Ashadeofgrey|contribs]]) 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Another MTV link that shows Thriller's 104 million units sold [http://www.mtv.tv/mtv.tv/dynamo/shells/news.jhtml;jsessionid=2JGXCBIG3QQL3QFIAIICFEWAVABBCIV0?article=95132717] We can go for it now. [[User:Readerweb|Readerweb]] 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::OMG In the photo of him holding the awards you see spots on under his finger nails. VITILIGO! It's practically proof. Can somebody sample that part of the image and upload it to changing appearance of michael jackson? It's definately fair use. It's like major PROOF!--[[User:I'll bring the food|I&#39;ll bring the food]] 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

===New sales figures===
Ugh guys, I know Michael Jackson claimed 104 million sold for Thriller recently, but this figure is highly dubious. Furthermore, Guinness does not corroborate that at all; I believe Guinness gives a figure of 51 million or something. Right now that's the most reliable number; the real figure may be something between 50 million and 60 million, but definitely not over 100 million.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:no it's 104 million these days. Believe me, MTV vouches. We were also all rather blown back, given the fanboys were like "it's 60 million!!!!! not 50!!!!" but i think mtv vouches for the new figure.--[[User:I'll bring the food|I&#39;ll bring the food]] 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the URL or something? I'm surprised by this new figure. How can the figure be 50-60 million one moment, then suddenly shoot to 100 million? Any explanation given for the change or something (by MTV or anyone)? Also, I think in this case there are better, more reliable sources than MTV (like Guinness, which says 51 million I believe). Either way I'd like a note about why MTV changed the numbers....and so radically too.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:I did a search on [[Factiva]] and I couldn't find a single article supporting the claim that it was over 100 million. There were heaps of articles about Jackson and the Guiness records but not a single one that supported that figure. I'd want to see some pretty solid evidence before I bought it. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::'''He told the squealing audience, "I am greatly humbled by this award. When we created 'Thriller' my dream was for it to be the biggest selling album ever, and God has answered my prayers - 25 years later and it's sold 104 million copies. I thank God and I thank you."''' from [http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/16112006/jackos_back] - good enough for me. --[[User:I'll bring the food|I&#39;ll bring the food]] 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't find an article written like a blog and containing the words "Well done, dude..." a very credible source to use as our only reference. I would be happier if we could find newspaper reports. Surely a figure that high would have been reported in the mainstream press. I don't think it should be that hard to come up with some decent sources to support that information and I think it's important that we do find some solid sources because this is obviously something that is going to be contested. Even if we accept that article, it seems that the source of this information is Michael himself. Like UberCryxic, I would like to see some independent and reliable verification of this and not just a quote from Michael. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we're all well aware of the Michael Jackson quote. It's just not reliable. That's all I'm saying. Furthermore, there are a bonanza of other good sources that contradict MJ; these give something like 50 to 60 million.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:While I agree that Jackson may not be the most credible source, most of those sources have not been updated in years. As I posted a while back, a Press Release from MJNI (I'm awear its a fan news network...) stated the 104 million copies number before jackson made his speech. I'm not sure if it can count as a source, but it did say it. According to this source the certificate from Guiness states the 104 million copies number. [http://www.mjni.com/news/details.aspx?ArticleNo=1896] [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

=== 104 Million Thrillers ===

I just watched the World Music Awards broadcast, and it mentions at least twice that Thriller has sold at least 104 million copies... I know that the number in the article is 104 million but this should help silence all those naysayers. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ehmjay, we're not saying this did not happen, I know it happened. Its just annoying the fact that this article is so exaggerated. It seems like the sources used are those with the highest numbers, 90% of sources will say thriller sold 50-60 million, yet the source with the biggest total is used. It seems very exaggerated when you consider its not even the biggest selling album in america, yet it has apparently outsold the second biggest selling album by about 2 and a half. I know Thriller sold a lot and is probably is the biggest selling album ever, yet the figure of 104 million (when you consider some of the biggest rock bands in the world have sold this amount in total) is hard to believe. I and many others believe is inaccurate. However, this is no dig at you emhjay, its jusy my opinion. Your doing a good job with this frequently vandalised article, keep it up!

[[User:81.154.118.146|81.154.118.146]] 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay - it just gets really frusterating when we have certain people just go back and change the number to what was clearly an extremely out of date Guiness Entry. I'll agree, 104 million does seem very high, but it also seems so high that they wouldn't just make it up...and Guiness didn't call them on it so it's gotta be fairly close. Either way, I just wanted to make sure that another source could be called upon. No hard feelings towards anyone in particular. [[User:Ehmjay|:: ehmjay]] 05:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How come there is no information here about the alleged racism of MTV towards black musicians in the early days. And that it was allegedly the president of CBS records (Columbia?) who threatened MTV to either play Michael's videos from the Thriller album or else he would pull the companies' entire library. That is why he was the first black performer on MTV. Anyone?[[User:142.46.72.254|142.46.72.254]] 19:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The figure for Thriller is too high. It shouldn't be quoted as the solid be all and end figure and a more NPOV (explaning where this number comes from and what other sopurces say) should be included in the text. If Thriller sold 104 million in total, it would still be all over the charts today. [[User:74.65.39.59|74.65.39.59]] 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

== White Tape? ==

Does anyone know the reason he wears white tape on the end of some of his fingers? I cant find out anywhere!

== Sales figures ==

!04 Millions... doesn´t this look a bit high?, i mean, a few weeks ago it was around the 50-60 and now it has doubled. The only country that keeps a reliable count of the record sales is the US and it has sold 27 millions there . There is pretty good correlation between the records sold in america and the records sold worldwide:

Back in Black
US: 21 Worldwide 42. x2

Eagles Greatest hits
US: 29 Worldwide: 51 x1.8

Led Zeppelin IV
US: 23 Worldwide: ~ 35 x1.5

Shania Twain Come on Over
US: 20 Worldwide: 28 x1.4

Appetite for Destruction

US: 15 Worldwide: +25 x +1.7

... Baby one more time
US: 15 worldwide: 28 x 1.9

The Dark Side Of The Moon
US: 15 Worldwide 40+ x 2-3

(I have avoided using double albums)

Thriller
US: 27 Worldwide 104 x 3.8

Hard to believe but possible, but what is almost impossible to believe is

He has only sold 60.5 in the US and his PR claims 750 millions more that 12 times...
[[User:83.33.246.250|83.33.246.250]] 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
i belive he is the second biggest selling artist behind the beatles lets leave is at that. so what america is not the world,

: Good research. Emphasis on the word 'claims'. However, his PR must have got the figure from 'somewhere' one assumes. I like the logical thought put into your discussion.[[User:60.234.242.196|60.234.242.196]] 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Somehwhere" could be their own hype. PR is public relations. They are there to promote. Where else do you think hype comes from? [[User:74.65.39.59|74.65.39.59]]

:: Sorry, we can't use [[WP:OR|original research]] on Wikipedia.--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]<sup>[[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]</sup> 09:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== This article needs revising ==
What should be the birth name and what should be the also known as?

BMI [http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=7247404&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID] and a court document [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackocharge1.html)] indicated Michael Joe Jackson. [[User:Israell|Israell]] 08:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is extremely unbalanced. It focuses more on the last 5 years of Michael Jackson's life, when he has been in the music industry for 42yrs. The article gives no indication as to why he is a superstar, or why he is known as the "king of pop". The article does not discuss how he dominated the music industry in the 80's and early 90's, and has inspired a whole generation of new artists.
There are also several inaccuracies, and quite a lot of information seems to have been obtained from tabloids.
1. Debbie Rowe voluntarily gave up her parental rights to their 2 children. She actually requested that this happen. Transcripts of this case are available elsewhere. At the time that she made this request, she was quoted to have said "I had these children for him. They are his kids, not mine. Being a parent is something you earn. I have not done anything to earn it". She also said that she felt like an intrusion to the children's lives.

2. The custody case between Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe was settled in October 2006.
3. Michael Jackson has never confirmed that he joined Nation of Islam. I believe it is Jermaine Jackson who did that.

I feel that if wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source of accurate information, then the articles should be based on facts and not hearsay or tidbits gathered from tabloid media.

Drleo

I agree. This wikipedia page on Michael Jackson does tend to focus on the last 5yrs of Michael Jackson's life. A lot of it such as alledged bankcrupty, which haven't been confirmed by Michael Jackson are nothing more than tabloid rumours, yet wikipedia have stated them as fact. The Michael Jackson page is a complete mess, and doesn't really focus on what a an innovative artist and cultural icon Michael Jackson is. The fact it only lists Michael Jackson the King of Pop as just an R&B artist shows what a mess the information is on Michael Jackson. Wikipedia obviously has no respect for Michael Jackson, and his fans opinions.

== Main picture ==

[[Image:Michael Jackson 1984(2).jpg|right|thumb|100px|Is this a good picture for an encyclopedia?]]
Is it just me, or is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_Jackson_1984%282%29.jpg that "photoshopped" cut-out version of Jackson that's currently being used as the main picture] for the article just a bit too stylized (and out of date) for an encyclopedia? A background-less image is something I'd expect for an article on [[Socrates]] or [[Juniper]]s, but not for a bio article. I say save the alpha-channelling for promotional materials. Is there a more appropriate picture we could use? ''(Given, it's a tough call, does one use an image of him as a black man, a white man, or a white woman?)'' - [[User:Eric Shalov|Eric]] 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== Genre of Michael Jackson's music ==

The genre of Michael Jackson's music on Wikipedia has only been listed as R&B, and this is highly inaccurate.

To only list the music of Michael Jackson as R&B gives a very limited view of the wide variety of genres Michael Jackson creates and records. Michael Jackson's main genre is Pop (ie he's the King of Pop, not the King of R&B), but the Michael Jackson genre's are also R&B, Rock, Dance and Gosbel.

I find it hard to believe how anybody could think songs Michael Jackson has written such as Beat It, Black Or White, Dirty Diana, Speed Demon, Black Or White, Give In To Me, They Don't Care About Us, D.S and Morphine are R&B when they are all rock based songs. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ben Scarr|Ben Scarr]] ([[User talk:Ben Scarr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ben Scarr|contribs]]) 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

::Beat It is a pop/rock/R&B blend, that's what made it so popular and unique. Black or White is pop/rock. Dirty Diana is rock/R&B blend, similiar to Beat It but with the pop elements. Speed Demon is definately rock, closer to funk than anything. You listed Black or White twice. Give in to Me is probably his only rock song. They Don't Care About us is so unique that it can't really be classified. But it's definately not rock. It's closer to pop. D.S. is like Black or White, it's pop/rock. Morphine is sort of an industrial/dance song. He's made very few strictly rock songs. Pretty much everything he does has R&B elements, so that why the best genre to class him as is R&B. [[User:Street walker|Street walker]] 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's wrong and highly inaccurate to class Michael Jackson as just an R&B artist.

Sure elements of R&B are always in Michael Jackson's music, but the fact is Michael Jackson is the King of Pop not the King of R&B, and as song for example like Speed Demon has no funk elements to it at all it's a straight out Pop/Rock song. What's made Michael Jackson a one of the greatest innovators in music is his ability to blend elments of different genres together to create his own unique sound.

Michael Jackson is listed as a Pop Music Artist on Wikipedia's page about the History of Pop music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music#2000s. If Michael Jackson was purely an R&B artist he wouldn't be on the list. I think it's highly offensive to the legacy of Michael Jackson just to classify him as an R&B artist as this gives a very narrow/limited view of Michael Jackson as an artist. Classing Michael Jackson as just an R&B artist fails to acknowledge that Michael Jackson completly raised the bar in Pop Music.

Even Michael Jackson's brother Jermaine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jermaine_Jacksonis listed as Soul/Funk and Dance and he hasn't made music in as many genres of Michael Jackson. Also Janet Jackson is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson listed as a R&B/ Pop/ Dance/ Soul/ Rock, and she's wrote and record less than 3 Rock songs, or songs with Rock elements in them, than Michael Jackson.

Another thing is that Michael Jackson's vocal style is rooted as a Soul singer, but he's one of the few vocalist's than can also sing pure pop and rock music with ease. Also another thing that very few people acknowledge is that Michael Jackson's vocals and muscial compositions are also hughly influenced/fused by Jazz
music which has been pointed out by Michael ex producer Quincy Jones. Michael Jackson scope as creative artist is hugh, an he's not an artist that should be boxed in just one genre.

The fact is Michael Jackson is a Pop/R&B/Soul/Dance/Rock artist, anyone who say's he's not doesn't know anything about the music of Michael Jackson. I don't care what order these are written in, but it has to be acknowledge that Michael Jackson isn't just an R&B artist, there for it's wrong to say it's best to class him as an R&B artist. This has to be changed !

:Ok, well here's my justification as to why it should be just R&B:
:*Firstly, the source clearly states MJs genre as specifically R&B, as do a number of other sources
:*Pop Music is a vague term which can describe any music which is popular. Jackson was popular hence he was included on the list
:*Just because one can baken cookies doesn't make them a baker, so just because he can write and perform songs of varying styles doesn't make the genres of the artist he is
--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]<sup>[[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]</sup> 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:And, sorry for not contributing to this discussion before.--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]<sup>[[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]</sup> 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Also, how other pages are formatted don't necessarily justify how another page should be formatted, it may just be that no-one has brought up the point that listening to music and thinking it has a "rock" feel (which is agains [[WP:OR]]) doesn't mean that the person is a rock artist.--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]<sup>[[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]</sup> 08:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Occupation ==

Michael Jackson's career has been listed as Singer-songwriter, Record Producer, Arranger and Actor. But Michael Jackson is also a dancer and choreographer. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ben Scarr|Ben Scarr]] ([[User talk:Ben Scarr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ben Scarr|contribs]]) 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


== Main image change ==


[[File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993 (cropped).jpg|right|160x160px]] I changed the main image of Michael Jackson to File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993.jpg. This photo is way better then the previous photo, which is low-quality, grainy and black and white. This photo is high-quality and color, along with showing Jackson during his most popular tour. [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:What is he doing now, does he still work? [[User:66.246.72.108|66.246.72.108]] 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


:Seek consensus first. I have reverted this change. <b>[[User:GSK|GSK]]</b> <small>([[User_talk:GSK|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GSK|edits]])</small> 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::Right now he's working as a recording artist, record producer, songwriter and arranger. I dare say that after the new album comes out in fall (Northen Hemisphere), he will also be a dancer, choreographer and performer. [[User:Street walker|Street walker]] 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:Well then should we change it [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 19:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:Your right in my honest opinion! [[Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B1AE:67AE:5D14:770D:7A40:5611|2600:1002:B1AE:67AE:5D14:770D:7A40:5611]] ([[User talk:2600:1002:B1AE:67AE:5D14:770D:7A40:5611|talk]]) 00:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== We should update the main image ==
Michael Jackson is always a dancer, choreographer and performer even when he's just recording as it's part of what he does, therefore it should be listed. Tom Cruise an actor, it doesn't mean he's no longer an actor when he's producing a film.


The main image is a grainy, black and white (which I believe makes an image worse when there is color alternatives), and overall low quality. The problem is many images of Jackson on Wikimedia Commons are not really high quality. Any actually high quality ones (including two images below), are being nominated due to copyrighted issues. Here are two examples:
== Record Labels ==
<gallery>
Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993.jpg
Michael Jackson 1983.jpg
</gallery>
So here are the highest quality images I could find, from highest to lowest quality. Please know that I believe that color is better, but other factors like quality (including amount of grain, quality of image scan, and image size) also apply
<gallery>
Michael Jackson, Victory Tour, Arrowhead Stadium, 1984.jpg|1
Michael Jackson 1988.jpg|2 (best of other Alan Light photos of Jackson)
2003 Michael Jackson at The Cable Show (29358712934) (1).jpg|3
Michael Jackson with the Reagans (cropped).jpg|4
Michael Jackson Cannes.jpg|5
Michael Jackson (21211088815) (cropped).jpg|6
George H. W. Bush with Michael Jackson (cropped).png|7
Michael Jackson in Vegas cropped-3.jpg|8
Michael Jackson1 1988.jpg|9
Michael Jackson in 1988.jpg|10
</gallery>
If we are to choose another image, which I strongly believe should be the case since 1-9 are better than 10 (the current main image), which should we do?
[[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:You're misusing the words "objective" and "objectively" here when whether certain pictures are better than others is an inherently subjective matter, so please don't treat your personal opinions as facts. Regardless, my preference of these would be image#7 for giving a clear front view of his face and isn't black-and-white like some of the other listings. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::I believe that 2 should be used because of how high quality it is compared to other images [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::4 has been used in the past and is my choice.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::7 is my pick per the SNUGGUMS arguments. I think it is more recent and more recognisable than image #4 [[User:TheWikiholic|TheWikiholic]] ([[User talk:TheWikiholic|talk]]) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::I oppose #7; it doesn't have a clear view of his face due to his sunglasses. #3, #4, and #8 are disqualified for the same reason. #5, #6, and #9 have strange expressions. #10 is good, but not ideal because of a poor view of his face. #1 has good potential if cropped, and #2 is probably the best overall despite his atypical outfit. My favorite of all is [[:File:Michael Jackson 1983.jpg]], mentioned above, if it survives copyright challenges. — [[User:Goszei|Goszei]] ([[User_talk:Goszei|talk]]) 15:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:I support #7, and I agree with @[[User:SNUGGUMS|SNUGGUMS]]'s statement. Although I don't think it is imperatively necessary to change the current image; but if it were to be done, I think #7 is the only suitable one, and it is a good option for the future considering, among other reasons, that it is in color.
:Apart from that, I am going to give my opinion on why I think some of the others are not valid at all. The optimal thing to do in a case like Jackson's, considering that he is one of the most public people the world knew and that it is easy for anyone to recognize him, is to choose a picture that represents what he is known for (i.e. music artist); that's why it is not appropriate to use as the main picture something that is part of his non-artistic life, like [[:File:Michaeljacksonmug1 (cropped).jpg|the mugshot]] or #2 (where he is not exercising as an entertainer, and he is not even wearing clothes that represent his artistic persona, just as if it were a picture at home in his pyjamas. It's a picture with close friends where he's wearing a [[Hilton Hotels & Resorts|Hilton Hotels]] cap...). I consider picture #6 to be of very low quality taking into account the other options and I don't find #3 and #8 to be good choices, because they show Jackson in his last years of life, and it is always preferable (as has been done in other cases, such as Queen [[Elizabeth II]]) to choose a picture from the "in-between" part of the subject's life. #1, #4, #5, #5, #7 and #10 are valid and appropriate pictures to be used as the main picture in this article, but I consider #7 and #10 (the one currently used) to be the best choices considering that they are better representing Jackson at an in-between time in his life. [[User:Salvabl|Salvabl]] ([[User talk:Salvabl|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::I disagree, number 10 is the lowest qauality picture of Jackson, and each of the reasons you give make sense, but a side profile of Jackson that is low quality does not make for a better representation of the subject in most cases. I thought we should have done 2, but 4 and 7 are fine too, with all in high quality color [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 18:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::How would i go about acquiring the right to use a image of him for this page? Who do i contact? [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 00:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:The most famous photo we have is the one set during the Dangerous world tour in his Jam outfit, however there's apparently issues with that one. Of the remaining options, his estate currently uses a image of MJ from the Bad world tour as his profile picture across their social media platforms but the one we got is in black in white and not very high quality. The only other option i think would be suitable is #7 as it's a photo of him receiving the artist of the decade award at the white house in high quality. This was set between the Bad and Dangerous era's of his career when he was at his arguable peak and is fitting for his biographical page. [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
: In my opinion, the press photo from 1983 <small>(Michael Jackson 1983.jpg) </small> should be used, it's well-lit, copyright free and is arguably of the highest quality of all of the images there.[[User:PHShanghai|PHShanghai &#124; they/them]] ([[User talk:PHShanghai|talk]]) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::That will work [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 01:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Never17|Never17]] Please don't change the photo without consensus. [[User:Alyo|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Alyo</span>]] ''([[User talk:Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>]])'' 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I didn't change anything, i just agreed with what the other guy said [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have no idea how to do it, but can someone start an RfC or something that will have a more significant way to change it [[User:Wcamp9|Wcamp9]] ([[User talk:Wcamp9|talk]]) 21:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would love to find someway to acquire copyright rights for some high quality images to use for this page, i don't know how to do that though. Maybe a admin here would know [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 21:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== Cause of Death ==
Michael Jackson's record labels are stated as Motown (1968–1976), Sony (1977-2000), Epic (2001–2006). This isn't accurate.


Since a criminal trial was held and the judge came to a decision that Jackson's death wasn't a accident but a result of criminal homicide (murder), should we add a note or something to let people know this wasn't a accidental overdose but a murder? We also have lots of reports stating Jackson was mostly healthy at the time of his death which lead to the decision.
Epic Records is a label of Sony, and Michael Jackson was signed to Sony's Epic label from 1976-2006, as The Jacksons releaesed their self-titled album in 1976. When Michael Jackson signed with Sony/Epic (the CBS/Epic, as Sony bought CBS in 1990-91) in 1976, as part of Th Jacksons, he also signed a contract for an option for record a solo album.


[https://www.spin.com/2011/11/conrad-murray-sentenced-four-years-prison-death-michael-jackson/ This was “'''a criminal homicide case'''” rather than a malpractice case, the judge said.]
So Michael Jackson's record labels shoud be ......


[https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/aug/28/michael-jackson-homicide Michael Jackson's death officially ruled a homicide - The Guardian]
Motown (1968-1976)
Sony/Epic (1976-2006) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ben Scarr|Ben Scarr]] ([[User talk:Ben Scarr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ben Scarr|contribs]]) 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/autopsy-michael-jackson-was-healthy/ Michael Jackson was healthy at the time of death, rules Autospy Report]
== Too much info about 2006 ==


[[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I think there was way too much info about 2006-current. That's why I divided it up into 2006 and 2007. But there is still a helluva lot of stuff about 2006. Most it is just trivial news stories. I'm sure all of that can be shortened to a couple of paragraphs. Stuff that struck me was how much info there is about the founding of his own company and the WMA's. That sort of stuff should be in seperate articles about the Michael Jackson companu and the 2006 World Music Awards. I'll try, but I need some people to help me cut down the section on 2006. [[User:Street walker|Street walker]] 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


:Conrad Murray was convicted of [[Manslaughter_(United_States_law)#Involuntary_manslaughter|involuntary manslaughter]]. This isn't a cause of death, which is correctly stated in the infobox here as acute propofol intoxication. Over at [[Death of Michael Jackson]], the infobox gives the cause of death as "Accidental homicide by acute propofol intoxication". This is perhaps more accurate and could be added to the infobox. Jackson was not murdered, because Murray's actions were considered to be negligent or reckless rather than a deliberate act.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 20:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Jackson's picture during his arrest ==
::Got it, i agree [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:A homicide but not a murder. Any illegal causing of human death is a homicide, which is then divided into categories. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. This was legally a homicide but was not a murder. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C|2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C]] ([[User talk:2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C|talk]]) 02:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Wrong link to "robot" in the intro ==
Hi, I do not want to engage in any kind of dispute! But my feelings consider this picture as an offending picture which dose not represent Michael Jackson under any circumstances and whomever insist on including this picture is considered a human with bad intentions toward Michael himself or toward Michael's fans.


Should be linked to [[Robot (dance)]]; instead it's linked to the page for actual robots. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:C801:4FF0:C0E2:D238:FB34:848C|2601:188:C801:4FF0:C0E2:D238:FB34:848C]] ([[User talk:2601:188:C801:4FF0:C0E2:D238:FB34:848C|talk]]) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Please do not include this picture any more because it is very offending for the feelings of those who care about Michael so please show some respect.
:{{done}} thank you for pointing out that error! [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 02:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Middle name ==
This picture is not any more acceptable and will be treated with serious actions


I have seen in various sources that his legal middle name was "Joe" rather than "Joseph" (and the Michael-is-alive people point to "Joseph" on the death certificate as evidence he did not really die). But does anyone have a RS for his actual middle name, one way or the other? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C|2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C]] ([[User talk:2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C|talk]]) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This picture dose not add any kind of benifit for any kind of reader from around the World nor it dose provide any kind of benifit to the article itself, all other articles about Michael and in every other langauge, this picture is not tolerated


== Child molestation allegations. ==
Please show some respect


Leaving Never Land, testimony from his victims [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:BEF0:2B60:D82C:3BE3:EE9D:F1C5|2603:7000:BEF0:2B60:D82C:3BE3:EE9D:F1C5]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:BEF0:2B60:D82C:3BE3:EE9D:F1C5|talk]]) 07:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks


:Jackson's allegations have their own page, furthermore the "accusers" were people who had previously defended him under oath in a court of law or to law enforcement and various contradictions were exposed. They are largely discredited, the only case that is a point of contention is the 1993 accusation due to the nature of the settlement. That in fact is mentioned in depth here [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
--[[User:3dola|3dola]] 03:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:The picture you want to replace it with is unlicensed and hence wikipedia cannot use it. Sorry.--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]]<sup>[[User talk:Ashadeofgrey|Talk]]</sup> 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


It’s already covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Posthumous_child_sexual_abuse_allegations
--[[User:Ashadeofgrey|Ashadeofgrey]] 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, please note that its’ only ”alleged victims”. Journalists have uncovered several contradictions (and possible untruths) in the Leaving Neverland film (you can give this podcast a listen, then make up your own mind: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/37.96.7.161|37.96.7.161]] ([[User talk:37.96.7.161#top|talk]]) 22:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Forbes 2024 ==
Thanks for your correction and hence this picture is very offending to alot of people around the world and hence this picture will not cause except controversy and disputes it should be deleted completely till we find another picture which is appropriate and acceptable by all different kind of parties and at the same time licensed
The license alone is not a logical reason nor it is an enough reason to keep publishing such a picture, there is no other reason of keeping this picture except insisting on offending people and Michael himself and that is why this picture should do not be here
Because of all these reasons and respecting for you and for all the fans and respecting for all people who get interested reading about Michael and avoiding for any kind of controversy and respecting for Wikipedia rules I will delete both pictures until we reach an agreement on another licensed picture


Hi,
Thanks
Forbes just re-elected Michael Jackson as top-earning Dead Celebrity.
--[[User:3dola|3dola]] 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone with editing rights please update 2023 to 2024 in
''Forbes has consistently recognized Jackson as one of the top-earning dead celebrities since his death, and placed him at the top spot from 2013 to 2023.''
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2024/10/29/the-highest-paid-dead-celebrities-of-2024/
Thank you! :-) [[Special:Contributions/37.96.7.161|37.96.7.161]] ([[User talk:37.96.7.161|talk]]) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024 ==
:I agree that the photo is awful, and I don't see a pressing need to have a thirteen, rather than twelve, images in an article, if the thirteenth image upsets some people and isn't essential. However, I'm wondering do we really need to have ''ten'' [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] images in the article. It looks bad if we're taking out free ones because they don't look nice enough, and leaving in unfree ones.


{{edit extended-protected|Michael Jackson|answered=yes}}
:[[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy|Fair Use Policy no. 8]] says
Net worth is not negative (unless since he’s dead , it could technically be 0
::The material '''must''' contribute '''significantly''' to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
:And no. 9 says:
::it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image . . . only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum.


Also
:Do we need to have so many photos of his albums, for example? It seems that they're more "decorative" than useful. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
His kids names are wrong [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C51:767F:9162:557B:5E56:8ECC:5314|2600:6C51:767F:9162:557B:5E56:8ECC:5314]] ([[User talk:2600:6C51:767F:9162:557B:5E56:8ECC:5314|talk]]) 06:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 ==
::I think this is one of the better biographies on Wikipedia, and all the photos only add to it. Beyond being well researched and well written, it's beautifully laid out. Clearly, a great deal of attention has gone into presentation, which makes the article visually appealing.


{{edit extended-protected|Michael Jackson|answered=yes}}
::I, personally, couldn't care one way or another which photo goes in that section, but I think pictures only add to the article. For me - the more the merrier! LOL [[User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to edit Wikipedia articles to provide the correct information about things I know about. I would use it to add in info that is useful and not false info. [[User:TLS4200|TLS4200]] ([[User talk:TLS4200|talk]]) 05:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:That ain't how edit requests work.
:If you want all the details, you can read [[WP:ER]], but to summarize, you have to specify what sentences you want changed and why, preferably with sources to back you up. [[User:ZionniThePeruser|ZionniThePeruser]] ([[User talk:ZionniThePeruser|talk]]) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Albums ==
Wikipedia seems to care about people feelings and it dose not have a heart of a rock, look what it says "be polite" "assume good faith" "no personal attacks" ...etc, this means that the encyclopedia has something to do with a prober way of communications, and hence this picture is not making alot of readers feel comfortable so there is no good reason to include it, deleting this picture will not harm this nice article in anyway but it could make it more appealing for some people


For the sales of Michael Jackson's albums, the reports of 32+ Million for Dangerous, 32-35+ Million of Bad and 20 Million respectively for History & Off the Wall has been circulated for over 15 years which is prior to the singer's death that lead to sales of more than 50 million albums worldwide within a short timeframe and millions more in equivalent sales. Currently to date excluding Thriller which is another can of worms, '''only 6 albums have been certified for more than 30 million''' worldwide. I'm just looking for a consensus here, '''no changes just throwing something out here.'''
There are thousands of pictures for Michael which can fit in many places in this article but though they are not included and although they are not included this did not harm the article in anyway, and if we are going to consider that this picture is one from between thousands of pictures which are not included this also will not harm this beautifuly laid out article


These albums are Eagles Greatest Hits - 41 Million '''(44M Claimed)''', Eagles - Hotel California - 31 Million '''(42M Claimed),''' Shania Twain - Come on Over - 30 Million ('''40M Claimed),''' Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV - 30.4 Million ('''37M Claimed)''' and Fleetwood Mac - Rumors - 30 Million ('''40M Claimed)'''
If a reader is reading this part without seeing this picture this would not cause any loss of his enjoyment of the article, all articles in other languges do not include this picture except the English version, and this picture is adding nothing good and unique to this article except offending those people who care about Michael, so why insisting on doing that I have no idea


Other albums like The Bodyguard ('''28.7M Certified'''), Dark Side of the Moon ('''25M Certified),''' Saturday Night Fever ('''22M Certified),''' Bat Out of Hell ('''22M Certified)''' also have claimed sales of 45 Million / 45 Million / 40 Million / 43 Million.
I hope the members will consider deleting this picture because it adds nothing good to this good looking article


Now on the matter of Jackson, we have reliable sources citing figures of up to 30 Million for History [https://uproxx.com/music/michael-jackson-history-20th-anniversary/] / 45 Million for Bad [https://people.com/quincy-jones-michael-jackson-three-album-collaboration-8739049] / 40 Million for Dangerous [https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45mjgi/dangerous-1991/?sh=379258c05190] and between 25 to 30 Million for Off the Wall [https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45mjgi/off-the-wall-1979/?sh=379258c05190][https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/michael-jackson-s-1979-album-off-the-wall-being-reissued-1.2727266]. So if the certified sales of these albums were to exceed that of some of these albums (26+ Million) would their claimed sales also be raised to the higher estimate? [[User:Never17|Never17]] ([[User talk:Never17|talk]]) 08:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks
--[[User:3dola|3dola]] 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:25, 22 December 2024

Featured articleMichael Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2010.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 25, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 22, 2004, and June 25, 2009.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 29, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Main image change

[edit]
File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993 (cropped).jpg

I changed the main image of Michael Jackson to File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993.jpg. This photo is way better then the previous photo, which is low-quality, grainy and black and white. This photo is high-quality and color, along with showing Jackson during his most popular tour. Wcamp9 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus first. I have reverted this change. GSK (talk • edits) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then should we change it Wcamp9 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your right in my honest opinion! 2600:1002:B1AE:67AE:5D14:770D:7A40:5611 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should update the main image

[edit]

The main image is a grainy, black and white (which I believe makes an image worse when there is color alternatives), and overall low quality. The problem is many images of Jackson on Wikimedia Commons are not really high quality. Any actually high quality ones (including two images below), are being nominated due to copyrighted issues. Here are two examples:

So here are the highest quality images I could find, from highest to lowest quality. Please know that I believe that color is better, but other factors like quality (including amount of grain, quality of image scan, and image size) also apply

  • 1
    1
  • 2 (best of other Alan Light photos of Jackson)
    2 (best of other Alan Light photos of Jackson)
  • 3
    3
  • 4
    4
  • 5
    5
  • 6
    6
  • 7
    7
  • 8
    8
  • 9
    9
  • 10
    10

If we are to choose another image, which I strongly believe should be the case since 1-9 are better than 10 (the current main image), which should we do? Wcamp9 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're misusing the words "objective" and "objectively" here when whether certain pictures are better than others is an inherently subjective matter, so please don't treat your personal opinions as facts. Regardless, my preference of these would be image#7 for giving a clear front view of his face and isn't black-and-white like some of the other listings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 2 should be used because of how high quality it is compared to other images Wcamp9 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 has been used in the past and is my choice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7 is my pick per the SNUGGUMS arguments. I think it is more recent and more recognisable than image #4 TheWikiholic (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Wcamp9 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose #7; it doesn't have a clear view of his face due to his sunglasses. #3, #4, and #8 are disqualified for the same reason. #5, #6, and #9 have strange expressions. #10 is good, but not ideal because of a poor view of his face. #1 has good potential if cropped, and #2 is probably the best overall despite his atypical outfit. My favorite of all is File:Michael Jackson 1983.jpg, mentioned above, if it survives copyright challenges. — Goszei (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support #7, and I agree with @SNUGGUMS's statement. Although I don't think it is imperatively necessary to change the current image; but if it were to be done, I think #7 is the only suitable one, and it is a good option for the future considering, among other reasons, that it is in color.
Apart from that, I am going to give my opinion on why I think some of the others are not valid at all. The optimal thing to do in a case like Jackson's, considering that he is one of the most public people the world knew and that it is easy for anyone to recognize him, is to choose a picture that represents what he is known for (i.e. music artist); that's why it is not appropriate to use as the main picture something that is part of his non-artistic life, like the mugshot or #2 (where he is not exercising as an entertainer, and he is not even wearing clothes that represent his artistic persona, just as if it were a picture at home in his pyjamas. It's a picture with close friends where he's wearing a Hilton Hotels cap...). I consider picture #6 to be of very low quality taking into account the other options and I don't find #3 and #8 to be good choices, because they show Jackson in his last years of life, and it is always preferable (as has been done in other cases, such as Queen Elizabeth II) to choose a picture from the "in-between" part of the subject's life. #1, #4, #5, #5, #7 and #10 are valid and appropriate pictures to be used as the main picture in this article, but I consider #7 and #10 (the one currently used) to be the best choices considering that they are better representing Jackson at an in-between time in his life. Salvabl (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, number 10 is the lowest qauality picture of Jackson, and each of the reasons you give make sense, but a side profile of Jackson that is low quality does not make for a better representation of the subject in most cases. I thought we should have done 2, but 4 and 7 are fine too, with all in high quality color Wcamp9 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would i go about acquiring the right to use a image of him for this page? Who do i contact? Never17 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous photo we have is the one set during the Dangerous world tour in his Jam outfit, however there's apparently issues with that one. Of the remaining options, his estate currently uses a image of MJ from the Bad world tour as his profile picture across their social media platforms but the one we got is in black in white and not very high quality. The only other option i think would be suitable is #7 as it's a photo of him receiving the artist of the decade award at the white house in high quality. This was set between the Bad and Dangerous era's of his career when he was at his arguable peak and is fitting for his biographical page. Never17 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the press photo from 1983 (Michael Jackson 1983.jpg) should be used, it's well-lit, copyright free and is arguably of the highest quality of all of the images there.PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will work Never17 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Never17 Please don't change the photo without consensus. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change anything, i just agreed with what the other guy said Never17 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do it, but can someone start an RfC or something that will have a more significant way to change it Wcamp9 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to find someway to acquire copyright rights for some high quality images to use for this page, i don't know how to do that though. Maybe a admin here would know Never17 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Death

[edit]

Since a criminal trial was held and the judge came to a decision that Jackson's death wasn't a accident but a result of criminal homicide (murder), should we add a note or something to let people know this wasn't a accidental overdose but a murder? We also have lots of reports stating Jackson was mostly healthy at the time of his death which lead to the decision.

This was “a criminal homicide case” rather than a malpractice case, the judge said.

Michael Jackson's death officially ruled a homicide - The Guardian

Michael Jackson was healthy at the time of death, rules Autospy Report

Never17 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. This isn't a cause of death, which is correctly stated in the infobox here as acute propofol intoxication. Over at Death of Michael Jackson, the infobox gives the cause of death as "Accidental homicide by acute propofol intoxication". This is perhaps more accurate and could be added to the infobox. Jackson was not murdered, because Murray's actions were considered to be negligent or reckless rather than a deliberate act.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, i agree Never17 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A homicide but not a murder. Any illegal causing of human death is a homicide, which is then divided into categories. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. This was legally a homicide but was not a murder. 2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Should be linked to Robot (dance); instead it's linked to the page for actual robots. 2601:188:C801:4FF0:C0E2:D238:FB34:848C (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thank you for pointing out that error! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

[edit]

I have seen in various sources that his legal middle name was "Joe" rather than "Joseph" (and the Michael-is-alive people point to "Joseph" on the death certificate as evidence he did not really die). But does anyone have a RS for his actual middle name, one way or the other? 2600:1011:B023:AC6E:19E9:4C7A:2DF4:1A4C (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child molestation allegations.

[edit]

Leaving Never Land, testimony from his victims 2603:7000:BEF0:2B60:D82C:3BE3:EE9D:F1C5 (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's allegations have their own page, furthermore the "accusers" were people who had previously defended him under oath in a court of law or to law enforcement and various contradictions were exposed. They are largely discredited, the only case that is a point of contention is the 1993 accusation due to the nature of the settlement. That in fact is mentioned in depth here Never17 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s already covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Posthumous_child_sexual_abuse_allegations BTW, please note that its’ only ”alleged victims”. Journalists have uncovered several contradictions (and possible untruths) in the Leaving Neverland film (you can give this podcast a listen, then make up your own mind: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.96.7.161 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes 2024

[edit]

Hi, Forbes just re-elected Michael Jackson as top-earning Dead Celebrity. Could someone with editing rights please update 2023 to 2024 in Forbes has consistently recognized Jackson as one of the top-earning dead celebrities since his death, and placed him at the top spot from 2013 to 2023. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2024/10/29/the-highest-paid-dead-celebrities-of-2024/ Thank you! :-) 37.96.7.161 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024

[edit]

Net worth is not negative (unless since he’s dead , it could technically be 0

Also His kids names are wrong 2600:6C51:767F:9162:557B:5E56:8ECC:5314 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2024

[edit]

I would like to edit Wikipedia articles to provide the correct information about things I know about. I would use it to add in info that is useful and not false info. TLS4200 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't how edit requests work.
If you want all the details, you can read WP:ER, but to summarize, you have to specify what sentences you want changed and why, preferably with sources to back you up. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albums

[edit]

For the sales of Michael Jackson's albums, the reports of 32+ Million for Dangerous, 32-35+ Million of Bad and 20 Million respectively for History & Off the Wall has been circulated for over 15 years which is prior to the singer's death that lead to sales of more than 50 million albums worldwide within a short timeframe and millions more in equivalent sales. Currently to date excluding Thriller which is another can of worms, only 6 albums have been certified for more than 30 million worldwide. I'm just looking for a consensus here, no changes just throwing something out here.

These albums are Eagles Greatest Hits - 41 Million (44M Claimed), Eagles - Hotel California - 31 Million (42M Claimed), Shania Twain - Come on Over - 30 Million (40M Claimed), Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV - 30.4 Million (37M Claimed) and Fleetwood Mac - Rumors - 30 Million (40M Claimed)

Other albums like The Bodyguard (28.7M Certified), Dark Side of the Moon (25M Certified), Saturday Night Fever (22M Certified), Bat Out of Hell (22M Certified) also have claimed sales of 45 Million / 45 Million / 40 Million / 43 Million.

Now on the matter of Jackson, we have reliable sources citing figures of up to 30 Million for History [5] / 45 Million for Bad [6] / 40 Million for Dangerous [7] and between 25 to 30 Million for Off the Wall [8][9]. So if the certified sales of these albums were to exceed that of some of these albums (26+ Million) would their claimed sales also be raised to the higher estimate? Never17 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&oldid=1264567184"