Talk:Michael Jackson

		Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

Greatest Of All Time

oh dear whos better then Michael Jackson? lets see we have Prince whos great, , James Brown, Beatles, darn anyone else that can do what MJ can? not a rock band or a singer like Sinatra or Madonna.

Elvis was not talented he just copied black music everyone knows that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.11.76 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

That's not true at all. Maybe others working with Elvis borrowed heavily from African-American trends in music, but Elvis himself did not go out there to copy African-American artists. If anything, Elvis is a major reason for the spread of African-American music during that period. He helped that community more than hurt it.UberCryxic 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Elvis never wrote a song in his life now what? look at the singles and the writers of the songs the credits he never wrote a lyric in his life

This isn't relevant to the article, but there are a variety of factors to compare. The greatest musician was Beethoven in my opinion. MJ is probably the greatest entertainer ever - he can literally entertain crowds better than anyone else - and is comparable to Elvis in fame, stature, and musical accomplishments. Prince does not belong in the list above; he doesn't even come close.UberCryxic 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous better entertainers than Jackson, like The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, The Rolling Stones, Madonna etc.

Don't forget Freddie Mercury... MatteusH 10:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Freddie and Roy Orbison had far better voices and more vocal range than Jackson's weak voice.

Roy Orbison and Freddy Mercury were garbage in my trash so was Elvis, and so is Madonna and Sinatra and Pink Floyd the only good white artists are Zeppelin, Doors and Beatles, the rest are pure non-recyclable garbage. I can start with Armstong, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Ray Charles, Wonder, Prince, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Gaye and i can name 100 better Artists that the other gargabe artists, Dylan was garbage too

Exactly what people fear happening with a wiki project is what is displayed above. There is no argument, really, though. Frankly, I believe Jackson has a claim to the title of the greatest entertainer. It's not "unfortunate", or "sad to say", that the previously mentioned comparable artists, are lesser in fame, fortune, notoriety, and success. It's just a fact of life. Michael Jackson has sold more of ONE album than Sinatra's entire legacy. Nine songs. Nine songs that changed the world of music. The album was called Thriller. Sinatra can't lay claim to that...nor can he lay claim to awards such as World Music Awards Male Artist of the Millenium, American Music Awards Artist of the Century, 13 Hot 100 #1 singles, over 80 Top 40 hits that span 5 decades of music (it began in 1969). And as far as his ability to entertain crowds being unparalleled...not nearly as many people showed up for Rat Pack and Sinatra concerts, as showed up for Michael Jackson concerts. The fact of the matter is that Jackson holds several verified world records for concert attendees and ticket sales, which have been unmatched for 20 years. "Unmatched" means no artist, living or dead, past or present. It includes people like Sinatra and Elvis Presley and the Beatles. The Beatles lasted for 9 years together. John Lennon said that they literally "ran out of ideas". Jackson wrote his first published song in 1978, a disco/R&B song called "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough". It was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1979. He wrote a Billboard Hot 100 #10 song in 2001 called "You Rock My World". Completely different songs. Completely different eras. Completely different audiences. 23 year gap between one song and the other other, with a slough of #1's and top 10 hits in between. Though the Beatles (4 individuals) have, as a band, sold more albums Jackson has sold as a solo artist, they can't dance, nor did any of them have the vocal range that Michael Jackson's voice has. Anyone who takes the time to read a cd booklet or record sleeve for his albums will see the words 'Lead & Background vocals (for the rich harmonies he is known for--a style HE made popular) by Michael Jackson' for 9 songs out of every 10. He's sung many more genres of music than The Beatles, Sinatra, and Presley. And has successfully marketed to and entertained people with those genres. He is unmatched as a musical entertainer. And all of that sets him leagues beyond Sinatra, the Beatles, Elvis, and Freddy Mercury of Queen? (you must be kidding), without even mention of how he revolutionized modern dance, and that NONE of those artists mentioned above, before my comment, had singing voices that commanded crowds of 50,000 when THEY were only 10 years old. 24.20.135.133 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)SuperLu

Matteus, not entertainers. The Beatles may have been better musicians, but if one had the option of going to a MJ concert or a Beatles concert, the former would always hold better prospects for, literally, entertainment. Btw, I actually was at a Rolling Stones concert about two years ago or so, and it sucked compared to those that MJ gives. In fact, pretty much the vast majority of all concerts ever given by anyone except MJ consist of one thing: people going from one end of the stage to the other and pretending to do something with their body that resembles dancing. MJ can....backslide across the stage if he wants to, he can sidewalk across the stage if he wants to, and maybe he can robot his way across the stage if he wants to. You never know...and then sometimes *bam* the little jump and he's moonwalking out of nowhere. That's what people want to see: performances that are just as exciting as the song. You don't get that with the Rolling Stones (now or when they were younger). Honestly, in terms of sheer entertainment value, I can't think of anyone who's better than MJ, and the rest of the world seems to agree, hence the world records he holds for concert attendance.UberCryxic 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, to the user above, it's not clear that the Beatles have sold more than MJ. In fact, if the new Guinness figures for Thriller are quasi-true (ie. around the ballpark) then we actually have quite an exciting race on our hands. It's either Elvis, the Beatles, or MJ, but the problem is that not enough information exists to make a definitive conclusion. The sales figures for the former two acts, in particular, are not as solidly established as those for MJ, so any comparisons become difficult. I'm afraid the best that we can do until better evidence emerges is to acknowledge the top three and move on.UberCryxic 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a fan

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:

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.

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:

"Early life and career: 1966 – 1981" 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.

"The Thriller Era: 1982 - 1985" 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!

"More Success and Controversy: 1986 - 1992" 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.

"First Allegations and Aftermath: 1993 - 2001" 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?).

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.

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. --Steverino 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Steverino, this article needs beefing up. Aeneiden-Rex 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think u should change the article the way u've written here, it's good.Aeneiden-Rex 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. :: ehmjay 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. 12.149.50.2 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. :: ehmjay 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversies should be listed, but not too long. It gets boring and most of it is pretty much heresay anyway. Snowbound 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversies have by far surpassed and ended his music career, which is why he's bankrupt and living in exile.

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.Littlepaulscholes 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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:

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]

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".

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 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.

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. 83.59.24.28 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of nicknames

King of Pop

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.

1) Other articles with common media/fan-dubbed names:

• Elvis Presley has an extensive 17 words explaining various naming conventions
• Steve McQueen's nickname 'The King of Cool' is given

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.

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 [1]

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, [2], 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.

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):

• Spanish Wikipedia [3]
• French Wikipedia [4]
• German Wikipedia [5]
• Swedish Wikipedia [6]

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. --Paaerduag 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I swear this page is going back to like it was back in november 2004.--I'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. --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. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  08:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Funky Monkey. 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. :: 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. 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. 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).:: 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. --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.

--Paaerduag 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. We aren't governed or even guided by what other wikis do.
2. 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. 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." 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: 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. :: 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. 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.[7]--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") :: ehmjay 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is fine to use as a source. 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.--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. 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. :: ehmjay 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

81.156.67.125: under our guidelines, the BBC is considered a reliable source and we may use it as a reference for verifiying information. 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.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.[8]--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 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? 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? :: 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--Ashadeofgrey (talk • 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggott2000 (talk • contribs)

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 MJNI and MJSTAR (Which cites Guiness as it's source) :: ehmjay 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a video of a News Clip discussing it :: 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--Ashadeofgrey (talk • 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggott2000 (talk • contribs)

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 Pics of 104 million certificateScroll down a bit and you'll see. Aeneiden-Rex 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's here--Ashadeofgrey (talk • 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.--Ashadeofgrey (talk • 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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MJ, said 104 million at the WMAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4w3ZY3PahA).--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

MTV UK--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another MTV link that shows Thriller's 104 million units sold [9] We can go for it now. 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!--I'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.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.--I'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.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. 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 [10] - good enough for me. --I'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. 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.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. [11] :: 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. :: 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!

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. :: 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?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. 74.65.39.59 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thriller has sold 51 million copies worldwide as of 2007.

51 millions is an out of date inaccurate figures, if various reliable sources i.e guiness book of world records is now saying 104million then what more proof do you need! 104 seems real high I agree but the 51 million figure comes only from countries that give official certificates and only includes around a dozen countries, Guiness have obviously done their homework on countries not included i.e virtually all asian countries & a lot of euro countries and come to that figure, we cannot say it is inaccurate because we think its too high, guiness dosnt give certifcates unless it has hard factual proof that is investigated deeply, I think you'll find a lot of other artists sales are higher too... but guiness have obviously found thriller to be the highest Badmansami 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)sam

Nope, Thriller has not sold 104 million copies,m in fact not even half that. Jackson's real record sales worldwide are around 300 million, not the 750 million he claims. The bankrupt mentally ill pervert can claim what he likes, but the fact is he isn't anywhere near the biggest selling solo artist. At all.

This isnt a debtate about Michael, so dont bring personal feelings into it. 50 million is an out of date guiness figure. Guiness Records is a world authority on facts, fact, they dont make things up just for a kick. If guiness, mtv and numerous other world authorities say its 104million then you have to take that as fact. there is no point argueing against guiness book of world records simply because is "seems" to high your not a fan. Badmansami 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)sam

Guinness is wrong then, because it hasn't sold even half that and Jackson's actual record sales are 300 million, NOT 750 million. No wonder the lying mentally ill pervert is $400 million in the red.

Oh guiness is wrong, but your right? mmm. thats exactly why the article states 104million ;)

whats that got to do with it. If guiness suddenly claimed BlackLaces party album sold 210 million would you believe it? Probably not and I dount guiness will ever print this, but everyone knows that this outsold any MJ album.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.65.39.59 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I think very few people believe the Guinness figure, but on the other hand, there is a real dilemma because Thriller sales have not been updated since around the mid 90s. The last reported figure was 54 million, which is what's often cited in media publications. Right now, however, in good ole 2007, that figure is just as ridiculous as the 104 million that Guinness gives. No one really has a good and precise idea of what Thriller has sold, but I suspect that the real figure may be between 60 million and 104 million. Having said that, Thriller is easily the greatest selling album in the history of music. Of that there is virtually little to no doubt.UberCryxic 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Guinness says 51 million. Even that is an exaggeration, the real figure is 47 million. If Guinness ever prints the ridiculous fake 104 million then it will be a worthless book with no credibility, just like the bankrupt pedophile Wacko Jacko.

White Tape?

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

To highlight the movements of his fingers when he's dancing. Similiar to the reasons why he wears the single glove and white socks. Street walker 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I've heard that it's it symbolizes the sick & the suffering.

No, that's his armband. He said he will wear the armband as long as there are children suffering in the world. Street walker 09:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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... 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.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? 74.65.39.59

Sorry, we can't use original research on Wikipedia.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 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 [12] and a court document [13] indicated Michael Joe Jackson. 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.

He is indeed bankrupt. It is hard for any sane person to respect a gay pedophile.

Main picture

Is this a good picture for an encyclopedia? -Yes, a lot of editors think so.

Is it just me, or is 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 Junipers, but not for a bio article. I say save the alpha-channelling for promotional materials. Is there a more appropriate picture we could use? - Eric 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this picture is excellent for an article about a pop icon. As we all know Jackson has not had a "stable outlook" for the last 25 years, so in fact any single picture would be unsuitable for the lead (yes, even one of "black" MJ, because that was before he became really iconic, se discussion below). As for the missing background, that only allows the readers to focus more on the subject; I can't see why that should be a problem. Bab from the eo:wp

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

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. 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

--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And, sorry for not contributing to this discussion before.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 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.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Speed Demon" has no funk elements? What the hell are you listenting to? The song is straight out, nitty-gritty funk. 59.100.26.70 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia have took notice of the vaild points as to why I rightly felt R&B gave limited view of the music of Michael Jackson, And the music genre's of Michael Jackson are now Pop/R&B on Wikipedia. Pop music has always been an element of Michael's music since The Jackson 5 days of there early 1970's. Michael Jackson does play about different genres of music and he's known as the King of Pop for nothing. Also I've always said the roots of Michael Jackson are R&B/Soul, but that doesn't mean it's the only genre of music Michael Jackson makes.

Speed Demon is a straight out pop/rock song, not a funk song. I know funk music when I hear it.

In music shops like Virgin and HMV you will find the all of Michael Jackson's albums in both Rock/Pop and R&B sections of their shops. Also Michael Jackson's genre of music is often boxed as Pop or Pop/R&B in many profiles of his. Very few Michael Jackson profiles have classified him as just an R&B artist, and even AOL have classified Michael Jackson as Funk/Soul/Urban artist, which though not 100% accurate is far less misleading than classiing Michael as purely an R&B artist.

I would have complalined if Michael's genre of music was just Pop music, because Michael has an ability the sing and write songs of different genre's, and this should be acknowledged. And though I think Michael profile should be Pop/Soul/R&B/Rock, I pleased with Pop/R&B as Michael's genre of music on Wikipedia. I actually think Michael Jackson is his own genre, as no one sounds like Michael Jackson as his sound is unique.

I will just say you are very wrong in saying "Speed Demon" is not funk. I am a funk musician, I study the musical style, this is definately FUNK! Anyway, I think Michael Jackson genre should be pop/rock/soul because that covers everything he does and Elizabeth Taylor called him the king of pop, rock and soul. Street walker 04:55, 8 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

What is he doing now, does he still work? 66.246.72.108 22:32, 31 January 2007 (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. Street walker 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

Record Labels

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

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.

So Michael Jackson's record labels shoud be ......

Motown (1968-1976) Sony/Epic (1976-2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Too much info about 2006

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. Street walker 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's picture during his arrest

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.

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.

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

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

Please show some respect

Thanks

--3dola 03:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture you want to replace it with is unlicensed and hence wikipedia cannot use it. Sorry.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--Ashadeofgrey 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks --3dola 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

Fair Use Policy no. 8 says

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.

Do we need to have so many photos of his albums, for example? It seems that they're more "decorative" than useful. ElinorD 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 Cleo123 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the problem is that according to Wikipedia policy, unfree images are not meant to be used to make an article look better, but to contribute significantly towards giving the reader a better understanding of the subject. So having lots and lots of unfree images, just to make the article look better, would be going against the policy. ElinorD 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I hope the members will consider deleting this picture because it adds nothing good to this good looking article

Thanks --3dola 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Very unbalanced article

100 years from now, if someone asks, "Who's Michael Jackson", the answer would be "He was a musician".

So I believe, that the weight of this article should be to describe Michael Jackson's musical career. It is pathetic that this man's amazing musical career of 25 years before the allegations, is summarised in a few concise sentences, and a huge paragraph has been devoted to explaining the gory details of the next 15 years.

Of course, the controversies surrounding the trial should be mentioned, as long as the facts are stated first. Speculation & rumour should be mentioned, and it should be made clear that they are indeed speculation. But if the controversy and the negative image is to be included, then it is only fair to include the many years of public adoration as well.

The vitiligo problem has not been mentioned at all, when this is the reason given for his colour change. There are numerous photos available, where you can very clearly see that he does indeed suffer from a skin disorder. Why has this not been mentioned??

I feel that this is one of the worst Wikipedia articles. Totally biased and just running with the current media attitude towards this man. You don't even have to be a fan to see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drleo35 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, mostly anyway. The main problem I have with this article is not the extent to which it covers MJ's personal life, which, because it was so controversial, certainly deserves more than just passing mention, but the failure to highlight just what a legend MJ was musically. He's obviously been the most influential solo artist in the world since Elvis, and probably has no equals in the history of music when it comes to pure performance and entertainment, but language like this is apparently prohibited because it would ruin the NPOV of the article, even though those statements, while POV somewhat, are still, well, largely true. I don't remember where I read it, but at one point MJ was the most recognized person in the world, above US presidents and UN secretary-generals, and that was because of his music, not his personal life. You're right; 100 years from now, people will remember Thriller, not Gavin Arvizo.UberCryxic 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I TOTALLY AGREE MJ IS THE FINEST MUSICIAN ILL PUT HIM IN TOP 5 WITH WONDER, JAMES BROWN, BEATLES AND PRINCE. ELVIS, SINATRA, STONES AND MADONNA ARE GARBAGE SORRY!!

Not that this matters to the article, but MJ and Elvis are probably the greatest solo performers ever. As for "musicians," then your list is very restricted. I would say some of the greatest musicians ever are the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach, along with people like MJ, Elvis, and the Beatles. Unfortunately, all our lists will be Western-centric, doing no justice to the rich musical variety around the world.UberCryxic 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mick Jagger and Freddie Mercury were better front men than Jackson. 100 years from now Jackson will be almost completely forgotten, just like WJ's fans claim Bing Crosby is now. If he's known for anything, it will only be "Thriller" or all the scandals and trials. (HarveyCarter 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

new recording surfaced on youtube

gangsta 2 a newer version of gangsta has surfaced and michael sings verses solo and uninterrupted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.110.248 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

a newer version of gangsta has surfaced on youtube

a new version of gangsta has just surfaced on youtube and has more of michaels vocals —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.110.248 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

michael jackson and tempamental new song

i discovered new song on youtube "gangsta 2" contains michael's solo vocals for a couple of verses —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.110.248 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Proof Of Michael Jacksons Innocence

I would like you to include this video in the text. It's very important in order to spell out his innocence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2V5bDIlUFI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.182.111.109 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, to me it's obvious that MJ did not do it, but I doubt that this counts as proof. This was kind of like an extortion attempt, yes, but MJ could still have molested the kid. Again, I don't think he did, but he could have.UberCryxic 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sick of the anti-Michael Jackson sentiment on this page. Especially, I am sickened by cowards who won't sign their names in. This is NOT A FORUM FOR YOU TO DISPLAY YOUR OPINIONS; this is a wikipedia article and I FOR ONE WILL NOT TOLERATE SLANDER in any form, because it is rude and disrespectful not only to Michael, because chances are he looks on this page now and then, and also for other users who do not want to be bombarded by one or two users' opinions. I am deleting the above post by an anonymous user as it is disgusting, dehumanizing and horrifying. --Paaerduag 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 album

the rolling stones magazine has today confirmed that jackson and will.i.am have drafted 8 tracks together and are continuing to work on tracks, jackson has emphasized that he wants to produce amazing melodies, one of these tracks will be called 'i'm dreamin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.92.170 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I went to the site just now and I couldn't find anything on this. Can you give us a link to the article? This would be huge if it's true; it means MJ's actually doing this. I'm excited.UberCryxic 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI we already have an article on this, Michael Jackson's 2007 album. Sarah 06:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 album

www.exclusivemj.com go to news, and the latest news article is 'details emerge about michael's new album'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.125.88 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

michael jackson on tv

michael jackson will be on american idol for a week soon, as part of launching him back in to the public eye, and to lend his talents to the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.18.83 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Nothing wrong with change...

A few months ago, I wanted to include the "King of Pop" sobriquet in the lead, given how widespread it is in popular culture. My additions were opposed because they were viewed as violating the neutrality of the article and because they were thought to open up a can of worms (ie. should we also include 'Wacko Jacko' and other demeaning names?). Well, I'm back to tackle the issue. I was informed then that no nicknames were allowed in the lead based on a prior decision by the community. I perfectly understand that, although I disagree with the conclusion reached, hence why I'm "reopening" the case, if you will. I merely want for us to reconsider that decision and to examine some reasons for why we should or should not include the "King of Pop" in the lead as opposed to other references for Michael Jackson. At this point I am merely looking for a conversation, although eventually I would like to see some executive action reminiscent of Rousseau's general will. Anyway, let me offer some suggestions for why KOP should be included and Wacko Jacko should not:

1. This article has been written by trying to note a distinction between Michael Jackson's personal life and his music career. In that sense, it is trying to balance the two. Unfortunately, it covers Michael Jackson's personal life in far more too detail than is necessary. I actually mean something concrete by this: it does not represent a global viewpoint, literally. It may represent an overly American viewpoint. In the United States, Michael Jackson's popularity has declined since the 1980s and early 1990s, but internationally he is still quite popular. In fact, internationally, most people still recognize Michael Jackson based on his musical accomplishments, not what he may have done in his private life. How does this relate to the nickname? Well, that nickname is really being excised from the lead because it violates an American requirement on NPOV, not a global one. However, Wikipedia requires the latter.

2. The name 'Wacko Jacko' is a term mostly restricted to British media. The odd thing about this fact is that Michael Jackson is very popular in Britain itself, as evidenced by the success of "Number Ones," which sold better across than pond than here and did superbly on the charts. The range of use of 'Wacko Jacko' clearly pales in comparison with KOP. It seems that, in trying to offer all relevant viewpoints, we are actually snuffing out the main one: Michael Jackson is better known as KOP rather than 'Wacko Jacko.' Wacko Jacko should not be included in the lead because, although it is a nickname for Michael Jackson, it is not a relevant one. We are supposed to give majority opinion due weight, and it seems that we are confusing the fact that even people who don't like Michael Jackson still consider him as the KOP. That is, there is no connection between wanting to present all major viewpoints and striking out KOP from the lead. Even those who are critical of Michael Jackson still know the KOP label, and I would presume that they recognize it is far more prominent and widespread than Wacko Jacko, even though they may not agree with all the connotations of the label.

3. Recentism is a big issue for many Wikipedia articles, this one primary among them. No doubt many people's perceptions and ideas about Michael Jackson took some sort of concrete form during the trial period, and Wikipedia "necessarily" had to include these, but the great thing about perceptions, especially flimsy ones such as these, is that they change. As someone stated before, in 100 years Michael Jackson will mostly be remembered for his music, not for his personal life (this will be true by virtue of his international status that I highlighted above). In 100 years, if Wikipedia is around for that long, and it will be because it's so damn awesome, this article will look very different. Now, I'm not suggesting that we be 100 years avant garde, but I am suggesting that we take the first step, and including KOP in the lead would be a very good first step.

Anyway, thank you for listening. Let's have a good, clean discussion on this and see if some actual changes can materialize. Eventually we might have a vote or something, but for right now let's just see where people fall on this issue.UberCryxic 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Both or nothing for the sake of neutrality.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See, you are framing this as if it were an issue about neutrality, but it isn't. It's one of recognition. By putting KOP in the lead, we are merely acknowledging that as the nickname with which most people recognize Michael Jackson. Wacko Jacko, as I said, is restricted mostly to the British media and has nowhere near the same "carrying capacity" (ie fame) as KOP.UberCryxic 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you addressed none of my arguments above, particularly the most important one relating to viewpoint (and how currently the refusal to include KOP in the lead is more American-centric than anything else).UberCryxic 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in the section "2006: Visionary, Tokyo and the World Music Awards," there is an error.

"First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 million Dollars in a Year", "Highest Paid Entertainer of All Time" ($125 in 1989)

Shouldn't the $125 be $125 million?

Well.......does someone have thoughts on this??? If not, I can go on right ahead and put the nickname in! So if there are people who don't want me to do that, say something.UberCryxic 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FM has already answered you. That means 1 for, 1 against. That's not anything near a consensus for you to add it back in. Until a new consensus is formed, the current one stands. Sarah 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None or both for reasons discussed ad nauseum in the archives. Sarah 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no time limit, so saying "no consensus, status quo remains" implies the discussion is over or something. I'm sure plenty of people will comment eventually. Again, this isn't an issue of "1 for, 1 against." Putting KOP in the lead is not "1 for" and does not take a stand on Michael's personal issues or anything. We're not even saying that he is the KOP, but merely acknowledging that he's called that by a lot of people (much more than the other nickname).UberCryxic 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate the snide tone of the remarks, nor the hasty manner in which this is being pushed under the rug. Honestly, you all have to realize that eventually the KOP label will be included in the lead. It's just a matter of how much time passes from t=0 (ie. 2005 in this context) before people forget enough of MJ's personal life that they'll return to the music. Also, again, the American-centric viewpoint. Wikipedia requires a global viewpoint, and most globally do not really care about Michael Jackson's personal life.UberCryxic 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to emphasize my point regarding recognition, although I feel like it doesn't need to be because it's so obvious, a google search for 'Wacko Jacko' returned about 500,000 results ([14]) and one for 'King of Pop' returned 42 million ([15]). I do not want to state or imply that Google is an authoritative matter on such issues all the time, but it is often indicative when it comes to pop culture. Also, the results pretty much all related to Michael Jackson. The point is that Jackson is overwhelmingly known as the King of Pop, so that's the nickname that should be in the lead.UberCryxic 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What if something were written like "Jackson is oft regarded as the King of Pop due to his [groundbreaking music or fame or whatever]"? This would be kind of like Elvis, where it's undeniable who the King of Pop is. This would also not establish it as a nickname, but more of a status. "Wacko Jacko" is not a nickname due to the iconic music, but rather due to an event. Wacko Jacko is also colloquial (it states it's used mainly in Britain, and I've never heard it), and could be seen as a neologism, which should be avoided. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This claim that WJ is only used in the UK is not true. I've removed the claim in the article that this it is most commonly used by the British media because it is not only untrue but is unsupported by the cited source. The source says that during the 1980s "the British tabloids delighted in calling him "Wacko Jacko"." That is totally different to saying that now WJ "is mostly used by the British media". It is inaccurate, it isn't what the source says and it is untrue. Anyone with access to Factiva will be able to tell you that there are many thousands of references to jackson being called WJ and they aren't specific to one particular nation or region. Sarah 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim isn't that WJ is only used in the UK, but rather that it's more prominent there than in other places. And it's really only prominent there among the press, especially that owned by Murdoch (the NY Post here in the US also calls him that). Regardless, although we do need a source to establish that it's used mostly by British media, its use is nowhere near as frequent as that of KOP. You have a good point here, and one which we should look into, but it does not relate to this conversation because I've already admitted, implicitly at least, that WJ is used in other places besides Britain.UberCryxic 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey maybe someone can Re-Re-reopen this, because I also reopened it a while ago but was criticized for it. I'd appreciate if we could discuss this again. --Paaerduag 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On this so-called "consensus"

I have reviewed everything regarding the decisions made on this issue. Ignoring the confused statements of some editors back then, many of which are not even here anymore, but some which still are, a warning should be given on the amazingly duplicitous nature of the straw poll that adjudicated this matter. The straw poll, which you can see here, was created by a user named Manboobies, who apparently no longer participates in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's irrelevant, but what is relevant is his or her maneuvering, which smacks of trickery.

What do I mean? First of all, although it may not have been an established rule back then (I don't know), users usually should agree what authority the straw poll has and what it is deciding, all of this before the straw poll actually happens. This user, however, took the initiative and opened the poll on his or her own terms. This is what users were deciding on, which, again, was completely established by this sole user: "Please vote below whether you would like to keep or remove the words "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, if you vote for their removal, "King of Pop" would also be removed for brevity." This particular user voted "keep," and from the bias in the original statement, you can easily tell why. Notice how silly this requirement is: if you vote to remove Wacko Jacko from the lead, you're also de facto voting to remove King of Pop. Some users explicitly clarified what they meant by their vote, which the initial conditions did not allow for, but most did not. So the poll was skewed towards favoring Wacko Jacko, which would either be kept or removed, but if it was removed, then it would take down King of Pop along with it automatically. Also, what the hell, pardon my language, does "for brevity" mean? This is not an issue that should be concluded under the impulse of "brevity." Issues of NPOV are being discussed right now, but this user apparently did not use that language; he or she was apparently more concerned with "brevity," which I find odd if it accurately describes his or her ontological position, which is not that clear anyway. But that precise uncertainty makes this straw poll bogus; there was little to no thought given to making it and it's understandable why: it was made completely by one person that originally established conditions unfavorable to Michael Jackson.UberCryxic 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that the "King of Pop" tag is worthy of being included, however its clear that its an issue that does not want to be discussed. I agree that eventually it will be there... we'll just have to keep waiting.

It's completely inappropriate that we have to keep waiting though, especially in light of the botched efforts above. The lead of the Japanese Wikipedia article on Michael Jackson, among many others, is not confused about his status ([16]):

マイケル・ジャクソン（Michael Joseph Jackson、1958年8月29日 - ）は、アメリカ合衆国インディアナ州ゲーリー市出身の男性ミュージシャン・歌手。身長176cm。エリザベス・テイラーがthe true king of pop, rock and soulと称し、一般的には短くKing of Popのニックネームで呼ばれている。イギリスのゴシップ誌からはGod of Popというニックネームをつけられている。

This is ridiculous, and yes POV is involved here, but it's the POV of the Anglophone world, most of which is American and has been skeptical of Michael Jackson ever since the trial (ie. the same people that screwed up the straw poll and reached this "consensus").UberCryxic 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Per my concerns above, relating to the fact that the previous straw poll was inappropriate, I think it is best if we start a new process for resolving this issue, one which will be more comprehensive and definitive. For this new straw poll, we are first going to do something that the previous one did not do: agree to what the poll is deciding before we start voting. This will ensure that everyone realizes what's at stake when they vote. We will just toss around some proposals in the beginning. If, after about a week or so, we are in agreement regarding the authority of the poll, then we can go ahead and start voting. My proposals are as follows:

• The straw poll should have executive authority based on plurality. This means that the choice that gets more votes than any other should be implemented.

• The straw poll should last for one week. The decision reached should be binding for four months, after which it can be reviewed and contested.

• Only users registered for at least a month on Wikipedia that have amassed 100 or more edits can participate in the voting, although there will also be a discussion section for all other concerned individuals to voice their opinions.

• Only the nicknames King of Pop and Wacko Jacko are under consideration, and they are only under consideration in the lead.

• The straw poll should give four options, which are the following:
  • KeepIN - This means that you want both King of Pop and Wacko Jacko in the lead.
  • KeepOUT - This means that you want both King of Pop and Wacko Jacko out of the lead.
  • KeepKOP - This means that you want only King of Pop in the lead.
  • KeepWACKO - This means that you want only Wacko Jacko in the lead.

So those are my ideas for now (I might come up with something else later). Please let me know what you think about this, and also offer your own thoughts! Thank you very much.

Update: I added a new requirement on who can take part in the voting.UberCryxic 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good and fair. It seems that there isn't much consensus on the issue, so polling will give everyone a clearer view of what's at hand. Although I do have a few issues with the way this straw poll is set up; although I support the general idea. But remember to stay civil and stay cool. For the most part, let's get a fresh discussion with a good idea of where everyone stands. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, no, that is unacceptable. Your rules and requirements are yours only and are not Wikipedias. We don't operate like that, certainly not on a basis of pure voting. We operate on consensus and that is all there is to it. You are going to have to work within Wikipedia's consensus building model and not try to impose your prefered model. If you want to include KOP in the intro, you have to build a new consensus. Sarah 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does call for consensus, but at times when that cannot be reached, it also calls for voting to see where everyone stands. Also, is it not true that the very consensus you are currently claiming is derived from the poll above? After all, whenever you do mention any reason for why KOP should not be included in the lead, it virtually always stems directly or indirectly from the poll, so I'm quite confused by your comments here.UberCryxic 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, the only legitimacy you do have for your claims is from the poll. After all, not everyone agreed at the end of that process. So you never really established consensus in the first place; you just won a shoddy poll that was biased to begin with, then used that to claim "consensus." Also, just as a curious tidbit, Manboobies probably made a hundred claims speaking of this "earlier" consensus before the vote was taken, but there was no such thing. He was just pulling "facts" out of you know where. In fact, this lead appears to have contained the KOP label (and only that, or at least only that prominently highlighted and in the first sentence or something)) for much of its history; the vote was what killed that (although it also took down the WJ label along with KOP).UberCryxic 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I am officially still supporting the poll idea above, but Sarah suggested that I offer something here about what I would want specifically. Ok, basically: it doesn't have to go in the first sentence. It can be meshed in somewhere in the second or third paragraph and it does not have to be in bold. I think these are reasonable concessions given some other articles (like that of Elvis, which is screaming out "LOOK AT ME I'M THE KING OF ROCK AND ROLL"). It should read something like "For his contributions to the music industry, he is known by fans and some media as the King of Pop." I will also highlight what those contributions are (his moves, vocals, etc).UberCryxic 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds very decent to me. :: ehmjay 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's reasonable. This is all what consensus is about. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm new to this debate but I think this makes perfect sense......it's definitely something he's known by and adds notability to the subject.Faysals 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess this is it. Several days have passed and a tentative consensus has emerged that KOP, and only KOP, should be included in the lead. I will now place the following statement at the end of the third paragraph:

--- For his numerous accomplishments in the music industry, he is widely known among fans and some media as the "King of Pop." ---

If you have any concerns about this, please voice them here, but please please please do not start an edit war. Thank you all very much.UberCryxic 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

breaking news 2007 album

michael jackson has just released a new book called 'my world', the book contains lots of exclusive photos and contains the lyrics to the new and unreleased song 'you are so beautiful', which is going to be on his new album-the lyrics are absolutly brilliant! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.52.69 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Let's hope it sells as well as "Invincible"! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarveyCarter (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

It will probably outdo Invincible and fall short of HIStory. I'm saying around 15 million worldwide, which is still very good generally, although certainly not what MJ was once used to.UberCryxic 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I don't think normal people are interested him. (HarveyCarter 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Obviously people are interested in Michael Jackson, whether negatively or positively. In terms of sales, he's still doing very well. The Thriller video is dominating music video sales for iTunes, for just one example. MJ, I think, gets more hits on Youtube than any other entertainer...ever (and his videos have been watched more than that of any other musician). I could go on and on, but those are just some examples to highlight my point.UberCryxic 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that somehow.--Crestville 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected; Madonna had more results (about 17,600) than MJ. Right now, a search for Michael Jackson on Youtube gives about 16,300 results. The Beatles had about 13,300, Elvis around 4,600, and this guy's Crosby about 270 (ok ok that doesn't count because he performed so long ago). Well he's around the top; I searched for some other famous artists and none beat MJ. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't someone else out there besides Madonna with more hits, but since I've eliminated some other popular musicians, I'm "estimating" that MJ is probably in the top three.UberCryxic 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 will become 2008, do we need this much information on his new album? it hasn't even been released yet.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

mj on tv

only just discovered in the paper tonight there is 'michael jackson's most shocking moments' on the biography channel at 10pm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.18.159 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

1993 song:watzupwitu

I think someone should write an article about the 1993 song with Eddie Murphy called watzupwitu, I have lots of information on the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.104.174 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

New 2007 Michael Jackson Track

Hip-hop Producer Tempamental has recording a new track with Pras (fugees) & Michael Jackson. "Tempamental - No Friend Of Mine feat. Pras Michel & Michael Jackson" the link is http://www.myspace.com/tempamental. The track is a mixture of hip-hop and latin music and features a strong chorus and a hair raising verse from Michael Tt is rumoured the track will feature in Pras' new album and has recieved 100% positive feedback on Tempamental's website. The King is Back!

Badmansami 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Sam Orgill

Justin Timberlake is the King of Pop, not the self-proclaimed "King" Wacko Jacko who stopped making good music in 1991.

Not that this is relevant to the improvement of the article, but I'm willing to entertain your notion. I'm going to ignore your factual inaccuracies (he was not self-proclaimed) and focus on your egregious opinion. Under what standard would you say Justin Timberlake is the King of Pop?

• JT worldwide album sales (solo): 12 million (maybe)
• MJ worlwide album sales (solo): 300 million to 500 million (likely, but maybe higher)

• JT #1s on the Hot 100 (solo): 2
• MJ #1s on the Hot 100 (solo): 13 (record for solo male artist in the Hot 100 era, ie. since 1958)

• Grammies won by JT: 4
• Grammies won by MJ: 13

• JT's style? *cricket* *cricket*
• MJ's style? The robot, the moonwalk, the sidewalk, the cobra, and those insane spins, among dozens of other things.

Case closed, nuff said. MJ is the King of Pop; it's something he can't lose anyway. The title "King of Pop" is not an attribute that you can have today and lose tomorrow. It's just something by which you're known, and MJ is known as the KOP, not Justin. Justin is pretty good, but MJ is light years ahead.UberCryxic 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Justin is still performing. Wacko hasn't performed for a decade, he's $400 million in debt, and only his fanatical fanbase of mentally ill teenagers still buy his two decades old stuff. The last decent music he released was on the "Dangerous" album 15 years ago. Justin is the King of Pop, most articles refer to Jackson as the former King of Pop or one-time King of Pop. (HarveyCarter 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

"King of Pop" is a title, not an attribute. You don't just have it now and lose it later. Michael Jackson will always be the King of Pop. Michael Jackson's last album of original material was Invincible, and that was in 2001. Furthermore, he performed at the World Music Awards in 2006. So I don't know where this "for a decade" stuff is coming from. He planned to release a new album shortly after Invincible, but obviously certain circumstances prevented that. I should also note that while his popularity has declined in the United States, he is still riding high abroad. Timberlake's best-selling solo album, Justified (2002), shipped about 7 million copies worldwide, but Invincible, which did rather poorly by MJ standards, had about 8 million (and maybe more). Also, it hit 2x Platinum in the United States. So when we say MJ is declining, the appropriate thing to recognize is that he's declined when compared to himself, not to most other artists. Obviously people have diverging standards when it comes to how MJ should do, mainly because he's done so much before. I don't think he's in debt anymore, and either way he is so asset-rich that he can get out of it.UberCryxic 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh also, it doesn't matter that Justin is performing more than MJ. That is a silly standard to hold because as soon as Justin stops performing, then there will be a new King of Pop according to you. What matters is historical significance and accomplishments. Once Justin does what Michael has or surpasses it, then you can think about adding a "king" to his name somewhere. Until then, those kinds of sobriquets belong to people like MJ or Elvis...and only them.UberCryxic 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's awful performance at the WMA only proved he can't sing at all any more. It's not surprising that he is bankrupt with debts of $400 million, considering he hasn't released an album of new material for 6 years and that one flopped. Resurrection was cancelled before his arrest in 2003. Jackson only made it as a solo performer because of Quincy Jones and without him it was all downhill. "King of Pop" was a meaningless, self-proclaimed title which Jackson and his people insisted should be used after 1989. It is notable that Elvis Presley, a far better and more talented and successful performer as well as a far, far better person never cared for his title. Had the real King been alive in 1994 you can bet he would never, ever have allowed his daughter to marry WJ. Most young people today, except sad fans of a bankrupt disgraced tax exile, know Justin as the King of Pop, not some guy from the Eighties whose sick personal life has forever overshadowed his dated Eighties pop music. (HarveyCarter 15:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

MJ did not really do much at the WMA, so it's not enough to judge on whether he can still sing or perform. His vocals in No Friend of Mine, a song released by DJ Tempamental in 2006 and featuring MJ, are still pretty impressive, however, and will.i.am has praised Michael Jackson's voice as either the best or one of the best in the industry. He'll continue to have a great voice for quite some time, don't you worry about that. This information that you are spewing out regarding MJ's financial status must be, again, another figment of your imagination. I believe he restructured his finances after the trial and is no longer in trouble. He was at one point, but no more. Under what standards are you claiming that Invincible flopped? Could it be the double-standard that I talked about earlier (ie. holding MJ accountable to his previous success and not those of his contemporaries)? For example, Chris Brown's album went 2x Platinum and it's considered "sucessful." Well, Invincible also went 2x Platinum; why is that not successful? Invincible also sold much more worldwide than Chris Brown's album, so why is it a flop exactly? King of Pop was a title first coined by Elizabeth Taylor and enthusiastically used by fans of MJ. They do not use it because MJ "told them to," but merely because they think it is an appropriate nickname to describe his legendary career. On Quincy: you need to review your history. MJ had spectacular success working with Quincy, of course, but he also had spectacular success without Quincy. Dangerous, done without Quincy, sold about 30 million copies worldwide, just as much as Bad. HIStory, if you include the greatest hits re-release in 2001, sold 21 million copies worldwide and Blood on the Dance Floor became the greatest selling remix album ever. MJ was successful because he was unique....everything about him was unique: the moves, the vocals....everything. That's what got people interested. Also, he was a terrific songwriter in his own right; "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough," "Billie Jean," and "Beat It" are all just some of the famous songs written by MJ (and these three all went to #1). Well let me tell you something about "young people:" I go to college, and pretty much everyone around here knows who "King of Pop" refers to. Justin Timberlake himself has been heavily influenced by MJ. I read once someone calling his debut album Justified the "2002 Off the Wall," which is a pretty accurate description. Justin was basically mimicking MJ in that work. Also, Justin himself recognizes that MJ is the King of Pop.UberCryxic 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jackson didn't perform at the WMA because he can't sing at all anymore. That is the real reason he hasn't toured for a decade, along with his bankruptcy. Even his vocals on "We've Had Enough" four years ago were poor and he never had a strong voice to begin with, certainly not comparable with the real King, Elvis Presley. Jackson has had financial problems since at least 1998 due to his declining sales and popularity, as well as his inactivity and having to support all his siblings and parents. In 2002 it was revealed he was in debt to various international banks to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and after losing those lawsuits in May 2003 he was confirmed as on the verge of bankuptcy with debts of $400 million. Invincible was a flop because it sold less than a third of his last album, "Dangerous", and it was thoroughly mediocre music. Almost all of Jackson's remaining fans regard it as his worst album. In 1989 Jackson made it known he had to be addressed as the King of Pop - a meaningless, self-proclaimed title. He even planned to buy Graceland so he could demolish it, which certainly says far more about Jackson's megalomania than it does about Presley. Half the songs on the Dangerous album weren't good, especially the unbelievably awful Heal the World, and it only sold 30 million copies on the strength of his previous three albums. Yeah, WJ was unique all right, but the less said about that the better. You must know some very sad 20-year-olds if they still admire the disgraced former King of Pop. Anyway, most people know him as Wacko Jacko. Justin is the real King of Pop and like Eminem he just doesn't want to risk offending WJ's fans. Justin will continue to perform, while Jackson's active career finished a decade ago. (HarveyCarter 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I assure you MJ can still sing; have you heard No Friend of Mine? His vocals on that song are very impressive, even as he's nearing 50. I urge you to check the song out on Youtube. I don't know if you'll like the actual song, but MJ's vocals on it are amazing. He actually has a very versatile voice rather than a purely "strong" one. That's why he's been able to do everything from ballads ("Speechless," "You Are Not Alone," "Lady in my Life," and so on) to rock songs ("Beat It," "Dirty Diana," etc). Hopefully you'll agree that the most important characterisic in a voice is individuality and distinctiveness, not necessarily "strength." But even if not, MJ has proven that, when he wants, his voice can project a great deal of force. Bottom line: when people hear Elvis, they know it's Elvis, and when they hear MJ, they know it's MJ. Now, I want you to make up your mind on this bankruptcy. You're saying he was in bankruptcy, but now you've changed to "on the verge" of bankruptcy. Seriously, make up your mind and stick with something. You might as well if you're going to throw bs all around, right? What's the point of changing a story that's crappy to begin with? Michael Jackson never went bankrupt, and in 2004 we have this article on US Today speaking about hs financial solvency: Jackson's finances are solid, adviser says. He's had financial problems, but this is mostly because MJ has high-profile and well-known shopping sprees. It's a character flaw, but it has little or nothing to do with his popularity on the charts. He's just a habitual spender. Either way, I think at this point he is fine financially, and he's still making money every time a Beatles song is played. Invincible was a great album, but it was not as heavily promoted as his previous work. MJ had a falling out with Sony and the album could never really have been a success after that. It was doing fine initially: it sold over 5 million copies worldwide in its first two months. That's pretty impressive. Plenty of MJ fans would regard Invincible as better than the solo work he did with Motown in the 1970s. MJ has had 13 albums of original material, and Invincible is better than about 5 or 6 of those. Even if you're only talking about the Epic releases, however, I'm sure most fans would agree that Invincible is better than Blood on the Dance Floor. Regardless, I find it humorous that a person who seems to despise Michael Jackson and everything about him is making comments on what MJ's fan base likes and doesn't like. I'll remember that one....Dangerous was a great album, and your opinion of it reinforces the point I just made. MJ fans absolutely love this album; it had plenty of great songs, including classics like "Black or White," "Will You Be There," "Remember the Time," and "In the Closet." Also, I'll have to strongly disagree with you on "Heal the World;" I thought it was a terrific song. In fact, MJ's inspirational songs are all good: "Man in the Mirror," "Heal the World," "Cry," and so on. All this aside, then why did HIStory sell over 20 million copies (amounting to around 40 million discs with prices per disc, not album)? Was that on Quincy's strength too? Your general argument here is tenuous at best. At worst, it's completely laughable. The vast majority of people around the world know Michael Jackson as the King of Pop; they would never have heard of "Wacko Jacko." In the Anglophone world, the latter name is somewhat more popular, but it still pales in comparison to the use and prominence of King of Pop. And again....I wish you would address my point instead of blabbering endlessly: King of Pop is a title, not something that you "possess" or that is intrinsic about you, like natural hair color or something. MJ will always be the King of Pop.UberCryxic 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Actual figures

The intro to the article contains demonstrably false information. Jackson has sold around 300 million records worldwide, not 750 million, and "Thriller" has sold a maximum of 51 million copies, not 104 million. This needs to be corrected since Jackson doesn't even approach the sales of Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby and The Beatles. (HarveyCarter 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

It's actually uncertain how much MJ has sold overall, and the same is true for the people you mentioned (btw....Bing Crosby?? wtf??). The Thriller figure has been certified by Guinness, which is a very reliable source, although I have some doubts over its accuracy myself. Nevertheless, the 51 million figure was an estimate from the 90s or something, so that too is pretty damn wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say the real figure is between 60 and 100 million. But this is all speculation, which Wikipedia does not permit. That all aside, let me just mention that Michael Jackson has received who knows how many "greatest selling artist" ever awards. It's either him, Elvis, or the Beatles (I'm not quite sure where Crosby came from).UberCryxic 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bing Crosby has sold 900 million records worldwide. The Thriller figure has not been certfied, the actual figure is 51 million maximum and Jackson claiming 104 million sales (ridiculously exaggerated which only his most mentally ill fans could believe) does not make it so. The actual figure is around 47 million.(HarveyCarter 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

How you can just come out and claim that Thriller has only sold 47 million copies (even though earlier in your comment you mentioned it was 51 million) is beyond me. As the previous user stated, Guinness has recognized the new high number to be fact - and since we always have used Guinness' numbers in the past we have to consider it to be true. They wouldn't just use that number because Jackson says so. And also look at this - that original 51 million number has been in the books since the early nineties. Since then Thriller has been re-released numerous times (including in a special edition) and has continued to sell (in fact, if I remember correctly it re-entered the charts for some time). So to think that the number wouldn't have increased over time is preposterous. While I agree the current number seems EXTREMELY high, I'm not the least surprised. And please remember to be civil with your comments, and to also provide some evidence when you make outrageous claims. :: ehmjay 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Harvey, can I get a source for the Bing Crosby figures? Frankly, I think they are crap. Don't get me wrong, Crosby is freaking insanely good, but he hasn't sold 900 million worldwide. If you can actually certify that, then he would be, bar none, the greatest selling artist ever (the Beatles and Elvis estimates seem way too hyped, as do some for MJ). Anyway, I just want to caution us all before we start speaking about "actual" figures. Ontologically, all these artists have a definite, set number of albums that they have sold at this precise time, but we are nowhere near being able to recognize what those figures are. There's a lot of speculation with everyone of these guys. Generally, however, the three greatest selling "artists" ever are said to be MJ, the Beatles, or Elvis. We can debate their ranking all night long, but we're pretty damn sure that they are the top three.UberCryxic 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Crosby had sold a confirmed 400 million records worldwide at the time of his death in 1977. "White Christmas" was reiussued as a single that year and sold more than a million copies in a matter of months. His Christmas songs continue to sell more than any other entertainer's every year. Jackson has sold around 300 million records worldwide, less than half the figure claimed by his deluded spokesman. If he had sold 750 million records then he wouldn't have debts of $400 million. By the early 1990s the "Thriller" album - only a huge success because of Quincy Jones - had sold around 35 million copies. 1993 changed all that and since "Invincible" sold a massively low 8 million copies, Jackson isn't even on the list of biggest selling artists. If the Guinness Book of Records did print the laughably fake 104 million figure then it was on false information provided by Jackson's people. Certainly not comparable with the 1 billion sales of The Beatles, Elvis, and only just ahead of Sir Elton John's 250 million. (HarveyCarter 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

You still have not provided any sources for the Crosby figures. I will reasonably surmise that they are a figment of your imagination until you show me something tangible and reliable. Michael Jackson is often listed as one of the greatest selling artists of all time. Wikipedia does it: Best-selling music artist. I'm pretty sure the Elvis and Crosby figures you've given are complete crap. This is because MJ was the first American artist certified for having sold more than 100 million copies abroad (and undoubtedly Crosby and Elvis have not caught up in the meantime in terms of international sales, nor are they close). And again, MJ has been given who knows how many awards proclaiming him the greatest selling artist ever. I'm not saying he is - there's not too much information to make a sound decision - but he's definitely up there.UberCryxic 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The official Elvis website shows he has sold 1.1 billion records worldwide. Even thirty years after his death he continues to sell millions every year. That won't be the case thirty years after Jackson overdoses. Both Elvis and Crosby have sold far more than Jackson's 300 million worldwide record sales. Elvis Presley is confirmed as the biggest selling solo artist in history, and only The Beatles have sold more. (HarveyCarter 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Elvis's website is, to put it lightly, wrong if that's what it says. I have repeatedly asked for sources on the Crosby figures yet you have given nothing. Most of Elvis's sales are in America, and MJ has probably sold more than both of them combined abroad. The RIAA, which I believe you were referring to, counts only in the United States. So in the US, yes, Elvis is the greatest selling solo artist ever. But in the world? That's up to debate, and I think it unlikely given the available evidence. Of course MJ will continue to sell well after his death. As I said, he remains a very popular artist all over the world (ie. in places like Britain, France, and Japan....he's huge there). America will probably warm itself up again once enough time passes.UberCryxic 13:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Jackson's music is sooooooooo Eighties, while Presley's is eternal. Also Elvis had a much better voice, a great movie career and is a much bigger icon. In 1960 Bing received a platinum record as First Citizen of the Record Industry for having sold a confirmed 200 million discs, a number that doubled by 1980. Jackson fans tend to be very young, mentally disturbed and unemployable which is why they don't realize just how massive Bing was. From 1931 to 1945 Bing enjoyed a level of popularity which exceeded Jackson, The Beatles and Presley COMBINED. He was the biggest selling solo artist at the time of his death in 1977 and his music continues to sell well. Michael Jackson has only sold 300 million records worldwide and his dated pop garbage is only good for laughing at. (HarveyCarter 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Elvis is a bigger icon in the Anglophone world, no doubt about that, but he's not that big an icon in other places. You'll find that, for example, in the Francophone world, MJ is much bigger. Internationally speaking, MJ is by and large the most famous and most popular musician ever (album sales are just one out of many pieces of evidence supporting this claim; his global tours, which continuously crushed attendance records, are another). Both Elvis and MJ have made music that will be listened to 100 years from now and even longer. Some MJ songs, like "Billie Jean," could have been released today and they would be thought of as "modern." If you fix the instrumentation up a little, the same is true for something like "Jailhouse Rock," which happens to be my favorite Elvis song. I've found some sources mentioning the 200 million figure in 1960, but this is all a little vague. Is this figure for "record"/albums, or does it include singles sales and just about everything else? Outside of that, the best that I could find were some sites talking about his combined "record sales" at 400 million. A delusional site claimed 900 million (and 1.1 billion for Elvis), but again, that number is grossly exaggerated (I noticed, for example, that some of these estimates included the singles sales for White Christmas). I'd be willing to buy something in between 200 to 400 million for Crosby (likely towards the lower end), but the problem is that not many sources mention this. I don't know if it's because Bing Crosby has been largely forgotten now (1.7 million Google hits[17] as compared to 3.8 million for Elvis[18] and nearly 57 million for Michael Jackson[19]) or if it's for whatever other reason that we can't quite figure out. My whole point is that this business of counting record/album sales is a bit murky and vastly unclear. I'd be much more comfortable offering ranges for how much these performers have sold, not (even) rough estimates and numbers. But what is clear is that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest selling artists ever. I will ignore the personal remarks as addressing them would give undeserved legitimacy.UberCryxic 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

His tours ended ten years ago. Both Elvis and MJ have made music that will be listened to 100 years from now and even longer - yeah sure, people thought that about Bing Crosby and many others. Some MJ songs, like "Billie Jean," could have been released today and they would be thought of as "modern." - Hahahahahahahaha, thank I needed a good laugh! Thriller sounds almost as dated as Off the Wall. Is this figure for "record"/albums, or does it include singles sales and just about everything else? - Most of Bing's sales are singles. A delusional site claimed 900 million (and 1.1 billion for Elvis) - Far less delusional than WJ's mentally ill fans claiming 750 million sales, when the actual number is 300 million. I'd be willing to buy something in between 200 to 400 million for Crosby (likely towards the lower end), but the problem is that not many sources mention this. I don't know if it's because Bing Crosby has been largely forgotten now - Yeah dream on, Crosby's sales were well over 400 million by 1980, 27 years ago, and it's funny that this "largely forgotten" entertainer has the biggest selling jazz album at amazon. Bing is more important than Jackson in every way, influence and sales, and he didn't need any promoters or producers to help him. (HarveyCarter 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

It's difficult to assess what you mean by "dated." Is it the instrumentation? If this is so, then every song and every musical composition ever made will be considered dated at one point in history; it's inescapable. It's true for MJ songs, for Elvis songs, and for Crosby sings. "Jailhouse Rock" is a great song, but somehow I doubt it's something Nirvana or Blink 182 would have made. Other than that....let me get to the greatest part of your post:

"Most of Bing's sales are singles"

Lol. Good job Crosby! Well, I'll give the obvious reply: that does not count, at least not for the album standard that we're (ostensibly?) upholding. If you do count "everything," however, then MJ crushes Crosby a hundred to one (figuratively speaking; still it's heavily skewed towards MJ). I thought you were just speaking about album sales. Even for everything, I doubt Crosby goes up to 900 million, but the 400 million looks more likely now. It's also the most cited figure I could find, so I'm staying with that. Still, if you include everything for MJ....oh my lord....I don't even want to make a guess; I'll give you a hint though: the stratosphere.

Once again, we don't know what the "actual" figures are for any of these people. I can tell you that including everything for MJ means you're hovering somewhere around a billion, if not way more, depending on the standards you adopt (ie. Thriller alone is like an industry rather than an album...not only is it the greatest selling album of all time, but The Making of Thriller was at one point the greatest selling home video in the United States...it now has something like 100 million copies if I'm not mistaken...the same as Thriller the album worldwide).

I don't want to be rude towards you or Crosby, but the truth is that he's nowhere near as famous as MJ. I grew up in Albania and never knew who Bing Crosby was. I didn't find out until much later here in the US. I also asked some of my friends and they have never heard of Crosby. It's probably not indicative of the general population because older people have heard him, but it's just something that I wanted to throw out there.UberCryxic 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting fan gushing crud

I see that since I got this article GA passed somebody has removed almost everything on the 2003 case to the point where you wouldn't have known it had happened from reading the page. This is completely disgusting and smacks of utter ridiculous behaviour. On the one hand I'm sitting here reading how UberCryxic thinks it's not at all out of the question to have "King of Pop" in the lead, but apparently he doesn't seem to mind that almost all the information on the 2003 trial has completely disappeared. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't revert this wholesale back to the GA passed version of the article, because that was the last time this article didn't suck.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually not aware of what was taken out of the article, and rest assured that I myself did not take it out.UberCryxic 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention of plastic surgery in intro pic caption

I really don't think it's necessary that 'before plastic surgery' is added to the picture. I mean, just a year is sufficient. Such observations should be made in the appropriate articles and/or sections, not the intro. I believe the comment draws bias attention to the physical appearance of michael jackson. Why not say for example, "during the Off the Wall era"? I mean, that would be biased towards his career over his personal life. So I think that just leaving it at a year is sufficient. --Paaerduag 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Off the Wall didn't begin until 1979. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarveyCarter (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

lol, exactly my point, why not put in 'before Off the Wall' instead of 'before plastic surgery'? because both statements are biased towards either career or personal life. Therefore, I believe year should be all there is. Agree?--Paaerduag 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although having said that, Jackson was of course recording the album in 1978 so it does count as from the "Off the Wall" era. (HarveyCarter 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Then you could say "during the Off the Wall era" for argument's sake. either way, it's the same principle as the mention of "before plastic surgery" and both should be out. --Paaerduag 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2008 world tour

is michael jackson really touring in 2008, does any one know anything i don't? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.40.105 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Nope. His last tour was a decade ago and now he is too disgraced, ill and bankrupt to tour. (HarveyCarter 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I would honestly like to ask for people who are non-fans and bored out of their mind to stop posting here. You can go to a JT discussion topic and post your opinion on "Justin is the best" there. Anyone who doesn't find it normal to respect this should definitely be forbidden to use the internet, due to the lack of respect and civilised manners. Thanks in advance.

P.S. MJ might not make a big tour,but I think that after the album goes out,he will definitely promote it.

No, he hasn't toured for ten long years and he couldn't promote his crap Invincible flop six years ago.

And yet despite that poor promotion, which wasn't his fault, Invincible sold 8 million copies worldwide and went double platinum in the US. Contrast this with Justin Timberlake's best selling album, Justified, which sold 7 million worldwide or with Beyonce B'day, which also reached double platinum in the United States.UberCryxic 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the picture changed?

Why was the picture changed? I think the previous one was excellent for the following reasons:

• It showed the "pop icon" Michael Jackson, not the person Michael Jackson or "the man behind the mask". To most people MJ is a pop icon; personal pictures, including "before any surgery" pictures, should appear further down in the article. (I also think the "ghost" image people have of MJ is from the 80ies, that when they look at him now, they compare with how he was in the eighties, not in the seventies...)
• It showed MJ at the peak of his popularity (like an article about Elvis or the Beatles would do in their leads)
• It showed MJ in a transition stage between "black" and "white", thus clearly demonstrating the man's ambiguety and the reason why he's one of the most photographed individuals on earth
• It is a compromise between those who want to portray him as he is today, and those who are eager to show his "original" face
• It showed MJ with sunglasses and a glove, typical features of his (yes, you could put a photo of Osama bin Laden with no beard on his page, to show a more "authentic" Osama, but what's the point, when most people think of the beard?)

I ask you to consider these points thoroughly, and I hope you will restore the perfect "pop icon" picture that used to introduce this article. Bab from the eo: wp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I see someone just reverted. To prevent a picture edit war, however, consider my above points anyway! :-) Bab from the eo: wp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Why was the picture changed? I think the 1978 one was better for the following reasons:

• Because this is not the kind of picture we expect of Michael Jackson
• Because it shows the "real" face of Michael Jackson
• Because many people want to see how he looked before plastic surgery
• Because we see Michael Jackson in a different posture, not the pop icon posture that we have been used to see for the past 25 years.
• Because Michael was already a pop icon in 1978

While people like you want to show Michael's "real" face, many others want to show him as he is today - that I know for sure after watching this page for some months. I can't see why you would object to the present, perfect compromise photo. (You are welcome to add the other photo somewhere in the main text.) Also, I don't think MJ was a pop icon yet, in 1978. He was a pop star, that's for certain, but a pop icon is something more... A pop icon is like Mickey Mouse, a figure that has its existence in people's minds rather than in real life. The white glove, the sunglasses, the fedora - those became part of a popular image larger than the person Michael Jackson.

Thirdly, I disagree that an encyclopedic article should show a wholly unexpected picture in the lead. For instance, the article about Britney Spears should show a shot of her onstage or something, not a pic of her as a small girl, nor one of the recent tabloid shots of her when we get to see her "real" scalp. But I will retire from this discussion, as I am not actually an en: wikipedian. Bab from the eo: wp

I for one totally support the reverting of the picture. It shows Michael as he was seen in public during the height of his career. It shows what he is most remembered for. Of course, throughout the article there are other pictures, but the introduction picture of michael waving with his trademark jeweled glove not only validates the name 'the gloved one' but also is important in capturing the stance in which he is most remembered. Of course, nothing is WRONG per se with the 1978 picture, but the comment was bias. Also, it's in black and white and wouldn't a colour, high quality picture be better than a black and white one? Just pitching in. --Paaerduag 11:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph

Ok, I have rewritten the third paragraph. I have done this because the lead did a really bad at job at telling people why Michael Jackson was such a huge music star. It basically listed a few awards, something about Thriller, and so on. What used to be the second paragraph is now the third, and the new second paragraph essentially highlights MJ's contributions to the music industry over his career. I have the followed the model from the articles of many other famous musicians, like that of Elvis and the Beatles. Overall, I believe the new addition is fairly balanced and appropriate.UberCryxic 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HarveyCarter and his sockpuppets

My guess is that we should remove posts from HarveyCarter and his sockpuppets, rather than respond to them. Many of them are in violation of WP:BLP, and some were posted after the main account was blocked indefinitely. If there are lots of replies, it gets harder to remove just some posts from a thread, as the replies will no longer make any sense. ElinorD (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you want to do it or should I? And should we remove everything he wrote or just everything after the Harvey account was banned?UberCryxic 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them.UberCryxic 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My feeling is that everything from after he was blocked should be removed, plus everything in violation of WP:BLP from before that. However, that would be quite a tedious task, and I'm about to have dinner! I might have a look at it tomorrow. ElinorD (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha ok! Thanks for all your help!UberCryxic 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Only edits made after the ban can be removed. Some other edits that are clearly against the BLP policy can be removed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias Nature of this Article

This article should really be renamed. It may as well be called "The Controversies of Michael Jackson". This article deals with EACH AND EVERY LAW SUIT AGAINST HIM, and EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF ALL HIS SCANDALS in precise accuracy. However, his ACHIEVEMENTS ARE SKIMMED OVER LIKE THEY MEAN NOTHING. Isn't that extremely unfair, considering he won a Diamond award and has the biggest selling album of ALL TIME? I think it's plain disrespectful for Michael, and that it portrays him as something he's not. This man, Michael Jackson, is a MUSICIAN, not anything else (remember there was a trial and the verdict was NOT GUILTY, for those of you (ie HarveyCarter) who have chosen not to move on) and that we must write the article with GREATER emphasis on his music, because it is THAT which defines him. The problem is, if anyone tries to remove some of the content about his scandals, which is ludicrously OVER THE TOP, it is reverted. This article has become a one sided stagnation because people want the scandals to have precedence. I encourage people to stop this however, and to place greater emphasis on this man's remarkable music career. The rest of the internet may consider him a freak, but here on wikipedia, we are an unbiased, truthful, non-slander encyclopedia site, and we should not get caught up in scandals and instead focus on Michael's real achievements. So add as much sourced material about his remarkable career as you can, and please remove redundant, unnotable scandal details etc. There are ARTICLES dedicated to his controversies already. Please, don't let this become like all the other garbage on the internet. We need to stop this article sinking into the hole of criticisms and slander that the rest of the internet and arguably other respected media outlets have fallen into. --Paaerduag 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. While I think that it is important that the scandals are mentioned as they were a major part of Jackson's life, I think the article should focus on Jackson as a musician, after all that is what he is, a musician. Perhaps if people want in depth details we create a seperate article. But I think you make a very good point when mentioning that there is very little info regarding Jackson's musical career and achievements. Of course it's going to be tough to come to a consensus, but we can always try. I certainly think it'd be worth a shot. :: ehmjay 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism in Wikipedia....it will, quite literally, pass with the times. This article should be slightly better in upcoming years.UberCryxic 15:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is significant.

"Michael Jackson has been awarded numerous honors including the World Music Award's Best-Selling Pop Male Artist of the Millennium, American Music Award's Artist of the Century Award[6] and the Bambi Award's Pop Artist of the Millennium Award.[7] He is a double-inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (once as a member of The Jackson 5 in 1997, and as a solo artist in 2001)[8] and an inductee of the Songwriters Hall of Fame."[9]

This is significant why would it be taken out of the intro and not mentioned anywhere else unless someone enlightens me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I took this out and replaced it with the second paragraph you see now, which I think is MUCH better. The main problem I had with that paragraph was that it read like a laundry list...."MJ has won this, that"....that's not interesting or encyclopedic. Furthermore, MJ has won many awards; who's to decide why this one is more important than that one? I think those awards can be talked about later on in the body, but the lead should highlight why MJ is such a famous musician, not the awards he's won....UberCryxic 15:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you suggest in the body?

Probably at the times he won them. So his induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame could go in somewhere around 2001....his Diamond Award in 2006...and so on.UberCryxic 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

michael jackson in japan

should there be more information on this? because he has arrived in japan for fan appreciation events and many believe this is the first stage of his comeback —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.96.76 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

RM intro and rewrite of article minus sources

All the additions in my absence had 0 sources and the intro was truly horrific. Parts were not even from the VH1 article they were sourced from, and they weren't acceptable anyway. Seriously, if you think quoting VH1's clearly biased article is suitable for an encyclopedia you are wrong. We're aiming for FA status, not for the removal of our existing GA status.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The VH1 article was a biography, and VH1 is a major, reputable source in the music world. Furthermore, you talk about just VH1, but you removed several other things that did not relate to VH1, even things that were reached through consensus on this very talk page.UberCryxic 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"His distinctive vocals, style, and moves have inspired a whole generation of hip hop, pop, and R&B artists, including Beyoncé Knowles, Usher, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Omarion, Ne-Yo, and Chris Brown, among others" source? And the bit about him inventing the robot. Do tell where the VH1 article says that.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of finding sources for the people above and have rectified the problem (well, maybe a problem) regarding the robot dance.UberCryxic 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"that have redefined the limits of physical expression" - this is definately not a fact, either. Marlon Brando in a streetcar named desire, maybe, do you have a source for that?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson is widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers and popular recording artists in modern times," - the source attributed does not contain that text anywhere. You do realise that making a claim it does is a serious miscarriage and vandalism of this articles intent?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

VH1 states the following: "Michael Jackson was unquestionably the biggest pop star of the '80s, and certainly one of the most popular recording artists of all time." It does not say "is widely regarded," but that's a sociological statement that you derive by looking at articles like that of VH1. There are, however, plenty of articles that also explicitly state what I think you're looking for, but it just seems like those would be unnecessarily stringent requests. I mean, it is Michael Jackson; not much of a stress to say he's one of the greatest entertainers in modern times (in the sense that although it is an opinion, it's held by many people). I will also look for a source that says something along the lines of "Michael Jackson has changed the way we think about what the human body can do" or something.UberCryxic 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

michael's right arm.jpg

I want to know the source of this image. Important event or not, the source of this image may dictate that it is being used improperly here.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually want to remove that image along with the mugshot. They just seem to be sensational visual aids with which to draw people into the article, not exactly what an encyclopedia should be striving for.UberCryxic 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The mug shot is fair game. It's in the right section. I don't have qualms about the images, merely the source of the abuse one. I'm a little distracted by their poor positioning tho, i don't like where they've been shoved.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I bring them up because they are not of any real encyclopedic value. As I said, they seem to have made their way into this article for their shock effects.UberCryxic 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

King of Pop

You should be aware that there now is consensus for the inclusion of this label in the lead above all others. I invited potentially dissenting opinion (like Sarah) to comment on this, but beyond suggesting that I offer a statement to resolve this issue, she did not say anything. As a result, there was unanimous support for KOP to be featured in the lead alone.UberCryxic 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you do not get to place what you like in the lead just because you gave it 3 days and nobody said anything, and referring to Sarah Ewart as a "potentially dissenting opinion" is revoltingly informative of your drastic POV in editing this article. There is NO consensus, and beating people down until they can't be arsed to reply is not CREATING ONE. I can't also believe that you chose to post that on my talk page and I had to copy it here.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, whether or not Sarah is/was there at the time is irrelevant. The sentence and similar types were struck down for a good reason, because none of us agreed. I'll tell you what tho, if you like, I'll let it back if you put verbatim what the VH1 article said, ie that he made the KOP name up himself.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was given several days and many did say something. I can't comment on what Sarah would have done. But I will say this: she suggested that I offer a proposed solution, which I did above. I then requested that she participate in the conversation. I wrote to her (paraphrased): "I want your opinion on this so that I don't get reverted in the future." Know why I said that? To avoid moments like these. I will conduct this conversation if you so desire (there's nothing wrong with that), but please respect the earlier consensus reached. Thank you.UberCryxic 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree fundamentally with the sentence, he made up the name the VH1 source says he did. I disagree that there was a consensus. And whether there was one is irrelevant. I disagree and I'm here now, there is clearly no longer a consensus, and I will revert out that particular addition.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia works through process, and when I first came here, I did not run roughshod because I disagreed with the ommission of that label. I stuck it out and through over a week of argument came to a reasonable conclusion. This seems like a highly arbitary imposition on your part.UberCryxic 02:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say wait it out a little longer. However, "I'll bring the food", Jackson did not invent the name himself. Liz Taylor was the first to use it - and even if he did that doesn't mean it isn't valid. :: ehmjay 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to the sentence being put back in if the rest of the article is left as I last edited it, in terms of lead, I don't like the parts about perfecting/inventing the robot and moonwalk they are unsourced. I am extremely unhappy I am watching my favorite article going straight out the window in terms of GA status and I don't want that.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My main concerns with the lead before (again concerns which I brought up here AND with Sarah) was that one of the paragraphs was basically a laundry list of awards that Michael Jackson had won. But that does not have encyclopedic value, and Jackson has won so many awards that I would wonder why those particular ones were selected above others. The main issue was that the lead said so much about records and awards, but it did not say WHY Michael Jackson was such an influential musical figure. It did not say what he's remembered for in the music world. That's what I tried to fix.UberCryxic 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have partially fixed it, but the parts about him inventing/perfecting the robot are just not sourced. You have added depth on his accomplishments as a black man in a white dominated 80's, but the rest is just not sourceable, and I worry because this is a GA article, if the GA status is removed, it will mean my only article I have got to this state has been reverted. I don't want to see that.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the next few days, I will try and find sources for everything you have raised concerns about. If I cannot find any sources supporting those original statements, they will not be added. How's that?UberCryxic 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a decent source you should and can re-add them, but not unless you do.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way I would add "Mariah Carey" to the list of influenced. LA Reid in source 4 for Spears says that Carey was influenced, and he should know, he was bloody married to her.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your objection to my last change? Right now the second paragraph is reading poorly in terms of style.UberCryxic 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now it says that Michael Jackson broke through the color barrier on MTV with the music video for Thriller, but that's incorrect. He did that with the music video for Billie Jean. The Thriller music video wasn't released until December 1983, months after the videos for Beat It and BJ.UberCryxic 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with the lead as it looks right now, although I wouldn't mind if the third paragraph was completely deleted. Let me know about your concerns. Thank you.UberCryxic 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Should We or Shouldn't We Put the Nickname 'King of Pop' in the Introduction of the Michael Jackson Article?

I have an idea!! How about we go about this democratically, even though someone is bound to tell me that wikipedia is not a democracy. Whatever, I think we should put it to vote. There seems to be legitimate arguments on both sides. Why not, much like an administrator's request for adminship, have a 'support', 'oppose', and 'neutral' section in which opinions can be aired? the only 'dissenting' user above was I'll bring the food, no one else. maybe there are more, so how about it? democratic? is there anything inhernatly WRONG with going about reaching a concensus in this way, because things i do tend to be taken in the wrong way. Anyhow, I'll found this little section below, and encourage people to use it to reach a NEW consensus. By the way, senseless deletion of this section is unjustified as it DOES have EVERYTHING to do with the article. so, here it is:

NB: Please add comments by putting an asterix before them, and please only put ONE entry under ONE section. Also, please no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry as it will be discovered and neutralized. --Paaerduag 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT

• I totally support the name King of Pop being featured in the introduction, as it is used commonly and is synonymous with Michael. --Paaerduag 04:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of it. Israell 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT The fact that he has been known as The King of Pop should be included in the lead paragraph, if not the opening sentence. I really don't understand what the disagreement is about here. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The moniker has been used so extensively in relation to Jackson that there are a multitude of reliable sources for its inclusion. Cleo123 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE

NEUTRAL/UNDECIDED

HANG ON THERE! This poll is invalid. You can't just start polls like that; there has to be a process establishing what we're deciding on before we vote. Either way, we managed to avert a poll last time through the consensus that was reached. This vote has no legitimacy whatsoever. It seems that all contending parties, some very reluctantly, have agreed to leave King of Pop in the lead. That's good enough for now. This is unnecessary.UberCryxic 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A vote means nothing, there is nothing stopping sockpuppets, ip addresses and those with an intention to disrupt from disarraying and making a ridicule of the entire situation. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And will you desist from labelling me individually in a divide-and-conquer attempt? This is the internet, not your attempt to become class president.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll deal with your criticisms one by one.

• Firstly, why can't I start a poll? of course that the result is definately not concrete, but it will give a general idea. And I think it's pretty clear what we are deciding on, whether the King of Pop nickname should feature in the opening paragraph. Also, if someone doesn't start a poll, chances are it'll never happen. I have no ulterior motives. I am not seeking to be 'class president' either. I simply want something to be done instead of continually talking about things and not even getting an IDEA of whether the majority want this nickname in the intro or not.
• Secondly, I believe there is a rule along the lines of "if the user contributions show more than 100 edits, chances are the user is not a sockpuppet". I think that it is a good indication of whether a user is a sockpuppet or not. Also, checking the date in which the account was signed, and looking for similarities there and in article edited is a good indicator. Not perfect, but users under suspicion can normally have an IP check performed by an administrator.
• Thirdly, I am not trying to 'divide-and-conquer' anything. I'm sorry if my labelling of you caused any offense, but you were the only active dissenting user I could spot. I said 'there may be more' and doubtless there are. It was not a personal attack, and I will stress AGAIN that I don't want to be 'president' or anything such. Please don't brand me with labels.
• I would lastly like to point out that I did not mean this to be a poll, per se. I meant it to be kind of a discussion/forum sort of thing, IN RELATION TO THE ARTICLE (not a discussion forum for just opinions, certainly not!!!), in which users put their opinions under one heading, but in only one entry. I am not after ulterior motives here. I am not attempting anythang. It's just that this issue stretches back far into the HIStory of wikipedia, and I wanted to make an active attempt to deal with it. What is the due process that must be adhered to when establishing something of such a nature. I just want to have this issue brought to light so that everyone can have their say. Is there anything inherantly wrong with that? I'm sorry if you don't like what I'm saying, but I just don't see what's so wrong with what I'm trying to do. --Paaerduag 07:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps I have misunderstood the ideas of some other editors. I thought you were discussing whether it should be in the opening (first, very first) paragraph, but apparently you're just discussing whether it should be in the lead at all. I'm sorry that this misunderstanding arose, but I still hope that you'll understand that I have no ulterior motives. Perhaps you are right, maybe we should see whether anyone wants it in the lead. Well, I'm opened to opinion. anyone want 'King of Pop' to be in the lead? please don't say it's biased as this whole article reeks of recentism an an anti-michael streak which is so damn obvious that it is a joke. --Paaerduag 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the lead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our job is done. There's nothing left to do.UberCryxic 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do something else with this issue, then maybe we can discuss about whether it belongs right after his name first appears in the article (like with Elvis), whether it should be bolded, or whether it should stay where it is right now (bottom of the third paragraph per consensus reached above).UberCryxic 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

awards mentions in recent periods over the top

We should remove some information, we list all 8 awards from the guinness people, and devote a sentence to the world music awards. It's not important. he recieved even more in the past but we didn't fill the article up with the ones he got in the 90's. In fact we practically gloss over the 90's. There's an article about rewards for michael jackson, with no sources or decent information, I say we make all the awards one sentence long, cut out all the detail and put it in the article on his achievements and what-have-you.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One could say exactly the same thing for all the minor, irrelevant details of the scandals. I mean, this article is FOCUSED on the scandals, even though there are several pages dedicated to the scandals. So don't start saying that we should take out even more achievements. I mean, we should be taking out scandals. The minor, redundant details, that make this article reek of recentism. I think there should be MORE achievements, and less of the redundant, plainly offensive minutely dissected scandals, which have articles of their own. Yes there are articles DEVOTED to the scandals, so what this article needs is a big injection of achievements/positive information, not the endless rant of anti-jackson sentiment. This article is plain offensive to michael. --60.226.170.50 11:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe he shouldn't put himself in a position to be accused of pederasting children multiple times.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but it's not for us to decide what Michael Jackson should have or should not have done with his personal life. We are an encyclopedia and we are supposed to report, essentially, notable information from reliable sources in a global perspective. One of the main problems with this article is that people's ideas of establishing a neutral point of view involve divying up the coverage half and half between Jackson's music career and his personal life. However, ask yourself this: why do we even care that Michael Jackson was accused of molesting children? There are lots of known child molesters out there; why pay attention to this one, who was cleared of child molestation charges? The answer is obvious, of course. Michael Jackson is a famous musician and so the public is interested in what might be happening in his private life, whether it's a potential crime or him going to Japan to greet fans. Therein lies the answer, however: Michael Jackson is a famous musician, and everything that follows does so because of that. One would think his musical career should get greater coverage than his personal life. On top of this, I will also, again, appeal to Wikipedia's global perspective requirements. Michael Jackson is still very popular around the world, which was not hit by the tabloids as hard as people in the United States. You can easily gage this fact from his album sales in this decade (well over 25 million, of which only 4 to 6 million were in America) and from events like the recent visit to Japan, where people went wild for him. What the article says should also reflect those opinions.UberCryxic 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My reverts today

I just reverted two things: a change identifying Michael Jackson's race in the first sentence and his ranking by Rolling Stone in their recent "Immortals" list. The first was reverted because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a global perspective, and on that count, Jackson's nationality is more important than his race. In the United States, because of the color barriers that he broke, his race is obviously more important, but if we were to adopt that standard, we'd be essentially adopting an American-centric viewpoint. I reverted the second change because it is, frankly, irrelevant; Rolling Stone ranked Jackson as 35th. That's not impressive at all, to say nothing of the ludicrous position he was given (clearly he belongs much higher, but Rolling Stone has never exactly been a huge fan of Michael Jackson). I will reiterate my call that we delete that fourth paragraph mentioning his awards; I think it is useless and has no encyclopedic value.UberCryxic 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually scratch that last thought on deleting those awards. Although they are somewhat arbitrary, they are notable. I have now merged them with the third paragraphs, and I also think the current lead is fine.UberCryxic 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"robot and moonwalk redefining mainstream entertainment"

(excerpt) - Michael Jackson .... popularizing and displaying new techniques, like the robot and the moonwalk, that have redefined mainstream entertainment.

This is not true. The 'moonwalk' and the 'robot' dance moves have not redefined mainstream entertainment.

Haha yes they have. Those and the general way in which Michael Jackson moves have actually redefined the limits of physical expression, but that latter phrase was thought to be way too heady to include in the lead, so it was removed.UberCryxic 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, dear, the anon is right. Jackson's dances have not redefined mainstream entertainment. In fact, i've said multiple times it lacks GA quality but you continue to resist.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

King of Pop After Michael's Name (or thereabouts in the first paragraph)

I believe that, like the Elvis article, King of Pop should be right after Michael's name at the very start of the article. The name is extremely widespread, and King of Pop is almost always used to refer to Michael. Anyone agree? could we maybe reach a new concensus? Anyway, any opinions would be appreciated because I really think it belongs right after his name. After all, this article is a rubbish dump of recentism and hosts an anti-michael streak which is disgusting and offensive to poor michael. So I really don't think that King of Pop - which was coined by Liz Taylor NOT BY JACKSON as some claim - is biased in anyway. It is, and will always be, attributed to the true King of Pop, Michael Joseph Jackson. --Paaerduag 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It's just something he's known by, very prominently, and it highlights the subject's significance through the inclusion of a popular sobriquet.UberCryxic 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It can be construed as a synonym, and I see it as such, which means that it should be in the first paragraph (not necessarily the third, fourth, and fifth words of the article) and in boldface. Per MOS:BOLD, it shouldn't be italicised, but rather bolded. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the consensus reached here, the KOP label has been now added to the first sentence; it is also bolded.UberCryxic 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

Let me just say, in much stronger terms than has been said before, that this article is a prime example of how celebrity culture has infiltrated our encyclopedia. Just now, a paragraph was added about Michael Jackson's trip to Japan. We have to end this people; we can't keep covering Michael Jackson in this article every time there's news about him. This applies to some of the bs this article has on the last few years; much of that has to go. Cover the prominent issues and move on. We don't need to know every last detail of Michael Jackson's life; that's not an encyclopedic approach to writing articles.UberCryxic 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

UberCryxic, why is this being brought up now? Why wasn't it brought up when every single little lawsuit against Jackson was put down - and is still there - in the 2006 section? Why can't there be a similar display for his positives? I think that if you want to start removing the stuff about Japan, you had better first remove a LOT of the lawsuits above. Because the lawsuits are what really give this article a virtuosic anti-michael streak, and i am going to continue to add what he's doing positively because it just darn is not happening at the moment. Everyone adds every little scandal (animal abuse, workers suing, each little detail of child molestation which has its own TWO ARTICLES) and no one adds positives. Well I'm not for it. I want this article to portray Michael fairly, not like some monster. And if the redundant sexual abuse and other scandal details stay, in my mind so should the positives about japan and the coming year. People did it for the scandals, I'm doing it for michael's positives. --Paaerduag 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

also, why on earth is there a reference to the simpsons under the 2007 section? what on earth is happening here? the reference to the simpsons doesn't even turn up in edit mode! --Paaerduag 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove some of those silly things in these recent years....those include those lawsuits and blatant rumors. We are here to discuss what should go and what should not. Do you have any opinions on what you want to remove? Let's get consensus on it here in the talk page and move on from there. From the 2006 section, I want the following statements completely deleted, and I'm pleading encyclopedic irrelevance as the reason:

An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.[79] The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.[80][81] As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.

(This is a complete non-issue. Michael Jackson has full control of his children.)

On July 31, 2006, a federal judge allowed a $48 million claim against Jackson and one of Jackson's trusts for unpaid fees and breach of contract. All parties were ordered to reappear in court in September.[94]

Irrelevant. Remove.

On March 9, 2006, California state labor officials closed the singer's Neverland Ranch and fined him $69,000 for failure to provide employment insurance. The state "stop order" bars Jackson from "using any employee labor" until he secured required workers' compensation insurance. In addition to being fined $1,000 for each of his 69 workers, Jackson is liable for up to 10 days pay for those employees who now are no longer allowed to report to Neverland for work.[82] Thirty Neverland employees have also sued Jackson for $306,000 in unpaid wages.[83]

Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate.[84] There have been many reports of a possible sale of Neverland, but nothing tangible has been reported yet.

Just replace all this (essentially) crap with a curt statement clarifying that financial and other worries led him to close Neverland Ranch. Should take one sentence....

These court proceedings also brought to light unsuccessful projects planned with the actor Marlon Brando, including a dual interview at the actor's private island near Tahiti, and a DVD on acting.[89] Brando's son Miko Brando, a long time bodyguard and assistant to Jackson stated "The last time my father left his house to go anywhere, to spend any kind of time... was with Michael Jackson." "He loved it... [He] had a 24-hour chef, 24-hour security, 24-hour help, 24-hour kitchen, 24-hour maid service."[90]

Minor stuff. Irrelevant. Delete.

I also want the two images from the 2003-2006 section deleted. They have no encyclopedic value. Also from that section, the following statements should go or be modified:

On December 17, 2003, there were media reports that Jackson converted to the Nation of Islam.[65] However, in January 2007, Jermaine Jackson said that Jackson was considering converting to Islam.[66] Later, in 2005, it was also reported that he built a mosque on land adjoining the Bahraini royal family's home.[67]

Useless, forgettable, non-notable. Delete.

Marlon Brando informed Jackson on February 8, 2004 that the declarations made by Jordy Chandler relating to the 1993 child molestation allegations had been published on the internet site The Smoking Gun. This happened when Jackson was about to start an interview with journalist Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes. Jackson immediately left the studio and did not conduct the interview.[68] Jackson also attended Brando's memorial service in 2004 along with Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.

Also on August 6, 2004, Man In The Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story debuted on VH1 starring Flex Alexander as Michael Jackson.[69]

Rapper Eminem parodied new allegations raised against Jackson by Gavin Arviso in his music video for "Just Lose It" in 2004. The clip caused controversy and fueled Jackson to make a statement.

Per above, useless and forgettable. All of these can go.

In September 2005, it was reported that Ray Hultman took legal action against the publisher of his book about experiences in the trial, claiming heavy portions were plagiarized from a Vanity Fair article. Hultman also stated he felt "threatened" by the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez and regretted acquitting Jackson.[74]

Not about Michael Jackson, at least not too much.....can be let go.

In 2006, allegations of sexual assault were made against Jackson by a man who claims Michael Jackson molested him, intoxicated him with drugs and alcohol, and forced him to undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended him against allegations of child molestation in 2005, said "the charges are ridiculous on their face. They will be vigorously defended."[77]

Rumor, propaganda, and just talk, talk, talk. Delete.

Those are my suggestions. Any thoughts?UberCryxic 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

video games section

the video games section just kind of 'appeared' under biography, and I'd like to know why. When I edit, it doesn't come up as being where it is in the article, so I really don't know what to do. Also, some footnotes have disappeared and ceased to function (113) and I have no idea why. I'd like to have an explanation, if anyone knows what happened. --Paaerduag 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scandals: Over the top, wouldn't you agree?

There are SEVERAL scandals and details of scandals which are redundant and make this article read badly. RECENTISM, that's what this is about. And an anti-Michael streak which cannot be ignored. Here are 'bits' that I have a problem with:

Gloria Allred

After watching media coverage of the Berlin event, a California attorney and radio talk show host, Gloria Allred, wrote a letter to California's Child Protective Services, asking for an investigation into the safety of Jackson's children. She also spoke on CNN about the subject. Child Protective Services does not make their investigations public, so it is not known whether any action was taken as a result of Allred's letter.

When a reporter asked Jackson what he thought of Allred's complaints, he remarked "Ah, tell her to go to hell."

No offense but who really gives a damn what this bitch thinks? I mean, we don't even know who she is, and radio talk show hosts are always trying to bring attention to their boring pointless lives. It should go out. This is an article concerning Michael Jackson, not some random talk show host's opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn what this girl thinks.

You may not, but as Gloria Allred was an important person in the 1993 molestation case, it's staying.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2005 Allegations

On December 18 2003, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony, in February and March 2003, all regarding the same boy under 14. The felony complaint stated that Jackson had seven times "willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act, upon and with the boy's body and certain parts and members thereof, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires" of Jackson and the boy and that this sexual conduct has been "substantial". Also, that on two of these occasions, Jackson had administered to the boy an intoxicating agent, with intent thereby to enable and assist himself to carry out the previously mentioned act. Jackson denied and said that the sleepovers were non-sexual. He still described the boy on whose statements the accusations were based as "a sweet child"; he said the boy was manipulated by greedy parents.

Surely this isn't necessary in this much depth. There is a WHOLE ARTICLE dedicated to this kind of anti-Michael propaganda, in case you all forgot. It's called People v. Jackson How about the below sentence, which is actually randomly featured later in the article, for some bizarre reason. It should suffice:

The People v. Jackson trial began in Santa Maria, California on January 31 2005 and lasted until the end of May 2005.

That ones staying in the article. You may move the others.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1993 Allegations

Marlon Brando informed Jackson on February 8, 2004 that the declarations made by Jordy Chandler relating to the 1993 child molestation allegations had been published on the internet site The Smoking Gun. This happened when Jackson was about to start an interview with journalist Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes. Jackson immediately left the studio and did not conduct the interview. Jackson also attended Brando's memorial service in 2004 along with Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.

If this happened in 1993, why isn't it under the 1993 section? Why is it there at all? Is it really relevant? I don't think so, hell no.

Of course it's relevant. He was going to be questioned over 1993 sexual abuse claims against what was at the time a little boy and he bailed out because of all fucking people, Marlon Brando told him not to do the interview. You don't think him escaping the interview is important?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eminem's Attack

Rapper Eminem parodied new allegations raised against Jackson by Gavin Arviso in his music video for "Just Lose It" in 2004. The clip caused controversy and fueled Jackson to make a statement.

Relevant? I don't think so, considering nothing of what Jackson said was even mentioned in this article, which is, believe it or not, called 'Michael Jackson'. Eminem is a miserable lowlife to attack Michael in such a horrendous way, and unless some strong retaliatory words from Michael are featured in this sentence, I think it should be out.

I've already tried deleting this, it's unsourced. Somebody, i think Ubercryxic put it back.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymone Bain Fired

On June 10, Jackson's PR, Raymone Bain was reportedly fired. Jackson's now-defunct website cited that "MJJ Productions regretfully announces the termination of Raymone Bain and Davis, Bain and Associates. We thank you for your services." Bain later told the Associated Press that she had not been fired and that only Michael Jackson, not his production company (operated at the time by his brother, Randy Jackson), could fire her. Bain continues releasing press statements and answering media enquiries on behalf of Michael Jackson, and was named general manager of the Michael Jackson Company, Inc. on June 27, 2006.

She's not fired, so why the big scandal? Why don't y'all put that bit of info in the Raymone Bain article? It needs a bit more flesh. She doesn't though... Anyway, I think that because the allegations were false, why put it in there? Sure keep the part about her being named general manager, but is the whole 'scandal' (if you can call it that) necessary?

Ray Hultman's Book

In September 2005, it was reported that Ray Hultman took legal action against the publisher of his book about experiences in the trial, claiming heavy portions were plagiarized from a Vanity Fair article. Hultman also stated he felt "threatened" by the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez and regretted acquitting Jackson.

This is laughable. I mean, does this have ANYTHING to do with Michael Jackson at all? This one's simple. REMOVE IT

Hultman was a juror against Michael Jackson. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New Sexual Abuse Allegations

In 2006, allegations of sexual assault were made against Jackson by a man who claims Michael Jackson molested him, intoxicated him with drugs and alcohol, and forced him to undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended him against allegations of child molestation in 2005, said "the charges are ridiculous on their face. They will be vigorously defended."

Has everyone in America started claiming that Michael has abused them? Why is this looney's comments on the Michael Jackson page? Does anyone actually believe them, and this is the stuff of tabloid fodder, not of a respectable encyclopedia site.

Debbie Rowe's Parental Rights

An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife. The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children. As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.

Thouroughly unremarkable and irrelevant. What happened to that DNA test that was supposed to happen? I mean, there appears to be no deal reached, so why keep this in? It is just too much scandal. Only put it in if it actually has a bearing on Michael! He hasn't lost his children, so what's the biggie?

There was a deal reached in the end, Rowe was paid her allowance again as demanded.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neverland

On March 9, 2006, California state labor officials closed the singer's Neverland Ranch and fined him $69,000 for failure to provide employment insurance. The state "stop order" bars Jackson from "using any employee labor" until he secured required workers' compensation insurance. In addition to being fined $1,000 for each of his 69 workers, Jackson is liable for up to 10 days pay for those employees who now are no longer allowed to report to Neverland for work. Thirty Neverland employees have also sued Jackson for $306,000 in unpaid wages.

Yes, say that the Ranch was closed, but why all the detail? There are PAGES devoted to his financial problems, why litter a respectable article with them? Just saying that the Ranch was closed is suffice, I should think

Sony and the Catalogue

In exchange, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson. Jackson's $200m in loans were due in December 2005 and were secured on the catalogue. Jackson failed to pay and the Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson hasn't as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of 25% of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed the singer will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalogue of songs including material by other artists such as Bob Dylan and Destiny's Child. As another part of the deal Jackson was given a new $300 million loan, and a lower interest rate on the old loan to match the original Bank of America rate. When the loan was sold to Fortress Investments they increased the interest rate to 20%. None of the details are officially confirmed. An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony."

should be under the financial page about Michael, not this page. It is irrelevant financial detail which surely should be removed.

Marc Schaffel

In 2006, F. Marc Schaffel, a former associate of Jackson, filed a suit for millions of dollars allegedly owed to him after working with Jackson on an unreleased charity record named "What More Can I Give" and documentaries. Florida businessman Alvin Malnik, who had advised Jackson, appeared in court and stated that Jackson appeared to be bewildered by financial matters. Schaffel claimed to have made frequent loans to the singer totaling between $7 million and $10 million. Schaffel had received an urgent plea from Jackson for $1 million so that Jackson could buy jewelry for Elizabeth Taylor so that she would agree to sign a release for her involvement in a Fox special.

On July 14 2006, the jury awarded Schaffel $900,000 of the original $3.8 million he sued Jackson for, which Schaffel later reduced to $1.6 million, and finally to $1.4 million. The jury also awarded Jackson $200,000 plus interest of the $660,000 that Jackson claimed he was owed by Schaffel. The trial revealed that Schaffel had been dismissed after Jackson learned of his past work as a director of gay pornography. Schaffel claimed that Jackson "once wanted him to go to Brazil to find boys for him to adopt. He later modified that statement to "children" to expand Jackson's family." Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mundell said that he had never heard the allegation during the pre-trial investigation and that "it was an effort to smear Mr Jackson with a remark that could be interpreted to hurt him in light of the case against him last year."

Put it in financial or scandals or something. It is irrelevant for this page. Any who cares? This whole thing reeks of RECENTISM

Finances

On July 31 2006, a federal judge allowed a $48 million claim against Jackson and one of Jackson's trusts for unpaid fees and breach of contract. All parties were ordered to reappear in court in September.

PUT IN FINANCES!!! It should NOT be in the main article!!!

There, I hope that this is all acted on, because it should definately be acted upon. In relation to the majority of the above, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." --Paaerduag 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The scandals are over the top, yes. I already addressed some of your concerns. Look above for my suggestions on what to delete.UberCryxic 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, just because previous editors of this article have made these mistakes does not mean that we have to make them as well. There is a nice Turkish proverb that says, "If you've gone down the wrong road, just turn back." Michael Jackson's personal life does not deserve such scrutiny. This includes the scandals and events like his visit to Japan. Seriously people get a grip; all of you.UberCryxic 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This information better had not been removed with only 2 of you discussing it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on your complaints I made some cuts, moved some info to Michael Jackson finances. Do not do anything further without discussion with me.

"On April 18, 2006, Michael Jackson signed a management deal with English music producer Guy Holmes. Holmes is the recently appointed CEO of Two Seas Records, with whom Jackson has signed a recording contract for one album. The album is set for a fall 2007 release."

Additionally I removed this, it's not relevant, he's not with Two Seas, and he's no longer with Guy Holmes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you've already done quite a bit without consulting us. This is strange to say the least. You also claim that you made these decisions based on "[our] complaints," but there are actually many things (most, in fact) that we raised that you did not really bother with (if anything, you removed information relating to Michael Jackson's professional career, so that the article is now more biased towards his personal life, at least those last years). I request that you revert yourself and that we have a discussion here before anyone removes anything. If we agree to the proposed changes, then we can go ahead and apply them. We will then start a process in which we consider individual statements and what to do with them. This will be long, arduous, and difficult, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't sit our buts down and come to some fruitful agreements.UberCryxic 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the new information on his "billionare status" is contrived beyond belief, seemingly meant to add insult to injury. I do not understand how it is encyclopedic at all, but that aside, such a major addition should require conversation here. I will again request that the better angels in our nature prevail and that someone, preferrably yourself, take this article back to the state before this ruckus.UberCryxic 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will actually go ahead and revert you myself in light of your inappropriate actions. I believe you also would have done it, but as long as someone can take care of unjust changes on this encyclopedia, someone should.UberCryxic 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree: I'll Bring The Food, we don't have to answer to you, because you are not the leader of this article. Everyone here has a right to air decisions, and neither myself nor UberCryxic, I believe, was even planning to change the article. This section was designed to bring light to the unfair amount of material about Michael's scandals, and how this problem has grown out of control. I think that you going through the article and deleting things proves that you are a hypocrite. How dare you say that, "based on your complaints I made some cuts, moved some info to Michael Jackson finances. Do not do anything further without discussion with me." We do not answer to you, and by we I mean every single editor on this article. And who puts you above the law to make changes and then demand that no one else can. How dare you say this? I think that most editors here would be offended that you so are so blazé in telling people not to change things, implying that you are the only one who can. Your edits will be reverted, as I think UberCryxic has already done, until editors come here and discuss a resolution to this problem. Don't you dare change anything and then tell everyone else they can't. You are not going to install yourself as a dictator here. not on my watch. --Paaerduag 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

another thing I'll Bring the food - don't say "it's staying" or "you're not moving that one" because you have no authority to just say things like that. All the above material is subject to consensus, not subject to I'll Bring the food. You cannot just make decisions. You are not the boss, get the picture, and get it quick mate, because the sooner you realize that you can't always just say something and get it your way, the more productive you will be on wikipedia. refrain from such demanding language, because you are an equal like everybody else (excluding administrators, but they are still subject to consensus, for damn sure they are) and you cannot and will not shunt other people into your view points. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, so don't use demanding language in the future in concerning the article itself. Oh, and if you are about to accuse me of using demanding language, that's because this is not related to the article, but is rather a spat which needs to be dealt with. I hope that you understand, and don't make a big issue of it. --Paaerduag 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for moving forward

Ok we can sit here and argue all day long, but let's try to get something done for a change. Since I was the first one that suggested anything concrete on this issue, I think my ideas should get first consideration.

First thing up for debate is this statement in the 2006 section:

An appeals court ruled on February 15, that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.[79] The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.[80][81] As of September 29, 2006, the case has reportedly been settled according to the lawyers representing each party.

I think all of this should be deleted. The reason why is because it is non-notable in the grand scheme of things, by which I mean that nothing came out of it. Decades from now, no one will ever remember this incident. Furthermore, per my earlier comments, MJ has full control of his children.

Ok now what are your thoughts? Let's try to follow this model for this section. Somebody proposes something they would like deleted or modified (or added) and then we have a conversation on it. If we come to a consensus, we can go ahead and implement to make it policy. If we do not come to a consensus after a few days (four or five or maybe up to a week), then we can have straw polls to see where people fall on the issue. At that point, I recommend that we either abide by the decision of the straw poll or that we forget that specific issue entirely and move on to something else.UberCryxic 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if consensus was reached under each individual section of complaint. After all, there is a lot of material to be dredged through, and many of your complaints are identical or similar to the ones that I posted. By the way, I have been planning to do this for a long time, and the fact that you have done it in no way influenced me, UberCryxic, it was absolutely my own decision. BTW, I think it is in my rights to ask I'll Bring the food to stop his demanding, dictatorial nature. But asides from that, I've set up nice sections for each complaint, so It would be more efficient for people to post complaints under each section, in my opinion. --Paaerduag 07:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a longer way to go about it, but a much more definitive one as well.UberCryxic 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one of you nominated this article for GA status, got it there over a process of 4 months, and got users working together to change all the reference tags - me. Which one of us is trying to argue for the deletion of anything remotely negative to jackson - both of you. My self importance and ownership issues with this article are justified. You're dragging it into the ground. The billionaire statement is fully sourced, not written by me, is taken from the black billionaires article and is i think - a fully justified addition.

Secondly, this separation between Jackson's personal life and life as a musician that's going on in the pair of your headspaces - what? Jackson's personal life is up for grabs, it's reported on, he's become a media side show. Sorry - it's the truth. If you don't want the info there, go write your own article somewhere else. His article reflects negatively on him because he's done A LOT of questionable things. You know, before I came and checked the article recently, I noticed there wasn't even a section on the multiple charges of child molestation given to him. The trial was mentioned as ending, a rough hint that it happened was given, but no actual solid information on it was given. Now that's bias. Do you think it's not at all odd that none of the counts of child molestation were mentioned in this article? Why do you think vandals come along and replace the entire thing with statements about him molesting children? It's because this article wildly veers into how brilliant he was, skipping why he fell from grace. And even the VH1 article on him says he fell from his height and was embroiled in child molestation, but that doesn't support your agendas, so you don't discuss that, just the nice stuff about how great he was 20 odd years ago.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's all calm down first of all. We understand your concerns and no one here is hesitating to accomodate them. If you review our qualms with the article, you'll find they are not fully related to what you are arguing here. My position on the lead has been consistent from the beginning and is in line with Wikipedia's policies: the lead needs to highlight the notability of the subject (in this case, show why people care about Michael Jackson, including his personal life). The body of the article needs to do the same. This does not mean getting rid of "negative" things about Michael Jackson or what have you; it simply means keeping a historical perspective on the article and making additions with encyclopedic context in mind. On these last two counts, the body fails miserably, although admittedly less than the lead used to, which is why I wanted to take care of that first. Furthermore, most of the body is actually fine; it's just these last few years that wiki editors got a bit carried away I'm afraid. Like I said, celebrity culture and recentism. That's fine for Access Hollywood, but no one needs to remind you that this is an encyclopedia. What I want to remove includes material that I find encyclopedically irrelevant. I myself am not too sure as to how you should interpret that comment in the context of the article because I haven't gone through the sections of the past few years and made a thorough accounting of what is a "positive" paragraph or sentence on Michael Jackson and what is a "negative" one. I have seen many things, however, that as a genuine Wikipedia editor I sincerely do not think should be there. Per my statements before, Michael Jackson's personal life deserves coverage here because it has been covered so thoroughly in the media and, as the article states, is itself a major part of pop culture. The specific objection on my part is that it does not deserve equal coverage to his music career, mainly because the world remembers him mostly for the latter. Regional differences can be debated, but they should not be used to represent global viewpoints, which is what's happening with this article.

Please do not make this personal. That can only hurt in the long run. I realize the amazing dedication you have given to this article and for that I thank you. No one is here to subvert your work. We are your fellow editors and we are trying to help; I do not assume that you have an agenda, and you can rest assured that neither do I. The best that we can do here is to address each other's arguments, not our motivations, otherwise we would not be assuming good faith.UberCryxic 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to say something? Because I darn well am allowed to say whatever bloody hell I want. I'll Bring the food, this is what you said: "My self importance and ownership issues with this article are justified". Self Importance and Ownership issues are NEVER JUSTIFIED, and I want you to get that through YOUR HEADSPACE, cause you don't, and you never will, own this article or have greater say than everybody else about it. You have ownership issues, but they ain't justified. You will not be treated as some great editor who deserves more power, cause you ain't. Your argumentative nature, and automatic accusational streak seem to be outdoing any past 'positive work' you have done on the article. A bit of a fall from grace, eh? You were a good editor some 20 years back (maybe) but your current behaviour is appaling to say the least. You have done some questionable things. And you don't own the article, and you'd better understand that quickly, because I, for one, will not have you lording over this article like some [p/m]atriarcal figure. This article, thanks to your 'good work' now has an anti-Michael streak, and I want to resolve this peacefully. These overly long posts achieve nothing, and I want everyone to take a chill pill and get into some work through these issues. Remember this, I'll bring the food: YOU ARE ONE EDITOR; YOU DO NOT HAVE POWER; NUMBERS BRING CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS BRINGS POWER; YOUR DECISIONS ARE NOT SET IN STONE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. --Paaerduag 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't impose your views of Michael on other editors here. You say that he was good but isn't anylonger, but obviously the Japanese people don't seem to think so, who crawl over him to touch and hug him, and are absolutely loyal and devoted to him. What about the fans who sacrificed JOBS to support him at the trial? What about the throngs of fans who met him in Caesar's while he was shopping in Vegas? I think that you are blind to miss all this. Are you saying that Japan doesn't exist? The Japanese love him, but you say that he was great. They don't think so. Forgot about Japan? That's pretty rude. --Paaerduag 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Japanese have a fascination with Michael Jackson that is all too common throughout the world. Really the only country where Michael Jackson's popularity has deteriorated significantly is in the United States, which is ironic considering he's an American, and I argued before that an American-centric viewpoint is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. By the way, just to highlight what I mean with a specific example, here is the very first sentence of the lead in the Michael Jackson article on the Japanese Wikipedia:

マイケル・ジャクソン（Michael Joseph Jackson、1958年8月29日 - ）は、アメリカ合衆国インディアナ州ゲーリー市出身の男性ミュージシャン・歌手。身長176cm。エリザベス・テイラーがthe true king of pop, rock and soulと称し、一般的には短くKing of Popのニックネームで呼ばれている。イギリスのゴシップ誌からはGod of Popというニックネームをつけられている。

Now I'm not asking us to be as enthused about Michael Jackson as the Japanese are (I had never heard of "God of Pop" until I saw it in that article), but I am asking for a balance between what they have and what the English Wikipedia has, which has been mostly disappointing up until the time that the lead was fixed.UberCryxic 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so enough of these distractions already. Let's get back to my proposal. What do you all think about that?UberCryxic 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince and Blanket's names

What is Prince's full name? Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. or Prince Michael Jackson or Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.? I saw all of those. What's Blanket's full name? Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II? So, Blanket is legally Prince but Prince is not? Kinda confused here.

http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/10148762/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news http://www.michaeljackson.ro/infomj/interviews/an-1997/13 Israell 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)