Talk:Michael Jackson

Singer Songwriter

Hello, It's been a while since I've edited a talk page and for some reason I can't seem to remember how to edit the table of contents and add a new section so hopefully editing the first one correctly will do nearly the same thing. Maybe someone can either respond here or on my talk page. Even linking me to the wiki editing pages will work.

Regardless, when I went to Michael Jackson's page a while back (even before he died) and saw that he was listed as a performer and artist I was shocked. I always thought that he wrote at least some of his music (he did). Typically artists who write at least some, if not most, of their music are listed as singer-songwriters. It separates them from performers such as Britney Spears, for example, who primarily preform music written for them by others.

Michael Jackson DID preform music written for him by others but if you look at his albums (such as Bad (album)) you will see that he wrote and composed every song on it except for Just good friends and Man in the Mirror. As a side note, I find it funny that the only song that wasn't a single was Just Good Friends. =P Coincidence?

Regardless, it may seem subtle but it makes all the difference in the world to distinguish him as an artist that not only preformed but WROTE music as well. Simply adding song writer in the description at the top will do.

Thank you. - Lanlost (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

please check out

in death of Sid Vicious, he died of overdose of heroin from what would be called a hot dose, (where the heroin is mucher purer than usual and so leads to death) ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_vicious#Death ; what this has to do with Michael Jackson is that in Sid Vicious case, he has just released in past year or so 3 top 5 hits in UK that were earning well, but on his death they sky rocketed to even larger sales suggesting he was given that hot dose of heroin on purpose; that is the situation with Michael Jackson; with his death, his sales of old albums etc have skyrocketed, reported Wed /today to have sold 450,000 in sales the past 4-5 days with his albums/ records being also top 9 of 10 in sales in pop; SO who stands to profit hugely from Michael Jackson's recent death... beside his estate and children ? and esp in regard to the UK tour, esp when he had finished to some degree having taped the songs and dancing for that tour in his practices ... fan 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source makes this comparison, it's outside our remit. Find sources that have said this, fine. Until then, I doubt it will happen. Rodhullandemu 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This thoery seem to constitute original research which wikipedia does not allow. If the theory is substantiated at some point by a major reliable source I think the information would be more appropriate in the Death of Michael Jackson page. Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Newer image

I'm just after adding an image from 1990. If you guys prefer the older one, just change it back. Pyrrhus16 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent. Nice work! TheLeftorium 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a better updated image, don't think it needs a revert, good work! Just a question thou where was the image retrieved from then if there is no link available? Dimario (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked on a Michael Jackson fan board. I knew there were a few White House pictures from 1990, so they were able to supply me with them. Pyrrhus16 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the picture changed again just then or been reverted back to the old one ? I'm confused StephenBHedges (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put back the 1984 image for two reasons: a) the 1990 image has a distracting background, b) the 1984 image shows MJ at the height of his fame.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I further cropped the image (minimized 'distracting background'), can i just say this image is better because of the skin colour difference, an image of Jackson needed to be updated, and that is the best we have and should be kept. Dimario (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we not go even more modern and have the picture of him in front of the This Is It sign (as published in many papers) ? If not then the 1990 picture is better as it is more up to date. StephenBHedges (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That image is non-free, and cannot be used. Gage (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A request to everyone: Please don't change the image in the infobox without posting a link to it on the talk page first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this newer image, feels more appropriate. Wikipedia should not dictate that the Michael Jackson of the Thriller era is the Michael Jackson look, Jackson himself clearly moved on from that look. And while we don't have to put an image of him from his latest days, that 1990 image is a good compromise. I came to look at the article earlier and the 1984 image didn't feel quite right, that's too long ago. 76.208.178.143 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the 1990 image is fine. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree to the 1990 image, much better — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also ok with the new image, although the other one was pretty good too. I just want to point out that the 1990 image can't be attacked on the basis that MJ reached his height during the Thriller era, simply because that's not true, at least globally. Yes, he reached his height with Thriller in the US, but globally, the height of his popularity -- as measured through record sales, concert sales, and other income -- was right around this period, 1989 to 1990. In 1989, he made $125 million, the first time ever that an entertainer of any kind had made more than $100 million in a single year. The Bad World Tour was selling out concerts all over the globe. Long story short: one reason why the 1990 image is appropriate is precisely because it does show MJ at the height of his global career.UberCryxic (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a very visible picture of Michael from the Thriller years in the article. There's a small picture of him receiving an award from Reagan and a video of the Billie Jean/Motown performance, but I don't see a good picture that depicts his career in the early 80's, which was a pivotal time.

A clear picture of him in the early 80's would give the article more context in regards to his changes in appearance. As it stands now, most of the pictures depict him in the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps there is somewhere else where an 80's picture can be placed. Thanks. joe_bob_attacks (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Thriller era image is more appropriate. Being that this is an encyclopedia I think that the more recognizable/iconinc image of a subject should be used when available. In my opinion the Thriller era picture shows Jackson at the point when he was most important to the public, and probably in the fashion that the public will choose to remember him. It doesnt make sense in my opinion to use an image from an arbitrary time period like 1990. If the goal is to depict the subject in a more contemporary fashion wouldnt a 2009 image be more appropriate?

(Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Your argument is not convincing. Read what I wrote above.UberCryxic (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, He was still considered quite a phenomenon with the release of Bad (1987) and Dangerous (1991). I would hardly call that time period "arbitrary". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Let me just say it again: worldwide, by almost any standard you pick, MJ was at the height of his career circa 1990, years after Thriller. To satisfy Wikipedia's global perspective, this image should take precedence over those from any other of his musical eras (if the argument is that we need to put an image that reflects the height of his popularity).UberCryxic (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I had not read this information (hasty, I know) and much of it is new to me. While I still advocate using the most iconic image, I was approaching the idea from my personal expiriences as an American. Considering the information you cite, I must concede your point and agree that the new image is more appropriate. - Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If a 2009 image were available, then yes, but this is the closest image to his appearance over the last two decades of his life. And though that may not be the most important thing, even using the Thriller era images would cause someone else to advocate, like it has in the past, the image we have now. So either way, no one will be happy. Gage (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• What does anyone think about using this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valerious/3680727042/ ? Is it simply not preferred because it's fair use and we already have free images from 1990? — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This image has a CC 2.0 license. However, caution is needed with Flickr images, because the copyright tagging is entirely at the discretion of the uploader. It is not uncommon to come across what look like press photos of celebrities on Flickr, yet they still have CC tags. Let's stick with the current photo for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox is not a PD photo, unless there is a source found. Where did you find the image? If it is on the Getty database, it is copyrighted. If this photo was taken in George Bush's presidency, do a picture search on his presidential website. But, this picture is copyrighted unless you prove that this photo was taken on behalf of the White House. I am bringing this issue to light, because we have had an issue with JFK and JFK Jr.'s infamous hiding underneath the desk picture. The photo wasn't taken on behalf of the White House, but by a private photographer. RE: Second image on Flickr -- that image is copyrighted, because 1.) the account has been uploading copyrighted images 2.) the image would be substantially bigger. miranda 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Michael Jackson was at the height of his career in 1990+ or in the 1980's is a non-issue. Michael Jackson's Thriller years were a pivotal point in time for him, the music world, and music videos in general. The current pictures in the article are 90's-centric. There should be a clear picture of him from his Thriller years included in the article. As I mentioned earlier this would give a context for his changes in appearance. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind either way. I think both images are fine. I only wanted to make sure that the 1990 image was not being dismissed on a false basis.UberCryxic (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the 1990 image, more better.--٩(●̮̮̃●̃)۶٩(•̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(͡๏̯ ͡๏)۶٩(-̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(×̯×)۶ 04:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorribal (talk • contribs)

Bubbles

It may be interesting to note that Bubble's is now in the Center for Great Apes in Florida. According to the CNN article, Bubbles became "too big and strong for Jackson to keep as a pet." [5] joe_bob_attacks (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.205.200 (talk)

Maybe a short addition about the fact Bubbles is currently in the Center for Great Apes. The information mainly belongs in the article Bubbles (chimpanzee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaMoonwalker (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo

The article states that Jackson had vitiligo, but the only source cited for this claim is statements made by Jackson himself in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993. The only reliable source I could find to verify Jackson's claim was a story from 1993 in the NY Times Doctor Says Michael Jackson Has a Skin Disease which quotes a Beverly Hills dermatologist named Dr. Arnold Klein who claimed that Jackson did indeed have vitiligo. However, the problem is that many sources about Jackson's health have later proven to be unreliable. The NY Times has another article Jackson's Health a Subject of Confusion which quotes a Jackson biographer named J. Randy Taraborrelli as saying:

“Just when you think you have information, someone comes and recants the diagnosis,” said Mr. Taraborrelli, author of “Michael Jackson: The Magic and The Madness,” written in 1991 and updated in 2005. “All of the stories of the different medical issues become such a blur. It just got to a point where I stopped trying to verify.”

I think it would be a good idea for any claims made about Jackson's health be regarded with skeptisim and qualified with language that indicates who is making the claim. --Mktyscn (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic here... People made up other crap about Jackson, therefore Jackson himself can't be believed? Besides, there are photographs of Jackson as the condition progresses that very clearly show the patches of light skin, and there's the videotaped statement of his makeup artist.[6] WillOakland (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Michael Jackson's vitiligo, Dr. Deepak Chopra also confirmed that he did in fact have the disease in a recent interview on CNN. The transcript for that interview is available here [7]. In addition to the account of his makeup artist, there are various pictures indicating that Michael Jackson likely had the disease [8] [9].

Michael Jackson himself addressed the rumor in his 1993 interview with Oprah. The transcript is available here [10] and the video is available on youtube [11]. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic Over-referenced

There are an awful lot of references to Allmusic here, in partuicular some inappropriate ones like non-contemporaneous reviews and comments on singing style that might just as well have been made by anybody. I suggest that they may have been inserted to promote the site. As a comparison, there are five references to Allmusic and five to Rolling Stone magazine. Does Allmusic really deserve such prominence? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is always heavily used in Wikipedia, particularly for reviews. Portillo (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is a reliable source and is used regularly by most music related articles. Allmusic references have been present in the article since 2007. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just that I noticed a reference to his singing style was from the nephew of the site's founder and someone who does not appear well-respected. Also a review of a 1979 album in 1991 seems a bit after the fact, and also not capable of divorcing itself from received or previous opinions. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, Allmusic, Slant and a number of other music magazines commonly give secondary reviews of older albums to give modern listeners a contemporary point of view on older material. Its not at all abnormal and once again, is quite common in music related articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some say the same about cricinfo in cricket articles, but if the website is a reliable source like this one is, why not? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1991 Entertainment Weekly detail about the phrase "King of Pop"

I just incorporated a 1991 Entertainment Weekly reference (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,316363,00.html) into King of Pop (album) and List of honorific titles in popular music which might be worth using in this article. Here's it is in citation form:

<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,316363,00.html | title= Michael Jackson's Black or White Blues | publisher=[[Entertainment Weekly]] | date= Nov 29, 1991 | accessdate=2009-07-03 | quote=[A] highly placed source at [[MTV]] says the network was obligated to refer to Jackson on air as the ''King of Pop'' in order to be allowed to show "[[Black or White]]." An MTV spokeswoman denies that, but the phrase was part of MTV's ads for the video and was repeatedly used by its VJs. A source at Fox confirms that Jackson's people did request that [[Bart Simpson|Bart]] use the phrase "King of Pop" in the video and that the phrase also be used in the network's press releases; "King of Pop" also crops up in Fox's print ads for the video and in press releases by Jackson's publicists, [[Lee Solters|Solters]]/Roskin/Friedman.}}</ref>

For this article, it would be worth accompanying that quote with a source about Elizabeth Taylor's use of the phrase in 1989, though I wasn't able to find such a source online. In the current article, you'll see two references following this statement:

Jackson's success resulted in his being dubbed the "King of Pop", a nickname conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul".

but the only online one of those two doesn't mention Taylor at all. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this citation does have an impact on one of the answers in Talk:Michael Jackson/FAQ. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Quincy Jones, color

Jackson hate to be black, that what Quincy Jones just said to the world, no illness http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/07/01/quincy_jones_jackson_didn_t_want_to_be_b_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.200.115 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state an author. And where would this information go? Is this tidbit of information relevant to his life? Maybe it would fall under Michael Jackson's health and appearance. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Moonwalker in all of those points. Furthermore, Im not certain that Starpulse constitutes a reliable source, as it seems to be a something of a gossip site. If this point is later verified by more reptuable sources the information may be pertenant to the health and appearence page. Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jones'interview to magazine Details has been reprised around the world also by agency like italian ASCA ( http://www.asca.it/news-MORTE_JACKSON__QUINCY_JONES__MICHAEL_ODIAVA_IL_COLORE_DELLA_SUA_PELLE-843217-ORA-.html ) --93.146.224.232 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A tabloid made up shit about Jackson and it was repeated in the mainstream news as fact. Also, the sun rose in the east this morning. Tabloid writers have invented and continue to invent whole interviews about Jackson without any sense of shame or responsibility. WillOakland (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy

{{editsemiprotected}} The lead of this article, Michael Jackson, states he "he made his debut as an entertainer in 1968". However, the infobox states he was "active" since 1964. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1968 is the year that the Jackson Five released their first single "Big Boy", so this could be used to mark his years active as a recording artist, except that the single was recorded in late 1967. If the intent is to show his years active as a performer 1964 appears to be the groups (and thus Michael's) earliest performances [12]. I think the 1968 should be changed to 1964. Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jackson stated he has been active since he was 5 years old, performing with the Jackson Five. Change 1968 to 1964 in the infobox. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. I assume you meant "change 1968 to 1964 in the lede," but that isn't the problem. I looked at the Jackson Five article and it says the group formed in '64 but Michael joined "by the end of the following year." Some of the sources on that page list '66 as the groups starting date and even the Rock Hall of Fame reference above includes something about them winning an amateur night in '67. Is it possible to find a more authoritative, scholarly reference to pin this down? Regards, Celestra (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have been looking for an authorative source on the web for when the Jackson Five began and when Michael got invovled. Not much has turned up, and what I can find doesnt seem to match the information on the Jackson Five page (which I have brought up on that pages discussion page). The Daily News states clearly that he was playing percussion with his brothers' group in 1964[13]. While the rock-and-roll hall of fame indicates that he was playing in 1964 (thought that article is worded ambiguously). His capacity and the scope of the gourp at that point are not detailed though; if it were the case that he and his brothers only played in their own home to family members, would this be considered active musicianship in a professional sense? Allmusic distinclty identifies Michael as playing with the group publicly in professional gigs in 1966 [14]. The Jackson Five article itself indicates that they were playing shows between the '66 highschool tanlent show and when they recorder their first record in October of '67. If these sources are to be trusted I think the dates need to be rolled back to at least 1966. While I think there needs to be some discussion of whether '64 or '66 is the proper date for his career as a professional musician to have begun, I cant find anything that indicates '68 as the year he began playing music. Curious what others think! Solid State Survivor (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Video game

A video game has been announced, should it be added to any of his articles? http://www.mjdatabank.com/english_version/news/2009/june/20090621_mj_video_game.htm Portillo (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a good finding Portillo!! But i think is better to waiting for more details about this game...Anyway, it was the first time i see this new game... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Presley similarities

Jacksons life has many similarities to Presley's. Graceland/Neverland, drugs, suspicious "death" and rumours about the "death" being a hoax. The news that jackson was seen on Hawaii the 30th of June is just an other example of this. Perhaps the article ought to reflect this and make some comments about these sightings. It is a puzzle to me that the Presley-article lacks this information. Given the huge number of persons that have reported seeing Presley it is a puzzle that this fact is left out. Shall the Jackson article have the same lack of information? Personalyy I believe that the most neutral way to describe the current events is to write that Jackson "withdraw from public life in June 2009", and leave it up to everyone to decide if they want to believe he is dead or bewlieve the huge number of persons having seen him since. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See for instandce http://www.michaeljacksonsightings.com/ 85.227.196.162 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Major sources, such as the BBC, confirm he is dead. It is not open for interpretation. The similarities may be of some notability. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not know if you are familiar with the term primary and secondary sources. There are only secondary sources claimin that Jackson is dead, i.e. news agencies that will never be seen as witnesses in a court of law. However the persons having seen Jackson the 30th of June are primary sources. Thus the only evidence is that he is still alive. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The source you posted contains no information about the author(s)，the publisher(s) or the date of the post. Such information is essential when citing a source. It seems to be a website created by someone, or a self-published article. It may be used when the author is an established expert in the subject whose work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. In this case, the author is unknown, and fails WP:V.

Such major claims require exceptional sources. See WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Red flags include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". His presence in Hawaii has not been covered by any major news source. Another red flag is "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". His presence in Hawaii is most definitely controversial; Jackson's had cardiac arrest, an autospy, and even his family has commented on this death. The last red flag is "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The claim is definitely contradicted by reliable sources, such as the BBC. Simply put, "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

As for primary sources, see Wikipedia:No original research#Sources. Primary sources may be used if they have been "reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper)". The link above has not been reliably published. Regards, ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson is alive" is little more than a joke/urban legend going round a few obscure websites. It could be mentioned in Death of Michael Jackson if the mainstream media picked up on it, but it fails WP:GNG at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This Daily Mail article and this Fox News article look at the conspiracy theory angle. Perez Hilton was strongly criticized for a post suggesting the death was a fake, and has since removed the post concerned. Possibly notable enough for Death of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wearing of masks in public

Does anyone know when and why he started wearing masks in public? Which era of his career (as outlined in the article) was he first seen wearing one in public? --JHP (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My recollection might be a little fuzzy, but I dont recal him wearing one at any point in the 80s. I think this started at some point when he was touring in the 90s (once again memory is fuzzy). To my understanding he was wearing a germ-mask to prevent contraction of disease. Seeing as how Jackson had lupus that was in remission, and was rapidly travelling across different continents in contact with dozens of different sets of microbes that would be alien to the immune system of an American it makes sense that he would be concerned about germs. Solid State Survivor (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He started wearing it in the late 80's. — Please comment R² 18:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It might also have been for sun protection, since vitiligo made him burn easily. WillOakland (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's likely that many of his fashion accessories were used to cover the vitiligo. Covering vitiligo (with make up) around the eyes and mouth tends to be very hard because the patches have a purple tint to them. — Please comment R² 04:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note 10

Note 10 in the article lists "Campbell (1995), pp. 14–16", but the References has two books by Lisa Campbell, so it is unclear which one the note refers to. Can someone familiar with the works please clarify this? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note 10 would refer to the book published in 1995 by Campbell. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be The King of Pop's Darkest Hour ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The image in 1990 currently has copyright problems, so i think a consensus is needed to decide whether to use the image in 1984 at the White House or the one in 1988. I think the 1988 image is much better because it is a close up, its without the glasses and is the updated image we have. Dimario (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At the rate things are going, Michael Jackson 1988.jpg is going to be the only suitable image that Wikipedia has of MJ. Before anyone changes the infobox image, please discuss it on the talk page. WP:NFCC issues should be resolved before posting the image, not after.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the 1988 image should be used, it is the most suitable because in comparison to other images, it is without glasses, is more of a close-up, and his skin color is at least lighter. Dimario (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We did have that image on before, I didn't mind it, but many people kept removing it, mostly fans. — Please comment R² 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then in that case that image should be used, they should come over here and discuss if they want to change the image. Dimario (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is being swapped every three minutes, everyone has got to stop. — Please comment R² 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Place of death

Did Michael Jackson actually die in Holmby Hills? I'm not overly familiar with the Los Angeles area (but the hospital isn't in that area, is it?), but regardless, Michael was not pronounced dead at home as far as I know. Forgive me if this has been discussed before, I'm just not sure why it says Holmby Hills in the infobox. Sky83 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just changed it to Westwood, Los Angeles, California, seeing the areas of Holmby Hills and the UCLA Medical Center are located in that district. Dimario (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, seemed a bit confusing before, but I didn't want to change it myself in case I got the geography wrong! Sky83 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Paramedics apparently wanted to declare Michael Jackson dead at the scene, but his advisers wanted him taken to hospital. The article is correct in saying that he was declared dead at UCLA hospital, but a fuller picture may emerge with the autopsy report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we bring his death article inline with this? Because the lead sentence of that currently states that he died at home, which isn't strictly correct according to the information we have at the moment. Since he was declared dead at hospital, it seems more appropriate to go with this location until, like you say, the autopsy report has been made public. Sky83 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that paramedics wanted to declare Michael Jackson dead at the scene comes from TMZ.com [15], which has some WP:RS issues despite its good track record on MJ's death. Death of Michael Jackson should point out that MJ was pronounced dead at UCLA Hospital after resuscitation attempts failed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a straight swap by changing "at home" to "at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center". If other information comes out to suggest the place of death was at home, it can be changed back. I wouldn't be surprised if someone changes it back to home anyway though. Sky83 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been changed back with only one line of explanation over at Death of Michael Jackson. I've started a discussion on the talk page about it so we can at least get a consensus on it. Anyone interested, please contribute. Sky83 (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Misread what was written, better than I thought it was. I think we need to keep an eye on it though, there may be some who want to push the home death story. Sky83 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson family home address in Gary. VH1, also easily found on web and book biographies

The family lived on 2300 Jackson St. near Roosevelt Park which Michael often reflected upon his inability to play with neighbor hood children because of his father's incessant desire for the boys to practice.

Please review for edit/discussion. Joplinplayer (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)joplinplayer

This is a wikipedia, not a fanbase. No-one needs to know where he lives, its of no use to anyone. And his childhood issues are addressed later anyway. --Flashflash; 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

History is not the best-selling multiple disc album ever

The source that claims that History is the best-selling double album is maybe reliable for Wikipedia, but incorrect. Look to the following figures:

Country	History (by Michael Jackson)	The Wall (by Pink Floyd)	Ref.
United States	3,5 million copies	11,5 million copies (+2 million, Soundscan) = 13,5 million
Europe	8,72 million copies	11,04 million copies
Australia	490,000 copies	770,000 copies
Canada	500,000 copies	2 million copies
France	1 million copies	1 million copies
Sum of the selected sales	14,21 million copies	26,31 million copies

I know that when a source is reliable, Wikipedia-users are satisfied. But reliable sources can contain false information. There's a lot of critism about Wikipedia because all the incorrect figures and data. So, maybe it is sometimes necessary to use the common sense. Is it possible to change this error? "the best-selling album" should be "one of the best-selling albums". Thanks a lot.Floydian Tree (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We have a reliable source saying it is the best selling. — Please comment R² 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Michael Jackson is dead, but that's not a reason to say that History is the best-selling double album. The Wall and The White album sold more copies!! Be rational and make the necessary changes. Thanks.84.198.76.105 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The article said HIStory was the best selling multi disk album well before his death (what does his death have to do with it anyway?). Please read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V for further details. — Please comment R² 14:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Hi, you should not deny that Michael Jackson converted to Islam.

When did he say that then? — Please comment R² 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He said it when he spend several years of his life in the rich state of Bahrain. Everyone knows this. When you ll see his burial, you will also accept, after that you can add this information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.192.74 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of all the disputed claims about MJ, this is far and away the most circular. The WP:CONSENSUS is not to mention this because it can be traced back to a single story in The Sun, which was denied by Jackson's spokesman. See the talk page archive and FAQ. And let's see what happens at the funeral.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Come on people we need to make sure we keep articles professionals, If we plan to keep that section up at least make the links a reference.--Nothingbutgrains (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever removed it. --Nothingbutgrains (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)