Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

"She bore him two children" vs. "she gave birth to two children"

An expression like "She bore him two children" is 1) sexist language and 2) incorrect, as the children in question weren't Jackson's according to their mother[1].

"She gave birth to two children" is 1) non-sexist, 2) neutral and 3) factually accurate. Nashassum (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I posted at your talkpage, discuss your potentially controversial changes here, and gather consensus for them, before you make them. You've now been reverted by multiple editors. The changes you are making are sourced only to the Huffington Post, and are removing much reliably-sourced information. you simply must stop this pattern of editing. UnitAnode 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you must stop. You haven't provided any explanation for your revert-warring, and you are inserting sexist and blatantly POV content into the article. Nashassum (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please stop. The biological parentage of Jackson's children may have been questioned, but MJ was their legal father. Due to WP:BLP and WP:RS, no claim/counterclaim situations are suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Language like "she bore him two children", which implies men are superior to women, is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please make yourself familiar with what Wikipedia is not. The current state of the article is unacceptable. Nashassum (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree here, but the main problem seems to be your own POV pushing that Michael Jackson was not the biological father of his children with Debbie Rowe. This claim fails WP:BURDEN and will always be removed until it does not (ie a DNA test is taken).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide, as long as that fact is considered relevant by others, including the mother of the children and the world press. The most recent development as far as the children is concerned is that Dr. Klein's (the likely father's) attorney appeared in the custody hearing of the children demanding a say on the future of the children. Everybody can of course see that Jackson didn't have any children (WP:COMMONSENSE, he's black, the children are white). Nashassum (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

We have been through all this before. "He said and then she said" claims are not reliable, especially in an article like this. You are doing the self-appointed genetics expert routine again. Please stop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What does your common sense and *ahem* discriminating eye tell you about Rashida Jones? WillOakland (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions of paternity aside, I agree that "she gave birth to two children" is better than "she bore him two children." Exploding Boy (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "She gave birth to two children" does not imply anything about whether or not MJ fathered them. It is neutral and in my view completely inoffensive. "She bore him two children" strikes me as a quaintly anachronistic turn of phrase. I don't feel personally offended by it but I would question its appropriateness in a modern encyclopaedia. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By default, MJ should be assumed to be the biological father of the children. The reason is simple, people don't request evidence such as DNA test before accepting claimed parentage of children by parents. Since none of the claims of MJ not being the biological father were from credible source, for the sake of fairness, such evidences must be disregarded. We can't allow such claims to cloud our judgment and feel that we are compelled to be ambiguous and avoid explicitly stating that MJ is the father. Yes, by stating so we face the risk of being wrong, but then we face such risks every time we make statement about parentage without DNA evidence. So should we refrain from saying such things at all? The key here is that whether MJ is the biological father or not is not an important issue, it's not like we can't afford to be wrong on such issues. Some people treat this as if it's important only because they need to believe that MJ was asexual, gay, and strengthen their belief that MJ was attracted to boys, just like they need to disregard all credible claims about MJ's vitiligo condition and hold on to their belief that MJ didn't want to be black. That MJ is asexual had clearly been debunked by Lisa Presley's statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.133.92 (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... ok.. but what does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand, which is how to phrase this particular sentence? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "They had two children" is better. The subject of the previous sentence is Michael Jackson. It doesn't sound smooth that the subject of the next sentence suddenly changed to "she". "They" is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with changing the phrasing to "she gave birth to two children". The main problem is direct or stealth POV pushing that Michael Jackson was not the biological father of his children with Debbie Rowe.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to go back to saying MJ fathered three children.

Try making sense of this Daily Mail article, because I could not. It is the usual hotchpotch of claim and counterclaim, none of it suitable for the article as a reliable source. Just about the only sense in it is this: "Legal experts claim the courts would probably still consider Jackson the children's father and that Miss Rowe, who was married to the star at the time of the births, would be considered the mother unless evidence was presented to the contrary."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they are referring to the TMZ story that Debbie Rowe told a British media in an interview that she's not the biological mother. Debbie Rowe soon denied such interview ever took place. Such thing as reported stories by tabloids about claims by unnamed people close to MJ should simply be disregarded.

"She gave birth to two children" once again

"She gave birth to two children" - as pointed out by others, that's a fact and that's neutral.

"She gave birth to Michael's first two children" - that's a point of view, and it's rather unnecessary. We don't know who the biological father is, and there is no need to make such a claim in that sentence. That he is the legal father is already clear. Nashassum (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for the heading, "fatherhood" vs. "childen". The children came along, that's a fact. "Children" doesn't say anything about whether Jackson was the father or not, only that the children became part of his life, and is perfectly neutral and accurate. "Fatherhood", on the contrary, implies he fathered the children, which is a point of view. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Nashassum (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some doubt about even Rowe's role in the bearing of these children. But, the official and simplest explanation is that Debbie Rowe is in fact, in every sense, the biological mother of the children. Hey, Wikiepedia is supposed to be the source for the standard explanations of things. Legally and socially, Jackson qualifies as the father, regardless of who donated the sperm, by the way. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with POV-pushing

User:Nashassum claims that his changing of "Second marriage and fatherhood" to "Second marriage and children" is the "consensus version." I have disproved this by doing a simple search for what the relatively stable version (read: before N showed up) was, which can be found here. Please note the title of that subsection. This POV-pushing regarding the paternity of Jackson's children really needs to stop now. UnitAnode 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your POV pushing. The wording of Second marriage and children is already discussed above where "She gave birth to two children" was also widely agreed upon, please don't duplicate discussion. Nashassum (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, it is that the whole question of the parentage of Jackson's children is so clouded that it may never be sorted out unless DNA tests are taken. I have no personal views on whether Jackson was the biological father or Rowe the biological mother, since the media reports fall far short of reliable sourcing either way. What is needed is an end to daily wrangling, which is becoming tiring and amateurish. Please, no more editing here until an agreed form of wording is found. Let's look at this on the talk page instead of edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And in that case, we should stick to neutral wordings instead of actively pushing the point of view that Jackson was the biological father. "She gave birth to two children" and the heading "children" don't imply anything in either direction, the wordings don't state he wasn't their biological father, they don't state he fathered them either, i.e. the wordings are NPOV. Nashassum (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Stop. There were no problems regarding this issue until you showed up. None. As for my own POV, I don't care whether he was their biological father, and that issue has nothing to do with using the word "fatherhood" in the above-mentioned subsection, either. Reliable sources call him their father, which is all that is needed. UnitAnode 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That Jackson was the biological father isn't a POV, it's the claim of Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe, and possibly other members of the Jackson family. These people are in the position to make such claims, and such claims should be respected unless there are credible evidence suggesting otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can shout "stop" as much as you want, it doesn't make you right. Reliable sources (like the mother of the children) also question whether he was the father, which is why we should use sensitive, neutral wordings that don't actively take a position as far as the biological paternity question is concerned. Nashassum (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're way out of line, here. I have linked the "consensus version" above. Stop lying in your edit summaries that you are reverting to any sort of "consensus version." This is beyond the point of assuming good faith of you. You've made your anti-biological father stance clear. There's no consensus for your edits. Stop POV-pushing. UnitAnode 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop your personal attacks at once, you are the one way out of line. Nashassum (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Calling a lie (which you told in your edit summary) a lie is not a personal attack. UnitAnode 18:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Rowe has given different versions of the parentage at different times, and it is important not to cherry pick which version you prefer. It is hard to cover this area within Wikipedia guidelines, because nothing here is a traditional WP:RS. We all need a breather, and ideally some fresh input such as a request for comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it may be true that Debbie Rowe has given different versions of the parentage at different times, which makes the whole issue ambiguous. That is why I suggest we use neutral wordings, like the one agreed upon above, that don't promote either view to an unnecessary extent. It's nothing in the word "children", as part of the heading, that implies he did not father the children either. Nashassum (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop pretending you had consensus for changing that section title. You didn't. There's nothing CLOSE to consensus for it ANYWHERE on this page. Oh, and using tags to POV push (as you did with your NPOV tag) is still POV-pushing. UnitAnode 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to calm down and behave yourself. Nashassum (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: snarky comments like that are a violation of our civility policy. I've made several points about your clear lack of consensus for changing the section title. You point to a discussion where changing the section title was not discussed. Either develop consensus for changing the section title or pledge to quit changing it (and lying in your edit summaries). UnitAnode 18:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your own incivility is without precedent, so stop telling me about incivility. I haven't lied about anything, I'm discussing the wording "She gave birth to two children" which you reverted, which is discussed above and agreed upon. Nashassum (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm disengaging with Nashassum, and this article. Someone else can handle it. If anyone other than Nashassum wishes to take issue with anything I've done or written here, feel free to visit my talkpage. Nashassum, any messages from you at my talkpage will be reverted unread, as dealing with your particular brand of POV-pushing has become far more frustrating than it's worth to me. UnitAnode 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example of the incivility of this user. And why should I be interested in writing anything on the talk page of a user like you, after your recent comments, in the first place? (I have never visited your talk page at all, as far as I can remember) Nashassum (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Rowe denied that she ever said MJ isn't the biological father.

http://www.icelebz.com/gossips/ex-wife_debbie_rowe_denies_saying_michael_jackson_wasn_t_the_father_of_their_children/

Here we see that tabloids like NOTW can simply make up interviews, and then, "credible" sources like CNN, NBC, etc. will recycle these junks. That's why I always say that such stories should be totally disregarded, including the one that claimed Omer told a friend that he's not MJ's son. In all the interviews of Debbie that are available as online video, Debbie consistently claimed that she and MJ are the parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you think it's ok to spread rumours that Bhatti's father isn't his father, while it's not ok to take into consideration that Jackson's parentage of his "children" is widely questioned?Nashassum (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Jackson's interview is considered credible evidence suggesting that Bhatti's father may not be his biological one. The Joe Jackson interview has video available, and is credible. Bhatti also bears striking resemblance to MJ as a young man. Once again, there has never been CREDIBLE source that put MJ's fatherhood into question.

No, Joe Jackson is not credible. And why should we have different rules for Bhatti and Jackson? That Bhatti "bears striking resemblance" to Jackson is your own POV and I don't agree. He only resembles Jackson because of Jackson's extensive surgery which made him a white woman. But Jackson wasn't born a white woman. Nashassum (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that Joe Jackson is credible or not, but rather whether "Joe said it" is credible or not. By default, for an issue that relies on word of mouth, everyone with access to the information should be considered credible. That's why testimonies of witnesses are considered reliable unless proven otherwise. In the absence of DNA test, issue like parentage relies on claims of the family, and Joe Jackson is family. The only persons who have a say on this issue are Omer himself, Omer's family, Jackson family. As of now, Joe is the only person in this group who we are sure had talked. So his words should be considered credible until we have different voice from this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? Omer Bhatti has himself told Norwegian press the rumours are nonsense. It is legally established that Riz Bhatti is his father. Still, you want us to claim Jackson was his father and Riz Bhatti, his legal father, was not, while the article actively pushes the POV that there is no question over the paternity of Jackson's "laboratory children" simply because Jackson is the legal father? Nashassum (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just said that the issue is whether Joe Jackson really said it. Similarly, for Omer, the issue is whether he really said it, and in what circumstances. Joe Jackson's claim was video taped and is available to everyone, but Omer was only reported by a tabloid as telling an unnamed friend that he isn't MJ's son. So we are not sure if Omer really have said it. If it was confirmed that Omer had said it in a serious manner, like in an interview, then I would agree that Joe's claim is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the mainstream media gives a satisfactory answer to the parentage question. There is also a lot of tabloid junk floating around. Wikipedia's hands are tied in this type of situation, and it is better to say nothing than to have the sort of nonsense editing that has occurred today. Also, any more incivility and I am asking for a WP:RFC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We should continue the discussion over the wordings "she gave birth to two children" vs. "she gave birth to Jackson's first two children" and "children" vs. "fatherhood", where it was originally started above. Nashassum (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson and Rowe were the legal parents (uncontroversial). It is harder to find a form of wording that does not contain subtle POV about who the biological parents were. I'm out of suggestions, and would welcome fresh input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Men become fathers when a biological child is born to them, or when they start to raise a child. Adoptive parents are parents just as much biological ones, so "fatherhood" is accurate regardless of the genetic issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

However, "children" is also accurate regardless of the genetic issue, and it's even more neutral. Some might disagree that men become fathers when they start to raise some other person's biological children, just look at the comments above about the alleged "fatherhood" of Jackson of a Norwegian who was raised by his both real and legal father, the claims are solely based on genetics, not law. Is genetics only relevant when it can help Jackson to "get" more children? Nashassum (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize this once again, NO credible source had suggested that MJ isn't the biological father of the children, thus, MJ's fatherhood of the three children is unquestioned, and should be reflected as so in his wiki page. As to Omer's parentage, it's a different issue and shouldn't be mixed. Omer's parentage was brought into question not because of the rumors, but because of Joe Jackson's claim. There are no such claims about MJ's children' parentage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskshand (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Jackson's alleged claim is a rumour. And yes, there are a lot of claims about the parentage of Jackson's "children". The situation is rather identical, except Bhatti and his father are less famous. Nashassum (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How can it be "rumor" when it's recorded in an video and is available to everyone? Yes there are a lot of claims about MJ's children not being his, but did I mentioned CREDIBLE? Actually, the pattern had always been that some tabloid creates a rumor and "a lot" of sources cite it. For example, all the claims about Debbie Rowe admitted they were not the parents stemmed from the one single alleged interview by NOTW.

Everybody needs to calm way down. If people have specific ideas about changes to the article, then they should post them here for discussion. But there's no huge urgency here; discussion can--and must--happen calmly and politely. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything substantially wrong with the current wording, and would advise against hair-splitting about what constitutes fatherhood. Please don't drag up the genetics issue again. "She gave birth to Michael's first two children" is sufficiently vague to please both sides of the argument. Since we have spent far too long on this for today, I am removing the tag, and would request that everyone takes a breather for a while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Movie possibly coming soon!

For addition to the article, at some point... This was announced on Fox News network on Wednesday and on their website that AEG Live and Columbia pictures (which will pay $60 million for rights) have made a deal to make a movie which will include footage (according to AEG, over 100 hours!) from his rehearsals of the This Is It concert which he was preparing for. The project, part of a 500 page document, was presented in court, by the legal attorneys of his will, on Tuesday. They say the family has already OK'ed it, but it still has to be OK'ed by Kathy Jackson on Monday... or sometime next week if she has some objections and they have to iron things out. Then it has to be put together and reviewed by Columbia no later than October 2nd and there's even strict guidelines as to what can or can't be used and even what commercials are allowed or not! Reference: Michael Jackson - This Is It movie NiteHacker (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tribute Shows, Bio, Videos, etc.

I don't know if this can be added to the article, if so, I am not sure how to add it but I think it's noteworthy to mention any and all programs or tributes that have or are continually being played on TV for people who are looking for anything they can add to their video library pertaining to Michael Jackson. Several networks have put together programs which has tend to be repeating over the last several weeks including MTV, BIO, TVOne, TVGuide, etc. Be nice to start a list of programs that have showed or continue to show because, most likely, they will repeat off and on from now on and people will be looking for these programs and a list of them would help so they can look them up and see when they will come on again. NiteHacker (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is probably too long already, and anything substantial would need to be very notable. Let's be honest here, Wikipedia is not the TV guide, and the article is supposed to be a biography. Collections of lists are almost invariably WP:TRIVIA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a list could become rather long, and using notability as a criterion for inclusion would inevitably lead to disagreements. It is, however, a subtopic likely to be of interest to many readers of the MJ article. My preferred method of dealing with this would be to write it as a separate article and put a link to it in the main article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Omer Bhatti - Joe Jackson confirmed he is MJ's son

[2] Should we add this? Frankyboy5 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that Joe Jackson said this in an interview. However, there are WP:BLP issues involved here. In practice, the matter could not be settled without a DNA test. It should also be pointed out that Omer Bhatti denied the claim in an interview with the Sunday Mirror.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

of course it should be added. it would be idiotic not to considering the source. DNA not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhatti himself has denied the allegation/suggestion as pointed out by ianmacm! plus MJ hated his father so chances are we should take everything jo jackson says with a pinch of salt. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

One of the underlying principles of WP:BLP is that no information is preferable to false or misleading information. The article could point out what Joe Jackson said, but it would have to be balanced with the denial by Bhatti himself. This is similar to the "MJ converts to Islam" saga, because it is based on claim and counterclaim. My belief is not to add this, but other views are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Another underlying principle of WP:BLP is that contentious issues musty be scrupulously sourced. In this case, we have a copyright violation, which is unacceptable here, let alone the self-interest of the interviewee. It should be omitted if that's the best source that can be found. Rodhullandemu 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

if we add this to the article, we would have to add loads of other stuff to like what his doctor claims against what the autopsy claimed. etc. where do you draw the line? MJ was always a complicated and secretive person. We are always going to hear conflicting stories about his private life because no one truely knew him least of all Joe Jackson. We should try and stick to what can be factually proven as much as possible and steer clear of issues that could cause controversy. So in short i agree it should not be added.(Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Michael Jackson's last will and testament from 2002 [4] does not list Bhatti as one of his children, and says: I have no other children, living or deceased. Although Jackson and Bhatti were close friends, it is unlikely that Jackson would have said this in his will if he knew/suspected that Bhatti was his son.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Actually, this is fairly standard boiler-plate for a will. All it says is his estate recognizes no other children except those listed, i.e. any other children would be bastards, in the legal sense. It is included to prevent any real or bogus children from coming forth following a death to claim a share of the estate. This language would probably be included in any will, even for someone who had no children, or even someone who was a lifelong virgin. Mr. Jackson may have made an accomadation for this child in the particulars of his trust, whose details need not be declared in a public document like a will.--Eion (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, all Joe has said is that he knew Michael had another son. He hasn't specifically identified Bhatti as that son (or denied it). WillOakland (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a summary of what Joe Jackson said in this LA Times article. While interesting, it runs into too many WP:BLP issues to be used in the article in this form--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Omer Bhatti is clearly white (Pakistani/Scandinavian), he doesn't have any negroid traits at all. Jackson is hence impossible as his father. The fact that he resembles Jackson's "white woman" appearance doesn't matter, Michael Jackson (or Blanca Nicholas, as he called himself in recent years) only became a white woman due to extensive surgery, he wasn't born like that. Nashassum (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop playing like you're a genetics expert. In photos from the memorial, Bhatti looks every bit as dark as Janet, who was sitting near him. WillOakland (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making comments on issues you know nothing about. This (first photo of Bhatti and Jackson, Bhatti 12 years old) is NOT a black person. Neither is this (Bhatti as of 2009) or this. Bhatti's parents live in Holmlia in Oslo, end of story. His mother Pia Bhatti is Norwegian, his father Riz Bhatti is Pakistani, this information is widely available. Nashassum (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

African-Americans come in every color of the rainbow, including white. So do Pakistanis. Bhatti's skin color seems plenty dark enough to me to make him the product of an African-American father and a Swedish mother. But I admit I do not have as fine an eye for racial characteristics as Nashassum does. It may also be worth mentioning that he sure looks like he could be the older brother of Jackson's three children. Of course there are all sorts of rumors about their ancestry as well. And, we do know that he lived with Jackson's family for a long time as a teenager, and that by itself would be enough to explain any resemblance. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant if he resembles "Jackson's three children" because those three kids are not the children of Michael Jackson, but the children of Debbie Rowe and some white donor, born between one and two decades after Bhatti. It is legally established that Bhatti's parents are Pia and Riz Bhatti, end of story. Michael Jackson apparently claimed to have met Pia Bhatti in 1987, despite the fact that Omer Bhatti was born in 1984! These are the fantasies of a person (the late Wacko Jacko) suffering from severe mental problems and with the mind of a regressed ten-year old according to doctors. They cannot be taken seriously. By referring to his mother as "Swedish", you show your ignorance as far this issue is concerned, by the way, Bhatti has no relation with Sweden whatsoever. Nashassum (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It has never been established that MJ's children are not biologically his. Moreover, Omer clearly resembles pre-surgery MJ. This combined with the fact that teenage Omer resembles Blanket strongly suggests that Blanket is biologically MJ's child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When evaluating Omer's denial, we need to take into consideration that the only direct source of his denial is Daily Mirror, a British tabloid. And it's stated that he said to a friend. To me, this information is much less credible than the video of Joe Jackson's interview. The Jackson's clearly know Omer well enough to spread rumors about him. I think wiki should consider Joe's interview as credible information and included it in Michael Jackson's page. And I don't think a DNA test is the only way of settling this issue. If wiki holds this standard to Michael Jackson, it has to be consistent and require similar evidence for all such situations. As far as I know, there are many such cases where DNA test is not required as evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of claim/denial situation that violates WP:RS and WP:BLP. Adding this to the article would do nothing to establish the truth of the matter. Better out than in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the reported denial by Omer isn't from credible source. But Joe Jackson's interview should be considered credible, because the video is available, and Joe Jackson, a member of the Jackson family, should be considered a credible source. It may be too early to state it as a fact that Omer is Michael Jackson's son, but Joe Jackson's claim should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

maybe Michael Jackson didn't know he had another kid ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanid (talk • contribs) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson didn't have any kids. Nashassum (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No content decisions are going to be made based on 19th-century race science, if I can help it. WillOakland (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

everyone seems to be missing the point, MJ's official will said he had only 3 kids, HE HIMSELF never spoke of a secret kid when he was alive and therefore it should never be included UNLESS his siblings or mother confirm it. Joe Jackson is not a good source because MJ and Joe never got on therefore Joe is not a good source of information or person who's judgements about his son should be entirely believed. I dont think we should be having this discussion any further. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

It's hard for me to understand why MJ's siblings are better sources than his father. Even though Joe is not in good term with MJ, I still tend to believe that he is on the same page as MJ's siblings regarding the Omer issue. Thus, as much as you guys don't like Joe Jackson, I see no reason why he, the patriarch of the Jackson clan, is less credible then MJ's siblings regarding whether Omer is MJ's son or not. And I see no reason why Joe will lie about this, since this can be easily debunked by Omer if it's not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

MJ actually got on with and trusted his siblings. he disliked his father and if you claimed someone abused you why would you tell them everything thats going on in your life? it does not make sense. If Jermaine and Janet for example had given the interview it would seen to be much more credible because they really have no reason to lie. Joe Jackson is obesessed with fame and that why he was cruel to all the Jackson children, everyone else is still mourning yet Joe is speaking about taking MJ's kids on tour? does that sound like a rational man who can be trusted to given an insight on MJ's life? plus his LAST WILL AND TESTEMENT says he had only 3 kids and names Dianna Ross as a guardian for his kids... do you not think he would have told her or Gladys Knight? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

Saying someone's obsessed with fame is a very subjective judgment. A lot of people are obsessed with fame. So should we make a list of such people and exclude their statements from wiki? How do we judge whether someone is obsessed enough to justify exclusion? Joe Jackson may be reluctant to admit that he abused MJ, but it's another thing for him to lie about whether Omer is MJ's son. That's a pretty serious issue to lie about or to make remark about without certain level of confidence. MJ might not talk to Joe about this, but as long as he talked to his siblings, I put my money on Joe would know it. Actually, I doubt that MJ hadn't talked to Joe about this, since there was a photo of the Jackson clan with Omer in it, and in this very photo, MJ stand at the side of Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point it doesn't matter one bit whether you believe Joe Jackson or not, because he did not say that Omer Bhatti was Michael's son. He has only been misquoted as saying so in an interview that anyone can go and watch for themselves. (Notice that the press laid off the Joe Jackson hate campaign as soon as he started kinda telling them what they wanted to hear.) WillOakland (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Jackson said that the "other son" he mentioned looks like a Jackson, can dance like a Jackson, etc. It is very unlikely that this person he meant is someone other than Omer. Can you think of a candidate at all? If there is another candidate, how can his existance be totally unknown to the world? So it's very far fetched to think that Joe Jackson is talking about someone else. It is also wrong to assume that Joe Jackson was only telling the press what they want to hear instead of the truth. You need to back up such claim with evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.133.92 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say definitely that Omer was Michael's son, nor did Tito when he was asked about it, nor did Omer. Wikipedia doesn't need to "clarify" this beyond what the family and Omer have said so far.

I never claimed that Joe Jackson was "only" telling the press what they wanted to hear "instead of the truth." WillOakland (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear that Joe meant Omer. I don't know what else you can make of it. Joe, the father of MJ, the Patriarch of the Jackson family, is in the position to make serious claims about whether someone is his grandson or not. We can't just assume that he was just playing with the media about such serious an issue because it is not justifiable.

I left the previous unsigned comment. The "only" I used was opposed to truth, it didn't mean that "Joe tells nothing but what the press want to hear", but "Joe was just telling what the press want to hear, rather than the truth". You clearly meant this in your comments.

No, that's not what I said at all. That's the kind of sloppy reading that starts rumors. WillOakland (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So what did you mean when you said: "Notice that the press laid off the Joe Jackson hate campaign as soon as he started kinda telling them what they wanted to hear"? Didn't you explicitly say it? How come now you say you didn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Will gives 20% to charity as well as further earnings

Jackson's will allocates 20% of his fortune to charity and it looks like 20% of everything he earn after death is also going to charity. This should definitely be mentioned in the article (if not the lead), it has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of dollars over time.See here. — Please comment R² 11:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the lead? Absolutely not. This should be mentioned somewhere below, possiby under "Death and memorial" or "Legacy and influence". Nashassum (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding it to the lead would only involve adding two words, "and will". The lead already mentions Jackson's charity work, and the will has the potential to outshine his other charitable contributions in terms of money donated. — Please comment R² 11:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the lead to expand on how much he has donated to charities. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's Memorial Service

However wrote the section about the memorial service forgot to mention all of the performers. I mean, you forgot to mention John Mayers instrumental contribution of Human Nature. Come on people!!

Also it states that Lionel Richie sang a Michael Jackson song. He actually sang a gospel style song that was not Michael Jackson's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjcollectables (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 July, 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor point - it says 33.1 Americans watched Princess Diana's funeral. It should be 33.1 million. Forfica (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Σxplicit 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Collection

I previously salvaged The Collection (Michael Jackson album) from a user who had deleted its content and redirected it to MJ's main page, citing notability issues. In hindsight, perhaps this isn't notable after all as it's just a jumble package of previous full albums. Should a notability discussion be started? Imperatore (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's peaked highly in numerous countries and has certifications. Notability should not be an issue. — Please comment R² 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the June 25th release date correct? So this released on the day of his death? ...Creepy! Imperatore (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw an IP move the date up to 25th June (it was originally June 20), might be wise to remove the date until sources are provided. — Please comment R² 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

World Records

I think there should be a section for Michael Jackson's ongoing World Records:

Michael Jackson holds the record for the most Google hits ever (965,000,000 hits), (”Jesus” has 178,000,000 hits) At the 17th July 2009 Jackson had 276,000,000 Google hits. At the 18th July 2009 he had 965,000,000 google hits. That is the record for the most Google hits in 2 days. Jackson has supported more charities than any other pop singer – 39 charitable organizations either with monetary donations through sponsorships of their projects or the participation in their activities.

David O. Selznick’s 1940 Best Film Oscar for Gone with the Wind (USA, 1939) was bought by Jackson for $1,542,000 on June 12, 1999, at Sotheby’s, New York City.

Jackson holds the record for most expensive music video (”Scream” in 1995 with sister Janet Jackson) reportedly cost over US$7 million.

On November 14, 1991, Michael Jackson’s music video, Black or White was broadcast simultaneously in 27 countries with an estimated audience of 500 million people. It is the largest audience ever to view a music video.

In March 1991, Jackson signed a new record-breaking US$890 million contract by Sony. It is still the largest recording contract of all time.

In 1986 Jackson signed a $15 million deal with Pepsi – it was the largest ever endorsement for product promotion.

Jackson has the record for the two best-selling VHS music videos ever released (”Moonwalker” [1988] in first place, and “The Making of Michael Jackson’s Thriller” [1984] in second place).

Jackson jointly holds the record for most Grammy Awards won in a single year. He won eight awards at the 1984 ceremony. This was equaled by Carlos Santana at the 2001 ceremony.

Jackson jointly holds the record for most American Music Awards won in a single year, winning eight awards at the 1984 ceremony. This was equaled by Whitney Houston at the 1994 ceremony.

Jackson jointly holds the record for the most World Music Awards won in a single year, with five awards at the 1996 ceremony (tied with Whitney Houston from the 1994 ceremony).

Jackson holds the record for winning more Billboard awards than any other male artist, having 26.

Jackson holds the record for winning more Billboard awards than any other artist in one year, grabbing 13 in 1983.

Jackson has more music awards than any other artist in the history of music.

Honored as artist of the decade by former President, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and another seven awards from others.

Named “Artist Of The Century” at the American Music Awards ceremony in 2002.

Named “Most Successful Entertainer Of All Time by the Guinness World Records in 2006.

Jackson’s “Bad World Tour” (1987–1989) was the highest-grossing tour ever at the time, with over $125 million earned. This record was later broken by the “Dangerous World Tour” (1992-1993) and later broken again by the “HIStory World Tour” (1996-1997), which is still the biggest tour ever in terms of international attendance (4.4 million tickets outside of USA).

Michael Jackson is the only foreign artist to have sold more than 1,500,000 units in Turkey with all his albums (Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible). Bad is the best-selling foreign album in Turkey with the sales of 560,000 units. HIStory is the best-selling double album by a foreign artist in Turkey with more than 145,000 units sold.

Jackson’s album “Thriller” (1982) is the best selling album of all time with more than 110 million copies.

The fastest ticket sales in history, with 700,000 tickets sold in about four hours for the cancelled “This Is It” concert series in 2009.

At one stage, Michael Jackson was one of the wealthiest entertainers in the world, with a fortune of more than $750 million.

Jackson has been given 197 recognized awards.

Jackson also became the first artist to sell 2 million+ downloads in a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmc7arts (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is too long to list all of these records, but some of the Guinness records are mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

These are either non-noteworthy, already included or (I would hazard a guess) incorrect. I don't see any need for a separate section. RaseaC (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the information listed above should be listed in the List of awards received by Michael Jackson article. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The records are notable. I agree with TechOutsider you should add them to List of awards received by Michael Jackson under Guinness World Records but with proper sourcing obviously for support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.32.249 (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Paris Lester - Mark Lester confirms she is his daughter

It is now confirmed that Paris is the daughter of Mark Lester (who was already known to be godfather to all of Michael Jackson's step children and apparently spent a good deal of time with them when Jackson was alive) and Debbie Rowe. She's not the daughter of Jackson.[5][6] Nashassum (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we remove Paris from the info box. Stating she is one of Jackson's "children" is both POV and incorrect, she needs to be described as the step daughter, the biological daughter of Mark Lester. Nashassum (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense on stilts. All we know is that Mark Lester gave an interview to a British tabloid claiming to have been a sperm donor in 1996. This is nowhere near being a firm proof.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nas, please stop pushing this silly agenda across Wiki. I could claim to be your father, that does not make it the truth. — Please comment R² 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it is agreed by WP:CONSENSUS that the infobox lists all of the children, as Michael Jackson was the legal parent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Needless Deletions

Why is it that when users suggest to change false information written about Michael Jackson, it usually gets deleted or others are not allowed to add supporting information to the subject matter? This practice reveals one cannot take the good with the bad. Besides, one who is not blind can automatically see Paris, Prince I, Blanket & Omer is not the biological children of Michal's. Let's not forget his true genes before he had vitiligo. The darker skin and facial features would have been passed on in some form to immediately identify his biological children. People forget he was once a much darker color before being treated for vitiligo. I assume there are people who look at him with the snow white skin/cosmetic surgeries and think there could be a possibililty he fathered the children. It's the genetic DNA inside Michael's body that would get passed on; Not the outside changed appearance!!!! Shanshant (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM. The claims about the parentage of Jackson's children also fail WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge approves Michael Jackson film

A judge approved a major movie deal today. Meanwhile, it is confirmed that Jackson was laid to rest at Forest Lawn Cemetery. Finally! Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was confirmed that the film would be released on October 30! [7]

alexdow93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdow93 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures

There was a recent request (edit semi-prot) to change the sales figures in List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael Jackson (again) to 750m. I noted that that figure was used in this featured article, which is one reason that I approved the request. The edits were reverted, because at least one user contests the authenticity of the figure.

I have therefore started a discussion, in the hope of reaching a consensus on the issue.

I would very much welcome input from anyone - preferably brief, policy-based reasoning, of course.

Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael Jackson (again)

Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

Michael Jackson was 8th of 10 children. One of his brothers died shorty after birth. That needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Ram (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Converted to Islam?

According to this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html), it claims Michael Jackson converted to Islam in 2008.

Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShowtime (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, please see the FAQ. Note that the article uses words such as "is said" and "according to" and "a source". The information was reported by someone unknown at The Sun, an unreliable source. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No: He did not have an Islamic funeral and his children were not raised as Muslims, hence it is unlikely he was himself a Muslim. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanket's mom revealed

A Mexican nurse! Refer to: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/blanket-jacksons-mother-revealed_1112631 118.100.46.51 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This comes from a story in the UK tabloid the Daily Mirror on 12 August 2009.[8] Like other claims in this area, it fails WP:BLP and is unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

king of pop

• estimated sales of over 760 million records world-wide.
• 17 number one singles (including the four number ones with Jackson 5)
• A double-inductee into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
• Guinness World Records — The "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time
• He has also been named as the artist of "the Decade", "Generation", and "Century" and was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.230.79 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Belongs in List of awards received by Michael Jackson, if not already there in the article. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Page image

A vandal replaced the pages main image.--{{SUBST:User:Kirbychu HR'D/sig}} 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. — Σxplicit 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and vitiligo

I went to research a bit on vitiligo because I wanted to find out facts about the disease. It was listed that Michael Jackson had vitiligo under famous figures with vitiligo. Is it a fact that Michael Jackson had vitiligo? I've heard many arguments about it, but I've heard nothing that proves the statement is a fact. So is it true that he had vitiligo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettoe (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact that Jackson claimed to have vitiligo. There is really no way to verify it independently. Mktyscn (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than MJ's own claim, we have MJ's dermatologist, his makeup specialist, any some other people confirming this. I think this is a pretty strong case. I know someone needs no less "proof" than seeing MJ's naked body with there own eyes to be convinced. But that's probably not going to happen. So for those people, why don't simply hang on with whatever alternative explinations you believed about MJ's change of skin color, since it seem that you never bothered to ask proof for those anyway.--Taskshand (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)--Taskshand (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please add ref name to reference #1

Please change reference #1 from <ref> to <ref name= "cbsnews1">, in order to correct the error in reference #215.
Thank you98.71.198.77 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Mktyscn (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Split/Tagging

This article at 123kb is difficult to navigate and for users using a slower/older PC it can be difficult to access. I propose that the article is split into two seperate specific smaller articles title Micheal Jackson (the muscian) and Michael Jackson (the person). The first page can focus on his music achievements whilst the second could focus on his personal issues and achievements.

The alternative is to address the potential fancruft, the article might contain too much intricate detail which might explain why the article is so large. Either way discussion should be opened into the future of this article. Please do not remove templates until consensus is reached. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Reluctantly agree here. Since MJ's death, the article has grown beyond the size that is desirable for a single page. Creating Music of Michael Jackson would address this, and allow the main article to concentrate on biographical issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the article into two separate biographies for one individual; I really don't see that working at all. Skimming through the article, I agree that there several lines and paragraphs that are too detailed (for instance, the first child molestation charge section contains way too much info when there's a separate article for it). If anything, we should look for things to take out. For example, under the first marriage section, the sentence "They stayed in contact every day over the telephone" seems useless at best. We should try weeding things like this out. — Σxplicit 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the life and career he had, it's probably about the right length. But it should be trimmed rather than split Pongley (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article definitely needs trimming at the moment, although a split might not be necessary if some of the intricate details leading to cruft were removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's trim it, then split. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above, lets trim first and then if it is still to large we can consider splitting. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

At no point should this article ever be split. Just cut out excessive details. There is not logic in having two biographies for one individual. Jackson already has an a number of "main articles" that deal with intricate details. As a musician, his biographical entry should primarily focus on his music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have no problem moving information out of the Michael Jackson article and into the other ones (such as Death of Michael Jackson), and perhaps even creating other more specific articles; but as proposed, it seems like there are two different people with the same name. -Sme3 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Sme3--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree: I say yes because to me there was two Micheals--Mpurplegirl (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose With respect, Michael Jackson was one person, not two. The art influenced the man, and vica versa, and cannot simply be split apart. However, I would suggest if you want to shorten this article, that you could create pages entitled "Musical career of Michael Jackson" and "Personal life of Michael Jackson", and keep shorter summaries on this page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Im curious to know, how many articles have had a split like this? Portillo (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Michael Jackson the person was an entertainer, one article details his entire life.

• Strongly Oppose A waste of time and one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Michael Jackson was not two people. And if your PC is old and slow then too bad. Some people don't have internet access; it doesn't mean we should have a courier service that prints out articles and fetches it to them.

• Comment I have removed the tagging for the time being, because there is a consensus that the article needs trimming. Even on my modern computer and Internet connection, the page is taking too long to load. The main issue with the trimming process is to avoid dramatic leaps in the page content which could set off edit wars. Before making any major changes (particularly to the lead section), please discuss them on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Only one bio is needed. There was a lot of fancruft and other miscellaneous bullshit in the article even before he died, but that cruft is pretty vigorously defended. There are several sections which could be deleted and/or moved to separate articles and/or pared down. But we only need one bio. If we had two, they would both end up duplicating each other and then we would have twice as much verbiage to wade through. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the bio itself is not bad, and only is about a third of the article. The last two thirds of the article, where we (I am partially responsible for the article) get all profound and expound on his significance, is incredibly boring and needs to be drastically pruned. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New Page

I was wondering would it be a good idea to start another page that focuses on the entertainers reaction to MJ's Death? Most of music is influnced by him and many entertainers(Atheles,Actors,Singers,Producers,Directors) released statements. But the page will focus on more notable figures in MJ's entertainment life ITalkTheTruth (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

85.138.123.221 (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/41000/week-ending-aug-16-2009-king-of-country-boots-king-of-pop/ Thriller sales in USA have surpassed Eagles's.

Besides, MJ has sold millions and millions of records after his death, so I think that he has sold, by now, not 750 millions of records but 780 millions.

they are saying dat mjs childrens are not his —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.119.195 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on the dance floor

Just wondering...how come Blood On the Dance Floor isn't mentioned in the list of albums????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniperequinox (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix is a remix album, so it has previously released material but with a new mix. Should it be listed, or is it similar to a compilation album? Comments, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it has enough new songs to be included. Only half of it is a remix album.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

picture

What's wrong with using Michael Jackson June 23, 2009.JPG as the infobox picture? Currently it's on the Death of Michael Jackson page. Shark96z (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is copyrighted and would fail WP:NFCC for the infobox. It has fair use as one of the last images of Jackson before his death. Also, it is arguably not the best illustration of Jackson due to the dim lighting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sold about 375 million records worldwide

We're discussing this matter also on the talk page of list of best-selling music artists. Did MJ sold 750 million records or not? The answer is NO. Did The Beatles or Elvis sold 1 billion records? No, they didn't.

Some interesting figures about Michael Jackson's worldwide sales:

Albums

• Studio Albums: 10

1. Got To Be There (1971)- 4,112,879
2. Ben (1972)- 4,401,605
3. Music and Me (1973)- 1,980,440
4. Forever, Michael (1975)- 1,687,234
5. Off The Wall (1979)- 20,000,000
6. Thriller (1982)- 108,000,000
7. Bad (1987)- 32,000,000
8. Dangerous (1991)- 30,000,000
9. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book l (1995)- 22,000,000 (44 million units)
10. Invincible (2001)- 12,000,000

• Total studio albums worldwide sold = 236,182,158

• Compilations: 22

1. The Best of Michael Jackson (1975)- 2,500,223
2. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,600,208
3. Farewell My Summer (1984)-2,087,110
4. Looking Back to Yesterday (1986)- 302,330
5. 18 Greatest Hits (?)- 1,250,000
6. Anthology (?)- 2,655,098
7. Other Pre- 1991 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
8. Their Very Best- Back To Back (?)- 250,000
9. Love Songs (?)- 500,000
10. The Original Soul Of (?)- 377,745
11. The Michael Jackson Mix (?)- 500,000
12. The Best of- The Motown Years (?)- 300,000
13. The Best of- The Millennium Collection (?)- 200,000
14. Love Songs (?)- 50,000
15. Other Post- 1990 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
16. Special CD Box (?)- 4,000
17. Greatest Hits HIStory Volume 1 (2001)- 3,000,000
18. Number Ones (2003)- 7,000,000
19. Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (2004)- 500,000
20. The Essential Michael Jackson (2005)- 2,500,000
21. Visionary: The Video Singles (2006)- 500,000
22. King of Pop (2008)- 400,000

Compilations Sold= 27,476,714

• Other Albums: 4

1. E.T. The Extra- Terrestrial & Singles Packs (1982)- 100,000
2. Dangerous- The Remix Collection (?)- 22,000
3. Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix (1997)-8,000,000
4. Thriller: 25 (2008)- 3,000,000

• Other Albums Sold= 11,122,000

Home Video/DVD: 10

1. Making Michael Jackson's Thriller (VHS- 1983)- 2,000,000
2. The Legend Continues...(VHS- 1988)- 1,000,000
3. Moonwalker (VHS- 1988)- 2,000,000
4. Dangerous- The Short Films [VHS (1993), DVD (2001)]- 575,000
5. Video Greatest Hits- HIStory [VHS (1995), DVD (2001)]- 1,250,000
6. HIStory On Film- Volume ll (DVD- 1997)- 800,000
7. Ghosts (1997)- 250,000
8. Number Ones (DVD- 2003)- 1,600,000
9. The Ones (DVD- 2004)- 125,000
10. Live In Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour (DVD- 2005)- 500,000

Home Video/DVD Sold= 10,100,000

Singles

1. Got To Be There (1971)- 2,245,900
2. Rockin' Robin (1972)- 2,897,300
3. I Wanna Be Where You Are (1972)- 1,321,600
4. Ain't No Sunshine (1972)- 278,900
5. Ben (1972)- 2,865,000
6. Morning Glow (?)- 15,300
7. With A Child's Heart (1973)- 341,100
8. Music And Me (1973)- 12,300
9. Doggin' Around (?)- 5,000
10. We're Almost There (1975)- 403,300
11. Just A Little Bit of You (1975)- 861,100
12. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,756,200
13. Happy (?)- 145,900
14. Farewell My Summer Love (1984)- 788,100
15. Girl You're So Together (1984)- 89,100
16. Touch The One You Love (?)- 1,000
17. Twenty- Five Miles (?)-10,200
18. Ease On Down The Road (1978)- 100,000
19. A Brand New Day (?)- 50,000
20. You Can't Win (1979)- 50,000
21. Don't Stop Till' You Get Enough (1979)- 2,500,000
22. Rock With You (1979)- 2,350,000
23. Off The Wall (1980)- 950,000
24. She's Out Of My Life (1980)- 1,000,000
25. Girlfriend (1980)- 30,000
26. The Girl Is Mine (1982)- 2,150,000
27. Billie Jean (1983)- 6,209,700
28. Beat It (1983)- 4,432,000
29. Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'(1983)- 1,800,000
30. Human Nature (1983)- 1,050,000
31. P.Y.T.(Pretty Young Thing)(1983)- 1,050,000
32. Say Say Say (1983)- 2,850,000
33. Thriller (1984)- 4,427,000
34. We Are The World (1985)- 20,000,000
35. I Just Can't Stop Loving You (1987)- 2,250,000
36. Bad (1987)- 1,628,000
37. The Way You Make Me Feel (1987)- 1,390,000
38. Man In The Mirror (1988)- 900,000
39. Get It (1988)- 180,000
40. Dirty Diana (1988)- 1,200,000
41. Another Part Of Me (1988)- 830,000
42. Smooth Criminal (1988)- 1,350,000
43. Leave Me Alone (1989)- 485,000
44. Liberian Girl (1989)- 165,000
45. Black Or White (1991)- 2,442,400
46. Remember The Time (1992)- 1,300,000
47. In The Closet (1992)- 620,000
48. Jam (1992)- 510,000
49. Who Is It (1992)- 540,000
50. Heal The World (1992)- 1,629,000
51. Give Into Me (1993)- 300,000
52. Will You Be There (1993)- 1,050,000
53. Goon Too Soon (1993)- 60,000
54. Scream/ Childhood (1995)- 2,993,000
55. You Are Not Alone (1995)- 3,086,700
56. Earth Song (1995)- 3,173,000
57. They Don't Care About Us (1996)- 1,764,500
58. Why (1996)- 475,000
59. Stranger In Moscow (1996)- 540,000
60. Blood On The Dance Floor (1997)- 960,000
61. HIStory/ Ghosts (1997)- 375,000
62. You Rock My World (2001)- 1,915,000
63. Cry (2001)- 45,000
64. One More Chance (2003)- 225,000
65. Visionary- The Video Singles (2006)- 350,000
66. The Girl Is Mine 2008 (2008)- 50,000
67. Wanna Be Startin' Somtin' Somethin' 2008 (2008)- 50,000
68. Beat It 2008 (2008)- 50,000

• Total singles sold worldwide = 98,967,600

Total Albums + Singles= 373,748,472 Floydian Tree (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Source?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article because the old 350m/750m sales edit-war has risen again. You have three days to sort it out or seek some dispute resolution. I'm also aware of previous sockpuppetry on this issue. Rodhullandemu 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page. It was in need of it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times and can be searched for in the talk page archive, eg here. Let's say it once again: the sales figures for Michael Jackson's records are estimates, and there are no "correct" figures.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought last time, and think again this time, that a full protection is a knee-jerk reaction so a silly argument, surely a 24h block is a better route, so as not to affect the rest of editors? Remember, just because you can protect pages, doesn't mean you have too. RaseaC (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not necessary to protect the whole article because there is a dispute over one number. Mktyscn (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to me to be a fast-pace collection of reversions between two opposing points of view, both being put by auto-confirmed editors. For that reason, I deemed that semi-protection would discriminate unnecessarily against IP editors. However, the editor pushing the "750m" stance has not come here to justify it, or discuss, perhaps for reasons relating to this topic, and perhaps not. For now I will unprotect the article and advise this editor to discuss here or run the risk of blocking for continued disruption. In doing this, I am guided by |Ianmacm's above comment that we are talking about "estimates", and the issues of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I see have already been discussed ad nauseam. When there is a dispute over "estimates", we really do need to come to a consensus about what constitue reliable sources, or at least agree to wording of the form of "estimates vary between 350m and 750m". I'll leave it up to you. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now, any chance of blocking the two users involved in the dispute for a few days to see if that will encourage them to grow up?!RaseaC (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so: it seems to have stopped since I issued a final warning to the editor pushing the 750m claim, and consensus seems to have developed as expressed below. No admin action is indicated at present, but if it starts again, please notify me, since I'm around between 8am and 2am GMT. Rodhullandemu 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson changed names

Could someone open a section of him being a Muslim?Many citations given.

Ref: Dr R Azrin (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Many cites, all derived from one unreliable source, and he and his people never confirmed it, so, in short, no. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A Place With No Name

I want to question the reliability of this information. Is the mentioning of a 25 second leaked snippet really enough to warrant a full section on posthumous music releases? this is the kind of information that could be trimmed from the article. There is little independent or official verification that this is actually a michael jackson recording and not a demo or singer sounding very much like MJ (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

As a matter of fact several sources, including Jackson's former band manager have verified that the song is Michael Jackson and it is indeed a fully recorded song. If you are questioning the section, please read the two debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination). The wikipedia community has mainly agreed that the content is necessary which is why it was merged here from its previous article. But, to repeat myself, there is significant verification that the song is full and that it is Michael Jackson, no question. --JDelo93 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

my issue is more with the fact that the way it is written appears to promote a leaked song which could be breaching copyright and other Laws both in the US and internationally. a whole paragraph just on a 25 second snippet seems excessive. im still questionning the relevance of calling it the first "posthumous release". including such information like "fans claim it was recorded... etc." is no encyclopedic. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

That can be easily removed. And it already has been. That {{pov}} tag was more than a little ridiculous. If it's a simple problem next time, fix it yourself instead of starting unnecessary discussion. Now let's talk about the {{relevance}} tag. I don't know what could possibly make you think that's irrelevant information. This song is the first song released during Michael Jackson's posthumous career. Need I explain more? Discussing a linked song is fine, as long as we don't tell people where to download the music.

I'll keep the {{relevance}} tag until we get more opinion, but I'm removing that {{pov}} tag. That's just ridiculous and lazy. I'm sorry, but it really is. Just remove minor issues. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for removing the section. It only contains information of a leaked snippet and has no official release, so calling it so is amazingly misleading. If we omit unofficially released albums and songs from discography articles (MOS:DISCOG), I don't see why this unofficially released snippet should be any different. — Σxplicit 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally not for including unofficially released material in articles, but it seems to have received a fair amount of coverage, and it is the first song of Jackson's posthumous career. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it the first song of his posthumous career—it's more along the lines the first song snippet that was leaked after his death. I don't agree that it's fair to say this snippet is part of his career if it hasn't been officially released and was illegally leaked. Songs will be officially released in the future and those can be included; this one shouldn't be unless it becomes more notable than just being another leaked song. — Σxplicit 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be deleted. It doesn't seem relevant. Everything to do with MJ gets lots of coverage these days, doesn't mean it has to be on Wiki.FrauBluecher (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Panther Dance

I really think the Panther Dance should be lised amongst Micheal Jackson's great artistic achievements. It is after all the only dance I know of with no music, other than the sounds of his moves and his expressions of the panther, reflecting the current state of the world, its violence, its racism, and it is a wonderful interpretation unlike anything ever seen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.180.217 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael jackson Artist Of The Millenium Award

They Say he has sold more records around the world than any single artists

watch the whole video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNvVJerEHLU

http://www.worldmusicawards.com/mj.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See above sections, it has all been said ad nauseam. There is a different figure wherever you look.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson did not have 750 million records sold, but about 375/400 million records

The figure of 750 million is highly inflated and statistically unrealistic. There's no consensus about the 750 million.

• CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [9]
• Estimates based on adding up various database sources (see above) show that the figure of 750m is unrealistic
• History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
• Other figures (Beatles etc.) may need reassessment also
• Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
• Sony is a primary source
• WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
• Archive records from reputable sources indicate far fewer sales; BBC reports 165m as of 2003 BBC 2003 - The Age (Australian) reports 350m as of 2006 TheAge
• Wikipedia records indicate the 750 million figure first crept into the Michael Jackson page on the third of November 2006 Wiki750m, the sources given by the contributor were a Belgian fansite MJMTC, this site was publishing a statement by Michael Jackson's publicist Raymone Bain, she had claimed 750 million sales figures, which the Times of India attributes as her statement Times of India as well as the aforementioned WSJ article. Prior to this, worldwide sales listed for Michael Jackson in the Wikipedia pages have ranged from 150 million to 350 million records, gradually increasing as the pages were updated, all of them almost invariably listing Michael Jackson fansites as the source.
• In light of all evidence and claims, and given the conflicting reports by reputable news sources, with each other as well as in some cases themselves, the opponents of the 'edit reversion' request that more research be done into news archives prior to 2006 to either validate or invalidate the 750 million claim before a final justification be made as there appears to be sufficient evidence to indicate the 750 million claim came during the World Music Awards, and as being a publicist's statement, was picked up by major news sources, in which case would put the primary source as Raymone Bain and secondary sources as the reputable news outlets

The Wall Street Journal states:

"Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads. It is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million."

Based on this Elvis sold under 345 million unit /or under 205 million?/ Michael Jackson sold somewhere between 205-345/maybe 386/ million and The Beatles sold over 385 possibly 400-500 million+ /as they do not state numbers/.

His sales figure is about 375-400 million records worldwide. About five times his sales in the US. And that's very rational. We're discussing this matter also at the best-selling artists list.Christo jones (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Against the 750+ million figure:

• Harout72 (talk · contribs)
• JFonseka (talk · contribs)
• PaulStar (talk · contribs)
• Christo jones (talk · contribs)
• 124.179.173.61 (talk · contribs)
• Kiac (talk · contribs)
• 75.142.54.211 (talk · contribs)
• —Kww(talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Floydian Tree (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) MJ sold about 375 million records

This is becoming one of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee debates for which Wikipedia is famous. Here's my attempt to get out of the quagmire: All of the figures are estimates, and although the 750 million figure has been widely quoted in the media, its accuracy has been questioned, most notably in the Wall Street Journal article here. Rather than edit war like kids over which estimate is the "best" one, it might be better to follow User:Rodhullandemu's suggestion that the wording should say something like "estimated sales between 300 and 750 million records", using the WSJ article as a citation. It is unworkable to have constant edit wars over this, so how about agreeing on a form of words similar to this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for that. Mktyscn (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good alternative.Christo jones (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, we seem to be getting somewhere. The only other point to make is that describing Michael Jackson as the best selling male pop artist of all time is also controversial, since the estimates about the sales of Elvis Presley's records have similar problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also voting for this edit!!Floydian Tree (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a possible debate then over who is the "best selling solo male pop vocalist" of all time. I keep changing Jackson to #2 as it is what is stated on Wikipeida here: List of best selling music artists. Perhaps that page needs some revisions? sherpajohn (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists has run into the same problem that we had here, which is the use of estimated sales that can be challenged for various reasons. The article is not a reliable source, and it is best not to set off more edit wars by asking "Who sold more records, Elvis or MJ?" when the answer would contain a large amount of speculation and original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what would be an accurate source for this kind of information, then? There is no question that his numbers have elevated since his death. We certainly can't rely on his label, and I can't think of any other free source to be honest. I believe that the album titles in question are already in the Platinum range, so I wonder how we go about looking for sources to make his pages factual and up to date? Does anyone have any ideas?Stryteler (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Who sold the most records?

• Thought for the day:

“ The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. ”

- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Let's not fill up the talk page on this issue today. Please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lover Jason Pfeiffer ?

• The Sun:Jacko 'gay lover': I lost a soulmate
• Bild: Klinik-Mitarbeiter behauptet: Ich war Jackos letzter Lover!
• Queer:Krankenpfleger: Ich hatte Sex mit Michael Jackson (german)
• Express:Jason Pfeiffer will Jackos Liebhaber gewesen sein (german)
• Webnews:Jason Pfeiffer

Jason Pfeiffer last lover of Michael Jackson ? GLGermann (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is notable and trustworthy how? Not only is this unlikely, but the photo looks faked. For instance, why is it so grainy? Does the Sun website scan their own pages to post them? lol. Too funny that some morons will take this seriously. Ccrashh (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

you can find this discussion over the sexual orientation of Michael Jackson in many english and german websites, online magazines and online newswpapers. GLGermann (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your links were for articles about one guy's supposed claim that he was Jackson's lover. Whether or not Jackson was gay is open to debate and the only available commentary on it is hearsay. Unless we have an undisputed source, it is simply pure speculation and has no business being on Wikipedia. Ccrashh (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had pretty much everything here since Michael Jackson died, and even The Sun uses the word "claim" to describe this story. Apart from the clear WP:BLP issues, the image looks as though Jackson's head could have been photoshopped in afterwards. Unsuitable for the article without a evidence a lot stronger than this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The story about Jason Peiffer and Michael Jackson in The Sun and many different newspapers, also here in german magazine, should be part of the biographie. Also the author Ian Halperin said, that Michael Jackson had sexual affairs with gay men in his last years. So the discussion over the sexual orientation should be part of the article.

• Focus:Heimliche Romanze Liebte Jackson einen Arzthelfer? (german)
• (austria)
• Mirror:Michael Jackson’s ‘gay lover’ speaks out
• Telegraph:Clinic worker claims to have had homosexual love affair with Michael Jackson
• OneIndia:Jason Pfeiffer had gay love affair with MJ

So there are many articles in different countries, which report over the gay love affair. GLGermann (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:REDFLAG. Currently the only reliable source would be the Telegraph. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has faced this situation many times before, most notably over the "conversion to Islam" saga. What happens is that the stories go round the newspapers prefixed by the word "claim". This is a newspaper's way of saying: "We don't know if this is complete bollocks, but we are going to print it anyway." This type of situation is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Homicide

A "law enforcement official" has told the AP that Jackson's death has been ruled a homicide. However, the findings have not yet been publicly released. Should it go in now or should we wait?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The affidavit was released via the media, and there was mention of cell phone records also. My question is: why in the world wait for 82 minutes to call 911? If you work and are staying somewhere, you should know the address where you are...especially if you are a personal physician performing private duty. This same doctor refused to sign the death certificate at the hospital. Interesting...Stryteler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

What we can do is report that the story has been carried by a number of major news outlets. We would need to figure out where it came from though, as the fact we can report on isn't the claimed ruling, but just the claim itself - rather the news report/repetition thereoft. -Stevertigo 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And we should not go further than this, particularly to label it as "murder", because "homicide" includes lesser offences, such as manslaughter. Therefore, I will revert recent edits to that effect, and if necessary, protect the article (again!) Rodhullandemu 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We cite the best source noting it as a homicide and move on until more information is made available. However, we do not avoid noting it, as it from a reliable source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A "claim" from an unattributed source is still rumour, and has no place here. WP:BLP still applies to those who may be subject to charges, and should be scrupulously sourced. In passing, I saw on a forum a claim that Michael Jackson was Welsh. Let's have that in, too, shall we? Rodhullandemu 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've put it back in, quoting two news outlets, which both use the (presumably same) anonymous source. Superm401 - Talk 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not currently accurate. Stick to the facts we know:

1. The Associated Press reported on a tip:
   1. wherein an anonymous law enforcement official
   2. is claimed to have given the AP details
   3. about the LA coroner's report on MJ's former body
   4. ..in which MJ's death is ruled as a homicide
      1. Due to an overdose of a strong anesthetic
2. Lots of other news outlets picked it up

Note that things get fishier and more speculative as we get into "details." We can stick to the first column (no indents), and maybe a bit of column 2 (first indent), but all the rest is hearsay, and uncyclopedia-ic. -Stevertigo 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This happens time and time again, and is tiring to the point of exhaustion; it's too much trouble to police, if you like. Wikinews is meant for this sort of thing, and here, we should stick with facts, and only facts. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the report is certainly a fact. And that the report contains a tip is a claim made by a reputable news source, so we can attribute that, and give a bit about what the tip was about. The news media themselves have apparently backed off a bit from the hyperbole. -Stevertigo 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is more of the same, because it quotes an off the record source. Wikipedia's hands are tied here by WP:BLP and WP:RS. Unless anyone is charged in connection with Jackson's death, the article cannot recycle what off the record sources said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael jackson 750 million sales as a solo artist no mention of the jackson 5

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n24.de%2Fnews%2Fnewsitem_3734500.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.theagesss.com.au/news/entertainment/music/2009/05/21/1242498844872.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world,

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/4977319/Michael-Jackson-fans-face-huge-price-rises-for-London-concert-tickets.html

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20287946,00.html,http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-beatles-business-media-estate.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/wpix-michael-jackson-heart-attack,0,6959872.story

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Memorial-Service---In-Numbers/Article/200907115331455

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?_r=2

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609049.htm

And here is a video which say he sold 750 million as a solo artist still no mention of the jackson 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcQAhIKoL64

If michael jacksons sales are going to be changed so should elvis and the beatles beacuse they did not sell 1 billion

http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2009/04/29/min1592_195858.php

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk pages for those articles. This talk page is for discussing the Jackson article. Mktyscn (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We could spend hours clogging up the talk pages with arguments over who sold the most records. These figures are always estimates and need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

85.240.175.245 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)In 1996, the World Music Awards gave Jackson the "Best selling American Artist Ever" award. In 2000, Jackson received, from the WMA, the "Best Selling Pop Male Artist Of The Millennium" for having sold 750 millions of albuns. To say that the 750 millions of albums sold were an invention of a Jackson publicist, during the year of 2006, is, at least, stupid. MJ did sell over 750 millions of albuns, according to WMA and many other sources. I understand that people may dislike Jackson and, therefore, want to "hide" his achievements but Wikipedia may lose its credibility.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-many-albums-did-michael-jackson-sell-755/tab/comments/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is replacing "Did Michael Jackson convert to Islam?" as the biggest source of circular debate. The article has already been fully protected over this issue, and there is now a WP:CONSENSUS not to cherry pick sources giving estimated record sales. The real risk to Wikipedia's credibility comes from citing sources in a misleading way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

85.240.175.245 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Then, why don't you do the same to the Beatles or Presley? Why do you guys state, in the best selling artists of all time, that those two guys sold over 1 billion of albums? Don't you think that is stupid? Does your rule just apply to Michael Jackson? Why is that?

The sales figures quoted in the media are usually worth about as much as a wooden nickel. You could spend all day citing different sources, and it has nothing to do with being pro or anti Michael Jackson. Just look at the time that has been spent on this on the talk page in the last few days to see how futile it is to be drawn into arguments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The beatles talk page for their sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles

Elvis Presley talk page for his sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elvis_Presley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And also go here to debate about these artist sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists

{{editprotect}} Please make correction to reference #179

Please edit the first use of reference #179 (located in Section 3.3 Michael_Jackson#Vocal_style). Kindly change it from

<ref name = "Nelson George overview 24"/>

to

<ref name= "Nelson George overview 24">George, p.24</ref>

This should to correct the cite error in all subsequent uses of reference #179.

Thank you74.178.202.219 (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is WSJ Article the best for us to use

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

It also states

It is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million

This means he has out sold elvis

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide

It also speaks about other artists sales

Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million.

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"King of Pop" should be in boldface

I'm not sure what the "This is not a legal alias nor an official stage name - do not place in bold font" note is all about, but WP:MOSBOLD indicates that "proper names and common terms for the article topic" should be in boldface. "King of Pop" is both a proper name and a common term; whether or not it is also a "legal" name or an "official" term is immaterial. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. On further thought, I wonder if somebody misunderstood the meaning of "proper name". This is a grammatical term, not a legal one, and it applies perfectly well to an epithet like "King of Pop" when the epithet pertains to a specific individual, such as Jackson. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The title of the article is Michael Jackson, not "King of Pop". Just because some people describe Jackson as the king of pop does not mean that his name is "King of Pop". The article on Aretha Franklin does not have "Queen of Soul" in bold, nor does the article on James Brown have "Godfather of Soul" in bold. "King of Pop" is also not the title of the article, and if you put "King of Pop" into the search box, it will refer you to the article on honorific titles in popular music. Mktyscn (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, but I think you might have missed the point. The point is that, according to current Wikipedia guidelines, "King of Pop" should be in boldface. The question of whether or not the guidelines themselves are flawed is an entirely separate issue (and is fair game for an entirely separate forum), but the question of whether these guidines prescribe boldface in this instance would appear to be answered with a definitive, "Yes." Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP guideline says that article titles should be in bold typeface. I'm not disagreeing with the guideline; I'm disagreeing with your conclusion that the phrase "King of Pop" falls under the guideline. I don't know if others agree with me, but the fact that there is a comment in the article to not put it in bold typeface suggests that it's been discussed before and consensus went against it. Mktyscn (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article refers to Michael Jackson, whom some refer to as The King of Pop. What people call/called him is up to them, as it stands, and as an encyclopedia, his name was not the King of Pop nor was he, arguably, indeed the King of Pop. Therefore it should not be in bold. Thanks RaseaC (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

• I was the one who added the note. "King of Pop" is not his alias, stage name nor is it within current wikipedia guidelines. I wholeheartedly disagree King of Pop would be considered a proper name under guidelines established by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names. WP:BOLDTITLE states: "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the article's subject should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface." The article's subject is Michael Jackson, not the "King of Pop". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As a reference: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is "Queen of England", but we don't have that in bold print in her article, nor do we have "President of the United States" in bold print in Barack Obama's article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I can (sort of) see where you're coming from here, but I feel that you're mistaken for a few reasons:

• WP:MOSBIO says nothing whatsoever about the nature of proper names--understandably so, because proper names, also known as proper nouns (notice the redirect?), are a grammatical concept that is hardly unique to biographical language. Blarney Stone is just as much a proper noun/name as Barney Frank. As far as Jackson is concerned, both "King of Pop" and "Captain EO" are as much proper names as "Michael Jackson"; "Captain EO" is fictitious and has never been synonymous with the real-life Jackson, but even it should be recognized as a grammatically proper name/noun before any stylistic (as in "MoS") qualifications come into play.

• Yes, WP:BOLDTITLE says that the first appearance of the article's subject should be in boldface. And WP:MOSBOLD adds to this by saying that, within the first paragraph, the first appearances of "proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms" should also be in boldface. "King of Pop" is both a proper name (i.e., a proper noun) and a common term (i.e., a synonym) for Jackson.

• In contrast, "Queen of England" and "President of the United States" are not proper names/proper nouns/synonyms for Elizabeth II or Barack Obama, respectively. They are names of positions that these people happen to be filling at the moment. The articles about the people could reasonably use the names of the positions to indicate other individuals. For instance, if the Barack Obama article were to say, "During his presidential campaign, Obama criticized the President of the United States", it obviously would not mean that Obama had criticized himself in a bid to succeed himself as president. Your analogy might work if the Kingdom of Pop were due for a successor to the throne, but there is no stretch of the imagination by which "King of Pop" could be taken (especially in this article) to refer to anyone but Jackson. It is a synonym/alternative name for him. Again, legality or officiality have nothing to do with it. The titles, "Queen of England" and "President of the United States", are quite legal and official, but they're not in boldface because they are not alternative names for their articles' subjects, but are rather the only names for the positions that these subjects hold. "King of Pop", although considerably less formal, should be in boldface because it is an alternative/common/proper name/noun/synonym for Jackson himself.

I hope that this has helped to clarify things somewhat. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting, but the upshot of it is that this is an article about Michael Jackson, that's his name and that's the name of the article. If his birtch certificate stated King of Pop as his name then you would have an argument. It doesn't, you don't. You think he's the King of Pop, and that is the POV of you and others, that is not a basis for boldtype. I personally think he's an over-hyped performer who, at best, sang a few good songs probably written by others, but I'm not arguing for that to be in boldtype am I?RaseaC (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that a guideline called WP:MOSBOLD indicates that "King of Pop" should be in boldface. If you feel I have misread this guideline or am misapplying it, then please feel free to explain exactly where my error lies. Initially, at least, your attempt to play the "POV" card strikes me as a strange and circuitous approach to discussing font style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're misreading it, having looked at it again I don't think you've read it at all! It clearly states proper names, the proper name in question is Michael Jackson. Therefore MJ is in bold. It really is that simple. It is your POV that MJ was the KoP, and anyone else that refers to him as such is also exercising their POV, the fact that he is a good singer, and therefore the KoP is purely for each and every reader to decide. That's my reasoning. This is all very timewasting on account of, short of guidelines being changed, the article will remain as is. RaseaC (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

revise 350 to 750 million records to 750 millionrecords or more

the wall street journal article and other articles on michael jackson record sales are inaccurate .same as elvis or the beatles just say estimated at 750 million records ( with proof ) the wall street journal is not a record sales company and many people have reputed sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overcome35 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See above, ad nauseam. The citation wars on this issue achieve nothing, as all of the figures are estimates. The Wall Street Journal article gives the best overall analysis of the brouhaha.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can undertand than but it also says The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales are Inflated so why are they still at 1 billion

moreover about elvis the article tells us michael jackson is second only to the Beatles in sales

futhermore in the list of best selling artist abba are above mihcael jackson even though they have only sold over 100 as the wall street joural article tells us

Why are these artist sales not being changed but michael jacksons sales are i can not understand that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The "estimated sales between a and b" language is the result of the fact that the actual sales number is unknown, and there is no way to be sure which estimate is closer to the actual number. This has been discussed at length and the current language is the consensus. If the language on other articles is different, it's because different people work on those articles and the consensus is different as a result. Mktyscn (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW MATERIAL

MICHAEL JACKSON HAS ALSO RELEASED NEW MATERIAL IN THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION BOX SET IN 2004. ONE MORE CHANCE IN 2003 WAS NOT THE LAST TIME THE PUBLIC SAW NEW MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.12.217 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson "still alive"

This comes from a video posted originally on Liveleak (best known for its gore content). Other media outlets are picking up on the story, eg here at the Chicago Tribune. The video is nonsense because we do not get to see Jackson's face at any time. Some people must be very easy to please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This surely doesn't deserve a place in the article, and this isn't a forum, so... Why? Alan16 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought that American news outlets couldn't possibly get any worse!!! It's probably interesting for someone, but has no place in an encyclopedia. RaseaC (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no intention to violate WP:FORUM here, but someone did make this edit earlier today. Everything turns up here if the media has mentioned it. Incidentally, check out www.mj-conspiracy.com for more "information" about this subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I wasn't accusing you of violating WP:FORUM, I was just curious as to why you'd posted it. With that diff I can see why (I'd personally have included the diff in your original post). Anyway, it's ridiculous. He's as dead as a dodo. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

This is one of the top stories on AOL today.[11] People read these things and then add them to Wikipedia. As Dr McCoy would say: "He's dead, Jim."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? Have you forgotten this : "With Michael Jackson you never know the truth". He could possibly be alive laughing at us right now --Mpurplegirl (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. I'm fed up with all the damn media coverage about him - imagine the amount of coverage that would spawn. Alan16 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why God invented WP:FORUM. RaseaC (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By that I'll assume you mean: This is why evolution lead us to realise that Wikipedia talk pages turning into forum pages was not a good idea. ;-) Alan16 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what's true or what people believe, I would say that the media attention to the video makes it noteable. Though it would be more suited to Death of Michael Jackson than the biographical article. Friginator (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost chocked on my coke, are you serious?!!! RaseaC (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope not. Alan16 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Elvis is still alive" has been around for years, and is discussed in Elvis Presley phenomenon. The claim about Michael Jackson has hit the mainstream media, eg Telegraph San Francisco Chronicle, which says that the video may have been faked by the German TV company RTL. Not so long ago, this would have been seen as tasteless and disrepectful, but once something goes round the Internet for long enough, it usually generates mainstream media coverage.

There is a press release from RTL here. It is in German, and apparently says that the video was made as a test of the public's gullibility for the show "explosiv", broadcast on 27 August 2009. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way this doesn't deserve a place in any article. It is one video that is very very grainy, and now a couple of news sources have picked it up. It's just the usual crap after somebody famous has died. Alan16 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is not notable enough for the article. It is interesting though, and is reminiscent of the row over Wikipedia's Maurice Jarre article.[12] There is an old adage that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has got its boots on, and it looks like someone at RTL was testing this with the coroner's office video. The original Liveleak video is called Michael Jackson still alive after helicopter transport to coroner, and was posted on 25 August 2009. In the space of two days it had been mirrored on YouTube and discussed in the world's media. Not bad going, and there are some lessons here about the reliability of the Internet as a source of information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree this should stay out. I don't think this is along the same lines as the elvis phenomenon because Elvis has been dead for ages, and therefore is noticeable. If we're still getting this kind of rubbish in a few years about MJ then maybe there is a reason to include it, until then it is just post-death hype and is not encyclopedic. RaseaC (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skin bleaching

Looks he did bleach his skin.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The first search of Michael Jackson's bedroom a day after his death found marijuana, skin-bleaching and hair-growing ointments, anti-insomnia pills and empty bottles of several anti-anxiety drugs, according to court documents unsealed Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/28/jackson.home.search/index.html?iref=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.31.1 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is to the article. Also, what is it with people and not signing their comments on this page. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Alan16 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Most of the information here looks reliable, because it is based on court documents that have been released to the public, rather than anonymous briefings. As the article points out, there is little new here. On the skin bleaching issue, the article says "Also listed on the detective's report was Benoquin ointment, a medication used to lighten skin pigmentation in people with vitiligo, a skin condition. Jackson's dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, said on CNN's "Larry King Live" last month that he had treated Jackson for the condition, which causes irregular patches of white skin. "His was bad because he began to get a totally speckled look over his body," Klein said."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

Shouldn't there be a separate section in the article regarding the longtime controversy regarding Jackson's alleged homosexuality and pedophilia? (RichardSalway (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I feel there is no need as they are all really rumors from not very reliable sources. And Jackson always said he wasn't so why should we ? StephenBHedges (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. RaseaC (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I think this is notable since he was more famous for his controversial private life than he was for his music. FWIW, there are quite a few people including fans who do not believe he was a pedophile, but do believe he was a repressed homosexual. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

And their POV is certainly very interesting, but isn't encyclopedic. RaseaC (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless it may be worth mentioning his denials that he was homosexual. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't think so. If he was gay and denied it then yea maybe but essentially it went like this:

Random person: 'You're queer'

Michael Jackson: 'No I'm not'

Random person: 'Oh, OK.'

I see nothing noteworthy there. RaseaC (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There remains considerable debate after his death as to whether Jackson was a homosexual, and indeed whether he ever had a sexual relationship with an adult. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

The controversy over his conformance/nonconformance to gender roles, and the effect on perceptions of his sexuality, is documented and I've tried to add it to the appearance/health article, but I have not yet found an acceptable wording. People might be surprised to know that it goes back to 1978, before he had plastic surgery, developed vitiligo, straightened his hair, or became mega-famous. WillOakland (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about you guys go ahead and provide a reliable source to backup these claims, then we have encyclopedic content. Until then we have rumours, and this is not a rumour mill. If you want MJ to be gay then either keep that in your own fantasy world or provide hard (pardon the pun) evidence. RaseaC (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Jackson would ever be embraced by the gay movement, for the same reason as Wilfrid Brambell. (RichardSalway (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll provide sources when I get good and ready to edit the article, and I'm not going to wait for your permission. WillOakland (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As WillOakland already pointed out, the controversies Jackson suffered are already well documented in this article, in addition to the main articles Michael Jackson's health and appearance, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, Living with Michael Jackson, and People v. Jackson. We decided long ago not to separate personal life from career as the article is WP:STRUCTURED in chronological order. Any detail, pro or con, of the aforementioned controversies are listed in the chronological order of which they occurred. Also, keep in mind the WP:SIZE of this article. The reason we have other articles on these subject is so they don't take up the bulk of the information in the main article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

broadcast vs broadcasted

The words broadcast and broadcasted are both valid past tense forms of the word broadcast according to my dictionary, and therefore "was broadcast" and "was broadcasted" are both grammatically correct phrases. However, my dictionary also says that broadcast is the more commonly used past tense form by American English speakers. P.S. It's spelled grammar, not grammer. Mktyscn (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would almost certainly use "broadcast". Broadcasted sounds very clumsy and my British dictionary doesn't even recognise it. In general, "broadcasted" is a rare variant of "broadcast", and I'd suggest that Wikipedia stick to "broadcast". Both are grammatically correct + "broadcast" is by far the more used + "broadcast" is better aesthetically = use "broadcast" over "broadcasted". And thank you for that little grammar lesson. I'm not sure why you did that. Alan16 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed there were some edits of the lead where this was an issue. I always laugh when people correct grammar, but misspell the word grammar while doing it. Mktyscn (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Main pic

Why is it of him in the 80's at the white house? I'm sure wsomeone could get an updated pic for the article. 76.223.248.62 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It has to be an image which is copyright-free: please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Rodhullandemu 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Other media

i say we do a section about the books, games and merchendise. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the above section on article size. The primary purpose of Michael Jackson is a biography of his life and music. Anything new and of substantial length would have to be split off into a new article, because at 130kb the article has WP:SIZE issues already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackson death certificate amended

Michael Jackson's death certificate has been amended to reflect his cause of death as homicide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8233250.stm may be a better scource but there you are if you want it. -- Drappel (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this could be used in Death of Michael Jackson. The current wording in the lead here makes clear that the LA coroner ruled the death a homicide. Incidentally, the BBC report quoted above and others today are saying that the "coroner's van" video was a hoax by German TV station RTL. This is old news, because it was known last week. Do keep up, media folk...--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take out the final line after cause of death

There is an inappropriate line at the end of cause of death section about Farrah Faucett. This must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.79.10 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not his children

The introduction should mention that those three children were not his. (RichardSalway (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Reliable sources please. --Onorem♠Dil 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you know this for sure, then you must have access to reliable information rather than the usual hearsay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No source is needed, we all know for a fact he was not their father. (RichardSalway (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

<ref>We all know it</ref> is not a valid source. Sorry. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really believe that "we all know for a fact" is a reliable source, then you should not be editing Wikipedia.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see whether Mark Lester or Macaulay Culkin was the real father to the three children. (RichardSalway (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Mark Lester made his claim to a UK tabloid.[13] The Macaulay Culkin claim is just silly and trolling. The consensus is that no statements will be made about the parentage of the children due to WP:BLP issues. Wikipedia is not a supermarket tabloid.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged homosexuality

There are many Wikipedia articles of famous people who were likely (but not proved to have been) homosexual or bisexual, but whom never admitted it, including: Cary Grant, Randolph Scott, William Shakespeare, Edward Heath. They have the issue mentioned significantly in their articles (often having a sexuality section), and are in the LGBT Project. Since the 1980s, if not earlier, millions of people believe him to have been in the closet, and there is a great deal of media coverage about that. Why is Jackson's article different, having been 'straightwashed'? Editing it now (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The key word here is "alleged". As regular readers of this talk page will know by now, the article does not include controversial statements that have to be prefixed by all-purpose weasel words like "claimed" and "alleged". These are words used by lazy tabloid journalists when they are unable to prove something. If there is no reliable sourcing, then the material is unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Should his affair with Scott Thorsen be mentioned? (RichardSalway (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Only if you are prepared to accept supermarket tabloid claims. Note the use in this article of that all-purpose weasel word "claim". Life must be easy for tabloid journalists when they can write whatever they like and use the word "claim" as a get-out clause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

True, tabloids and gossip must have a easy life when pepole with some strange hobbies are seen in public, anyway unless you have reliable sources, and again not tabloids or gossip, right. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if this will make much difference, but anyone who wants to edit Michael Jackson should read WP:ALLEGED first. "Allegedly" is at the top of Wikipedia's list of words to avoid. The regular editors here have had to spend hours since Michael Jackson's death sorting out nonsense that could have been avoided by understanding the reasons why "allegedly" statements are useless from Wikipedia's point of view.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There are articles like this one Clinic worker claims to have had homosexual love affair with Michael Jackson in reliable newspapers which report claims of homosexual relationships. Whilst such articles do not prove Jackson was LGBT, they attest to the prominent, mainstream media coverage of claims about his sex life. The Daily Telegraph is a respected national British broadsheet, that cannot really be said to have a bias one way or the other regarding Jackson. Editing it now (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The alleged sexual orientation of the subjects mentioned above have been widely circulated in reliable sources for decades, the same is not true of Jackson. Unlike the accusations of pedophilia or purchasing the bones of the elephant man or bleaching his skin, the exact nature of his sexual orientation has never been a main aspect of any of the coverage on him. One report from the daily telegraph is a clear case of WP:REDFLAG. It has no baring on his biography until it comes a focal point of widespread media coverage. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jason Pfeiffer's claim looks like a classic case of someone desperate for their 15 minutes of fame. It started life in the German tabloid press and was picked up by The Sun [14] before being syndicated (still with the disinfectant word "claim" attached) by other newspapers. The tabloids could claim that Michael Jackson was the Queen of Sheba, but would that make it true?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, most of the arguments that the tabloidsm said about Micheal Jackson where 50% percent true, and untrue, some times even 40% 60%, what the tabloids say cannot be takenn as true news until it is confirmed from other sources. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackson finally laid to rest

It was a private ceremony held last night too. Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

yes it's true [15]. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam & Renaming to "Mikaeel"

As should be known to Michael connoisseurs, MJ converted to Islam about a year ago (and customarily changed his name in traditional muslim fashion, to Mikaeel). Why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article or discussion page? There are plenty of sources to this claim.

• http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1954666.ece
• http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13811/michael-jackson-is-building-a-mosque
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=3242
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=13800
• http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17555/michael-jackson-islam

skribb (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. The big word here is "claim". All the above sources derive from one unconfirmed rumour, and, because it was never confirmed by Jackson or on his behalf, it's utter crap, and doesn't belong here. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times. Check the FAQ section at the top of this page, or the talk archives. Consensus is that the sources are not reliable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have searched the discussion page more thoroughly. Thanks for the info. skribb (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

genres

before this turns into another on-going edit war. Everyone should be familiar with Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre. The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). In other words, only use the broadest categories. The genre value of the info box is not meant of a list of every possible genre and fusion genre the artist may have performed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Article size

I hate to drag this up again, but the article size has now hit 130kb, and going through the edit history is like watching a snail. Since MJ's death the article has grown and acquired some cruft that could be removed. The article needs to be at least 10% smaller than it currently is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with editing an article just because it's too big. I do agree, however, that 'cruft' can be removed and, where appropriate, sub articles created but if neither of these succeed in knocking 10% off the article size I'm not sure it's such a big deal. RaseaC (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some serious WP:SIZE issues developing at the moment and the article needs shortening for both technical and editorial reasons. For many computers and connections article size over 100kb is undesirable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And that's all very well, which is why I have no objection to it if it can be done. RaseaC (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be reluctance to open dicussion about what information can be removed and what is not relevant to the article. For example the information about A Place with No Name could be replaced with a see main article tag considering that there is already a sizeable article about the leaked song. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Im getting a little bit frustrated with the progress regarding the size of this article. Wikipedia is very clear about the rules for sizes of article and it is no reflection of the content of the article. Wikipedia should be accessible for all and those running slower computers or slower access to the internet should not be hindered from accessing the article simply because it is too large. We can do this the nice easy way which is to get loads of editors involved and have an open discussion or we can do it the more difficult time-consuming way and bring the article to the attention of administrators or even the wikipedia board about splitting the article up or removing excessive details. I still stand by my previous suggestion that the article should be split into Michael Jackson and The Music of Michael Jackson. either way something should be done to address this issue even if it means nominating this article as a new wikipedia project for special attention. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, let's get this started then. Assuming there is a reason for trimming the article I would agree that we could have an article for MJ, the person, then a separate one for his music. All of the content currently on the article would fit into either of these, with films/controversies etc. in the MJ article, then just Jackson 5/solo work info on his music article. I have no interest in putting any effort into creating either of these articles, but I agree that, yes, it should probably be done. RaseaC (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to split a biography into two different articles, simply reduce the amount of excessive detail already present or transfer it to established main articles (ex: controversies or albums). This might be a good time to go through a WP:PR or a WP:FAR. The hysteria of Jackson's death has subsided and the number of editor wishing to cram up-to-the-minute details are gone or have concentrated their efforts on the main Death of Michael Jackson article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

the only reason i suggested splitting the two articles is that even after much fo the cruft or excess detail has been removed, there is still a strong case that the article will exceed 100kb at which point wikipedia suggests that the article should be split into smaller more specific articles. the fact is that MJ has both notable musical and personal achievements/controversies which could warrant to seperate pages. It could certainly make the article/subject easier to navigate as in my opinion people visit this page to either learn about the person or the music. This existing page could become a general summary and contain the links to his albums, discography, awards, family members etc.

When this article originally passed FAC it was 112 kilobytes long. It won't take that big of an effort to get it down to 100kb exactly. His music is already easy enough to navigate, considering his albums, singles, main discography and video pages and the same goes for the personal controversies which have their own articles as well. All it takes is transferring excess detail to established articles. It a matter of cutting and pasting and copy-editing whats left for grammar. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I added to the article an Awards section and Tours section that link to the main articles so they don't add more size. I think that these deserve their own headings instead of being in the see also, as is for other artists. I have to say though, if last year when the article passed FA it was 112kb then there is really no way that it will go back down to 100. Considering news of the tour and his death and posthumous projects since that, the article is really only going to get larger with the more projects released in the future. Having read the article many times, I don't think that there are a lot of things that can be taken out without leaving the reader wanting, excluding some extra fluff that will not really reduce the size. The articles of Madonna and Elvis Presley are of a similar length and their careers have only spanned half of Jackson's, so this article is actually quite concise, but perhaps an AWB scan could reduce it?. GreekStar12 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one way that we could reduce article size is by reducing some of the sources. I've just taken a brief look at some statements (one sentence) have as many as 5 or 6 sources which might not be necessary. Furthermore there is information in the intro which is duplicated from other sections. I think a lot of info could easily be removed, but i am personally reluctant to do it without discussing it. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Conversion to islam

hi , i just added the part when he went to Bahrain, as over there he converted to islam.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoo7a (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

People seldom read what the FAQ section says about this issue, so here it is below:

• Q: Should the article mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim?
• A: No. The article should not mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim. Jackson had not publicly spoken about his exact religion in a number of years and only spoke about spirituality in general terms. The specific reports of a conversion ceremony for Jackson have been denied by his New York lawyer Londell McMillan.[16] They were also denied by Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens[17] and Dawud Wharnsby[18] who were allegedly present at the ceremony. Without further details from his family or representatives, it will not be included in the article.

This is also discussed extensively in the talk page archive, which has a search box.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

More about music

So I have been looking at this artical. I've been seeing that alot of it is about his personal life. Alot of arguments on the talk page about his personal life. The man shouldn't be rememberd for his personal life, but for the music he has wrote/sung. I know that there is alot about music in the page now. But I think it should be talked about a little more.--It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson voice

Michael Jackson natural vocal voice is higher than that of a tenor beacause i read a article which says before he breaks off into falsetto, he goes from two E's below middle C, to two B's above middle C, or 44 notes. Essentially, Michael is able to reach octaves that other tenors cannot attain with their natural voice

also in the article his voice is higher than that of justin timberlake who is listed as a countertenor http://books.google.ca/books?ct=result&id=lJS4EArRBwoC&dq=Rock-N-Roll+Gold+Rush+mariah+carey&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&sig=ACfU3U0fbLW248NcvjE6rRshbjsWieA1hg&q=diana+ross#v=snippet&q=countertenor&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Different Picture?

I was just wondering if it would be better to use a more recent picture of Michael. This picture is from 1984, but surely a picture taken around the time of death would be more suitable. 90.200.115.43 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another topic covered by the FAQ section at the top of the page. A copyrighted image is unsuitable for the infobox due to WP:NFCC requirements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, we do need a new picture. I mean the man wasn't even black anymore. We need a picture his invincable tour or somthing. It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a longstanding request for any recent copyright free pictures of Michael Jackson to be donated to Wikipedia. The issue of how Wikipedia articles provide images of celebrities (which is not at all easy due to WP:NFCC) was discussed in this New York Times article. Incidentally, Halle Berry's infobox image has been changed since the NYT article was published in July 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He already looked like a ghost before he died. Why not just keep the current picture up from the 1980s, the way he looked when he came over to Chunk's house because he had to use the bathroom. 12.41.204.3 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand I'm trying to argue or be mean. I just don't understand why people have to be so tight. I mean I think a Picture is a picture. Why make it so other people can't use it? I find it "stupid".It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The record sales issue (again)

Micheal Jackson

{{editsemiprotected}} Micheal Jackon has sold over 9 million albums since his passing that has not been noted on his wikipedia page. on july 16th 2009 mtv said that micheal had sold an estimated 9 million albums since his passing. its not included on his page please include it here the link. www.mtv.com/news/articles/1616358/.../jackson_michael.jhtml -

Micheal jackson has sold over 750 million records not between 350 million - 750 million as it states on his page. every page under google when you put in this line( how many albums has micheal jackson sold worldwide) .on November 14th 2006 Guiness book of records also gave micheal jackson the most successful entertainer of all time award partly because he sold 750 records. you can look it up yourselves. www.worldrecordsacademy.org/.../most_successful_entertainer_of_all_time- Michael_Jackson_sets_world_record%20_90258.htm

Please make the changes as it is the facts.

They say things come in threes, and since we have already had the conversion to Islam and infobox picture issue today, this completes the set. The "facts" about Michael Jackson's record sales are all estimates by various sources. The article has already been fully protected due to edit warring by people who failed to see this. The wording in the lead represents WP:CONSENSUS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is somethinig very, very strange going on with the new figure in Wikpedia no way can 750 million record sales drop by approx half without A LOT of detail expanation…look into this. Very fishy, indeed!!

cant we use both article which claim 350 million and the other which cliam 750 million instead of the wsj article beacuase does'nt it say on wikipedia articles must come either from highly regarded news services or highly regarded music related sources such as MTV, VH1, articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music or Universal Music are acceptable as well

these are much more reliable than the wsj which does not even say anything about 350 million sales for this person it does not even calculate singles, videograph,Compilation albums it only calculates studio albums such Off the Wall , Thriller, Bad , Dangerous ,HIStory ,Invincible not all of him albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@Cliffrichard: please avoid clogging up the talk page by saying the same things over and over again. The consensus is not to argue over the tired old 300-750 million records dispute. The Wall Street Journal article here looks at how this long running saga came about.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson tribute concert in Vienna

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/sep/08/michael-jackson-tribute-concert-lineup

http://www.nme.com/news/michael-jackson/47192

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8243898.stm

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a176375/jackson-tribute-lineup-announced.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the tribute concert in vienna has now been postponed but has been rescheduled for London in June 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8250709.stm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/latest/2009/09/11/jackson-tribute-postponed-to-2010-115875-21665851/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2633176/Britain-will-host-the-Jackson-tribute-concert.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a176928/jackson-tribute-concert-rescheduled.html

Infobox image

I don't want to set off any edit warring here, so can I ask what other users' thoughts are about the current infobox image (added here)? Is it a) better than the 1984 White House image? and b) is its sourcing as copyright free watertight? The fact that it is on Commons is not necessarily a guide. Personally, I prefer the 1984 White House image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is on Commons here and has some rights reserved with a copyright (in the bottom right hand corner of the picture) attributed to Drew Cohen. I've put back the 1984 picture for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What aboout this one?

http://www.broadwayworld.com/columnpic/michael_jackson.jpg

It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice image, but is it copyrighted? The consensus is that only a free image can be used in the infobox due to WP:NFCC#1. Images found on Google etc are almost certainly copyrighted and cannot be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, something has to be brought up to Wikipedia about this "fair use" stuff? I mean, Michael has to be one of the most photographed men in the world. Exactly HOW is one supposed to find a non-copyrighted photo of him? MaJic (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prince

MJ's sons are named for his grandfather, not for the artist generally known as such. Besides I'm pretty sure Prince's name was legally changed in Prince Michael Jackson after the divorce from DR, hence Blanket being II.FrauBluecher (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

source: http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_10577 FrauBluecher (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

instruments

Michael played piano, guitar, drums and also beat boxed, this should be changed. --Louis Taylor (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Two statistics

What about the 10 plus million fans on his Facebook site? Make a search on Facebook and you can see by yourself. And another thing, Billie Jean is number 58 on the Rolling Stone magazine's 500 greatest songs of all time. I think it's worth putting them here. --HCQB (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many statistics that could be quoted, but due to the article's ballooning WP:SIZE (136 kilobytes at the moment), anything new needs strong notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackson dressed in women's clothing

In 2006 Michael Jackson was caught by photographers dressed in women's clothing in a shopping mall in the Gulf state of Bahrain. Jackson was dressed in a black abaya (a traditional full-length robe), a veil covering his face, dark sunglasses and gloves. Jackson was accompanied by three young, Western-looking children, their faces covered with black veils, and an adult woman wearing an abaya over jeans, her face partly covered, and bodyguards. Shouldn't this be included in the article? He loved to cover his face. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This was shortly after the 2005 trial and shows that Jackson tried to hide his predilection for being with children. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Rodhullandemu 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL MJ HAD three (western) children, as you might have heard, and had no reason to hide the association.FrauBluecher (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Several newspapers reported the event. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's noteworthy enough to include in the article. Jackson was always very aggressive about avoiding paparazzi. What makes this incident special? Mktyscn (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is he referring to this? http://twitpic.com/h6w0o? MaJic (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think he is refering to this. Mktyscn (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The person photographed dressed in womens clothing, wasn't Michael Jackson. They were fake photos and there is no need to have that info posted on to Michael Jackson's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Second child sexual abuse allegations

Both quotes are out of context. It seems as if Liz Taylor knew Gavin Arvizo. This is not the case, if I am not very much mistaken. She was talking about other children, MJ and herself hanging out. The Dr Katz quote makes it seem as if he was calling MJ innocent, which was not his intention. These quotes should just be deleted. FrauBluecher (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Liz Taylor didn't know Gavin Arvizo, but it think Michael Jackson was introduced to him through Chris Tucker from charity work Chris Tucker did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 08:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson was not under "sexual Molestation" charges during his "this is it" tour. This trial took place in 2003. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.149.71 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain where the article says this? I can't find it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

How come under "Instruments", Michael Jackson's has only been listed as vocals. I'm aware no one in public had ever seen Michael playing any intruements.

Michael Jackson is listed on various album notes as having played guitar, keyboard, drums and percussion. For example on the song Morphine he is listed as guitar player (along with Slash) and drums, and Don't Stop Till You Get Enough as percsssion player.

Teddy Riley said in 1992 Rolling Stone Magazine cover article on Michael Jackson that he was a brilliant guitar player ?, and writer of serveral books on Michael Jackson, Adrian Grant who saw Michael working during the HIStory album recording sessions said Michael Jackson was a brilliant keyboard player and that was the instrument he used the most. Adrian Grant has also recently (as has Rodney Jerkins) said Michael Jackson was very technical in the recording studo and could really work it, and is greatly underestimated by the public in the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

didn't michael jackson beatbox [19] and play Piano [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Many vocalists can also play instruments; however the infobox should only list what an artist is primarily known for. In Jackson's case it's definitely vocals.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox used to list Jackson as an inventor due to his work on the anti-gravity lean [21], but this is not something for which he is primarily known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why Michael Jackson should still only be have vocal's listed as intruments played just because he isn't known by the wider public as playing keyboard and drums etc. Madonna is has guitar and percussion listed as intruments played, yet it's widely known her guitar playing (though she can play guitar) is mainly a stage prop and she has never played percussion in public. Even Britney Spears is has piona listed on her page of intruments played as piano yet she's never played piano in public. So I feel thay the intruments Michael Jackson can play should be listed. Espcially since he played guitar, keyboard and drums on quite a number of his songs from 1995-2001, when his participation on playing intruments on his music increased a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ben scarr is right also justin timberlake is listed as a beatboxer michael jackson also does this so he sould also be listed as one [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MICHAEL JACKSON IS VERY WELL KNOWN FOR PLAYING INSTRUMENTS AND SHOULD BE LISTED AS SUCH, BEFORE HIS DEATH HE WAS WORKING ON AN ALL INSTRUMENTAL ALBUM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.149.71 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is not the best place for a lot of detail. The average person will see Jackson as a singer and dancer, and this is what the infobox says. Jackson's studio albums such as Thriller made extensive use of session musicians, so it is important to avoid giving the impression that he was a primary instrumental contributor to his albums.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

PRINCE IS A FAMILY NAME

I posted clear evidence that this statement: "commonly known as Prince (named after Jackson's longtime friend and rival Prince)" is false as MJ's grandfather was called Prince and my topic was ignored and put to the archive earlier than older topics? What the hell? FrauBluecher (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, you didn't post a reliable source for this. However, you could have changed the article yourself, citing such a source, and run the risk of being reverted. That would have triggered a discussion here. Whereas you may be right, it isn't clear so far that you are sufficiently interested to follow up the issue. However, now you have the opportunity to make your proposition plain, and I've no doubt that it will be given the consideration it deserves. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, problems here. At Katherine Jackson it says that "she was the daughter of Martha Upshaw and Prince Albert Screws". However, no reliable sourcing is given. At Findagrave.com, Michael Jackson's great grandfather is named as Prince Screws of Russell County, Alabama. Although it is clear that people have said this in good faith, there needs to be some firm sourcing, and during a Google search I was unable to find any. Help is requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources given in Katherine Jackson is My Family, the Jacksons (October 1990, ISBN-13: 978-0312923501). I've never seen this book, and was astonished to look it up on Amazon.com and to find it selling at $499 new and $161.99 used.[23] This must be a rare out of print book. Has anyone here ever seen a copy, as it would qualify as a reliable source?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I couldn't do anything, because of the little lock on top of the article. Anyway, even if we have problems finding a reliable source for his grandfather's name, it's pretty likely that this is not just a rumor and the claim he named his sons for *Prince* Prince therefor is, so the (very very likely) false info should be deleted in any case.FrauBluecher (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is Michael Jackson's last will naming his children: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0701091mjwill1.html I'd say this is a reliable source that Prince's name is Prince Michael Jackson.FrauBluecher (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Sightings

I don't think I believe in all the sightings of Michael Jackson's ghost, but a lot of other people seem to. Could we open a section on this in the main article? I found some well-researched information at http://www.witchology.com/news/2009/2009-07-17-Michael-Jackson-Ghost.php.Formicarius (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but have you got any reliable evidence that Michael Jackson is still alive?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's still alive. There have been a lot of reports in the media about what people have said are sightings of his ghost and so this forms a significant part of people's reactions to his death. It's like people can't believe, or don't want to believe he's dead, so they start seeing his ghost everywhere. The article I found on the web seemed to have looked at quite a number of different sources to build a bigger picture and I thought we could use this to put something together for the wikipedia article. Formicarius (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V. The requirement for inclusion is Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have found a reliable source showing that Michael Jackson is still alive, we would all be interested to hear it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I am not saying Michael Jackson is still alive and I am not trying to provide evidence that he is still alive. What we are talking about is ghost sightings and someone has to be dead before you can see their ghost, right? Formicarius (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying his ghost is real either. But there is verifiable evidence that people believe they have seen his ghost. That's what I think deserves inclusion, so that people can get an unbiased wikipedia view of it. Formicarius (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a mention of ghost sightings after his death really belongs in the article, especially since the article already has WP:SIZE issues. The article is supposed to be about Jackson himself (his life, career, and accomplishments), not about the silliness of some his adoring fans. Besides, there's no reason to take any of the ghost sightings seriously. Mktyscn (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Em, "silliness of his fans"? Is that something you really want to be saying? And what is the "no reason" not to take the sightings seriously? Formicarius (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I said silliness of some of his fans, not all of them. People who make claims of celebrity ghost sightings are either looking for attention, or looking to make money off the foolish people who believe them. Ghost sightings should never be taken seriously because there has never been proof that anyone has ever actually seen a ghost. Such claims have no place in an encyclopedia article on Michael Jackson. Mktyscn (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't know why people make claims of celebrity ghost sightings, or have you like got a PhD on the subject? And it's not about proving that ghosts are real, it's about taking account of people's reactions to the death of Michael Jackson whether you like them or not. Formicarius (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The source isn't a WP:RS. END OF (GHOST) STORY! leaky_caldron (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are trying to base this observation upon is a non-falsifiable theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm not trying to prove that ghosts are real. Read what I said above. Formicarius (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is probably just like in Elvis case when in the 70's, 80's pepole thoght he faked his death. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See [24]. People say very silly things about Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fans like to belive that there idols have not passed or the press just needs a good story on paper. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly worth a brief mention in the "reaction" section of Death of Michael Jackson. Certainly not here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting some constructive feedback.Formicarius (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if there are sufficient reliable sources. The one provided does not cut the mustard. –xeno^talk 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not really going to find any reliable source for Jackson ghost sightings because the press doesn't report them (because it's not credible news). The consensus so far is against inclusion of such reports. Besides, the article is already too big. Mktyscn (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Influences

Sammmy Davis Jr was a extremely huge influnce in Michael Jackson and his brothers life. He even did a performance at Sammy davis Jr Tribute show. He sang "You Were There" a song he wrote. He should be added. Another big influence on him was Gene kelly it was spoken about on Michael Jackson: The Legend Continues. Finally another notable one that could be added is David Ruffin. A Star Is Here (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Image?

I don't think that's the best image of Jackson. Couldn't we at least try to fine a better image of him? Shark96z (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to be an image licensed for free use as required by WP:NFCC. Such images are usually taken by fans at public appearances, and so they don't usually look very good unfortunately. Mktyscn (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but I was just stating that is a very low quality image. I think File:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg would look better than the one that's already there... Shark96z (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the 1984 White House image?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's right here: File:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg. I don't know why it got taken off. Shark96z (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can donate a more recent picture of him. Portillo (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a website-www.mjjpictures.com/-but I'm not sure if they can be used under Wikipedias policies.Doublebassist123 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful if unused

This is the interview with Jackson by Barbara Walters, so I'd assume it made it to the papers, discussing within the first minute (when he was 49 years old) his feeling that he would die soon. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you are referring to here? Michael Jackson gave an interview to Barbara Walters in February 2007 [25], is there a specific quote that you wanted mentioned?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

85.240.165.146 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Jackson started his career as a percusionist, in The Jackson 5. Why don't you credit him for that? He is credited, in the HIStory and Blood On The Dance Floor booklets, as having played guitar, keyboards and synthetiser. He is also a beatboxer.

--Probably because he is most known for his singing, not his percussion and instrumental usage... (see | this page for information about the "notability" criteria for musicians. His singing career at the young age, however, is already mentioned in The Jackson 5 article. We try to avoid redundancy wherever possible. However, if you would like to, you're more than welcome to explain how mentioning his additional talents will greatly contribute to "this" particular article? In my opinion it is not always necessary to list all of an artists talents... only those for which they are most widely known. 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Something should be added to Instruemts, as Michael could quite a few instruments such as guitar, drums and keyboard. It was on his Wikipedia profile before and shouldn't have been removed.

--(See my above comment. They may have removed it; because it is not what Mr. Michael Jackson is most notable for.) Wolfpeaceful (talk)

911 Tape

Maybe I'm alone on this, but isn't the 911 recording a little much? Mc8755 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few days after his death 12 fans comitted suicide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.79.17 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The 911 recording has been broadcast by the mainstream media and does not contain any graphic content. However, it already appears in Death of Michael Jackson, and I wonder whether it needs to be in Michael Jackson as well. Thoughts, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's highly unnecessary here. - And I'm not sure about the long quote from this random friend who thinks touring killed him either. Are we preparing the defense case for Dr Murray? Shouldn't we leave the question of why and how MJ died a little more open at this moment? 91.130.111.35 (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some good suggestions here. I've removed the 911 tape because it is better in Death of Michael Jackson, while the quote that you mentioned was too long and added little to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I know it wasn't for my original reason but I'm glad to see the clip removed from this article. :) Mc8755 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The long quote from Corey Rooney here does not really add to the article, or qualify as a reliable source. It is one person's recollection of a conversation from eight years ago, and adds little to what is already known about Jackson's health problems. It could be used in Death of Michael Jackson, but is too much of a content fork for the main article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fist Marriage - Lisa Marie Presley

The article refers to Lisa Marie Presley persuading Micheal Jackson to settle the 1993 sexual abuse case.

Legal papers from 2005 state he did not give permission for the settlement and it was against his wishes.

The following should be added to the existing text?

Legal Papers

ref cite web

|url=http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf |title=Objection to Subpoena of Settlement Document |author=Attorneys for Michael Jackson |pub=Superior Court of California |date=March 22, 2005}} /ref

submitted by his attorneys in 2002 objecting to the supoena of the settlement document state Jackson did not give his permission for the settlement and it was against his wishes.

Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

LongRan (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Burn centre

I'm confused. There is no "Michael Jackson Burn Centre" listed anywhere, either on the Brotman Medical Center site or anywhere.

I believe it closed a number of years ago because of financial problems, so I'm surprised the article implies it's still there. Maybe the source (Taraborrelli) is inaccurate.-Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1993: First child sexual abuse allegations

The article states Evan Chandler administrated Sodium Amytal to his son to obtain a 'confession', this is sourced from 'The Magic & The Madness' by J. Randy Taraborerelli, pp. 485/486.

On 2 August, Evan Chandler extracted a troublesome tooth from his son, Jordie, in his Beverly Hills clinic. During the procedure, he decided to intravenously administer the drug sodium Amytal.....Evan has since confirmed that his son was given the drug, but only as part of the dental procedure.

There is no indication provided for the source of this information, there appears to be no record of Evan Chandler having done a television, radio or press interview.

A promienent source featured in this section of Mr. Taraborerelli's book is Anthony Pellicino, a private detective who is I believe is currently in prison for wiretapping and racketeering.

Raymond Chandler the brother of Evan Chandler author of 'All That Glitters, The Crime and The Cover-up' pp.114 writes Evan worked on his son's teeth on 16 July 1993 and that it was a 30 second procedure, there is no mention of the use of Sodium Amytal.

According to Raymond the son had requested anesthesia and for safety the father asked Mark Torbiner, an anesthetist to sedate his son.

This is confirmed by Jordie in statement to the authorities.MICHAEL JACSON IS A PAEDO WHO RAPES KIDS

Raymond reports Jordie went to the kitchen for a drink of water, it was after this Jordie in discussion with his father he said Michael had touched his penis.

Can someone under the influence of Sodium Amytal get up and pour themselves a drink of water?

The printed source that a 'truth drug' was given seems to be Mary A Fischer's article 'Was Michael Framed?' in GQ magazine summer 1994.

Although she went into great length about the 'truth drug' seeking and quoting medical practioners....it appears she did not bother to find out the name of the news reporter or provide any quotes from a local news item she claims was her source.

In response Raymond Chandler wrote an article for GQ Magazine in October 1994 in which he names the news reporter.

To purchase sodium Amytal legally, Torbiner would have been required to fill out a triplicate DEA form. No such form is on file with that agency. To obtain the drug illegally is difficult; there is no demand for it on the street.

Given the list of experts Fischer quoted about how the use of this drug would have been highly unethical and dangerous, it seems unlikely that Evan or Torbiner would have said anything to a reporter that might be construed as if they had actually used the drug.

......And, that it came in the form of unnamed sources that the KCBS newsman, Harvey Levin, could not be compelled to reveal.

One could infer from Fischer's report that Levin claimed to have personally communicated with Evan.

Levin made no such claim.

But had he followed professional guidelines he should have had at least two independent and unbiased sources.

After all, his story not only accused two health-care professionals of brainwashing a minor, it was the single most important piece of evidence in the largest public scandal of all time.

Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer's drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie's behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows:

The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. "Jordie was looking down," [Pellicano said] "and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, 'I didn't say that.'"

According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn't brainwashed at all!

Should not the article include some of this rejection of the idea Jordie was 'brainwashed' by use of a drug?

I'm new to this so hopefully I've put this in the correct place.

LongRan (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

The previous version of the 1984 image has been replaced, because the newer version looked too obviously photoshopped and removed the context in which it was taken.[26] We all know the difficulties in obtaining copyright free images of MJ, but is best to stick to the original appearance of photographs rather than to use photo manipulation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Trailer

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Filmography
• http://www.odeon.co.uk/
• http://www.myvue.com/cinemas/timetable.asp?SessionID=&cn=1&ci=45&ln=1&fi=9663%7C5218%7C
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=startrek11.htm

82.109.84.114 (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Size of article

This article is getting rather large. The simple solution is to break it into two articles. Michael Jackson, part 1 and Michael Jackson, part 2 or something similar maybe using years? Michael Jackson, 1958 to 1999 and Michael Jackson, 2000 to 2009. I would break it at section 2000–03: Label dispute, Invincible and third child. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the article is too large per WP:SIZE, and many browsers are groaning when they load the page. However, I strongly oppose splitting the article by years, as it should be possible to have a Featured Article dealing with the whole of Jackson's life on one page. The problem is that since Jackson's death in June, people have been adding information in good faith, but the article now needs a thorough proof reading to determine what is necessary and what is excessive detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, Michael Jackson is 139 kilobytes long. Here are some comparisons with US Presidents:

• Barack Obama (Featured Article) - 157 kilobytes.
• George W. Bush - 169 kilobytes.
• Bill Clinton - 131 kilobytes.

Not sure if this proves much, but the main problem is that pages over 100 kilobytes can take a long time to load, as anyone previewing the edits of Michael Jackson will know.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is to take sections that are getting long and create an article for that individual subject on MJ life. This way, this primary article is a summary and links to specific or 'expanded' sections of his life. Thus the article size can be reduced and details maintained. Article sections 1 & 3 could easily be a separate articles. A summary paragraph with a link to the "new" article would work. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Children's names again

Is Michael Jackson's last will a credible source or not, because a son named Michael Joseph Jr does not inherit anything. In fact he does not exist, as the will claims Jackson has no living children besides Prince Michael, Paris Michael Katherine and Prince Michael Joseph II. So why was the name changed back? 91.130.24.4 (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre/new jack swing

I belive new jack swing needs to be there and rock replaced with soul

what do you guys think?--Louis Taylor (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

it lists mj as a new jack swing artist here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Jack_Swing_artists do you thing new jack swing should be added to the genres? --Louis Taylor (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

New Jack Swing as well as soul are sub categories of Contemporary R&B. Infobox only uses the parent genre, so no. Template:Infobox musical artist: aim for generality. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's religion

Would somebody figure out how to incorporate this new article into the page? Probably the easiest would be to add it to the See also section. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tha article Michael Jackson's religion was created today (4 October 2009) and may have some issues with WP:GNG for a standalone article. Other comments welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the article deserves to be away from the main article. Alan16 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The topic can be dealt with without forking a new article dealing with only one aspect of Jackson which largely consists of tabloid rumours, refutations thereof, and some synthesis of those sources; in the bigger picture, it's not a major issue as far as I can see, and "Michael Jackson's religion" should be merged back here insofar as there is anything relevant to merge. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

who cares he is a human and he is michael jackson rip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.117.80 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it should be nominated for deletion. There will never be enough information on the subject for a stand alone article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice type

Michael Jackson's voice type is a popular area for edit warring, and has gone round in circles before. As with the 350-750 million record sales nonsense, it is possible to quote a range of sources about Jackson's voice type. The infobox specifies vocals, which is enough for this location. Anything else should be in the main text of the article. Jackson has been described as everything from tenor to falsetto, but these are not terms that are strictly applicable in the world of pop music. Please avoid putting anything in the infobox about Jackson's voice type without establishing a WP:CONSENSUS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

well he is a tenor he has a high voice for male i do not get what you are saying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.118.18 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to the row over the instruments Jackson played. The infobox should stick to the basics and leave anything detailed to the main body of the article. Tenor has many definitions, and since Jackson's voice has set off arguments over this before, it is best to look for consensus rather than to risk lame edit wars in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ok fair enough thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.118.18 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal has spammed Wikipedia

When I went to Google and typed in Michael Jackson, I got this excerpt from the Wipipedia link:

"Michael Jackson, who was a negro turned himself white, because he wanted to be part of the dominating race. Before he killed himself he would rape little"

Could someone please remove this vile piece of writing? The Wikipedia article says this on Google.

thanks--Jo (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest cached Google version of Michael Jackson is at 07:02 GMT on 10 October 2009.[27] Unfortunately Wikipedia has no control over how Google caches the search results, but the phrase that you mentioned is not in the current version of the article. It looks like the problem has been fixed automatically.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• See User talk:Grubish for the amazing excuse that the vandal behind this edit gave.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I don't entirely know how Wikipedia works, so I couldn't say whose error this is, but on multiple pages that link to MJ's Wiki, and also the main address of MJ's Wiki, have his name spelt wrong. Surely this would be one of the first things to be corrected anywhere?!? It says Micheal Jackson - whereas it should be Michael Jackson. The only reason I noticed this is that my middle name - and my Dad's name - is Michael too....

I just typed that and realised a slight mistake - if his Wiki address has Michael_Jackson OR Micheal_Jackson it goes to the same place. So apologies for that, clearly for those who can't spell there's a fall-back. But it's still wrong on at least this site - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurisy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.102.166 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2009

Blimey, you're right - after a bit of a search, I have fixed the typo on 14 pages!

The one on Pleurisy had already been fixed, here.

I left the following valid redirects; Micheal Jackson  · Micheal Jackson Moonwalker  · Micheal Jackson's Death  · Micheal Jackson's Moonwalk

Thanks for pointing that out!  Chzz  ►  05:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreleased material NEEDS EDIT (after invincible here is all we seen)

For the main article under the "unreleased songs" after 2001 invincible more than just Thriller 25 One more Chance and a Place with no name there is:

the is:

Shout- invincible outtake found on the Cry Single as an extra Track.

Xscape- invincible outtake a leaked track in 2002 intended for a new project planned that was canciled cause of the trial.

What more can I give- that was sung live in 2002 in the Unite we Stand for 9/11 wrote by Michael Jackson all star tribute

Fall Again (demo) - invincible outtake available on the ultimate collection appears on Maid in Manhattan soundtrack being song by Glen Lewis

Beautiful Girl (Demo)- invincible outtake available on the ultimate collection

The Way You Love Me- invincible outtake available on the ultimate collection

We've Had Enough- said to be about iraq war in 2003 invincible outtake available on the ultimate collection

No Friend Of Mine Gangsta- a leaked track on myspace.com tempamentle Raps over what is believed to be a invincible outtake

Hold my Hand- a leaked Track and outtake from Akons Freedom album

This is it- recorded demo in 1983 with Paul Anka. Later released online on sonys michaeljackson.com with added instrumental and Jackson brothers vocal backing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_It_(Michael_Jackson_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(Akon_album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Collection_(Michael_Jackson_album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_more_can_I_give http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbackman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Number one hits

Can you put 18 number ones because there is also the number one usa africa where Michael co writed and sang on the song we are the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvisking (talk • contribs) 10:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson appeared with a number of other d wfg; kwfbvn fb nfrv; fv ;wdv;wv bwfgijewin rfnm,efw.n.,wnb.gnb2webfrm bfv wbf,mfb nk bvkfbvgk;performers on We Are the World, which is why it is not listed. However, he did have a co-writing credit with Lionel Richie.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as we are looking at his overall hits incl. the Jackson 5, in that case it would be probably best to mention it. We could write "18 number-one singles (including four as a member of the Jackson 5 and one as USA for Africa)." Seeing as how we are incl. the J5 hits as well, it would be factually misleading not to mention "we are the world" b/c it is considered a number 1 which he was a part of; I believe that I've written it above let's the reader know the actual number and still lets them know that it is counted extraofficially b/c it included many artists. GreekStar12 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image section

I think something we should work on is an image subsection under Artistry to cover his stage wardrobe and personal style, as well as his legacy as a style icon, such as his trademark single white glove, suits, and armband. I have heard that MJ wore the armband in order to remind his fans of the starving children and people suffering in the world. It would be nice if we could confirm this. Also, if we could source that at his prime he was considered to be amongst the most physically attractive entertainers. Anything about his personality (general stuff; not having to do too much with his career or personal life) could also fit under here. Once it is created, we can move the Bad era jacket pic down here and replace it with the "The way you make me feel" pic in the Bad section up top. GreekStar12 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have a picture of him that's NOT 25 years old? I mean, he was at the peak of his career back then, but still, couldn't something be posted from the late 80's or early 90's even? He was still on top, but looked more like he did when he died, because he looked NOTHING like that picture later in his life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.82.227 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackson did sell 750 records worldwide

the article that was put up as a link about him not selling 750 but 250 was about albums only, studio albums he sold around 250 but singles and compliations worldwide calculates up to 750 including the jackson 5 and all the singles with them aswell, lets not forget the singles from thriller alone sold approx 100 million (link below) and theres different sources that said he sold 750.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/this-is-it http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colossus2k9 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The recording industry didn't have an accurate way to track retail record sales until 1991. Some people believe the 750 million number and some don't. Since there is no way to know for sure who is right, the compromise is to provide the range of estimates. The current "sales estimated between a and b" language is the consensus. Mktyscn (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackson pic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/Michael_JacksonThisisit.jpg

change the pic please not a good one of mj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.143 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a copyrighted image and we can't use it here. Please see WP:NON-FREE. Rodhullandemu 15:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

yes i know but that is the pic which is there now

go check it out for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.143 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see it is there now. It shouldn't be, because I've tagged it for deletion as lacking proper source information- and blocked the uploader for persistent breaches of copyright. I'll now revert to a free image. Rodhullandemu 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.1.10 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 

someone changed the pic please change it back this is the pic which should be there http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Michael_Jackson_1984.jpg

What about?

What about the rereleases that came out on vinyl? Thriller 25 was released on vinyl as well as disc. The only format that didn't see it was cassette. michael drew jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.49.191 (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

in the Albums section you listed al the albums except (Blood on the dance floor (1997)) .. please list it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoudi4m (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

External link to concert database

Would a database of Michael Jackson's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/237682-michael-jackson? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this on the talk page. Some people might say that this link looks a bit spammy, and does not add significantly to what is already in the article. Other thoughts welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If you have any suggestions as to how we can tone down any spammy characteristics I'm all ears - we're trying to be as legit a source of concert info as possible, and the community response here is a good gauge of whether we're achieving that. Michaelorland (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We've centalized the disscution about songkick.com at the External_links/Noticeboard, See this discussion. Feel free to comment on this link suitability there. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

King?

I don't think Michael was declared a king in Africa so could someone change that in the dangerous section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.136.226 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The source would appear to disagree with you. --Onorem♠Dil

20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another proof: In addition to the Ebony magazine source, watch Michael's visit in Africa in 1992 on youtube where he was, indeed, given the highest honor when he visited. He was well-loved and well-respected and given the same treatment given to Nelson Mandela. There, he visited villages, hospitals, schools, orphanages and local tribes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcws1BpAA0&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5h_alNBfx4&NR=1

Addition Request

Please add to section that discusses O2 shows:

The deal for the O2 shows was part of a multifaceted agreement ironed out between concert promoter AEG Live and Dr. Tohme Tohme, who was Michael Jackson's manager, business adviser, and spokesperson in 2008 and 2009. Dr. Tohme was also instrumental in hashing out the 11th hour deal betweem Michael Jackson and Colony Capital LLC, which saved Jackson's Neverland Ranch from foreclosure in 2008.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/23/news/companies/michael_jackson_money_assets.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009102310

Teller87 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

picture

Why dont we change the picture?

I think its best to show a pic of him onstage and performing at his prime or have a better quality picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Taylor (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Since he is dead, and therefore there is no possibility to get a recent picture of him anymore, could we change the current picture to one better although it has copyrights? Just as in Conway Twitty. The current picture is very old and does not represent his final appearence. In addition, the quality is poor. Finally, this is a very visited article of Wikipedia and serves as part of the image of the wiki ([28]). --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Since free use images exist, it would be impossible to justify a fair-use image, unless it was to illustrate a very specific issue (his appearance in a given video, for instance). Jimbo's remarks here sums up the situation. 92.8.57.239 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not represent his final appearance but it shows him at the peak of his fame, with his trademark dark glasses and white glove. I think it's a good image and I don't see any reason to replace it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a very interesting point you made. After knowing that I think the image can be good, because I didn't know it correspondes to the peak of his fame. Could that be noted in the caption? That would explain why is being used that image --Tintero (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a copyrighted image cannot be used in the infobox even though Michael Jackson is dead. The only way out of this situation is for someone to donate a suitable copyright free picture to Commons. On the plus side, the 1984 image shows MJ with his trademark white glove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about other viewers/browsers/users but that picture of him at the white house is horribly pixelated. 70.59.142.186 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The image has been reverted to its previous and traditional size of 150px. This reduces the problem with graininess.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

His trademark has nothing to do with having a recent picture. This is a picture back in 1984, we really need a recent pic for him --Mpurplegirl (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With a recent picture or not, it should be explained in the caption what makes the image valid for the article. As I asked previously, can anybody add it? --Tintero (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The image, as it's in the infobox, is being used simply to illustrate the article's subject so I don't think it's necessary to add to the caption.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Death and Memorial Section

This is what the article has listed in it's opening on the Death and Memorial section:

Actually, Michael Jackson did not "collapse" while at home, all news sources, court documents and even the man in the moon has reported that Jackson was given the drug propofol, among others, to sleep. Jackson indeed went to sleep, and when checked on later by his personal doctor, was found not breathing. To say that Jackson collapsed is to say that he was up, about and in possession of his waking faculties, which is a misrepresentation of the facts as they turned out to be. It is my suggestion that the opening of that section be re-written to better reflect the facts as they occurred. Chris Hawk (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Death of Evan Chandler

At the very end of the 'First child sexual abuse allegations (1993)' add Evan Chandler committed suicide November 4, 2009.

Is his death really relevant to this article?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it should be. He killed himself right when the Michael Jackson hype engine was up to full speed and he was about to be given an award for basically dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.185.254 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is relevant, particulary when Mr. Chandler was recorded threatening Michael Jackson (or blackmailing--depending on the interpretation). It appears that Mr. Chandler had severe problems and had a falling out with his son. His son Jordy took out a restraining order against him in 1996 and accused him of abuse. It should be noted that Mr. Chandler was ill and was to consult with a hematologist. Allow the reader to make up their own mind. [29] --Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong date

Please correct the date of the memorabilia auction as November 2009 not November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.103.57 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is in a sad state.

I have been re-reading past versions of this article and this one is by far the worst. Overzealous editors have cut it out to the bare essentials and it feels disjointed and emaciated. Of course wikipedia has been taking a turn for the worse, but it shouldn't be as bad as this...what's next, bullet point articles? I suggest that the people editing here get it together and try to include some of the richness and detail of the original articles. I mean you are devoting two half paragraphs for the singer's second trial without any serious details on his stress problems, his health problems and the general background during his trial.

Unless this place gets some professional editors keeping it in check it's only going to get worse and worse, which is sad really, but that's how it's going to be. 149.254.224.75 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article had to be cut to make it a more reasonable size. Even now, it's still too big and takes too long to load. See WP:SIZE Mktyscn (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has got a lot worse since MJ's death. The problem with pages that are suddenly featured in the news and getting millions of daily views, is that everybody wants to have a piece of the pie and say, "Oh, I contributed to the article on the day of his death", etc. That's why I tend to keep away from the MJ articles that are in the news (Death of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's This Is It, etc), because it is impossible to keep the article at a good quality. I would hate to imagine the state of the page if it wasn't semi-protected. Cleanup of this article will definitely be a long, tiring and probably thankless process. Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It saddens me to agree with the above comments. There has been a lot of ad hoc editing since MJ's death in June, leading to the article becoming badly disjointed in places. The article needs some attention to ensure a proper flow, and it would take a good deal of time. Now that things have quietened down in the media, the article should have a read through to see what could be improved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We could still revert back to the old version of the article prior to his death, then just add a few paragraphs on his death and some career details since he died. Problem solved. — R² 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given this some serious thought, but it might set off edit wars. It would be hard to undo five months of edits in a single leap. The problem with the article at the moment is not WP:V, which is fine, but the bitty and disorganised nature of some of the sections. Other thoughts welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Is their a classification genre name for the dance that Michael Jackson do on concert? (e.g. Billie Jean dance --?> ?) --75.154.186.99 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead section

I have been wp:bold and changed the lead section slightly. As 'king of pop' is not an official or legal title or a stage name, I moved it down a couple of lines. It clears up the first sentence, which should only identify the subject of the article by giving a date of birth/death and any alternative official names. Only die-hard fans would refer to Jackson as 'the king of pop' rather than 'Michael Jackson'. This is supposed to be a scholarly article, and this type of adulatory content is innapropriate in the first line. By searching through the archives I've seen this has been agreed before. --Tom dl (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is the last thing I want to do on this article, but a consensus has been reached. Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_27#King_of_Pop_in_the_lead_section Please try to reach an opposite consensus if you feel strongly against this. This message is primarily aimed at User:A_Star_Is_Here --Tom dl (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats not a consensus. Those are suggested ideas from JULY OF 2009 for the nickname and the intro which did'nt get voted on nor did anything much change. Similiar suggstion for the article are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#This_article_is_in_a_sad_state. We are now in closing NOVEMBER 2009. If you feel like King of Pop should'nt be in the first paragraph due to it being "inapropriate" then it should be changed in every article with a similiar first paragraph make ups as well not just Michael Jackson.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretha_Franklin
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brown
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Acuff
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Knight
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Summer
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Turner

and so many others. A Star Is Here (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It only has to be done on the articles where there is a consensus for that. There's no rule on Wikipedia that says that it all has to be the same. Mktyscn (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be a consistency on wikipedia but whether with this situation there is or isnt, there should still be a consensus beyond just a discussing suggestions on whether the title should be relocated or not. A Star Is Here (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Only three of your examples have non-bold 'known as' remarks in the first sentence. Anyhow, this is not relevent. As pointed out by Mktyscn, there is no rule on wikipedia, and no general consensus. I was just checking through past archives on the talk page (where July 2009 is quite recent, despite Jackson's death), and saw that the article did not reflect a loose argement on how the lead should be. Does every such agreement need a vote? I hadn't thought so, but now I suggest there is one. I think the 'King of Pop' fact is very relevant, but should not appear in the first sentence, as he was also known as 'wacko jacko', 'prince michael', 'MJ', 'The gloved one' etc. etc. I would suggest many more people would regularly refer to him as 'MJ' than any other name, but this is not mentioned in the first sentence. It makes sense to me that the first sentence should simply identfiy the subject as simply, but unambiguously, as possible. His dates of birth and death, his full legal name and his notability (i.e. recording artist) and nationality are all that is necessary. Putting a nickname in the first sentence (especially when there are so many) seems arbitrary and unreasonable. If anyone wants to vote, count me as a no in the question: Should the first sentence mention that Jackson was refered to as the "King of Pop"? --Tom dl (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody was speaking about bold or non-bold remarks in the first sentence you are but like you said thats not relevent. I dont know what wikipedia you've been on but when there is a strong disagreement or as you said when I made one revert, "Edit War", there needs to be a consensus on what should be done. As for july 2009 articles get edited everyday, every hour, and from june 25, 2009 through september 2009 there was more edits to the BODY of this page then anything else. The discussion then was just suggestions that didnt get done. Not that the people here are not trying to make the article better since MJ's death. How many nicknames does Elvis has? Or how many nicknames does James Brown have? Look at his page. Each has many but their most RESPECTED title for their contributions to music is in the first paragraph. There SHOULD be a CONSISTENCY on wikipedia. I never heard of "prince michael," (besides his two sons) nor should something as disrespectful as "wacko jacko" be mentioned in the intro but like it already is later in the body of article. MJ is just an abbreviation like Michael Jordan. Most people abbreviate names and objects everyday. Finally The gloved one is not mentioned nearly as much as the King of Pop. Saying its unreasonable is a little extreme. Maybe King of Pop should be mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. If there is some examples on this page we can vote on that would be nice but if it I say leave it the way it is. A Star Is Here (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

'Classic Intro: Before the death news broke'

Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene at the age of 11 as a member of The Jackson 5 and began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group. Referred to as the "King of Pop" in subsequent years, five of his solo studio albums have become some of the world's best-selling records: Off the Wall (1979), Thriller (1982), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995).

'Recent intro:'

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009), known as the King of Pop, was an American musician and one of the most commercially successful and influential entertainers of all time. His unique contributions to music and dance, along with a highly publicized personal life, made him a prominent figure in popular culture for over four decades.

'New one:'

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009), was an American musician, dancer, and entertainer. Referred to as the King of Pop, he is the most commercially successful and one of the most influential entertainers of all time. His unique contributions to music, dance, and style, along with a highly publicized personal life, made him a prominent figure in popular culture for over four decades.

To --Tom dl (talk) I hope this can satisfy both of us. A Star Is Here (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is much better. It clears the lead up nicely, and hopefully will influence other articles to have similarly clear first sentences. The amount of discussion this small change took should be an indicator of how slow change will be for this article in general, which has multiple issues, and shows one of the disadvantages of having an article written by many, many people (although, the advantages surely outweigh the disadvantages). Thanks, A Star Is Here --Tom dl (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya your right. The lead sounds much better but the entire article needs work. Since Mj's death there have been a lot of choppy areas in the article thats ruff to read. It doesnt flow right. So hopeful we can get the article the way it use to be before Mj died. Thanks Tom. A Star Is Here (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a supporter of having an honorific nickname in the lead - at all. Its hyperbole best left to the body of the article or the legacy section, where it can be placed in proper context. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "recent intro", but i dont care if "known as the king of pop" is removed. Portillo (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Most people know Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop." This is not a title reserved for "die-hard" fans. It's a common title that is primarily associated with Michael Jackson. Any search for Michael Jackson will bring up the "King of Pop" title. He was frequently referred to as the "King of Pop" more often than not. I do not believe there is another artist with this title. Fighting for this to be removed from the lead-in borders on POV pushing and doesn't make much sense.

As one of the previous editors said, Aretha Franklin's article indicates that she is the "Queen of Soul" in the first sentence. I'm not sure why Michael Jackson's should be different? Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, we are arguing honorific nicknames should not be in the lead of any article. Its hyperbole that should be left to other sections of the article where there can be supporting text to explain why the nickname was earned. The lead (and especially the lead sentence) is meant to be a brief introduction. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. I completely agree that a reference to the 'King of Pop' name should appear in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence. I support A Star Is Here's new lead, and think it should be a standard that all biographical articles follow in relation to honorific names. Unless anyone really believes that the lead should be changed back again to include 'King of Pop' in the first sentence I take it that this matter requires no further discussion - at least regarding this article. --Tom dl (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the other articles the editor above mentioned do not reflect your assessment. Will all the other articles be changed/updated to reflect this? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. It appears as if this article is being singled out, which seems to be POV pushing. Whether it's in the lead or in the 1st paragraph, the articles should be consistent, and this article should not be singled out. Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone's noticed, there is no rule or even convention on how to write biographical leads in reference to honorific names being used in first sentences. Some of the examples do, some do not. This article is, therefore, not being singled out, because there is no pattern it deviates from. By the way, this is not POV pushing, insofaras POV relates to what content should be included and how the subject should be portrayed etc. A POV on how an article should be structured is unavoidable - this is what this page is for. Wikipedia editors cannot have no point of view on anything - nothing would be written. Just personal POVs about the article's subject should be left out of the article as much as possible. I would support the suggestion of a convention about honorific names being given to the people at WP:BIOGRAPHY, especially at WP:Manual of Style (biographies) if a consensus is reached here. --Tom dl (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

End of section 1.14

I have problems with the paragraph before the Death and memorial heading. Firstly, "This Is It" is described as a single, when it was never one. I'd suggest a change to A new song titled "This Is It" was released on October 12, 2009, from the soundtrack album of the same name. I'd also reduce the length of this paragraph a bit, as it places undue importance on a soundtrack album (the CD is of no consequence, since almost every movie released in 2009 has an accompanying soundtrack album). Maybe just take out the last 2 sentences, which start the second "This Is It" album's first disc, which is wrong anyway, and also promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.50 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

infobox

Closing, since this seems to be resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, I don't understand why someone keeps removing the countries from the infobox. A standard form would include the city, state and country. Tinton5 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Except that WP:Place#United States, which I have already informed you of, says otherwise, and I have informed you of your options as to changing project-wide guidelines. In particular, that guideline says "Do not use the country name, as in "Detroit, United States" or "Kansas City, Missouri, USA". I strongly suggest you stop this disruptive editing, or argue to change this guideline. Rodhullandemu 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Also see WP:MOS#Geographical Items--Jojhutton (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Okay, so let's get to it and remove some countries! Tinton5 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Musician

Hi guys,

In the lead section, Michael Jackson is identified as a musician. I think it would be more specific, and hence accurate, to refer to him as a singer, unless he's known for using any other instruments besides his voice. At any rate, he was probably better known for his remarkable voice. InternetMeme (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the Old Faithfuls of the WP:LEAD and the infobox. For the average person, Michael Jackson was known primarily as a singer and dancer. Although he played some musical instruments, the musical backing on his albums, particularly key works such as Thriller, was provided largely by session musicians. Some people prefer to describe Jackson as a musician, and describing him as a singer can set off WP:BRD cycles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Wikipedias article musician is at all accurate, but, if so, he clearly does fall within the category of "musician" better than most. Jackson sings, writes, records, produces, arranges, composes and plays a few instruments per album. Maybe musician means different things, to different people, in different places. I just don't know. But this notion that instrumentals are the only criteria for inclusion appears wrong. — R² 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not trying to say that a singer is not a musician, I'm saying that a singer is a type of musician. For instance, you could describe Richard Feynmann as an academic, but the article describes him as a physicist (a physicist being a specific type of academic).

Anyway, this is somewhat immaterial now, as you have pointed out that Michael Jackson also played other instruments, which I didn't know before. Thanks for your input! InternetMeme (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FBI files released

I hope that since the FBI reports on Michael Jackson have been released in the last few days of December 2009 Wikipedia updates the information concerning the molestation trial. The FBI reports show they had NOTHING on Michael Jackson which would have proven he committed the crimes Tom Seddon the DA accused Michael of. Micheal was truly innocent. The FBI file that is online is mostly rumors, and tabloid articles. Michael Jackson's life was also being threatened by a mentally unstable man and it had nothing to do with children. This person also threatened George Bush. H S

This is in the newspapers today.[30]. It is notable because it shows how the FBI tracked MJ, but adds little new on the child molestation charges. The declassified documents are here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Debbie Rowe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debbie Rowe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Rowe (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WWGB (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be a Featured Article?

One of the main criteria for a Featured Article that it is stable. Well, because it is semi protected, that shows that it is not stable surely? propose it is demoted until it can prove it is stable. Calvin (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be handled at Wikipedia:Featured article review, not here. Theleftorium 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Stability means lack of edit warring. The deduction that semi-protection means automatically that there is edit warring is incorrect. It is common for high profile articles to be semi-protected, mainly due to repeat vandalism. There has been a good deal of nonsense added to Michael Jackson, and it would be too time consuming to spend all day removing the supposed wit of children and other bored individuals.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 album

michael jackson has a new album coming out in 2010 including tracks done with will.i.am, akon, r.kelly and ne-yo: Hold my hand, Whole again, Change, Now is the time, Another Day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO9AXKDp_Ak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.243.219 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias in section 1.8

Under section 1.8, there's an unnecessary reference made to O.J. Simpson. The sentence reads, The Chandlers initially wanted a payment, but Jackson refused, however due to deteriorating health he could not endure a long trial 'like O.J.'. The O.J. Simpson comparison is uncalled-for. Leaving it off at "he could not endure a long trial" would've sufficed.

The phrasing of that sentence was intended to be read one of two ways:(1) Unlike O.J. who had a long trial, Michael Jackson's trial wasn't as lengthy because of deteriorating health or, (2) Neither Michael Jackson nor O.J. Simpson could endure a long trial because of health concerns.

If it's the former, editors need to delete the comparison because (1) a comparison isn't needed in the first place and (2) they could've just as easily compared Michael Jackson to anyone else who has had a lengthy trial, but by comparing him to O.J. - a person acquitted of a crime who's actually guilty of said crime (according to quasi-confessions) - they're intentionally creating negative bias; comparing MJ to OJ implies that even though Michael Jackson was acquitted of all accounts, he's still guilty.

If it's the latter (which I doubt), the reference still needs to be deleted because O.J.'s health didn't impede him from attending his trial.

Abcheckie (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is meant to read, "Michael Jackson could not endure a lengthy trial, like OJ Simpson had, because the singer's health was deteriorating. He thus settled the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations made against him." It was MJ himself that made the comparison between he and OJ. (See 3:52 here. Pyrrhus16 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson's performance at the super bowl

In the current Wikipedia article on MJ, I read the following: he remained completely motionless for several minutes

When checking out a video on Youtube of his performance, this is not entirely correct. If you would please take a look at the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kl63-DQAQ

Here we see that he takes up his statue stance at 0:34 and starts moving again at 1:46. This does not seem like 'several minutes' to me, but rather like 'about one minute'. However, I suppose it may sound a little niggle to write it out like this in the article, but at the same time, 'several minutes' isn't correct either. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.221.141.167 (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

january 13 2010: can anyone please give me some feedback on the topic i raised here? it's a little surprising to see no reaction on this topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.97.104.121 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

THE DANCE

Over on wikiquote [31] (scroll down), there was a quote by Michael Jackson removed. I was wondering if a fan knows if he's written it, and where it comes from? I've found notes that it was written in 1992, so it couldn't have been on the "dangerous" cd sleeve, which I figured at first. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixdolphin (talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just Promises (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC) That quote doesn't appear on any of Michael Jackson's albums. In 20 years I have never heard of him saying or writing that either.

MJ as a cultural icon

Hello users,

This is Buffaloxoldiar you left me a message a bit ago suggesting that i use the talk page. Thanks for the advice. I made a change to the micheal jackson page where i added that he is a cultural icon the same as it is on Elvis page. I also included different links newspapers from differnet countries around the world as evidence to support. The fact is Micheal Jackson was a Global Icon his music became popular across the globe in places such as Africa, Asia and the Middle East, places where it was hard for any American, let alone western pop artist, to gain a foothold. and hes changed pop culture like no one else. this user by the name of A Star is here keeps taking it off why i cant understand please help resolve this issue.

http://www.guide2.co.nz/politics/blogs/chris-ford-michael-jackson-a-capitalist-cultural-icon/83/8996

http://vodpod.com/watch/1925032-exclusive-michael-jackson-cultural-icon

http://harlemworldblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/exclusive-michael-jackson-cultural-icon/

http://news.movieretriever.com/article-1G1-203752317/tv-land-honors-memory.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Michael-Jackson-was-1st-black-cultural-icon/articleshow/4704554.cms

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2009/06/michael-jackson’s-death-20-modern-mourning-icon

http://www.waveletblog.net/2009/06/michael-jackson-a-genious-a-cultural-icon-a-legend/

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/07/07/coverage-of-a-cultural-icon/

http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2009/06/26/news/doc4a445c2c715f5882856217.txt http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/pop-star-michael-jackson-was-rushed-to-a-hospital-this-afternoon-by-los-angeles-fire-department-paramedics--capt-steve-ruda.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609102.htm http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=100&SubID=953&MainCat=12

Thanks (Buffaloxoldiar (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)) (Buffaloxoldiar (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

The phrase "cultural icon" sounds like a peacock term, which is best avoided in the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect your view but i have to disagree because i think the term Cultural Icon emphasizes just how important that individual was in term of their profession and appeal. elvis's bio has that term inserted and micheal had an even more of a global appeal. Maybe we can come up with a different term that makes the same point maybe "international icon" or "Global Icon" because unlike any other musician in history or present today Micheal was celebrated worldwide across different races religions languages and colours and i think thats it is important that it be reflected in his bio. Let me know what you think Bro.

http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2009/06/michael-jackson-lost.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/38609/michael-jackson-a-local-icon-across-asia/

http://www.ibtimes.com/prnews/20090917/michael-jackson-the-icon-new-book-release.htm

http://www.persian-forums.com/f299/tribute-michael-jackson-king-pop-35590/

http://www.etonline.com/index.html?page=9&tag=michael-jackson

www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10659620

www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/26/77037.html

www.visitjamaica.com/Article.aspx?id=22400

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-156852172.html

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=106881

www.vo2ov.com/Tribute-Michael-Jackson-King-of-Pop_382559.html

http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=8349

http://www.canada.com/entertainment/there+another+Jackson+icon+Internet/1770826/story.html

Thats just a few of the links available .

````

Thank You Buffalo

(````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffaloxoldiar (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Buffaloxoldiar (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Portal

{{Portal|Michael Jackson}} I noticed your Portal got deleted due to lack of content ...Well i have made you a new one Portal:Michael Jackson  !!! We should talk about the colors you guys would like to see in the portal,,if what is there now is not ok...There is 3 selection made up of FA or GA articles only!!!
Template = {{Portal|Michael Jackson|Namexhh01.png}}
Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Schools Wikipedia

How about Michael Jackson is included for the Schools Wikipedia? See [32] for Crocodile if you don't know what I'm talking about.--Crocodile Z (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphine Song

There is a song called "Morphine", attributed to Michael Jackson, which includes references to Demerol. Did he really write it and when? Was it ever recorded? (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk pages are to discuss helping the MJ page..not for questions...but the answer you are looking for is here Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix...you can find it on youtube aswell..Buzzzsherman (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was AFRICAN American

I think the article should state that MJ was AFRICAN AMERICAN, like all the other black artists who have pages, and that the main picture should reflect that as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PifftheSensei (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the old controversies of the article. Michael Jackson held US nationality, and this is stated in the lead section. Attempts to define him by race are questionable per WP:BIO.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 15:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when did being white deserve a mention in the lead of an article, or anywhere in an article for that matter, never. The article makes it perfectly clear that Jackson is not a white person anyway. Or am I missing something? It's been a while since I've read this article, too depressing. — R<sup>2</sup> 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should avoid any mention of Race in the lead...I does not matter that other articles do it ...This article is FA level It sets the example !!!!...There is a picture RIGHT there..I think that is more then enough to tell what Genetic heritage MJ comes from!!!....Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well actually it does say he's African American, in the second paragraph of the lead, in relation to his MTV breakthrough. I think that's enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Was just about to change {{relist|2}} to {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} ..but there is a message <!-- Please leave in 2-column mode for readability at all screen resolutions -->
If i am not mistaken {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. anyways if no-one apposes i will change it in a few days ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)  Done.................Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Graphic artist

MJ, shortly before his death, completed a graphic novel - I forgot the title - but the main character is supposedly based on his own life. He also was looking at buying Marvel Comics (or was it DC?)...

This, in addition to the drawings and paintings that he did for album art, personal collection, etc.

Thus I added "graphic artist" as one of his occupations. Facial (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed before on the talk page, the infobox should stick to things for which Jackson was primarily known. There is also a need for some reliable sourcing on this, as it is rather obscure. The novel is mentioned here, but it appears that it has not been published yet.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, will he become well-known as a graphic artist after the publication of "Fated?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facial (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are somewhat irrelevant, given that we require reliable sources, and attempting to offer any opinion would be original research and crystal-gazing. If he had already had successful exhibitions in his lifetime, or the book is greeted with reviews with the general tenor of "Michael Jackson's undiscovered talent", then I would agree it might be worth a mention. But not unless and until. Rodhullandemu 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some one please revert the trash on the page now instead of next year please! 86.158.235.26 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't see anything unusual; is it possible you are looking at an older version of this page? Otherwise, could you be more specific please? Rodhullandemu 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dance Section

IanMacM and R2, I will start a section on his dance style sometime soon. Is this a place where I can put up a draft? Facial (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd try here, then invite interested editors to review it, and your sources, before moving it to article space. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a possibility of content forking here, and at 153k the article has some fairly serious WP:SIZE issues. The primary aim of Michael Jackson is a biography rather than analysis of songs etc. It may be best to consider this as a separate article linked from the main article.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

superbowl perfoIrmance

I had previously brought up this topic in early January, but it seems to have been neglected for some reason, so I will bring it up once more.

In the main article, it is mentioned that during the superbowl performance, MJ remained motionless for 'several minutes'. But if you check out footage on youtube, you can clearly see that it's not nearly 'several' moninutes, but just a little over one minute. Shouldn't this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.221.142.171 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Conrad Murray "to be charged"

This is in the news today. Still some WP:CRYSTAL, but worth watching out for.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nation of Islam?

News reports in 2004 stated that Michael Jackson became a member of the Nation of Islam. Was that verified, and if so, should he be added to the list of Members of the Nation of Islam? USN1977 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (If anyone knows the whole truth about this then can you please write that information down now on wikipedia.)

This has been discussed ad nauseam, please see the FAQ above, and also in the archives: search for "nation of islam" via the archive search box above. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (2010)

In section discography, under Invincible, there is an album named Michael Jackson. Does it even exist? I have not found yet a official information about an album (studio) called so- released or scheduled to be released. Should we erase that or it is true?--MajklDzekson (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Appears it was added here. No source was given. It clearly hasn't been released yet, if indeed it is even scheduled, and there's no Wikipedia article for it yet. I believe the Discography should only list released albums, so I'm going to remove it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

can you imagine how the sales on that album are going to be...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Links

This link should be included at the bottom of the page: http://www.michaeljacksonfanbase.com Please add this link asap, as it is a pure honor for The king of pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.2.84 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this link is unsuitable per WP:FANSITE.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sample map

Does anyone object to my adding the following link to the "External Links" section: Michael Jackson sample map? The link is to a sample map of Jackson's work, indicating many of the places where his work has been sampled, and is, I think, indicative of his impact on the music industry. --Badger151 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

it is nice..but i am not sure! its kind of a chat forum about the map..but i do see All sizes of this photo are available for download under a Creative Commons license. perhaps we can upload the image and use it...again we would need the majority to agree to the change...I do think this map is better then any influences section!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some context regarding the map, and its importance because I realize that typically Wikipedia doesn't link to Flickr images: following its posting on Flickr, the sample map has been reposted and/or discussed at:

• Spike TV: [33]
• Clicked, on MSNBC.com: (first link)
• The MTV blog (linked from 5th paragraph) [34]
• Michael Jackson's official site (second link)
• Rachel Maddow's Map Room, on msnbc.com (about 8 links down at the time of this posting)

It also appears internationally here (Dutch), here (Italian), and here (Polish). The image's creator discusses its going viral here, and about 1/3 to 1/2 way down he discusses the many other places it has also been discussed or appeared. --Badger151 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No one has objected over the last week, so I'm adding it. --Badger151 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

to be placed under the 1993 case heading

The SBDA contacted the FBI for a request to use the infamous Mann Act against Jackson. The act was created for racist persecution purposes in jailing America's first black celebrity, the boxer, Jack Johnson. Later it was used against Charlie Chaplin whom Jackson also admired. The result was that the US Attorney denied the request, but would help the SBDA and LAPD in other ways.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/22/michael.jackson.fbi/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethiopiashimsham (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever may happen with the rest of the quote, I don't think that "infamous" is NPOV. The use of the Mann act against other alleged perpetrators may not be relevant here; interested readers could click through to the article on the act itself for that type of information, if it was wikilinked. --Badger151 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The linked story makes it perfectly clear that the FBI was asked to consider investigating Mr. Jackson under the Mann Act, and they rejected that particular course of action in favor of other lines of investigation. So, no, he was not even investigated for violating the Mann Act. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson & Friends Tour

Anyone know why there isn't an article for it yet? MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources indicating the notability of such a tour, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it. I did a quick Google search and couldn't see anything. It might be better mentioned in List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5 than a separate article in any case.-Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

1 Billion People Watching Funeral?

In the opening, this article says "his globally live-broadcast memorial service attracted an audience of up to one billion people." I think this is a dubious claim - I know he was popular but it is somewhat absurd to claim that 1 in 7 people in the world watched the funeral! Such an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary source, and the source given is dubious at best. I think this statement is most likely wrong and misleading - would it not be better to find a more reliable source and accurately state how many people watched it, rather than just saying 'up to a billion' people watched it? Unnachamois (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The source article says "millions, some reports go as high as one billion" so I changed the billion to millions. The article later says CNN is reporting one billion. I agree that this seems very unlikely, probably impossible. This site says there are only 1.4 billion TV's, so seventy percent of them would have to be watching, and most of Asia would be asleep. Beach drifter (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

support change yes its best to say millions ...I agree a billion TV's sounds odd..now perhaps a billion people watched it on millions TV's ...that could be possible...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

support change, but I do have to object to Beach Drifter's math, which assumes that each TV can only be watched by 1 person. --Badger151 (talk)

USA < Michael Jackson memorial ratings: 31 million watch >

Germany < A whopping 20 million people in Germany tuned in > [[35]]

UK < Michael Jackson memorial watched by more than 6 million UK viewers > [[36]]

For other countries, you can find on Internet. Concerning "Billion", it's just a marketing expression

--Roujan (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Se7en

I believe we all understand that it's not an official album and that not all the songs are even by Jackson. Which is why I believe there should be an article for it. MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your comment, or its relevance to improving this article. I believe "7even" was a rumoured title for a new Jackson album back in 2007, which never appeared. Is this what you are referring to?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

o. Here, I created a sandbox article about it: User:MaJic/Sandbox3 MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Bootleg albums are almost never worthy of Wikipedia articles I'm afraid. Unless it's a particularly famous one like Great White Wonder, they just don't meet our notability requirements: see WP:NALBUMS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley

It should be mentioned that Lisa Marie Presley was seven years old when she met Michael Jackson in 1975, and he was seventeen. This article suggests that the meeting was not what it was.Jarjar66 (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording in the article seems OK here. What are you getting at?--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

One Of The Occupations Not Listed In Michael Jackson's Infobox Is That He Was Also An Author,Please Go Back And Correct That Information.67.162.29.162 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is not known primarily as an author. In 2006, he was the author of the book My World: The Official Photobook. The most remarkable thing here is the price of this book on the second hand market, which is $1200 on Amazon: [37] --♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

MJ Birth Place and location on Panoramio

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24933714

http://www.panoramio.com/user/63737/tags/Michael%20Jackson

Hope this can be part of the MJ article on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.89.141 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting pictures, particularly this one. However, photos on Google, Flickr etc are usually copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia per WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those are all my photos, I can release rights to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.89.141 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be very useful. If the photos are tagged as your own work and given a Creative Commons license, they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used in any Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 20:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody do that in my behalf? I am not familiar with the Wikipedia Commons for giving a photo to community. Regards, Volkan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.89.141 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a slight problem here, because at the moment the photos are tagged as © All Rights Reserved by Volkan YUKSEL on Panoramio. To keep the ever vigilant Wikipedia administrators happy, the tagging of the images on Panoramio would have to be changed before using them as a source. It should be possible to change the tags by logging in to your Panoramio account.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just reduced "the rights tag". I hope it helps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkan Yuksel (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the article already has a picture of the house where Jackson was born (2300 Jackson Street.jpg). Personally I prefer the new image as it gives a better view. Would there be a consensus to use it? Also, Volkan, can you remember the date that the picture was taken? It was probably soon after MJ's death, since there are floral tributes in the photo.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 21:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Ian Mac M, thanks. Like I said, this image could make its way to MJ article. It was taken on 7/25/09. Present picture is perhaps earlier shot. Take care, Volkan

Thanks, this has now been added.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Prince of the Holy Roman Empire?

I found someting very interesting on the Imperial College of Princes and Counts of The Holy Roman Empire website - http://www.imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com/id4.html; THE PRINCELY HOUSE OF JACKSON - H.S.H. Prince Michael Joseph Jackson .( Prince of The Holy Roman Empire ). This probably an honorary title. --Dukezait (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the Empire of Atlantium. Some people do this with postage stamps etc, but there needs to be reliable sourcing to establish notability.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 16:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence claim

{{editsemiprotected}} The second sentence claims "he is recognized as the greatest entertainer of all time." The footnotes refer to articles in which a Motown producer said this about him at his memorial service. This does not amount to widespread recognition. I recommend the verb be modified down to at least "is cited as" or "was eulogized as".

This is an eternal problem with this article, and others, in which editors will seek out any evidence that supports their existing opinions. My parents, for example, might have said the same about Frank Sinatra even in the face of evidence of record sales for Michael Jackson. But you are quite correct in asserting that "the greatest entertainer of all time" is a breach of guidelines, and lacks substantial sourcing in support. Therefore, in the absence of supporting evidence,  Done. However, "one of the greatest entertainers of all time" is defensible up to a point using reliable sources, and I see no problem, apart from that I have not yet lived long enough to experience "all time"; and to be honest, I don't want to. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer ever.Yesterday and before ,it was listed like it on Wikipedia.Why change now.He is not recognized as the greatest but like the most successful by guiness worlds records.It is not the same.(Lvisking (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)) • contribs) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an almost fanatical MJ fan, but that kind of absolutist claim does not belong in an encyclopedia. We can say he had the most sales, had the most awards, the most successful concerts, etc...that's all stuff that can be verified in reputable sources. But the previous version of the lead, at least that part of the second sentence, was inappropriate.UberCryxic <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What happened here yesterday and the day before are irrelevant. What matters is reliable sources. Also what matters is that not that we say "is the greatest", but "has been called the greatest", and then citing reliable sources that have said this. That way, we avoid applying our own opinions, which are irrelevant here. I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp for some editors, but we are an encyclopedia and not a vehicle for various factions to promulgate their own personal points of view- and that applies not only on this article, but to all articles. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Guiness Worlds records is not a reference source,you have a problem sorry.I am not going to put he had the most sale or most successful concert because there are not a true source reputable and it is not true.Why change now seriously?He is not the greatest but the most successful by Guiness worlds records,if it is not a source it ,none is source reliable.I put the source with.It is too much to put "is the greatest "i am agree whoever but "recognized the most successful "not really because there are source reputable(Lvisking (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)). contribs) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we must leave like before"he is recognized the most successful entertainer of all the time and one of most inflential" and delete "he is recognized like the greatest entertainer(it is so much ,i am very agree) "or"he is one of most greatest entertainer".We must leave like the days before.Why change now (Lvisking (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)). • contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Charity work

Why there is nothing about Michael's charty work?--88.112.154.228 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have a separate section (nor should it, IMO), but if you read the article closely you will find numerous mentions of his donations to charitable causes, the We Are The World single and the Heal The World Foundation.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael jackson Greatest Entertainer of all time.

I have replaced the word successful with the word "greatest" entertainer of all time. in the next paragraph the word successful is stated their as well it is repetitive. Someone being the most successfully is just another way of saying you're the greatest. As to provide authenticity to my case i provided links from three valid sources such as ABCnews, MSNBC News, and Reuters. i also have links from rolling stones magazine magazine, CNN, Billboard just to name a few other, i can provide a lot more links from valid sources.

The argument thatmay be brought up is that their are two other great acts such as the Beatles and Elvis presley but as stated in the Rolling Stones Greatest ARTISTS of all time where the Beatles Placed #1 and elvis placed #3 and artist and an entertainer are different things. Michael Placed #35 in that article and their reason was that Michael jackson was not an artist per say but that he was the greatest entertainer of all time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940053/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_35_michael_jackson

people dont understand that an artist and an entertainer are to different things. An artist primarily records and when performing goes on stage and sing. An entertainer is more complex an entertainer writes,sings, performs,writes,choreographer, dancing. Basically an entertainer encompasses all the different aspects involved in making music. No one did this more than michael Jackson. Thats why he is in the Guiness Book as recoprd as the most successful (greatest entertainer of all time. im sure you'll see the distinction between both titles.

Thx BuffaloBuffaloxoldiar (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have undone this edit as "greatest" is subjective and POV. You can say he is the most successful, most awarded, etc, but greatestness cannot be defined by success alone. Pyrrhus16 11:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear example of a WP:PEACOCK description, and should be avoided.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 11:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Words like "greatest", "influential" etc are speedy deletes on Wikipedia per WP:PEACOCK. They are overused and far too subjective. Please avoid making edits like this.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have listened to your suggestion though i do disagree to some degree we will leave it as most successful.

I do however think that calling Michael a global figure by wording is undermining the influence he had on music entertainment dating back to the last four decades. Ive changed it to Global icon, because whether you liked him or had him, his accomplished made him an icon not just a figure.

Ive also taken taken your sugesstion and added that he is the most awarded music act in history the facts supports it iso i added a link as well. To leave out such a important part of his Bio undermines his importance. This shouldnt happen to any artist on wikipedia. Finally id research as i do for other acts and found out that he is in Twelve notable Halls of Fames. They are also listed here on wikipedia, so i also included that as a aprt of his Bio.Once more it is important to include the major accomlishments for any music acts in at least the first three or four paragraphs of any artist Bio cause its only deserving.

Thx BuffaloBuffaloxoldiar (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Icon

The term "global icon" seems to have been invented? The correct term if it is to be used at all is surely "cultural icon" Teapotgeorge<sup>Talk</sup> 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael jackson will never be forgotten, he was such an influence to so many around the world, when his death came tributes were held and were rapidly increasing around the world. Even Hannah Montana star Miley Crus did a dance tribute at her concert. The King of Pop will never be forgotten and his legacy will never die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.177.104 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PEACOCK again, which lists "iconic" as another of the words to avoid. Wikipedia is not MTV, Rolling Stone Magazine etc. The language used should be as neutral as possible. Since no-one is going to dispute that Michael Jackson was one of the biggest pop stars of all time, there is no need to add showbiz hype and cruft words to the WP:LEAD. This has been discussed many times before, which is why the other users are getting frustrated.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, i will put cultural icon, i think there is a doulble standard to some degree in the case their are otherpop and rock artist on wikipedia who was as famous as michael jackson and yet they have cultural icon status on their bios, so that seems to be conflicting.if its good enogh for other the way isnt it the same here. thats all im saying thx.Buffaloxoldiar (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, please don't put "cultural icon". "Icon" is a peacock word. The wording in the lead is fine as it is. Pyrrhus16 19:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, skip "cultural icon" per the reasons above. Also, please bear in mind that the wording in the lead has been established after long talk page discussions to create WP:CONSENSUS. Changes to the lead are particularly sensitive, and should be discussed first. Some of Buffaloxoldiar's edits in the past few days have shown a lack of respect for the principle of consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit that I'm Unable to Make

Due to the article's semi-protectedness I'm unable to fix this typo:

In the second line under "Musical Themes and Genres," the word "intimidated" is used instead of "imitated" in regard to Michael simulating their sound with his voice.

Martman321 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ near the top of this page doesn't show any "show"-links that could be clicked to view the explanations. --11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.210.120 (talk)

Main Picture

The main picture is 26 years old now. Surely, there exists a more recent photo of Michael. --68.189.104.222 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I believe this is a better option. — R<sup>2</sup> 02:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think the main picture in there now is fine. We shouldn't pick any photograph because it's "recent" or some other such contrivance. We need to pick a photograph that accurately reflects the importance of the subject, and I cannot imagine any other photograph than one taken while he was at his height during the Thriller era.UBER <sup>(talk)</sup> 03:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that image was taken at Cannes, so I suppose it would give an idea of Jackson's artistic influence/importance, not just commercial force. I suppose the only think that could match the Thriller era picture, would be the Superbowl of 1993. — R<sup>2</sup> 13:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with UberCryxic. The Thriller era was his critical and commercial peak. Plus it shows him with his trademark white glove. It's by far the best of the free images we have available. The fact that's not the most recent one is utterly irrelevant in an article on a deceased individual.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all been said many times in the past, but I still prefer the 1984 White House image in the infobox. It works well in this location, and has stood the test of time. Have to say that I'm not a fan of the Cannes image, which looks rather like a Madame Tussaud's waxwork.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 17:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Converting to Islam

Micheal Jackson was said to have converted to Islam on his death bed. He recited the Shahada in arabic and touched the Holy Quran while reciting. Jackson was said to have worn a small cap while his reverting.This was reported in many newspapers. <http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1954666.ece> Many believe his reversion or conversion was due to him seeking the truth, he was also inspired greatly by his brother, Jermaine Jackson who has reverted to Islam and appeared on many Islamic Tv Channels. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html>

Again, this has been discussed many times. The Sun is not a reliable source, and the Telegraph was merely regurgitating the Sun story.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. This claim was denied by Jackson's staff, and by key people allegedly present at the conversion ceremony.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Drug Overdose

I would like to request this be changed....his death certificate did not say "overdoes" it stated "propofol intoxication...drug administered by another".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burleyc (talk • contribs) 02:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial death certificate published in July 2009 gave the cause of death as "deferred".[38]. In August 2009 the coroner published a preliminary finding that Jackson's death was caused by an overdose of propofol.[39] The current wording in the WP:LEAD looks OK and is not misleading on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 06:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Michaels Ghost

Should it be reported or put somewhere bout his ghost or strange shadow in his house when cnn did that report??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.129.38 (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's nonsense. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't say its nonsense, thats purely biased view on paranormal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

...or rather, the paucity of widely-accepted scientific evidence for the paranormal. Rodhullandemu 21:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems to be referring to the incident on the Larry King Show in July 2009.[40] It looks like a vague blur to me, but some people have vivid imaginations.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Record sales

Studio albums (solo) = 10 albums
Studio albums (Jackson 5/The Jacksons) (including 1 Christmas- and 1 soundtrack album) = 16 albums
Compilation & Greatest Hits & Other albums (remix, hybrid, live, etc.) = Over 200 albums
Singles = 100-150 singles
DVD's & VHS's & Blu-Ray's & Music videos, etc. = ???
+++ Others, like ringtones, etc. = ???

Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records (including The Jackson 5/The Jacksons record sales). Today record sales are 750-800 million. I know that nowhere read that MJ's record sales included Jackson 5's record sales. I think Michael Jackson's solo records sales are 500-550 million, max. 600 million. --BadMuroZ (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

BadMuroZ please do your research, if that is the case, the sales from being apart of the jackson five as the lead singer should also be added to his final sales tally but be sure to insert the word including to whatever amount he sold as part of the jackson five similar to the way it is in his Bio for his no 1 singles (eg) 17 number-one singles in the US (including four as a member of The Jackson 5).

Hope that helps 2012thefilm (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.176.205.226, 2 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In "Death and Memorial" Section:

"On June 25, 2009, Jackson collapsed at his rented mansion at 100 North Carolwood Drive in the Holmby Hills district of Los Angeles."

should be

"On June 25, 2009, Jackson was found not breathing at his rented mansion at 100 North Carolwood Drive in the Holmby Hills district of Los Angeles."

This change should be made, because he did not collapse, rather he never woke up. It has been well-documented (and is referenced in this section) that he died from an overdose of a sedative. There was no "collapsing".

76.176.205.226 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After quite a bit of researching, I agree that it should be changed - I see no substantial evidence of collapse, as you say; the 911 phone call says he is on the bed, not breathing. However, I am reluctant to say that he was found not breathing. It leads to many questions about who found him - and it seems that, currently, we do not know if he was alone at the time when he stopped breathing.

Perhaps we could just put, On June 25, 2009, Jackson stopped breathing at his rented mansion at 100 North Carolwood Drive in the Holmby Hills district of Los Angeles.

I am leaving the request open for someone else to make the decision, but the above is my recommendation.  Chzz  ►  08:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stopped breathing sounds a little bizarre to me. And was he found not breathing but had a pulse? --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain, we do not know. During the 911 call, they state that he is 'unconscious' and 'not breathing'. I do agree that the wording isn't ideal; if you have any other ideas...?  Chzz  ►  08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ive added it, but I used unconscious instead of "Not breathing". --seahorseruler |Talk Yoshi! 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of events at the mansion that preceded MJ's death is still somewhat confused. What matters is that the wording in the article is sourced reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhinestone Glove

In the third paragraph of the section titled "Thriller and Motown 25 (1982–83)" a sentence reads: "Wearing a distinctive black sequin jacket and golf glove decorated with rhinestones ...". Another sentence, in the section titled "Fashion", reads: "... the Billie Jean black jacket, his black fedora hat, and most famously his single sequin white glove ...". Although these sentences don't really contradict each other it does appear that way at first (is the jacket sequin or the glove?), and can be a bit confusing for readers. Maybe someone could reword this or even provide a bit more detail about the glove, especially for those MJ fans that may be looking for information on his famous (infamous?) white glove. In fact I'm a bit surprised that the redirect "Rhinstone Glove" didn't already exist. -- œ<sup>™</sup> 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Se7en" album

I know there shouldn't be an article on this, but there should be some information out there since some people may incorrectly perceive it to be true. So I created this article (sandbox, of course) as a test run. If it receives good reviews, would it be possible to try and make something out of this? MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Most bootleg recordings fail WP:GNG (The Black Album by Prince is a notable exception). There does not seem to be much reliable coverage of "Se7en" at the moment, so it may be best to wait before creating a new article.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 08:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson Never Played Assorted Percussion And He Only Played Bongo Drums.69.174.152.89 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

This section of course has seen a slight growth since the death of MJ. I believe that the the section has been stable and its info has been relevant, and noteworthy. The user TimothyHorrigan believes there is too much "fluff" for his taste and that the paragraph about jacksons lifetime earnings should be divided into its own short paragraph long section. I do not support he's changes. I think his edits are in good faith but they just chop and skrew an already decent section unneccesarily. But of course in curiosity does anyone support his trimming of legacy?

I'm opposed to his changes. The Almighty King (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole article is too long and the Legacy section adds very little to the article. Some of the quotes etc. were out of context. My initial impulse was to delete the section altogether. We already know from the rest of the article that Jackson was an extremely popular and influential performer who died at the relatively young age of 50. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Almighty King (talk) has not written appropraitely for this forum and his additions are merely written as general opinion as oppose to sufficient references from established websites. These are 'good faith' edits and I request support for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonIsALoon (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that your confused about what's going on in the Legacy and influence section ToonIsALoon.

1. I did not additionally add anything to the section that wasn't already there. Therefore all I did was just restore the section to the way it was before TimothyHorrigan edited it.

2. There is nothing inappropriate about saying you disagree with someones edits, and you do not support them because it doesnt help the article.

3. If you think the websites that most of the references are coming from are not established or noteworthy, I suggest that you may want to look through most them once again.

4. I'm just a little suspicious that you came and reverted my edits, and came in defense of Timothy Horrigan on the talk page at a very convenient moment. The Almighty King (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Timothy's edit. The page is already too long and we don't need that excessive amount of information in the legacy section. Pyrrhus16 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrrhus. ToonIsALoon (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version is 168 kilobytes, which is well into the territory of WP:SIZE issues. If anything, the article needs to be trimmed or some information moved to other articles. The "Legacy and influence" section is not fantastically bad, but if it was dropped or shortened, the article would not be much poorer.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims in the lead

The first paragraph of the lead must be some kind of a joke, considering this is a featured article:

"...he is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time while also being regarded as one of the most influential. His unrivaled contributions to music, dance and fashion..."

It's debatable whether absolute statements of such magnitude should be made in any encyclopaedic text, but if they are included, I'd expect them to be sourced with bulletproof academic sources. You will understand my surprise to find that all five used sources are more than questionable. Ref 2, 3, 4 are simply collections of statements of public figures/celebrities right after his death (of course you will find all kind of exaggerated claims there), Ref 1 and 5 are edited stories by the respected publications 'MSN Music News' and 'Film.com', both published one day (!) after his death (how could this offer any perspective?). All five of these sources are entirely insufficient. EnemyOfTheState<sub>|talk</sub> 09:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, what does "successful" mean? And, for that matter what do "entertainer" or "of all time" mean? He died fairly young and lived what was in many ways a miserable life. That's not real success. He did make a lot of money, but he didn't even fulfil all his professional ambitions: e.g., his acting career never amounted to much, even though he was clearly interested in branching out into the movie business. I guess he was extraordinarily successful but there are other entertainers who have been even more successful: was he really more "successful" than Frank Sinatra? Bob Hope? Elvis Presley? The Beatles? Madonna? Richard Wagner? Enrico Caruso? Mozart? Ronald Reagan? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Life and career section

This section needs to be renamed to "Biography" and split into two sub sections: Career and Personal life (See example). What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

His career and his personal life are one and the same. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph needs punctuation, grammar and capitalization fixes

The third paragraph contains some run-on sentences and clauses that need to be separated by commas, among other minor grammar fixes. I'd like to make those changes if that's OK. Marketstel (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sales of CDs and DVDs

I noticed a reference to sales of CDs during the "Thriller" era. The CD was invented in the early 1980s and didn't become a mass-market item until the last half of the decade. The vinyl LP was the standard format until the music industry deliberately killed it off around 1989. During Jackson's heyday, he would have been selling unprecedented numbers of cassettes and vinyl LP's, along with just a very few CD's. The DVD didn't come along until the 1990s, so any home videos sold during the 1980s would be videocassettes. Right now, digital downloads are the standard medium for recorded audio: CDs are just part of the massive sales of his recordings since he died. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.168.201.66, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

1. note around #207 his influences should also definitely include ray charles and sam cooke and probaby jackie wilson.
2. it should probably be noted that Jordan Chandler held a press conference after Jacksons' death sayuing that no sexual abuse ever took place.

209.168.201.66 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 On hold Do you have a reliable source which confirms this? If you do please re-add the request template while adding the sources you found as well. Excirial <sup>(Contact me,Contribs)</sup> 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the allegations involved more kids than just Jordan Chandler. It is possible, sad to say, that Chandler himself was not molested--- but for whatever reason, he repeated things he had heard from or seen being done to other boys. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Timothy, can you give a link to your tabloid sources for that? Thanks!

grammy awards

According to the page of list of awards received by michael jackson which is a wikipedia page, Michael Jackson has received 17 grammy awrds as of 2010,NOT 15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.204.148 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New Jack Swing

There used to be two references to Dangerous as the best selling new jack swing album of all time. The big problem, in my view, with those references is that the Dangerous album is very much of a piece with Jackson's earlier and later work: it is in the same Pop/R&B groove as his other seven or so albums. Another problem is that new jack swing is not a genre in its own right: it is just a label for a movement which producer Teddy Riley happened to be a leader of. Riley's collaboration with Jackson on this album wouldn't make it "new jack swing" any more than the prominent presence of Slash makes the album a "hair metal" album. I left one reference in, but I toned it down. I deleted the other reference, which was in the introduction. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

I would like to request support that the main picture be updated or varied more regularly. It just seems the website is being slightly naive in only showing Jackson in his prime for the main photo, or dare i say when he was 'black.' I understand that perhaps a photo of the Jackson's days or earlier may not be completely appropriate, but photos from say 1987-2009.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been a while since we had a debate about the infobox image, although there is a huge amount about this in the talk page archive. The main limitation is WP:NFCC, since the image in the infobox needs to be free. This has limited the range considerably, and there has been a consensus that of the pictures available, the 1984 one works best in the infobox. This is partly because it shows him at the height of his career with his trademark white glove. None of the free images from the later part of his career has obtained a consensus for use in the infobox, so it looks like we are stuck with the 1984 image unless someone provides one that forms a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 11:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Instruments

He did play multible intruments, look it up.--Louis Taylor (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Going for Featured Article of the Day?

I know its still a while off, but I'm just dropping a line here because it was mentioned over Today's featured article requests that this article might be eying June 25 for a FAotD request. Had anyone thought about doing this? I might think August 29th would also be appropriate, but I'm wondering because I might nominate a different article if this one wasn't going to be suggested.-- Patrick {<sub>o</sub>Ѻ<sup>∞</sup>} 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see MJ as TFA for June 25, so I'll probably nominate it near the beginning of June. Pyrrhus16 17:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Before this article is nominated for TFA I think that this article is going to need some work. There are unsourced statements, multiple images need alt text, the prose needs some tweaking, multiple references need to be {{cite web}}-formatted and there are multiple dead links in the article, these issues should be addressed before nominating the article - just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The biographical section is not too bad, but the timeline of his life needs to be straightened out some more. The events usually make more sense when they are told in chronological order. I don't know if the sections about the scandals will ever settle down into an encyclopedic form. For one thing, there is still a lot we don't know; and for another, some people think the problem was that he was an innocent victim of the tabloids and Tom Sneddon, whereas other people think he actually did some or even most of the bizarre things he was accused of. (I am in the second camp.) In any case, the part after the biographical section is much too long: most of that material can be deleted or moved to other articles. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What does what you just said have to do with the article being nominated for a TFA? Crystal Clear x3 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Timothy doesn't get Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.172.30 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever that means, but there have already been enough changes to this article to make it no longer qualify as a Featured article, and a great deal of work needs to be done to sort out the changes since his death. It would be perhaps fitting to have it brought back to meet the criteria in order to have on the Main page on the anniversary of his death; but that would mean trimming extraneous and poorly-sourced detail, and concentrating on updating the article from what it was a year ago, without dwelling on hype and fan nonsense. Rodhullandemu 22:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It means it was regarding Timothy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.172.30 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only way forward for this article is to go backwards, in that it should be reverted to how it was before Jackson died, but with the necessary tweaks to reflect him having passed away. If this was taken to WP:FAR (which is likely if it stays in its current state), then that is exactly would they would be telling us to do. The article was around 112,000 bytes before June 25, and has now grown to 172,000 bytes. Elvis Presley's article had a tough time at FAC for being around this size, and Douglas MacArthur's article is currently getting a tough time at FAC for similar issues. There is no excuse for the Michael Jackson article to be so large, when there are articles such as The Jackson 5 (an early life-type article), as well as subarticles for his albums, songs, relationships, appearance/health, child abuse accusations, death, awards and records/achievements. If there are no major objections, I could restore it (slowly and section-by-section) back to what it was, while making minor tweaks at the same time. If we're lucky, the process could be completed by June 25. Pyrrhus16 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Big mistake

Hello, there is a BIG mistake in the section "Second child sexual abuse allegations (2003–05)", you said:

"During the two years between the charges and the trial, Jackson reportedly became dependent on pethidine (Demerol), and lost a lot of weight."

There ir NO proof about he became dependent on Demerol in that period of time, I don´t know where you read that lie, maybe in a magazine or tabloid, but that is not a proof is just a RUMOR, so it is disrespectful and a LIE. Everybody knows he wasn´t dependent on Demerol at that time, including the fact that we knew it we have no proof about neather, so lets no put anything that can be a totally lie please.

Thank you so much. Hugs. --Gfreedoms (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why it says "reportedly". It may or may not be true that he was dependent on Demerol; it's true that it was reported that he was dependent on Demerol. – iridescent 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "reportedly" a bit of a WP:WEASEL word, particularly when it involves MJ? After all, he "reportedly" converted to Islam etc.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the statement is unsourced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing that it was alleged is hardly difficult. Whether it warrants mention this early on is debatable. – iridescent 10:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if MJ was given Demerol by his dermatologist Arnold Klein, the claims that he was addicted to it come largely from friends, not really a WP:RS. The question of prescription drug misuse applies more to Propofol, which would be a major issue at any trial of Conrad Murray.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We can´t add every "reportedly" rumor about MJ in here, it would be a disaster. is better to concentrate on the facts--Gfreedoms (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Instruments

In the credits for the History Album, MJ's name is listed under Percussion and Guitar. In the Invincible Album, various instruments are placed next to his name. In the thriller album, drums are placed next to his name. I think percussion and guitar should be added under instruments.

This has been the subject of much previous discussion, and I don't think we ever came up with a definitive answer one way or the other - sometimes "instruments" are listed in the infobox, sometimes they're not. My personal view is that they should be left out, and the infobox should reflect the fact that he was primarily a vocalist only, and is not notable as a player of instruments. Of course some of his album credits list him as contributing some guitar and drums, but that is somewhat misleading - he was not a "multi-instrumentalist" in the sense that Prince and Paul McCartney are and he could never have made an album by himself as they have.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Birth order

Michael Jackson Was The 8th Of 10 Children,Please Go Back And Correct This Information.67.162.29.162 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You can correct it yourself. The article is about Joe and Katherine Jackson's children, and Joe is rumored to have at least one child by a different mother. If you mean her, she doesn't count because (amongst other reasons) she wasn't Katherine's daughter. There is also Marlon's twin who was stillborn, who did have a name: Brandon. I suppose he does count. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOO Michael Jackson was the 7th of 9 children. He had a brother that died at birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.218.171 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Communication

It's essential, folks. I've made consistent use of edit summaries to explain (piecemeal) why I think the version on the right is better than the version on the left. Same thing goes for here. Two editors have taken it upon themselves to revert me. Neither has explained. I cannot read minds on here any more than I can use a crystal ball. Please, make use of edit summaries, or of this handly-dandy little talk page section that I've just created for you. Thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian efforts

Shouldn't there be a seperate section re Michael's humanitarian/charitable contributions? Esp in reference to Guiniess mention. Thanks Daberi (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)dana

The number of Michael Jacksons Grammy awards

According to the page for list of Michael Jacksons awards ,he has one 19 grammy awards ;NOT 15.Could someone correct it ,PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.207.192 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scream video

I made some changes to the first mention of the "Scream" video. I downplayed the anti-media angle. The lyrics are not really specifically directed at the media per se. Also, Jackson's big problem wasn't the media coverage of his often bizarre and self-destructive behavior, even though some of the coverage was exaggerrated. The behavior itself was his big problem. After you go back and look at the video, the comment "The song and its accompanying video are a response to the backlash Jackson received from the media after being accused of child molestation in 1993" (which I left in the article) seems a little odd. He engaged in some rather suggestive dancing with a performer (Janet Jackson), who was an adult, but who also just happened to be his kid sister. Implied incest in a music video doesn't seem like a very convincing means of refuting allegations of pedophilia. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In what part of the video does Jackson engage in "suggestive dancing" that implies incest? Pyrrhus16 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We have been having to fix this editors additions to this article for years!! I have restored the page to a former version ..we will have to make sure its all ok!Moxy (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Isn't the intro far too long? (92.4.118.70 (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes. I've been trimming it every now and then, but it tends to regrow quite rapidly. Some more pruning is probably warranted, although its effect might not last for very long. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New additions which will improve page substantially

Please make the following changes and additions to the article.

State that:

1) Michael Jackson is referred to as the King of the Music Video, too. 2) He is the most successful African-American recording artist in the history of music. 3) He holds more records and achievements than any other recording artist in the history of music. 4) He has raised more for charity than any other person in the history of show business.

Please add more images - the current ones are very bad! Keep the first main image as the main image, but also add the following:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/media/multimedia/2009/06/25/media/MichaelJacksonYoung_t_w300_h600.jpg http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/84843405.jpg http://live.drjays.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/michael_jackson.jpg http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/b/7/e/5/Michael_Jackson_performing_f47e.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SkTuEnRa4HI/AAAAAAAACr4/pfyvOKh5XAc/s400/michael-jackson_performing.jpg http://passitonsv.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/smooth-criminal.jpg http://www.cine-electric.ie/img_library/news/thriller.jpg http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/07/michael_jackson_and_quincy_jones_at_the_grammys_in_1116397641.JPG http://ladjevic.com/dusan/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/48669857-michael_jackson_news.jpg - TO REPLACE THE CURRENT "THE WAY YOU MAKE ME FEEL" PICTURE!!! http://www.epiphanyedu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/MJ.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bYcSLHBKSLI/SkT32HHKZAI/AAAAAAAAARI/4M3MhBehrlg/s400/z+jackson.jpg http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/images/stories/mjandpaul.jpg http://www.michael-jackson-lovers.com/images/Michael-Jackson-Diana.jpg http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ncassley/2006/04/19/aa_billiejean_live5.jpg

And please update the video of the moonwalk to the one he did in Bucharest, because he hated the original Motown 25 moonwalk...

Please remove the image showing how the "Smooth Criminal" lean is performed, it ruins the legacy and illusion...

Finally, please ensure clips of all the following hits are on his page.

Billie Jean Bad Smooth Criminal Thriller Black Or White Beat It Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' Don't Stop Til' You Get Enough The Way You Make Me Feel Rock With You You Are Not Alone Man In The Mirror Earth Song Human Nature Heal The World Dirty Diana I Just Can't Stop Loving You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfryett (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rofl. Klow (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

inatruments

how do we know what instruments jackson could play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.77.1 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC) He played Piano in a pepsi advert and in the album credits he played a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.73.15 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop Singer Michael Jackson

In The Infobox For Age Of Death It Should Be (age 50),Also He Was An Author Having Written Three Books: Moonwalk (1988),Dancing The Dream: Poems And Reflections (1992),And My World: The Offical, Vol. 1 (2006).67.162.29.162 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make the following changes and additions to the article.

State that:

1) Michael Jackson is referred to as the King of the Music Video, too. 2) He is the most successful African-American recording artist in the history of music. 3) He holds more records and achievements than any other recording artist in the history of music. 4) He has raised more for charity than any other person in the history of show business.

Please add more images - the current ones are very bad! Keep the first main image as the main image, but also add the following:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/media/multimedia/2009/06/25/media/MichaelJacksonYoung_t_w300_h600.jpg http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/84843405.jpg http://live.drjays.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/michael_jackson.jpg http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/b/7/e/5/Michael_Jackson_performing_f47e.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SkTuEnRa4HI/AAAAAAAACr4/pfyvOKh5XAc/s400/michael-jackson_performing.jpg http://passitonsv.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/smooth-criminal.jpg http://www.cine-electric.ie/img_library/news/thriller.jpg http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/07/michael_jackson_and_quincy_jones_at_the_grammys_in_1116397641.JPG http://ladjevic.com/dusan/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/48669857-michael_jackson_news.jpg - TO REPLACE THE CURRENT "THE WAY YOU MAKE ME FEEL" PICTURE!!! http://www.epiphanyedu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/MJ.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bYcSLHBKSLI/SkT32HHKZAI/AAAAAAAAARI/4M3MhBehrlg/s400/z+jackson.jpg http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/images/stories/mjandpaul.jpg http://www.michael-jackson-lovers.com/images/Michael-Jackson-Diana.jpg http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ncassley/2006/04/19/aa_billiejean_live5.jpg

And please update the video of the moonwalk to the one he did in Bucharest, because he hated the original Motown 25 moonwalk...

Please remove the image showing how the "Smooth Criminal" lean is performed, it ruins the legacy and illusion...

Finally, please ensure clips of all the following hits are on his page.

Billie Jean; Bad; Smooth Criminal; Thriller; Black Or White; Beat It; Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'; Don't Stop Til' You Get Enough; The Way You Make Me Feel; Rock With You; You Are Not Alone; Man In The Mirror; Earth Song; Human Nature; Heal The World; Dirty Diana; I Just Can't Stop Loving You—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfryett (talk • contribs)

For 1-4 you will need to provide reliable sources. I doubt whether any of those images and the video can be used as they are almost certainly copyright and would not comply with WP:NFCC. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First - "Thank you" for taking the time to comment on the article, we will review as to there merit of there inclusion.

Point by point view by Moxy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• 1) Michael Jackson is referred to as the King of the Music Video - This is used in some blogs , but this statement is not found in mainstream news [41]

• 2) He is the most successful African-American recording artist in the history of music. - this sounds right - but we need a references...If i am not wrong only the Beatles and Evils have sole more.
• 3) He holds more records and achievements than any other recording artist in the history of music. - this sounds like it could right - but we need a references...
• 4) He has raised more for charity than any other person in the history of show business. - again sounds plausible but i can only find this statement in blogs.

• Please add more images --- This is something we would all love, However we have copy right issues that must be adhered to See : Wikipedia:Images..

• please update the video of the moonwalk to the one he did in Bucharest, because he hated the original Motown 25 moonwalk... - This might be possible we will have to look into copy right etc...

• Please remove the image showing how the "Smooth Criminal" lean is performed, it ruins the legacy and illusion... This is not realy possible, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not censor information.

• Finally, please ensure clips of all the following hits are on his page...... ...This might be possible, but requires lots of work,,, and i would assume that this is on everyone's TO DO list......

The article is already pushing fair use guidelines by having more then one audio sample. The sample is to get an idea of the sound of the musician, not his individual pieces. Those belong on the respective song article pages. SpigotMap 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i though that is what the editor meant..i hope he was no suggesting all that on the main pageMoxy (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammys

I made some changes in regard to the grammy he has won. He won 13, not 15. His lifetime achievement award and legend award are special non-competitive awards that are presented by the recording academy. The Grammy winners search shows 13 grammys that he has won. Those special award he has received are in a way considered to be separate from grammys he has won. --Alextwa (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro is far too long

The introduction is far too long, it should be no more than two paragraphs. Everything else belongs in the article itself. (92.4.173.160 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

The intro is to prepare you for the rest of the article, so the rest of the intro is supposed to be there. Guy546<sup>(Talk)</sup> 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will go ahead and restore it to its former length. People have been coming and adding every factoid to the lead/article when it is not necessary. Pyrrhus16 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as improvements to the lead are being reverted, it looks like I'll have to bring it up here. As has been noted, the lead is far too long. It is also oversourced. Information should be sourced in the body of the article, and no facts should be in the lead that aren't in the article body. Additionally, the lead is overlinked. Who doesn't know what an American is? Or what an actor, or a singer, or a dancer, or a poet is? Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is linked twice, as is music video. Songs are in italics when they should not be. There are also further MOS breaches. There is original research and peacock terms ("groundbreaking", "unrivaled contribution", etc), spelling errors and grammar errors. There is undue weight on certain details: "Referred to as the King of Pop or shortened form 'the King'". He is not frequently referred to as "The King". This is nonsense. Just because he may have been called something a few times by a few people, doesn't mean it should be mentioned, especially not in the lead. Too many facts are crammed into the lead, and should be mentioned in the body of the article, or even the subpages to which the information is relevant. Furthermore, there was no consensus for this bloated lead. It appears that people can add whatever fact they want to the article, but to remove one you have to take it up with every Tom, Dick and Harry that wanders by. The article is way over the recommended size guidelines; it is around 166,000 bytes. When I removed the bloat, overlinking and oversourcing from the lead, it reduced the article size by 5,000 bytes. Prior to Jackson's death, the article was around 112,000 bytes. It is absolutely ridiculous that this article is the size it is now, and even more ridiculous that individuals are trying to hinder the progress and restoration of this article. As there was no consensus for this bloated lead and there has been longstanding consenus for the succinct lead, I consider restoration of the overlong, oversourced, original research-filled, error-ridden and POV lead to be major disruption. Pyrrhus16 18:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything Pyrrhus16 has said. Hardly anyone wants to take the time to discuss the issues, but these same editors are the first to jump to reverting any type of rewriting done anywhere in the article as it doesn't meet their taste of POV. It's a shame that the article has gone to hell and seems unlikely to ever return back to a stable, well-written piece. — ξ<sup>xplicit</sup> 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with what Pyrrhus16 said, the lead is suppose to generally summarize the article without going into too much detail. Crystal Clear x3 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet, another revert. Boo. — ξ<sup>xplicit</sup> 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To the anon IP, it's not true that the lead should only be two paragraphs. WP:LEAD says, "no more than four", so for an article of this length, four is fine. That said, it does seem to have deteriorated rather since the article was promoted to FA. Look back at that version, which was much more succinct. We could use that as the basis for an updated version.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should be no more than two paragraphs though. Jackson was only a singer, he wasn't Napoleon. (92.10.127.145 (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Your personal opinion of the subject's importance is completely irrelevant; the size of the lead should reflect the size and scope of the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs should be no more than four paragraphs so to say that an artists accomplishments should be thrown out the window thats not right. There are other articles here on wikipedia with even longer paragraphs and in the lead. Michael Jackson is listed as the most successful entertainer of all time. To provide the information that backs that up isn't wrong its just the facts. I have been on this editing this Michael Jackson page religiously for a while now. The lead-paragraphs has always been the way it is now. You just dont go and change up the whole lead like that have some respect people.Knighttrain (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of his main accomplishments are listed in the restored lead. We don't have to mention all of his accomplishments. The consensus has been for the succinct lead, and per the discussion above, it appears still to be the consensus. It does not matter what other crap exists, we are discussing this article. There was no discussion for the addition of the statements in the lead, nor was there discussion for the expansion of the lead. Tidal waves of people have wandered by to add their favourite fact to the lead, when is not necessary. The succinct lead establishes Jackson's notability as one of the most influential and highest-selling entertainers of all time. We do not need to cram every achievement in to establish that. And, no, the lead paragraphs have not always been like that. The lead should remain similar to way it was when it passed FA, unless there is a consensus for change, which there is not. That version was established through long discussions with various experienced editors and reviewers. It does not matter how long the lead has looked like crap for; it should be based on the consensus that was established then. If you do not like it, bring up here. Edit-warring against consensus, while restoring errors and POV to the lead, is not looked highly upon. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Pyrrhus16 its funny on your talk page you said that you're a fan of Michael Jackson. yet according to your rants its seems otherwise. Your judgement can't be based on being biased. Also the article says Michael is called the King as a shortented form as the king of pop not the king of music. All information provided is within the guidlines of wikipedia in terms of paragraphs and valid sources. You may not like it but its the facts.Knighttrain (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a fan. It does not mean that I have to blindly stick my head up his backside and turn his article into a hagiography. And he is not frequently called 'The King'. It does not matter what it is shortened for, it is still plain garbage. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"The King" should not be mentioned at all because it was just a made up meaningless title. Also the last bit about after his death should be removed. (92.12.203.150 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Prrrhus16 Its evident that you're biased in your facts. The lead that you have placed on the Michael Jackson page has some incorrect information ,you keep replacing the lead thats borderline vandalism. Not only that but as other on here have stated everything on the Michael Jackson page is within the Wikipedia guidelines. So i suggest you get all your info straight before you start sending me messages. Also dont be a sock-puppet by writing from your ip. Please don't disrupt the pageHubbletelescope2 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is biased here, it is you with your fangirl agenda. What information is incorrect in the lead that was restored? Who else has said that this lead is within the guidelines? Anyone that does, obviously hasn't read the guidelines. The lead is filled with MOS breaches, original research, undue weight and POV. There was no consensus for the lead that you added. You are edit-warring against an established consensus. The succinct lead was worded after discussions with experienced editors at this talk page, peer review and FAC on numerous occasions. But it's too neutral for you, is it? I suggest that you get your information straight and read-up before leaving messages on people's talk pages and lying to administrators about "vandalism". Also, the IPs are totally unrelated to me. They are not even in the same country! Pyrrhus16 18:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is in essence the most accomplished artists in the history of music, I think that his accomplishments has to be included in the lead paragraphs. I may be a bit longer than most lead bio but again thats because he accomplished more.As long as whats written follows the Wikipedia guidelines then whats the problem. Also about him being called king, if credible sources says so then it has to be added . Its not about our opinions its about facts.There are many countries around the world that calls him King. Look im not the biggest music fan im more into Extraterrestrial life. But where credit is due, you gotta give it.Jonstewartwiki (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That you are more into extraterrestrial life is obvious, as you appear to me to be writing from another planet. It has been clearly spelled out as to why the lead does not meet the guidelines. I'll repeat it again: the lead is too long and bloated, it is filled with MOS breaches, original research, undue weight and POV. We do not need every achievement listed in the lead. The main ones are listed, and the rest should remain in the article body or relevant sub-articles. And, again, he is not widely referred to as 'The King'. 'The King of Pop', yes, but not solely 'The King'. Pyrrhus16 18:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only ever heard people refer to him as Wacko Jacko. (92.1.76.140 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

I tried to make some edits to the lede: I tried to minmize the weasel words and just tried to make it flow better. They have been undone both times. If someone feels like explaining why my edits were worse than the original, this is the place to do that.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I took out only two pieces of info. First, I took out the posthumous recording contract. Secondly, the part about MTV: yes he did come along just as MTV was being integrated and just as it became a mass culture phenomenon. But his videos were played elsewhere, and there weren't enough of them to fill up the whole programming schedule. At the time, his whole body of video work was less than an hour long in total. He was not the only brown face on the channel in the early 1980s: Prince was on there too, along with now-obscure acts such as Shalimar, The Specials and The English Beat. (The last two acts I mentioned were multiracial New Wave bands.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to remove references to MTV, as they are discussed extensively in the "Music videos and choreography" section. The lead must adequately summarize the article as a whole.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I still see a few statements in the lede which lack superlatives such as "unrivaled," "greatest," "undisputed," etc. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are being satirical, which I may have missed, I'd refer editors generally to this and this. Rodhullandemu 22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.215.155.82, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} <the hieght of Michael Jackson should also be added. The quality of moonwalk video is too bad and the intro is not too long. some more song samples should be added> 180.215.155.82 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use the {{editsemiprotected}} template only for specific changes to the article, not general requests for improvements. Algebraist 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

In The Infobox Next To His Date Of Death, It Should Read (age 50).67.162.29.162 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of $1 billion earnings since death

This source is claiming that Jackson's estate has earned $1 billion since his death. I would advise edits strongly NOT to use this source in the article because it is littered with factual inaccuracies. For example, it claims that in 2008, Jackson sold just 10,000 albums. This is obviously totally false given the overwhelming evidence from Billboard and worldwide sales monitors that Thriller 25 did exceptionally well, selling 144,000 copies in the US in it's first week. If this $1 billion claim goes big, which I'm sure Sony will try to push it, we need sources with authority please. Thanks all. — R<sup>2</sup> 11:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks to the lead

• Seminal masterpiece: First of all, IMHO, the lead looks fabulous compared to what I was dealing with several weeks ago. Nice work. At the moment, my only suggestion would be to bring the term "masterpiece" (as in, "His album Thriller (1982) is considered a seminal masterpiece") into somewhat greater focus. The word "seminal" doesn't quite do the trick, given that most masterpieces are seminal (i.e., original, influential, and important), and that most seminal things are masterpieces. Then again, the lead shouldn't say too much, and I certainly don't want to fill it back up to the point of overflow. May I suggest simply changing "seminal" to something ever-so-slightly more specific, such as "musical", or even "aesthetic"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • On second thought, just "masterpiece" (sans "seminal") might suffice, considering that we already know it's a work of music/art, and can therefore infer that it's being ranked among works of music/art. I guess my point is that "seminal masterpiece" just seems a little OTT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Most awarded recording artist: I suppose I have a nitpicky issue with, "Jackson won hundreds of awards, which have made him the most awarded recording artist in the history of music". This statement is Verifiable (with a capital WP:V). However, because the source (I'm looking at this one) doesn't specify the criteria by which it made this determination (I presume it did not rely upon an impossibly exhaustive pairing of every single recording artist ever to live with every single award ever to be given), the source does not entirely disclose the technical nature of what it's verifying. There is no ambiguity, however, that Jackson is verifiably being acknowledged as the most-awarded recording artist ever. So, I might tweak the wording to say something like, "Jackson won hundreds of awards, which have earned him earning recognition as the most-awarded recording artist in the history of music". I suppose that this suggestion isn't a big deal--except, that is, from a copy-editing standpoint, which is the standpoint that I now feel comfortable taking with regard to an otherwise awesome lead. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Death: I would change, "Jackson died on June 25, 2009 after suffering cardiac arrest, and had been preparing for a series of concerts entitled This Is It" to, "Jackson died on June 25, 2009, amidst preparations for a series of concerts entitled This Is It." I'm pretty sure that the "amidst preparations" wording was in earlier revisions of the article, and I'm not sure why "and had been preparing" is preferable to it--the new wording strikes me as relatively monotonous. And cardiac arrest, while part of the chronology of events and a key feature in the reporting of his death, is beside any point that the lead needs to make. Jackson died from a drug overdose. Cardiac arrest, per se, is more or less irrelevant to the criminal investigation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Few: The lead currently says, "Jackson is one of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice." Frankly, I'm not exactly sure why this is being singled out from "his other achievements" for primary mention: Jackson shares this particular honor with 15 other individuals. Well, maybe this achievement should be separated from the ones that belong to Jackson and to Jackson alone. I don't know. But I do know that "few" is a weasel word, and is the sort of item for which Template:Quantify exists. Why not simply specify "16"? Perhaps the point is that Jackson is one of relatively few. If so, then I'd think that "relatively few" might (might) suffice for succinct, lead-style wording. On a related note, I would also replace "twice" with "more than once". Two is not an intrinsically magical number; the idea is rather that Jackson (not unlike Clapton, who was inducted thrice) was inducted on multiple occasions. So, how about, "Jackson is one of relatively few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame more than once"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Distinctive musical sound: What is that, exactly? There's a sentence, "His distinctive musical sound and vocal style have influenced hip hop, pop, contemporary R&B and rock artists." However, although Michael Jackson#Vocal style summarizes his vocal style pretty well, Michael Jackson#Musical themes and genres suggests that he had a whole bunch of "musical sounds" (consider, e.g., the extreme contrasts between the two songs on "Scream/Childhood"). I don't really know what I'd do with this line, because I'm not completely sure what it's supposed to mean. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Opening line: To "American recording artist, entertainer, and philanthropist", I would add, "and poet". Since Jackson's poetry has a Wikipedia article, it is assumed to pass WP:N. And if Jackson's poetry is notable, then Jackson is notable as a poet, and he should be identified as such. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. It also might be a good idea to refer to him as an inventor. I'm on the fence about this one, however. On the one hand, he has only one patent in his name, and thus wouldn't exactly meet the USPTO's conception of a prolific inventor. On the other hand, as this source points out, Jackson's patent is a unique and important component of his massive wealth of intellectual property. Besides, nobody would deny that Jackson was an artistic innovator. Although "innovator" could sound wishy-washy for an opening-line description, "inventor" might convey--with proper formality--that Jackson stands out for his originality. I dunno. I'd definitely add "poet", though. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • P.P.S. Actually, since Jackson's autobiography also has a WP page, I might opt for a more general "author" instead of the relatively specific "poet" for the lead. In any case, the opening line's omission of a writing-related descriptor does seem glaring. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Transformation: The current version says that Jackson is "credited with transforming the music video into an art form and a promotional tool". Earlier revisions stated that he transformed the music video from a promotional tool, into an art form. Which is it? And, if he didn't transform music videos from A to B, but rather transformed them to both A and B, then what did he transform them from in the first place? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Organization: The structure of the lead was not bad at all, but I've attempted to make it even more solid. Feel free to check it out and see what you think. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Linked articles: The lead includes links to both Records and achievements of Michael Jackson and List of awards received by Michael Jackson. So far, so good. But I wonder if the two aforementioned articles should be merged? Obviously, I'm not currently exerting any special effort to create a big, bad "merge discussion"; I'm just offering some food for thought, in case anyone happens to find it appetizing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Concluding sentence: At the moment, we have, "In March 2010, Sony Music Entertainment signed a US$250 million deal with Jackson's estate to retain distribution rights to his recordings until 2017, and to release seven posthumous albums over the decade following his death." I would keep the bit about the posthumous albums, but remove the stuff about distribution rights. It strikes me as... shall we say, anticlimatic? Here we have this towering cultural figure, and then he's suddenly no longer with us. So quite naturally, the reader wants to know, "What's next?!" Is that really the most fitting time to bring Sony's business arrangements to the fore? I'd still mention Sony, but only as long as the focus remains on Jackson or his work. We might therefore opt for something like, "As part of a deal that Sony Music Entertainment signed with Jackson's estate in March 2010, Sony will be able to release seven posthumous albums over the decade following Jackson's death." Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Most successful entertainer of all time: "Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time, as well as one of the most influential." anyone? Ravi12346 (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That one actually is verifiable: [42]. I think, though, that it was a bit clearer in earlier revisions that this distinction was coming from Guinness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If the editors of the Guinness Book of Records are the definitive authorities on success in the field of entetainment, I suppose he must be the most successful entertainer of all. But in many ways he was profoundly unsuccessful: his personal life was a catastrophe. Even if you look at it strictly from a artistic and commercial point of view, others have arguably been even more successful than Jackson: to name just one, his ex-father-in-law Elvis Presley. We can also see a few gaps and failures on his professional resume. For one thing, he released only one entirely new album in the last two decades of his life. (The HIStory albums were great, but they consisted largely of remixes.) For another, even though he wanted to be a movie star, his film career never went anywhere. (Even Elvis had a better film career.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Fashion: The first paragraph mentions a contribution to fashion. The remainder of the article does not say what this might be. The closest it seems to come is a line about Jackson "wearing a distinctive black sequin jacket and golf glove decorated with rhinestones". But to state that he chose some eccentric attire for himself is not really to illuminate his effects on fashion in the abstract or as a whole. I'm not denying whatsoever that he did, in fact, contribute to fashion. But unless and until the body of the article states that (and how) he did, the lead should not be hinting at it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There used to be a longish section on fashion, which got pruned at some point. It didn't say much of interest. The reference in the lede foreshadowed that now-deleted section. Frankly, aside from the sequined glove, which was a popular fad in the mid-1980s, and maybe his hairdos, Jackson never influenced fashion that much, even though he certainly had a unique style. His style was so unique, no one dared to copy it, especially after all that plastic surgery in his later years. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I'd like to propose changing...

A) Jackson's album Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. His other records, including Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995), also rank among the world's best-selling. Jackson is one of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice. His other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records; 13 Grammy Awards (as well as the Grammy Legend Award and the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award); 26 American Music Awards (more than any other artist, and including the "Artist of the Century" distinction); 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career (more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era); and the estimated sale of over 750 million records worldwide. Jackson won hundreds of awards, which have made him the most-awarded recording artist in the history of music.

to something like...

B) Jackson's album Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. His other records, including Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995), also rank among the world's best-selling. In addition, he had 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career, and he is estimated to have sold over 750 million records worldwide. Jackson won hundreds of awards, earning recognition as the most-awarded recording artist in the history of music. His other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records, 13 Grammy Awards, and 26 American Music Awards—including "Artist of the Century".

Either way, I still think that the lead is looking pretty sharp. But here's what I see as the advantages of my revision:

1. Cleanliness: Minimal parentheses = minimal distraction = maximum sentence flow = maximum ease of understanding. Basically, minimal mess = maximum Jackson. We don't want to make the reader dizzy, and we don't want to drown out Jackson's overall notability--which is what the lead needs to convey--with endless qualifications and statistics.
2. Organization: Record sales, awards. Bam, bam. A slightly more subtle effort at dizziness reduction.
3. Focus: It's all about Jackson. The revision omits the dual-hall-of-fame-induction--which, while certainly worthy of mention somewhere in the article, doesn't really serve to single Jackson out in the introduction. Let's face it, 16 people is not a "few". Relatively few, perhaps, but not so few as to distinguish Jackson as an individual.
4. Poignancy: I've used something of a "funnel" technique, which basically involves the following: "Blah, blah, blah, blah... BAM." A record sale here, an award there... Artist of the Century. A little recency effect, and you've got the reader wanting to continue, as well as remembering the most important parts of what they've already read.

Any thoughts? Comments? Questions? Criticisms? Suggestions? Fish? Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I see that a lot of the current paragraph's detail can already be found in Michael Jackson#Honors and awards. The lead would do well to anticipate the Honors and awards section, but serves little purpose in merely duplicating it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is far too long and needs to be trimmed a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.139.220 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I'm started to believe that, in addition to the third, the second paragraph remains too lengthy. It says too much about MTV. The key point of that paragraph is that Jackson made important contributions to two art forms: music videos and dance. Bam, bam. It's kind of redundant to say that he popularized music videos and popularized the main purveyor of music videos. Plus, the fact that he became "a staple on MTV" seems pretty superfluous, because such an accomplishment would not have mattered much if he had not made MTV the sort of thing that one could notably become a staple on in the first place. In other words, the phrasing makes MTV sound too independently important, considering that the paragraph has already indicated that MTV's success was largely dependent upon Jackson. So I would cut out the following:

"and the popularity of these videos helped to bring the relatively new television channel to fame. Videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" made him a staple on MTV in the 1990s"

...leaving us with:

"In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV. The music videos for his songs, such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean" and "Thriller", were credited with transforming the medium into an art form and a promotional tool. Jackson popularized a number of dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His work has influenced scores of artists in multiple genres, including hip hop, pop, contemporary R&B and rock."

Please pardon the replacement of "distinctive musical sound and vocal style" with "work". The reader can, I suspect, infer that his work has something to do with musical sound, even if the reader would have shared my confusion over what "his distinctive musical sound" is. And, I know, I removed "scores" in a prior edit, but I'm having trouble thinking of a better word for here. "Numerous" artists are already implicit in the mention of multiple genres. "Countless" flows kind of nicely, but of course its hyperbolic tone is not encyclopedic. Anyway, to summarize the proposed revision: Jackson influenced music videos, dance, and subsequent music in various genres. Bam, bam, bam, I guess. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If my versions of the second and third paragraphs sound good, they might even be combined into a single "achievements" paragraph...

In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV. The music videos for his songs, such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean" and "Thriller", were credited with transforming the medium into an art form and a promotional tool. Jackson popularized a number of dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His work has influenced scores of artists in multiple genres, including hip hop, pop, contemporary R&B and rock. Jackson's album Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. His other records, including Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995), also rank among the world's best-selling. In addition, he had 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career, and he is estimated to have sold over 750 million records worldwide. Jackson won hundreds of awards, earning recognition as the most-awarded recording artist in the history of music. His other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records, 13 Grammy Awards, and 26 American Music Awards—including "Artist of the Century".

...tightening the lead into three paragraphs: A) introduction; B) achievements; C. etc. (in this case, controversy and death). (Although, on further reflection, I might move, "His work has influenced scores of artists in multiple genres, including hip hop, pop, contemporary R&B and rock" to either the very beginning or the very end of paragraph B.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1993 Super Bowl show

I don't know if we really need to go into that much detail on the 1993 Super Bowl halftime show. The section said he stood motionless for "several minutes": there are many copies of the show on YouTube, etc. which show he stood motionless for about 90 seconds: a long time but much shorter than "several minutes." I changed that particular piece of data, though it might creep back in. I left in a reference to him catapulting onto the stage; however what actually happened is that he hid beneath the stage while two impersonators appeared on top of two of the Rose Bowl's three scoreboards, and then he jumped up onto the stage through a trap door. No catapults were involved, although he apparently had some mechanical assistance. I don't know how much detail we need in the main article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)