Talk:Thriller (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article overall & problems

Has something changed on this page? the article is sloppy and has a very biased tone to it. I have added {{Fact}} tags in several places. Do not add info if you cannot source it. Problems: in regards to sales, it doesn't matter what either side said, sales have been recorded by Guinness world records who gave Michael a certificate to state that the album had sold over 104 million copies. 25th edition release- all this information is from FOX which is a confusing source. Akon, Kanye and Will I am have continually confirmed they are working on NEW tracks with Jackson, not remixed tracks as stated on FOX. Please remove.Marnifrances 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sales

The sales table listed on this page adds up to just under 46 million copies of Thriller. Not forgetting, these are shipments, not over-the-counter sales. Therefore, the 104 million sales figure should be removed. I say it's definetely done at least 40 million over-the-counter.

What's there is incomplete and a bare minimum, but anyway we're not here to decide what should go there. Guiness is reporting 104 million (54 million in USA) and Guinness is a very reliable source, so that's the number that's going in.UberCryxic 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Guinness might be a reliable source, but the citation goes to MTV.co.uk and gives us the "104 million" quote from Jackson's own mouth. Find a better source. Adding in almost 60 million copies out of nowhere is ridiculous. I think the 104 figure should remain, if only to show how delusional Jackson is, but the section should also briefly mention the other, MORE reliable figure. Guinness is indeed ONE reliable source (if they indeed are a source--cite THEM if so, not MTV!), but MANY OTHER reliable sources all agree on the 45-46ish figure. Don't worry, people, it's still the best-selling album of all-time, and one of the best quality-wise as well (though it's obvious that aspect of it doesn't matter to a lot of fans :( ).78.86.140.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The soundtrack for West Side Story is widely known to hold the record for most weeks at #1 (54).. so the "fact" about Thriller needs to be changed. 76.22.201.109 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

hold up - "54 million in USA"? Did Guinness just double the verifiable estimate or something? The album is 27 times platinum here, so Guinness reports twice that? Believe me, if Thriller had sold another 27 mil domestically then the RIAA cert would have been long since updated.

Somebody needs to get to the bottom of this "104 million" figure, because it's at least 40 MILLION higher than anything that had been reported before Guinness awarded that damn plaque, and with the 25th anniversary edition of the album it's being reported as fact. Look, "Thriller" is one of my favorite albums, but I don't think wildly misreported sales figures are any way to honor its legacy. And if the 104 million figure somehow turns out to be correct, it would be nice to know something - anything - about how it was calculated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Song writer

Does Michael Jackson really write his songs on his own, as he states f.e. in the Bashir interview, or does he let other do that job? Thanks, --Abdull 15:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe... if his name was Rod Temperton or Quincy Jones... - AJ

Michael Jackson writes alot of his own music. On the Thriller album, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", "The Girl Is Mine", "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" were written by Michael Jackson. Most of the other 5 songs on the album are written by Rod Temperton (who also wrote a good part of Jackson's Off The Wall album). Street walker 10:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

anyone got any rare demos they wanna trade, add me, mjdemosunreleased@hotmail.com

and yes michael wrote most of his music himself from Bad onwards

"Sampling"

There's a section on songs that "sample" Thriller, and it says this:

"Beat It" was sampled by musician "Weird Al" Yankovic for his 1984 parody-hit "Eat It"

I think this is misleading. "Sampling" means that they took a clip from the song and stuck it into their own recording, which they didn't do (it was an entirely new recording). This makes me wonder how many of the other songs listed actually "sample" the original song or just use the same riff. I think the section may need to be reworded. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

re-recording the riff, or using the record to get the riff are both considerd samples. 74.65.39.59 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was this section removed? I put a lot of work into it!

It may need to be considered as a "parody" or possibly a remake.

Why not add lyrics?

Why don't we add lyrics to song article's..... especially if we are willing to add all these chart trajectories to album articles? 68.33.137.201 03:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the song lyrics are owned by their respective publishers, so in essence we'd need to have copyright permission - Ashadeofgrey 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. the reason I question it is because I see lyrics all the time on different web pages and they don't seem to have any special "permission" from the author, so why can't we? Scifiintel 23:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I wonder about that too, so many lyrics sites are out there and it makes you wonder why they don't get shut down. Rogerthat ^Talk 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Content

this page has text stolen from http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/thriller.htm

Indeed. Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed all but the first sentence, if anyone thinks it needs more than that, make sure you don't copyviolate. yandman 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sales data

Comment stating that RIAA is 27x platinum, and that with Music Club and Soundscan sales this is now 30m. This is a false statement. RIAA deals in shipped copies, SoundScan and Music Club deal in over the counter sales. If 27m were shipped, 30m cannot be sold. The next most used argument is that the the album sold back in 1982, but also not the case. Shipments have been progressive, and the 27th Platinum award was in April 2005. Also for Music Club sales (remembering these have been accounted for in RIAA certifications so not additional), Thriller has sold less than 1 million in the past 14 years [1]. I am therefore removing this comment. 60.234.242.196 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

why the reference to Zappa's "Who needs the peace corps"? the two songs (MJ's & FZ's) don't have anything in common. maybe you're thinking of some other Zappa song? the "peace corps" song is about San Francisco - "every town must have a place where phoney hippes meet / psycodelic dungeons rising up on every street etc.", and neither the melody, nor the harmony there is anything like "The girl is mine".ZaxarBorisych 03:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Finding a source for the popularity of the album is easy, they are all over the place and are scattered throughout the article. Finding a source for the fame of Jackson is another matter. it is not at all clear to me what kind of source would be acceptable. I cannot see how adding a {{Fact}} tag to the statement is likely to improve the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article any good? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Thriller established Michael Jackson as one of the most famous musicians and entertainers of all time, initiating a surge in the popularity of pop music that continues to this day."

I actually meant to move the fact tag to cover the entire sentence. According to who? Who says that Thriller is responsible for the popularity of pop music today? I'm not saying these statements are necessarily false, but they aren't so blatantly obvious that they shouldn't be attributed to an outside source. Not that every article is written exactly the same, but the statement saying that Michael Jordan was widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time had to be removed before the article was allowed FA status. What makes this any different? WP:WEASEL. --OnoremDil 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Now I look at the Jordan article and someone has stuck the comment back in there... Oh well, at the time of the FA review, that statement was deemed inappropriate. If they were correct while reviewing the Jordan article, and the goal of every article is to eventually become a FA, then I would imagine that similar statements here wouldn't be accepted. --OnoremDil 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I think, rather than adding a fact tag the sentence should be rewritten or removed entirely. Let me try. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Right I've done a quick rewrite. What do you think? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is restricted, no doubt. "Jackson's most popular album" is ok, but we should be able to go further for the greatest selling album of all time. WEASEL does not apply here. Statements like the one referenced above for Jordan and the ones for this album are sufficiently notable, regardless of whether they are true or false (Wikipedia does not make claims to truth), that they do not need citations. Also, in response to Onorem, I believe the original statement had the album being responsible for the surge in the popularity of pop music, not just the popularity of pop music (and that are yet others who say this album and Jackson defined modern pop music period). Although it didn't clarify it, it meant internationally.UberCryxic 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe that the album is responsible for a surge in pop music, which is why I removed it. Even if there was a surge (and I'd want to see sources for that) it would be very difficult to prove that the surge was caused by this album :-( Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? A lot of other people, like me, do. That's not going to settle this. The only thing that can do that is observation and interpretation of societal trends. I'm all-right with the current version; I don't like it, but I accept it.UberCryxic 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Give Me Starlight

This article mentions that the song Thriller had an original name of "Give Me Starlight", but Thriller (song) mentions "The original name for the "Thriller" single was "Starlight Love." 68.183.168.207 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to shorten this article due to needless fleshing out

Realist2 reverted all my edits on the grounds I need to discuss my points here. I've left out a few details, but here is everything I can see looking back over the two articles that he might deem debate worthy.

• Stating it is both Jackson's best selling album and the best selling ever is pointless. It is literally impossible for Jackson to have an album that sold better than the best selling album ever

• Listing it as his " the sixth overall studio album by American singer Michael Jackson and his second studio album with Epic Records" is very, very clunky English. "is American singer Michael Jackson's sixth studio album, his second with Epic Records" is shorter, explains all the same information and reads better.

• " "Definitive 200" greatest albums ever list" should be changed simply to "Definitive 200" albums list, firstly because that's the list's official name, secondly because it's shorter and thirdly because we don't need the "ever" if it's not in the title (it goes without saying, you ever hear of a "greatest albums until 5 years ago" list?)

• Bringing sales of 104 million up to the top of the article so it can go straight alongside the sentence saying it's the best selling ever. It's the next logical step after saying best selling ever really.

• Changing "one of only three albums to remain in the top 10 of the Billboard 200 for one full year" into "one of only three albums to remain in the top 10 of the Billboard 200 for a full year" since it's shorter and because anyone who doesn't understand that "a" year means "one" year has such limited grasp of the English language the entire article is worthless to them

• Changing "top 10 of the Billboard 200 for one full year (along with Falling Into You by Celine Dion and Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette), spending 80 consecutive weeks in the top 10," into "top 10 of the Billboard 200 for a full year (along with Falling Into You by Celine Dion and Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette), spending 80 consecutive weeks there," because if we've said in a sentence that we're talking about the top 10 again, it is poor and ineffective use of language to end the sentence referring to the top 10 for a second time given the context has not changed.

• "the first and only album to date to be the best-selling album of two years (1983 and 1984) in the United States, according to Billboard" - if it's the only one, it's obviously the first. And we can just put Billboard as a reference - there's no need to say "according to", we don't for other sources.

• "Thriller also won Jackson eight American Music Awards, and three MTV Video Music Awards." I tagged this as needing citing because it does need citing.

• "In February 1984, Jackson was nominated for twelve Grammy Awards — of which he won eight, breaking the record for the most Grammy Awards won in a single year." to "

Jackson was nominated for twelve Grammy Awards in 1984, winning a record breaking eight."...tightens up the language, and '1984' is the only information needed since it's an annual event - the month isn't vital

• "At 25, The New York Times called Jackson a "musical phenomenon," further commenting that "in the world of pop music, there is Michael Jackson and there is everybody else." I moved down the article since it made sense to post press reaction AFTER the information on the album's recording and release. It was also too much text in the opening block. I renamed the section "Recording and release" accordingly

• Merging of certifications and chart history...That was because if we're talking about sales achievements it makes a lot of sense to have it in one place as many albums do. And neither section had any real text to it, so it made sense.

• "Recorded between April and November 1982, with several members of the band Toto, Thriller was the second album Quincy Jones produced for Jackson. Showcasing increasing creative prominence, Jackson wrote four of Thriller's nine songs. The second single, "Billie Jean", sent Thriller to the top of the charts. Jackson then performed the hit on Motown 25, showing off his signature "moonwalk" dance move to an enormous audience. Furthering Jackson's success and showing his crossover abilities, Jackson's next single was pop rock song "Beat It", featuring a guitar solo by Eddie Van Halen from Van Halen." was used to replace "

Recorded between April and November 1982, Thriller was the second of Michael Jackson's solo albums to be produced by Quincy Jones, though this time showcasing Jackson in a more prominent position of control than the preceding Off the Wall album from 1979. Of the nine tracks that came to be on the final project of the album, Jackson wrote four. "

I tightened up language and carefully crafted it to take up a little less space, removed some unimportant details (it basically said "The girl is mine did alright but the other singles were much better"...if the girl is mine wasn't that special just cut it out). "From there, Jackson's already considerable success grew further." was a totally filler sentence that didn't teach the reader anything. Same for "which features guitar work by guitarist"...if he did guitar work I would assume he was a guitarist, yes.

• The tracklist does not need to be headed then subheaded "Original release". What else would it be??

• " * From the "E.T. Storybook""

If we create a section for Special Edition it might fit there. But you don't break up a tracklisting with details that complicated.

• I moved sales down, because if you see what they did to sell the product first (singles etc.) it makes more sense

• Lowered the size of the headings for song credits. Simply because there's no reason for anything on a big list to be that big. And I turned each one into links, rather than provide a separate link to the main article....it made sense and on a list that big you don't tend to put "main article" after each one. It was a dead obvious move. After each song on a tracklist you don't do it, so why here?

• Removed "Produced by Quincy Jones" from each song credit. He produced ALL of them. It says that already. No need at all to repeat ourselves 10 times. Jackson's only credited for some co-productions but actually co-produced the album and so again, should just be listed once.

• I listed musicians who worked on a number of tracks in a block, because on a solo album where none of the musicians are evident and the music's blended a lot in the mixing room and, the musicians roles aren't vital enough to warrant individual crediting on here. On an article on a song maybe, but not here. Plus a pop musician is VERY focussed on the artist, and the music's very repetitive (on each song I mean, not the album as a whole) so most musicians only have to play a few bars which then get looped.

• Thriller's music video is not a part of the album, so should not go on album credits. It needs listing obviously, but not there.

• I changed "Vocal, rhythm and synthesizer arrangement" on most songs just to "arranged", because that is almost all of the music. In most cases someone who did that would be regarded as the arranger of the music unless it was very strange music.

• If someone performed multiple roles on a song, I combined them. Like we had "Trumpet:" listed twice on many songs, why not list the 2 guys together?

• I removed writing credits from song credits since we have them on the track listing AND almost all of the songs have their own article with details anyway.

• I got rid of the gaps between sections because it's not recommended by Wikipedia policy to divide up pages with space - headers do that for us. It adds nothing aesthetically or practically, it only looks better on the edit screen.

• There was a couple of other slight language tightening up bits and pieces but nothing big. And I noticed some typos of mine looking back, but that's another story.

Tell me what's wrong with any of those points. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Elfoid nowhere else on this talk page has any1 else ever other than you raised this issue of its lengh. No1 else sees it as a problem. You are not doing this because its too big , you are doing it to ensure you have enough space too merge Thriller 25 with this article. On the Thiller 25 talk page you said "I WILL get Thriller 25 merged and I WILL make Thriller small enough to accomadate it". This is nothing about the lengh to you, this is an attempt to win a consensus on merger which thus far you have failed to reach. You plan to make Thriller smaller to that more people will agree with you that there is enough space to merge Thriller 25. This is completely unaccaptable elfoid, im quite supprised you are going to such lenghts.Realist2 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Making it short enough to (hopefully) merge it with Thriller 25 is what inspired me, but only when I saw how bloated the two articles are. I looked at two oversized articles with obvious changes that could be made. If they'd been given some good treatments before now, they would be one article since they're just vast now. My view is when you see how good the two pages can look despite being significantly shorter, you will suddenly accept my point of view more.

I know you're the primary editor here other than myself on these pages, and also that English is not your first language. It's always been something I'm good with and I'm about to get an A/B grade at A level in English Language and Literature...hardly a god of the language I know, but when it comes to making little cuts to make an article better, you might not always see my point since you're less familiar with the language.

Every change I proposed there was totally fair. If it keeps the page reading nicely, makes it more concise, simplifies and clarifies language and shrinks something...it only makes the article better. Right now you're missing the point; everything I did improved this page. If you take my points one at a time, and read carefully, you will understand. If you prefer, I can make one small edit a day so you can gradually get used to my idea of what we can do with the page and you can "keep up" with the edits accordingly.

Oh and one more edit I made that you reverted: Apparently Thriller is "52x Platinum" in the world. I don't think there's a global organisation for these things that I know of. I certainly never heard of one. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

You are completely wrong about thriller being "bloated" . I just checked the size of his other albums.

• Off The Wall = 16,800 bytes
• Thriller = 18,600 bytes
• Bad = 19,250 bytes
• Dangerous = 27,600 bytes
• HIStory = 13,800 bytes
• Invincible = 16,400 bytes .

Its the most important album ever released and needs EXPANDING.Realist2 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's besides the point. A more important release does not automatically deserve more words/space/memory to be dedicated to it. More INFORMATION yes. It could surely do with INFORMATION being expanded. You have however, missed the point of my edits. I removed absolutely no information/data/facts about Thriller from the article whatsoever.

Grammar fixes, removing unnecessary and uninformative sentences (shifting information around to ensure no data is lost while this happens), removing any repetition of statements and improving the flow of writing are all things we are encouraged to do to Wikipedia articles. Just because an article is bigger does not make it better or more useful; citing memory comparisons does nothing to change this.

Now stop avoiding me with this silly chatter: Look at my edits and name the ones that have something wrong with them. Identify the parts where I made this article worse with my hard work. Other than trim un-necessary content, rephrase things subtly to make more sense in a shorter read time, and other acceptable things, what did I change? I say nothing, and I doubt you can prove otherwise.

If you do not have the ability to actually tell me what edits I made were valid and what, for some reason, were not, I shall assume the only problem you have with them is that they make the article shorter since that appears to be all you take offence at. The best encyclopaedias are the ones that DON'T stretch out their language. I've spent the last year learning to fine tune my language since in exams I had a tendency to ramble on a bit too much so I am very aware of this...this is an encyclopaedia and you are ignoring that. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

If you would like too make edits space it out over a lenghy period of time. I would like to go through your edits slowly to consider them. Mean while i will look into slowly expanding it it needs much much more detail.Realist2 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi people, dropping in from the Third opinion page. What I see after a quick survey of The Elfoid's edits are an improved style, economy and not elimination of information. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

oh elfoid how could you drag a third opinion in like that, i thought we were making progress lol.Realist2 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to run it by someone else dude. Make sure I wasn't making an idiot of myself. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

I wouldn't necessarily call it the most important album, you can make that argument about any of The Beatles' later albums, Elvis Presley's 1956 self-titled debut album, any of Bob Dylan's albums between 1963 and 1975, Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, Sly and the Family Stone's There's A Riot Going On, Bob Marley's albums and albums from Stevie Wonder's 1972-1976 period. But Thriller is one of the albums of its era and is important so I see your point regardless. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 09:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25

shouldn't there be a mention about Thriller25 2008 re-release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.196.152 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol it has its own page. Thriller 25. --Realist2 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thriller Sales

Will the sales of Thriller 25 be added to the overall Thriller sales? eg. If Thriller 25 sells 10 million units would the sale of Thriller be 115 million as an overall sale or are the two albums separate? - Kaneite

yes billboard said they will be added together which means thriller has a hell of a good chance in being #1 of all time in the US again. Realist2 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the country's policy. The RIAA recognise re-issues as seperate. Billboard deal in charts, not sales figures anyway....(The Elfoid (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

"Over 104" seems too much, don't you think?

I've edited the parts where it said "With over 104 million copies sold to approximately, since I don't know how you can say "over 104 million, I can understand over 100 million but over 100+5 million (meaning put an actual different number and saying it sold "over it") sounds funny. Let me know what you think, plus Guinness World Records 2008 has changed its stance over Thriller and its overall sales. They did give MJ a plaque saying "104 million" but they have recanted this saying the album sold 55 million and basically saying Michael's team claimed it sold over 100 million. -- BrothaTimothyBrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 09:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It is a known fact that Thriler has sold over 104 million and I don't think anyone from Jackson's team would add on or miscount an extra 50 million units. As for the Guiness Records, I have not seen any statement regarding the recant of Jackson's world record. I think you should just leave topics alone if you are going to add silly 'information' without proper evidence. It's extra work for the people that have to sieve through this topic and revert your nonsense. - Kaneite

We all saw the award but we havent heard of no retraction blaming sony. Please provide proper evidence on these strong claims. Realist2 (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "known" fact it's a disputed fact. One of the telling signs that it is an inflated figure is the fact that guiness claims 51 million of the 104 million copies sold were sold in the US. Thriller was released during a time when RIAA already had exhaustive methods towards counting sales in the US. The US is the only place where there is a true body to calculate sales and Thriller is listed at 27 x platinum (27 million in the US). Certifications are updated as needed and the last certification was in 2005 (quite recently), there is no way that Thriller actually sold 51 million copies in the US when it's only been certified for 27 million (and that's not even the number sold, just the number shipped). Worldwide figures are one thing because there is no worldwide body to accurately (for the most part) calculate worldwide sales but in the US there is and there is no way Thriller sold almost double in the US what it is actually certified or the certification would've already been updated.

A lot of the music business is about hype. Hype which can be easily reported in media outlets without verification, leading to the spreading of masses of misinformation which fans will eagerly gobble up and recite again and again and again. And it's PATHETIC. Thriller is the best (or at least one of the best) selling albums of all time. There is no need to hilariously inflate the sales figures. Chiefreallord (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We are only reporting reliable sources , dont take it up with us , take it up with the people who originally announced the figures if you dont like them.Realist2 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should say "it has been CLAIMED that Thriller has sold 104m copies" and not pass it off as a definite fact. Although I have no doubt that Thriller is still the world's biggest selling album, there is quite frankly no way it has sold 104 million copies. It has been certified for 27 million copies in the US and 3.6 million in the UK. These are two of the three largest record markets in the world (Japan is second, but I dont have figures for there). 104 million total is just outrageous. 79.66.34.19 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. And if anyone has the Guinness 2008 edition, you'd see where they have retracted from the 104 million statement to say "it has sold an estimated 55 million (or 65 million according to the linked BBC News site I saw) though Michael's people have claimed 104 million. If that's not "alarming", I don't know what it is. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've flipped through the Guinness 2008 edition, and what BrothaTimothy said is correct; they don't simply state that its sold 104 million. 124.176.3.155 (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What's also interesting is that it was at the World Music Awards 2006 ceremony that Jackson claimed Thriller had sold over 100 million. He was at the ceremony to be given a "diamond award" for sales of over 100 million albums. However, the WMA Diamond Award means sales of over 100 million albums throughout his career, not just for one album. Previous winners of the WMA Diamond Award have been Rod Stewart, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, and Bon Jovi. All of these artists have sold over 100 million albums throughout their careers, but none of them have sold 100 million of any ONE particular album. I think this is where the confusion initially came from and how it got reported in the media. Dont get me wrong, I love the Thriller album and I still believe it is the best-selling album ever, but it has NOT sold 100 million copies and there is no certifiable proof that it has. Jackson's word alone is not enough because he is hardly unbiased and Jackson's "reality" is not the same as everybody else's. MassassiUK (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely regret getting in an edit war with you and it was uncaracteristic of me , it wont happen again. I reverted back to an edit made by "elfoid" as it was a npov interpretation and elfoid is well respected as being npov on the topic of jackson. I have also translated this version over to the michael jackson article so they are the same. The edit made by elfoid is fair and balanced. Realist2 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you obviously haven't learned anything from your 24 hour ban for edit warring! The moment the ban is over, here you are once again reverting genuine and CORRECTLY made edits. It is obvious that you do not have the maturity to edit Wikipedia responsibly. I will once again make the point clear that you do not own the Thriller or Michael Jackson articles on Wiki, and if you persist in continuing to edit war just to force your own personal opinions across, then I will report you again and ensure you receive a far longer ban. The information that Jackson made the claim himself about Thriller's album sales is RELEVANT to the article as it, in itself, is POV (namely his own). MassassiUK (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please why are you being so agressive, im trying to be civil, in truth there is no proof that jackson made the claim, more likely it was sony that started it, jackson himself did not make the claim, infact hes gone on record many times saying that he thought it was close to 60 million. I reverted to an edit my an impartial user, his version was balanced, you seem to only want your word where at least ive come to a compromise. Unless you can proof that jackson himself stated this rumour please dont write it. Realist2 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the posts above, you will see that Jackson made the claim himself at the World Music Awards in 2006 when he received a Diamond award for selling over 100 million albums throughout his career. I am not being aggressive, I will merely not tolerate you editing Wikipedia to match your own opinions and beliefs. You have shown yourself to be far too territorial with the Michael Jackson articles on Wiki and this must stop immediately or the articles will be locked completely and you will be banned from editing altogether. I am sick and tired of having to explain this to you, so consider this your final warning.MassassiUK (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 versions added to total sales?

There is a section in the opening paragraph that says "sales of Thriller 25 will be added to this" (meaning added to the total sales figures of the original album). However, the link to "Ask Billboard.com" that cites this information does not actually say that. It merely states that the three different expanded 2008 versions of Thriller will have their sales combined (there are two new different versions with the zombies on the front cover, and one that has a similar cover to the original). It does not say that this will be added to the sales of the original album.MassassiUK (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source that shows it went onto the catalog album. I has to change it to show that it would be added to american sales. We dont know abot the rest of the world. Realist2 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources for varying sales figures

It is no secret that the claimed 104 million sales figure for Thriller is controversial and widely disputed, but in order to make the article balanced and informative without pandering to MJ fans, references should be added to show different sources who cite different sales figures. In order to avoid edit warring, I invite input in rewriting the opening paragraph to reflect this. I have found reputable sources that claim anywhere from 45 million copies sold (Billboard and All Music Guide's 2007 article) though this is assumingly for over-the-counter sales. We can still keep the claim that it has sold 104 million as long as it is stated as a "claim" and the sources are kept in place. I think I should point out though that neither Sony nor Michael Jackson's official website actually mention worldwide sales figures which implies to me that he has quietly retracted the claim that it sold that much. If anyone can provide an up to date OFFICIAL source saying otherwise, I would like to see it. MassassiUK (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, theres no controversy here now. We have about 6 sources saying 104 and a reliable bbc source, both sides are happy , you came here saying that you wanted to correctly inform people on the 104 figure. Now you cant do that your trying to lower the sales of thriller as much as possible. That billboard figure is of no use, it uses 25x platinum as its figure and thats shipments not sales. When talking about thriller in the US they always use shipment figures by the RIAA. Since they are using 25 platinum there source for their research must have come from 1997 over a decade ago. Additionally if it only sold 45 million worldwide, we woundnt be disputing the figure but rather weither or not it was even the best selling album of all time. There are a number of albums that have sold in the 42-47 range. The billboard source is un-usable. Realist2 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out to you on more than one occasion, the Billboard source does NOT state the album is 25x platinum, it states it has sold at least 25 million copies in the US. These could be over-the-counter figures (i.e. sales to the record buying public) provided by Soundscan. The RIAA certification only means it has shipped 27 million copies to stores, not that 27 million copies have been bought by the public. Regardless of this, it is an equally valid point of view to any of your six sources whether you personally agree with it or not. Your sources are not official, they are merely newpapers and entertainment websites reiterating what they have been led to believe and the do not quote their primary sources either. So basically, they are no more valid than the Billboard source. And at least Billboard are a REPUTABLE music industry source. However, I am tired of debating these points with you because you are so obviously biased in your appreciation of Michael Jackson that it clearly blinds you. Anybody else? MassassiUK (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You cant exclude ppl from a debate and quite a few of your comments have come across as anti - jackson such as saying that jackson actually made up the claim himself. Billboard are blatantly revering to shipments which means its out of date, your mission here has changed from so called informing people of the truth of the 104 claim to trying to put the lowest possible figure into the article you could find. You cannot dismiss the views of three impartial editors , oh sorry , call it two as your convinced me and elfoid are the same person. Anyway what would be achieved by putting that claim in, it would then suggest that thriller might not be the best selling record of all time and therefore we will have more edit warring. Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are pushing your own agenda. It is absolutely IRRELEVANT whether I am anti-Jackson or not. THIS IS NOT A FANPAGE. How many times do I have to keep telling you that? However, I am not anti-Jackson, I am merely trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. You have NO PROOF that Billboard were referring to shipments, any more than I can prove they were referring to Soundscan over-the-counter sales. The point I intend to make in the article is that global sales figures for the album are HUGELY disputed and range from 45 million to 104 million. Sources for BOTH arguments can be quoted. And Jackson himself HAS said that Thriller sold 104 million at the WMA 2006. He said it live on television. It is IRRELEVANT whether he was genuinely misinformed or whether he concocted the figure himself - he still said it. And the Billboard article does not suggest that Thriller is not the best selling album ever (in fact it clearly states that it is), it just does not provide figures for any other albums. If you want to keep the information about it selling 104 million in, you also have to allow an equally valid source that says it sold 45 million. As long as its referenced, it doesnt matter whether you agree with it or not. I have already come to the conclusion that you are too much of a hardened fan to be objective about anything to do with Jackson and you have become extremely territorial regarding the Wiki articles.MassassiUK (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this is what the talk page is for, at least we`re using this rather than edit warring, if people agree with you sure, lets wait and see what other user think then, this discussion between you and me is going nowhere so let others decide. Realist2 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the opening paragraph should include something like:

Thriller is the best-selling album of all time, but there is a vast discrepancy between reported sales figures for the album. As of 2007, different sources claim the album has sold between 45 million (insert sources) to 104 million (insert sources) copies worldwide (which Jackson himself reiterated at the 2006 World Music Awards). However, the BBC who cite the 2008 Guinness Book of Records claim that it has sold around 65 million copies (insert sources).

Now, this would allow different sources of valid information but does not necessarily suggest that Jackson actually made up the 104million figure himself so it presents a neutral POV. If this can be agreed upon, I will quite happily let the matter rest.MassassiUK (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

hum it looks promising minus the part about jackson mentioning it. The fact that jackson spoke about it is irrelevant. Realist2 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the part about Jackson mentioning it IS relevant because it's his album. It doesn't say that he made up the sales figure though, just that he reiterated it.MassassiUK (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So what, lots of ppl reiterate their sales , we dont mention them. Realist2 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this sales figure is controversial so therefore it is relevant if the artist himself is saying it. It should therefore be mentioned in the article. MassassiUK (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame you nearly turned me to your side on this but it seems your not prepared for ANY other option aside your own, firstly you want 3 different figures on the page and you want it mentioned that jackson talked it up at the award show. That would seriously imply that the 104 figure was false or completely flaud. It is not for wiki to make or imply that view. Realist2 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you PAY ATTENTION for a change, you will see that my option includes both of our opinions on how the sales figures for the album should be mentioned. At no point did I say "Jackson talked it up" nor does my draft of the intro above imply that he falsified it. Yes, I certainly think the 104m figure is wrong but I haven't said that Jackson made it up. There is nothing wrong with stating 3 different sales figures as long as they can be sourced. When we state the differences between these figures, it would be appropriate to say which one Jackson himself seems to agree with since he is the artist and it's his album. Its that simple. I am beginning to think that your problems with English are getting in the way here. MassassiUK (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is NO need to get person thankyou very much, please keep this civil. English might not be my first language but im studying law in the uk so dont belittle me. Realist2 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not belittling you, I am stating that you do not seem to fully understand what I am saying and that could be because you have problems with English. Yesterday you were claiming that you only broke Wiki policy because English was not your first language and you couldn't understand the rules. Or was that just a convenient excuse? So...back to the Thriller intro please. MassassiUK (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol the majority of ppl cant get there head around the procedure to report sock puppetry weither there english speaking or not, i wont let this become a slagging match. Realist2 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was nothing to do with sock puppetry, it was your so-called defence for breaking the Wiki 3RR policy for which you were banned for 24 hours. And you are still avoiding the issue of the Thriller intro so I can only assume that you have no interest in trying to reach an agreement.MassassiUK (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the version above looks pretty good, except we shouldn't be calling the discrepancy vast. Mention the discrepancy, give the numbers and sources. Let the reader make up their own mind on whether it is "vast" or not. (Yes, it is...but we don't need to tell them that. It's weasely.) I'm not sure I agree that mentioning Jackson is necessary, but I wouldn't edit war over it, and I do think that it's presented in a neutral way compared to previous versions.
Side note: Please try to keep the discussion related to the article. If you absolutely feel the need to argue about other things, you have your own talk pages for that. --Onorem♠Dil 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My rationale for including that Jackson himself mentioned the 104m figure is that he is the artist and therefore it sort of comes straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. It also supports the claim as opposed to it being some lame figure that lazy journalists have copied from some wacked-out fansites. Not for one moment do I believe that sales figure, but I think its relevant to say that Jackson certainly believed it. I have no objection to removing the word "vast" although this was essentially good english (the difference between 45 million and 104 million IS vast). It wasnt included to make one sales figure more realistic than another, just to illustrate the wide margin between them. MassassiUK (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is vast. I just think we should try to present the facts instead of describe the facts. People will be able to realize that there is a vast difference without our saying so. --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think "but there is a considerable discrepancy between reported sales figures" is a better way of saying it which does not seem quite as dramatic as saying "vast". It's just a neutral single word that assures the casual reader that the numbers quoted weren't incorrectly quoted (not everybody bothers to read the sources) as well as informing the reader that reported sales figures for the world's biggest selling album is a controversial issue (without actually calling it controversial). The word "considerable" isn't flowery in any way. "Significant" is also a good word to use. If I was reading this for the first time and it said from between 45 and 104 million, I'd wonder if the Wiki editors had made a typo unless it was stated that the figures were supposed to be quite far apart.MassassiUK (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Massassi, I've messaged you on your talk page, you know what I think. You're interpreting data that should be presented cleanly. 45-104 means 45-104, if people question it, they can check the sources. Simple. Personally I think that we should say "most sources accept sales to be somewhere between 50-65 million, though more recently a 104 million figure has been cited by a number of reliable sources. Some, however, equally respected, remain as low as 45 million". That lays out EVERYTHING, doesn't claim which source is right. Nice and easy. And it mentions how 50-65 is more common. We can put in brackets examples of where claims are best known to come from (The Elfoid (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Change in sales

I thought it necessary to change Thriller's minimum sales from 45 million - 47 million. As the reference cites Thriller as having sold 25 million copies in the U.S & 20 million overseas. Thriller has actually sold 27 million in the U.S - and it reached that figure in April 2005, so Thriller's minimal sales are probably around the 50 million mark now. But I put in 47 million to be safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.22 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've changed it back. Replacing a referenced statement with your own original research isn't the way to do it. You also didn't explain your removal of the rest of the information. --Onorem♠Dil 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)