Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Recentism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant. Remove.

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

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

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

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

Minor stuff. Irrelevant. Delete.

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

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

Useless, forgettable, non-notable. Delete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that when Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes asked him " would you let your child sleep in the bed of a 45 year old man who had been accused of child molestation" that Michael answered "yes". My source however is Chris Rock.

But I Don't get it. isn't the point of updating recent news stories the whole POINT of this encyclopedia? MaJic 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 11:01 am ET; 4/19/2007

No. One of the main things any encyclopedia should strive for is to be encyclopedic. That means knowing what information is relevant and what is not. Admittedly that's not a clear-cut line and scores of debates ensue, but sometimes it's fairly easy to tell when certain articles suffer from 'recentism.' For an example that relates to this subject: I see many articles of up-and-coming musicians whose early parts of their career get as much if not more coverage than Michael Jackson does under the "Thriller era" in this article. That makes no sense at all considering Jackson's dominance in 1983-1985, when he might as well have been the music industry itself. One of the worrying aspects of Wikipedia is something that's unfortunately unavoidable when knowledge becomes this democratic: there's a loss of historical perspective. People rush to judgment, they sensationalize, and so on. It's basically an element of human nature infilitrating into Wikipedia, and there's not much that we can do about it on a systematic basis. We can, however, improve individual articles, like I have tried to do with this one.UberCryxic 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

video games section

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

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

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

Gloria Allred

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

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

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

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

2005 Allegations

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

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

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

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

1993 Allegations

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

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

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

Eminem's Attack

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

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

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

Raymone Bain Fired

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

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

Ray Hultman's Book

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

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

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

New Sexual Abuse Allegations

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

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

Debbie Rowe's Parental Rights

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

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

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

Neverland

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

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

Sony and the Catalogue

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

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

Marc Schaffel

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

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

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals for moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To further buttress sociological support for my general arguments here, I would like to note another precedent. Look at the Encarta article on Michael Jackson: [1]. It's fairly clear that they devote the majority of the article to Michael Jackson's musical career, not half-and-half.UberCryxic 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have now deleted the Rowe paragraph. Up next for consideration:

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

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

Irrelevant sums of money. Didn't really impact Michael Jackson as he wasn't there at the time. I want this removed. Your thoughts?UberCryxic 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...well there is no discussion going on here at all, so I will actually go ahead and arbitrarily implement my suggestions above in the hope of getting people to start conversing on this stuff.UberCryxic 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ubercryxic, I have already suggested the removal of several paragraphs in the later sections, many of which you have also suggested, so I believe that if no one else is commenting, concensus must be reached with all present active users. there is no other way. --Paaerduag 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. You certainly have a point regarding activity: I'll Bring the Food's last edit on Wikipedia was on March 17, many days ago. On the other hand, that user also had some complaints regarding the points you raised. I don't think we should move on this too quickly because of that. Let's give him or her a few more days (like the 25th maybe?), and then we can go from there. I will also drop a message on the user's talk page.UberCryxic 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this bring the food fellow to think that the article revolves around himself. Whoever's here should be doin' the decidin'. Why wait for him? This ain't HIS article and his damned opinion means NOTHING in the face of concensus. Sorry if I sound blunt, but I am passionately against ownership of articles, and this bring the food fellow is gonna have to change his ways, cause I ain't gonna stand for no ownership rubbish. --Paaerduag 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll Bring the Food was probably frustrated and likely did not fully mean what was stated. Let's just try to move on from that.UberCryxic 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and for your changes: the Schaffel stuff can easily go, but his dealings with Sony are pretty important. I'm not so sure we should get rid of that paragraph, although a lot of it is uncorroborated information sprinkled with tabloid rumors.UberCryxic 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did that because I thought that those paragraphs were irrelevant, but also because info about Japan was removed. you can re-add the Sony paragraph, but I'd highly advise that it was concised a bit. I understand that it is pretty important, but not THAT important for such a long Paragraph. concising it is certainly a viable solution. --Paaerduag 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the article already covers Michael Jackson's personal life ad nauseaum, so I'm not really sad to see that paragraph go altogether. By and large, I thought it was not encyclopedic, but it might have been important in the larger context of the article, which devotes some time to his finances. I guess this is an issue that we can tackle in the future. I'll Bring the Food has not been here in the past week or so and both you and I agree that a lot of this stuff has to go. I'm generally happy with this article at this point, but I think it still needs to highlights more of MJ's musical accomplishments. I'm going to try to add some analysis of his musical evolution in his Epic albums. And we also need some sort of "Influence" section, separate from the biography. I don't think anyone can imagine pop music today without Michael Jackson. His vast legacy must be highlighted more thoroughly.UberCryxic 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're on the wrong foot here. The reason why I wanted to keep the Japan paragraphs was because it was POSITIVE about him, and displayed that he still has millions of fans. What I'm trying to get rid of is incessant scandal, which is what I think you mean when you say 'personal life'. I just wanted to clarify that. I just wanted to keep something positive amidst all this horrible negative about Michael, and I think that by personal life you mean the scandals. Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what's happening. --Paaerduag 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, I want to add more stuff about his positive fan base, influence, and definately music. That's why I'm avid about all the positive album stuff happening, but of course I really want to dive into thriller, bad and dangerous to really develop them more. I agree totally, less scandals and more about how great his musical accomplishments are is definately what this article NEEDS. --Paaerduag 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm well I think some of those efforts may be misguided. We are here to add material on MJ that is encyclopedically relevant, not necessarily "positive." I also think some of your recent changes are going a bit too far; they are too sweeping. We should discuss much of that stuff here first before you unilateraly change it.UberCryxic 06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry... I didn't realize that what I was doing was well... sweeping. If that's the way you feel, I'm all for it. But as long as we get something done. I'm not sure you'll agree about the subtitle things, infact you probably won't. I went to far. I admit I went too far, and that was wrong. But please, try to build something positive, like don't just revert. If you want to change something, it'd be good to actually make it from scratch. Like the headings... maybe changing them isn't that bad, maybe we could focus on different aspects.

Also, just to be clear, by positive I generally mean music. Because everything about the music is positive. Scandals are negative. That's just my wording. Sorry, i'm probably taking up half the space on the talk page... ;)--Paaerduag 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well actually not everything about the music is positive. In fact, years from now, when all this hooplah and madness surrounding his personal life dies down, this article deserves a criticism section. Michael Jackson's music has been heavily influential, but it has also been criticized (a common thing I hear directed against MJ is that he was trying to beat the records set by Thriller so badly that he took his musical work over the top). But that's for much later. I think your changes are kind of all-right, but they have to be heavily cited.UberCryxic 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh also something else: the 2003-2006 section is a complete mess right now. There's way too much repetition and it needs a complete rewrite. There's basically one sentence devoted to the trial, even though it should be the main focus of the section. I'll let you take a crack at this first and see where we can go from there. Basically what I think is appropriate here is greater coverage of the trial itself, not just the events leading up to it. We should also try to stay as NPOV as possible. Calling the charges against Michael Jackson "outlandish," however accurate ontologically, is not suitable for an encyclopedia.UberCryxic 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the word outlandish is a bit POV. (I had to look up what ontologically meant :) ) but I think that the trial section shouldn't go into TOO much detail, because there is the People v. Jackson article. apart from that, I'm fine with all the changes. And about the intro, as long as King of Pop is in the first line, I'm happy. --Paaerduag 07:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My standard for how much "detail" it should have: it should be the main part of that section. This means the main part in length and encyclopedic tone. This means we should make clear what the charges against Michael Jackson were, how the defense responded, and so on. We can also cover the media circus that was the trial. I believe this was the most covered event in human history (as in, more media personnel were there than for anything else before or since). So it basically should focus on the court proceedings as well as the battles raging on in the court of public opinion, both in America, which was not so warm to Michael Jackson, and the world, which largely thought he was innocent.UberCryxic 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Michael experienced what his spokesperson called a "silent majority" in the US. And what about the fans that were at the trial? They supported him. I think the majority of America supported him, but it was the louder, more opinionated 'haters' which received all the media spotlight. I'd say the media was against him, but not the people. And we musn't confuse that up. Also, I'd rather like to expand the thriller and bad and dangerous eras instead of making the article focus on the trial. I think his music is more important than the trial, and I wouldn't want the trial to take precedence. I'm going to try and expand the thriller, bad and dangerous sections. --Paaerduag 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that coverage of the trial should be expanded in the 2003-2006 section. This was one of the biggest trials in human history, so it's a reasonable request. I already did something along those lines by putting up information regarding the media and the fans who were there. As for the "silent majority"....perhaps, but I really doubt it. This Harris poll in February 2004 found that 55% of those polled believe that Michael Jackson was guilty, 18% thought he was innocent, and 27% were not sure. A Gallup Poll one day after the verdict found that 48% disagreed with the jury, 34% agreed, and 18% had no opinion. I'm not saying these polls definitively contradict what you say, but they are something to think about before we make any pervasive and confident-sounding pronouncements. At best, Americans felt very ambiguous towards him.UberCryxic 01:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, I just really respect Michael and cannot understand why idiots think he is guilty. But that's my opinion. That's just what Raymone Bain, his spokeswoman, said. She said that for every fifty letters of support there was only one hurtful letter. Maybe that was just her, but I'd like to think (and I do think) that that's the truth. Those fans at the trial, they cancelled jobs and moved home... that's what I call a true fan. lol, anyway, I guess as an article it should be 'ambiguous' as to whether america supported him or not. --Paaerduag 09:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh she could've been easily telling the truth on that, but it still doesn't mean anything. That would've been a voluntary response sample, so to speak, and those are statistically insignificant because the people likely to reply are those interested in the subject (in this case fans of Michael Jackson). It can't be denied, however, that amazingly dedicated fans and supporters from all over the world showed up day in and day out, virtually putting their lives on hold for Michael Jackson.

Regarding your latest edits: I think you are making some of the same mistakes that I'll Bring the Food did, namely those relating to recentism. I would hope that any material that we keep adding to this article has a healthy level of encyclopedic relevance and historical context. Try to imagine five years from now, after Michael Jackson has released an album or two: do you seriously think this trip to Japan should deserve that much coverage then? I honestly doubt it. Think about all the places that Michael Jackson has visited in his life and the commotion that he caused while there; why aren't those covered? Why do we not cover his coronation as King of the Sani tribe in Nigeria back in the early 1990s? Well, we mainly don't because including stuff like that would make this article very long. I'm sure you could come up with exceptions for specific cases, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I'll let the edit stand, but it's a mistake. In the future, when this article undergoes some more transformations, the segment that you just added will probably be one of the first things to go (and you'll agree with me then!).UberCryxic 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince and Blanket's names

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

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

Article contradicts itself

I'm currently in a lot of hurry, and will have a look at it later, so pardon me for my current inaccuracy.
I currently have a project about Michael Jackson at my school, and used these papers for my written assignment, but after reading them over a couple of times, I spotted several contradictions, but I can't point my fingers at what it is right now. I added Template:Contradict to the article (please remove if unnecessary).
I'm pretty sure it was in Early Life and Career or The Thriller Era.
- Lasse Havelund ^{(p) (t)} 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah I've removed the template now. It's a little difficult to keep it there when you don't explain exactly what is being contradicted. I mean, if you were in a hurry, you should've probably waited until after you got back before you smacked a tag onto the article. Also, unless it's a blatant, notable contradiction or something (or a series of contradictions), there's no reason to add a tag and make a huge fuss about it. Just bring the issue up on the talk page and I'm sure that we can fix it by working together. Thank you.UberCryxic 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Intro finally looks good

I have seen the past changes on the intro in the last 2 years. I even contributed by adding " Artist of the century" for the American Music Awards,Bambi Awards and the first videography for jackson to the intro months back. Now the intro looks much better than it did before. It doesn't say to little or it doesn't say too much. This is the way it should stay.

Yes I agree. Now it's finally respectable and does justice to Michael Jackson's musical influence, which has been sadly ignored by this article, generally speaking.UberCryxic 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro Picture

The intro picture of Michael jackson in 1984 is an ok picture. Maybe there is a better picture we can find that doesnt look like so cut-and-pasty. Maybe a picture with Michael in a dance step in concert. What do you guys think?

I like the one we have now. It is encyclopedically relevant because it shows him at his height.UberCryxic 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

His mugshot from 2003 is very good.

A police mugshot? And an unsigned comment? Seems to me like whoever made that comment dislikes the King of Pop, Michael Jackson (I support you Michael!). Well, that picture serves to reinforce the trial, which unfortunately, and disgustingly, takes precedence in this article along with a lot of other tabloid rubbish aimed at tainting poor Michael's reputation. Michael Jackson is a great man, and to put a picture relating to the trial is just... disgusting. I for one don't support it. It is my mission to return sanity to this article, because I don't give a fuck what everyone or anyone thinks about Michael. This is not some tabloid article which just 'slips in' anti-Michael phrases or biased comments. I'm gonna remove 'em all, and there will not be a mugshot for the title pic, not on my watch. --Paaerduag 11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro pic has been discussed X times before. Please see the archived entries at Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Why_was_the_picture_changed.3F and Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_11#Main_picture to learn why the present intro picture is a fair compromise - between "mugshot MJ" and "black MJ". Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The one we have now is quite legitimate and appropriate.UberCryxic 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I agree with the original comment; that picture of Michael Jackson at the Whitehouse should definitely be replaced. It looks really unprofessional and I could tell it had been edited before I read the comments. A picture of him doing the "moon walk" would be best, as long as you can see most of his body, including his face. The worst thing about the current picture is that you can't see his face due to the big sunglasses. Owen214 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the picture is from 1984, I think, for a person, the picture must be as new as possible, and the face can't be hidden, and it must have the person in question in the foreground. (i.e. not in the background, or hidden by an object in front.) 88.110.26.95 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo should be as notable as possible. Primarily, this means that it has to encapsulate the significance of the subject and be compatible with the "spirit," if you will, of the article itself. The one we have now is quite appropriate in that regard. It has nothing to do with "new" or "old."UberCryxic 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

subtitle headings

do you think that the album names will suffice? because who's to say which events take precedence in each section? I certainly don't think that martin bashir's name should be included. I don't personally believe he should receive that kind of notability because of that rubbish he made. I cut it back to album names, but If you want to flesh it out, try to do it without simply saying 'controversies' or 'bashir'. I will try to add more about his musical influence, because I have had it with negativity towards poor Michael. This article needs an overhaul, and I think it's well underway. --Paaerduag 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to the headings. I think they are fine now, but let me know your take on them.UberCryxic 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is should be Dangerous Era... i mean, the album eras are a good way to divide up the article and it would just look better.--Paaerduag 07:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm....maybe. I was trying to give notable controversies, and the 1993 allegations certainly are notable, their fair share in the title.UberCryxic 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following users have begun a string of vandalism, and I recommend that blocks be implemented if any of these users vandalise this, or any, article again.

• User:Gmaurer40

• User:Chuck norris6996

• User:Littleweb1

All three of the above users have added profanity to the article, and must be stopped from further damaging wikipedia. --Paaerduag 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery

The article doesn't seem to mention MJs frequent and extensive plastic surgery even tho it's obvious from a couple of photographs. Surely there should be some reference to this, no? SmokeyTheCat 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article does mention something about that. Not quite sure how extensive the descriptions are though.UberCryxic 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely enough it does. Here it is (under the Bad era section):

Another significant reason for the change in appearance was the use of plastic surgery. Despite a number of surgeons' claims that Jackson had undergone multiple nasal surgeries as well as a forehead lift, thinned lips and cheekbone surgery, Jackson wrote in his 1988 autobiography Moon Walk that he only had two rhinoplastic surgeries and the surgical creation of a cleft in his chin, while attributing puberty and diet to the noticeable change in the structure of his face.UberCryxic 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about some mention of what has been dubbed a "Michael Jackson complex"[2] - that is to say a (probably subconscious) tendency to emulate caucasians among non-caucasians, presumably due to the influence of caucasian dominated media.--Timtak 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that Google hits are definitive or anything, but this doesn't seem to be a prominent concept, so we should avoid it for now.UberCryxic 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Isn't anyone else disturbed by the horrendous levels of vandalism which have been occuring over the last few days? something needs to be done to stop this disgusting, dehumanizing trend, because this article is about Michael, not some hater's bloody opinion of him, because I don't give a damn what any haters think. More needs to be done, because reverting vandalism seems to have become the 'norm' on the article. thank you to those who do revert the rubbish that others put, but I'm trying to say that there must be SOMETHING we can do to stop this. please, we can't put up with this, it's just plain wrong. those who perpetrate must be punished. --Paaerduag 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected. The level of vandalism has actually been quite low because of this. Contrast what's happening now with what happened last Friday, when this article was taken off from protection and suffered considerable vandalism. This is nothing. Don't worry about it. Just routine stuff; this happens for a lot of other articles on famous living people.UberCryxic 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As you were kind enough to consider my observations somewhat I will be kind enough to allow you to deal with the article for a while, I certainly have no time to deal with it myself. The vandalism is due to the overly glowing nature with which the intro deals with him. People are antagonised by it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a hell of a claim, and one for which you have no evidence. This article would be vandalized just as frequently if there was no lead at all. It's the subject of the article that's the main cause of vandalism, not the content itself. It's not the only cause, but it is most definitely the main one.UberCryxic 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, just to further highlight what I'm saying, for April 2007 the Michael Jackson article is so far rated as the 187th most visited in all of Wikipedia by Wikicharts. So clearly it's going to attract a lot of anon vandalism, just as much as an article on the Beatles or George Bush would and do.UberCryxic 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This Food guy is right, the article makes makes it sound like the sun shines out of Jackson's ass, when in reality he's more renowned as a than anything else (besides maybe his peak in the 80's). Plus theres also the weasel word rubbish - such as citing vh1 as a source for this statement 'Michael Jackson is widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers and most popular recording artists in human history' Please note: vh1 does not equal everyone in the world.--58.169.54.185 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States is the main place where his popularity has deteriorated significantly, and even here I wouldn't exactly say he's a "sideshow freak." Quite harsh language. Anyway, the point is that he's still largely well-respected the world over, which is what prompted some of the changes in the article. That and the fact that it did not explain Michael Jackson's musical status (and, to a large extent, still does not).UberCryxic 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: the VH1 article is being used to buttress the main statement, not necessarily to vindicate or to prove it. That Michael Jackson is widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time is just common knowledge. And, let's not kid ourselves, he is. You can tell by the way his material places on critical lists and everything else; he's always up there. His sales are another indication....I could go on and on. The statement does not need much justification.UberCryxic 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence, legacy, criticism

This biography is fairly all-right currently, but it could do much better in terms of explaining MJ's historical status. I talked earlier about adding a few sections highlighting MJ's influence in music and pop culture. I basically think there should be two sections, both related to his music career: Influence (or Legacy) and Criticism. This is in line with the articles of other famous musical acts, like the Beatles and Elvis, so I'm not proposing anything controversial, at least I don't think. Anyway, let me know what you guys think. We'll have a week of conversation on this or something and see where we go from there.UberCryxic 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

what exactly will the 'criticism' section encompass. Not all the rubbish the tabloids throw out I'm guessing? Musical criticisms? well I think it's important to note that MJs negative portrayal by the media contributed to some declined sales. This biased, unjustified 'slant' was a disgusting display by the media, and must be mentioned as a contributing factor to declined sales in later albums. It's just not fair to MJ it this isn't mentioned, if there is to be a 'criticisms' section. Perhaps in this 'criticisms' section we can criticize the media for its unfair portrayal of MJ, because I think that's a pretty important thing. --Paaerduag 08:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no tabloid trash. We're agreed there. I actually think the Criticism section should be a subsection within one larger section, Influence. The criticisms will be purely musical. Everything about this category should be about his music. Some notable castigations that I have heard was that Dangerous was too ambitious and long. Some have alleged that it had an inordinate number of quasi-annoying intros, ie. for "Black or White," "Heal the World," "Will You Be There." Also, some of the endings were long and drawn-out, like for "Dangerous" and "Will You Be There." Dangerous is 77 minutes long, same as Invincible, which was criticized for some of the same issues. Whatever the criticisms are they should come from reputable sources.UberCryxic 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also clarify that the criticisms shouldn't be about his sales, which always remained high relative to the industry at large. His sales are already well-documented in the biography anyway, at least for his Epic albums. This is just purely about his music, its sound, scope, ambition, and the legacy it left behind. We can also talk about the influence he had on dance and, well, just about everything else on the music industry.UberCryxic 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact MJ took the Beetles rights from Paul never mentioned?71.221.154.2 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Pruitt

It is mentioned. Under the Thriller era. Also, MJ bought the rights at auction. He didn't take them from anyone. Just clarifying that.UberCryxic 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

yep, when referring to that there will be no pro-paul anti-Michael slander. Michael had the right to outbid paul. they were not paul's rights, as ubercryxic as stated. --Paaerduag 07:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

World Tour Rumors Not True

04-05-2007 World Tour Rumours Not True

Asked about recent rumours that there are already detailed plans for a new world tour by Michael Jackson, Raymone Bain told MJFC the following:

"This is a hoax. Please let everyone know."

Source: MJFC / Raymone Bain, spokesperson for Mr. Jackson

The comment mentioning a possible world tour should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.128.201 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Mmmm this doesn't seem that reliable. We'll see how this plays out.UberCryxic 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting MJFC is an unreliable source? --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The person provided no link at all and many news sources have an unusual tenacity when it comes to "quoting" Raymone Bain. By that I mean they make a lot of stuff up. So yes, this isn't that reliable. I'll hold it in high regard when the AP or Reuters reports on it.UberCryxic 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

blurb

Is this:

After leaving Japan, Jackson made a brief stop in London. He was greeted by fans at Heathrow Airport before travelling to Carlton Towers, his residence during the brief stay. At the hotel, Michael was forced to cut short an autograph signing after the event "turned volatile when fans began pushing. Michael ended up with his back against the hotel lobby wall." He and his children were safetly escorted from the fans to safety. Michael has now returned to Las Vegas, his current residence, after he and his children were "greeted at the airport by fans bringing them flowers and gifts."[95]

...at all warranted? It's recentism encapsulated in a nut shell. What is it doing in an overall article on Michael Jackson's career? If you want to try to show he is hounded by fans one can say "He often talks and greets fans that meet him on his travels on business. Sometimes fans overwhelm him and his entourage physically".[95].

You don't need that giant paragraph. This isn't a news article. It's a biography.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And:

The Jacksons were a working-class family from Gary, Indiana. Katherine, being a Jehovah's Witness, raised the children as such, while their father, Joe, who started studying with the Witnesses, instead decided he would not join that faith. Jackson's father, a steel mill employee who often performed in an R&B band called "The Falcons" with his brother Luther, was a strict disciplinarian. Many of the Jackson children recall being spanked or whipped by Joe for misbehaving. Jackson showed musical talent early on and joined his brothers when they formed a group in 1964.

During this period, the boys toured Indiana extensively, and after winning a major local talent show in 1966 with a rendition of The Temptations' "My Girl", led by Michael, they began playing professional gigs in Chicago, Illinois and across the mid-eastern U.S. Many of these gigs were in a string of black clubs and venues collectively known as the "chitlin' circuit", and the young kids sometimes had to open for strip teasers and other adult acts in order to earn money. The young Jackson had taken co-lead singing duties with brother Jermaine when the group's name changed from "The Jackson Brothers" to "The Jackson 5" in 1966.

This has no sources. It's interesting but if it's not sourced it should be deleted.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The information about the Jacksons was taken word for word form the Jackson 5 article, which is a featured article. I did it because there is virtually no information on Michael Jackson's family background or his early life. That still needs improvement actually. It is virtually impossible to understand Michael Jackson without understanding his childhood. I do not believe the Japanese information should be there for the reasons that you have stated. Recentism at its worst. But Paaerduag sees it differently, so we're going to have to convince Paarduag to change course on that particular issue.UberCryxic 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding the japan & london trip paragraphs, what's the recentism? they clearly show that unlike the 'perceived' view of Michael Jackson which pervades public opinion of him (excluding fans), he is NOT hated by the entire world as some would like this article to imply. the japan trip shows he has innumerable fans around the world, especially in japan, and even the american troops loved him, showing that all of america doesn't hate him. More crucially and to the point of I'll Bring the food's issue with the london paragraph, it displays his insane popularity in Europe. This guy is one massive star, and this must be displayed. If anyone says that he is the most hated person on the earth, they are wrong. he is loved by so many people and the london incident with fans pushing in euphoria to see him just proves that. not many celebrities elicit such a response after their name has been dragged through the dirt by the media. that is important. he is popular and he's travelling NOW and that's important. the real Michael Jackson is a lot different to the 'perceived' one (of a reclusive child molester who the entire world hates, which is horrible and disgusting), and this article must strive to show that he is NOT reclusive, and fans still love him. He is popular, there is no denying it. He is INSANELY POPULAR. he is still one of the most popular people on the earth. --Paaerduag 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The recentism is that Michael Jackson has had many similar trips in the past that have also revealed his "insane popularity," as you put it. These, however, are not mentioned once. Like I said before, he was actually crowned king of an African tribe in the early 1990s, but this isn't mentioned. Michael Jackson has traveled extensively in his life; it's a bit difficult to select this or that trip as more important than others. We don't want this article to become an endless data dump; we want to highlight why Michael Jackson is significant and cover the main aspects of his life. Mostly the same as for any other biography.UberCryxic 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

in time it can be removed perhaps, but for now it shows that he is building a ground swell for his new album. he's not wallowing and not doing anything. I think that once the new album is in full swing we can think about removing this content. not until then though. --Paaerduag 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

Please no more pictures....I beg you. There's way too many already.UberCryxic 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah. FOr a page exceeding 90 kilobytes, the number of images are fine. -Phoenix 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The page exceeds 90 kilobytes because of the images. Plus 1/4 of the length of the entire article is lists and references, so when you consider just length, there are more images than there should be. I don't want to make too big a fuss about it though; I'm happy to leave this issue alone if people don't add any more images.UberCryxic 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

I noticed an editor nominated this article for Good Article review a month ago or so. Well he was supposed to leave a note here to notify the editors but didn't, so I moved it back to the top of the list and am notifying everyone now so that the editors will have a chance to respond and address any concerns. If you'd like to comment just click here. Make sure to read and understand the criteria please. Quadzilla99 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seriously needs to be cleaned up. The opening paragraph is too long and gives facts that may not be true or dont matter. Most of that could be put into a paragraph called Achievements or somthing.

The lead is of appropriate length given the subject of the article. If we are to trim something, however, I suggest removing the parts listing the awards he's won in the second paragraph. I always thought those were somewhat insignificant (that is, insignificant to the article, not the awards themselves) and selective.UberCryxic 02:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i think that the awards display his success in the music industry. if you're gonna remove anything how about the last paragraph about people v. jackson which is useless there as it has its whole own page. --Paaerduag 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've gone ahead and removed the awards. I plan to add them to the new Influence section that I'm creating and should hopefully finish by this weekend. Please do not add them to the lead anymore. Thank you.UberCryxic 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I just created that new section and placed that information there.UberCryxic 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I did say that the article could be delisted.--88.105.24.166 16:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

new album

just wondering, when the title of the new album is released, we'll be changing the heading of that section to "____ Era" right? also, has Michael launched any promotional material himself or is all the material coming out just information and fan speculation? I can't wait for a site to come up with the new album. any plans for a site to support the album from a promotional point of view? by the way, what is Michael's OFFICIAL site? cause there's lots of sites, but what's HIS official site? --Paaerduag 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the title yet. Let's just wait and see. As far as I know, he doesn't have an active official site. I have heard that one is about to be created soon though.UberCryxic 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

influence section and awards

regarding the awards section within influence, i think the fact that he is almost definately the single biggest selling artist in HIStory should be mentioned. also, more awards should be mentioned, to show the scope of this incredible, remarkable and above all innocent man, Michael Jackson's, achievements. definately the fact that thriller is the biggest selling album in music HIStory should be mentioned more prominently, but crucially more awards must be mentioned. He is the most popular artist in HIStory no matter what people say, and the influence section is a major step forward for this. But, we must not make it sound like he's a 'dried-up star' because he's still selling multiple-platinum records. His career consistency should be mentioned. People may say that 8 million is a flop, but it ain't. 8 million is a damn big number, which most artists don't even achieve. as Raymone Bain said, he's sold about 750 million albums, which is more than any aritst in HIStory. So his constant multi-platinum achievements should be outlined. Also, a section which describes the unfair and bias media could also possibly be added, regarding all the negativity which was truly unwarranted. But mainly more awards should be listed, and his constantly shining career as well, because of course all big stars can't keep up the MASSIVE hit albums, but he's still churning out damn good music and no one can deny that. If anyone actually listened to invincible they'd realize it's actually not as bad as the media made out. It's damn good and the 8 million sold show that. But of course Sony's racist campaign put a halt to one of Michael's strongest albums of his career, which is sad, but that's HIStory for you. Anyway, think and please consider the changes per above. --Paaerduag 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many claims in there that are controversial. It's not clear that Michael Jackson is the greatest selling artist in history; it's up in the air between him and Elvis Presley at the moment. The Beatles too if you're talking about generic musical acts. He is likely, however, one of the greatest selling artists of all time and this is already mentioned in the lead. The Awards section was always iffy to me. The only reason why it's there currently is so I could find a place to put what I removed from the lead. If we are to expand it, we should do so with encyclopedically relevant information. The last thing we want is to make it another list. There's already a huge article covering the awards that Michael Jackson has won. That kind of information is more appropriate there. The Influence section is still incomplete; I think I'm going to add one more section regarding his influence on modern pop stars, and I think that should be it for now, although I'm always open to more suggestions.UberCryxic 12:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I say this because this article still goes into great detail about the trial, which has an article of its own. I'm just saying that he's won a lot of awards and more should be mentioned, in my opinion. If the trial has a huge section of this article to itself, so should his musical awards. I just think that it will reinforce that he is probably the greatest artist ever. I'm not saying that with 100% certainty, but I think it's fair to say that it's more than likely that he is the greatest artist of all time. --Paaerduag 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it's completely inappropriate to even remotely dare compare the trial with the awards. The trial was one of the most covered events in human history, if not the most covered. It was an important of Michael Jackson's life, for bad or good. It definitely deserves its own section. The awards....they're important, but plenty of other artists have won awards, lots of them too. Not all of them have been through something with as much global impact as Michael Jackson's trial, however.UberCryxic 12:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... don't you even think that it's REMOTELY important that he is the MOST AWARDED ARTIST IN HIStory? Well obviously not... regarding the trial, it eventuated being a good thing because it just proved Michael's innocence, so talk about his aquittal as much as you want! I'm just saying the awards need more mentioning because he is the most awarded artist in history. But no one seems to think that's relevant, which frankly I am shocked by. I think the fact that he was falsely accused of child molestation and the trial turned into a bloody media circus has been painted over this entire article already. What about his massive achievements in awards? I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I definately think the awards section needs expanding, to outline the SIGNIFICANCE of all the awards he is winning. You may not think that's important, but it is. I think that his achievements are what should comprise this article mainly, sure lets have a section for the trial, but his achievements are severely understated and I'm going to be looking at expanding the awards section myself. --Paaerduag 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the awards are important. They have been mentioned, after all. My point is that I don't see the necessity or benefit in having an entire section on awards, but I suppose since Michael Jackson is claimed to have won more than any other artist, then it can stay on grounds of notability. Let's not talk about the trial or what it "proved." Frankly, Wikipedia does not care. We report on what is notable. And Michael Jackson's trial was notable; that's why it has its own section.UberCryxic 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

absolutely it was notable. I'm just saying that the american legal system proved that Michael Jackson was innocent, so the trial is not necessarily a negative thing in regards to Michael. That has no bearing on the article though, I was just pointing it out. but this really has no relevance because the main discussion is the awards section. --Paaerduag 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you think about "negative" and "positive" things too much in this article. I think a better approach, if we have to force ourselves to strict dichotomies, which I usually don't recommend, would be to think about "relevant" and "irrelevant" things. By that I mean encyclopedically relevant and irrelevant: what's notable, in historical context and perspective, and so on. That really is the best way to work with any Wikipedia article, and it's the one that's encouraged too. That aside, the point is that the trial was relevant. Whether it means something "negative" or "positive" towards Michael Jackson is something that we so don't give a damn about, pardon my language. Bottom line considering what I said before: trial is much more important than the awards he's won in the context of this article.UberCryxic 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, it sounds like you just ignored what I said above. I outlined that the trial was in fact important, but the discussion of negative vs. positive had no relevance to this article. Please read my response before commenting any further. I clearly stated that negative and positive have no relevance here, so please don't jump to conclusions. Aside from that, I'd argue that the sheer amount of awards he's won is quite an achievement, considering that awards are one of the main ways in which an artist's 'success' is measured. That's my opinion anyway. Trial is extremely important yes, but I think the awards are also quite important. --Paaerduag 06:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll leave it at that to avoid unnecessary hardships.UberCryxic 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, we'll stop discussing negative vs. positive connotations of the trial... but the awards I will be doing some thinking about... --Paaerduag 01:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

can he still dance

many people nowerdays are questioning if he can still dance like he used to as they have not seen a new video or performance of a dance in a long time, i think it should be mentioned that it was very noticable in the documentary living with michael jackson, that he can still dance better than ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.14.228 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

How is this relevant to the article? Doesn't seem to be. Either way, Wikipedia generally does not speculate. When Michael Jackson performs again, I guess we'll see how many of his moves he still has left.UberCryxic 12:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

if you watch Living with Michael Jackson and strip past all of martin bashir's bullshit, you'll see MJ do a little performance of the moonwalk and a few other kicks and moves. He's still got it. --Paaerduag 06:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That was 4-5 years ago. (Chunda18 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

although it's apparent in his movement he's 48 and not 20 something. Markthemac 13:59, 5 may 2007 (UTC)

Laughable sales

While I know the sales figure comes from a "reliable source" and nothing I say will change the fact it can and shall be used in the article. I find the claim that MJ has sold 750 million highly amusing; when you consider the fact that in 1999 it was claimed he had just passed sales of 250 million singles and albums including his efforts with his brothers as well as solo material. 500 million since 2000 eh? MJ's never been so hot....

You're right. MJ has not sold anywhere near 750 million, just like the Beatles or Elvis have not sold the 1 billion they are claimed to have sold. But in Wikipedia, on this issue, claims predominate, not attempts at ontological reality. And not even claims from reliable sources, which is what we normally go by. Just claims. If you can basically find something about sales that's not in a forum or a blog, you can put it on Wikipedia. It's not fair or right, I think anyway, but that's the consensus people came up with a long time. We'd have to change that consensus before we started giving more realistic figures for these people (MJ stands at over 300 million records currently - just by himself, not including the Jackson 5 - same with the Beatles and Elvis).UberCryxic 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I should clarify that what I said above applies more to articles about the greatest selling albums or artists of all time. For current sales, reliable sources and certifications are always desirable.UberCryxic 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ah... of course you'll try to bring down MJs sales figures to try to defame the man... how do you know he's only sold 300 million? We don't know how many he's sold. Any source could be correct. It's not enough just to declare that source is wrong and remove it. All sources that come from verifiable, sound sources are able to be added to wikipedia full stop. --Paaerduag 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we remove the source. I don't even think the anon was doing that. He/she was just pointing out the obvious: the figures themselves are ridiculous. And they are. They're promotional to begin with and make no sense when you go back and try to add up the parts to see if you get the whole. People make up sales like this all the time; it's not just about MJ. Elvis, the Beatles, Bing Crosby, and Frank Sinatra have all "profitted" from fiddling like that in the past, ending up, in one way or another, with, as was said, laughable numbers. But this conversation doesn't matter and doesn't really add anything towards improving the article. The figure is there and it's staying. Move on.UberCryxic 11:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I have researched so far (I'm doing a book about world music sales), it looks like MJ's global sales as a solo act are at around 150 million singles and albums at least, to be fair. Of course, I'm not the authority on the matter, so don't think I'm trying to claim my information is the best of the best, it isn't, at least not yet. I started this project a couple of years back with some friends as a hobby and it had grown and grown from their. As for Elvis, it is possible that he has sold the billion records, there have been close to 4,000 Elvis titles in print over the years, most of which have sold well and each Beatles studio album sold at the very least 20 million copies as of 2006, but whatever. If the book ever comes out and gets media reviews I can post a link for it on wiki and the biggest selling artists page! :) 74.65.39.59 12:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since you are not proposing any changes to the article, this is completely unrelated to any improvements, but I'll entertain this dialogue anyway. The biggest selling artists page on Wikipedia is basically a contest between the Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson, which is fair. 150 million units for Michael Jackson? Ugh to be fair to you, since you're writing a book, that's crap. The following analysis for Michael Jackson is done using very conservative figures:

• Total singles sales (Epic and Motown): roughly 50 million
• Total Motown album sales : roughly 20 million
• Relevant Epic album sales:
• Off the Wall: 19 million
• Thriller: 54 million
• Bad: 28 million
• Dangerous: 27 million
• HIStory: 16 million copies (32 million units)
• Blood on the Dancefloor: 6 million
• Invincible: 8 million
• HIStory Greatest Hits: 3 million
• Number Ones: 6 million
• The Essential Michael Jackson: 1.5 million

That gives roughly 240 million records, just counting HIStory with 16 million (would obviously give 255 million or so counting it as pure disc units). Again, these are with the most conservative numbers that I can imagine for Michael Jackson. The following analysis involves likely figures.

• Total singles sales (Epic and Motown): roughly 75 million
• Total Motown album sales : roughly 25 million
• Relevant Epic album sales:
• Off the Wall: 20 million
• Thriller: 60 to 80 million (we'll take 70 million; see explanation below)
• Bad: 30 million
• Dangerous: 30 million
• HIStory: 18 million copies (36 million units)
• Blood on the Dancefloor: 6 million
• Invincible: 8 million
• HIStory Greatest Hits: 3 million
• Number Ones: 6 million
• The Essential Michael Jackson: 2 million

That gives 293 million records, 311 million units counting HIStory as 36 million. My estimates for his Motown releases are probably conservative here too. In all likelihood he easily breaches 300 million, and usually I like to give a range of 300 to 400 million units, just to avoid committing myself to a specific number. Ok Thriller....Thriller's sales figures are some of the most poorly understood ever. I'll give you a brief history lesson here. In October 1984 the RIAA certified Thriller at 20x Platinum. At around that time (well, March 1984), TIME magazine reported that Thriller had sold 39 million copies worldwide. By the early 1990s, when Thriller was recertified to 21x Platinum by the RIAA, it had sold over 50 million copies around the world. Since then, the RIAA has given it 6 more platinum certifications. About 1/3 of Michael Jackson's sales, just generally, have been inside the US and 2/3 outside. Using that fact and Thriller charting so well so often throughout the world, it looks very likely that between 1990 and now Thriller could have added something approaching 20 million copies. This is leaving aside the Guinness figure, of course, which throws everything into confusion. I asked Guinness about how they got that figure and they said that Michael Jackson's people gave them a printout from the RIAA saying that Thriller had sold 54 million in the United States and another printout from Jackson's record label saying 50 million in the rest of the world. The 50 million outside of the USA is quite believable, but for right now I'm sticking with the 27x Platinum certification, since I don't know exactly what Jackson's representatives gave Guiness (but whatever it was, Guinness obviously found it reputable enough to officially present him with a certificate at the World Music Awards). If Thriller's sales actually exceed 100 million, then it would be a quasi-epochal event in the history of music that would leave me fairly confident in claiming that Michael Jackson is the greatest selling musical act ever. I refrain from that currently because I am uncertain about how much Thriller has actually sold (let's face it, no one really knows).

On Elvis....let me first comment on some general matters. No, it's not possible for Elvis or any other act to have sold that many records. It just makes no sense and the hard data isn't there. Although Elvis charted amazingly during his lifetime and posthumously, he didn't chart well enough to claim over a billion records in sales. It's no secret that record companies like to put a lot of crap out there on matters like this, and RCA and EMI are no different. A lot of Elvis's estimates - and the Beatles....and Bing Crosby....and Michael Jackson...and (you get the point) - are based on extrapolations. So the company will look at 100 or 200 albums and assume these must have sold 300 million copies let's say (that's what was done for Elvis). This is a silly technique and one prone to a million errors; you learn not to do things like this in elementary statistics: extrapolations are bad. And for Elvis they're especially horrible, given that dozens of his albums may sell no more than a few hundred thousand copies, but they're ballooned into millions through various deceitful techniques (you know what you did, RCA). Elvis is around 300 to 400 million records, "to be fair." About 60% to 2/3 of his total record sales are in the US, and in fact he's had a difficult time doing well outside of the Anglophone world, a sharp contrast to Michael Jackson, who is the best selling foreign artist in many countries throughout the world (or among the top ten). The Beatles have the same problems as Elvis so I won't go through them. Another difference is that record companies now count differently than they did back then, when they were more interested about how the records would do in hard financial terms rather than shipping terms. That led to a million exaggerations. Finally, in the future, when Michael Jackson is no longer active musically, Sony will also release estimates for his figures, and I guarantee you right now they are going to be "huge." They'll probably say over a billion for him just to make him comparable to the Beatles and Elvis.UberCryxic 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: just as an automatic check on why and how wrong you are, consider the following point. Guinness has certified Michael Jackson for being the first American entertainer to sell over 100 million albums outside of the United States (they're pretty damn sure about that one). The RIAA has certified him for like 61 million copies in the US....so just going off that, Michael jackson automatically has at least 160 million units. You should reconsider your numbers.UberCryxic 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the songs?

I'd be interested to read more about the specifics of who wrote and arranged the various number one hits Jackson had. I've always been under the impression that he played a much more active role writing his music than most recent pop artists (no idea if its actually true), and if the article commented on that, I think it would be great. Thanks! 71.231.7.133 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of Jackson's hits were written and composed by him. Some examples are "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough," "Billie Jean," "Beat It," "Smooth Criminal," and "Black or White." The article mentions that he is in the Songwriter's Hall of Fame, for aforementioned reasons. It could probably do more in the department of describing his songwriting abilities. I guess we'll see. I recently added another section that dealt with those kinds of issues. Also, he was a producer, alongside other people, in all of his Epic albums. During the Epic stage of his career, he was always very active in making his music.UberCryxic 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all Uber.Quincy Jones wrote/produced MJ's 1st 3 solo albums (79's Off the Wall, 82's Thriller, 87's Bad ) & wrote many of the songs, as did James Ingram, Paul McCartny, David Foster, Stevie Wonder (MUSICAL GENIUS!) etc, etc,

@ "71.231": chk the wiki page for each of MJ's album & u'll c who wrote what songs. MJ left QJ in 90 2 work w other producers Teddy Riley (new jack swing) etc. & took more control thereafter.

MJ rox!  ? _Lilkunta 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones co-produced those albums. Both men were involved, not just one. In fact, there are plenty of instances of Jackson contradicting Quincy and having his way on a particular song (most prominent example is "Billie Jean," where it was Jackson who decided to keep the long intro). Quincy definitely helped, but he was not alone. I also never said "all." I said "many," which is a perfectly reasonable statement. Quincy was not much of a songwriter, at least when stacked up against Michael Jackson, who did a lot in terms of songwriting after Thriller (most of Bad was written by Jackson, for example).UberCryxic 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but both were involved. But it is a fact ( or all that I've read) says that QJ was in control of the 1st 3 Epic albums. The sons u mentions are from the post QJ era. MJ took control in 90/91 when he left QJ 4 new jack swing producer Teddy Riley (new jack swing) and created Dangerous._Lilkunta 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Quincy was no more in control than Michael Jackson. He might have heard more power "unofficially," especially with Off the Wall, but both were pretty much equals. Bad was more Jackson than Quincy really. What Quincy did and did not do depended heavily on what Jackson was willing to negotiate on; sometimes he didn't feel comfortable with a particular arrangement or something and Quincy would be brought in to straighten things out (like Jackson wanted Quincy to review his rendition of Beat It to decide if it was good enough for an album). Finally, I'd urge you to review your understanding of Jackson's discography. Don't Stop Til You Get Enough was in 1979, Billie Jean and Beat It in 1983, and Smooth Criminal in 1988.....all songs written and composed by Michael Jackson and well within the "QJ era."UberCryxic 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. QJ was in control. His work w MJ ia what many say made MJ truly shine as a solo. Both are gifted musicians.

I urge u 2 not be rude. Read what I wrote? QJ was in control of the 1st 3 epic albums is what I said. It is known that from "Bad" on MJ took control, but his 1st album he wrote only 2 songs. _Lilkunta 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

What does "in control" mean to you? For someone in control, Quincy sure deferred to Jackson on a lot of things. Your position also doesn't explain why Jackson was a co-producer for all three albums. I won't deny that informally Quincy might have had more power, simply because Jackson respected him so much, but that doesn't mean he was "in control." That kind of implies that Quincy was calling all the shots, which was not true at all. There was much debate and argument in the making of these albums; it wasn't a smooth process.UberCryxic 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw I did read what you wrote. You wrote that the songs I mentioned were from the "post QJ era." However, some of the songs that I mentioned, like Don't Stop Til You Get Enough and Billie Jean, among the others, were clearly in the "QJ era." So you were wrong and I advised you to have a basic understanding of Jackson's discography before commenting so forcefully (I mean if you don't know that these songs came out while Jackson was working with Quincy, then you have credibility problems). What else do you want me to say?UberCryxic 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Y no 'bio' or 'personal life' section?

How come there is no personal life section? The 2 sentences that mention his kids I dont think is enuf.

A small section that says 'MJ was born, raised in Gary, moved to CA, toured with his brothers, went solo, married & div Lisa, married & div Debbie after having 2 kids, had 3d kid with unknown lady' I dont think is a bad idea?

I get that this article is org by era, but having his personal life in with his music isnt a good idea( IMO )._Lilkunta 08:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

To have a separate section or sections about his personal life is a bad idea because then the article would be unnecessarily divided. The 'eras' are NOT solely about the albums from which they are named. The eras are simply a neat way of dividing up his life, and under each era there is music achievements AND personal life. That way things remain balanced. --Paaerduag 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A small section is a bad idea? I find 2 sentences asbout his kids in the into & then his marriage to lisa marie dabbled in 1 section & his marriage 2 debbie rowe in another to be disorganised. That 2 me in unbalanced. Just a small section ._Lilkunta 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lilkinta, that's how other articles on entertainers/actors/actresses are organized, but that would be a horrible standard for this one given the subject. I think what we have now is fine; it's a solid model that's been around for a few years already.UberCryxic 12:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

l-i-l-k-u-n-t-a. Since that is the consensus of wiki articles, shouldnt it be used here? I do thik this article has been vastly/greatly approved.

But again, 2 sentences about his kids in the into & then his marriage to lisa marie dabbled in 1 section & his marriage 2 debbie rowe in another section IMO is disorganised. If some 1 wants his personal life info, they 1st have 2 go 2 the Jackson 5 article, & then come back & read thru the whole article to find out about Lisa Marie & Debbie Rowe._Lilkunta 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The personal information for this subject has already been integrated into the article. I would be willing to do what you proposed if that were lacking somehow, but clearly it's not. Simply read his bio and you'll find out plenty of information regarding Jackson's personal life. It's fine as it is.UberCryxic 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i for one am not going to allow this article to be clogged up by the ridiculous media crap circulating around the internet, and the bloody tabloid garbage idiots read. This article will NOT become a seething page filled with lies and crap. If that's what you mean by personal life, then I'm sorry but you are wrong. in terms of HIS personal life, not the fabrications made by the media/tabloids/haters etc, that is covered plenty enough in this article. --Paaerduag 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

50-foot Robot

I just really wanted to clear this up. From where or whom did this ridiculous rumor that Michael Jackson is planning to build a 50-foot five-story high robot originate? I would just like to know, because I've seen it written about all around the internet. Of course it's rubbish, but who the hell made it up? And what was Michael Jackson's official response (most probably Raymone Bain said something on the matter). Anyway, I am not suggesting that this go in the article. I just wanted to clear it up because I'm not sure what to make of this highly-proliferated rumor. Thanks. --Paaerduag 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

jon pareles references are disgusting and horribly offensive...

how can you possibly reference this horribly bias man who's attacking Michael Jackson? It's not just a little bit bias, it's just stating as fact that he's a megalomaniac... the themes and genres section is disgusting and filled with this lunatic pareles' rants against Michael. he is the true psychopath here. I'm going to be personally rewriting the themes and genres section. I am not going to allow this freak's lunatic rants to be translated onto this page. I hate this pareles fellow, and I am not going to let his bias crap fill this page. I almost cried when I read his horrible ravings. Oh by the way, the Sneddon reference was a NEWS ARTICLE on a Michael Jackson site, and was unbiased. --Paaerduag 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's first calm down and eliminate the rhetoric. Pareles may claim various things regarding Jackson, but only what was deemed encyclopedic and notable was actually included in the article. I tried to write that section while keeping in mind prevalent themes in Jackson's work and how they were received, both critically and publically. And something else: for this ABC News article, you changed the title. The title is just the title of the article; it's not a description of what the article is about. So if the title of that article calls Jackson a 'nasal cripple,' then that's what it's going to say on Wikipedia. Furthermore, a claim that his alleged plastic surgeries gained "widespread" coverage among the tabloids press is not something that has to be referenced. It's not a controversial claim; they did. Also, there's no reason to say "alleged" use of plastic surgeries. Jackson himself has claimed that he had at least some plastic surgeries (we're not here to debate how many, just that he had some)....and his different facial features did not magically appear out of nowhere.UberCryxic 15:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ok... i got a bit riled up and sorry, but I am not happy for this goon of a man to be the only voice in the themes and genres section. I am going to try and find new references to get rid of some of pareles. Because his opinion is not fact. --Paaerduag 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The excesses in his opinion, and there were some admittedly, were not included in the analysis.UberCryxic 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "Further reading"

There is a new book out listing every song connected to Michael Jackson. It is quite interesting and worth reading I think. So it should be included on the page. Information: http://www.cadman-halstead-musicbooks.com/fortherecordpage.htm http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jackson-Record-Chris-Cadman/dp/0755202678/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Splitting the article

I think it would be a good idea to split the article into Michael Jackson (person) and Michael Jackson (artist). One article is about his life. Another article is about his music, his influence, his style etc. It's just that there is so much on him that it's hard to contain it within one article. Street walker 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

i definately agree that taking the course of action of splitting up the article is tempting, but sometimes the music and his life are inextricably tied. For example, the Dangerous tour was cut short due to the chandler family's false allegations against michael. I know where you're going with the idea of splitting music and personal life, but that poses the threat of making the article potentially repetitive. the system now of dividing his life into 'eras' is not only about the music of the 'era' but also his personal life etc. I'm just scared that if we divide personal life and music, the article may become repetitive. I'm opened to suggestion, however. Thanks. --Paaerduag 07:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the current structure because it does a great job at integrating all of the information into a smooth whole.UberCryxic 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think to an extent it could be broken up, but not by much. Could have an article for 'influence' though, that entire block of text could just be moved. It'd work better I think. (The Elfoid 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)).

Well the influence section right now is more of a summary anyway. A whole article would be much, much longer. So even if you created a new article for that, the current section is still fair game for this article.UberCryxic 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the level of detail required to even scratch the surface, it's somewhat big for a summary. It's a six paragraph summary and approx 2300 words. That is not 'just' a summary. (The Elfoid 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

If we created another article on that topic, I think it would become readily apparent, in context at least, why that section is just a summary. As it is, the length is fine, just based on the status of the subject.UberCryxic 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

God help us!

Normally I practice restraint but was this article written by Jacksons PR? A mediocre "star" with a tinny voice and did nothing musically that Stevie Wonder did not do at least 10 years before-hand. Comparisions with Elvis are a joke as is the claim of him being "one of the most famous people on the planet". Comparing his latest studio Album sales with that of Madonna she outsold him by almost 8 million. This article MUST be more objective and as the individual below stated "is not encyclopedic" this site is to share useful knowledge when needed, it is not a fan site (172.216.80.56 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Do you have some rather more specific complaints? I notice heavy doses of largely irrelevant and minority-based opinion in your statements, which are unlikely to lead to any significant changes to the article unless they are constructed more thoroughly. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are not here to judge how great of a musician or entertainer Michael Jackson was. We simply report the positions of reliable sources and the accompanying relevant and prevalent points of view, always thinking in a global perspective. Thank you.UberCryxic 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

please don't give us your crud. all you are is a gushing hater to use your reverse-terminology. Paaerduag 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vitiligo

There seems to be very little obvious mention on here that he has vitiligo:

"On The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1993, Jackson claimed that the change in his skin color was due to vitiligo.[48] In the interview, Jackson stated that his skin was, at first, black with white spots which he used make-up to cover. But later, some time after Thriller, his skin became increasingly white with black spots; he then used white make-up to cover the black spots."

...Seems to be about it. To be honest this is a major factor in his image and I think it deserves a greater mention. I think at least a summary of vitiligo and more about the subject and him should be inlcuded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fitz05 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I think that mention is sufficient. Anything more is likely to generate controversy. The change in his skin color has been a "major factor" in the United States, certainly, but does not seem to be that big of a deal internationally.UberCryxic 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

as long as the article doesn't imply that he 'bleached' his skin because that's plain BS. anyone with a brain knows that he hasn't, because why is La Toya also white? she's got it as well. so as long as the article states he has vitiligo, it's fine. btw, two skin tests proved he had lupus and vitiligo in the 1993 case i'm pretty sure. --Paaerduag 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory, La Toya could have bleached her skin too... Not that I don't believe the 1993 skin tests, but La Toya is not a sound argument. Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.228 (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Two Jackson siblings happening to both bleach their skin is not a sound argument either. Sounds unlikely, and plain ridiculous slander to me. But then again, others are more gullible to the tabloids. --Paaerduag 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore the above line (apparently written by someome very gullible to tabloids :-< ). Paerduag: I do believe MJ has vitiligo. (I have seen too many ”spotty” photos to doubt it.) Yet still, why is it unlikely that two Jackson siblings would both bleach their skin, if such a method indeed existed? I mean, both MJ and La Toya have had nosejobs, and Janet has seemingly also had some minor surgery. Once again, I was just disputing your argument, not the vitiligo itself! Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.228 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Middle name?

Most sources point to the fact that Michael Jackson's legal middle name is Joseph. However, on all court documents in the case People v. Jackson, his legal name is listed as "MICHAEL JOE JACKSON". Is his middle name "Joe" or "Joseph"? Does anyone have an image of his birth certificate or another legal document to establish his true legal middle name? Rhythmnation2004 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"7 Even"?

Why has the link under the 'Studio Album' section got Michael's new album as '7 Even'? What does that even mean?--Paaerduag 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to mean all the albums Michael has had. But, how do WE know, what the title of HIS album is gonna be?

I still don't understand. Why not leave it as 'unnamed' or something like that? Why this random phrase 7 Even? --Paaerduag 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it a few hours ago to "TBA," as it was before. There have been some rumors circulating that "7Even" will be the name of his album, but these have not been confirmed.UberCryxic 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)