Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Intro

In an effort to put equal weighing on music career and person life, I rewrote the intro but have not edited it yet. Before I do that I need to know what you think of this introductory sectence in regardes to NPOV.

Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958), variously known as The King of Pop or Wacko Jacko, is an American musician whose controversial personal life and successful music career have been at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century.

Street walker 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Neverland Ranch bit of the intro needs to be removed and placed in its own section - I believe that would reduce its size enough to warrant removing the tag. Rarr 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes!!!!!!!!!

See how they won't let MJ's article have quotes, but they let Madonna's! BIASED!!!!!!!!

Quotes by Michael Jackson

Important

In actually Michael Jackson has received 18 grammy awards. Check Qunicy Jones' awards and you will see that four other awrads have been put under Qunicy Jones' name, even though MJ's name is there.

Neverland

All over the walls of my room are pictures of Peter Pan. I've read everything that Barrie wrote. I totally identify with Peter Pan, the lost boy from Never Neverland." (Michael Jackson)


The first time Michael saw the beautiful valley of Santa Ynez, 150 kilometers away from Santa Barbara in California, was in 1983 during the production of the video "Say Say Say" with Paul McCartney. In 1988 he could buy the "Sycomore Valley Ranch" in neighbourhood to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. A new name was quickly found - Neverland Valley Ranch inspired from one of his most beloved books Peter Pan. Michael made the ranch to a kind of paradise. It's a full scale amusement park with Ferris Wheel, The Wipeout, Bumper cars and Sea Dragon. And it's also a colourful park with thousends of flowers, statues, little forrests and lakes. In a zoo you can find many animals like monkeys, lions, white tigers, elephants and many cats, who are living in the yalley. There is also an private film theater and, of course, Michael's house. Some people wonder about this "childishness". But Michael claims, that he compensates his own lost childhood. "Well, it brings out the child that lives in everybody. I love rides and things like that and I share it with the children." But he not uses all this only for himself and his own children. Every three weeks the parks opens the doors for ill or underpriviledged children.

Car bumpers enjoy!"People wonder why I always have children around, because I find the thing that I never had through them, you know Disneyland, amusement parks, arcade games. I adore all that stuff because when I was little it was always work, work, work from one concert to the next, if it wasn't a concert it was the recording studio, if it wasn't that it was TV shows or interviews or picture sessions. There was always something to do." "We have children that come who are - who intravenously - they are very sick, bedridden."

In Neverland "I'm trying to imitate Jesus in the fact that he said to be like children, to love children, to be as pure as children, and to make yourself as innocent and to see the world through eyes of wonderment and the whole magical quality of it all and I love that. And we'll have like a hundred bald headed children, they all have cancer, and they're all running around.


What Michael is thinking about art

I am committed to my art. I believe that all art has as its ultimate goal the union between the material and the spiritual, the human and the divine. I believe that to be the reason for the very existence of art. (1993)

Songwriting is a very frustrating art form. You have to get on tape exactly what's playing in your head. When I hear it up here in my head, it's wonderful. I have to transcribe that onto tape. "The Girl is Mine" wasn't completely what I wanted, but it's very nice. But "Billie Jean" is there. I worked so hard on that. I worked for three weeks on the bass lick alone. (1999)


What Michael is thinking about family

I love my family very much. I wish I could see them a little more often than I do. But we understand because we're a show business family and we all work. We do have family day when we all get together, we pick a person's house, it might be Jermaine's house or Marlon's house or Tito's house and everyone will come together in fellowship and love each other and talk and catch up on who's doing what. (1993)


What Michael is thinking about Cartoons

I'm a collector of cartoons. All the Disney stuff, Bugs Bunny, the old MGM ones. It's real escapism, it's like everything's alright. It's like the world is happening now in a far away city. Everything's fine.

I like Batman a lot... If I could choose one, it would be Morph, from the X-Men. He can become anything ... He constantly transforms himself. I think he can even teleport, which is interesting and exciting to me. He's not as popular as the others, but that makes him exciting. (1995)

I love movies my dream is to make films, not only act and sing but to produce them as well. And I love animation. (1995)


What Michael is thinking about himself

I do disguises for different reasons. I like to study people - be like the fly on the wall. Even if it's two old ladies sitting on a bench or some kids on a swing. Because I don't know what it's like to fit in an everyday life situation. (1999)

One time I was in a record store, completely disguised, and these girls were pulling out my album, talking all about me. I was literally next to them. It was wonderful. I loved it. But if I go out as myself, I can't have fun. People always say, "Why don't we just go to a party?" Soon as I step in, the party's over -for me. It's a party for them, but they are all putting their cards on my face, saying, "Remember me? I met you four years ago at…" and I say, "I don't remember." So I can't enjoy the experience. They play all my songs. I didn't come to hear my music. And everybody starts chanting "Dance!" "Well, I want to see YOU dance for a change." (1999)

I'm never pleased with anything, I'm a perfectionist, it's part of who I am. (1993)

I believe in my work, like I said, I have great confidence in my dreams. When I have a great idea I have an iron will. (1995)

It's sad to get caught up in the past. That's why I don't put awards in my house. No gold records, no Grammys. They are in storage. I don't like to be puffed up with pride, 'cause i'd feel like I don't have anymore things to reach for. And that's not true. (1999)

Well, I usually am happy. I don't let anything get me down, no matter what. I like to hear the sound of water and birds chirping and laughter, you know. I love all the real natural, innocent things. I would never go to a party or a club. I did that when I was a kid, and I don't care to do it anymore. (1999)


What Michael is thinking about being on stage

When we do a concert, and there's like a hundred thousand people out there, and you see a sea of people singing there, all in unison, holding up candles, and, you go, wow! You know it's, it really makes your heart happy and that's what really makes me feel like everything's OK. (1995)

I wouldn't say I was sexy! But I guess that's fine if that's what they say. I like that in concert. That's neat. (1983)


What Michael is thinking about music

To be honest, my first love and appreciation for music was classical, in kindergarten. I used to listen to Tchaikovsky every day. The great writing of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, and many others. I love the showtunes. (1995)

We never had music or dance lessons in our house, ever. We were a family that sang all the time. We watched television. We would entertain ourselves... We would take all the furniture out of the living room and dance. I think you're pretty much born with a gift and you are compelled to create. That is what I have always felt. I remember making up songs when I was really little. I remember when I was little there was rain outside and we would make up songs. Janet and I would have a songwriting game while we washed the dishes...while we were cleaning. I think most kids don't do that these days. It was our destiny. (1995)

The process [in creating a ryhythm] is creating a vocal rhythm to a click track - which is a sound, a timed beat. And you're doing these mouth sounds to that beat. These sounds can be looped according to how you sample it in the computer again and again. This is your foundation for the entire track - everything plays off this. It's the rhythm, like the beatbox rhythm. Every song I've written since I was very little I've done that way. I still do it that way. (1995)

Music started with nature. Music is nature. Birds make music. Oceans make music. Wind makes music, Any natural sound is music. And that's where it started.. You see, we're just making a replica of nature, which is the sounds we hear outside. (1999)

I just try to write wonderful music; and if they love it, they love it. I don't think about any demographic. The record company tries to get me to think that way, but I just do what I would enjoy hearing. (1999)

I think the best work is coming, but I would like to go into other areas, not keep doing album after pop album. (1999)


What Michael is thinking about ignorance

I'm prejudiced against ignorance. That's what I'm mainly prejudiced against. It's only ignorance and it's taught because it's not genetic at all. The little children in those countries aren't prejudiced. I would like for you to put this in quotes, too. I'm really not a prejudiced person at all. I believe that people should think about God more and creation. ... Look at the many wonders inside the human body-the different colors of organs, colors of blood-and all these different colors do a different thing in the human body. It's the most incredible system in the world; it makes an incredible building, the human being. And if this can happen with the human body, why can't we do it as people? And that's how I feel. And that's why I wish the world could do more. That's the only thing I hate. I really do. (1984)



What Michael is thinking about religion

I believe in the Bible and I try to follow the Bible. I know I'm an imperfect person... I'm not making myself an angel because I'm not an ngel and I'm not a devil either. I try to be the best I can and I try to do what I think is right. It's that simple. And I do believe in God. (1984)

I pray every night. I don't just pray at night. I pray at different times during the day. When I see something beautiful, whenever I see beautiful scenery - like when I'm flying or something - I say, oh, God, that's beautiful. And I always say little prayers like that all through the day. I love beauty. (1984)



What Michael is thinking about animals

I find in animals the same thing I find so wonderful in children. That purity, that honesty, where they don't judge you, they just want to be your friend. I think that is so sweet. (1993)

God created animals and they are loving, they are beautiful. I feel the way anthropologist Jane Goodall does, or any of those naturalists. I don't find my interest in animal weird or strange at all. (1999)


What Michael is thinking about drugs

In the field I'm in, there is a lot of that and it gets offered to me all the time. People even go as far as to just... stick it in your pocket and walk off. Now, if it was a good thing, they wouldn't do that... I mean, would somebody drop something beautiful in my pocket and just walk off? But I don't want to have anything to do with any of that. I mean, as corny as it sounds, but this is how I really believe: Natural highs are the greatest highs in the world... Who wants to take something and just sit around for the rest of the day after you take it [drugs], and don't know who you are, what you're doing, where you are? Take in something that's gonna inspire you to do greater things in the world. (1984)


What Michael is thinking about politics

I never get into politics. But I think music soothes the savage beast. If you put cells under a microscope and you put music on, you'll see them move and start to dance. It affects the soul.... I hear music in everything. (1992)

Sources

  • Mjcafe.net] - All quotes acquired from this site.


Barney's Musical Castle 'LIVE' was Barney's Concert and international

  • This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. For the collection of quotations, see Wikiquote. Uncle G 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes about Michael Jackson

This is a collection of what other celebrities have said about Michael Jackson. AJ (singer; Backstreet Boys) He is what every artist looks up to...to be... one time become the next King of Pop. [source: Pro7; World Music Awards 2000]

Dr. Eugene Aksenoff Just last month I saw Michael Jackson again. He was in Japan with his children. Prince, his 15-month-old son, had high fever and cramp. Michael had not slept the whole night. He's really devoted to the children. [source: Reuters; August 1998]

Anastacia (singer) Actually, when Michael Jackson called, it was all leading up to the fact that when I did the show "The Cut", which was the star search kind of show, I was proposed to by a lot of record companies being interested in wanting me to sign with them. In the process of all those meetings and stuff, I was meeting with MJJ, so it was inevitable to meet the presidents of all of these labels because I was starting to get to that point. Michael Jackson was one of these people that I had to meet, as well as Tommy and Bob Jamieson and the presidents of all the great record companies, so it really was a professional situation. It wasn't like "I'm a really big fan and I want to have you autograph everything that I own", it was a phone call of admiration from a performer to a performer, as a president to an artist wanting to be signed, as an artist looking at what a label has to offer, it was that kind of conversation, but what a light conversation! He was laughing, I was laughing, we were having a great time. It was so wonderful to be able to speak to him. He's so inspiring and what a genius! Forever I'll remember that I got to speak with him on the phone. If I never get to meet him or even work with him in the future, it's the beauty of being able to be recognised by something like that. [source: Radio Undercover]

During an online chat Anastacia did at MSN she was asked which artist would be a dream come true for her to work with: "There's so many. I think any artist would be a dream, but it would fulfill a dream to be on the stage with Michael Jackson." [source: Anastacia]

David Arquette (actor) I remember when I first saw the Michael Jackson "Thriller" video. I couldn't believe that a guy would go out and put so much into a video, and the zombies and all that stuff. I believe it had a solo impact on my decision to be involved with the "Scream" movies. [source: MTV; March 2000]

Fred Astaire (dancer & actor) You are a hell of a mover. Man you really put them on their asses last night. You're an angry dancer. I'm the same way. I used to do the same thing with my cane...You're a hell of a mover! [source: The day after seeing MJ perform at 'Motown 25']

Dallas Austin (songwriter/producer, worked on 'HIStory') Working with Michael is a different type of work. You're pressured timewise, but not by creativity or money. So you're left with mad freedom. You'd think he'd be very controlling, but if he likes you enough to work with you, he wants your expertise, not just another Michael Jackson record. "Heal the World" and "Stranger in Moscow" from the HIStory record are, like, the makeup of Michael. I think he's taken on the responsibility to make changes in the world. He's the only real superhero. Think about it. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Jennifer Batten (guitarist on several MJ world tours) He completely changed my life, you know, I was doing the L.A. club scene, just trying to make ends meet and BAM - I'm on a paid vacation around the world having just the time of my life playing in the biggest band in the world. And yeah, I'll always feel an intense gratitude and love for him for that. [source: Entertainment Tonight; July 16, 1997]

Tracy Bingham (actress) Question: What are you looking forward to tonight? Tracy Bingham: Actually, you know what...I have never ever met Michael Jackson. I love him. And just being in the same room as Michael Jackson is enough for me. So I can't wait to see him. [source: Pro7, World Music Awards 2000]

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach We talk about everything from love and relationships to spiritual healing. I have great admiration and respect for Michael. From what I gather, he is very unfairly represented. His kindness strikes me more than anything. He is extremely interested in spiritual things. I’ve been to Michael Jackson’s home and I’ve given him lessons from the Torah. It’s not that he is interested in converting. He just has avery admirable interest in learning. When I speak with Michael about Judaism, he just wants to hear more and more. It’s not that I am such a great teacher. It is his sincere curiosity. I don’t think you should judge Michael by his eccentricities. Who isn’t eccentric? [source: ABC News, CNN, WENN; October 1999]

BoyzIIMen (R&B group) We share his concern for the children who have been innocent victims of war and, who have suffered because of the horrors of war, many of whom are without families, food or homes. We applaud Michael for his sensitivity and efforts. [source: Universal Records Press Release; July 1999]

Brandy (singer) Michael Jackson, he is just like; he is the king of it all. Everything that everyone's doing now, he's already done. He's opened a lot of doors for a lot of artists today. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Garth Brooks (country singer) With that numbers stuff [record sales], you just have to take it with a grain of salt. Yeah, you feel proud, but the true guy in you has to say 'Come on ... You're not really on the level of the Beatles.' For me as a fan ... the Beatles, Michael Jackson, you can stick Elvis Presley in there, James Taylor, Billy Joel and 100 more guys in there that I think are on a level Garth will never get to 'cause I'm such a huge fan of these people. [source: Reuters; May 1998]

Naomi Campbell (supermodel/actress, appeared in 'In the Closet' video, 1992) Michael is very involved and on top of everything he puts his name on. He's shy and sweet, considering all he's accomplished, but he's a prankster. When I was doing the video, we had water pistol fights. He's a perfectionist. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Niel Rogers Chick Michael has always been one of those artists that I personally cannot believe. I can't believe how great he is, and I quite frankly have always been in awe of Michael's talent. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Ice Cube (rap artist) [About the 'Thriller' video:] I was glued, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I would just sit there and wait days and days and days to see the "Thriller" video again. I couldn't wait to see it again from start to finish. [source: MTV; March 2000]

Macaulay Culkin (actor) In an interview published in the New York magazine, actor Macaulay Culkin described Michael Jackson as among his very best friends in the world. "We had very similar experiences in childhood. We're both going to be 8 years old forever in some place because we never had a chance to be 8 when we actually were." They first became friends when he was 9 and he and his family were invited to Neverland. Culkin said, "It was a child's dream, with every kind of soda in the world there, every kind of candy. A two-floor arcade, a carnival and a movie theater"

"Neverland is still the only place on earth where I feel absolutely, 100 percent comfortable." [Source: New York magazine May 7,2001]

Dalvin DeGrate (Soul/R&B group 'Jodeci') Michael is my favorite artist. I formed my harmonies and melodies based on his music. [source: Billboard; April 2000]

Kevin Dorsey (HIStory tour assistant musical director) He is such an open person when it comes to his creativity, umm, he expects nothing of us that he doesn't expect of himself. [source: Entertainment Tonight; July 16, 1997]

Missy Elliot (rapper) I don't look at it as he is not the hottest thing any more - I look at what he's done as a groundbreaking artist who opened a lot of doors for black acts. Michael Jackson is still amazing to me. [source: Entertainment Weekly; November 1999]

Kenny Gamble (producer on the Jacksons' 'Destiny' album, 1978) When we took Michael in the studio tooverdub his voice, he had so many different ideas about songs, writing, and producing, I told him he could really record himself. He was very curious about a lot of things. He's a creative, spiritual, caring person. Nineteen eighty-one's "Rock With You" is the most what Michael's about. I really believe he and Quincy have a magic together. Michael is a miracle. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Genuwine (R&B singer) If it weren't for Michael Jackson, a lot of us wouldn't be here. People talk all this junk about Michael, but he's cool with me. He opened a lot of doors for the rest of us. [I] knew what I wanted to do this the night I saw Michael Jackson on the 'Motown 25' TV special. He's the one that made me realize that was what I wanted to do. [source: September 1997]

M.C. Hammer (singer) Just a phenomenal artist, the [word] speaks for itself. You don't go much beyond Michael Jackson when it comes to performing and making good records. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Mary Hart (co-host of 'Entertainment Tonight') It's a pretty awesome experience to watch him rehearse. He knows exactly what he wants and how to get it. He's very much in charge. [source: while visiting tour rehearsals in Pensacola, Florida; February 1988]

Heavy D (label executive, rapped on 'Jam,' 1991) I was in California the first time I heard Michael Jackson wanted to record with me. I was, like, Nah, no way, he's too big, it can't be true. Then I got a call from Michael's people at my hotel telling me he was interested. But I still wasn't believing it-I thought they were setting me up for a TV practical jokes show. So me and my partner go to the place, and while we were waiting we were talking and cursing up a storm-I was thinking that if it was a blooper show, they wouldn't be able to use it. Then Michael called and said he was on his way. When he got there he was just, like, `Hey, how ya doin?' Michael's just as regular as everyone else. We talked about all the normal stuff guys talk about. He's real smart. People forget that he's the most incredible entertainer we've seen in our lifetime. His name is Michael Jackson, not Super Michael Jackson. He makes mistakes just like all of us. My favorite Michael Jackson song is "Music and Me." It's an old one, about him and his music, his love for music, and the time they've had together. It's like a song that would be sung to a girl, but it's all about music. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Darrin Henson (choreographer) Question: Did you go to a dance school and if so...where? Darrin Henson: No, I studied all Michael Jackson's videos and that is how I got my moves.

Question: Darrin, has it been intimidating to work with people like Prince and Michael Jackson? Darrin Henson: No, Prince is a great dancer and a great person. He knows what he wants and can move great. Michael is also a great dancer. He loves to listen to the moves and then, in seconds, he is dancing just like you want. [source: Monday Night Backstage Chat at Voice of Dance; 2000]

Andy Hernandez (rock group 'Kid Creole & The Coconuts') As a performer who believes in injecting high energy into a show, I can appreciate more than most what goes into the making of a Michael Jackson performance. The dictionary should contain another word that means 'great, superb, professional, energetic, entertaining' and that word should be 'michael-jackson'. [source: after attending a concert of The Jacksons in Philadelphia; September 1984]

Cynthia Horner (editor of 'Right On!' magazine) He's usually quiet and rather humble. However, it may sound strange to say but people feel energy drwaing from him, almost as though he's endowed with superhuman powers. People are usually so struck by him that they cannot even speak. Indeed, Michael weaves a magic spell over his fans. Michael seems to be more open and outgoing around children, especially those he knows very well. Michael Jackson on stage is as good as it gets! [source: after being backstage at a concert in London; 1988]

Leon Huff (producer on the Jacksons' 'Destiny' album, 1978) When Michael and his brothers first came to Philadelphia, Gamble decided to walk them from the hotel to the studio. As they were walking, they were rushed by a group of girls. The brothers escaped by going into a movie theater. Once they made it to the studio, these girls camped outside the studio-and this was for a six-month period. To see 100 girls laying outside a studio at 3 and 4 in the morning for Michael and his brothers was something else. My favorite Michael song? Nineteen eighty-seven's "Show You the Way to Go." [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Jerry Inzerillo (US millionaire & hotelier, long-time friend of MJ) While the artistry of Michael Jackson is so celebrated... his empathy is not recognized as much as it should be. [source: October 1997]

John Isaac (photographer) It's all lies. A lot of it, they just make up stories and that bothers me, and I am sure it bothers Michael so much. [source: Entertainment Tonight; July 15, 1997]

Janet Jackson (singer, MJ's sister) Some days ago he had someone send me an enormous basket, full of candles (he does it all the time) with, in the middle of it, two magnificient dogs. It was adorable! We have been brought up like that: We are trying to find our places but we adore each other. [source: press conference in Paris, France; August 25, 2000]

2001 - Janet Jackson spoke about brother Michael in two interviews that aired in spring of 2001: Prime Time Live, and MTV Icon. Janet speaks about her family, Michael as a father, and the life changing advice she received from brother Michael. We have excerpted portions of these interviews.

Jimmy Jam (producer/songwriter) Michael's the most intense person I've worked with. For him, everything is about the music and how to make it better. He also makes work a lot of fun. He's a kid at heart-his office is not like a normal office. He has all the kids' toys. A lot of times we'd be in session, in the middle of playing a video game, and he'd be, like, "Well, we got to do this. But go ahead and finish your game, though-I don't want to mess your game up. The thing about Michael is his talent. If you put Michael onstage without the explosions and the other dancers, he'll still command the stage. There's a song called "Childhood" on the new album, and I think for the first time, Michael has put a lot of his feelings on record. That song, for right now, defineswhere he's at-the way he feels about himself and the way people feel about him. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

JC (singer, 'N Sync) I would love to record something with Sting or Seal. We all dream of recording a song with Janet or Michael Jackson. [source: dpa; February 2000]

Rodney Jerkins (music producer) I was a huge fan of Michael since I was a little kid, I followed his career...everything he's ever done........He is the best, there's no other artist at his level, and I worked with many, he is great to work with because he knows exactly what he wants. [source: April 1999]

I'm blessed to even be in the position to work with the greatest entertainer of all time. Just to be working with him is a phenomenon itself, you know, a dream come true. [...] You have people that grew up with Mike that wanna hear him do the "Off The Wall" and "Thriller" type stuff and we are gonna do that but at the same time I'm also trying to do things that kids of today, that don't know who Michael is, will understand. That he is the greatest.

Interviewer: So, does Michael come into the studio with a surgical mask on? Jerkins: No, no. Michael is probably more human than any of us at this party. And that's what a lot of people don't know of. You know, I really know Michael. [...] So it's my responsibility to - we don't want to change that - you know. Not just be a producer in the studio but also be the friend to Michael and say: "Michael, it's cool to come to this party here tonight. It's cool to hang out with me, you know. They are not gonna bother you if you hang out here." [...] I've taken him to places where ... you know parties .. and a lot of people are coming up to him and it gets hectic and I understand why he kind of stays in. But at the same time, you know, he is feeling more comfortable to even step out now. [...] He is a good person. He is not what everybody wants him to be. They want him to be a wacko. You know how it is once you are so successful. They have to find where they can pull you down. He's not like that." [source: The Doug Banks Show; February 2000]

Elton John (singer, songwriter) He is a very smart cookie, Michael. He knows what he wants, he knows what he is doing. I have nothing but admiration. Also, he is a very kind person. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Quincy Jones (music producer) Introverted, shy and nonassertive. He wasn't at all sure he could make a name for himself on his own. Neither was I. [source: Life magazine September 1997 special issue - "Life Legends: the Century's Most Unforgettable Faces"]

Michael can go out and perform before 90,000 people, but if I ask him to sing a song for me, I have to sit on the couch with my hands over my eyes and he goes behind the couch. He is amazingly shy. What people forget about him is that for the first time, probably in the history of music, a black artist is embraced on a global level by everyone from eight to 80 years old. People all over the world, especially young people, have a black man as an idol. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

R. Kelly (singer/songwriter/producer, worked on 'HIStory') [...] I grew up with the music of Michael and I've been inspired a great deal by Michael. To actually have him call me up, call my management, saying he wants me to do a song for him was a great inspiration for me to go forward in my career. And up to the day I met him it was like a big countdown. I think it's normal when you grow up to the music of someone that has been there so long and is so large. To meet this person and knowing that this person depends on me. When an artist calls a producer he makes himself dependent on him to become # 1, to get something that comes out as a track. At this time, Michael Jackson depended on me to make something come true for him.

I remember a funny thing about him. I had ordered Chinese food and had put up all these Walt Disney cups all over the studio because I knew he was a big kid. I knew that. Everyone knew that. And I also got my little dog because I knew he loved animals. I couldn't afford giraffes, but I did have a dog. It broke ice and we talked. And I went to the bathroom and my manager came with me, and I remember that I fell to the floor because I just couldn't believe it. But I got back up and straightened myself out because I realized that I had to be professional. [...] It's always great to work with someone who is wonderful because they bring you forward. Michael was very humble. He also didn't wanna change anything. Some artists want to change songs so that they like them, but I don't go for that. I don't want to destroy the magic. I don't like messing with the magic and what you risk to reach something is what you need to keep it. Michael figured this also. [source: VIVA; October 1999]

I thought it was funny when I told Michael Jackson I didn't want to fly, and he was giving me reasons why I should. I kept looking him in the eye, and I kept saying "uh-huh, uh-huh" and "oh, I see," knowing all the time that I would not be getting on a plane. Working with Michael was definitely not just another day at the office. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Question: So it was cool working with Michael? R. Kelly: I was so nervous, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to finish the project. When he first got to the studio, something weird came over me. Michael was another level, and it was a hell of a level to go to. But passion took over, and it put a shield around me and allowed me to be just a normal guy who felt like he worked with Michael all the time. Question: Was he really receptive, or was he, like, "No, muhfucka, I've been doing this for 30 years." R. Kelly: He was never that. That's why he's been here for 30 years. He was more humble than me-got up under my wing. He wanted to know what it was I wanted from him. And if he could give it to me. Question: How did that feel? R. Kelly: Everything Mrs. McLin told me was true: I was born for this. I was ready. I didn't know that until I met Michael. My teacher told me when I was 15 that one day I would work with Michael Jackson, that one day I'd produce him, and that Quincy Jones would come to me for songs, and Stevie Wonder. I haven't worked with Stevie yet, but she told me these things would happen, and to see them come to pass is amazing. [source: VIBE magazine; March 1996

Jonathan King Michael should have swept the board. But, this year it was the A&M and WEA record companies' turn to win and that's why Sting and Paul Simon got their awards. But you should have seen the look on their faces aftre Michael stole the show when he sang 'Man In The Mirror'. It was a look of absolute pure sheer horror. They were transfixed ny his real talent and mortified when they compared it to their own stars. It comes down to a choice between the music industry and Michael Jackson - and I'd rather have Jacko any time. [source: Grammy Awards; March 2, 1988]

Ed Koch (former mayor of New York City) He really is the supreme theatrical dancer - like Fred Astaire. [source: NY Post; March 1988]

Sean Lennon (singer - son of John Lennon) If it wasn't for Michael Jackson, I probably wouldn't make music now. Thriller changed my life completely." [source: 'US' magazine; October 1998]

Vincent Mantsoe (South African dancer/choreographer) I have always been inspired by TV. There used to be a ballet on Sundays, and I used to watch the Fame series and, of course, all Michael Jackson's music videos. But most of all, I have always been intrigued by The Dance Theatre of Harlem's Dougla; somehow it really got inside me, my mind. [source: South Africa's Sunday Times; February 2000]

Ricky Martin (singer) I need to thank my teachers. I need to thank the legends of pop. I need to thank Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna. Thank you so much for being leaders and teaching me the beauty of pop. [source: Reuters; while accepting an award for his hit "Livin' La Vida Loca" at the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards]

Whoa, talking about Mr. Jackson, all my respects. He definitely has a lot to do with my career. He's the legend; El Maestro, you know? From him, we learn a lot, and definitely he will always be a part of my life. [source: MTV USA; November 1999]

All that I know comes from Michael Jackson. [tv interview on channel RTL9; Dec. 2000]

Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis (former 1st lady of US, editor of Moonwalk) What can one say about Michael Jackson? He is one of the world's most acclaimed entertainers, an innovative and exciting songwriter whose dancing seems to defy gravity and has been heralded by teh likes of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. His public is perhaps unaware of the extent of his dedication to his craft. Restless, seldom satisfied, he is a perfectionist who is constantly challenging himself. To many people Michael Jackson seems an elusive personality, but to those who work with him, he is not. This talented artist is a sensitive man, warm, funny, and full of insight. [source: forward from 'Moonwalk']

Tatum O'Neal (actress) I never worked with Michael, but he and I had a really wonderful friendship when I was 12 and he was 17. He used to dance with me, we'd talk on the phone all the time, and he'd say how funny it was that I was 12 and I could drive and he was older and couldn't. Michael used to come to my house when I was living with my dad, and I remember him being so shy. Once he came into my bedroom, and he wouldn't even sit on my bed. But another time when he was over, he played the drums, my brother played guitar, and someone else played another instrument, and we had a jam session. I had the tape of it, but I lost it somewhere. When I was 12, he asked me to go to the premiere of The Wiz with him, and my agent at the time said it wasn't a good idea, maybe because they felt he wasn't a big enough star yet. He never talked to me after that. I think he thought I just canceled, but it wasn't me at all. I was a child doing what I was told. I want you to print that, because I don't think he ever knew that. I lost touch with him because of it, so I don't really know him anymore. But I love him; he's one of the nicest, most innocent people I've ever met. I love "She's out of My Life" because I think it describes our friendship at that time. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Teddy Pendegrass (musician) People like Michael come along once in history. He's a bonafide superstar. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Prince (singer, songwriter) Asked by a reporter if he could take Michael Jackson in a fistfight Prince laughed and quipped "Michael's not a fighter, he's a lover." (which refers to a verse from the Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney hit duet 'The Girl Is Mine' from 'Thriller'.) [source: Rolling Stone; press conference in New York on May 17, 2000]

Ronald Reagan (former president of USA) To Michael Jackson with appreciation for the outstanding example you have set for the youth of America and the world. [source: The Presidential Award; 1984]

All over America, millions of peole look up to you as an example. Your deep faith in God amd adherence to traditional values are an inspiration to all of us, especially young people searching for something real to believe in. You've gained quite a number of fans along the road since I Want You Back, and Nancy and I are among them. Keep up the good work, Michael. We're very happy for you. [source: in a note to Michael who suffered severe burns during the filmimg of a Pepsi commercial; February 1, 1984]

Little Richard (singer, songwriter) Michael is fantastic. I love him. He is a great artist, one of the greatest entertainers I've ever seen. [source: VH1's special "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll"; May 1, 1998]

Teddy Riley (writer, composer & producer, worked on 'Dangerous' and 'HIStory' albums) I wrote 'Remember the Time' when Michael [Jackson] told me about falling in love with [Debbie Rowe], the woman he just married. I don't know why he didn't marry her the first time around. [source: Los Angeles Times ; December 1996)

He's the greatest. Innovative. Black. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Jessica Simpson (singer) Question: Who would you most want to do a duet with? Jessica Simpson: Some of my favorites...I was thinking about this the other day. Michael Jackson would be the ultimate. I wouldn't mind Celine Dion or Shania Twain, either! [source: Zoog Disney; June 26, 2000]

Slash (Guns N' Roses guitarist, played on 'Dangerous' and 'HIStory') He's a fucking brilliant entertainer, a complete natural. He's the only guy I've ever met that's real-for that kind of music. I grew up listening to the Jackson 5. I used to love "Dancing Machine. We've been friends for a while, so he just lets me do what I want to do. I get a basic framework, and I just make up my part and they edit it. I wonder sometimes what it's gonna sound like, [Laughs] but every time, they do a great job. He's very shrewd. He's got a great, sarcastic sense of humor. People always ask me, "Is he weird?" Well, he's different. But I know what it's like to be weird, growing up in the music business. I have to admit working with Michael Jackson is different than working with your basic, gritty rock 'n' roll band. One time when I went to play for Michael, he walked in with Brooke Shields, and there I am with a cigarette in one hand, a bottle of Jack Daniel's in the other, and my guitar hanging low around my neck. And he doesn't care. That's not the way he is, but I don't have to change for him. He accepts me for what I am. [source: VIBE magazine; June/July 1995]

Steven Spielberg (film director) Michael Jackson, the star, is a phenomenon. The hat, a single glove, white socks and black loafers. He is mysterious. Theatrical. The consummate performer. From the way he moves, to the Neverland he's created as his home, it's as if he's an illusion. The Michael Jackson I've had the pleasure of knowing for 13 years is without affectation, and is not an illusion. It must be hard for Michael to know how much the world wants to knwo him, to be like him, to consume him. He's wisely created his own world in which to preserve the most honest parts of his identity. Those are the parts we love the most. Michael has heightened sensitivity for the crying needs of this world. Through his Heal the World Foundation, he works to preserve this planet's most precious resources - children, and the environment. He feels much of the same responsibility a parent feels - his children are all of our children. Michael brings so much to so many, he is one of the world's most precious resources himself. Guided by his creative forces of passion, joy, work and genius, Michael has gone aftre his dreams and shared them with all of us. I can't wait to see where he chooses to take us next. [source: HIStory booklet]

Elizabeth Taylor (actress) Everything about Michael is truthful. And there is something in him that is so dear and childlike - not childish, but childlike - that we both have and identify with. [source: Talk magazine; October 1999]

Michael Jackson is, indeed, an international favorite for all ages, an incredible force of incredible energy. In the art of music, he is a pacesetter for quality of production, in the vaguard for high standards of entertainment. What makes Michael more unique may be the fact that all of his accomplishments, his rewards, have not altered his sensitivity and concern for the welfare of others, or his intense caring and love for his family and friends, and especially all the children of the world over. He is filled with deep emotions that create an unearthly, special, innocent, childlike, wise man that is Michael Jackson. He is so giving of himself that, at times, he leaves very little to protect that beautiful inner core that is the seence of him. I think Michael appeals to the child in all of us. He has the quality of innocence that we would all like to obtain or have kept. I think Michael is like litmus paper. He is always trying to learn. He has one of the sharpest wits, he is intelligent, and he is cunning - that is a strange word to use about him, because it implies deviousness and he is one of the least devious people I have ever met in my life. Michael is highly intelligent, shrewd, intuitive, understanding, sympathetic, and generous to almost a fault of himself. He is honesty personified - painfully honest - and vulnerable to the point of pain. He is also very curious and wants to draw from people who have survived. People who have lasted. He is not really of this planet. If he is eccentric it's because he is larger than life. What is a genius? What is a living legend? What is a megastar? Michael Jackson - that's all. And just when you think you know him, he gives you more... There is no one that can come near him, no one can dance like that, write the lyrics, or cause the kind of excitement that he does. When I hear the name Michael Jackson, I think of brilliance, of dazzling stars, lasers and deep emotions. I think he is one of the world's biggest and greatest stars, and it just so happens that he is one of the most gifted music makers the world has ever known. I think he is one of the finest people to hit this planet, and, in my estimation, he is the true King of Pop, Rock and Soul. I love you Michael. [source: HIStory booklet]

Usher (R&B singer) I study legends because I want to be a legend - Frank Sinatra, Fred Estaire, LL Cool J, Michael Jackson. That's who inspires me. [source: USA Today; October 9, 1997]

Hype Williams (video director) The choreography [in Thriller] is tremendous. It's a new appreciation of how dance can move a music video. He wasn't just a tremendous artist, tremendous performer, it was amazing how ingenious was he to foresee that music video could be anything you wanted in the beginning. [source: MTV; March 2000]

Stan Winston (movie director) I stand here and say he's a really great guy. [source: special screening of 'Ghost' at the opening night of the 1997 Palm Springs International Short Film Festival; August 1997]


Will Smith About Michael Jackson In an interview with Teen Hollywood (August 2002), American actor Will Smith, who portrays Agent Jay in 'Men in Black II,' was surprised to find himself intimidated by Michael Jackson's physical presence on the set. "The persona that is created of Michael Jackson is very different when you're in a room with him, when you're talking to him. He's very funny. He actually fights. I was surprised. He's like a blue belt in Tae Kwan Do or something. I'd just done 'Ali,' and I felt that Michael Jackson might be able to hurt me. That dude looks sharp. He's a fast mover. You see how somebody could dance and move that good and do those spins. That takes strength man."




Sources

  • [MJCAFE.NET] - All quotes are acquired from this website




Sources

http://www.cardinalspellman.org/

  • This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. For the collection of quotations, see Wikiquote. Uncle G 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

GLOBAL SALES!!!!

Why do people keep lower michael jackson sales? It to do with race? People provide fansites or biased websites the Elvis and Beatles sold 1 billion records, no one lowers their sales. Where's the source or weblink for your so-called official, you've lowered all sales of all his lp's! Sales on French site and MJ Stats correspond what mre you do want!!!!

Whoa... erm... here you are [1]. Street walker 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Child Molestation Trial: 2005

Why is information on the 2005 trial doubled up, tried to delete it but my edit was reverted. There is repetitive information on the trial as features in the main michael jackson article (which should focus on his work) and michael jackson (personal life). The information on his trial should be put in michael jackson (personal life) with the other contraversies. Talking about trial in midst of musical biography, causes the article to be biased. What do other people think? Holla back?!!!!

This dispute now seems to be resolved.--Manboobies 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

About Janet

We all know that Janet Is well respected in her right. Everything she does is off her own mind and her own way. When it was written that Janet was influenced by Michael it wasnt meant to say everything she did she got from Michael which isnt true. There is no dening that Michael had a little influence to Janet as an artist and a brother. Janet was taking off but dont take it to the heart.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Why would anyone care? How is uncited information relevant to this article? --Manboobies 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Manboobies I dont know why you sound so upset. I was simply refering to the "The Intro" in the beginning of the talk page. I was just trying to tell whoever wrote that and those reading it not to get upset over something small. ButI just realized how old that section my be so it was a waste of time to talk about it. For your partial citation check the intro in the beginning of the page.

"fact"

Please source all relevant sentences that are in the article. I see multiple sentences with "fact" in two "{" and "}". I fail to see how this is adequately sourcing material. This is not good enough in an article where I see rampant rubbish in every other sentence.--Manboobies 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, typing "fact" just makes the article say citation needed. I appologise for making this rash statement. Instead I request a deadline for information to be sourced to be appointed, then if missed, the information deleted. --Manboobies 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's exactly the point of {{fact}}. :-) android79 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What's the dead-line for un-cited information that has a {{fact}} tag? Street walker 13:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:KingJackson.jpg

This image looks like a photoshop job. Did Jackson actually dress up like this at some point for a photo shoot? Regardless, the initial photo of Jackson ought to be one that's reasonably recent. android79 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think a photo from the Invincible photo shoot in 20001, the MSG concerts in 2001, the Bandstand performance in 2002 or the apollo theater concert in 2002 would be good. He hasn't really done any photo shoots or concert since 2003, the latest "good" photo we can get would be from 2002. Also, that photo is a painting I believe. It's hung up in Neverland, you can see it on MJ's "Private Home Movies" docu. Street walker 01:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I really liked the promo shot that was used as the lead photo a while ago. From the "Invincible" promos, maybe it was? It was a good reflection of his current looks without resorting to using a court photo. android79 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Here are some images I uploaded which could be suitable to use in the intro. They are all recent, and show Jackson's current appearance.
  • Image:Mjinvinciblephotocolour.jpg
  • Image:Mjghosts.jpg - all though it is 8/9 years old, it still shows Jackson's current appearance which hasn't changed dramatically in these 8/9 years, and it is a good photo
  • Image:Msg1.jpg - From the MSG concerts in 2001

Which one do you all like best? Currently, I have put Image:Mjinvinciblephotocolour.jpg in the intro because android79 said he/she likes that photo because it s a reflection of his current looks, which I agree with.

Sincerely, Street walker 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I like what's currently there. The second one you mention is a tad... scary. The third is really good but unfortunately we can't see his face in total. android79 13:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My recent changes

No, it was not fine the way it was. Please don't blindly revert, Kelvin Martinez. By reverting to your preferred version of the intro, you also added back in a dubious, unsourced claim ([2]). The version you reverted to also has bad capitalization (prepositions like "of" are never capitalized, even in proper names).

I changed "concocted" to "given to him by" because "concocted" has a negative connotation, which I believe is a bit POV.

I changed the lengthy series of "singer-songwriter, actor" ad nauseum to "entertainer" because brevity is always good in the introduction. "Entertainer" encapsulates Jackson's career nicely, and the reader gets more detail on his various endeavors later in the article. This has been brought up before, and no one objected to my removal of the excessive occupational descriptions on this talk page.

We can discuss the last two items here; I won't change them back for now. android79 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"We can discuss the last two items here; I won't change them back for now." I am more than willing to change it for you. It read much better that way IMO. --Manboobies 07:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to change it back. Having a long list of Jackson's occupations and roles only encourages people to add more; at some point, someone added father. Entertainer is much better. android79 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
On the topic of "Whacko Jacko" - should it be mentioned that Jackson stated, on public TV in 1997, his wishes that the media and the public refrain from using this title saying "I'm a Jackson not a Jacko, and I'm not whacko"? Street walker 11:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Both of the nicknames ought to be sourced and explained in detail, but probably not in the intro. If you want to find some sources for both "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko", including the fact that Jackson (obviously) doesn't like being called WJ, go for it. I tried finding a good authoritative source for both of them but was unsuccessful. I'm not sure which section it really belongs in; maybe personal life? android79 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations Required, date set for removal of unsourced sentences?

I think a date should be set for the removal of unsourced information. I suggest 1st August 2006, but I'm not unwilling to discuss. I think August is plenty of time. IMO that would reduce the size of the article dramatically, and wouldn't be too bad considering it would all be unverifiable info being removed. August would be time enough for the majority of correct info to be sourced via news sites, credible bio's and Amazon book links and ISBN's of written sources. This article needs that level of detail to resist vandalism.--Manboobies 07:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure about how I feel about a time limit, but adding sources and removing material that can't be sourced should definitely be a near-term goal. android79 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

'Biggest selling solo artist of all time'

The opening paragraph states that Michael Jackson is the 'biggest selling solo artist of all time', with sales of over 300 million. Wikipedia itself can't agree on this (see Best selling music artists), so I've toned it done a bit by saying he is "one of the biggest selling solo artists of all time". Is that a problem? Proto t c 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem with me, though prepare to be reverted by POV warriors. The "best-selling of all time" thing is so meaningless and so unverifiable that I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. android79 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That List of best-selling music artists is allways being edited by die-hard fans of Elvis, The Beatles, Jackson, ABBA, Zeppelin etc. to put their favourite band on top, so you can't use it as a source to belittle Michael Jackson. The World Music Awards base their awards on sales and in 1996, and again in 2001, they awared Michael Jackson the "best selling artist of all-time". You can't argue with that. So I'm changing the intro as to make it more accurate by putting back "best selling artist of all-time". Street walker 07:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Who's belittling Jackson? I'm belittling the fanboys who care so much about their favorite artist that they feel compelled to muck with Wikipedia articles to put said artist at the top. The veracity List of best-selling music artists appears to be highly disputed, and it has no sources. Unless the information can be verified, it shouldn't be used in that article, or in the intro to this one. android79 13:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I come here, my usual Wikipedia place is "List of Best selling music artist of all time". I've just noticed that Michael Jackson is always, I mean all the time in too much controversy. Elvis and Beatles keep having their wikipedia pages mentioning "1 billion records sold" whereas "List of best selling artists" is stated (in some kind of way) Elvis and Beatles having sold more than 250 million records. So before arguing Jackson on his sales maybe you should put on Elvis and Beatles wikipedia pages that they have sold more than 250 million records and not 1 billion if we take into account your logical procedure. Let's just put on the introduction "According to WMA, Michael Jackson is the best selling SOLO artist of all time". Right or Wrong, it doesn't matter, what matters is that this information is provided by an official statement of the World Music Award based on IFPI process (purely record sales and not unit printed in manufactures), it is not a fan speculation or celebration, besides WMA is more reliable than Guiness Book or country association (e.g RIAA) for such award/statement. Readerweb 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Presley's website makes it clear they can only account for half a billion sales. It is universally acknowledged that Michael is the biggest selling solo artist of all time. Only The Beatles have outsold the King of All Music.

King of Ghana

Michael Jackson is the honorary King of Ghana and member of the Bafokeng Ka Bakwena tribe in Phokeng. This is common knowledge, but because wiki requires sources for all its info (except for anything that makes Michael Jackson look bad, that doesn't need citing apparently) I did a Google search and found this page that contains the info [3]. Also, if you go to List of Michael Jackson awards#1995 you'll find that in 1995, MJ was recognised as the honorary King Of Ghana.

In the history of edits on the Michael Jackson article, it says the "king of Ghana" stuff was removed because the source isn't credible and even if it is, this info doesn't belong in the intro. If you go to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom you'll see that after her naem and DOB is says "Queen regnant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the long list of countries she rules. So why should Michael Jackson be any different? It's part of his official title, Michael Joseph Jackson honorary King of Ghana.

So this info should remain in the intro. It belongs there more than some silly tabloid name like "wacko Jacko".

Street walker 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Err, Elizabeth isn't the honorary Queen of England, she is the Queen of England. The source you cite, which is barely a step up from a Geocities website and as such is not a reliable source, says: "Did you know that In 1993, Michael was crowned honorary King of a province in Ghana, Africa?" That says King of a Province, not King of the entire country. (What it would mean for someone to be King of a Province, I don't know.) This is most certainly not common knowledge, and it needs to be cited with a credible source.
  • "Wacko Jacko" may be silly, but if you ask Average Man on the Street™ who "Wacko Jacko" is, 9 times out of 10, you'll get the right answer. If you ask, "Who's the honorary King of Ghana?" you'll probably have to clarify where Ghana is. android79 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough, I get your point, I wont put that info back in. But I would like to raise an issue regarding "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko". "Wacko Jacko" is a derogatory term used to insult Michael Jackson. It is just as insulting as the 'n' word is to black people. Michael Jackson has expressed his wished on public TV that the media and public refrain from referring to him as "Wacko Jacko". So I think we should remove this from the article. Who knows, his publicist allready wrote to Wikipedia asking them to change the info about the Hurricane Katrina single. Jackson knows about this website and the article about him. Maybe he'll sue Wiki for libel!

Furthermore, "King of Pop" is the more widely used term for Michael Jackson. This website [4], shows that, according to Google results, KOP is far more popular term than WJ.

Street walker 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wacko Jacko" is a derogatory term used to insult Michael Jackson. It is just as insulting as the 'n' word is to black people. Sorry, I don't buy that. If I were black, I'd probably be insulted by that statement. Jackson can wish all he wants that the name would go away, but he's stuck with it.
Jackson knows about this website and the article about him. Maybe he'll sue Wiki for libel! I don't recall Jackson ever suing the myriad tabloids that have referred to him as "Wacko Jacko" for libel. This article is reporting a common-knowledge fact in an NPOV way. A libel suit would be laughed out of court.
That GoogleFight link you provided only bolsters my argument: 272,000 hits for "Wacko Jacko" is a lot. android79 06:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't realise the 30,400,000 results for King of Pop? Street walker 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Just because one gets more Google hits than the other doesn't mean the other isn't used by a lot of people. I suppose you'd argue for the removal of the "Sultan of Swat" nickname from Babe Ruth because it gets beat in a GoogleFight with "The Bambino"? android79 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It can stay as long as people don't keep editing to sound like only fans use "KOP" and everyone else uses "Wacko Jacko" Street walker 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't recall seeing any recent version of the intro that implied that. android79 07:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Err, the intro could use a little bit of context on the nicknames. android79 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No need, it's all explained further on in the article.Street walker 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Before people revert my recent edits, read this.

King of Pop and Wacko Jacko are explained in detail further on in the article. If you go to Elvis Presley or Babe Ruth, you'll see their nicknames are simply listed in the intro without going into detail, until later on in the article.

Musician better decribes Jackson's line of work. On the Wiki page for Musician it says a singer, songwriter, composer, instrumentalist, and that a musician can sometimes also be a dancer. This fits Jackson perfectly.

I went to Prince (artist) and similiar articles, and found that most artist's styles and influences are noted in the intro. It makes sense to do so if you are introducing a musician. I have cited his influences in the references section. For more detial of Jackson's songwriting style...

All tracks listed below are written by Michael Jackson.

  • R&B/Soul - Billie Jean, Remember The Time, Break of Dawn, Heaven Can Wait
  • Pop - Thriller, Bad, Smooth Criminal, You Rock My World
  • Disco - Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Shake Your Body, Working Day & Night
  • Funk - Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', Sunset Driver, some elements of Bad, some elements of Billie Jean
  • Rock - Beat It, Dirty Diana, Black or White, Give In To Me, D.S.
  • Hip Hop - This Time Around, Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Invincible, 2000 Watts

Please discuss before reverting or editing. I think my edits are justified, if you disagree fine, but discuss it first please.

Street walker 09:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current version of the intro, not your last edit of it, so if changes have been made that I mention and it wasn't you, that's why.
I like most of the changes, but I feel the intro is now too busy, with too many lists of things, and with those lists being too long. These lists have tended to attract edits that make them even longer.
"musician" is good; I like "entertainer" better, but I won't quibble on that as long as we aren't adding every single noun that possibly applies to Jackson.
I think the nicknames should be at least mentioned, if not briefly explained, in the intro.
The last line about "dogged by the media" leads the reader to believe that it was the media that brought about the trial. There've been POV complaints about this phrasing before; it needs to be changed. android79 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a concensus to decide if the sentence about being dogged by the media should be included in the intro. Street walker 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • None of the songs identifed as "hip hop" are hip hop songs. --FuriousFreddy 03:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's worldwide sales

Just so no one changes the approximate worldwide sales figure in the intro, I thought I would write up a breakdown of his album and singles sales incase anyone has any doubts.

OFFICIAL MOTOWN SALES FIGURES

  • ALBUMS (all figures as of 1990)
    • Got to Be There: 4.1 million
    • Ben: 4.4 million
    • Music & Me: 1.9 million
    • Forever Michael: 1.6 million
    • The Best of MJ: 2.2 million
    • One Day in Your Life: 1.5 million
    • Farewell My Summer Love: 2 million
    • Looking Back to Yesterday: 0.3 million
    • The Original Soul of MJ: 0.4 million
    • Anthology: 2.6 million
TOTAL: 21 million
  • SINGLES (all figures as of 1990)
    • Got to Be There: 2.2 million
    • Rockin’ Robin: 2.8 million
    • Ben: 2.8 million
    • I Wanna Be Where You Are: 1.3 million
    • With A Child’s Heart: 0.3 million
    • We’re Almost There: 0.4 million
    • Just A Little Bit of You: 0.8 million
    • Ain't No Sunshine: 0.3 million
    • Morning Glow: 0.015 million
    • Music & Me: 0.012 million
    • Dogging Around: 0.005 million
    • One Day in Your Life: 1.7 million
    • Happy: 0.1 million
    • Girl You’re So Together: 0.09 million
    • The One You Love: 0.001 million
    • Farewell My Summer Love: 0.8 million
    • Twenty Five Miles: 0.010 million
TOTAL: 13.63 million

OFFICIAL SONY SALES FIGURES

  • ALBUMS
    • Off The Wall: 16 million (as of 1996)
    • Thriller: 54 million (as of 1997)
    • Bad: 25 million (as of 1996)
    • Dangerous: 27 million (as of 1996)
    • HIStory: 32 million (as of 1997)
    • Blood On The Dance Floor: 4 million (as of 1997)
    • Greatest Hits (HIStory disc 1): 3 million (as of 2001)
    • Invincible: 5 million (as of 2001)
    • Number Ones: 6 million (as of Dec 2004)
    • Ultimate Collection: 0.25 million (estimate as of 2005)
    • Essential MJ: 2 million (estimate as of 2005)
TOTAL: 174.25 million

CURRENT BEST ESTIMATE SALES FIGURES

  • ALBUMS
    • Off The Wall: 20 million
    • Thriller: 60 million
    • Bad: 29 million
    • Dangerous: 32 million
    • HIStory: 36 million
    • Blood On The Dance Floor: 7 million
    • Greatest Hits (HIStory disc 1): 3 million
    • Invincible: 8 million
    • Number Ones: 6.5 million
    • Ultimate Collection: 0.25 million
    • Essential MJ: 2 million
ESTIMATED TOTAL: 203.75 million
  • SINGLES (US only)
    • 1979-1990: 17 million
    • 1991-1997: 14.5 million
    • US:WW sales ratio: 1:3 (approx.)
TOTAL: 31.5 million * 3
= 94.5 million
  • ACCUMULATIVE SALES
    • Motown albums: 21 million
    • Motown singles: 13.6 million
    • Sony albums: 174.25 million
    • Sony singles: 94.5 million
OFFICIAL ACCUMULATIVE TOTAL: 303, 380, 000
- 174.25 million
+ Estimated album total: 203.75 million
CURRENT BEST ESTIMATE TOTAL= 332, 850, 000

Source of information

Keep in mind, the Motown sales figures have not be renewed since 1990. All of his solo Motown albums have been reissued on CD since then so I suspect the sales figures for these albums could have risen significantly.

The Sony sales figures have not been renewed since 1996/1997 for the most part. Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad and Dangerous were all reissued as Special Editions in 2001 so I suspect that would have boosted their total sales figures significantly.

Michael Jackson's accumulative sales figure could be up to or over 350 million by now. But we must keep everything sourced, and that means using the official sales figures (even if they are out-of-date). So we must use the dated 300 million figure over the more plausable 350 million figure. But 300 million is still impressive none the less.

Street walker 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Streetwalker, Since we don't have more current stats, I'm fine with the 54 million number, but I added "as of 1997" to the sales figure for Thriller for clarification. Could you please add a citation to the Sony stats? --Bindingtheory 15:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

THRILLER 60 MILLION

IF OFFICIAL MEANS COMING FROM THE MAIN SOURCE THAN WHEN MICHAEL jACKSON SAYS THAT IT HAS SOLD CLOSE TO 60 MILLION ON HIS DOCUMENTARY "MICHAEL JACKSON HOME MOVIES" WHICH AIRED ON FOX IN 2003, AND ON HIS WEBSITE WWW.MJJSOURCE.COM WHICH SAID IT SOLD 59 MILLION AND THIS WAS 3 YEARS AGO THEN THE BEST ESTIMATE IS 60 MILLION. YOU SHOULD NOW THAT AS A MJ FAN STREETWALKER.IF THAT DOES HELP GO TO MJINF AND THEY WILL EXPLAIN IT.Thank You

NO. I will continue to revert this change. I don't care about Mjjsource, I can't even access it. I don't care about a documentary I don't have access to, and I don't consider any of those sources to be unbiased or fruitful. I don't want a best estimate.--Manboobies 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well Boobies you don't have to care, or believe it to bare the fruit of truth because I often hear that number being referred to on various sites. I'm not an admin. nor are you manboobies so neither one of us should act like we own the article. I know that there is someone who keeps changing 50 to 60 million but its not me. Although this sounds anger its not. I respect what you and streetwalker are doing with this MJ article so I mean no disrespect.You have to forgive my bold letters Streetwalker and Manboobies they don't express anger but just my pleasure of keeping the cap-lock on. Since I understand that Wikipedia is an neutral point of view, with reliable research to be done, I realized that mjjsource is out of commission, and there is no way to find "Mj home movies" on the internet, the Guinness sounds good. The 2006 version of Guinness (The Book) said 54 million but the internet resource said 51 million. So saying over fifty million sounds good. By the way there is no disrespect towards you streetwalker you are doing great with the MJ article.

[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

Referring to Guinness book as more reliable "source" than MJJSource is ridiculous. Guinness was proven giving false information many times, including about Elvis and Beates' sales. DenisRS 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Where can we find reliable sources if Guinness lies, Record companies inflate, and fans over estimate.- Kelvin Martinez

Where has it been shown that Guinness gives false information or lies?--Count Chocula 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Physical Appearance -- call for cleanup

Original text:

"Physical appearance
Michael Jackson is 5'10" (1.78 m) tall and has an androgynous image which means his appearance has blurred the conventional barriers surrounding gender, race and age in society."

"Androgynous" only denotes a blur between genders. (from "andro" -- "male" + "gyno"--female). this bit needs to be edited for clarity. While it's true that Jackson has altered his appeareance to such a point that his age, race and gender are all ambiguous, there are separate words to describe the bits about age and race. "Androgynous" can only be used to describe gender.

Also, I wonder why this bit about his appearance shifts from present to past tense? Ckamaeleon 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's 5ft 11 anyway. Says so on his Police thing.--Manboobies 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Influences

In know it's nice to know who Michael Jackson's influences are, and who he has influenced, but is this paragraph necessary? The intro is long as it is, I think the paragraph that says his full name, DOB, line of work and musi styles, and the paragraph about his accomplishments should stay, but the influences and the paragraph about the trial should go. That's just my opinion. I wont remove anything until we reach some sort of consensus. Street walker 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?.... Inappropriate tone??

This article has been tagged with "clean up" and "inappropriate tone". Can someone specify which areas need to be cleaned up, and what areas are written in an "inappropriate tone"? - Street walker 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask, what is it that is said in an inappropriate tone? How can it be fixed, if no one knows what needs to be fixed? Street walker 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the notice if someone can't justify why it is there. Street walker 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Small Edit

I removed the line "Michael Jackson used to rape Chris Morgan and Adam Yahnke in the ass" which was quietly added below the 1964-1975 section. Some people have too much time on there hands! :(

Futurefate 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens hourly in this article. --Crnk Mnky 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Whistle Register

Just out of interest why has he been moved in here. Those things that he does when he goes high in recordings are 6th octave but has he actually done an E6?

I think whoever put it their got "whistle register" confused with falsetto. Street walker 02:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there are two definitions of "whistle register". there is the voice like chest, head, falsetto, mixed, middle, etc. and then there is the range of notes starting from E6+. If you sing high enough with any voice(falsetto, head, or superhead) that it will sound about the same but for my voice in superhead to start sounding "whistle-like" i need to sing to about F6+. But since it officially starts at E6, if Michael ever sang that high it makes him a singer of the whistle register capability. 67.181.94.96 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a studio or live recording in which he sing higher than E6, and upload it as an ogg file, then you can put Michael Jackson back in the whistle register category. Street walker 06:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard MJ go above E5.--Manboobies 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he can go higher than E5 but the Wikipedia along with other sources say in his vocal profile that high range went up to E6. 67.181.94.96 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Page shortened

  • This page is twice the recommened length. It goes into too much detail, expecially in parts where there is another sub-article discussing that particular subject in finer detail (e.g albums, child sex allegations). I attempted to dramatically shorten the article, as it was twice the recommended length. You can revert it if you choose, but sooner of later this article will have to be shortened. Give this new version of the article a chance before you revert to the old version. I think if we keep with this version and overtime eventually make it flow better and refine it more, it will turn into a great article worthy of FA nomination. Street walker 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A text version where music info and personal life info is mixed, and arranged chronologically, is fine, but in addition there should be a text about Jackson's personal life separately, that is too much hidden now in the rest.--Patrick 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article looks better now. I'm still having issues with the flow of it. It is improving. I like what you did Patrick, however, we need to still make sure brief explanations of his personal life and controversies remain in this article because afterall, this is the main article and its a biography of Michael Jackson. I think what's there now is plenty information about his personal life, nothing more needs to be added unless Jackson does something controversial soon. The only thing is the Visionary section is long, and the bit about Blanket in the Invincible section doesn't fit well. I need help with these sections please. Street walker 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with this refactoring. This article should be a biographical account of Jackson's life, including both his personal and professional milestones -- shunting all of the "personal" stuff off to another article seems like you're trying to hide it. I'm not opposed to the existence of Michael Jackson (personal life), per se, but the way it's done here is wholly innappropriate for an encyclopedia article. At the very least, content from the specialized personal life article needs to be summarized in various places in this article, and denoted as such with a link to the more detailed article; simply putting a link at the top that says "go here for personal-life stuff" is not sufficient.
Does anyone read the article? Relationships, marraiges, children, plastic surgery, skin colour, 93 allegations and 05 trial are all in the main article, and explained in finer detail in Michael Jackson (personal life).Street walker 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The word trial appears exactly twice in this new refactoring of the article. For someone who has spent the last decade in the public eye because of trials, this is not sufficient. There is barely a hint of this aspect of his life in the main article. To me, this looks like another attempt to whitewash all criticism of Jackson out of this article, or at least to minimize its significance. android79 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to shorten this article (and it does need quite a bit of shortening) focus instead on moving some of the excessive detail on albums and singles to the articles on the actual albums and singles. android79 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I did that too, I took out quite alot of album talk and put personal stuff in there. Read the article. Street walker 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still far, far too much excessive detail about albums, tours, etc. android79 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, this idea was pretty much shot down unanimously. android79 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is different now because it's been done so there is personal stuff and controversies in the main article, and then a sub-article that explains these controversies in finer detail. Street walker 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, the sub-article scheme needs to be made much more obvious. See George W. Bush for an example; nearly every section in that article has a Main article: type of link to a subarticle. android79 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I tried reverting, but was immediately shot down by User:Street walker again. I mentioned the topic of forking in my edit but it was ignored. I strongly feel that the personal life and controversies belong in this article more than most of the "bumf" in the album sections which could be added to the relevant album article. Funky Monkey 03:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This segregation of content clearly does not have consensus. It should be changed back the way it was. android79 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is just a long, detailed list of Jackson's music releases.
  • It's been shunted off into Michael Jackson (personal life). I agree it should be in the main article. android79 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I tried reverting, but was immediately shot down by User:Street walker again. I mentioned the topic of forking in my edit but it was ignored. I strongly feel that the personal life and controversies belong in this article more than most of the "bumf" in the album sections which could be added to the relevant album article. Funky Monkey 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So instead of working on the article to make it better, you'd rather revert it to this crappy version? Street walker 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment speaks for itself really, doesn't it? Funky Monkey 07:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And how does it speak for itself? The TOC is ridiculous, it's not set out like a biography, it's way too long, and it's not only me that thinks so, see this article FA nom page. I tried something that you might like better. Just try it out. I see no problem with having a main article that talks about his music releases, personal life and controversies (with equal weighing on music and controversy) and a sub-article that explains the controversies in more depth. Not to mention there are sub-articles for the 1993 allegations and 2005 trial. I think if we all work with the current version of the article, by trying to make it flow better like a chornological biography. This article could turn out to be really good if we all try to improve it instead of just reverting back to the same old version of the article that is not a biography but two lists in one article, a list of music released and a list of controversies. Also, just because the headings are names of albums, doesn't mean that's all that section talks about, it talks about the Thriller era and the Bad era. Get it? Street walker 08:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now the article makes no sense. There is repeated information all through the article now. Thanks for making this article ten times worse then it's ever been, expecially when a few people have been trying to make this article better. Street walker 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then we'll have to fix it. Notice I say we. You appear to be having ownership issues with this article. Your vision for the article structure does not have broad support. You'll have to work with all interested editors and form a consensus as to how to proceed with this mess. android79 13:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

All images in the article should be right to use now, but there have been some complaints about the copyright licence of some of the images. Personally, I don't see where the problem lies.

  • The top image is the photo that was used for Jackson's 1983 Rolling Stones magazie cover, so that should be right to use.
  • The J5 image is free to use because it bears historical significance
  • All the other images on the page are album covers, which are free to use.

Street walker 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of the status of the RS "cover" -- the image itself is clearly not a cover, but that's what's claimed on the image description page. Aside from that, though, it's a terrible picture, doesn't reflect Jackson's current looks, and, well, he looks drunk. android79 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then we need a better picture that isn't copyrighted. Btw, this the RS cover, just without the text, it's just the photo they used. Street walker 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's from a photoshoot for a magazine cover, it's probably fair to use, or perhaps in a gray area, but IANAL. Was the "Invincible" promo image deleted for copyright concerns? android79 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If that's actual photo they used, then why is this the image on RS's website? I only checked because I was curious what kind of airbrushing they did, lol. "Life as a man," moustache and all. --Crnk Mnky 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Why on earth use the photograph from 1983? Michael Jackson does not look anything like that now.

The nearest non copyrighted image of Jackson is this one, which does look like him now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michaeljacksonmugshot.png
Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson

Removal of personal life

Im sorry guys, but this article has gone from bad to worse over the last couple days. Shortening the article is a good idea, but i think you've removed the wrong portion of the article. For some odd reason most of the biographical info is now missing, and now all thats left is a loose description of Jacksons albums and touring dates. It barely reads like an encyclopaedic article on an individual should. A better choice in my opinion would be to move most of the album info to a separate page and keep the personal and biographical info on the main page. Makes more sense doesn't it?--King G 11:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes more sense because Michael Jackson is a musician. You need to have info about his musical career on this page. As I said before, and I'll say it again, there is alot of info about his personal life (the good, the bad and the ugly) on this page. I don't see why over time we can't improve this article so there is even more info about his personal life instead of reverting it. My main problem with the article was that it had his music career and then his personal career in two different sections on the page. It should all be mixed in. I think we should stick with what he have now and eventually make the personal stuff more detailed. But then again, we have to try to keep it from being too long. Street walker 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that Michael Jackson is just as famous for being a musician as he is for his personal life, and therefore they both deserve equal coverage on his article. Now, as far as moving overly lengthy parts off to sub-articles, that may be okay, but there is no reason to think that we should be trying harder to move non-music related material off to sub-articles but not music related material. Peyna 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The current state of this article

People have been complaining about this article alot, but I want to put something out there and explain it a bit better, what I'm trying to do.

Basically I think it should flow more like a biography, like this...

  • Early years
How the Jackson 5 got started, Joseph's strict disciplining, the Jacksons success
  • Off The Wall era
How Michael got involved with Quincy Jones. The start of love affairs.
  • Thriller era
Michael's huge success. Falling-out with Paul McCartney.
  • Bad era
Success of the Bad album and tour. When people were beginning to become alarmed about Jackson's plastic surgery and skin colour.
  • Dangerous era
Success of Dangerous album and tour. Neverland and people increased amount of concern for Jackson's relationship with children. 1993 allegations.
  • HIStory era
Success of HIStory album and tour. Marraige and children. Blood on the Dance Floor remix album. Ghosts film (the beginning of Michael's increased interest in film).
  • Invincible era
Success of Invincible album. Record label troubles. What More Can I Give.
  • One More Chance era
Blanket and balcony incident. Living with MJ. Number Ones collection and brief explanation of the string of GH's collections to follow. 2003 allegations.
  • Trial era
Indepth detail of the trial.
  • Visionary era
Michael's move to Bahrain. Post-trial controversies. Future projects. Possibilty of tour. Possible future film career.

That's my vision of what this article should be like. I think over time we have to develope it so it's structured like this. But it will take time and it will be impossible to structure it like a biography if people keep reverting it to the unstructured, no sense of chronology, version of the article.

Street walker 11:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Streetwalker, your 'vision' for this article is one that no one else seems to agree with, and only serves to make the article very confusing to read. If you want to make a personal shrine to your hero Michael Jackson I suggest you make a fan website, instead of modifiying this article to suit your own vision/point of view.--Knuckle 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF? My "vision" talks of brief descriptions of albums success, plastic surgery, skin colour, 93 allegations, marraiges and children (which is a controversial subject), record label troubles, 05 tiral, post-trial lawsuits. How is that a "shrine" to Michael Jackson? This article is supposed to flow like a biography. How can that happen if there are two different sections for music and controversies. Anyway, most controversies tie in with his musical career. "Say Say Say" ties in with falling-out with McCartney and financial problems, the "Bad" music video ties in with plastic surgery and skin colour, "You Are Not Alone" ties in with Lisa Marie Presley, "HIStory tour" ties in with Debbie Rowe and kids (as they got married during this tour), "Number Ones" ties in with the 03 allegations (as it happened on the same day"). Everything would work in so well if we merge these two big sections together into a tight biography. I don't see how you can make overshadowing his musical career with personal stuff being about making a shrine to Michael Jackson or have a pro-Jackson POV. Your logic is beyond me. Street walker 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This plan would be confusing. It's not all clear that by using titles of his albums that those sections will talk about more than just those albums. In fact, it smells more like a unique way to bury details about his life some might find less than flattering. There is nothing wrong with dividing his music career and "personal life"; however I agree that there needs to be some way to bring it all together, as the two obviously overlap considerably. The article on Paul McCartney is a great example of how this can be done. Peyna 16:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This plan worked reasonably well when there were well-defined and clearly-marked sections for Jackson's personal life and other issues, but now that they're gone, it simply does not. It's a glorified discography. android79 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
How is it a "glorified" discography? Michael Jackson is a music artist, you need to have information about his music career as well. Go to The Beatles if you want to see a glorified discography. What do you suggest the headings be then? Unless you go like...
  • Off The Wall
    • Relationships
  • Thriller
    • Finances
  • Bad
    • Plastic surgery & skin colour
  • Dangerous
    • 1993 allegations
  • HIStory
    • Marraiges and children
  • Invincible
  • One More Chance
    • 03 allegations
  • Child molestation trial
    • Post-trial lawsuits
  • Visionary (future plans)
That's the only solution I can think of. Street walker 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit apples and oranges; Jackson is one person, while the Beatles are a band. The structure of their articles is bound to be quite different. I don't know how you can call The Beatles a glorified discography -- after a skim, it seems like a pretty great article. Perhaps those were strong words, calling it that, but ever since I've had this article on my watchlist I've had to combat a myriad of users attempting to remove or hide criticism of Jackson from this article. It's very frustrating.
The Beatles a pretty good article. So if we editing this article to say Michael Jackson is the greatest artist ever and has influence pop music of today and changed the world, would this be acceptable. Where is the Beatles article is information about the common opinion that they are over-rated and were only praised as musicians because they were the white answer to the many black acts coming through who were topping the charts and changing music. The Beatles just fed of everything the black groups of the time created. The article also doesn't mention how they cheated their way to success by paying young teens to request Beatles records on the radio and in record stores, forcing the record stores to order in Beatles albums and putting them on the #1 spot. It was a scam. Anyway, enough of The Beatles, I just don't get why their article is allright but the MJ article is not. Street walker 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, since Jackson is first and foremost a performer, quite a bit of focus will be on his musical talent and productivity. However, I'm beginning to think that organizing the chronology of the biography by album releases is forcing us to focus too much on trivial details of his musical career, while not providing enough detail or context for his life in the public eye. Moving most of the content on his life to a separate article only makes this problem worse. I think we need a radical reorganization; I need to give this a bit of thought. android79 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you like it yet? I'm trying to make it NPOV and have equal amount of info for musical career and personal life. IMO, it's shaping up pretty good. I also changed the section titles, as people were complaining that they make it look like a discography. I've just put each section title as "year-year", eventually better titles will have to put in. This article is getting somewhere, and that's my honest opinion. I think doing this is much better than having the music career and personal life split apart. Street walker 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has improved slightly over the past couple days, but it is still far too album-centric. The biographical data should have priority in this article, and at the moment it is lost in a sea of trivial album info. It must be noted that this is an article about Michael Jackson, not just an extensive discography of his albums. Changing the section titles makes little difference, as its the content thats the real problem. There really should be a sub-article detailing jacksons albums, and leave mentions of these in the main article; this would improve the structure and readability of the article greatly. Any thoughts? --King G 05:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I truly don't see the issue with the breakdown of Street Walker's chronology. Jackson's solo albums are very much tied in with his appearance and personal life. If anything, perhaps you can lump Off the Wall and Thriller together, and then place Bad and Dangerous tour, and after that the rest. The original layout by Steet Walker seems fine, it doesn't come off like a glorified shrine in any sense of the word.

-- InnerCityBlues 16:18, 02 February 2006

Revision history by topic

It is very hard to find the revision history for any given topic, because:

  • the article is very large
  • the article is very frequently edited

A solution would be to move parts of the content to articles on subtopics. Alternatively, content about a subtopic can be rendered on the main page, but with the wikitext in an included page. This way the system can provide a separate revision history for that subtopic. See also m: Help:Page_history#Providing_for_a_separate_edit_history_for_a_section

Patrick 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Back up a bit: why is this problematic?
I do not understand your question. It seems obvious that if something useful is very hard, this is problematic. Do you question that it is useful, or that it is hard?--Patrick 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I question that it is useful, or useful enough that it would encourage a complete restructuring of the article. android79 13:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with sub-articles, as long as the sub-articles are developed first and then summarized in the main article. Transclusion of content from subpages I'm less thrilled about. It might narrow the focus when digging through the history, but it makes management of the article as a whole more difficult. In order to even get to the point where we can decide to do one of these things, we would need to develop a consensus on what the topics/sections are in the first place. android79 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Putting each of the current sections in a page that is included here, is not difficult, I would not call that a complete restructuring of the article. Currently the situation is unworkable. At the moment somebody is reverting vandalism, but some other vandalism is still there. If somebody makes a good edit it will be lost after somebody tries to fix the article by restoring the last good version.--Patrick 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro image

I don't like it, it's a very bad shot of him. No other famous celebrity who's had a mug shot taken of them has that photo at the top of their article. It doesn't even represent his current looks, because most of the time he looks alot better than this and did look better than this during the trial. Even in photos from the unreleased "One More Chance" video that was filmed on the same say, he looks alot better than this. Street walker 07:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this image? http://michaelj.primenova.com/vibespec.jpg I found it in a Google search for "Michael Jackson". Actually, it wasn't this picture but a similiar one, and when I went to the webpage the image I found came from, I saw this one which I think is better. I like this photo because it's recent and it has the famous rhinestone glove. Street walker 08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since that image seems to be a publicity photograph of Jackson, it should be okay to use.--King G 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well do you like it? Also, I'm not 100% how the image copyright thing works so can someone who knows what's going on check out that image and make sure we can use it on Wiki?Street walker 10:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you. It's the photo shoot at the police station, when michael was arrested years ago. The criminal number of Jackson is cropped at the bottom. Please someone change it --tikky 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep changing the photo? We shouldn't have a fair use image as the lead. I don't even think the Vibe photo qualifies as fair use. What gives us the right to reuse pictures from a magazine's photo shoot? There must be a GFDL photo of Jackson somewhere. Rhobite 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's Michael Jackson? It looks a little like Nana Mouskouri. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.143.162.72 (talk • contribs) .

Just a note, that I think the best way to deal with pictures on biographies of living people is to give as recent a photo as is possible (preferably a GFDL one if available). Peyna 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the current image because it reflects his current looks (compare it to the mug shot further down the article, nothing has dramatically changed) and it shows the famous white rhinestone glove. Just as long as it can be used on Wiki, I think we should definately keep this image at the top of the article. Street walker 07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Need for sub-articles

A lot of people have expressed the need for sub-articles with this main article. What do you think need a sub-article?

Existant sub-articles

These are sub-articles that are allready associated with the main Michael Jackson article.

Topics needing subarticles

These are topics within the main Michael Jackson article and the personal life article, which I think need their own sub-article.

  • Michael Jackson's childhood - Strict upbringing and how that affected him later in life. His longing to relive his "lost" childhood. Might tie in, or be linked with Neverland.
  • Michael Jackson's physical appearance - Plastic surgery and skin tone
  • Michael Jackson's marraiges and children - LMP, Debbie Rowe, kids, doubt that Jackson is the biological father. May also include relationships.
  • Michael Jackson's baby dangling incident - The 2002 Berlin "baby dangling" incident. Could also be put with marraiges and children.
  • Michael Jackson's post-trial lawsuits - Anti-semitism allegations, animal neglect, sexual assualt charges etc. and I'm sure there'll be more.

What other suggestion do people have? Street walker 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the above (that would create the same problem as before; POV forks). They should all be mentioned here, in just enough detail to cover tem, but not rnough to overwelm the article. --FuriousFreddy 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, ofcourse the above mentioned subjects would be mentioned in the main article, but myself and a number of other users have commented that there needs to be some sub-article to explan certain topics of Michael Jackson's career and personal life in more depth. Go to George W Bush to see how this is done. Street walker 02:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with sub-articles; the GWB article is a good example, but you need to be careful you're not just creating POV Forks. That said, I think that we should avoid having apostrophes in the article titles. For example, you could do:
and the like. Specific events can have their own sub-article so long as that article will be long enough that a summary of it on the main page wouldn't be the same length as the actual article. Peyna 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds good. Also, I don't get what people mean by "POV forks"? What exactly does that mean? Street walker 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It refers to splitting off negative (or positive) content to make it less visible, so that the person is presented more positively (or negatively, respectively). Perhaps some of the musical info should be split off also.--Patrick 11:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another sub-article could be Finances of Michael Jackson. Discuss, as I think there is so much information of Michael Jackson that we need a lot of sub-articles. I think if we have a basic biography with details on his albums and tour success and an equal amount on controversies and personal life. As of now, there is twice, if not three times more info on personal life and controversies than musical career because there is a basic biography and then two seperate sections for personal life and controversies, which isn't right and destroys the chronological flow of the article. Street walker 07:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • His personal life and controversies should be intergrated into the timeline, not shunted to the back of the article. The timeline in the article from 1958 to 2005 is full of mostly trivial album info and touring, with very little info about the events of Jackson's life during this time. Saying that he released an album in 1982 for example with a short description is perfectly fine, but at the moment the primary focus is almost entirely on the albums and not the man who created them. Also, Jacksons musical career has been in decline since the early 90's, yet there is no mention of that in the article. I hate to be focusing on all the negative aspects of his life but those are the portions that seem to be omitted from this article. More than likely on purpose. If you want to write in detail on Jacksons albums, you should create a sub-article, or if theres one already, expand it.--King G 08:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell there is only one paragraph per album in the biography. Also, you have to understand what a massive "albums artist" Michael Jackson is (in other words, his whole career is centered around his album, unlike other artists who's career can't be defined by their "album timeline". Also, if you want to put info about his decline in sales (between 1991 and 2001 - 32 mil for Dangerous, to 18 mil for HIStory, to 8 mil for Invincible), go for it! I also have to disagree as I think there is an increasing about of personal info and I have one answer to peoples complaints about the content of personal stuff in the article, EDIT IT YOURSELF! Now by that, I don't mean creating a whole section on personal life. I mean putting personal info in the biography in the relevant era/time period.

There's something else I feel needs explaing, I noticed how King G commented on the trival info about albums, singles and tours. "Billie Jean" is mentione because it's his biggest and most famous hit, but also because it leads into Motown 25 and the Pepsi burn accident. The Bad tour is mentioned to create a nice transition for talk of the bad album, to talk of relationships. The Dangerous tour is mentioned to created a nice transition for talk of the dangerous album to talk of the 1993 allegations. "You Are Not Alone" is mentioned to create a nice transition from talk of the HIStory album to talk of his marraige to Presley. The HIStory tour is mentioned to create a nice transition for talk of the HIStory album to talk of his marraige to Debbie Rowe, and birth of his children. See how mentioning of a certain album of tour can lead into discussion about his personal life? Street walker 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson highest selling solo artist ever. The Beatles Highest group seller.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has just published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever. IFPI has finally come up with a list of the top-selling acts in History. Its about time.

The top 10 is as follows:

  1. The Beatles 40 400,000,000 UK 60s (1962-1970) Rock/Pop Guinness/EMI
  2. Michael Jackson 14 350,000,000 US 70s-00s (1979-) Pop/R&B
  3. Elvis Presley 150 300,000,000 US 50s-70s (1956-1977) Country/Rock
  4. Madonna 16 275,000,000 US 80s-00s (1984-) Pop
  5. Nana Mouskouri 450 250,000,000 Greece 60s-00s (1959-) Pop
  6. Cliff Richard 60 250,000,000 UK 50s-00s (1959-1969,1977-1979,1986-1999) Rock/Pop
  7. The Rolling Stones 54 ~250,000,000 UK 60s-00s (1964-1981) Rock
  8. Mariah Carey 14 230,000,000 US 90s-00s (1990-) Pop/R&B
  9. Elton John 43 ~220,000,000 UK 70s-00s (1972-1976,1989-1991,1997-) Pop
  10. Celine Dion 21 220,000,000 Canada 80s-00s (1990-) Pop Music/Pop

Source: IFPI http://mjtkop.com/home/ http://www.madonna.com/

Come back when you have a source thats not the wishful thinking of a Michael Jackson Fanclub--King G 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also seen this exact same list on Madonna's official site (who also cite its source as IFPI). So it's not only wishful thinking of a MJ Fanclub. Street walker 06:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, still odd though that it contradicts the official reports from EMI and RCA which state that The Beatles and Elvis Presley each have sold an estimated 1 billion+ records.--King G 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE: Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#IFPI_-_Let.27s_wait_for_a_direct_source Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section

I think the whole controversies section should be merged into the biography section, in the relevant era. I also think the sub-sections in the Biography section should be renamed. I'm pretty sure we can come up with some creative titles. It's obvious that 1958-1975 should be titled The Jackson 5 or something similiar, perhaps Role in the Jackson 5 (like the Beatles section in the John Lennon article). I don't know what to title the other sections without naming them according to his musical releases of the era (e.g. 1982-1985 becomes Thriller: 1982-1985). But many users have commented that it makes the article appear more like a discography than a biography. Any thoughts? Street walker 09:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't acted on changing the topic titles yet, but I merged all the controversies stuff into the biography. I also created sub-articles for controversies with alot of info about them, and I put links to those sub-articles in the "See Also" section and the relative sections in the bio. Now, most of his controversies, and all his albums have sub-articles. You can see all the subarticles in the Michael Jackson category. Street walker 12:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

People's opinions of how the Michael Jackson article stands as of now

What do you think of the current state of the article? What I did was create a sub-article called History of Michael Jackson and then sumarised the info on the main article. I also creates a sub-article called Artistry of Michael Jackson (his musical career from singing and dancing to songwriting) and Controversy of Michael Jackson and summarised these two sections on the main article. I used The Beatles as blue print as that article is a feature article and was on Wiki's main page once over. My opinion is that the recent changes to the article have made an improvement. I also asked a few people what they thought of it now and they seem to like it more than the previous version (with the timeline) and the previous to the previous version (with the two huge sections on music and personal life). So now I want to know what you all think and what improvements you can make to this article. If there's no complaints, I am going to re-submit this article for FA nomination. Street walker 10:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

HIStory

I've changed it to History. It looks much, much nicer.

CommKing 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I though HIStory would be better because of his album called "HIStory". Any is you think "History" is better that's fine. Street walker 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Give Thanks To Allah

With the release of this song, will someone add that Michael Jackson is now Muslim?

Firstly WTF? And secondly, Raymone Bain denied rumours that Jackson is a muslim. Street walker 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Artistry section

Let's talk about the "disputed" neutrality of this section. What's disputed and what isn't NPOV? Let's discuss what can be changed/improved about this article. It frustrates me when people put templates like this at the top of article but don't discuss why. Street walker 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson did not sing that song nor did he have anything to do with that song.

What song are you referring to? Street walker 06:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

HIStory album sales

For boxed sets and double albums with a running time that exceeds 100 minutes, the RIAA multiplies shipments by the number of discs (or its tape or vinyl equivalent). Source

HIStory sold 18 million copies, and had 2 discs with a total running time of over 100 minutes, there for it's sales figure is 36 million. Street walker 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Show a proper source and I'll accept that. I need a RIAA source not from some aol homepage Funky Monkey 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can get on the RIAA site, let me know. Street walker 11:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "I mean, we're at 28 million albums right now, other than what the press continue to lie about--the tabloid press--they're terrible." - Michael Jackson, VH1 Interview 1996 Source
That is the most "official" sales number available for HIStory. The 36M figure is a guess, most probably made by a fan, and it comes from mjinf.co.uk. 28 million was the figure in 1996, it's been ten years so I assume the number has increased quite a bit. But 28m is the latest, most "official" sales number available for HIStory, so we have to go with that one. We can't go with a guess made by a fan-site. Street walker 11:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You use this site for a lot of your "sources". http://mjinf.co.uk/HIStory/HIStory.htm. This says 18 million. Funky Monkey 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a guess, fo to the page it says "best estimate". There is no place for estimates on this article. Let me remind you who this article is about... Michael Jackson! And Michael Jackson said his album sold 28 million so I'm gonna change the figure (once again) to 28 million. You can't dispute what the guy who we are writing an article is about says. In the end, he is the #1 source for all information. He is like a first-party source (or whatever it is you call it). If you were writing an article on Paul McCartney. The #1 source you would want for all information is he man himself. Same applies for Michael Jackson and his article. If he wrote this article, it would be a lot more accurate than if you or me wrote it. Street walker 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Best estimate is better than "Your" estimate. Sales figures changed back to 18 million. Funky Monkey 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Streetwalker, that's ridiculous to assume that Michael Jackson is always going to be right. It would be fine to have him quoted as saying those figures, but there's no reason why he should be infallible. In fact, there are a lot of reasons for him to want to distort those figures. Ahalterman 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahalterman


TRIVIAL (easy to understand) : HISTORY is a double album not a single one, ESSENTIAL is a single album even if there are two disks inside the box, why? Because it's contracted this way between artists/record co. There is of course the 100 minutes limit for asserting. However before their releasings, artists signs contracts on such double or single so as to get paid on royalties twice :

- double discs set (single album) : artist get paid each time one box is sold

- double discs set (double album) : artist get paid TWICE each time one box is sold

HISTORY Vinyl edition is a 4 disks packed but still counted as 2 albums inside not 4 so 2 disks sold for each.

Actually HISTORY is a 2 albums packed in ONE BOX (one "best of" disk + one new song disk). This box has sold 3.5 million in the US, that's why RIAA certified HISTORY having sold 7 million copies (check RIAA website). Another example with "All Eyez On Me" of 2PAC (double album not single) and many other albums are certified this way.

To sum up HISTORY has been selling around 16 million copies as for 1997 it could be now around 18 million or even more so 36 million disks sold is fair. Hope this will help. Readerweb 09:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Source?? Funky Monkey 11:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Funky Monkey, you said above :"You use this site for a lot of your "sources". http://mjinf.co.uk/HIStory/HIStory.htm. This says 18 million. Funky Monkey 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)"

SO twice 18 million is 36 million, it means 18 million HISTORY box/sets sold, each them contains 2 albums. The point is, this album is certified twice. But I guess you don't believe the source (mjinf.co.uk). IMO this is the best site I ever found on the web concerning Michael Jackson statistics, besides it is reliable thanks to certifications, charts details,...

I hope this will help, friendly. Readerweb 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am after a source which states what you have stated above namely "HISTORY is a double album not a single one, ESSENTIAL is a single album even if there are two disks inside the box, why? Because it's contracted this way between artists/record co. There is of course the 100 minutes limit for asserting. However before their releasings, artists signs contracts on such double or single so as to get paid on royalties twice :

- double discs set (single album) : artist get paid each time one box is sold

- double discs set (double album) : artist get paid TWICE each time one box is sold

HISTORY Vinyl edition is a 4 disks packed but still counted as 2 albums inside not 4 so 2 disks sold for each.

Actually HISTORY is a 2 albums packed in ONE BOX (one "best of" disk + one new song disk). This box has sold 3.5 million in the US, that's why RIAA certified HISTORY having sold 7 million copies (check RIAA website). Another example with "All Eyez On Me" of 2PAC (double album not single) and many other albums are certified this way." Funky Monkey 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Ok I see, check this link Source it explains (scroll down to history section) this material is a double album sold over 18 million copies which is 36 million albums sold. Now please take a look on this RIAA page Source the american association stated HISTORY having sold more than 7 million copies but actually 3.5 million box/sets have been sold in US which means 3.5 million double albums (= 7 million).

Concerning the royalties comments, it's business talk very well know within music industry. I read a lot so if each time for each word I have to give a source it will be a little hard, you may understand that...As a matter of fact, MAJORS (especially) and singers decide if this material will be classified double or single, HOW? WHY? we should create a topic for that it's too long to explain . Nice discussing with you :) Readerweb 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the first "source" you give is an online ticket agency!. The RIAA page says nothing of the sort that you claim. With regards to your second paragraph above, regarding it being hard for you to give sources, I'm afraid it is an essential part of wikipedia. May I direct you to WP:Cite Funky Monkey 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a source from the United Nations? lol Well it seems obvious for me.Readerweb 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to seriously discuss re-writing this article

I've create a test article which we can use for developing Michael Jackson's biography before editing it into the main article. Go here: User:Street walker/Michael Jackson test article. Please offer any suggestions you may have by editing the test article in order to improve it. Once we develope a well written test article we can edit it into the main article.

Obviously this article needs a re-write, but it can't just be the work of one person or you face the problem of bias. As a group of editors we need to improve this article. Problems with this article:

  • Neutrality
  • Referencing - we need a better way to reference information in the article
  • add to this list if you know of any major problems this article has

In re-writing the article, I think we should look at Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and Kylie Minogue, as these are solo artists who have feature articles written about them. So reading those articles would be a good way of finding out what makes an article about a solo artist a good article.

I really think the article should read like a biography. However, because people complain I've had to make a seperate section for controversy, and because its bias to talk about his controversy and not his music I made a seperate article for artistry as well. But eventually, these two sub-sections will have to (well, they don't have to, but it'd be nice) be merged with the biography (except for artistry which can be cut for all I care). So we need to seriously discuss, as a group of editors, how this article should be laid out, what sections deserve sub-articles, what sub-article can be merged etc. We need to think about what definately need to be said in Michael Jackson's biography, we need to think about what is legit information and what is crap (e.g. Michael Jackson kidnapping his own children, which believe it or not someone actually tried to put in this article and claim it as legit news, lol). I would love it if people actually participated in a thorough discussion of this article. So this is what I think should be included in this main article (feel free to disagree and discuss):

  • Intro

What we have now is, IMO, a perfect introduction. My only comment would be that in the paragraph discussing the alleged child sex abuse, other Jackson controversies should be mentioned to even up the content of musical accomplishments and controversies.

  • Biography

What needs to be said
    • Birth date, birth place, family
    • Jackson 5 beginnings, Joseph's strict upbringing
    • Move to Epic Records and the launch of Jackson's solo career
    • "Flings" and the success of the Thriller album (including Motown 25 and the moonwalk)
    • Mid-1980's musical career (Victory LP and tour, We Are The World) and controversies (Purchase of the Beatles catalogue, Pepsi burning)
    • Caption EO, dramatic change in physical appearance and bizarre tabloids stories (e.g. Hyperbaric chamber, elephant man bones), Bad & Dangerous albums (they were release fairly close together, so they should be discussed fairly close together)
    • Purchase of the Neverland Ranch (although not called that at the time of purchase, which naturally leads to inviting child over for sleepovers, which naturally leads to the 1993 allegations, which can possibly lead into the HIStory albums (as it was a retaliation of what happened in 1993 and 1994)
    • Marriages and children
    • Late 1990s decline (decline in sales and decline in popularity), Early 2000s record label battles
    • Berlin 2002 "baby dangling" controversy, Living with Michael Jackson, 2003 allegations
    • 2005 trial (probably deserves a whole section to itself, would you agree?)
    • Post-trial life (everything significant that happened after the verdict)

So then the biography should be all that is needed on this main article. I think if we explain everything well enough, there should be no need for History of Michael Jackson and Controversy of Michael Jackson. I feel confident that we can write a 32KB article that explains everything that needs to be explained about Michael Jackson in the most concise terms. But I also think articles like 2005 trial of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson controversy in Berlin and anything else that was a significant event in Jackson's life. Eventually, every sub-article that stems for the Michael Jackson article can be delted, merged, redirected, whatever, because it will all eventually be explained (in concise, yet fulfilling terms). So now give me your ideas. Please participate in this discussion as something desperately needs to be done about this article. Street walker 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Having the subarticles is fine, let us reduce the size of this main article to 32 K by moving content to them.--Patrick 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What has happened? This article is now completely too large and has spiralled out of control.--Manboobies 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, something needs to happen. This article has spiraled completely out of control, and the plethora of poorly written and poorly structured spin-offs (Controversies involving Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson controversy in Berlin, Michael Jackson finances, History of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson marriages and children, Physical appearance of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson post trial lawsuits, and the ubiquitous Artistry of Michael Jackson) doesn't make things any better. Street walker, I would seriously suggest that you stop editing this article for a week (preferably two), read and review Wikipedia's featured biographical articles (on musicians and otherwise), read Wikipedia:Manual of Style thouroughly, and read Wikipedia:Cite your sources accordingly. Go to the library and check out reliable biographies on Michael Jackson. Find magazine articles and television interviews Jackson has done for more factual information. Do not reference fan sites or message boards, unless they contain copies of scholarly resources that have been made available, or if they provide verifiable information (mostly about album credits/release dates; I wouldn't trust a fan site for sales information). Once you have done all of that, then come back and begin planning an article rewrite. I understand you are a Michael Jackson fan, but I think your fanship (if that is a wrd) is getting in the way of your ability to write a solid article. The first thing you need is a concrete outline. The above is a start (though I would hardly call Captain EO a major part of Michael Jackson's career), but you also need a plan for which sections to split off into subtopics (and why), which topics need to be simply summarized and covered someplace else (Jackson's trials after the big 2005 case do not need their own article), and generally work towards writing a professional, scholarly article that is readable, balanced, unbiased, factually accurate, referenced, and informative. I can give advice here and there, but I do not have time to write much of the article (and I'm not giving anymore advice until you take those two weeks and do the research). --FuriousFreddy 02:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he forgot Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity as well...--Manboobies 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you stop giving advice to other users like you're some kind of superior, and instead give advice about this article and how to improve it. We need to discuss improving the article, not spend wasteless minutes impuning other users. Stop telling me what to do, and ask yourslef what YOU can do to help this article. Street walker 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything I just said will help in improving this article, by helping you (its most frequent editor) make better edits. Anything I could or would do to edit would be to no avail if you continue editing it and splitting it off the way you have. As my original comment says, I will give you advice, but I don't have time to write a 40K+ article on Michael Jackson (I can do it, but it will take several days--several days I don't have). I can, however, give advice, educate, and make some edits here and there, once you've first built a foundation to work off of.--FuriousFreddy 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. I agree with FuriousFreddy. I'm starting to believe you hinder this article.--Manboobies 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
'Utter rubbish'? Please don't make personal attacks! Streetwalker has being improving the article the way he knows best. In my personal view and I'm sure the view of other folks, he's done absolutely nothing wrong. If there's something that you think shouldn't be, lets just discuss it and fix it. Afterall, articles like these change about a million times a month. NO NEED to play the blame game. --161.74.11.24 16:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Manboobies and Freddy. The article is getting rather out of control, and frankly, of poor quality. It needs a major rewrite based on reliable sources. The split-out into subarticles was poorly handled and recovering any sort of meaningful set of Michael Jackson articles from that mess is going to be difficult. Initially, I believed Street walker to be a POV-pusher, but I thought he had come around recently to understand and accept NPOV. Given the recent activity on this article, I'm beginning to think, at best, he's let his status as a Jackson fan unduly influence his editing here, or, at worst, he's shifted back into POV mode, only more subtly this time. android79 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Again I'm going to say, this is a talk page for Michael Jackson not a talk page for Street walker, and we should be discussing how to improve it, not complaining that it needs improving. Street walker 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Identifying a problem is the first step in finding a solution for it. android79 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I'm only interested in improving this article and I don't care for pathetic personal attacks. Why are you here? To improve Wikipedia or insult its users? Street walker 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the latter. The above is simply my honest opinion of the situation, and nothing more. android79 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to post parts from the sub-articles here that are sourced or I know are true based on common knowledge into a section in my userpage. That'll also be a good way to learn how to create a sub-page in my user info, then we can look at those. Then I can take the sourced parts of the main article. Then we can vote, rating them out of 10 for relevance in an article that needs to be 32 KB. This is my idea anyway. If this seems overkill, let me know. I don't want to take over the article.--Manboobies 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! Nice to see some positive work going into attempting to improve this article. Street walker 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merged content from Michael Jackson (personal life)

As per this AfD, I merged content from Michael Jackson (personal life), but since I don't really know the history of this article and the circumstances surrounding the apparent POV fork that the source article is, I just pasted the contents (and fixed the Wikicode) to what looked like an appropriate place. Please feel free to move these sections to their proper place or even revert my changes, if you wish. --Deathphoenix 21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackson 5

If there is an article on the Jackson 5, none of it needs to be covered in this article, it can just be linked too, surely? The Jackson 5 part of this article could just become a stub linking to the bigger fuller one.--Manboobies 00:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Jackson 5 is an important part of Michael Jackson's biography because it tells of how he got started in the music business and evolved into a solo artist. Street walker 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A note on article size

  • I see the "32 kB" limit being discussed quite a bit here, and I'd just like to remind everyone that 32 kB is not a hard-and-fast limit; our goal here should be to improve the readability and structure of the article, not to reduce it to some arbitrary size. Wikipedia:Article size has some good info on this. Keep in mind that "articles greater than 50KB, and even in excess of 100KB, have been made into Featured Articles." android79 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. But if we can keep it to the 32 kb limit, while still having sufficient content, than that's a good thing. Street walker 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • With Michael Jackson being as popular for as long as he has been, and so frequently in the news, I think 32K is a bit unrealistic a limit, especially if it results in a dozen curious-lookin subarticles. A maximum upper bar of 45K to 50K is my suggestion. --FuriousFreddy 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Plus, you never know what else might happen in Michael Jackson's life. He could get married, have another kid, release another album of Thriller's magnitute, you never know what is going to happen. We have to allow for future events. Street walker 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I merged 7 sections into 4, read my reasoning before reverting

  • I've changed this:
1.1 Early beginnings
1.2 Success and controversy
1.3 Early 1990s allegations
1.4 Marriages and children
1.5 Decline and record label troubles
1.6 Living with Michael Jackson
1.7 Trial and acquittal
To this (with explanations in brackets):
1.1 Early beginnings: 1958–1980 (same as before)
1.2 Success & Controversy: 1982–1989 (same as before)
1.3 Allegations & Decline: 1991–2002 (The allegations naturally lead to the decline, which wasn't 1997-2002 but more like 1993-2002)
1.4 Trial & Acquittal: 2003–present (Living With Michael Jackson led to the allegations, which led to the trial, which led to the acquittal, so these sections should all be one)
The reason I did this is that I believe that some sections were too small and should be merged, and looking at other articles I've found that it is perfectly reasonable to have lenghty sections. Having 7 sections with a couple of paragraphs in each is a bit silly IMO. Anyway, I think having 4 sections (with the titles they now have) works better. I think it looks nice and tidy having beginnings, success, decline and trial. It leaves room for the next "chapter" in Michael Jackson's life, which (I don't want to jinx him by saying... BUT) I believe will be called "1.5 Comeback". Street walker 13:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Links at the start of each section

The links at the start of each section were very useful. Street Walker, please put them back.--Patrick 14:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why when they are all in the see also section Street walker 16:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is good standard practice to link a section to the "main article(s)" about the subtopic(s).--Patrick 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Referencing style

  • How do you guys think we should reference info on this page? I think the current referencing style (i.e. blah, blah, blah [1].) looks a tad messy. I was thinking we should make every reference a foot note, that way the [1] thing will still be there, but it will be smaller (e.g. blah, blah, blah [1].) and hopefully wont look as messy. What do you all think? Street walker 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you to whoever made all the [1] things small. It looks much better. Great job! Street walker 08:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project evaluation

Michael Jackson has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Lead - Comprehensiveness - Pictures - Audio - References - Format/Style
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Lead: needs more info in lead
  • Comprehensiveness: needs critical reception, major trim of non-major fact
  • Pictures: needs fair use rationales, more free pics would be nice
  • Audio: Needs sound samples
  • References: reference formatting, needs some kind of print/scholarly sources
  • Format and style: songs in quotes, albums (and films) in italics, external links seem excessive, needs content under "Biography", copyedit/major trim
    • I added some samples. I didn't know how many to add so I just uploaded samples of all his solo number one songs. I hope that's OK, or are 12 samples too many? Street walker
    • I added a paragraph to the intro that was (for some unknown reason) removed a while ago (lol, it was probably me). Street walker 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Music samples

These are the music samples currently on the page:

Which samples definately should be here and what samples should not be here? I think Don't Stop, Billie Jean, Beat, Bad, Man In The Mirror and Black or White definatley need to be here as they are (arguably) his biggest and most famous hits. Discuss. Street walker 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All of them are fine.--Manboobies 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say get rid of "Dirty Diana", "Ben", "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", and "Beautiful Girl"; add "Got to Be There" and "Smooth Criminal" instead --FuriousFreddy 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

FIND THE SOURCE FOR THIS PART

In 1993, Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of child sexual abuse. In 1994, Jackson settled out of court with the accuser for a reported USD 20 million and was not charged[55].

It is possible to source the part about dentistry which is true. It is contained in the GQ article. I suggest somebody who has it scans it and uploads, or we find a website that still has it. The GQ article is incredibly well written on the part of Mary Fischer. It will benefit this article. --Manboobies 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Was Michael Jackson Framed?" GQ article Street walker 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who has just replaced Guiness with a fan site?

Somebody replaced http://www.guinnessrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=50890 saying he had 50 million sales to a fan site saying he had 60. A fan site is not a good enough source for this information. I am going to revert all those changes. I appologise if the IP address is not Street walker as it will revert some of his changes too, which were in the middle. If it was you street walker please discuss this with me as you are changing sources to POV which is no good.--Manboobies 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was me because I agree that we should go with the "over 50 million" figure rather than "up to 60 million". Street walker 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh.

While this edit is certainly better than many of the previous versions, the dubios use of a biography from a fan forum isn't going to help this become a featured article anytime soon. Also, things that are general knowledge common sense facts (like when people released albums, or when people signed record deals) don't need to be footnoted, and you certainly should never use the same footnote twice (that's what "Ibid" is for.) --FuriousFreddy 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • MJJForum is just a name. It's a website that has good information on Michael Jackson's disco/video/filmo/biography(s), and it also has a discussion forum. It's like saying Wikipedia is BS because it has a talk page with every article. CNN, MSNBC, CourtTV, FOX and others got most of their news regarding the trial from MJJForum. MJJForum is allways the first to get Raymone Bain statements, as Michael Jackson himself approves the website. Street walker 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Michael Jackson himself approves the website – that, right there, presents a problem. If only "Jackson-approved" material gets posted to the site, then its status as a neutral source of information is in question. android79 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs of Michael Jackson merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious beliefs of Michael Jackson. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


"Thanks for experimenting with the page Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"

  • Just a note, the edit you responded to wasn't a test, but thanks for the message. My notation of his being raised a Jehovah's Witness is mentioned in his biography "Michael!" from 1982 (iirc). His religion is listed as "former" in the lower portion as to categories of this page, but I couldn't verify that information, so wasn't the statement fair? (that is, he was raised in the church)
  • Was Michael Jackson a Jehovah's Witness? According to these pages:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jw.html http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/music/michaeljackson.htm http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Jackson/?newsrellink http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-jackson http://www.hollywoodpulse.com/index.php/module/biography/action/index/id/315/michael-jackson

...he was. Sadly the out of print bio that spelled this out can't be found by me. I've been told that this is "controversial," okay I understand. But if it's controversial that he was ever a member of the JW's, then the link at the bottom of the Michael Jackson wiki page that says "Former Jehovah's Witnesses" should be deleted. If it's a part of the singer's past, I don't see what's wrong with admitting it if it's a fact. It's not the same thing as calling Tom Cruise gay or something. Anyway, hope that helps explain where I'm coming from.

Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

question about another article maybe incorrectly related to Jackson because of vandalism

LOL... wtf? Is this vandalism or what? I wouldn't know, I was just here to find the Michael Jackson who worked with Solomon Asch researching conformity... Sam Spade 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MJJF/Removal of some MJJF sources

Michael Jackson began his musical career at the age of five as lead singer of The Jackson 5 and made his first solo recordings in 1971 as part of the Jackson 5 franchise[citation needed].

This needs a citation. A citation that does not point to a Michael Jackson fansite.

Since then he has recorded and co-produced the best-selling album of all-time (Thriller, with over fifty million copies sold worldwide[5]),

This keeps getting changed from the highly reliable source on Guinness to a MJ fansite. I will revert this change every time. If you're reading and you think he deserves it to point to the total as of RIGHT NOW - ring Guinness, don't point this sourced fact to a biased site and change it. I repeat I will revert all changes.

and sold over 300 million albums and singles worldwide[7].

This is a Jackson fansite again. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

Michael Jackson has been awarded numerous honors, including the World Music Award for "Best Selling Male Solo Artist of the Millennium"[8].

Probably true, but the source is absolutely dire. A decent source please. What about CNN or something? These websites have a search feature. Better still, Reuters...

Michael Joseph Jackson was born to Joseph and Katherine Jackson in Gary, Indiana. He was the seventh of nine children, including Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, LaToya, Marlon, Randy and Janet[10].

This is a Jackson fansite again. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

The group played local clubs and bars, building up a following and eventually signing a contract with Motown Records in March 1969[11].

This is a Jackson fansite again. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

The Jackson 5 soon became national stars with their first four singles charting at number one on the Billboard Hot 100[12].

AGAIN, this is a Jackson fansite. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

Michael also released four solo albums and charted many hit singles as part of the Jackson 5 franchise including the hits "Got to Be There", "Ben", and a remake of Bobby Day's "Rockin' Robin".

This needs a citation. A citation that does not point to a Michael Jackson fansite.

The Jackson 5's sales declined after 1972, and the group chafed under Motown's strict refusal to allow the Jacksons creative control or input.[13].

AGAIN, this is a Jackson fansite. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

In 1976, the group signed a new contract with CBS Records (first joining the Philadelphia International division and later moving over to Epic Records)[14].

AGAIN, this is a Jackson fansite. I view it as highly dubious. It simply isn't good enough, with this kind of sourcing we will NOT get feature status.

Upon learning that the Jackson 5 had signed a contract with another label, Motown sued the group for breach of contract[15].

And yet, seemingly all evidence outside of MJJF doesn't exist anymore? This is a hugely big thing to happen to a set of famous artists, and yet, it's not present on Reuters, newspaper archives online, or on anywhere on the web apart from Michael Jackson's unnoficial and highly dubious forum for which most information needs you to be logged in to view? I don't believe that. It's either true or not true, but it's not staying unless you source it with a decent credential laden citation.

As a result, they lost the rights to use the "Jackson 5" name and logo and changed their named to "The Jacksons"[16].

Probably true, source not good enough.

The newly named Jacksons, featuring youngest brother Randy in Jermaine's place[17], continued their successful career, touring internationally, and releasing six albums between 1976 and 1984[18].

No, these sources aren't good enough. NO MJJF.

In fact, any more information added and tagged with MJJF will be reverted on site by me.

In 1978, Michael Jackson starred as the scarecrow in The Wiz, with former-labelmate Diana Ross playing Dorothy[19].

WHY ON EARTH IS THIS SOURCED WITH MJJF WHEN IT CAN BE SOURCED WITH IMDB? WHO DID THIS? INSANITY. I have fixed this.

The musical film's songs were arranged by famed producer Quincy Jones, who established a partnership with Jackson and agreed to produce his first solo album[20]. Off the Wall, released in 1979, was a worldwide hit, and spawned four top-ten hits, including "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" and "Rock With You"[21]. The album went on to sell 20 million copies worldwide[22], establishing Jackson as a musical force without his brothers. After the success of Off the Wall, Jackson began work on his second solo album with Quincy Jones.

Sources all point to MJJF. Point to a good source.

All these sources don't even point to specific parts of the website. They just point to the link down this articles page. I don't want either kind of deep linking/# linking to the site. It's not a good enough source. I don't have time to point out the several other likely links to MJJF, but these ones should be changed for now.

No major changes until this lot is fixed, yeah?--Manboobies 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Where else are you supposed to find Michael Jackson information if not a fan site? Everything that was cited with MJJF was just factual stuff like when each album was released and stuff like that. 61.69.181.218 03:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, if we simply assume everything pointing to MJJF is factual, it leads to incorrect information being added. As it has done previously.--Manboobies 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Then this whole page should be deleted. Because there is no Jackson's own site, and the bunch of tabloid books the more so can not be considered as "source".
Also, going to slighly another subject of discussion, if sales information from Jackson's official site (which is not functional currenly) is not considered to be reliable, then information from labels is not reliable, too.
I mean, let's leave this nonsense over the sources. You are no one to justify by your own decision which source is reliable, or not. MJJSource is not fan site is cached by google and other web engines, and it directly states sales for Thriller to be 59 million, face it. I am sorry, but no one cares if you personally consider Jackson's official site to be non-reliable (see your post about it at the top of this talk page), Wikipedia rules have limitations only about "fan sites" like MJJF. Though, again, citing tabloid books and Guinness book as more "reliable" sources that fan's fact sites is ridiculous, because those sources were proven to report lie number of times, including that Beatles' and Elvis' sales are 1 billion records. MJJSource was never proven to report lie, and it is official source for information, not worse than Madonna's or Rolling Stones's sites. If anyone does not agree, then go to those artist's Wikipedia's pages and delete their content. Warner Music did not update Madonna's sales officially, still Wikipedia page has fresh information about sales from her site.
So please let's do not turn rules about sources into absurd. DenisRS 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll address this point by point.
1.) "this whole page should be deleted. Because there is no Jackson's own site, and the bunch of tabloid books the more so can not be considered as "source"."
I do not consider news sources such as Reuters and CNN to be untrustworthy, biased yes, but i would be a moron personally if I believed I could take something such as MJJF as gospel.
2.) "going to slighly another subject of discussion, if sales information from Jackson's official site (which is not functional currenly) is not considered to be reliable, then information from labels is not reliable, too."
The fact is the labels have to report accurate numbers, otherwise they can be sued by their shareholders. Records make millions. If Epic were to turn and say "we sold 5000 billion copies of MJ farting at $14" then the shareholder would expect to see that represented in their dividends. For publically traded groups to exaggerate such numbers is suicide.
3.) "I mean, let's leave this nonsense over the sources. You are no one to justify by your own decision which source is reliable, or not."
On the contrary. I have taken a decision based on Wiki rules, based on featured article status which street walker is aiming for. The choices I have made are for the good of this article, they are not done without consensus, and I am following majority support for what should be done in this article. I have merely interpreted what is said here and has majority consensus. I would expect Android79, or FuriousFreddy to tell me if they thought I stepped out of line, and so far I'll I've had is you. You who seem to have an agenda with this article and it's association with MJJF.
4.) "MJJSource is not fan site is cached by google and other web engines, and it directly states sales for Thriller to be 59 million, face it."
The site is down and as such could be down for the very reason that it is untruthful, or more likely, used as a media play to improve Jackson's image during the trial. The fact is the site is gone and defunct information from it is not trustworthy.


5.) "I am sorry, but no one cares if you personally consider Jackson's official site to be non-reliable (see your post about it at the top of this talk page),"
Thankyou very much for pointing me to another reply you made, but only you replied saying that, and you are not everybody. In fact, somebody else said "Where has it been shown that Guinness gives false information or lies?--Count Chocula 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"
6.) "Wikipedia rules have limitations only about "fan sites" like MJJF. Though, again, citing tabloid books and Guinness book as more "reliable" sources that fan's fact sites is ridiculous,"
Again as Count Chocula said "Where has it been shown that Guinness gives false information or lies?--Count Chocula 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"??? Now I'm aware tabloids lie, but Reuters and CNN are news channels and organisations, not Tabloids, and this article does not cite tabloids such as the Sun as far as I'm aware. Also, If the initial text about Guiness was written by you, I disagree with your intended earlier statement that you were not shouting. Upper caps implies shouting. Now, you can apologise or change that text but I will still believe you were shouting, and that you are being angry and highly POV (which can be deferred through your text), when there is no need. I aim to show Jackson can be portrayed in a positive light without tricks or fansites. He is an incredible musician. But this article will not be a whitewash. That is majority consensus. You will find nobody here who wants a whitewash. MJJF linking maketh a whitewash.
7.) "because those sources were proven to report lie number of times, including that Beatles' and Elvis' sales are 1 billion records."
Please prove this.
8.) "MJJSource was never proven to report lie,"
When was it purported to tell the truth by anyone? Was it sourced by anyone unbiased of a third party?


9.) "and it is official source for information, not worse than Madonna's or Rolling Stones's sites."
It is an official source, but not an unbiased one.
10.) "If anyone does not agree, then go to those artist's Wikipedia's pages and delete their content. Warner Music did not update Madonna's sales officially, still Wikipedia page has fresh information about sales from her site."
Because her site has its info taken from a reliable Billboards site or some such, she didn't come into the website HQ and say, "oh i've sold more copies than the bible's been made, put that" whereas Michael's site did not use such a source. And why would we delete anything in such big chunks? Wiki has rules against removing unsubstantiated information when it may affect the bias or size in such dramatic ways.
this is becoming such a huge page that if anyone else still can even decipher the huge pools of text I would hope they archive this page and we can continue this discussion on the next page. The quotes above are truly swamping the talk page. I thank you for your candor with me.--Manboobies 02:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

How much of this is relevant? I see most of it through-out the rest of the article anyway. Is this section really needed?

  • It's relevant, but it doesn't need it's own section. I merged most of into the intro, but some parts were irrelevant so some trivial stuff got the cut. Street walker 06:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous era ?

Many things happened during that period before the molestation trail that isnt mentioned like the successful world tour, Being Oprah, Remember The Time and Jam, and people waiting outside record stores to buy the album. Maybe some of that can be added because the paragraph about Dangerous doesnt have enough positives about that point in Michaels career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.54.83 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure Oprah and MJ telling her he's really 'not odd' was a positive point in his life. it was more a publicity stunt than a good thing.--Manboobies 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What about the dangerous tour not being mentioned and people waiting outside record stores; those things are positive. :)
Do you have a source that says people waited outside record stores to buy Dangerous? 61.69.181.218 07:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I take it you've never seen the MTV News clip of fans stampeding into the store to get be first with the album... but I guess they could've run from their cars or just magically appeared without waiting outside.

Which reminds me of the MTV News piece on grunge music where it was said that Nevermind made a huge chart shift simply due to people going to the store and exchanging it with the Michael Jackson album they got for Christmas.
Just spittin trivia folks, lol. But no, I don't have video or text evidence that any of this happened. Sorry! --Crnk Mnky 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible slander/vandalism?

This claim is made in the fourth paragraph of the article: "Michael Jackson has been dogged by mass media over controversies involving his personal life. He was arrested when he raped David Mathis, a 6 year old boy." Could somebody whether or not there is any relevant or truthful info in this quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.24.115 (talk • contribs) .

Nonsense about sources has to stop

I just read some of comments that people were saying aobut the subject in this talkpage.

People were went to saying that "Michael Jackson himself approves the website – that, right there, presents a problem. If only "Jackson-approved" material gets posted to the site, then its status as a neutral source of information is in question. android79 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)"

Let's stop this nonsense, because, for example, Madonna's and Rolling Stones' worldwide sales are cited in the appropriate Wikipedia articles from label's sites and releases. Music label is interested party and it approves and comes up with sales figures. Hence, with the above quoted logic, sources' neutrality is in question, hence all that information should be deleted.

Other sources in Madonna's and Rolling Stones' articles are tabloid books by "authobiographers" which are no way "neutral", because they distort information so it would fit in their POV about the singer or the group. 'Hence both Wikipedia's aritcles should be deleted?

People, let's stop this sources nonsense. MJJSource is offical source for sales and autobiographical data, and this site is cached by Google and other search engines and can be linked directly through. Thriller sales are 59 million, and other information from there is applicable. MJinf and MJJF are no less reliable fact file sources (actually, much more reliable) than any tabloid Fox411 or Taraborrelli "sources". DenisRS 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

May I point you to WP:RS before making such claims regarding sources. Funky Monkey 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am very well know those rules, and this is why I am asking to stop the nonsense. The cached MJJSource.com perfectly fits as reliable source in no less degree than any source, say, for Madonna and Rolling Stones articles. Either Madonna's and RS' articles should be cleansed of nearly all information, or MJJSource.com is reliable source. No third variant, sorry. DenisRS 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Decline

A user known as DenisRS has become obsessed with removing 'decline' from the title section: Allegations and Decline: 1993 - 2002. The user cites POV as reason, but fails to cite any sources for this change, and continues to avoid doing so. Given that Jacksons albums released during this time were not as successful commercially or critically as his releases from 1982 - 1992 (see Michael Jackson album discography), there is no reason for 'decline' to be removed from this section on the basis of it being POV. This seems to me as yet another attempt to remove all criticism about Jackson from this article, and i will revert these changes everytime i see them.--King G 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently there's an edit war over the "Allegations and decline: 1993–2002" section. The word 'decline' is an unnecessary statement of opinion. Let the reader draw his own conclusion about whether Jackson's career has declined - it's not up to us to draw this conclusion. Even if sales numbers fell since his heyday, it's questionable to say that the man's career declined, since he was still selling multi-platinum albums. Rhobite 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't make much sense Rhobite, as the word 'decline' in the context of the section is not an opinion, it is used to describe the relative fall in record sales of Michael's albums released in the time mentioned. It is based on sourced statistics, not the thoughts of an individual. However, i won't be reverting it and sparking an edit war with you or DenisRS, I'd prefer to wait and see what the other contributers of this article have to say about it.--Count Chocula 04:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying he "declined" in this period could actually be a positive thing when you think about it. If 18 million, 6 million and 8 million are a "decline" for Jackson, then it just goes to show how high his standard is. Street walker 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The word "decline" is vague, and in its current state implies some sort of unusual "falling-out" in his career. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Jackson experienced a "public-relations decline." He also had a "sales decline," however, this is hardly unusual for an artist past his prime. So until you can come up with something more specific, I would pick a less NPOV term, such as the suggested "further career."Cdcon 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Artists like Bruce Springsteen and U2 have experienced drops in sales too. But these artists still sell millions of records, and it would be incorrect to say that they've experienced a "decline". "Decline" is POV, and there's no reason to think that readers will assume the word only refers to album sales. Rhobite 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, the "decline" is subjective NPOV judgement, because Jackson's sales in 1993-2002 years actually grew over the previous decade 1983-1992. The decline of sales of certain separate albums is only one component of success, and it is lesser component than overall actual sales. By the way, HIStory albums had were record breaking success over the world, especially, in Europe, where HIStory topped even Thriller and Bad's success (in Germany, for example). Singes "You Are Not Alone" and "Earth Song" were #2 and #3 best-sellers in Jackson's career, reaching numbers 3.5m and 3m copies sold worldwide (imagine that "Earth Song" was not even selling in the USA). Michael Jackson became officially (by International Federation of Phonographic Industry) the biggest selling male artist of 1995, HIStory became the biggest selling album of 1995, "HIStory World Tour" became the biggest international tour ever with 4.5 million people attendance. About 18 million albums with Jackson's name were wholesold in 5 weeks of official start of release of HIStory albums. For the full 1995 year, over 25 million albums were sold. HIStory generated sale of 11 million singles. BOTDF/HITM (1997) is the biggest selling remix album of all time. Invincible (2001) reached #1 in at least 25 countries of the world and was wholesold 10 million copies in just two months (according to Rodney Jerkings, the record's co-producer who is primary source since he received a portion fees and production money). HIStory did not sell initially on the level of Dangerous album because it was boxed set of two albums, and costed almost $33 -- twice expensive comparing to a standart album. Researches say that equally attractive product's sales with price range $$10-20 have 40% decline in sales just for the price matter. So, though in some sence HIStory was a decline, it can not be said wholefully, because of that factor. Invincible's videos and singles (a whole lot 5 were planned) were cancelled, so there is no possibility to objectively desribe those years as "decline". Jackson's first singe "You Rock My World" from "Invincible" was two months #1 in Europe Union airplay charts. Jackson's "30th Anniversary" celebration concert (2001) was a records breaker for television, reaching 25 million viewers -- about twice bigger result than for any other singer/group, including JLo, and Madonna. 'Even with all of named career complications, Jackson still sold more music records in 1993-2002 period, than in the previous decade, and set mupltiple absolute global industry records. So "decline" is only NPOV. "Further career" is neutral statement. DenisRS 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, however if you don't cite any sources (besides jacko fansites) then this info really doesn't count for much.--Count Chocula 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not the point how much this information is counted by someone, or not -- the point is that there is no way to substantiate "decline" descrtiptive characterisation of 1993-2002 period, hence it is NPOV. Jackson sold about 95 million albums in that period comparing to about 75m albums in 1983-1992 period. Sources are all cited in the bottom of main articles. By the way, Your use of the word "jacko" desqualifies You as biased person. For example, I do not call Jackson "genius" or something, I just name facts. Would You like to be called Wackula-Chocula? DenisRS 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no source at the bottom of this article that backs up what you say, and unless you find one, myself and others simply won't believe you. By the way, 'jacko' is just quicker to type than 'jackson', its as simple as that.--Count Chocula 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not post anything yet in the main article, so I am not bothered whether nay-sayers think about it. As of sources, last time I checked, there were ones at the bottom of the main article. If someone cleansed the list, it is different matter. By the way, would You like to be called 'Con', for example? It is not it a just quicker way to type 'Count Chocula'? So please let's be respectful. You can use, say, MJ, Mike, Jack, Jey, Emjey, et cetera. DenisRS 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are references at the bottom of the article, but they mention nothing about what you claim. However, like previous users have said, I'm all for letting the reader decide whether Jacko's career has declined or not.--Count Chocula 01:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the souces tell about sales of each Jackson's album. You just count 2+2 and get that Jackson sold the way bigger in 1993-2002 period, than in earlier decade. But since the neutral line is kept, then all right, Con. I see that You do not mind that others would call You that. DenisRS 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Not at all, people can call me whatever, doesn't bother me. As you request, i'll count the sales for each album released:

1982-1992:

Thriller: est 60 million

Bad: est 29 million

Dangerous: est 29 million

= 118 million

1993-2002:

HIStory: est 18 million

Blood on the Dancefloor: est 6 million

Invincible: est 8 million

= 32 million

How you can claim that 1993-2002 is bigger than 1982-1992 is well beyond me. All sales figures taken from mjinf, so expect them to be inflated a bit.--Count Chocula 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, You took the wrong period: it is not 1982-2002, it is 1983-2002. Second, Your acconts are clueless, because there is no way how Thriller sold 60m by 1992, let alone it wholesold 5 million in 1982 which is not counted. Here are actual figures:
1983-1992 period:
Off The Wall: 5 million (pre 1983 sales are not counted);
Thriller: 43 million (to late 1992)-5 million=38 million;
Bad: 22 million (to late 1992);
Dangerous: 16 million (to late 1992)
==== 86 million albums
1993-2002 period:
Off The Wall: 5 million;
Thriller: 17 million;
Bad: 7 million;
Dangerous: 13 million;
H-P,P&F-BI: HIStory Begins: 18 million;
H-P,P&F-BI: HIStory Continues: 18 million;
BOTDF/HITM: 6 million;
HIStory On Volume I: 3 million;
Invincible: 8 million;
==== 95 million albums
It should be noted, Con, that MJInf's information is not quite accurate, because they mixed retail and wholesale figures for the albums. Wholesale figures are the most accurate, because only those represent actual sales of albums by labels and actual profits for singer, composers, producers, arrangers, and the label. Retail sales are very much appoximate (there is no global system that can represent accurate countings of those figures) and for big albums always lag of wholesale albums in volume of 1-5 million. For example, BOTDF/HITM actually wholesold 7 million, Invincible wholesold 11 million, H-P,P&F-BI wholesold 20*2 milion. But above I used lesser figures from MJinf just to simplify the situation. Jackson sold more albums in 1993-2002, than in 1983-1992 period even with those lower figures. DenisRS 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't share your sources so we can verify this information denis, you will simply be ignored. End of story--Count Chocula 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreadable

This article is pretty much unreadable because every sentence is followed by an ugly "citation needed" tag. The lead section alone has 12 factcheck tags. Some of these are for uncontroversial, well-known facts such as the location of Neverland, and the assertion that his sleepovers with children have been (gasp) controversial. You don't need a separate citation for every claim made in an article. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a requirement, but a readable article is also important. It is unrealistic to insist that each clause of a sentence should be backed up with its own evidence. I'm going to remove some of the sillier factcheck tags, such as the one next to "Jackson's relationships with children, both his own and others, have been controversial", and common knowledge statements such as Jackson's appearance in Captain Eo. At one point, there was even a factcheck tag on Jackson's DOB. Has that ever been disputed? Rhobite 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have never seen so many factchecks in an article, and it looks awful. Destroy as you wish. Cdcon 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I appologise as I am responsible for some of these in an attempt to source what has been said.--Manboobies 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Guiness Source

Referring to Guinness book as more reliable "source" than MJJSource is ridiculous. Guinness was proven giving false information many times, including about Elvis and Beates' sales. DenisRS 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well where can we find reliable sources if Guinness lies, Record companies inflate, and fans over estimate. Will we ever find the true record sales Of Michael jackson, Elvis Presley, or The Beatles who are among the many artist whose albums sales are really unaccurate or inflated?

-Kelvin Martinez

If neither source can be proven significantly more reliable than the other, include both estimates and cite their respective sources.Cdcon 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow i don't think that Guinness lies about the records it prints (why would they have any reason to lie?), and I'm inclined to trust them more than a fansite that may offer biased estimates. If you've got some proof that Guinness does lie about records, then show it.--Count Chocula 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Con, please see appropriate Wikipedia page about the biggest selling artists. There is proof that there is no way how Beatles or Elvis could even theoretically sell billion records. It is about 400 million for Beatles and about up to 280-300m for Elvis -- basing on statistics and USA/world proportion of sales. So yes, Guinness sometimes reports ridiculous-tabloid-sensationalism-whatever-records that have nothing to do with reliability. So MJJSource information about sales should be presented as no less reliable than Guinness. Alternative figures, one can say. DenisRS 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That page doesn't offer any proof at all of your claims that Guinness lies. The statement on the Guinness World Records page by the 'keeper of the records' Stewart Newport tells a different story to your claims of tabloid sensationalism: "As the Keeper of the Records, I maintain a vigilant watch to guarantee the accuracy and relevance of each and every Guinness World Record, and my team of researchers operates with unswerving impartiality and commitment to veracity. A fact may only become a Guinness World Record when its tested, verified and elevated above all suspicion." I'm tiring of these arguments with you Denis, and unless you start citing proper sources so we can verify your claims, I'm simply not going to bother reading anything you put here.--Count Chocula 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Jackson's "Wacko Jacko" nickname keeps getting removed from the intro. Previous consensus was to include both the "King of Pop" and the "Wacko Jacko" nickname in the intro. If that's changed, let's discuss it here. android79 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of those nicknames should not be included in the into. Mr. George W. Bush has the nicknames, but ones are not allowed in the into about him. Information about the nicknames can appear chronologically, depending on the time of appearance of those nicknames. DenisRS 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush's nicknames are noted in the fourth paragraph of the intro to his article. android79 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Forth paragraph is not first paragraph. As of Bush, there are better nicknames only included in the article. If some insult-type of nicknames got omitted, then why would those type of nicknames be in Jackson's article? DenisRS 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

“King of Pop” is a more formal title of Michael Jackson as appose to the less acknowledged “Whacko Jacko” which is a derogatory tabloid title used by his critics. It simply isn’t necessary here.

How is "King of Pop" in any way a formal title? Jackson isn't the monarch of the nation of Pop. It's a nickname. Many people refer to Jackson as "Wacko Jacko"; that it's a derogatory nickname is immaterial, and to exclude it is a violation of WP:NPOV. android79 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule. android79 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think both, or none at all are the only options when it comes to his nicknames. Given that other articles for musicians and sports figures also put their most commonly used nicknames in the intro however, i see no problem in keeping them both.--Count Chocula 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m not even going to argue with absurd notion that Michael Jackson is equally known by both titles however considering that it isn’t vital for the inclusion of either of these designations at this point, both should be removed.

No one is arguing that the nicknames are used equally, just that they are both prominent. You make a lot of suggestions but aren't providing much reasoning for them. android79 12:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why is there such a debate over the title King of pop for Michael Jackson and not even a close debate about Elvis being called the King Of Rock N Roll. It's been known that there are blacks who believe he shouldn't be called the King of Rock n roll and Little Richard should be. Elvis was given that title by fans, his record executes, and his Las Vegas show annoucer ( "The King has left The Building").Sony still calls Michael the King Of Pop on the new mjvisionary site, fans still definetly call Mj The King of Pop, and when Michael Is announced to performer he is referred to as the King Of Pop.The media that refers to MJ as Wacko Jacko is also the media that refers to Mj as Self-proclaimed King Of Pop. Doing that is just a way to get at Michael. So if there is going to be so much debate over Mj being called King of Pop, they should put something like white-proclaimed King of Rock n Roll for Elvis because there are those blacks who say Little Richard is not only the architect but the king of Rock n Roll. That would be a neutral pov because some people believe that he is not the King but there those who strongerly believe he is. Calling Elvis white-proclaimed is derrogatory statement as calling Mj Whacko Jacko.It would be fair for Mj To be called King of Pop because of his legacy and Elvis Presley King Of Rock n Roll for his legacy. I'm not a racist or have anything against Elvis I believe he deserves the title (I have his albums at Home) King of Rock n Roll. That's just an example of how this debate is unfair to Michael who is just as big or bigger then Elvis Presley.

IMO this reads more correct than what was posted before:
"Since his album Thriller (1982), the so-called King of Pop has been regarded as the most successful pop singer of all time; this album has been the best-selling album in the world." Gilliamjf 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it peculiar that certain people are determined to have Michael Jackson referred to by the derogatory title “Wacko Jacko” as if it were detrimental to this article. Despite fact that Michael Jackson is widely recognized by the title “King of Pop”, it had previously been compromised that it wasn’t a necessity. “Wacko Jacko” is not something that Michael Jackson is universally regarded by so its inclusion is very unneeded. It is an offensive label created by his critics that has no relevance to his achievements or accolades. It’s a deliberately offensive and abusive insult, nothing more. Apparently Android79 has been watching this page like a hawk and is now determined for this absurd title to be applied. Considering the fact that it isn’t remotely vital for this label to be used, it really doesn’t take much contemplation to conclude why certain individuals would so adamantly want it implemented.

Keep in mind that both nicknames are present because both are prominent. The removal of 'Wacko Jacko' merely because you think it to be 'derogatory and absurd' is in violation of WP:NPOV. Let the reader decide whether 'Wacko Jacko' is a fitting title or an insult, its not up to us to decide and remove at will.--Count Chocula 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely you are not so uninformed as to think that Michael Jackson is even close to equally known by both titles. It isn't about what I perceive to be derogatory. "Wacko Jacko" is clearly derogatory so please don't play ignorant. Removing an offensive, not to mention insignificant label, along with the more known and celebrated title is not in violation of WP:NPOV however continually inserting “Wacko Jacko” because a person "thinks" it is essential just might be. How am I not the reader by the way?

The connotation of each name is irrelevant to the inclusion of each in the article. Michael Jackson's personal life is intensely controversial, and because of this, "Wacko Jacko" came to be a prominent nickname for him. Regardless of who uses this name, or why they use it, it is used often, and thus merits its inclusion in the article. —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry but simply because an offensive slur is used in certain circles does not mean it’s use here is vital. Perhaps the title would at least have some purpose in a section about Michael Jackson critics. Michael Jackson purportedly having a controversial lifestyle does not necessitate that he be introduced by a blatantly insulting label.

Shunting all criticism to a "criticism section" simply doesn't work. And it's funny that you say his lifestyle is "purportedly" controversial. It is controversial, in that it has generated controversy in the media. We need to represent all points of view here; that you find one of those points of view distasteful is immaterial. android79 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of this "Wacko Jacko" title is still disputed but there are still some individuals who are trying to dictate things. I have not violated the 3rr nor have I refrained from explaining myself yet Funky Monkey has just recently threatened to block me if I didn’t stop removing the title, which is puzzling because I thought only administrators had that authority. I had previously compromised and suggested that the “King of Pop” along with “Wacko Jacko” be removed despite the “King of Pop” being more universally known and made my edits accordingly as I will continue to do.

Wikipedia operates on rough consensus. Aside from two vocal opponents (yourself and DenisRS) we have many more who want to include both nicknames, who have either voiced their support for this position by commenting in this section or by reverting the removal of "Wacko Jacko". I'm willing to work out a compromise, but it's pretty clear that we have a consensus to retain "Wacko Jacko" in the introduction. android79 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, please sign and date your comments with ~~~~. android79 04:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The GW Bush comparison doesn't hold water. Bush doesn't have one single nickname that is used universally by the tabloid press. Jackson does. Mainstream journalists don't use "Shrub", "Dumbya", and "Bushitler" in headlines, and yet they use "Wacko Jacko". It's apples and oranges. And I'd love to see the policy page that supports "Double standards arn't allowed by Wiki". android79 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think inclusion of these nicknames is ok, but not in the first paragraph. Should we also include "The Gipper" in the opening sentence of the Ronald Reagan article? Keep the nicknames, but they're not important enough to warrant a spot in the very beginning of the article. ( And for the love of god people, sign your freakin' posts :) ) Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. There's some detail on the Jacko nickname later in the article. I've been looking for a good reference for the origins of the King of Pop nickname for a long time; IIRC it was given to him by Liz Taylor at an awards show. If anyone can come up with a good source, I'll take a stab at writing a sentence or two on both nicknames for the intro. android79 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me, that way there will also be room for a brief explaination of each nickname.--Count Chocula 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. My bad. lol. And after I wrote the long whine too. I stick by the idea that they look good in the article where they are and that they are relevant. I can't honestly say why we're moving them around the article, and it seems like DenisRS and the one who doesn't sign their comments are just very vocal.--Manboobies 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, the nickname "King of Pop" is credited to Bob Jones who was a lifelong friend of Jackson. From the article, "Jones has known Michael since he was 11 years old and traveled the world with him for 34 years. He’s also the only insider who never signed a confidentiality agreement. Jones is credited with creating Jackson's nickname as "The King of Pop."." This should probably be verified with a few other sources but at least it's a starting point. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"Wacko Jacko" nickname is used by few tabloid papers and TV shows. "KOP" is used by many worldwide media agencies, as well as general mass-media, papers and television. Also, "Wacko Jacko" is mosly English-speaker-tabloids phenomenon, because in the other languages there is no phonetic rhyme with "Wacko Jacko", no one knows what the "Wacko" is. So "WJ" is marginal on many levels, let alone it is insulting.
The same can be said about few insulting nicknames of Mr.George W. Bush Jr., which are rather marginal. So until in the article on Bush those insulting nicknames are not there, it is not fair to include insulting WJ nickname in the article about Jackson. It would be double standard, what is not allowed.
To MonkeyMan: Robert Jones is not reliable source, he was compelled in the court to admit that he was pressured by the published to sesationalize and embellish his book whatever way possible. But we have transcipt of Jackson's interview to Oprah Winfrey in 1993, where Elizabeth Taylor herself confirms that she came up with "King Of Pop, Rock and Soul" "title", presenting Jackson with "Artist of Decade" award by BMI back in 1989. DenisRS 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
We could include both of those sources (Jones and Taylor) and explain why they might be suspect. I'm trying to come to some kind of compromise here that would equally (un)satisfy everyone involved.  :) Would it be acceptable to you if we removed the nicknames from the first paragraph but included them somewhere down in the article along with explanations? Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 02:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Bush comparison has nothing to do with this - it is completely immaterial to the case at hand. Secondly, the name "King of Pop" is one that, at least at one point, was one that Jackson himself insisted on being called or referred to. Finally, the "Wacko Jacko" is a name that was coined by the British tabloid press, and has been used in the press since that point. Personally, I think that if one is mentioned the other should be. I have no problem with not mentioning them in the opening 'graph and having a separate section devoted to the names in the article. However, I am of the opinion that if one name is mentioned (whether at the top or within the article), both should be, as they are names that have been used to refer to him legitimately within the world press. --Mhking 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

DenisRS has made some very convincing points however there are some people I doubt will give them much consideration as I’ve said, it doesn’t take a lot of contemplating to estimate why someone would be determined to include such an unflattering title. I have stated before that the opening paragraph isn’t the place for such irrelevant content and it would be better suited at a later point in the article where it could be explained. It would also not be very practical to clutter the opening section with these details. 21:53, 1 March 2006 Siddhartha21

A rough consensus of editors here disagrees with you. Please stop removing the nickname from the intro. android79 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A Bit Odd

It's been said on various jackson related articles on Wikipedia that Sony haven't given any accumulative worldwide sales figures for Jackson. However, while checking out Sony's official site for the Visonary video singles (check here), i noticed this sentence: 'An instantly identifiable voice, phenomenal dance moves, stunning musical versatility, and a wealth of sheer star power have seen him sell out stadiums across the globe and generate record sales in excess of 135 million around the world'. This is obviously a very far cry from the 300-350 million that fans have estimated, leading to the problem now of which number should be used. It's probably a better idea to discuss this first, rather than change it now and spark what will likely be a massive edit war.--Count Chocula 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start the discussion off. I like that number, it's from Sony's own reps, and it's much more reliable than a "estimate" by, well, I don't even know where that number comes from, the estimate links to the bottom of the page, which links to itself (WTFLOLOMGBBQ ;)???) --Manboobies 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is nonproblem, nothing odd. Epic Records/Sony Music Entertainment PR people barely ever knew actual or anyhow fresh figures about Jackson's sales. It is totally different department (PR) that handles the job with information quite poorly in this sense. Just making simpliest calculations gives about 200 million wholesold solo albums under ER/SME label. Add to that 70 million singles (Dangerous' 9 singles sold 17 million, HIStory Continues' 11 million, et cetera). Add Motown/UMG adds 50 million solo records. It will make about 320 million solo records. DenisRS 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to go with 135 million +. 300 is an estimate based on estimates based on official sales numbers that were given in 1997. Street walker 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, figures from MJJ Productions are no more biased and no less objective and official than figures from Epic Records. The same is for Darkchild productions, which receives money from Invicible wholesales (11 million, not 8 or whatever). So we have official sales from MJJSource.com (which is archived and can be linked directly via Internet). So there no sense in those "135 million", whether "+" is added, or not; it is outdated information. We have *official* up to 200 million Epic solo records. Just count 2+2. DenisRS 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Sony/Epic are the company that actually releases Jackson's records, i believe those are the figures we should use. The figures should be up to date as well, given that the Visionary site was put up a short time ago.--Count Chocula 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since mjvisionary.com is a Sony BMG site, I assume they only counted MJ's Epic releases when calculating his grand total, and they probably only counted albums. Below are Sony's official sales figures for each of his solo Epic albums. Some of his albums have not had an official sales figure announced by Sony or MJJ Productions, therefore they've been left out. However, in the column next to it, I've put the current best estimates of all his solo Epic albums.

  • Off The Wall - 16M
  • Thriller - 54M
  • Bad - 25M
  • Dangerous - 27M
  • HIStory - 16M
  • Blood - 4M
  • Invincible - 5.4M
  • Number Ones - 6M
  • TOTAL - 153.4 million (171.4 million discs)
  • Off The Wall - 20M
  • Thriller - 60M
  • Bad - 29M
  • Dangerous - 29M
  • HIStory - 18M
  • Blood - 6M
  • Greatest Hits - 3M
  • Invincible - 8M
  • Number Ones - 6.5M
  • Ultimate - 250,000
  • Essential - 2M
  • TOTAL - 181.75 million (202.75 million discs)

Even 135 million is 20 million off the official total sales for his Epic albums, and 50 million off the current best estimated total for his Epic albums, it's the only figure we can use because this is the first time Sony has given a sales total for MJ. - Street walker 08:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It must be a mistake from Sony MJ VISIONARY site or they did it on purpose, we all know the beef between Michael Jackson and SONY America. Anyway, the worst estimate is 170 million albums sold (units) and the best more than 200 million albums ONLY FOR THE EPIC ERA. So if we add to this the solo albums and singles of MOTOWN ERA and singles sold from 1979 to 2004 we easily get more than 300 million records sold. I admire your work Street walker, keep it up. I suggest we don't take into account this ridiculous "135 million" and put back "more than 300 million records sold". Readerweb 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to remember that we are looking for numbers which are the most factually accurate, not the ones that glorify Jackson the most. So far, the only official statement is the 135 million figure released by the company that knows more about Jacksons exact sales figures than any of us, Sony. And as such I believe those figures should be the ones to use. It may be true that Sony only counted epic releases and albums, but then again what are you comparing the Sony figures to? your comparing them to sales figures and best current estimates that only seem to be present on Jackson fansites. I think it all comes back to which is more reliable: figures released by Jacksons record label, or figures released by fansites. Personally, I think too big a deal is made of record sales on the Jackson article anyway. If you want to put the 200-300 million estimate in, it should be listed as an estimate by his fans, because it isn't an official sales figure.--Count Chocula 04:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

MJ.INF.CO is not a fan celebration website, it gives accurate estimates and best estimates. So if you are good at countings, the worst estimate is more than 180 million albums sold (motown solo + epic solo) and the best estimate is approx. 220 million albums only. I do agree we should put the accurate estimates and not the best ones. This site (MJ.INF.CO) is all serious and gives all details concerning sales : certifications, charts, etc... Actually this is the most accurate record sales website ever made regarding a musical artist. The "135 million" information is barely believable especially from a Label that had/has discrepancies and conflicts with Michael Jackson, they (Sony) also reported this very old "Thriller : 51 million sold" quoted by Guiness Records Book, the first time I saw this, it was back in 1992 in Guiness Book (check for yourself), could you imagine Thriller not having sold one unit for almost 14 years? please what a joke...but I don't blame GUINESS BOOK because they receive this info from Music Companies just like the " Beatles 1 billion records" that EMI announced.

For Con -- since Darkchild Production's or MJJ Production's information is no less official than from Epic Records. DCP and MJJP are the companies which receive fees and are responsible to government for taxes (just try to claim more than you have, and find out what is tax checkup is). Publishing that information on a company owned website very well guarantees that overall this information is correct. In fact, the information, published by ER/Sony BMG is outright incorrect, there are up to 65 million of albums missing, and 70 million singles. DenisRS 02:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

MICHAEL JACKSON, the most successful recording artist in the history of black music

Whoever is fixing this article is doing a great job, but they need to remember that MJ is the most successful recording artist in the history of black music and one of the most successful overall. I think that it needs to be added so that many will know that he is not just the best selling artist, but also the most succesful black one. -Khalif 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please define "most successful". Wikipedia can't make its own value judgments, it can only report those of others. android79 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
When you say he is the most successful in black music, who can you be referring to as the most successful artist overall?
Michael is the biggest selling solo artist in the history of music. Only the Beatles have outsold him. Michael on the other hand has outsold Presley, Sinatra, Crosby, and all the other once-great artists. Michael is so beautiful and has more vocal range than any other singer, with the single exception of Roy Orbison.
Roy Orbison? lol. --Manboobies 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "The Big O" had a 4-octave vocal range which is only rivalled in popular music by Freddie Mercury. Of course Orbison lost some of his range by smoking but nevertheless he was the greatest singer, just ask Elvis.
according to his article he only has 3. At least he did when I last read it, 3 being about average for commercial music. James hetfield has 4. Range is not everything anyway. My mother has more range than most women, but you wouldn't want her singing all the latest pop songs.--Manboobies 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

edit/revert war

Oh God, please make it stop. Won't somebody think of the children? Seriously, it's just a nick name, get over it.--Manboobies 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, everyone please stop editing out "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko", they are very popular nicknames used by the general public and media to describe Michael Jackson. Street walker 08:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to list Michael's nicknames as "The King of Pop" and simply "Jacko", because "Wacko Jacko" is incredibly offensive to the King's billions of fans and He has personally requested the media to stop using it.
Offensive to us fans, but this isn't a fan page. It's a reference document. Since the media and Michael's critics have not stopped calling him that name, it is worth noting here. Sorry! -- Crnk Mnky 17:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has finally been properly referenced

This article has finally been properly referenced, I now going to take a well deserved nap. I hope that everyone who voted against the article for featured article status because it wasn't properly referenced will retract their votes. Anyone who is reading this, please go to this article's feature article candidate page (found at the top of this talk page) and vote for this article to become a feature article because many users have put countless hours into improving this article and it now lives up to Wikipedia's standard. Street walker 08:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the 50ish footnotes are extremely ugly. Can we find a way to make sure it's properly referenced without shoving it in everyone's face? Rarr 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


small quibble over removal of relevant information

Hi, Street Walker, you removed information on the current legal action by Deborah Rowe to get custody rights to her 2 children [1]. I have put them back. They are essential to the article being unbiased. I have also removed data regarding the case from the history section and moved it as it doesn't belong there. Thanks --Manboobies 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Street Walker Removes essential info from MJ article Wikipedia Diff of yesterday to the point it was changed

fair enough Street walker 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sex Symbol

I think Michael should be listed as a sex symbol on wikipedia because he is universally acknowledged as one of the most beautiful men in the world.

dude... get a screen name so we can see your psycho ass coming. j/k. lol, I love him too, but you are a bit much. and just think, for every supercrazy fan who posts in discussion, there's a million more who just keep deleting "wacko jacko" and going on their way without thinking twice. sheesh! -- Crnk Mnky 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you are just jealous that King Michael manages to be sexy, beautiful and cool all at the same time.
Thank you for the compliment (my name is Michael King), but we're talking about Michael Jackson. And the notion of him as "sexy" is definitely POV, and not one I share. --Mhking 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
He's sexy, but not beautiful IMO. Street walker 08:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm, clearly you are just delusional. He's not a king, he's a legend. He used to manage to be sexy and cool, IMO. Now, he barely manages to be normal, IMO. We certainly all have our own tastes, but IMO calling him a sex symbol is like telling a bulimic that her diet is going great. In the end, the constant denial can only hurt him, in my opinion. -- Crnk Mnky 16:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael's Grammys

Michael received 17 Grammys... not 13!!!!

  • Best R&B Performance, "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"
  • Album Of The Year ? Thriller
  • Record Of The Year ? Beat It
  • Best Male Pop Performance ? Thriller
  • Producer Of The Year (with Quincy Jones) ? Thriller
  • Best Male Rock Vocal Performance ? Beat It
  • Best Male R&B Vocal Performance ? Billie Jean
  • Best New R&B Song ? Billie Jean
  • Best Recording For Children ? E.T. The Extra Terrestrial Album
  • Best Home Video ? The Making Of Thriller
  • Record Of The Year ? We Are the World
  • Song Of The Year ? We Are the World
  • Best Pop Performance By Duo Or Group ? We Are the World
  • Best Music Video Short Form
  • Best Video ? Leave Me Alone
  • Living Legend Award
  • Best Music Video (short form)? scream
Grammy website says otherwise. Are they out to get Michael? No. I've answered that for you. No need to reply. --Manboobies 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Altering Nicknames without group consensus.

I can't be hassled to work out how to strikethru this. Just pretend it's striked thru, innit. --Manboobies 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)This is *my* warning if you will, we all decided - at least, a lot of others did, and I agree that both add to a neutrality/informative aspect of the article. I and others will rv the changes to nicks.Next time the article is vandalised in this way I'll be requesting moderator discipline towards the one who does it. That's my warning. I don't care whether you want to accuse me of ownership issues.Street Walker who seems to be single handedly doing the bulk of article improvement (along with some other less welcome bits but nobody is perfect, and he's doing a huge job) seems to get knocked off course whenever people fiddle with the intro. It annoys me when he gets slowed down by vandalism, he's doing a great job. See those annotated sources at the end? He did those during the period you weren't vandalising those nicknames. It needs to be quiet for real improvement, you are making this article less relevant, and less likely to be read by anyone each time you hack it.--Manboobies 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Biggest selling artist.

According to the RIAA Michael Jackson is the 14th best selling artist of all time, [9]. Before we change all the "best selling" enries in the article, and start numberous edit wars, could we have a discussion here first. Funky Monkey 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He has also be certified as being number 16 in terms of sales in the US [10] Funky Monkey 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

intro length

I don't think the intro is too long. He's had a very long career. If anyone else agrees and removes the intro tag, i won't complain. --Manboobies 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everything that needs to be said is said and if it is shortened, valuable info will be lost. The intro contains an opening paragraph, paragraph about his musical milestones, paragraph about his marriages and children, paragraph about his private life and the child molestation charges, because that's what you need to introduce Michael Jackson. I agree to remove the tag. Street walker 11:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the detail could be trimmed, as long as it's covered in later sections. I'm not sure that it's "too long" but it might make the article better if it were streamlined a bit. android79 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the detail —it was way too long. You guys even went into details and quotes. That's not how an intro is written. Orane (t) (c) (e) 14:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko

I hesitate to bring this up again.. but since so many people have tried to remove "Wacko Jacko" from the article, maybe we should think about a better way to present this information in the article. I agree that this nickname should be noted but I'm not sure that it needs to be in the first sentence. If we move it down in the article somewhere we can provide more context and cite a source. What do you think? Rhobite 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, really its only been two vocal users who have insisted on it being removed. I wouldn't mind if the nicknames were moved further down the article, but at the moment it seems like the majority prefer them in the introduction.--Count Chocula 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, that's the ideal solution, but the problem is, we would need to move both nicknames, with sourced explanations, elsewhere in the article, and as yet no one's been able to come up with a credible source for the origin of "King of Pop". Chocula is right, though; there's only some very vocal opposition from a couple of editors, both of whom don't seem to understand/care about NPOV. android79 00:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just hope we're not punishing the article in response to the conduct of these users who want the nickname removed. It's natural to take an extreme position - they want the nickname removed, so other people want the nickname in the first sentence. Rhobite 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it hurts the article at all. A prominent mention of both nicknames has been the status quo for a long time now. android79 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You should remove that evil phrase immediately and substitute it for "Jacko" because that media-given slander is incredibly offensive to King Michael's millions of fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .
Funny how Jackson's legion of fans shrank from billons to millions in just a few days. It must be this article! My sinister plan is working! Seriously, though, with contributions like this and this it's difficult for me to believe you're not trolling. android79 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"Clearly you are just jealous that King Michael manages to be sexy, beautiful and cool all at the same time." lol. Let's not forget his giant penis either. He's most probably the most hung man in existance ;). --Manboobies 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I still take the complement personally -- I'm sure my wife feels that way, too, thanks... --Mhking 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

King Of Pop

I'm curious why is there such a debate over the title King of pop for Michael Jackson and not even a close debate about Elvis being called the King Of Rock N Roll. It's been known that there are blacks who believe he shouldn't be called the King of Rock n roll and Little Richard should be. Elvis was given that title by fans, his record executes, and his Las Vegas show annoucer ( "The King has left The Building").Sony still calls Michael the King Of Pop on the new mjvisionary site, fans still definetly call Mj The King of Pop, and when Michael Is announced to performer he is referred to as the King Of Pop.The media that refers to MJ as Wacko Jacko is also the media that refers to Mj as Self-proclaimed King Of Pop. Doing that is just a way to get at Michael. So if there is going to be so much debate over Mj being called King of Pop, they should put something like white-proclaimed King of Rock n Roll for Elvis because there are those blacks who say Little Richard is not only the architect but the king of Rock n Roll. That would be a neutral pov because some people believe that he is not the King but there those who strongerly believe he is. Calling Elvis white-proclaimed is derrogatory statement as calling Mj Whacko Jacko.It would be fair for Mj To be called King of Pop because of his legacy and Elvis Presley King Of Rock n Roll for his legacy. I'm not a racist or have anything against Elvis I believe he deserves the title (I have his albums at Home) King of Rock n Roll. That's just an example of how this debate is unfair to Michael who is just as big or bigger then Elvis Presley.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Jackson_Archive_4_4d74.html"