Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Why was "From The Bottom of My Heart" removed?

I added a bit about Michael Jackson's new single and it was removed? Why? It's relevant. More relevant to Michael Jackson than alot of the stuff in the article.

DS

When was DS released?

It was on the HIStory album AmishThrasher 07:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Lock this page?

NO

Revert back before last edit

Can this article please be reverted back to the way it was before the last edit? Someone has replaced a damn fine, accurate article with the words "he is gay". So can it be reverted back?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.196.138 (talk • contribs) .

Uhhh...looks fine to me...--chris.lawson 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine here, too. Try refreshing your cashe. Shanes 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael and Nation of Islam

Should allegations about Michael being associated with the Nation of Islam be added to the main page in the list of controversies? I know there's a mention of it in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson#Arrest and investigation, but I feel it is worth having here in its own right. Andjam 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"However all the above mentioned artists have denied any involvenment with the song."

Someone edited the section in the article about Michael Jackson new single, "From The Bottom Of My Heart" saying, "However all the above mentioned artists have denied any involvenment with the song." This is wrong, so I deleted it.

Mariah Carey confirmed on a UK talk show that she will be a part of the single. James Brown, Snoop Dogg and Missy Elliot have also confirmed through their spokespeople that they will be participating in the single. Babyface is also another one who confirmed his participation in the single.

Jermiane Dupri & SNL

Do we really need to mention Jermaine Dupri's comments on Jackson's acquittal and SNL's Michael Jackson Show? It has no relevance to the article which is about Michael Jackson's career and life, it's not an article about Jermaine Dupri or SNL.

"...the skin color of an African-American?"

Oy. So Michael Ealy and Smokey Robinson don't have "the skin color of an African-American?" Fixing. --FuriousFreddy 14:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No because they are both mixed race. Jason.

Self proclaimed King of Pop

The SP KOP stuff is wrong. MJ did not self proclaim himself as the KOP, it was the media, and DJ's who started using the title after the success of Thriller. The first time someone used it, and it caught on, was at the 89 American Music Awards when Liz Taylor called MJ the "King of Pop, Rock and Soul." Street walker 11:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It has being decided that the nicknames such 'King of pop' & 'wacko Jacko will be mentioned in latter stages of the article. Wacko Jacko has being mentioned in the controversies section, so please don't include it in the intro.

You're the only one, AFAICT, that holds this opinion. Previous consensus was to include both nicknames in the intro, and that hasn't changed. android79 17:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So in the controversies section it is said that media refer to him as "Whacko Jacko", but no where in the article does it say his fans and his peers refer to him as the "King of Pop, Rock and Soul." To be fair, if you mention the name media refer to him as, you should also mention the name fans and peers refer to him as.Street walker 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A search shows many cases of him being called the King of Pop, but not the longer version (unsurprisingly). Taylor might well have sed the longer form originally, but it was the shorter form that caught on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's just like Elvis Presley, the title his record company dubbed him as is "The King of Rock and Roll", but fans shorten it to "The King". It's exactly the same for Michael, the title Liz Taylor labelled him as, and the title his record company has used to promote certain musical releases is "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul", but fans and peers shorten it to "The King of Pop".Street walker 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added, known by his fans and peers as "The King of Pop, Rock and Soul" (most commonly shortened to "The King of Pop") Is this cool with everyone? This is the most fair statement as in it shows what his official title is, and what fans shorten it to.Street walker 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You refer to KoP as MJ's "official title", I don't understand this. How is it official? Secondly which peers refer to him as KoP? I believe it is marketing by MJ that has been accepted by his fans,but not by the general public. Media reports often say "self-styled King of Pop". Thirdly, KoP should also be mentioned under Controversies because of media claims [wish I could find them] that MJ's PR people have insisted on a journalist refering to him as KoP, in order to gain access. (ie. example of hubris and media spin). Design 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I say "official title" because it is the title his record company used to promote various releases (Dangerous and HIStory). No where on the net have I found credible info that states Michael Jackson's PR team influenced media to call him KOP. Anyone around at the time know that after the success of Thriller, DJ's started calling him the KOP, then the public picked up on it, and then the media picked up on it. It wasn't until after MJ bought the Beatles catalogue that the media tried to strip him of this title. The Self proclaimed KOP is just a rumour, it has no place in this article.Street walker 07:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

We must also think about practicallity and maintainabilty.

1. Point 1#

Any tagnames, whether admiration or discourteous, is only superficial. Whether it's fact or fiction can be argued or over-argued in our case. I suggest, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me, that we place it in more approiprate section(s) than that of the intro.

1. Point 2#

Placing such nicknames in the intro of this article only makes our jobs harder, because it encourages vandalism. Because of it's very nature to be stated as fact is difficult, it will cause further vandalism. People are less likely to vandalise articles if facts are being stated. Therefore, nicknames must be placed at more approiprate sections.

Major POV issues

As a result of the slew of recent edits this article is suffering from major POV issues. Just in the "Invincible" section alone there are comments about "musical genius" and "haunting melodies"; I have neither the time or the inclination to revise this lengthly, fanboyish article, but SOMEONE has to do it. Pacian 05:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. If there is still some POV in this section, feel free to edit it. I tired my best.Street walker 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So what if Michael Jackson is reffered to as a "musical genius". That is not totally unexplainable and unfounded. I would disagree on calling him a genius a POV. There is definitely a cause to call him a genuis. Many articles in wiki refer it's subjects as "genius" including Bernard Herrmann, Roberta Flack, Charles_Mingus & Prince. If these articles mentions its subjects as geniuses, why on earth can't Michael be referred as a genius. Many well known people as well as musical artist have referred to MJ as a genius. E.g Lenny Kravitz referred to Jackson as a genuis. Before u come here talking about POV, do your research.

Put it in the article then. If you know a specific case where someone else referred to Jackson as a genius, say that by all means. But first go to history, and see what the Invincible section was like before it was edited. It did have major POV issues, so Pacian's comments weren't unfounded. Street walker 20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Neither of those articles nor any others should call their subjects "geniuses" unless (a) the comment is a quote fro ma credible source or (b) they actually have IQ's over 150 (or whatever the cutoff is)
2. I cut the sections on Invincible and Blood on the Dance Floor way down a week ago, only to see them bloated back (with the exact original text). Note that both albums have their own articles, and that, since this article is already very long, there is no nee ot go into detail on the albums here. Only a brief overview should be here. I have actually revised this article completely once every two weeks (it seems to always bloat when discussing wither the post-Thriller albums or the trial, both of which hgave their own articles. However, it always gets bloated right back up again, like a tumor.

I understand an article on Michael Jackson is going to be long, no matter what is done to it (he's been a high-profile celebrity since 1969, and has released a lot of top-selling music). However, it doesn't need to be longer. No more information on any of Jackson's music should be added to this article, until he releases new recordings. Rewording is fine, but extra wording (anything that makes the file size go up) is bad. Hmmmm...perhaps we could (should?) lose some of the Neverland trivia and the personal information. --FuriousFreddy 00:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

FFreddy - youv'e cut down the artcle. I think it would be preferrable to have Main Articles (located elswhere) for all albums & other subjects such as Controversies. This would allow fullsome but accurate trivia to be added in each Main Article.

You cut out the Intro I wrote for Controversies. It did make the current article longer but I didn't think it was POV. To have no mention of the controversies surrounding "King Of Pop" and "Whacko Jacko" lessens this article. Design 01:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has gone and changed BOTDF and Invincible again. I reverted the article back to the way it was, but I would advise that the user who keeps editing these two sections, 218.101.65.23 , should be banned from editing this article because he/she has edited it numerous times with the exact same text, major POV issues, and lack of fact. Street walker 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the "mainarticle" template is neccessary for the albums, since it should seem obvious that each album would be covered in its subarticle. Usually, it's only included in reference to biographical articles, where a section will essentially be a summary of a larger article (in this case , The Jackson 5 section). BTW, when I did that big evision on October 2, there was no intro to the "Controversies" section. --FuriousFreddy 00:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that this article has swung from slightly anti-MJ to pro-MJ. The child molestations allegations against him are given too little attention. This is a major talking point in the last few years about MJ and should under no circumstances be undercut. "Voice" section can't be more POV. So much of it (and earlier album by album rehashing) reads like fanzine (if rather well-written fanzine). If you respect Wikipedia, give parts of the article proper due. Mandel 07:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What is POV about the voice section? MTV did declare Michael the 11th best voice in music, Michael can sing stacatto, Michael has got a wide range. What's POV about it? Street walker 10:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Technically, Michael Jackson has one of the finest voices in contempary music. His first advantage is the natural speed of his voice." Who declares here that technically MJ has one of the finest voices in music? This can't be POV! His first advantage is the natural speed of his voice makes no sense at all, what the hell do you mean by natural speed of a voice? Does it mean that he has a fluent sense of rhythm? That has nothing to do with vocal quality.

Examples of POV in "Invincible" Section (italicized): "The album had quite an effect on Jackson's career which seemed to steadily decline after this project which was his most recent studio album. It proved he was far from musically 'Invincible'. Other notable tracks on the album are: 'Unbreakable' - a pop, rap single about Jackson being unbreakable and unstoppable but with a good beat (featured on 'Ultimate Box Set'), 'Break of Dawn' featured on his "Number Ones" album (though never a number 1) is an R&B single, 'Invincible' is not about Jackson being invincible but less-excitingly about a woman he pursues (similar to unbreakable) and 'Privacy' - a repeadative anthem about publicity and the media quite obviosuly talking about Princess Diana." Other than the fact the writer can't spell of course, what is this, a review?

The more I read the entire article, the more convinced I am that an earlier version of it is superior. Structurally it sucks, with more info than necessary in some places, and less elsewhere. It reads without linkage. MJ seemed like a person with split personality whose albums are angelic and whose private life, d'oh, let's just say the writer is interested in fending off allegations and sitting out outright. Mandel 03:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

People who usually talk like that about any topic have superficial ideas and notions. If you want to contribute to an article, please try and work with facts, not your prior assumptions.

What "profundity" is this article supposed to bring? I have no prior assumptions about MJ, I'm criticizing the structure of the article and its NPOV nature. Pls sign your post too, it's difficult to talk to a phantom writer. Mandel 13:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed need to be made to BOTDF and Vince

These 2 sections have major POV issues. They have been fixed up time and time again, but people keep editing them back. Someone please revert back to the way this article was before these two sections were changed?

Yes--whoever locked it, please revert back those two sections. THanks. --FuriousFreddy 04:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Go ahead and edit. Shanes 13:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you stop changing these sections!!! There are individual articles for both these albums, so nothing more than a brief outline of the album's story and success needs to go on the main Michael Jackson article.Street walker 10:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"Dogged" by the "media" for sexual abuse allegations?

This paragraph seems very POV:

Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005.

The truth of the matter is that he has been accused of sexual abuse and the media covered it. Yes, they gave it a great deal of attention, but this is not "despite" his success but because of it. If he were not so successful the media would not have paid attention to the allegations. Millions of men are accused of sexual abuse every year, and the media ignores most of them because they are not famous. The above paragraph reads like it is written by a diehard fan. -- Dancemaster 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's a consistent problem with this article. Diehard fans are the main contributors. When I have more time, I'm going to try to tackle this problem. Feel free to be bold and alter any over-the-top fannishness that you find. :-) android79 12:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Page split?

It's probably best to split the "Personal life" and "Controversies" sections off into a subarticle, i nthe interest of maintaining page legnth. --FuriousFreddy 02:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Concur--161.74.11.24 07:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree Street walker 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Biggest Selling Artist of All-time"

The IFPI website doesn't seem to have any mention of this honour/certification - if there is a link or information to prove this claim, please include it, otherwise the proclamation is best removed. --172.212.73.140 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The World Music Awards awarded Michael Jackson the biggest selling artist of all-time based on IFPI certifications. Street walker 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NOI

Request for expansion: [1] --Striver 03:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's truly amazing...

how we talk about one person so much we forget ourselves...

Personal life & Controversies

These sections have been moved to Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies. All mentions of "wacko jacko", child abbuse allegations, plastic surgery and skin color have been moved to a seperate article. This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career.Street walker 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but we need to add a summary of the various controversies to this article. This article is a complete biography of Jackson. It's fine to split the details into a separate article, but you always need to summarize when you split an article. Declaring that this article is "only about the music" would be wrong. Rhobite 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I added mentions of the 2003 allegations of child sexual abuse, and the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson, to the "Number Ones" and "I Have A Dream" sections. Street walker 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple passing mentions of the trial is far from adequate.. as I said, this is a full biography of Jackson and it would be delusional to just pretend the controversy isn't there. The article now makes no mention of Jackson's first molestation settlement, his marriages, his children, etc. We need a full section on this stuff, not a passing mention in the "Number Ones" section. Rhobite 06:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Rhobite. I'm trying to assume good faith here, Street walker, but it certainly seems, to the disinterested observer, that you seem to have a pro-MJ point of view and are subtly pushing it with your edits. This article is about Michael Jackson the person, and that person has been involved in lots of controversy that has nothing to do with his music. An encyclopedia article about Michael Jackson would be incomplete without appropriate mention of these controversies, and one or two lines is not adequate.--chris.lawson 06:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is only for Michael Jackson's musical career... uh, no it's not, it's a biography. This is yet another blatant attempt to remove all criticism and controversy from the article. android79 07:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Give me a chance. It takes more than two seconds to make all the changes. I have now added information about Jackson's marraiges and children to the article. More mentions of the personal life and controversies will be added to Jackson's main article over time. The article needed to split otherwise the article is way too lengthy. This is also discussed in this talk page. Street walker 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your version makes no attempt to follow the consensus that "Wacko Jacko" should be discussed in the lead. This is only the first in what would be a long litany of problems, were I to list them all here. For the sake of brevity, let's start with that single omission. Care to explain it?--chris.lawson 07:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting back to the previous article? There are many problems with that version of the article.

1) It is way too lengthy, hence the article split

2) The image in the intro of Jackson performing at the 95 MTV awards is too big and throws out the allignment of the whole article. It looks dodgy.

3) It has no mention of Jackson's upcoming releases (i.e. "You Are So Beautiful" and yet-to-be-names next album).

p.s. "Wacko Jacko" is here be mentioned in the intro. Satisfied? Street walker 07:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

1) I find the subject of your split-and-make-new-article interesting, to say the least.

2) So fix it. That hardly requires wholesale changes to the article.

3) So add them. Again, that hardly requires wholesale changes to the article.

4) No, I'm not satisfied. "Black" is still not a proper noun, and I don't think the British tabloid media, to cite one example, "loathes" Jackson at all. I think they love him because he gives them lots of material. You haven't read WP:NPOV yet, have you?--chris.lawson 07:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I read the whole thing and tried to follow it closely. Obviously I failed to satisify. Fine, I will make further changes.

The Michael Jackson article now includes...

Mention on "Wacko Jacko"

Lengthy description of Jackson's marraiges and children

Mention of the 1993 allegations, the 2003 allegations and the 2005 trial.

Anything else?

Street walker 07:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the current Michael Jackson article? If not, then the Michael Jackson article will have to be merged with Personal Life & Controversies.

I suspect the only people happy with the article as of this moment in time are you and Michael Jackson, and maybe some other hard-core fans. Those of us who prefer to see NPOV policy followed prefer something closer to this version.--chris.lawson 08:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted this article. All I did was copy and paste sections from the Personal Life & Controversies article. As a result, I also had to delete some of the talk of personal life * controversies in the albums sections. I did not revert this article. The article should now satisfy everyone. Street walker 08:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to see Jackson's biography -- the main point of this article, after all -- restored to its chronological order. In other words, please replace the section about his childhood at the beginning, where it belongs.--chris.lawson 08:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I am sorry, that was my mistake. I will fix it. But, this is nealry exactly the way you wanted the article in the first place, so why are you now not happy with it? Street walker 08:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

KrisW6, what undiscussed blanking and changes made by me are you talking about? Basically, the only changes I've made is adding new information that has just surfaces about Jackson new single titled, "You Are So Beautiful", and I fixed up some politcally uncorrect terms like gay and black (I changed them to homosexual and African American). Street walker 08:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=28100002&oldid=28099916 is what I am talking about. --KrisW6 08:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to vent here for a moment...black is not politically incorrect anymore than white is. in fact, many "African-Americans" dislike the term, claiming that they are more "american" than many people who enjoy being called simply "white" or "caucasian" or "american." Me, for example: My mothers parents and fathers grandparents are all immigrants from ireland. that makes me a 2nd/3rd generation american. there are "african americans" who are the descendants of people who were living in america 100 years before anybody from my family tree, yet i would NEVER be qualified as "Irish-american." Black is often considered a better option because it's "true" (they're not literally black, but it does refer to a skin tone which is darker, and i'm not literally "white" either), or at least more true than african american. furthermore, this is a rather Amero-centric view...if all black people in america are "african american"s, then we need categories for "african canadian", "african english", "african french"...etc. that's really all i've got for this discussion.jfg284 11:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but shouldn't "gay" be "homosexual"? Street walker 00:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is nothing politically incorrect about the term "gay". Many gay people prefer "gay" because "homosexual" sounds clinical and is used by many people who oppose homosexuality. Rhobite 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Streetwalker, if you want to split the page due to the fact that it is too long, do so. But why the edits to the intro. All u had to do wait get the consensus, and follow it through. --161.74.11.24 12:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe that Jodie Foster dated Michael. I know for a fact that they were friends, but now I'm not totally sure on that either. I saw some pictures back in the 1970s with Jodie and Michael holding hands and laughing. I don't think she ever dated anyone really. The quote from Jodie Foster came from Rolling Stones magazine, 1982 when they were doing this thing with Michael Jackson. I think that quote describes Michael completely. Who ever found that quote from 1982 is a complete nerd. 70.149.126.233 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jodie Foster was friends with Michael from what I have heard in her biography. What quote are you talking about? Jade 19:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackson's nationality

Now that Jackson has permanent legal residence in Bahrain, and Joseph has stated his son will never return to America to live (ecause he doesn't feel safe in America), should this part...

Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958 in Gary, Indiana) is an American musician, singer, dancer, songwriter, record producer, and philanthropist known by his fans and peers as the "King of Pop", or alternatively "Wacko Jacko".

By changed to...

Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958 in Gary, Indiana) is a Bahrainian musician, singer, dancer, songwriter, record producer, and philanthropist known by his fans and peers as the "King of Pop", or alternatively "Wacko Jacko".

If so, then what is someone who lives in Bahrain called? Is Bahrainian the correct termonology? Another possibility might be, Bahraini (like Iraqi).

Street walker 09:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Has Jackson renounced his US citizenship? If not, he's still legally an American.--chris.lawson 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes no difference what citizenship he carries. Citizenship is not nationality (which the manual of style says you must include), so calling him Bahrainian is out of the question.

Resurrection

This stuff about "Resurrection" is horribly wrong.

Firstly, the supposed album was called "Force" not "Resurrection".

Secondly, "Get Out Of My Mind" was not a Michael Jackson song, it was recorded by a french Michael Jackson impersonator, with a similiar voice.

Thirdly, this album was never confirmed by Michael Jackson. It is nothing but speculation, and should be deleted from this article, unless it can be better written with more accurate facts.]

I'd also like to add that "You Are So Beautiful" will not be featured on the "Force (or Resurrection)". It's an entirely new album which Michael has started from scratch. Also, the album will not be released through 2 Seas Records, it is more likely to be released through Island Def Jam records (as LA Reid is currently in talks with Jackson about signing a recording contract).

Regards, Street walker 05:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

THEIRstory Tour

I hear there will be a Janet and Michael Tour entitled THEIRstory. Maybe that should be added.

I have not heard anything about this supposed tour. I have heard of a Jacksons reunion tour titled "Celebration Tour". I've also heard of a Jacksons album. The only upcoming projects which Michael Jackson himself has confirmed are, the charity single titled "I Have A Dream", and a solo album with a song on it titled, "You Are So Beautiful". Street walker 06:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you umm... street walker. Lol, but i heard the Michael Jackson and Janet performing at the 2006 grammy's the single Scream and going on tour together. I dont know how true it is though

Jackson other musical skills, apart from singing

There is no mention of Michael Jackson's instrumental skills anywhere in this article, so I took it upon myself to add some. You will see in the HIStory section and the Invincible section, I have added info about the instruments Jackson plays on these albums. I feel this sort of information is useful for those doing research on Michael Jackson and his musical skills. Please, if you disagree don't edit this information out of the article, simply look at the credits for the HIStory album and the Invincible album, and you'll see Jackson plays a wide range of instruments on both albums. If you go to other artists' articles, you'll find sections on the artist's vocal skills, instrumental skills, songwriting skills etc. Some artists have whole sections on these topics. Whereas the Michael Jackson article has very, very little mention of his vocal skills, songwriting skills and instrumental skills. Instead the articles flooded with mentions of plastic surgery, skin tone, alleged child abuse etc. There's too much information about controversies, and not enough about Jackson's musical skills. Street walker 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is already too long. The information on what specific instruments Jackson plays on each album belongs at the seperate pages for those albums, not here. It doesn't matter what "other articles" include; most other musician biographical articles don't have to cover as much ground as this one.--FuriousFreddy 07:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not street walker, however I have noticed that you have continually sabotaged good modifications to this article. Exactly where do you get off replacing "the colour of an African American" with Medium brown or whatever the hell you put? How exactly does one define medium brown? He was the same colour as Oprah, as his father. He was the colour of an African-American. Not medium brown.

And here you are continuing to sabotage this article by removing this edit, which was a totally and completely warranted and well thought out and interesting addition. Exactly WHO ARE YOU to define whether this article is too long or not you little Hitler? This is an Internet page and it can be much much longer with no problems, and the system doesn't impose a limit on page size. Who are you to make a decision on this on behalf of everyone here? You are blatantly hiding an anti-Jackson agenda. And badly..--Jason 17:51, 14 November 2005 (GMT)

• Hold up Bronco! I did not edit the African-American, medium brown thing. Please don't accuse me of doing that, I have nothing to do with it. I made a split in the article a while ago because it was over Wiki's recommeneded page size limit, and there had allready been a few people who have the same idea. In the interest of keeping the peace, I returned the page to its original state. Further more, I am not anti-Jackson. I have never done anything anti-Jackson to this article. May I remind you, when editing any article you need to keep a NPOV. You can't be pro-Jackson or anti-Jackson when editing this article. Otherwise, it would be doomed to be a disaster. I seriously think you have me mistaken for someone Jason.

Regards, Street walker 22:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Street walker, my reply was adressed towards Furious Freddy. Jason 24/11/05 7:16pm.

Even though you've pretty much Godwinned this thread by calling another editor "Hitler" (please see WP:NPA), I must point out that size is indeed a consideration for Wikipedia articles. It's recommended that anything larger than 32 KB be pared down or split; this article is currently 52 KB.

I agree with FuriousFreddy; this article needs to be shortened. There is a lot of excessive detail that could be cut or moved to subarticles, and it has been an ongoing problem since I've had this article on my watchlist. Freddy certainly has an agenda, but it is not a nefarious one: he (and I) want to keep this article neutral. android79 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely-recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful. See Quirk's exception below.". I do hope that wasn't your deliberate intention ;)

Very well, I take back my Hitler comment. Jason

Is there a better way of saying this?

"Despite his career success, he has been dogged by media attention over allegations of child sexual abuse, which resulted in a trial and acquittal in 2005."

It seems like a really dodgy thing to say. Can we either find another word for "dogged", or leave this passage out all together, or replace it? Street walker 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased it. It suggests that being prosecuted it no problem, and that only the media attention is rather unpleasant.--Patrick 01:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting it back the way it was. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word "dogged" in this context. In fact, it works a lot better than the re-phrase did. (No offence, Patrick.)--chris.lawson 01:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this saying that the trial is due to the media?--Patrick 01:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why I slightly re-worded it. I noticed that issue, too. I think the way it is now avoids any confusion that the media attention caused the trial.--chris.lawson 01:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That is better. But why "Despite"? It is natural that a famous person gets more media attention on such issues.--Patrick 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but we all know a lot of celebrities have gotten a free pass on their eccentricities before. I'm not wedded to the word "despite" in there, though. The entire dependent clause of that first sentence could be nuked and it wouldn't make much difference to me.--chris.lawson 01:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NOI

Why is there nothing on NOI in this article? --Striver 11:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Jackson's involvement with the Nation of Islam has not been proven. Furthermore, it is not important or relevant enough to be added to this allready over-sized biography of Michael Jackson. Street walker 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Demonstrations in Barhain

Threre have been angry reactions in Barhain on 14 November, against Michael Jackson, due to the fact that he entered a woman's toilet in Barhain, to reapply his make-up. The women have been calling for Michael to be arrested for performing an "immoral act".

• You can't put this in the article because it comes from a tabloid source. It's not been proven, it's false information, furthermore, there are spelling mistakes. But can someone else remove this false information? Because last time I removed Kris' false information I was reported. Street walker 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm going to be bold and delete this nonsense information myself. Street walker 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if this information comes from a reliable source, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Seems a bit trivial to me. android79 13:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko

I dont like the way this is put after "King of Pop". I think both should be explained - i.e. King of Pop because of his incredible musical prowess (thats not a POV, thats just fact - he is extremely talented), and then Wacko Jacko because of his sometimes peculiar behaviour and actions.

Both should be explained IMHO, or taken out completely.

• I agree, both should be given some context. I'll be taking an axe to the intro here sooner or later; I'll keep this change in mind... android79 13:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How about, "...known as "The King of Pop" for his successful musical career, or alternatively "Wacko Jacko" for his sometimes eccentric and controversial lifestyle."?

I'm not sure about this, but if I remember correctly, MJ is the "King of Pop" because he made a deal with MTV on the title. MTV got the right to play one of his videos exclusively for a while and MTV would start calling him King of Pop. The video might've been "Black or White". --213.169.7.210 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. Liz Taylor gave him the nickname at the Grammys. Why would MTV care about video exclusivity? Who else plays music videos? Besides, "Black or White" made its TV debut on one of the networks. android79 12:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited the “Whacko Jacko” epithet for the following reason. I fail to see how referring to Michael Jackson as "Whacko Jacko" an extremely derogatory slur, should be implemented here. It gives the impression that Michael Jackson is officially known was "Whacko Jacko". This is a title largely used by Michael Jackson critics. That being the case, if mentioned at all it should designated to an area where it is relevant.

Waaaay too many images

52 KB article + lots of images + inherent slowness of wiki = really slow load times. I think the number of images needs to be cut down substantially. IMO it would be good to get a progression of images of Jackson from the Jackson 5 days to present-day to show his change over the years, and if possible get shots of him in the various getups/costumes he's made famous. Are the album covers really necessary? They appear in the articles about the albums. android79 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures are good - the page would be so boring without the pics, they make it more dynamic. Maybe some of the pics should be resized to the actual size they show - alot just have "blah px" for the size, instead of resizing the uploaded pic to the display size. Would save download time.

I have a pic of him in the billie jean outfit - will place that tomorrow. Hopefully it wont be deleted!

I agree. What pictures aren't necessary? It's allready been established that not all the album covers are needed, what about the personal pics (MJ with Debbie & Prince, MJ with Oprah, MJ telecast, MJ with Brooke Shields etc.)? Street walker 08:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, I improved the page by removing some of the pictures and replacing the large images, with smaller images (I'm talking KB's, not dimensions). Have I made an improvement? Street walker 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. It hasn't made an improvement. The article looked much better with more images, and I looked at the file size of the article and it was no different after some images were removed. So to improve the appearance of the article, and because it makes no different to the page size, I added back most of the images. The only images I didn't put back were the Bad album cover and the Blood on the Dance Floor album cover. The Bad album cover, has been replaced with a image from the Bad World Tour (as there wasn't any pictures of MJ on stage in the article), and the BOTDF cover I felt was unnecessary because it is such a small section. Street walker 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the file size of the article and it was no different after some images were removed – The reported file size of the article won't change substantially if you remove images; it calculates the size for only the text portion of the article. You're only removing image markup code from the text. The browser still has to load the images, and when the image server is sluggish (often) this will impact performance severely. android79 12:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All told, the images add over 270 KB to the size of this article. Yikes. android79 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking for something to trim, I suggest the image in "Alleged Anti-Semitism" of Jackson waving an Israeli flag, and captioned "showing support for the Jewish people", or something similar. There is already too much confusion between Israel the state and the Jewish people in general. This does a disservice to non-Jewish Israelis and to Jewish people around the world who disapprove of Israel's policies. The Israeli flag is not the "Jewish flag", and the caption here should certainly be changed if the photo remains.

I give up trying to improve the page

I have tried to improve the page - I changed the first image to what I thought made the page look more dynamic. I think it showed Michael more as he is traditionally known, especially with the hair etc. The picture was found through google on someones site page, so it is very unlikely it is copyrighted whatsoever.

I also tried to put a picture, done by top of the pops of michael when he was young, and put it in the early childhood section. This too has been removed. I stated I was unsure of the picture status, but that it was done by top of the pops.

The page is going nowhere if everything people try to do is removed, or reverted. I am a Michael Jackson fan, huge fan - but I understand the page has to be neutral and factual rather than opinionated. I put the bit about him liking kids - that was just fact, yet even that was changed slightly.

I like the whole dynamic changing nature of wiki's, but it is frustrating to want to add value to the page myself, only to find it is all removed within two days.

Everyone should have a right to add information that they think will add value to the page. Just because someone doesnt like what it is saying, doesnt mean it should be deleted.

Otherwise, why don't the main editors entirely create the whole page, adding/deleting as they want and not give a damn to what other people want to add. That is the way it seems to be going.

I'm sorry, I removed the picture of young Michael Jackson. The size of the article is too big, and I tried to reduce it by removing some of the pictures. If you think the young MJ picture improves the article, then feel free to put it back in. Also, what picture are you talking about that you put in the intro? Is it the picture currently in the intro of Beat It-style MJ? The part about MJ's love for children is still in the intro. If you want to improve the article, please do so, and if your contributions are removed, I'm sure they will be put back if another user feels they improve the article. Street walker 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the 'need' for recent changes to intro?

can you fill me in? --161.74.11.24 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dangerous

Many fans, and some professional MJ researches/experts, believe that Dangerous could've outsold Thriller to become the biggest selling album of all-time. Let me explain:

The last official sales for Dangerous was 27 million copies (as of 1997), making it Jackson's 2nd best selling album. But since then, considering the rate of Dangerous's weekly soundscan sales results (200 per week on average), some say its total worlwide sales would be closer to 30 million (29 million is the closest estimate).

Thriller has sold well over 60 million (54 million as of 1997). This is double Dangerous's sales, so if you are reading this, you are probably wondering why in hell anyone would think Dangerous could've outsold Thriller.

In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour, and a 10th single from Dangerous was planned for release (the title track). But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour (which had not yet reached the US), and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it probably would've sold over 10 million if the tour reached the US, and the 10th single was released. So it is very possible that if it had not been for the allegations, Dangerous's total sales would be at 37+ million, or even 40 million.

Something else that got in the way of Dangerous's sales was grunge. Nirvana's Nevermind knocked Dangerous from the #1 spot in 1992. Dangerous was going strong at this point, and was selling millions each week. It's estimated, that if Nirvana's Nevermind didn't take the attention away from Dangerous, the album would've sold over 10 million more than it did. This means, it had the potential to sell over 50 million in total.

So if not the best selling album of all-time, then Dangerous could've easily become the 2nd best selling of all-time. This is what I propose should be included in the Dangerous section of the Michael Jackson article, and the Dangerous album article:

"In late 1993, Michael Jackson was mid-way through the second leg of his world tour (which had not reached the US), and a tenth single from Dangerous was planned for release. But it was at this time that allegations of child molestation came out, causing widespread media attention. Jackson cancelled the remainder of his world tour and the release of Dangerous on single. At the rate Dangerous was selling at the time (14 million in 5 weeks), it's possible that it could've sold alot more if promotion of the album was not ceased in late 1993. As of 2005, it is possible that Dangerous could've sold over 40, or even 50 million if it had not been for allegations of child abuse, and the new Grunge fad (headed by Nirvana and their 1991 album Nevermind (which distracted music fans from Dangerous)."

What do you think of this?

Street walker 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I reckon Michael should embark on another world tour now. He has been cleared, and I'm sure there would be millions who would be willing to pay money to see him perform ... it would be sensational....

WP:NOR. This is pure speculation, and describing grunge as a "fad" is POV. android79 12:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, did anyone else find it a sad reflection of our society that there are "professional MJ researchers"? Don't these people have better things to do? (Lest anyone accuse me of bias, I would say the same thing about "Beatlesologists" and Elvis nuts.)--chris.lawson 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dangerous is certainly my favorite Jackson work. Well written with catchy hooks and a modern R 'n B feel.

Intro Change

I have adjusted the introduction to what I feel is a bit easier to read and smoother than what it was before this.

I think having three paragraphs splits the info up into sections, which is good for the reader - jackson five, then solo career, then about thriller.

IMHO, the part about the media dodging him/child molestation thing has no place in the introduction - it is exactly that, an introduction. The Thriller bit is good though because that gives readers a scope of his success as a singer etc. I was actually the one who put the bit about him liking children (which was deleted), but in heinsight that is not relevant in the introduction.

I am not sure about his age when he began as lead singer of J5, but I think that is important as it shows his talent, leading a band at whatever young age it was (I put 10 but I think this is incorrect).

I hope some of the changes stay - I am expecting for all my changes to be deleted or reverted within 2 days, but hopefully some of it will be useful and stay.

Andrewh01 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you managed to remove all criticism of Jackson from the intro, so yes, you should expect it to be reverted. The "three sections" idea makes no sense – the intro is supposed to be an overview for the entire article, not just cherry-picking the positive parts of it. The child molestation allegations certainly do have a place in the intro, as they are a big part of his public persona and are the reason he's been in the news for the past year and a half. android79 13:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't my intention at all andriod79 - not one bit. I fully realise it is important, and never had the intention of removing all criticisms. When I put the bit about children visiting neverland, it was immediately reverted - as if I was putting some criticism. The whole point of the article is to not have any POVs. I dont think, and I stand by it, that the two lines about the child molestation should be in the intro. If that is put in, then the parts about plastic surgery, about world tours, about everything else should be put partially in the introduction. Do you see it there? No. 138.130.208.179 06:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What was the need to change the intro in the first place from what it was? The previous intro was fine. It had a short and balanced summary of the artist. My question is, what was the need for change. The current intro isn't particularly well put or structured. It's contents encourage vandelism. Why the NEED for the changes made? --161.74.11.24 13:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Which version of the intro are you talking about? I haven't been particularly pleased with any of them. I had planned on a massive rewrite of it; if you've got a suggestion for a version that I should start with, by all means, let me know which one it is. android79 14:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This Version as recently as 11 Nov 05. Why the NEED for the changes made? --161.74.11.24 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's near to the version that I started with when I made some changes this morning, though I included the nicknames. I edited down "singer, songwriter, butcher, baker, candlestick-maker" ad nauseum into simply "entertainer" and shortened the list of Jackson-influenced artists. That's about it. It could still use a lot of work. It needs to be a better overview of the entire article with less detail on sales records, etc. android79 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why another revert? That's three today; please be mindful of the 3RR rule. Once again, previous consensus was to include "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko" in the intro. The other changes I made make things less cluttered. android79 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Here's all of the images in the article. As I mentioned, I think some of these should be taken out for size and readability concerns; please discuss the quality usefulness of each one below. If I missed an image, please add it to the list. The server is very sluggish this morning, and I'm having a tough time accessing the image description pages. Some of these may have copyright issues that need to be addressed.

1. Image:Mjbeatit.jpg

   This is a good representation of the "Beat It"-era, but it appears to be a poor-quality scan. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   I have a better image of Beat It-style MJ and will upload it this afternoon. I wont put it in the article, I'll just post the link here and peeps can decide if they like it or not. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Image:Music_album_record_thriller.jpg

   This one's a bit odd. I don't think this belongs at the top of the article. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   Because Thriller is mentioned in the intro, and it's his biggest album, I thought it served it's purpose at the top of the page. Maybe the picture in the Thriller section is enough. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Image:Michaelboy.jpg

   This one is good and should remain as long as copyright is not an issue. The "Got To Be There" cover would serve as an alternative for "kid" Jackson. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   I rather the Got To Be There cover because it serves two purposes, showing the boy Michael, and it's an album cover. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Image:Jackson-5-concert.jpg

   This is just tiny; I can't make anything out. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   Agreed. There are pics of the J5 in the Jacksons article. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

5. Image:Mj1971-got-to-be-there.jpg

   If the other kid picture goes, this one should stay. Otherwise, it's featured in the article on the album. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Image:Mj-1979-off-the-wall.jpg

   Even though this is an album cover, it's a good representation of early-adult Jackson. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

7. Image:Thriller_album_cover.jpg

   Also a good representation of early-adult Jackson. I'd say either this or "Off the Wall" should stay. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   I rather Thriller. I suggest the Thriller album at the top of the page be removed, the Off The Wall album cover be removed, and this album cover be kept to represent young-adult Michael. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

8. Image:Mjbadtour.jpg

   A good shot of Jackson on stage and of the "Bad" getup. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   Agreed. Until I added this picture, and extra info about the Bad tour, his touring and concert career had pretty much gone unmentioned throughout the whole artile. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

9. Image:michael_jackson-dangerous_a.jpg

   Not particularly useful. Belongs in the article on the album. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

10. Image:jackson7a.jpg

    Not particularly useful. Belongs in the article on the album. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    I agree. Both Dangerous and HIStory covers should be removed. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

11. Image:Mjinvincible.jpg

    Marginal usefulness as a representation of the "current" Jackson, even though it's an album cover. Other photos might better serve this purpose. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    I have the actual photo of Jackson that was used for this album cover (without the grey monochrome effect - full colour). I can upload that if you want. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

12. Image:143.jpg

    Well, it's... his legs. Useless in this article; belongs in the album's article. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    I agree, except then the Number Ones throught to the I Have A Dream/U R So beautiful sections look bare. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

13. Image:Neverland_Valley_Ranch_Map.jpg

    Not a particularly good image, and belongs in Neverland Ranch besides. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

14. Image:Mjbrookeshields.jpg

    I have mixed feelings on this one. It's not a terribly good photo or facial expression for Jackson, but shows the glove and Brooke Shields. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

15. Image:TV_oprah_with_michael_jackson_February_10_1993_.jpg

    Tiny, not a good photo. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

16. Image:Mj93allegations.jpg

    Tiny, terrible photo, distorted. android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    I can upload a good picture from the 2005 trial and put it in this section if you prefer. Street walker 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How many images should go at the top of the article, and which ones should they be? android79 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All sorts of problems with this page

Why the 1000 changes to the introduction? I altered the introduction and it was reverted, as I expected. Why though, are others wasting their time changing the intro (before me even), then quickly retreating back to an old version???? What is the point of changing something, only to change it back to an older version later - how is the article developing/improving???

I feel maybe there is a problem that some people have added lines which they absolutely want to stay in the article - especially intro. Therefore, regardless of how "their line" is changed, they change it back.

The page isnt going anywhere. Get rid of the egos, and instead concentrate on working together to create a good page on Michael Jackson. Once again, I am a huge fan of his - but this doesnt mean I am trying to get rid of all criticisms.

If things don't change, I expect to see basically the same article in a year. Every time something is change it will be reverted if the people who wrote the original don't like it. Its a shame... the page isnt going to go anywhere. Self-destructing really.

138.130.208.179 06:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You cant say he is "known by his FANS and PEERS as the King of Pop, or Wacko Jacko" - his fans and peers do not know him as Wacko Jacko. The Wacko Jacko has to be explained int he same sentence too, otherwise get rid of both of them. I also think his age when he began with J5 should be put in, as it is important. We need someone with GOOD writing skills to completely re-write the intro and actually fix up the many grammer issues that exist. It is sh*t at the moment.

A few things I think should be changed IMHO, mainly grammatical:

"His 1982 album Thriller currently holds the title of being the best-selling album..." - Forget "of being", change it to "Thriller currently holds the title of best-selling album..".

"In addition to his albums, Jackson has also recorded thirteen number-one Billboard Hot 100 solo hits.......". - Most of the "solo hits" actually come FROM the albums, the songs were on the albums when they were released. Therefore, it sounds silly to say "in addition to his albums..". I think something like "From his albums, Jackson has achieved thirteen number-one etc. etc...." - or something like that, change the 'in addition to' though.

Just some of the things I think should be edited. I have also said before his age when starting as lead of J5 should be included in the intro as well.

I concur. The previous intro, (bout a week ago) was totally fine, till it was inconceivably changed by a certain bright kid. I suggest a rewrite of the intro. --161.74.11.24 14:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Bright kid"? android79 14:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Too much info on BOTDF and Invincible

There is way too much info on BOTDF and Invincible, most of which is POV. Remember there is allready alot of information on theses albums' articles. Go to those article and add info there, not on this article which is a biography of Michael Jackson, not a detailed description of each and every album he's released. Street walker 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. The album sections are one area we can probably pare down significantly.--chris.lawson 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've cut down info on BOTDF and Invincible. It's surprising because there was a few hundred words on BOTDF, but that album's article only had one or two sentences. If you have extra info about Michael Jackson's albums, go to that album's secion rather than this article. There's too much info on this article and not enough on the individual albums articles. Street walker 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up. Anywhere you can expand the individual album articles, while simultaneously paring down their respective mentions in this one, is just great. That'll help a lot in getting this article to a more manageable size.--chris.lawson 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Michaelgate: 2005 trial conspiracy

Why did the bit about Michaelgate have to be deleted? Geraldine Hughes is an accomplished author who worked in the office of Rothman (The 93 accusers' lawyer), so she witnessed everything. She also witnessed everything this time around and wrote a book about it, just like she did after 93. The article mentions Eleanor Cook thinking Mike is guilty, so why not mention Hughes thinking 2005 was a conspiracy. You have the for him being guilty, but you chuck out the against. Completely bias. Street walker 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Appearance/look of the article

I liked it better with all the pictures. It looked good. It looks kind of uneven and messed up now. It was neat and aligned, and now it's all over the joint.

" Marriage and Children"

I hate the part where you say parentage has not been proven. It has been proven so there is no need for such statements Jamgirl86 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the "Beat It" pic at the start of the page is the best so far. And I reckon the current page is also the best so far.

W wanderers 12:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dual Discs

There are plenty of dual discs on sale and have been for over a year. Just because MJ's publicist is saying it is a first DOES NOT make it true. Go to any large music retailer and dual discs are already on sale --86.135.187.125 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Thriller" is going to be the first commercial single released on DualDisc, according to Sony/BMG.

PAGE MOVE

WHY ON EARTH WAS THIS PAGE MOVED FROM "MICHAEL JACKSON" TO "MICHAEL JACKSON (ENTERTAINER)". I'M MOVING IT BACK!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What he said, only without all the caps and stuff. This move should have at least been discussed first. android79 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has now been moved back (after some technical difficulties). There was absolutely no need for the "(entertainer)" slapped on the end. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Madonna is not an analogous argument, as it has a rich historical/religious background; hence why the entertainer picked the name in the first place. Michael Jackson has little notable competition; and after just checking the disambig. page, I stand by that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, that was her real name though... Madonna Cicone I believe... Crnk Mnky

User:Sjorford wrote:

I'm not really sure this does need to be moved, and it certainly shouldn't be moved without discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves first. sjorford (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC).

Sorry for the late reply. I thought that the article needed to be moved as it would be more recognisable and precise; there are over 15 "Michael Jacksons" on Wikipedia and this would set apart the "entertainer" from the "actor" or the "politician" etc. (The name would be similar to other artists with popular names, like Seal (musician) whose page is named as such to distinguished the person from Seal (device), Seal (1991 album), Ashanti (singer) to distinguish her from Ashanti (region) and so fourth. I disagree that the Madonna article is not analogous: according to Wikipedia:naming conventions (precision), its just best that we do not "write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings!". Therefore, I doubt that it matters greatly who/what is more notable.

Aslo, as I thought that this edit wouldn't offend anyone, was commonsense, uncontroversal and simple, I made the change myself. I apologise if this edit crossed the line, and I realise that I should have even provided a brief explanation on the talk page; I was either very lazy—which is bad— or was rushing off the computer as I was late for work :). Sorry again. If you still have any concerns with any simple or Admin related actions, please dont hesitate to comment on it.

Lastly, User:Ianblair23 as a fellow Administrator, I would adivse that you contain yourself; the shouting/Caps was very unnecessary —and immature, might I add. Please remember that Admins need to keep their cool in all situations. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When the name "Michael Jackson" is mentioned, regardless where it is mentioned,, I'm sure over 90% of the time people mean Michael Jackson the entertainer. In the same light, over 90% of user on this wiki will have the entertainer in mind when the search is made. Besides, the other Michael Jackson's are not widely known, whilst MJ the entainer is officially the most famous individual on the planet. Moving the page is totally unnecessary, and uncalled for! --161.74.11.24 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE Debbie Rowe & Tatiana Thumbtzen??

I recently saw Tatiana Thumbtzen on a TV bio program. I think it was the "True Hollywood Story" on Michael Jackson. Tatiana described how she performed with Michael during "The Way You Make Me Feel" on the Bad Tour. She describes the unusual "relationship" that they had. One night, she decided to stray from the usual stage performance and surprise Michael with a kiss during the song. She claims to have received a warm expression from Katherine backstage afterwards, followed by an angry, cold glare from Michael's then-manager Frank DiLeo. According to Thumbtzen, she was subsequently not allowed to visit Jackson's trailer and was removed from the tour. By this point in the interview, Tatiana was in tears and said that it was the last time she ever saw him (Michael). (If she is lying, then that's too bad (and predictable)... such a gorgeous woman scrounging for MJ spotlight like a gold-digger groupie, tsk tsk)

Two weeks ago, I heard it announced on a radio station (WHTA Atlanta) that Michael Jackson's former wife Deborah Rowe had revealed that Michael was, in fact, not the genetic father of his first two children, Prince I and Paris. It seems that everyone who hears this is not surprised whatsoever, but previously did not discuss it openly. Can anyone confirm that Debbie made such statements? I would do a little research of my own, but I already have too many tabs open and this rumor doesn't appear to have been brought up in here before. Thanks! -- Crnk Mnky 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Debbie Rowe spoke out about these rumours. She said they were untrue and why on earth would she give an interview to such a low-rate tabloid. Street walker 07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, which low-rate tabloid? I heard it on the radio, but I should've known better. Lol, it's like that episode of "Fresh Prince" where Hilary and Ice Tray (Don Cheadle) pretend that they're getting married and Aunt Vivian's true opinion of Tray comes bubbling up! -- Crnk Mnky 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The story can from the National Enquirer. In her own words, Debbie said, "Why on earth would I speak to such a low-rate tabloid?" Street walker 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Need citations

I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I'll be adding {{fact}} where ever a citation is needed. The best way to do source this article is to find a few large references on Jackson, cite those whenever possible, directly in the article, and list them under the References section. Once that is done, then the citations can be cleaned up using {{ref label}} and {{note label}}. I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 23:19

• Asked by whom? Not that I don't support the effort... android79 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The WMF folks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 14:12
    • WMF... Ah, Wikimedia Foundation? Okay, makes sense. I'll lend a hand if I have a spare moment or three. android79 14:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know how to put it on, but the stuff re abusing the lion is fully covered at http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1701570,00.html Jmc29
        • This website covers most of the biographical facts (like DOB, birthplace etc.)

STATEMENT FROM RAYMONE BAIN

"The information reported on Wikipedia.org is incorrect and inaccurate, including the name of Mr. Jackson's Hurricane Relief song."

Thank you. Raymone K. Bain

Street walker 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a "Raymone K. Bain", and which information is incorrect? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Raymone K. Bain is Michael Jackson publicist and the incorrect information is the hurricane Katrina song title and its release date. I suspect alot of stuff regarded plastic surgery, skin desease, allegations, anti-semitism, drug abuse and relationships are wrong too.

TO RAYMONE BAIN

It is good to know that you have been visiting and reading the page, being Michael Jackson's publicist. Your opinions on exactly what is incorrect and inaccurate would be extremely valuable. Our collective goal in this page is to create a factual, accurate and detailed account of Michael Jackson's life, music, success and controversies. Please feel free to either change items yourself to their 'correct ways', or organise with a moderator to modify the incorrect parts. Indeed, this would be excellent - as all the information would be then correct. Even better, spend some time with the man himself - Michael Jackson - and ask HIM what he wanted to change, regarging incorrectness etc. This is would extremely valuable to say the least.

• Err, no. Bain can remove unsourced information per WP:V, and indeed we should encourage him to do so, but correctly-sourced items should not be removed or changed without discussion here. Wikipedia can only rely on published, reputable sources for content in articles – the say-so of Michael Jackson or his publicist is not verifiable. android79 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously tho. I want this article to be accurate too, for Michael's sake. But I don't consider Raymone K. Bain and Michael Jackson to be reliable sources on Michael Jackson... at all. They've kinda proven that over the months and years. I won't go any further for risk of sounding like an MJ hater, lol. Bottom line: MJ and RKB had their own Internet resource for telling his side of the story... if they can't keep their MJJsource server up, we can't link to them. I'm talking far too much when my opinion needed no further emphasis. -- Crnk Mnky 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Change of section titles and sub-titles

I have changed this...

1 Early childhood

2 The Jackson 5

2.1 Group founding and early years

2.2 Motown success

2.3 The move to Epic

3 Solo career

3.1 The Wiz and Off The Wall

3.2 Thriller

3.3 "Say Say Say" and Captain Eo

3.4 Bad

3.5 Dangerous

3.6 HIStory

3.7 Blood on the Dance Floor and the late 1990's

3.8 Invincible and "What More Can I Give"

3.9 Number Ones to The Essential Michael Jackson

3.10 Katrina Single and "You Are So Beautiful"

3.11 Visionary - The Video Singles

to this...

1 Early years

1.1 Childhood: 1958-1961

1.2 Beginnings: 1962-1966

1.3 The Jackson 5: 1967-1974

1.4 The Jacksons: 1975-1990

2 Solo career

2.1 Off The Wall: 1978-1980

2.2 Thriller: 1982-1986

2.3 Bad: 1987-1990

2.4 Dangerous: 1991-1993

2.5 HIStory: 1995-1999

2.6 Invincible: 2001-2003

2.7 One More Chance: 2003-2005

2.8 Visionary: 2005-present

Before reverting it back to the way it was, hear me out.

Most artists pages have these titles and subtitles (Title: year-year) and IMO that looks better and sounds better than "Blood on the Dance Floor and the late 1990's" or "Number Ones to The Essential Michael Jackson" for example. I think most of you will agree that the new titles are better. I never liked the old titles.

Not only did I change the titles, I changed some of the content in each section. I put Early childhood and all the Jacksons sub-sections into one section (Early years). Because I never understood why Early childhood (being such a sort section) was its own section and not a sub-section. I also put the Say, Say, Say with Thriller for the same reason I merged Early Childhood with the Jacksons sections. I merged Caption EO with Bad, because some of the songs from that film were from the Bad album and it's pretty much considered in the "Bad era". I merged BOTDF with HIStory because BOTDF is part of the HIStory project. I also merged Visionary with Katrina single and You Are So Beautiful.

Hope you like my changes. If you don't, then by all mean change it back.

Street walker 08:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like it. The years in the headings give the reader a much better sense of the chronology of his life. android79 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

What is going on with half of the articles. Why delete the most recent picture for something older. We should be representing Jackson how he is today, so I suggest the previous picture replace this one.

I fail to see how a picture of Jackson wearing a crown is anything but an in-joke on the part of Wiki editors. Who cares what he looks like now being shown at the beginning when it is present elsewhere in the already-bloated article?--Manboobies 21:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewishflag.jpg

Someone removed the real picture of him waving an Isreali flag for just a typical M.J. pic, anyone have the original to revert this change? Mike 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

fixed. there's a section on the image page (to access, simply click on the picture) which has all versions of the image that have been uploaded. simply download one of them, click "upload a new version of this file", and re-upload. for some reason it didn't work for me the first time, but that might have been some function of the browsers cache. or something. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, looks right again ;) Oh yeah, it was probably your browser's cache getting in the way (I've had it happen a few times editing Wikipedia articles). See necessary documentation for clearing your cache. Mike 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)