Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20


Death?

CNN reports that Jackson died of heart attack today ... MatjazHegedic 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CNN talk bull and anyone who uses cnn as a source need shooting. (I do not agree with Guns and am against america policy on this issue)Realist2 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, the article has been pulled off. Or I've been badly prank'd, in that case, I sincerely apologize. 213.161.8.138 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson getting a Co-Writing Credit on the Thriller song...?

Why is Michael Jackson getting a co-writing credit on the Thriller song? In the Thriller album booklet, Rod is listed as the only composer of this song, so i'm gonna remove Michael's co-writing credit from that page, unless someone has a source for it. MatteusH 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Other known names

why is wacko jacko not mentioned its a main stream term for him - Unsigned

I agree, and I think it is probably used in the press more than 'the King of Pop'. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be changed to: Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958), commonly known as MJ as well as the "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko",... (I can't sign in on the machine I am using right now) - WhizzBang 195.149.78.11 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

no your wrong actually if your are refering to the yanks then yes maybe but internationally no. He is only continually refered to as Wacko Jacko in USA, UK, Austilia. America is only 5% of the worlds population so all there together would be about 7% at most. What Im basically saying is no. I would rather concentrate on the other 73%. thanks oh so much for your contribution, we all appreicate it so much. your sincerally . Realist2 10:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So the rest of the world thinks MJ isn't 'wacko' - that explains a lot. And what's up with all the anti-US bias, Realist? Did you have a horrid experience at a McDonald's or something??? 65.69.81.2 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegas show

This article fails to mention the las vegas show that micheal jackson is reportedly planning, and the extravegant way in which this permanent show will be promoted.

That's because this is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mirror. We don't report on every little gossiping or dubious story.UberCryxic 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but Jackson's spokesperson has denied all the rumors of the Vegas show. More information is availible here.

--- I think the Jackson 5 reunion, having been strongly rumoured by MJ rumourologists (or whatever you call them) then confirmed by his brother (who's famous again purely cuz of reality TV) is more concrete. That should be mentioned but little else (The Elfoid 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Thriller and 100 million

Hey guys, earlier I wanted to change the phrasing to just "over 100 million." I simply want to do this to make the reading flow better. And if you think about it, what's 4 million next to 100 million? Not much. Imagine if the figure was 1 billion and 40 million. That 40 million is just as insignificant to the billion as the 4 million is to the 100 million. And it doesn't change the claim of the source in any way at all; sales above 104 million are also above 100 million. And the two numbers are close enough that saying "above 104 million" and "above 100 million" does not imply any profound ontological differences....not when you're dealing with Michael Jackson-like numbers anyway. I recently updated the figure in Bad to going from "over 30 million" to "32 million," using a citation I put in the Bad article as my jumping point. Here I think that extra 2 million is relevant (mainly, though not entirely, because it's mathematically more relevant to 30 million than 4 million is to 100 million). On top of that, 100 million is just a nice, round, and more than quasi-accurate figure that leaves a better taste in the mind of the reader than "104 million," which seems clumsy stylistically. Now, on the album discography page and the Thriller album page, the 104 million figure can and should stay because those figures should be as reliable, precise, or consistent as possible. But on the article for Jackson here, this proposal just makes sense to make the reading go smoothly.UberCryxic 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much about this, but I do not see why 100 million flows better than 104 million, and I don't get the logic of having the correct figure on the Thriller page, but a different number here - you need a round number of course, but why not 104 million? Tvoz |talk 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with "104 million". I see nothing wrong with "over 100 million". But "over (or exceeding) 104 million" looks silly because it's trying to be precise and loose at the same time. And "100 million" flows better simply because it's two syllables less.--Shantavira 09:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when are we concerned about syllables? That applies to reading aloud, not reading a page. Tvoz |talk 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It used to say "over 104 million" because that's what the Guinness certificate says. So the absolute most accurate statement would be "over 104 million."UberCryxic 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's probably 104,395 million or some number like that. And I don't agree that it's silly or overly precise - I knw what you're referring to - like when one says "over 72 people" - but over 104 million is different to me. My more important point is that there's no logic to including a colloquial rounded number here and a more precise rounded number there. But do what you want. Tvoz |talk

My logic, which is probably not all that great in this case, is that since this article is about Michael Jackson, and not Thriller specifically, we can take some shortcuts to make the reading easier. But in the article about Thriller, we'd want to be as accurate as possible.UberCryxic 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said I don't care either way, but I have to say it is ridiculous to suggest that it is easier to read 100 million than 104 million. It's a number. Most of us read silently. I don't get what your "concerns" are, but do what you want. It really doesn't matter at all. Tvoz |talk 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the criticisms above. Why is 100 million better than 104 million? 4 million is quite a sizeable amount, and more records than many other artists even hope to achieve. I believe that it has sufficiently been rounded already, and it is simply inconsistent to have one figure on the Thriller page and another here. I suggest we keep 104 million. --Paaerduag 07:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

4 million is not that sizeable next to 100 million. It's 4% of that. Continuing with my analogies, suppose an album had sold 1,040,000 copies. For that figure most people would almost certainly just say "1 million" and not bother with the other 40,000, which is also 4% of 1 million. Same here. 100 million is such a large figure that if a number is sufficiently close it seems reasonable to just say "over 100 million."UberCryxic 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good - then if you ever have a megahit record, hope you'll donate the royalties on the pesky 4 million over 100 million to me. Or the charity of your choice, of course. Tvoz |talk 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the number to 104 million; you obviously don't have a concensus here UberCryxic, and the majority seem to think that 104 million is better. Don't change it until you reach a new concensus. --Paaerduag 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right Paaerduag. Nor do I think that this is an issue that I would need to create a huge fight over.UberCryxic 02:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

success of entire career

172.141.68.168 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)It must be remembered that his career is more than just the Thriller Album there is not enough detail on the Dangerous and History album in my opinion. 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)172.141.68.168 realist

Well you can make some proposals here on what you think should be added about those periods. The Thriller era is covered more extensively than the others because it featured his most successful album.UberCryxic 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thriller had the music videos and the sales, but Bad/Dangerous/HIStory had the world tours. That's all that made them special (The Elfoid 02:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)).


to many pictures in the thriller era, there should be pictures of his live performances after this period172.141.68.168 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)realist

Pictures of live performances would a good start, pictures of album covers to me at least is not enough. Greater information should be shown on that $1 billion contract in 1990/1991 and what it actually was worth. According to the non authorised biography "Magic and The Madness" which is extremely well researched i might add it was actually worth $50 million upfront which nicely beat his sisters record deal at the time. Furthermore Sony agree that for every album in his catalogy that sold 35 million copies (not including Thriller) he would be awarded $120 million. As both "bad" and "Dangerous" have sold 30 million copies each that means that over the next decade when the beat this marker he should get $240 million.172.202.219.226 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)realist

Since Dangerous sales are about 29 million (they were 27 million mid-1998), Bad saels are about 29 million (26 million mid-1998) and MJ will have more sales on old albums when his new one's out, however it sells...I'd say by 2020 it'll definitely be past that figure (The Elfoid 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

So by that marker within the next 13 years he stands to gain $240 million. Does anyone else have the biography "Magic and the madness". I dont think it should included until more people agree with the findings and if it is considered valid then it must surely be included. Also while HIStory has sold 18million copies thats also 36million units. Would it be included do you think? Its written by J.Randy Taraborrelli who has meet Jackson many times over the last 4 decades and has also written on Madonna and Diana Ross. On another note the statment that the only thing the bad/dangerous/history era had was the tours while Thriller had the videos and sales can I just say thats a little silly. The Thriller Album had 3 good videos. Bad had (Bad,leave me alone, smooth criminal)thats 3 also. Dangerous had (Black or White, Remember the Time, In the Closet, Jam , Who is It) thats 5 and HIStory had (Scream, They dont care about us, and Earthsong) thats 3.172.202.219.226 09:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Realist

My point about MJ's post-Thriller work being noteable for tours and Thriller the videos and sales was more about what it's known for. EVERYONE I know has seen the Beat it, Billy Jean and Thriller video. Literally. I think Smooth Criminal, Scream, Earth Song are the only other ones they're aware of. Maybe it's cuz I'm in the UK and he's more famous in the USA, but the other eras definitely are remembered less despite having been in more recent memory and AFTER he'd acquired some fame. I'm thinking on what was the focal point at that time - he'd DONE good music videos with Thriller so anything else rather than "an incredible video" became "Another MJ video - very nice". The world tours were what he did career wise that took him to the next level from this point onwards - in the USA primarily for the BAD tour, and abroad for Dangerous/HIStory. That's by no means belittling the rest he did in that period (The Elfoid 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Its possible but I find it hard to believe people dont no of the Bad and Black or White videos. They got so much attention because of his change in appearence alone. 500 million people around the world saw the debut of black or white.Realist2 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for input from the current editors of this article.

"Michael Joseph Jackson (29 August 1958), commonly known as MJ"

Could anyone involved in this article please tell me which book or reliable journal article informed us at Wikipedia that Jackson is commonly referred to as "MJ"?--Manboobies 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what he's commonly referred to. The whole point about being commonly referred to as something is that you don't need a citation for it. Another way to put it is: if someone says "MJ," people (generally anyway) either think of Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson, but in appropriate context it would be Michael Jackson. As another example, the article on Justin Timberlake starts off, "Justin Randall Timberlake, (born January 31, 1981[1]), sometimes known as JT"....because that's what he is known by, "sometimes" apparently. With Jackson the use of "MJ" is much more common and is well-known internationally.UberCryxic 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen the name used in any such context. Could it be that this information is incorrect?--Manboobies 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard it? Either way, it doesn't really matter much. If someone has had minimal interaction with issues relating to Jackson, they may not have heard that acronym. I don't know if that's the case for you, but I'm throwing that out there as an explanation for why some people may not, and obviously have not, heard it. That doesn't make the acronym any less relevant...or famous. There are plenty of people out there who don't know that "MJ" could refer to Jordan or Jackson.UberCryxic 16:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But if it is common, surely there is a source for it? Or some sort of way of verifying the statement is true? This is the first time I've heard "MJ" and I am quite the fan of Michael Jackson's Epic output.--Manboobies 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw how much of a "fan" you were of Jackson's in the earlier archives. You were quite impressive in your determination, among other things. Ummm....we can begin with this Google search of "MJ" Michael Jackson, which returns over a million hits. Beyond that, it could actually be very difficult to find a source that specifically says "Michael Jackson is commonly known as [blank]"...for any of these things. Not just Michael Jackson, but for many or most nicknames allowed in Wikipedia articles.UberCryxic 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He has the MJ symbol on the cover of his HIStory album, maybe on some of the later albums too, but the HIStory cover is probably the easiest place to find it. --VpvFin 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, so it's a marketing strategy, and not a commonly used name? Perhaps the article should reflect this in the introduction?--Manboobies 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vpv was probably talking about a place where to fine the acronym, although the user apparently did not understand your request, which called for a reliable source stating what I've mentioned above, fully. Hence Vpv did not mean that it was a marketing strategy; it's a shoddy interpretation of the statement and the intent. Also it's kind of irrelevant if it is a marketing strategy. Even names like "King of Rock and Roll" for Elvis or "King of Pop" for Michael Jackson are marketing strategies (what isn't, right?), but they are used on Wikipedia because they are well-known by the general public. In very casual public discourse, "MJ" actually comes up more than something like "King of Pop." It's an acronym by which he's very well-known. It's a matter of recognition; if he's easily recognized by that, we put it on Wikipedia to help readers draw a certain familiarity to the subject of the article.UberCryxic 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you wouldn't say Google was the source. In this case Google hits are being used to prove the veracity of the word "common" in the lead in conjunction with the alleged name "MJ". It is not allowable because there is no dictionary definition of "common" meaning over a million hits on google. The only way we can say something like that is if a reliable source says it. Checking Google and using it as proof of concept is in fact original research, unfortunately. I would suggest the material is removed. Please see Wikipedia policy on original research. --Manboobies 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I qualify, however the initials are used by CNN here Addhoc 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Google is in no way being used to "prove" how common that acronym may or may not be. It is being used, however, to show that the acronym is at least notable. We can debate how much and so forth, but it is notable. Furthermore, even if you found a reliable source that said the acronym is a common reference for Michael Jackson, that in itself is not "proof" of anything. You identified the root of the problem yourself; it's not like there is some golden, eternally-agreed upon standard to decide how to deal with this on Wikipedia. Much of it depends on interpretation. The demand that you're making is unreasonable. That's the problem. And it's an issue that goes beyond Michael Jackson. I could also make a request to find reliable sources stating such and such nickname is common or whatever, but that'd be very difficult and quasi-impossible. We'd have to get rid of, most likely anyway, the vast majority of nicknames on Wikipedia. The point about "MJ," again, is that it's a recognizable acronym.UberCryxic 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think some users are getting confused on what precisely Manboobies is demanding. The user does not want instances of reliable sources just using the acronym - those can be given for eternity. I believe Manboobies is requesting a reliable source that actually states something along the lines of, "Michael Jackson is also widely known as MJ" or "Michael Jackson is commonly known as MJ." Something like that; something like what's on Wikipedia now. The problem with that, however, is that it's almost an impossible and a rather contrived exercise. It's something very difficult to do and it misses the fundamental point behind the matter. If someone finds that source, however, that would be beyond great and we would be endlessly indebted to you. But it's just not necessary at all.UberCryxic 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are nicknames mentioned in the lead of any featured articles? Really those are the only articles that should be used as reference points. The staunch requirements for "MJ" being included in the lead are quite clear. No unpublished material. Google hits are unpublished material, furthermore they are in fact generated by a computer, not a reliable, recognised publisher of peer reviewed information. If you are to posit MJ as a commonly used nickname, there must be a source explicitly stating this. Otherwise it will have to be reduced to just "also known as MJ" or some such, assuming the CNN source just posted is a reliable source, which I would posit is perhaps not the case. --Manboobies 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No article is spared from this issue. I have written five featured articles in my time in Wikipedia. One of them, the Battle of Austerlitz, has the opening, "The Battle of Austerlitz (Czech: Battle of Slavkov), also known as the Battle of the Three Emperors"....but no source is given. Another, Tahirih Justice Center, has the opening, "The Tahirih Justice Center, known simply as Tahirih"....no source given. If you want to change this to "also known," that'd be fine. Nothing wrong with that; the last thing I want to do is get bogged down in semantics as to whether Jackson is just "also known" as MJ or "commonly known" as MJ. From another perspective, however, that distinction could have ontological merits. "Commonly known" as implies better known than some other terms, which is why that particular phrasing is used. This is an issue mostly central to the Jackson article, conceived as it was to spare the lead from the "Wacko Jacko" sobriquet. It's not that Michael Jackson is just also known as "MJ" or the "King of Pop;" it's that he's known as those commonly, more so than other aforementioned labels. That's the idea behind it anyway, although we can discuss that more thoroughly as time goes on.

We really do not need a source saying that to assume it. It's a non-sensical demand. The background assumption there, even though you're not explicitly stating it, is that other people write their articles with the context of Wikipedia in mind. But they don't. It's much easier for a reliable source just to call Michael Jackson "MJ" rather than to perform the encyclopedically arduous task of adding a few more words explaining the sociological dynamics behind the acronym. It's mostly up to Wikipedia editors, through discussion and compromise, to interpret the information that's out there, and that's what we're doing now.

Finally, the CNN source given is a very reliable source. It's a standard CNN article. What exactly is the problem?UberCryxic 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also known would be fine. I question the CNN source as it mentions Jackson only fleetingly.--Manboobies 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine traditionally, yes. But if you're willing to leave the acronym in the lead under the guise of "also known," there's no need to press so hardly if it just says "commonly known." It's not a big deal once you're willing to get past the inclusion of the term itself.UberCryxic 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No because it's not commonly known. just "known".--Manboobies 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This conversation could get a little weird now. The acronym is fairly well-known, as I've said before. Sociologically speaking, you are probably in the minority in terms of people comprising the relevant community who would make the statement above. The "relevant community" in this case would be those that have heard of Michael Jackson or are interested in him somehow. Beyond that, there's the problem I highlighted two posts ago. He's also known as "Wacko Jacko," but we ended up ditching that name because of Wikipedia's global perspective requirements. The intro was specifically phrased as "commonly known" to place "MJ" and "King of Pop" on a higher pedestal. I should mention, more fiercely than I have before, that it is almost inarguable that "MJ" is a much more common reference for him in public discussion than "King of Pop," so it would be vastly silly to get rid of "MJ" and keep "King of Pop." Sometimes people attack the latter designation; this is the first time I think that someone has had a problem with "MJ."UberCryxic 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the case is that MJ is not "commonly known" in a way at least in which we can use a source to verify it, given that I question its "grass is green" nature (not everybody knows the term MJ, including fans), it should be removed. If the sentence will not flow, than other words are available in a thesaurus.--Manboobies 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As there are no "golden" standards on Wikipedia for deciding when someone is actually commonly known as something, the best that we can do is either try to agree on something or use our "informed intuitions," if you will. Fans are people likely to have bought an album like HIStory and to have followed his career, so they would be intimately familiar with all references for him. That would apply so generally that we could call it universal for the sake of simplicity.UberCryxic 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean "universal" as it relates to fans there. But the same case comes up for the categories identified above, mainly people casually interested in Michael Jackson.UberCryxic 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If global perspective is the issue here with the nicknames, then where is the source(s) that show which nickname is more common than the others worldwide? Even then though this is still pretty subjective. To keeps thing unbiased, there should be no nicknames in the intro, and instead mentioned in the bulk of the article in their relative context--58.169.52.101 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To the anon above, if you look at the archives (I believe the 11th) you'll find a large amount of information detailing the prevalence of the current nicknames over others. I really don't want to get too much into it again because we've been over it before, but I'll just offer one piece of evidence. In Google News, "Wacko Jacko" Michael Jackson returns roughly 1,400 results whereas "King of Pop" Michael Jackson returns roughly 11,000 results. Again, not definitive, but a lot of these issues were dealt with before. The nicknames there now are fine because they are internationally famous.UberCryxic 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

please please please it is stupid to carry on like this over such a minor issue. Michael Jackson is known as many things all over the world. Some countries dont use MJ and some dont use Wacko Jacko. Its correct that MJ is used on the HIStory album and based on the fact that 18 million people have purchased the album a lot of people must no of the nickname. After all it did become the best selling double disk album ever, or would Manboobies dispute this fact?172.202.219.226 13:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Realist

Main Picture

Can we change the main picture? The white house picture is already in the Thriller chapter so its a pointless idea to keep it. One of them has to go! I dont want to make changes myself because I dont feel its my place to do so but someone with sense should. I think a picture from the superbowl would be good? Any ideas? 172.202.219.226 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Realist

That picture is notable. We could actually put the White House pic in the Thriller section up top, but it'd be best if we had just Michael Jackson in a photo at the beginning of the article.UberCryxic 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I just think its pointless to have the same picture twice in the article i mean he also meet bill clinton and senior bush. can someone do something about this already.172.202.219.226 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Realist

I think we should have a new picture, but rather than just delete the old one lets have people make proposals here and now about what picture to put up instead. IF we find something better THEN we can change it, right? So get looking and once you tell us what's better we'll think it over (The Elfoid 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

As I understand the previous reasoning: we were looking for a picture of Michael Jackson at the height of his career. It's difficult to define that internationally, but in the US his apogee was that 1983-1985 period, or is widely regarded as such.UberCryxic 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well lets face it America only has 5% of the worlds population yet this article is based entirely around his American appeal and achievement. I honestly thing the Dangerous era is more appropriate because that was the height of his popularity outside America and the UK. Dangerous definately outsold Bad and History in Europe. Also this was the time when he started to break out of the West and gain more appeal elsewhere in the world. That glittering military jacket from the dangerous tour would be good or like I said earlier the superbowl. Alternatively we could show that he still had many Black fans after the skin colour change by showing a picture of the soul Train awards for remember the time.Realist2 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've put the article up for review: Wikipedia:Good_article_review. It can be delisted if it doesn't meet standards. --Manboobies 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already explained in the user's talk page and in the link above, this GA review is wholly futile because it is coming way too soon after the last one, which ended about two weeks ago. Any and all results reached in this particular GA review will have no meaningful impact on this article.UberCryxic 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware (for the general audience, although Uber almost certainly knows):
  • It did not pass the last GA review. It failed to recieve enough support either way. It was a defacto pass by total lack of consensus, as the editor who removed the article summarised in his close-of-discussion post.
  • I and many others had no say in the previous GA review, and I consider the complete lack of wider feedback inappropriate (you and a couple of other regular editors doesn't cut it).
  • This article does not represent our best. It needs to go from the list. You are delaying the inevitable. You had 6 WEEKS to improve the article while that GA review discussion went on and you argued incessantly with everyone and did nothing of the sort that would improve it.
  • You are doing your best to insist that the GA review will not reach a consensus because you say it won't. I refuse on this one. This article will be removed from GA status. You refuse to allow me to improve it, reverting my edits.
  • I am making requests for editors because I feel we need neutral opinion. You posted on each one of my requests for outside users that: "users should be aware that the above GA review is meaningless. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have no impact upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it." You basically told potential reviewers that their views would not matter and procedure means nothing. Where are you pulling this from? You know for a fact that if enough people say this article should be removed from GA status it will no matter what time span and you are trying to delay the inevitable.
  • "It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push" Traditions mean nothing, this is wikipedia, and I choose to IGNORE ALL RULES on this one, which is policy. This isn't even a rule. Tradition is not policy. You are severely mistaken.--Manboobies 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will comment on this much more thoroughly in the next few hours. For now, I only want to remind other users that the approach chosen by Manboobies to improving this article is not the best one, nor is it even a good in light of what happened just over two weeks ago. We are all ready and willing to address the concerns of the user above, but here in the talk page as I've said all along, not in a misguided GA review. This article finished a GA review about two weeks ago; it is strongly recommended that a few months pass before renominating these things. And even if you disagree with that, then do it out of courtesy to other users, which are essentially saying the same thing. Wait off on this and let's discuss it here. It will do this article much good.UberCryxic 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious worries about latter era`s

I know I have been ranting about the poor coverage of later era`s in his life but that is because i am right! I just read the History era and frankly it looks like crap. Scream was the the first song to debut in the top 5 in American and you are not alone was the first song to debut at number 1 in america this is not mentioned! also there`s all that rubbish about the 1996 brit awards but it seems everyone has forgotten that earthsong is his most successful uk single not bloody billie jean! this is not mentioned. if it isnt changed by someone with sense then i`ll do it. theres too much talk and not enough action on this comments page. unfortunately this article still paints a bad image of jackson both artistically and personally after 1985. this article isn`t the thriller album fan club site .172.202.219.226 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Realist

It looks like everyone has gone a little silent then?Realist2 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are still many problems, both with the HIStory sections and the later ones. We'll fix these gradually.UberCryxic 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When ? oh you mean after you`ve stopped talking about Thriller. No supprise. Realist2 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you Paaerduag? Because if you were I insist you go back to your ban and consider on your behaviour.--Manboobies 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No im not , your probably right I should behave better so sorry its just that any suggestions made go unnoticed and its truely frustrating. This whole article has a very america media viewpoint and makes Jackson look like a washed up has been after 1985.Realist2 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you then? Because you've suddenly come in from nowhere. I don't have a problem if you've switched accounts, but I'd like to know who you were originally if you have.--Manboobies 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Michael Jackson

This is a dispute about the suitability of Michael Jackson for GA status, and the qualiy (or lack thereof) of the article's lead paragraph, the lack of citations in the body; and the main contributors unwillingness to allow other editors to make changes.-21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute
  • Lead is too long, given the amount of time the article's editors have had to fix this issue since it was last raised. Removing extraneous text is simple and this article has been like it for what I would say was an unacceptable time-span for how long an article should be allowed to sit with issues before being delisted from GA status (2 months, anyone?). In addition, it was given 6 weeks of review and wasn't fixed in those 6 weeks. Finally the review reached no consensus and the status quo continued. Unfortunately this happened for one reason.
  • The main editor of the article browbeats everyone down.
  • The article's main editor (UberCryxic) is resisting all change other than he himself makes. The fact (and my only grievance) is it makes the article non-GA worthy in this case. The editor seems to be charged with a polarised viewpoint and it shows in the current version of the article.
  • The GA approved version: [1] and the current: [2]. Is this article GA status? I don't feel it has that neutral quality it once possessed, it's got too many album covers and other non-free images. It sucks.
  • My personal attempts to shrink the lead/effect basic changes due to lack of attribution for the claims made were reverted by UberCryxic[3] (note how this reversion of his reintroduces completely unsourced libel material about him being a part of a circuit involving prostitutes that has no source).
  • Previous attempts to delist the article (by another editor) were also stonewalled by by the same contributor "discussion closed in next edit with comment "Michael Jackson - Archiving Michael Jackson: Current discussion shows no hope of consensus. Vote is 5-4 after SIX weeks of discussion. Maintain status quo (keep).)".
  • The version actually given GA status [4] is nothing like this version either (notice the much shorter, definately more neutral lead - although that article also does not meet GA status requirements). The majority of editors to that version appear to have left editing duties of the article after UberCryxic joined.
  • Homestarmy, Nehrams2020, Quadzilla99 and LaraLove all pointed out the overlength of the lead in the previous review. This was not rectified.
  • Additionally Uber has been post stalking me, he went through my history and commented in the following places after me[5][6][7], insisting that my requests to have new voices and people discuss the article in GA review was "... meaningless. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have no impact upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it."
  • He also reverted comments made by me here: [8].
  • Note how he said:
  • It passed - it did not. It reached no consensus.
  • any suggestions made on the GA review will have no impact.
  • he said to "ignore" my request for comments on the GA review.
  • He then later complained on my talk page when I struck through his text because it was inflammatory.
  • He is not following policy. He is extremely manipulative with comments like "Furthermore, as was stated before, you are hurting your own cause it seems. There is no need to heighten tensions by creating an unnecessary GA review and imposing loose time limits and forcing an issue at an uncomfortable moment" and other lies designed to sully my name.
  • The "don't resubmit it too fast tradition" for GA review is tradition, not policy. In this case, the article is awful and leaves a mark on Wikipedia's name. It is full of uncited text, the lead paragraph is too long and it gives people the impression we think crap articles are good. We must ignore all rules and remove it from the GA articles list. Imagine if the papers find out we believe an article like this is "good". It has incorrect information without citations. This is good? The lead has the names of his children in the first paragraph. Name me one FA status article with that. And tell me - how is removing my attempts to delete this UNCITED material [9]out of the first paragraph reasonable? -Manboobies 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


  • As is customary, Uber is more than welcome to offer his viewpoint below in this "Statements by editors involved in dispute" section:

I am the editor with which the above user is in dispute. I have many things to say and I will borrow some commentary from previous statements I've made on these issues. The user first alleges that the lead is too long. There are a variety of reasons for why that viewpoint is misguided, the most important being that this is an article running over 115 kb, so it almost demands a long lead. Or even if you are not comfortable in saying that it "demands" a long lead, then it would certainly be accurate to claim that it is normal or expected for such a lengthy article to have a lengthy lead. The point is that making a bland claim like "lead is too long" is unhelpful unless you put the matter in context; compared to most articles on Wikipedia, this lead is long. Not all articles, however, are this long, so not all articles are expected to have such a correspondingly long lead. Furthermore, simply talking about the length of the lead will not result in improvement unless more specifics are given. There are some parts of the lead that could use some help, but by and large we have a meaningful and well-constructed lead that is far better than the previous versions this user touts. Among the previous problems that I've highlighted in depth in the archives was the lead's horrid prose and its lack of historical analysis. These have been mostly fixed now and the introduction does a holistic job at explaining to people the subject of the article, Michael Jackson.

The user mentions the GA review that this article survived about two weeks ago. Several things need to be mentioned here. First of all, the user just renominated this article for another GA review, despite the fact that no consensus was reached in the last one, which, as I want to strongly emphasize again, was just two weeks ago. The article kept its GA status with a 5-4 vote in favor of keep. So there was no consensus, but at least a majority of those involved in that review wanted the article to keep its status. That aside, however, it is generally a bad idea and highly frowned upon in Wikipedia to renominate articles for FA or GA reviews, or anything else really, so quickly after earlier discussions failed to reach agreement. The main problem with doing that, though not the only one, is that it does not allow editors enough time to grapple with the issues presented before. The user mentions that the article spent a long time in GA review and states that it "wasn't fixed," even though this is a bad description of what happened in the review. The concerns that other people raised about the lead were all adequately addressed through counter-argument. The phrase "wasn't fixed" implies some sort of absolute problem, but we are here precisely to debate whether these issues are problems or not, and if they are, how to fix them.

I am disturbed by the "good faith" that the above user is showing towards me. Plenty of other people have edited this article since I first became heavily involved. None of them have had any major (or even minor) complaints with my participation, and my work has even been praised by some. I have given this article heavy attention and have improved it significantly, conducting thorough research in the creation of an entirely new section ("Influence"). I do not know why the user states that I "browbeat" people, but suffice it to say, it is confusing and unjustified. Where the user and I have had conflicts, ample reasons have been provided for the actions taken on my part. I advise the user to stick to addressing those reasons rather than attacking my behavior. It seems somewhat troubling that the user accuses me of a "polarized viewpoint" without clarifying exactly what the user means. Again, where are the specifics? May the user raise some specific complaints instead of making generalized comments that disparage the involvement of others? Even when the user does raise specific points, there is often exaggeration or a lack of context. Too many album covers or non-free images are bad reasons, very bad reasons actually, for wanting to remove an article's GA status. If that's what people don't like about the article, raise the issue in the talk page and we'll have a discussion. That's not a serious enough matter for this article to lose its GA status. Album covers are easily removable; articles usually lose their GA or FA status if they have deeper, more intrinsic problems that require a long time to address.

I sincerely hope that we can leave aside personal matters. It will probably not end well if we go down that road. Stick to the arguments being made and try to marginalize everything else, however hard it may be. Calling me "manipulative" will not help towards the ultimate goal: improving the article. I could also bring up the user's highly questionable history with this article, the user has shown a strong personal dislike of Michael Jackson in prior edits and statements, but I'm willing to leave those complications aside for the "greater good," if you will. That "greater good" right now is being hurt by this misguided GA review and the user's fairly shoddy arguments. One of those involves requesting citations for the name of Jackson's children. Citations are usually given for matters that could conceivably be considered controversial. Somehow the name of his children does not strike me as one of those matters. Admitteddly, that sentence is not in the best position right now. Flat out deleting it, however, is inappropriate, so if it is removed from the lead, or from that part in the lead, it should be placed in some other section of the article. In another shoddy argument, the user misunderstands IAR as it applies to this case. IAR is the following simple statement: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Here, the rule, or rather tradition or "guideline," for another word, of waiting several months after an initial debate before putting articles or other proposals up for consideration again is meant to allow people to improve Wikipedia. By violating it, as this user has, Wikipedia is not being improved. Invoking IAR here has the contrary result from what the user wishes, as do all of us, which is the improvement of the article.UberCryxic 04:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions from LaraLove

  • Lead - The lead is too long. As I stated in the first review, although a long article justifies a long lead, the article itself is too long, therefore the length of the lead is not justified. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the article. It currently goes into MUCH TOO MUCH detail. There are also many articles that have stemmed from this one. Every heading in the first half of the article links to a main article for that subject. These sections need to be trimmed. WP:LENGTH states "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". In this case, it is divided, it's just not sufficiently trimmed.
    • There is not consistent wikification in the lead either. For example, hip hop is wikified, but not pop or R&B.
    • I also think the article would benefit from citation in the body only. It's not a requirement that the lead include inline citations so long as the expanded information is cited in the body. It makes for a cleaner looking lead. Update to comment (May 31): Consider also that the last paragraph is completely unreferenced. Add continuity to the list of reasons I believe the article would benefit from no citation in the lead.
  • 1958–1979: Early life and career - Gary, Indiana need not be wikified twice in the same section, much less the same paragraph. It should also include United States (U.S.) in its first occurrence.
    • "He was the second-youngest ... of ten children of Joseph and Katherine Jackson. ... Katherine, a Jehovah's Witness, raised the children in that faith, while their father Joe,..." - This should be reworded to something like "He was the second-youngest ... of ten children of Joseph (Joe) and Katherine Jackson. ... Katherine, a Jehovah's Witness, raised the children in that faith, while Joe,..."
    • "Jackson showed musical talent early on and joined his brothers when they formed a group in 1964." - This sentence, at the end of paragraph one, is out of place. Updated comment (May 31): It's not a good transition. It jumps from describing the family dynamic to 'he showed musical talent and joined the family group'. There should be something more before the last sentence. Introduce information of his siblings' talent—their group—before mentioning he joined it.
    • The second paragraph is entirely unreferenced which is unacceptable for what is stated in it.
    • Correct grammar (I believe) for "The group eventually auditioned for and signed a contract with Motown Records in 1968." would be "The group eventually auditioned for, and signed a contract with, Motown Records in 1968."
    • "number-one" should be #1 when stating chart positions. Even written out, it would not be hyphenated.
    • "...the first time ever a group had pulled off that feat." - That needs a reference. Needs space after ref.
    • In instances such as '"The Jacksons,"' the comma should be outside of the quotations. This is per WP:MOS#Quotations which differs from standard English.
  • 1979–1982: Off the Wall era - "It reached #3 in the Billboard album charts, spending 48 consecutive weeks inside the Top 20." - Other articles such as this one reference chart claims.
    • "Jackson felt the album should have made a much bigger impact and was determined to exceed expectations with his next release." - Really? How do you know?
    • American Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, and Grammy Award and should be wikified.
    • "More than twenty-five years after its release, Off the Wall remains one of the defining moments in Jackson's music career and began his domination as one of pop music's leading artists." - That doesn't read right to me. Updated comment (May 31): A defining moment isn't something that expires. Also, with this being all one sentence, it's also like you're saying "Off the Wall began his domination as one of pop music's leading artists, more than 25 years later." The prose is off here.
    • "In 2003, the TV network VH1 named Off the Wall the thirty-sixth greatest album of all time. Rolling Stone ranked it #68 in their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. - I feel like statements such as these should have a reference.
  • 1982–1986: Thriller era - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial should be wikified. (Note that "the" is not capitalized.
    • This whole section is insufficiently referenced. For example, "It became the best-selling album in music history with album sales exceeding 104 million copies." - That definitely needs a reference.
    • "United States." at the end of paragraph two should be "U.S."
    • Thriller should only be wikified in its first appearance in this section.
    • In the third paragraph, first sentence, there should be a comma between "concert" and "Jackson".
    • second-degree burns should be wikified.
    • "Time magazine" should be wikified as "''[[Time (magazine)|TIME]]'' magazine" yielding "TIME magazine".
    • Grammy Awards doesn't need to be wikified more than once in this section, if at all. It is appropriate to wikify words multiple times in an article when the article is long, but only once in a section. However, I'm not sure Grammy Awards necessarily needs to be wikified more than once in the article. Either way, at least all but one needs to be de-wikified.
    • ""We Are the World" became one of the top five best-selling singles of all time, selling over 20 million copies worldwide." - Needs source.
    • Considering there are three main articles associated with this section, I recommend a little trimming.
  • 1987–1990: Bad era - "According to Jones, Jackson wanted the title track to be a duet with Prince who later declined the duet." - I recommend changing the last "duet" to "collaboration".
    • "Bad still holds the record for generating more #1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 charts than any other album." - Needs citation.
    • "Jackson insisted ... to be available to him all at the same time throughout the tour." - I think this would be better if worded as "Jackson insisted ... to be available to him at all times throughout the tour."
    • Shouldn't "long-term" be "long-time"?
  • 1995–2000: HIStory era and Blood on the Dance Floor - The second paragraph needs a reference.
    • The third paragraph also needs a reference.
    • "Cocker's actions were met with mixed reactions from the British press." - I think that should have some refs, but I'm not sure.
    • "... it became the greatest selling remix album ever." - I know that needs a reference.
    • "The title track reached number one in the UK." - Reference. (Note (May 31): I'm stopping here for the night.)
  • Physical appearence - "Jackson's skin color was a medium-brown color for the entire duration of his youth, his skin had been becoming paler gradually since 1982, and had become a light brown color." - This needs to be reworded.
    • Last sentence needs a reference. All quotes and claims should be sourced.
    • "On The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1993, Jackson revealed that the change in his skin color was due to the disease vitiligo." - This was just mentioned in the last sentence of the first paragraph, minus mention of Oprah's show.
  • The article as a whole lacks sufficient wikification.
  • References are also not correctly formatted.
    • The bottom of the page for reference 3 states "How to cite this article: "Popular Music," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved."
    • I only see a few references that credit an author. Reference 5, for example, was written by Bryan Robinson. The citation also lacks the date of the article, February 23, 2005.
    • Many references also need to capitalize the work. Rolling Stone in reference 7, for example. These also need to be wikified.
    • References 52-56 are the same reference. It should be named and appropriately formatted in the same way as references 2, 5, 6, 7, etc. so that a b c d e appear beside citation 52.
  • That's just the first part of the article and references. It needs a lot of work for GA. More than I realized during the first review... or it's deteriorated since. Either way. I'll go through when I have some time a critique the article further.
  • I'll also look into some policies regarding referencing. As I stated in my above comments, I'm not totally sure on the necessity to source certain statements. However, as a reader, when I read such statements, I want to see references. There is an inconsistency in references as well. Some of a particular type of statement (award wins, chart positions, etc.) are references, while others aren't. Also, this article is a biography of a living person, so the standard for citation is much higher; that must be considered as well.
  • Note: Suggestions that have been struck-through are  Done.
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted "During this period, the boys toured Indiana extensively, and after winning a major local talent show in 1966 with a rendition of The Temptations' "My Girl," led by Michael, they began playing professional gigs in Chicago, Illinois and across the mid-eastern U.S. Many of these gigs were in a string of black clubs and venues collectively known as the "chitlin' circuit," and the young kids sometimes had to open for strip teasers and other adult acts in order to earn money. The young Jackson had taken co-lead singing duties with brother Jermaine when the group's name changed from "The Jackson Brothers" to "The Jackson 5" in 1966." as per your concerns it shouldn't be without a source. If it's sourced I'd be happy to see it go back. Comments?--Manboobies 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have reverted such a brazen move. Deleting an entire paragraph like that is something you usually first propose in the talk page. Be bold doesn't mean be rash. That paragraph comes directly from the Jackson 5 article, which is a featured article, although it shouldn't be given its many problems. I will find citations and modify the paragraph as necessary. The main problem right now is that there are too many demands being made on this article and not enough reasonable edits.UberCryxic 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's been a lot of debate without a lot of edits for some weeks now. GA/R is not a process by which we're asked to look over an article and bring it up to standards. The point is for us to find and list disqualifying flaws so that the custodians of the article can fix it. The sheer volume of replies on this talk page, user talk pages, and in the reviews shows there is FAR too much time being wasted talking about anything, everything, and nothing. Time that could be better served making improvements. I think Elvis said it best, "A little less conversation, a little more action, please." And by "action", let's mean "eidts". LaraLoveT/C 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No there has been much progress made. Please follow the article's edit history and the explanations I have given in this talk page, your talk page, and in the GAR. I also have some requests that I've informed you about. You can find them below.UberCryxic 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure if it counts but I did read something almost identical to that in the biography Magic and the Madness. The part about the group name change is correct I would say.Realist2 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Charity Work

Is it just me or isn`t Jackson ment to be one of the greatest Humanitarians of our generation? You wouldn`t have believed it from this article. Maybe the Guiness Book Of world records is wrong or something? Silly meRealist2 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements and suggestions

Ok taking the advice of people above, I will begin modifying certain aspects of this article right now. I will create two sections here, "Improvements" and "Suggestions." Under "Improvements," I will list every little thing that I have changed in the article, always paying attention to, again, the suggestions made above. Under "Suggestions," I and other people can offer their own ideas on potentially controversial matters. This will be sort of like a notebook to keep track of what we're doing. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Improvements:

Per Lara's suggestions, pop and R&B have been wikified, although I think they weren't earlier because there were some wikifications of those words earlier in the lead.UberCryxic 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Lara's suggestions, the artists influenced by Jackson mentioned in the lead (Mariah, Usher, etc) have now been moved to the previously titled "Awards and recognition" section, which has been retitled "Recognition, influence on later artists."UberCryxic 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit in the lead about "Thriller" and it being cited as the greatest music video of all time has now been moved to the "Music videos and MTV" section.UberCryxic 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And per my own suggestions a few months ago....I've deleted three paragraphs describing his March 2007 trips to Japan and Britain. I am citing recentism as my reason. When the trips are notable, like his visit to Africa in 1992, they should be covered, but this was not that important compared to some of his other ones.UberCryxic 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted some repetitive comments during the 1993 Oprah interview in the "Dangerous era" section.UberCryxic 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted this comment from the lead: "Additionally, Michael Jackson has dabbled in various musical genres and collaborated with several other superstars in the music industry, occasionally also lending his talents to the work of other artists." It's unneccessary and doesn't say much.UberCryxic 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the suggestion of Manboobies, deleted the following sentence from the lead: "He has three children: Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (known as 'Prince'), Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II (known as 'Blanket')." At some point in the future, I think it should be in the article again. I deleted it now because there seems to be no good place to put it. If I find one, it'll go there.UberCryxic 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete some of the artists mentioned for the 30th Anniversary in the "Invincible era" section.UberCryxic 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shortened a quotation by Presideny Bush Sr. relating to Jackson's "Artist of the Decade" award in 1990.UberCryxic 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Significantly shortened the Jackson-Jarvis dispute in the "HIStory era" section while keeping all relevant viewpoints intact.UberCryxic 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Visionary singles picture in the last Biography section.UberCryxic 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per suggestions of Manboobies, some album covers have been deleted, namely those of Invincible and Blood on the Dance floor.UberCryxic 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per suggestions of Manboobies, foud citation for Sneddon claims and deleted much of the material that came from a fan site.UberCryxic 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your best edits. Very well sourced and more neutral.--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete comment in the trial section about Raymone Bain being fired. Reason cited: irrelevant, not encyclopedic, forgettable, and so on.UberCryxic 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted album cover of Got to be There.UberCryxic 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted album cover of Off the Wall, again, as per the suggestions of Manboobies to have fewer copyvios.UberCryxic 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph in the "Invincible era" section about an album that Jackson was supposed to be coming out with in 2003. In that paragraph, the album Number Ones is mentioned, but it's also mentioned in the beginning of the next section as well. Overall, that paragraph was largely trivial.UberCryxic 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally.--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed some awards listed in the "Visionary" section. Most of these are better left in the List of Michael Jackson awards article.UberCryxic 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting a lot of material in the "Visionary" section because such a short period of his life should not be getting that much coverage. Far too disproportional.UberCryxic 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the format for several faulty references. Bring these to our attention as soon as you notice them.UberCryxic 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of things with Lara's suggestions above, among them reference formatting, citations, and wikifying words and phrases.UberCryxic 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Suggestions:

Regarding this comment by Lara: ""Jackson showed musical talent early on and joined his brothers when they formed a group in 1964." - This sentence, at the end of paragraph one, is out of place." It doesn't seem to be out of place. It's exactly where it should be. There's a short description of the family and then the next paragraph starts talking about the group touring Indiana, which doesn't make sense unless we mention somewhere that a group was formed....and that happens in the sentence before.UberCryxic 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by Lara: ""More than twenty-five years after its release, Off the Wall remains one of the defining moments in Jackson's music career and began his domination as one of pop music's leading artists." - That doesn't read right to me." Can you be slightly more specific? It's basically saying that Off the Wall marked a turning point in his career.UberCryxic 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by Lara: "This whole section is insufficiently referenced. For example, "It became the best-selling album in music history with album sales exceeding 104 million copies." - That definitely needs a reference." That has a reference....in the lead. Your supposition that the section is insufficiently referenced is quite off. With the exception of the opening paragraph, every single paragraph in that section has at least one citation in it.UberCryxic 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lara I'm not sure how to fix the Encarta reference because of the weird copyright characters. Can you take care of that reference for me?UberCryxic 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The album covers should return Thriller, Blood and Invincible. If its called the Invincible era it should have the coverRealist2 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So many pictures have been deleted yet the two presidential pictures remain. now it looks worseRealist2 09:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dangerous era Talks about just one song in and detail. I no the Yanks didnt particulary appreciate the album like thriller or bad but europe and asia did so can you sort it out. Remember the time was number 2 for 5 weeks in america and huge everywhere. he also got the soul train award for it which proves he still had black support. Dangerous gave 7 top ten hits in the Uk. Will you be there sold halve a million copies in america alone. The album was huge in asia which explains its success. I think awards for this album need highlighting. The videos and there famous cameos should be discussed. More should be made of the Superbowl with the card display. This are was also when the charity work began to really come through. mention it more! Realist2 09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The History era is shocking its truely crap. Talk more about the scream video and the debut success of the song INTERNATIONALLY. You are not alone is not mentioned WHY??? It is one of his best both commercally and in vocal terms. It debut in America at number 1 broke a record and it went to number 1 in uk and elsewhere. That brit award thing gives me a headache frankly. It takes up half the discussion on HIStory and forgets to mention that Earthsong is is most successful song in the UK not billie Jean. more positives plese not media trash. This era needs 2 pictures of scream and earthsong videos.Realist2 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As for blood like i said earlier the cover should return, I no america has never heard of the album but the album did go to number 1 in the uk. the article only mentions the songs chart position.Realist2 10:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Invincible era is ok the album cover should come back and there should also be a reminder that 8 million copies is actual quite good unlike what the tabloids suggest. If Madonnas album sold 8 million copies it wouldnt be considered a flop. Also You rock my world went top ten in at least 22 countries.Realist2 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put a section about Invicible's artistic merits actually. Something along the lines of "Invincible, which was named for a track about a female protagonist who evades others attempts to denegrate her... {CITATION}". y/n?--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Trial period should have a picture of the album and a mention of all the countries it went to number 1 in for example the uk. In 2004 it was one of the top 5 most successful albums of that year good considering the rubbish in the tabloids.I think it has sold 7 million actually.Realist2 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the visionary period the fact that 12 of the 20 songs went to #1 in spain should be mentioned just to give it an international stance, oh and the fact that this is a big achievement.Realist2 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As for his humanitarian work i think it needs to be strenghthened that his positive actions are why after all this time he still has a lot of supporters. In 1992 The national enquirer I believe stated that he had given $50 million to charity and by 2007 at the world music awards he had given $250 million. It was not just for children but for hospitals, victims of Burns, aids and the environment. He gave all the compensation money from the pepsi burning incident to charity, his charity songs eg man in the mirror, heal the world, earthsong, We are the world, what more can I give.Realist2 10:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He also allowed those charities to fall into the ground and be completely relegated to oblivion. Perhaps the humanitarian work should be moved out into its own section from the timeline too?--Manboobies 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The section already exists in fact, with little info. I propose "Jackson continued his charity work in 1985 by co-writing with Lionel Richie the hit song "We Are the World", and singing a featured solo on the charity single. The record helped to raise money and awareness for the famine in East Africa and was one of the first instances where Jackson was seen as a humanitarian. The song also won a Grammy Award for "Song of the Year".[22] "We Are the World" became one of the top five best-selling singles of all time, selling over 20 million copies worldwide." is added.--Manboobies 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that these charities no longer exist is already stated. he did not allow these charities to fall at all, that comment is insulting to him and probably the hundreds of thousands of people he has helped and it makes it sound deliberate. After 25 years of giving his all to help others it seems like a slap in the face to Jackson. Negative comments about his charity work should not be included. If you consider his efforts to be rubbish then I dont no what it takes to please some people. Unlike Bono from U2 and the like he is actually prepared to put his money where his mouth is.Realist2 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes a lot of requests. Realist, some of those album covers were removed because they are copyvios. The decision on which ones to remove was rather arbitrary; I was thinking that since Thriller is so popular and famous, we might as well give the spotlight to some of his later albums (Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory were all monster sellers anyway). We should have as few covers as possible while giving readers a visual feel for his work.UberCryxic 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the eras you mentioned Realist: yeah I suppose they could use some improvement. There is definitely a strong focus towards what happened in the United States, and not enough on what happened abroad, especially with HIStory, which is the greatest selling album of all time in Europe at 20 million units. It's going to be difficult to incorporate some of that stuff in there while trying to marginalize the length of the article. You can have a crack at it and see what you come up with.UberCryxic 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the Covers my purpose was to rebalance the article to show his later success. Since Thriller is gone its reasonable the Latter covers are out to. Unfortunatly I am new so cant make changes at the moment. Would Uber make some of the changes I suggested (Particulary Dangerous and History) and inform me of them so I can see if it is sufficiant. I still think that more pictures are needed as its his visual act and persona that make him so unique. The presidential thing needs resolving 2. let me noRealist2 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and the Diaologe of the dangerous and history era are my main concerns. His videos are the best in the business so lets see them both late and resent. bad, smooth criminal, Black/white, remember the time, scream earthsong. tour pictures are vital. Like I said at the mo I cant do anything so would Uber do it and let me no of the changes. It pales in comparison to the madonna article both in dialogue and visuallyRealist2 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as you're "new" and can't make changes. You need an edit history in mainspace anyway, so you might as well start this process yourself. I'm not as sure about what you want as you are. You're the best person for this. I would just advise you not to add too many more pictures. In fact, the best idea is probably to replace images that are already there with those that you want. At that point, we'll see if those images are more desirable than the previous ones.UberCryxic 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I cant change anything because the article is semi protected and my account must be at least 4 days old to make changes. Its only 2/3 days old at the moment. Besides dialoge will be easy for me to change but I dont no enough about computers to do pictures honestly. If I do dialogue would you at least do pictures? Is it possible to put pictures on the editing talk page? if so put some on here so people can talk about the and see them before they go on.Realist2 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad rep

This article should include micheal's imfamous stuff and stuff like that {like child rape cases and all that, the imfamous micheal jackson of today.} none of that is listed here, just his career, and if it's just his career, then change the name to Micheal Jacksons Career. Micheal jackson's imfamous. and that, and everything that made him (and still making him) Imfamous should be in this article!

§→Nikro 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversies surrounding his personal life are well-documented in the article. If you think it's just his career that's being covered, then I urge you to read again. You'll find plenty of stuff on his personal life.UberCryxic 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikro sorry to say for once I have to disagree it already looks like a gossip column as it isRealist2 09:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Separation of personal life from main 'eras' section

The separation of Michael's personal life info from the main 'eras' section is going too far with this categorization thing which seems to have swept up the article recently. Introducing an 'influence' section was alright, as that didn't take from the main body, the chronological section, of the article. But taking out things deemed 'personal' and plonking them neatly under four different areas just doesn't flow well. It junts the reader in and out of various years, and just doesn't work. Before, the article was chronological, and a certain degree of chronology is good in a biographical article. Let me clear up one thing: the eras don't just mean what was related to the ALBUM of the era. The eras are simply a convenient way of splitting up Michael's life into nice sections. We don't need to FURTHER split the article up. I think that we should put personal stuff back into the main chronological bit, as people seem to have misinterpreted what the 'eras' are meant to be. His career and his personal life should go together. For example, the Oprah Interview, once aired, significantly increased sales of Dangerous. That link cannot be neatly established if the two 'bits' (for lack of a better word) are separated. I am trying to reach a new consensus to have the personal stuff put back into the main body, as right not the article seems to be a skeleton of subheadings. The eras are tiny, and any reader will be confused by the layout, which isn't chronological. So that's why I'm trying to reach a new consensus: To put the personal life information back into the chronological part of the article. --Paaerduag 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did dislike the lack of chronology but I must say I've grown quite used to it. Plus it will be otherwise buried to those with shorter attention spans. I believe it may give the article a chance at FA status. It is a good move on Uber's part - and I wouldn't say that unless I really thought it.--Manboobies 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The move was suggested by someone who's helping me improve the article, and the idea seems all-right given the fact that it's the blueprint for most biographical articles on Wikipedia. I can't say that I like this structure better than the previous one, but I know that I don't dislike it. We'll see....UberCryxic 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was too hasty in my post above. After a while, I too have grown used to this new setup. While I still dislike the lack of chronology, if this is what the majority wishes for I am happy for this format to stay. Of course, examples such as the boost of Dangerous sales after the Oprah interview, will not be able to be accurately written, but this is relatively minor. Paaerduag 07:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Negative Editors of great concern

Im not going to name anyone out your all probably aware about the whole review issue and who started it off. then I read comments that put jacksons charity work in a negative light and guess what its the same person. I feel there is a jackson hater on this page. it must be stopped at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 09:39, May 30, 2007


Can you make your concerns more specific? Be aware that the humanitarian efforts section is not yet complete.UberCryxic 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jackson hater! Is someone calling me a jackson hater or Manboobies? Im not im supporting him especially his later works. I do find it unfortunate that manboobies wanted this article removed and then suggests that Jackson drove his charities into the ground. I cant help but fell Manboobies dislikes jackson. Also sign ya posts its sneaky.Realist2 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that we must all strive to be NPOV when editing wikipedia. Manboobies removed a reference I had from a fan site (which I was unaware was an inappropriate reference, and am still investigating), about tom sneddon pursuing a personal vendetta against Michael. I would say that a similar stance could be taken on this claim that Michael 'drove the charities into the ground' which simply isn't true. He tried as hard as he could to keep the Heal the World Foundation running. Please just remember that if a section is overly biased, apparently it is okay to remove certain references, and perhaps similar action could be taken if a user if posting references from heavily biasd websites. Just my pitch anyway. Paaerduag 07:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank god someone else is seeing sense, comments like drove his charities into the ground are frankly the sort of smug hater comments you find on youtube, bias of all type is unwelcome particularly when it is hurtful and wrong. I wouldn`t be supprised if he could rightfully sue of comments like that. If someone tries to have the article removed because "it doesnt reach standards" then they make comments about his charity work in that nature then I for one am deeply concerned about that persons true motives. I have noticed also that this person spends nore time trying to get things removed than making any suggestions on what to add. I for one dont want this article by the end to be 3 paragraphs long basically saying he is a washed up has been. Realist2 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but a lot of major changes have been happening lately, such as the change of structure etc. Also, minor things like various 'claims', as outlined by Realist2, have been added lately. I would just remind all users, please state your changes on the talk page, so that we don't have to go diving through history all the time to figure out what's changed. It would be a really great help if we could all do this.

To Realist2, I empathize with how you feel strongly about the subject of this article, and dislike the 'hater gush' - just a term I coined ;) - that has been apparent on the article. Trust me when I say that I have dealt with this before, and also believe me when I say that the article has come a long way in the space of a few short months. I, like you, feel strongly about the article remaining absolutely NPOV (especially with Michael being such a controversial topic), but after I realized that precious few ears were listening to remarks I made on here, I decided to actively get on the web, find references, and balance and make the article NPOV. I would recommend that this is the best way to see things through. Hope it helps. Paaerduag 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I will take notice thankyou, at the moment I am new and cant back adjustment until tomorrow because of the semi protection lock however i do intend to try my best to present the article and the man in a positive light. The comments made were not just unsulting to jackson but all the people he has helped. Im sure they wouldn`t feel this way about his efforts. I entend to improve the latter eras as i feel they do not do him true justice. He was still the biggest star on the planet in dangerous and history but this article doesnt inforce that I feel. Although editors have agreed with me on this issue no1 seems enthusiastic about taking the first steps and Im not sure if it should be up to a new comer to make these alteratons reallyRealist2 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether its a good source I'll leave others to decide, but there is an interesting article on Jackson titled "Losing his grip". Its quite long but it does have something to say about Jackson's charity efforts (among other things), heres some it:

"In the 2000 Guinness Book of Records, Michael Jackson is cited for the most charities supported by a pop star—39—and he constantly flies around the world picking up lifetime-achievement and humanitarian awards. In fact, that was why he was in Germany when he dangled the baby. However, as Roger Friedman reported in his Fox 411 on-line column in February 2002, "the last tax filing available—for 1999—shows Jackson giving no money to other charities at all and receiving no donations from others." The Heal the World Foundation's Web site appears not to have been updated since 1996, and the charity Earth Care, which his brother Jermaine announced on Larry King Live this past January, has not materialized. In 1998, Britain's Charity Commission shut down Heal the World, which had not made a donation in three years. According to London's Daily Mail, the commission concluded, "The name had been so disfigured by the actions of Michael Jackson that it was not worth continuing to run the organisation in any form." Inside Edition recently reported that the only donation Heal the World made in 2000 was a transfer of $100,000 to the Heal the Kids Initiative, which Jackson began with gadfly Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author of Kosher Sex. That $100,000 is so far unaccounted for, and the New York State attorney general's office has served Heal the Kids with a notice of failure to comply with filing requirements. Jackson's latest benefit song, "What More Can I Give," recorded in the wake of 9/11, was shelved by his own advisers when the news broke that he had given the production rights to a gay-porn director and producer. Nevertheless, last Christmas, Jackson announced that he was forming yet another children's charity, to be kicked off with yet another benefit concert. So far that charity has not even been named. (Jackson's representatives did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)" --Mr Monty Marbles 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope we want facts not rubbish out of the Daily mail or Fox news, hardly unbiased fact based journalism. Im sure Jackson has sued or threatened to sue the pair of them. Cheers though thanx for the generous offer of help in this matter. Bloody hell that just makes him sound like a monster lol we definately cant put that in. However that Guiness Book of records thing sounds good. Unfortunate that its 2000 a more up to date book would be good. Marbles do you think you can get more info from a more up to date guiness book? let us no thanx again?Realist2 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I say the Title "Losing His Grip" lol that was a laughRealist2 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Both in regards to the humanitarian efforts and pretty much everything else, if that Vanity Fair article was a Wikipedia article, it wouldn't survive a day as a GA or a FA. The sources are mostly atrocious (Roger Friedman is a gossip columnist and those are strictly forbidden from Wikipedia, as are any and all publications that can be remotely considered "tabloids," like the Daily Mail). The thing is that Vanity Fair itself is ok as a source, not the best, but certainly acceptable. It's just weird that they're citing people like Roger Friedman and the Daily Mail. Whoever wrote that got struck with the lazy bug.UberCryxic 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly get the impression marbles was joking, i dont think he was honestly suggesting we use it. well at least i hope notRealist2 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed... I suggest that to all the editors here, we should have a 'trash' sensor, in that if you see something, and you know it's overly bias, PLEASE don't put it in here and make life more difficult for the rest of us trying to make the article NPOV. Every person makes a difference. --Paaerduag 07:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Real music fans don't blindly follow their favourite artists. I'm addressing this at everyone. I don't have to agree with everything. I like Courtney Love, Michael Jackson, Metallica, Megadeth, and various zillion other bands, and I would openly criticise bad moves by any of them. A real fan doesn't tell their favourite artist what they want to hear, they tell them the truth. --Manboobies 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha.....apologies for not assuming good faith on your fanhood, but your actions on Wikipedia indicate you have "other" feelings towards Michael Jackson.UberCryxic 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Im curious to no exactly what songs you like by MJ I mean how is he similar to anyone else you mentioned? My personal favourites since you all want to no. Get on the Floor,Bad(best dancing in video), the way you make me feel,smooth c, man in the mirror, in the closet , remember the time, black or white, heal the world(reminds me of my childhood) , will you be there(means something personal to me), gone to soon(personal reasons), dangerous , scream(Favourite video) , you are not alone(my favourite), earthsong(enough said what a genious, It reminds me why no one in the world likes the yanks), They dont care(how I love this song when Im in a bad mood), Blood, Ghosts(video sensastion), you rock my world (omg is he really 42? amazing), cry (listen to the message "someone is hidding the truth) ok my monologue is complete.Realist2 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

HELP ME HELP ME

Sorry all im trying to edit this michael jackson article but its semi locked. My user is more than 4 days old but still cant find a way to edit it. I can do it for unprotected articles so its not like I cant do those. Would someone help me out with some info. thanx a million172.202.219.226 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to register a username and wait four days before you can edit semi-protected articles. It's a good idea to get a username anyway though.UberCryxic 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph

I have deleted the following paragraph recently added by Realist:

Following the success of the first single Jackson released Remember The Time the song was again successful worldwide particuarly in Europe and in stayed at #2 in the U.S chart for 5 weeks. The video for Remember The Time had a cameo appearence by Eddie Murpy and was well recieved by both the media and public alike. The third release from the album In The Closet and the video is thought of as his most sexually provocative performance and contained the lyrics "If its aching then you have to rub it", the video shows a cameo performance from super model Niamo Cambell. Jackson also penned the tune for the film Free Willy called Will You Be There it sold 500,000 copies in the U.S alone. In total the Dangerous album gave Jackson 7 hits in the U.K which include Black Or White, Remember The Time, In the Closet, Heal The World, Give In To Me and Will You Be There.

I was worried about issues of length and citations...and I want this information to be incorporated within what's already there rather than just creating a whole new paragraph.UberCryxic 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You also deleted the part about Black or white being the second most successful song of his career which it is. It is lenghthy because most of the era talks about the accusations not the album. Although it may not be perfect its a dame sit better and only mentioning the one song black or white. I am new to this as you no it was my first attempt I feel a little put off now that you rubbished the entire thing. I asked you to help me on this a few days ago but nothing was done. Would you therefore put this in as you see fit and get back to me on what your changes were.Realist2 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of citations (im ashuming that means sources of evidence) All the following FACTS i took from the booklet that came with MICHAEL JACKSON- The ultimate collection which I actually own. The statements that came from the booklet were A)Remember the time #2 un US for 5 weeks B)Will you be there 500,000 copies in america alone C)Dangerous had 7 hits in the Uk. It is impossible to dispute that Eddie Murph was in remember the Time unless it was an incredible lookalike. It is impossible to disbute that Niamo Campbell was in "in the closet" unless she was an incredable lookalike. It is a fact that the song "Will you be there" is a Jackson song on the Free Willy Film.It is easy to say that In the Closet is his most sexual music offering because of the suggestive title and the fact of the Lyrics "If its aching you have to rub it" were used no other jackson song has made a statement like that. She practically fells his crotch several times in that video. Look at any review of the song or album and In the Closet is mentioned in this manner. In conclusion I would arguee that my comments might be a little woffly and badly expressed but never the less they are ligamate comments. Its my first time remember. Yes it might need rewording but you are more than welcome to reword it. You say it makes the article look long yet the Bad article is significantly bigger than Dangerous. Is that because Bad was bigger in America? I dont thing we should be substituting things on the dangerous era we should keep whats there and add to it if we are to bring it in line with bad. Hopefully you will help me / teach me. If you cant come up will suggestions on this then ill ashume you have no interest in improving Dangerous,HIStory etc and will re-add that paragraph for the purpose of stressing the eras importance. I look forward to hearing from you on this on going issue of concern, you no how strongly I fell on the matter and hope you share my concerns. Realist2 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, considering that we've got all the scandals blaring out at us, why not list his hits off the albums? I see no problem with this, as it just shows how good a performer he really is, which is of bigger importance than the scandals, which are just (IMO anyway) just rubbish. The prose could be cleaned up a lot, but the general idea of listing the hits doesn't seem to be a problem. I think it's quite a good idea actually. Manboobies commented above that for those with a short attention span the personal life info wouldn't even be read, well I believe that if we incorporate all this, and disperse the hits information out, then it will be missed as well. I think the same concept could be used here. --Paaerduag 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from the incorrect style that the above paragraph needs to improve, it also needs citations, especially for something like a quotation. You can't just say "I saw it in the Ultimate Collection"....you have to provide reliable sources for it. Also, we cover the American side of the album's performance because it received a lot of media attention, both the scandals and the release itself.UberCryxic 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just an idea, but why do we always focus on the US when documenting hits etc? I think that all the other countries of the world are just as important, so if it reaches number one in a country like Portugal, for example, that should be stated. I just don't think that we should be adopting a US-centric view. Paaerduag 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're sort of right about the above Paaerduag. The "sort of" part is about the global perspective, although certainly a single that's a hit in the US is much more notable than a hit in Portugal, in terms of sales and popularity, if for nothing else. Jackson is American, however, and he has had a lot of success in the US at something like over 100 million records sold (about a third of his total tally). It's not unreasonable that his career in the US should get slightly more coverage, but it's debatable if currently it's receiving too much coverage, which I think it may be. Documenting all of his hits here, however, is absolutely ridiculous because half of the article would be filled with chart positions. We document what we find to be notable and move on.UberCryxic 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned to Paaerduag on his page that if a song goes to #1 in number of countries even if its not the us or uk it should be mentioned in the following manner. Scream went to #1 in 6 countries a,b,c,d,e,f does anyone like this idea. that way the signicance of songs outside the us/uk area are mentioned. However many of jacksons songs have gone to #1 around the world and it would take forever. If people like this idea I prepose it should only be used for sonds that go #1 in at least 4-5 countries? Any thoughtRealist2 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

review of dangerous

I want to add a sentence review of the dangerous album in the dangerous era section. I want to say "the dangerous album has been considered stronger than bad and often compares favourably to earlier work capturing Jackson at a near peak. my source is http:www.mp3.com/album/8256/summary.html so would someone get back to me on how to cite this as I never have and cant understand the wikipedia explanation. thanxRealist2 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw this and removed it. You need to find a reliable source for it and cite it, although I didn't like the sentence to begin with. It seemed far too POV, especially for something so qualitative. Specifically, "compares favorably to earlier work, capturing Jackson at a near peak" presumably refers to the musical quality, right? Well that's quite a claim! I'm not even sure a reliable source would make that legitimate for Wikipedia. You'd have to say "is widely regarded" or something like that, but I'm not sure that it is at all. As I understand it, Jackson's best two songs are normally regarded to be "Billie Jean" and "Beat It"....both in the 80s. That's not to say he didn't make great material later on, but if you're going to speak about a "peak" in musical quality, the collaborations with Quincy Jones are where most people go - Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad.UberCryxic 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

However if you looked on the site I gave you it definately says this, it is a legitamate music review site so I cant see why it cant be used. did you even bother to look at the article review? Also Dangerous was a NEAR peak in his Career INTERNATIONALLY which is what the source I used shows and does not for one minute say it is better than Thriller. . I cant see how you can strick the source down as unreliable. Also why wont you explain to me how to citate? Is it because you wont like what I write or something?Realist2 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me the source here on the talk page. I don't think you put it in the actual article, or if you did I didn't see it.UberCryxic 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is http:www.mp3.com/album/8256/summary.html sorry I really did try to cite it but didnt no how, I did try but it was so confusing I gave up. thats why I asked you to teach me how to citate so I could give it this source. Also the statement I made was Dangerous HAS been considered better than Bad not IS considered better! This is possible! and i said is Often considered favourably with Earlier work not IS considered favourably . There is a difference! You have jumped to the conclusion im saying Dangerous is Definately better than Off the wall and Thriller. Get back to me on my page.Realist2 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the number ones listing thing, I did not intend to "list chart positions" here. I merely wanted the singles that went to number one to be noted. Also, in 'discography' at the bottom, only the U.S. and UK #1s are noted. I think this must change. We cannot simply 'ignore' where he's got other #1s, although it may be tempting. Look at the example paragraph below:

Jackson's Dangerous featured several major hits, Black or White, Remember the Time, In the Closet, Heal the World, Who Is It, Jam, and Will You Be There.[citation after each]

Succinct and to the point. I'm not sure which were number ones and which weren't, so you could simply remove the ones that weren't and make the paragraph about number ones, and of course add citations. Not too hard, and doesn't take space. --Paaerduag 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Paaerduag's idea...and it requires no citations at all since those songs were major hits around the world. So we can just say "worldwide hits" and move on.UberCryxic 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed worldwide is simplar doesnt need citation and takes away the american/uk orientation entirely all at once. Wikipedia gives chart positions of all his singles in most contries so we could just look back at that? I think it should go at the bottom of each era almost like an after thought on the success of the album in question. However what constitutes a world wide hit? Is that on top ten positions or #1 positions? How many countries does it have to go top ten/#1 to constitute worldwide? I think there should be some sort of consences on this? is this unreasonable?Realist2 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the review Realist posted and don't understand what's so special about it. The claim being made, even if coming from a reliable source, is not necessarily authoritative and does not automatically legitimize entry into a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this article already states something like what that review mentions. It talks about his introduction as the "King of Pop" and the large sales and so on. It's fine as it is.UberCryxic 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've generalized the comment that Realist initially wanted to include and have placed it in the "Themes and genres" section. There's still a citation tag, which I'm more than happy to add if this is the finalized version.UberCryxic 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

About a third?

I thought I would make a comment about the suggestion that "about a third of michael jacksons sales are from the the US". I cant see how this is possible so was hoping uber could explain it to me, maybe im missing something from earlier career sales or something? These are my workings going from the RIAA on album figures

Off The Wall sold 20 mil worldwide with 7mil in US which is 35%

Thriller sold 104 worldwide with 26 in US which is 25%

Bad sold 32 worldwide with 8 in US which is 25%

Dangerous sold 30 worldwide with 7 in US which is 23%

HIStory sold 18 worldwide with 7 in US which is 39%

Blood sold 6 worldwide with 1 in US which is 17%

Invincible sold 8 worldwide with 3 in US which is 38%

Number ones sold 7 worldwide dont get me started on what it sold in the US it only charted #13 in America but ill be nice and say it sold 1 million which is 14%

Therefore from what we officially no he has sold 225 solo albums with 60 in America making 26% a quarter and not at all 33% or a third. If my finds are correct which I believe them to be then why is this article 85% US based when only 26% of his albums were purchased there.?Realist2 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are vastly confused on Michael Jackson's sales. The Guinness figures for Thriller are absolutely ridiculous and are largely regarded as such among the relevant community. More accurate for Thriller is 60 million. HIStory sold 36 million units worldwide, of which 7 million were in the US (so only 19%). You also completely ignored his Motown albums, which have sold roughly 25 million copies worldwide. Those sold heavily mostly in the US. Jackson has sold about 70 to 75 million albums in the US, if not slightly more, and when you factor in singles sales, you get above 100 million records (albums + singles). His total worldwide is roughly a little more than 300 million.UberCryxic 18:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for explaining it it does make more sense now i obviously new that thriller had not sold 106 but was going by what the article states which I think needs changing. I did not include singles because it is impossible to get any proper data on them . As for History ashuming you double it to make units then surely you would do the same for america 14 out of 36? The riaa also says that double albums count as 1. so it would be 7 out of 18. they dont do units.Realist2 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No the article doesn't need changing. Wikipedia isn't interested in what's true or what someone claims is true, but rather what's widely reported in reliable sources. Guinness is just about the most reliable source on this issue. The only thing better than I can think of is IFPI, but they haven't said anything about the sales figures of Thriller. There's plenty of good data on his singles sales, both in the US and worldwide. HIStory has sold at least 7 million units in the US. This means 3.5 million copies. The RIAA counts one double-album as two units, hence the 7x Platinum certification. It has sold 36 million units worldwide (18 million copies), so 19%....UberCryxic 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article needs changing. It would be impossible for Jackson to have sold 750 million records worldwide. The actual figure is around 300 million, and Thriller has sold little more than 50 million. (DaveyJones1968 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Davey you're right Jackson has not sold that much worldwide. On the other hand, the Beatles and Elvis also have not sold the 1 billion plus that their record companies credit them for, but those are the numbers that you find in Wikipedia anyway. The consensus on sales figures in Wikipedia seems to be this: go with the highest stated number if it comes from a reliable source. Beyond that, I've seen ridiculous figures for other musical acts that have come from unreliable sources, and they're still there!UberCryxic 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could help correct the Presley figures on this site so we could list the more accurate 300 million figure for Jackson? Presley was never as popular in the rest of the world as he was in the US, and it is impossible for him to have sold 1.1 billion records (on his imdb profile they're trying to say he sold 1.8 billion which is just hilarious). Even Frank Sinatra, famous for 65 years, has only sold 250 million records worldwide. (DaveyJones1968 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Davey unfortunately even "reliable sources" blatently lie about the sales of artists to boost interest in these people I am a fan of both Jackson(1987 bad era onwards) and a fan of elvis but neither have sold as well as claimed, unfortunately like I said they are reliable sources to some and it`s very difficult to disprove them therefore its best they stay to avoid conflict. they even try to say madonna has sold 300 million when everyone no`s her albums sell just 2 copies (One for herself, one in hospitals so visiters will leave quicker.)Realist2 12:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, wouldn't it be a good idea to write in the intro something like, "In November 2006 Jackson's spokesman claimed 750 million record sales worldwide, though most other estimates put the figure at around 300 million"? (DaveyJones1968 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

In some ways yes it would but the reality is that no one would agree on a consences in a matter like this, no one can agree on ANY level how many albums he has sold especially considering the fact he`s very popular in countries that dont accurately count its sales, everyone no`s how contentious the issue of michael jackson is, there will be his tabloid vinatical haters who will play down the figures and obsessive fans who will exagurate them. even if we did reach a consenses it would be quickly changed by some army of edoters out of the bushes.Realist2 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

furthermore if you use the word "claimed" in the article it kind of suggests she is purposly lieing, especially when you then say however most people believe 350mil. It almost gives negative conatations to his spokesperson which i think we should be enclined to avoid.Realist2 18:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 750 million figure is a blatant LIE. (DaveyJones1968 21:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Well it wasn't just Jackson's spokeswoman who made this claim. The World Music Awards did too, and that ups the ante significantly in terms of reliability. The WMAs traditionally use figures from IFPI in handing out awards, and while they likely did not do that here, them citing this figure is important in its own right. The problem is not just limited to Jackson and Presley. You have similar issues with the Beatles (claimed over a billion, again ridiculous), Crosby (claimed 900 million, too ridiculous to even bother with), and Sinatra (claimed 600 million, again ludicrous), among many others. Instead of trying to change the number for specific musical acts, what you should be doing is trying to gain a new consensus on how Wikipedia does sales figures. It'd be tough to change the status quo, but I suppose still doable. With that aside, all of these inflated figures can be brought down to something closer to reality.UberCryxic 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we really should try that, since the 750 million estimate is not only demonstrably untrue, it is also impossible. Besides, some of the figures on wikipedia are more believable, eg Elton John 250 million, George Michael 80 million etc. It just seems wrong to have a figure we all know to be ridiculously exaggerated to be displayed prominently in the introduction. This isn't just about Jackson, but record sales figures for all major artists. Btw, did Frank actually claim 600 million sales? That is ridiculous, because the actual worldwide figure (as of 2007, nine years after his death) is 250 million. Not even close to Crosby's 400 million sales. (DaveyJones1968 11:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

We do the best we can with what we have got but we cant make a figure up because we simply dont no and no one no`s. he is so popular in countries that dont keep records of sales it is pointless to go there. not even michael jackson could tell you how many he has sold he just wouldn`t no. this issue WILL cause serious friction amongst editors, EVERYONE who discusses Jackson has an adgender wiether they admit it or not when editing this page. He is too unique a person for people to be totally unbiased, he evocs strong emotions in most people, bias either way will dominate this issue. Those who downplay his achievements will be called haters and those who overly promote his achievements will be considered biased fans.Realist2 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious Davey??? Hahaha. Crosby does not have 400 million in sales and Sinatra does not have 250 million. Not even close. The way they stand at the top: the Beatles, Presley, and Jackson have each sold somewhere in between 300 to 500 million records. Madonna is most likely fourth all time, with around 250 million records. Crosby and Sinatra are not even in the....top 30? Maybe not even in the top 50? They're definitely not in the top ten; that much is for certain. Trying to change consensus on this issue is something I mostly agree with, but you will have a very difficult time convincing some other people.UberCryxic 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, Bing had sold a CONFIRMED 400 million records by 1980. Some sources now put his realistic sales at 500 million. You should remember that for 25 years (1931-1956) he was literally THE biggest star on the planet, ahead of the Pope and successive US presidents. At the time of his death in 1977, Crosby was THE biggest selling solo artist in history, ahead of Presley who had died two months earlier. Sinatra has easily sold a confirmed 250 million worldwide in his 65-year-career. The Beatles have outsold EVERYBODY. Btw, the official Presley site makes it clear they can account for half a billion (500 million) certified sales. It is only the ridiculous 1.1 billion figure I disputed. (DaveyJones1968 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Crosby did not have confirmed sales of 400 million or anything even remotely approaching that number. The simple fact is that it's very difficult to track sales back then, so it's virtually impossible to know what a quasi-accurate tally for Crosby is. Most definitely, however, it is not 400 million....nor is it anything close to that. Crosby's success was huge, but limited mainly to the United States. He did not have the international appeal of someone like Elvis Presley and, later, Michael Jackson. Sinatra has also not sold 250 million; those figures are completely fabricated and I have seen no reliable sources advance them seriously. Elvis does not have certified sales of 500 million; not even close. In the US, which accounts for at least 60% of his worldwide sales, he has certifications for nearly 120 million albums and about 50 million singles, or 170 million records in total. That would put his tally worldwide at around 280 million records. That number obviously falls short because he's undercertified in the US, but not by that much. Most of Elvis's major stuff, albums and singles, have been covered. The Beatles have the best case for being the best-selling musical act of all time, but, again, there is not enough information to conclude anything definitively, especially now that Guiness threw us a "thriller" with Thriller. It's either them, Presley, or Jackson, but who precisely is difficult to say. And each have sold somewhere around 300 to 500 million records. Crosby? Not even 100 million maybe? It would be nowhere near where those guys are; as an example of a problem with Crosby, the figures for "White Christmas" are vastly exaggerated and largely unknown.UberCryxic 00:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bing received an award in 1960 for selling a confirmed 200 million records, a number that we are told had doubled by 1980. "White Christmas" was the biggest selling single for 55 years, selling around 50 million copies and even charting 1 million in 1977 alone. Crosby's success, like Sinatra after him, was worldwide and he was as popular in Britain as he was in America. Elvis Presley was never as popular outside the US as he was in, not surprisingly since he never performed outside North America and did not perform live at all for most of the 1960s. Jackson has sold around 300 million records, 170 million of which were albums, but he has not sold as much as Presley. Clearly, Presley's numbers are ridiculously exaggerated but the 500 million figure I can believe. (DaveyJones1968 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

From who? His record company? Yeah that's very reliable. Britain and America do not equate to "worldwide" success, and either way Presley's achievements in Britain easily outdo Crosby and Jackson combined, forget individually. Those are the numbers claimed for "White Christmas," but they are almost certainly incorrect and bloated. "Candle in the Wind" is often regarded as the greatest selling single of all time and its numbers don't run that high. Presley hasn't had the chart performance necessary for 500 million records worldwide. You have the same problems with Sinatra and Crosby; lots of claims but no hard data. Presley and Jackson are most likely hovering in the low 300s million.UberCryxic 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

White Christmas has sold 100 million copies, 50 million as a single, and is the biggest selling single of all time. (DaveyJones1968 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

It's precisely those kinds of figures that are completely fabricated and wholly unreliable. "White Christmas" has sold 50 million copies as a single like Thriller has sold 104 million copies as an album; that is to say, it hasn't.UberCryxic 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Candle in the wind by elton john is the 2nd most successful single ever with sales of 27 million after princess dianas death. so i doublt white christmas has sold 50 million. Anyways this sections is called "About a third" which was about a discussion about MICHAEL JACKSON in the USA . we dont care about Crosby and white christmas ok. Realist2 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a shame you have to behave like this to get attention, I left quite a nice message on your user page saying that you could actually benifit wikipedia if only you would express yourself better. Unfortunately for you your time is ticking and you will be blocked. Although I no people hear who have more experience than me are reluctant to make the move. I am not going to use bad language or be insultng because I actually want to make improvements. If you notice almost all your edits have been removed because no one takes you seriously. please change. Realist2 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion which you are entitled to but you must respect the views of others even if they are not your own and as long as they are not offencive of course, I can appreciate the reasons you might dislike Jackson but you should also come to terms with the fact that many like Jackson. Infact considering what has occured in his life it is an achievement he has any fans. The reason for this is that many believe he is a good person especially in the light of his tireless charity work. Everyone is entitled to an opinion that is a democracy thank god but it is wrong to attack others. If I am not as educated as you does that make my opinons any less valid? I hope not, wikipedia is not a place for egotism, everyone is equal and welcome. I am sorry to have offended you. I wish to draw a line under this embarrassing episode. neither of us have acted appropriately so lets leave it at that and remain positive. I hope you will take this seriously, Im sure everyone would like to see the back of the bickering. Realist2 13:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

review

[[10]]Realist2 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

hiRealist2 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of dangerous hits

I have just been on wikipedia looking up every single from dangerous and its chart position. This is what I have found

  • Black or white top ten everywhere
  • remember the time top ten in 9 countries
  • in the closet top ten 5 countries
  • give in to me top ten 5 countries
  • heal the world top ten 4 countries
  • who is it top ten 3 countries
  • will you be there 2 countries
  • jam 2 countries

At the moment the songs listed are Black/white, remember the time, in the closet, and will you be there. As this was ment to be about international world wide appeal and looking at my findings from wikipedia I prepose the list be changed to Black/white, remember, closet, give in to me, and heal the world. remember this is about world appeal and we MUST avoid the temptation to avoid the songs not favourable in the US,UK. Let us discuss this moreRealist2 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed list is fine. Go ahead and make the change, but make sure you link correctly and keep to the appropriate style guidelines.UberCryxic 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

also, at discography at the bottom, can we maybe change it to ALL number ones, rather than just US or UK? I'm unsure as to how to approach such a task, but I want to throw the idea up in the air. I'm thinking we could name the song, then in brackets have the country, or something along those lines anyway. --Paaerduag 09:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree then songs like Scream would get more attention, You can easily look it up on wikipedia to therefore citation is not needed. My only concern would be about songs like Black/white which went to number #1 in a lot of countries according to wikipedia, would it look messy for songs like this? Further more if the list for songs like black/white is used you would have to include EVER country, we cant chop some off because this is disrespectful to these countries suggesting that there musical tastes are not important. Um what to do? I definately think it should be changed from what it is though, if changes like this indeed go ahead it will give the article a much needed international edge. Glad to see things are moving away from America/Uk at least in terms of discussion. Realist2 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be way too long. US number one hits is fine. Same thing is done for the Elvis Presley article.UberCryxic 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the same thing is done for elvis presley then I dont thing it should be changed, it`ll appear as if we are trying to over hype Jackson. I did have resavations myself like I already stated. However I think if we did it for the the HIStory songs and actually kept it in the era itself that would be good. Scream, You are not alone, and Earthsong all went to number one in a lot of countries and this should be explained in the era. Furthermore over the next month I will be investigating the single sales of History, it is very possible that after thriller it is history that has the best singles sales worldwide and if my findings do show this i think the History era may need rewritting entirely to base it around the 3 big singles. It is quite possible that HIStory is his only album where the singles take cente stage over the album as a whole. Usually it is about the album and the singles just become a part of it so to speak, however i think this maybe be entirely different for History. Please note however that my research has only just begun so dont take what i am saying to seriously yet. All I can promise you at the moment is that history`s singles have outsold off the wall and Dangerous that much becomes very obvious if you look back at chart positions however I still need to evaluate it against bad and thriller. For now let us discuss simply listing the countries for the history album singles .Realist2 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... I think I was unclear. I only suggested that we have the countries after the number ones. I think that having an america-centric view is a mistake, as this is not the US wiki, but rather the English Language wiki. I think we should list all songs that have gone to number one, and perhaps forsake country. That's a better idea in my opinion. Because as we all know, many songs that are in fact number ones around the world were not number ones in the US due to all the (IMO) false allegations etc. So it is sort of automatically biased against Michael as the US is ruled by the tabloids, whereas other countries, in Europe and South America, for example, are less so. This is just my take, but I do believe that it is automatically biased against Michael to only have US number ones only. Why not just a list called Songs that have reached number one? Paaerduag

I like it but I think we can make it better again. Have three lists US #1, UK#1, INTERNATIONAL #1. What do you think?Realist2 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be confusing, and it would make it seem more superior for it to be a hit in the US or UK. While some may think this, the US and UK are not the majority of the world. I think we should just have a list, listing ALL number ones that Michael has achieved, regardless of country.--Paaerduag 12:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um yes i think a consencus has been reached simply a list of all world wide number ones is good. besides I no elvis only has US songs but I believe he has sold more of his own records in america than Jackson did. Uber correctly pointed out that Jackson has approximately 1/3 of his sales in America however Elvis would have been higher than that about 40%. Jackson had a greater ability to appeal to an audience outside the west. This is no disrespect to elvis either it is simple that when elvis was huge western music was banned in many places around the world, particulary russia etc however in the 80`s and 90`s times had changed in 1990 he became the first western singer to appear in a Russian TV advert. Elvis simply coundn`t sell his records outside of the west not because there were crap but because it was illegal in many places. Thats why an international list would have more relevance to Jackson than elvis.Realist2 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Elvis had 21 number one hits in Britain, which is a record in that country, but these aren't listed in his article. Another justification for listing only the US number ones is sales; they are likely to have sold more than singles in other countries. Also, although it seems weird to say given such an internationally famous pop star, Michael Jackson is American. It is a bias, you guys are right about that, but it seems to be a reasonable bias. I'd be much more comfortable with the current list and then an addendum saying something like, "Michael Jackson has also had number one hits in some of the following countries:......" After that, we list nations that are important in the worldwide music industry (Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and so on).UberCryxic 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets keep the American list like it is to reach some sort of consences but why not have another list (Think of and approppriate name) with the name of the country and its amount of #1`s next to it in brackets. For example Uk(7) France(8) Spain(18) Germany(8) Japan (11) that way we no how many #1`s he had in every country and the songs dont need listing. Its factual, easy to understand , looks short and neat, and makes it easy for people to find out accurate performances of his singles in specific countries without having to go into to much detail or research. I cant see anything wrong with that, its a fair compramise on keeping US sales as the main point but giving other countries at least some notice.Realist2 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your proposal Realist, but before we make any changes, let's first establish just how many number ones he did have in each of those nations. And before we do that, let's limit it to Britain, France, Canada, and Germany. The Spanish singles market is fairly weak and Jackson didn't have any number one hits in Japan. I'm using mjjcharts.com as my source here.

  • Britain - 7 (see here)
  • France - 7 (see here) A note on France: "Somebody's Watching Me" doesn't really count as a Jackson single. So he has only 7 number one hits here.
  • Germany - 2 (see here) I have no idea how you came up with 8.
  • Canada - 5 (see here)

I'd be fine with including the four above.UberCryxic 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about Germany and the otheres I was just picking random numbers off the top of my head, dont worry that isn`t research or anything. Those countries should definately be in it yes but I thing if he has had a large amount of number #1`s in certain countries it should be included. For example his visionary collection in spain gave him 12 #1`s and if you consider how many #1`s he had in spain before the visionary release you are looking somewhere near 20 although again I`ll need to do research on it. I think if he has a considerable amount of #1`s in a country it should be included. I say 5 number ones should be that benchmark.Realist2 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that this current set up is alright for now. I would have prefered a more international approach, but obviously info can be hard to find. The more countries the better, I suppose, in keeping with a more international-centric view. --Paaerduag 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

well yes we can put it like uk(7) France(7) spain(25)... for now and over the weeks see how we feel about it. Im in the middle i do want a more international approach but should we really name every single country even if he only had 1 #1 in that country? I prepose that the main countries (Uk,France,Germany,canada) definately be included and any other country no matter what it is that has 5 or more number ones? Actually info is not that hard to find Ubers links above are very useful I just went on them myself, and if you change the country on the site it will take you to your choosen country like spain. If the site doesnt take you to the country you want because it hasn`t be created then you can look it up on wikipedia. Simply go through his singles one by one and note down which countries the song went to number one. after doing all his songs through wikipedia which will only take about an hour you can constuct a list. If anyone doesn`t want to do it because its a boring ,slow process I will be more than happy to. It honestly very simple just go through his singles in chronological order on wikipedia and note down where they went to number one on a piece of paper, then come back to this page with the findings. Like I said I can do it if no one else wants to. It will help me anyway when I begin my investigation into the HIStory single sales anyway.Realist2 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He had, by my count, 20 number ones hits in Spain. Be careful not to count several of the Visionary releases twice (many of them had gone to number one before 2006). Michael Jackson has had number one hits in many countries. If you want a very international viewpoint, we could do like one country from each continent. The main thing I'm worried about is a long list; can we find out in how many countries he had five or more number one hits before we add them? If that list is relatively short, then we can do that. But if it's long (5+ countries), then not so good idea. More important here is where he had the number one hits rather than how many he had. That's why I was trying to limit the countries to those that were pertinent to the worldwide music industry.UberCryxic 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I`ll tell you what, I will investigate it tomorrow afternoon (I live in the UK) and get back to you with every country that has had 5 or more number ones and we will decide the final list from there TOGETHER. I think we should include spains double releases because you yourself said that elvis had 21 #1`s some of these were reissues when he did his version of the visionary collection a year earlier. Its unfair to draw one statement and not use the same argument in another (or something like that lol) Dont worry about which countries to include for now, let me get the information back to you over the next 36 hours and we can take it from there. Dont get to ahead of ourselves, lets take our time and do it sensibly, theres no rush.Realist2 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't really directed at the number of hits or how they got there, but rather where they charted. So comparing the success of the Elvis re-releases in 2005 with the Jackson re-releases in 2006 is irrelevant because the former did extremely well in Britain and the latter extremely well in Spain. But I never wanted to include the latter anyway. If Jackson's singles had done that well in Britain, fine. They would have then been counted as part of his number ones, those that hadn't charted so highly before anyway. But they didn't.UberCryxic 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ok dont worry about it for now just let me construct this list first and we`ll take it from there, besides we wont no how it looks until I present the list, you never no the list might not be that long anyway. 5 #1`s in a country is a lot. For spain i will give 2 figures with and without visionary and we can debate it latter. For now its best to just get hold of the facts and go from there so like I said i`ll present them to you asap.Realist2 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi here is my list please note I did not include say say say(as it is a mccartney song),Sombodies watching me(You said dont include it yourself),We are the world (I thought it would be disrespectful to the other singers involved to call it purely a jackson song) also i included the reissues for spain. Ok here it goes. Spain(24) Zimbabae(10) Belgium(10) Irland(9) Newzeald(8) UK(7) Italy(7) Denmark(7) France(6) Holland(5) and Canada(4). Thats 11 countries included, I think that should be it personally no more or no less, it neats, easy to understand , not too long. All of Jacksons 13 US #1`s are there which are words so its longer and messier you would think but it actually looks ok. In terms of presentation at least I think this full comprehensive list is fine. ALSO WHY IS SAY SAY SAY CONSIDERED A JACKSON #1? ITS OFF A PAUL MCCARTNEY ALBUM FOR GOODS SAKE. JANET JACKSON IS ON SCREAM BUT WHEREEVER THAT WENT TO #1 IT IS CONSIDERED A MJ #1 NOT A JJ #1 AND THATS BECAUSE ITS ON HIS ALBUM NOT HERS. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DELETED, I MIGHT DO IT MYSELF.Realist2 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You should include "Say Say Say"! It's a duet between Jackson and McCartney, so it's both a Jackson single and a McCartney single and it's treated as such. Songs in which certain artists play equal parts are credited to all those artists on the charts. A good modern example is "Give it to Me" by Timbaland, Nelly, and Justin Timberlake. It counts as a #1 hit for all of them since they all played equal parts in the vocals. On "Somebody's Watching Me," however, Jackson did not play an equal part in the vocals, singing just a minor part in the chorus. Songs with plenty of singers, like "We are the World," are usually credited to "various artists." As to your list, it's too long. However, I am fine with adding Italy to the list I gave above. So Britain, France, Germany, Canada, and Italy is good for me. Let me know what you think.UberCryxic 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough I will re add "say say say" to the countries. Britain, France, Germany, and Italy is VERY european based. Forthermore you want canada included and there is an entire list for america it would mean we were only including western countries which I personally take some offence to (although I no that is not your intention). At all costs we CANNOT have solely western countries included its just going to offend some and CANNOT be considered neutral. It will give a negative conataction to wikipedia itself suggesting it isn`t interested in event outside the west. What about UK, France, Canada, Italy, Zimbabae, new zealand and then a choice of EITHER spain or Germany. I would argue in favour of Spain because I think 24 #1`s is significantly more important than 2 #1`s no matter what the countries concerned are. The idea of these was to show his appeal outside of america and fell germany`s inclusion is actually counter productive, the charts positions of spain would be more interesting to some because of its cultural influence in south america. Germany is just of interest to the germans on some extent. If all else fails we could just come to the consensees to just add both? I cant see any real logic in having germany over spain, spain has a great cultural importance around the world than germany. Let me no, we`ll get to an agreement eventually lol.Realist2 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Britain, France, Spain (replacing Italy), Germany, Canada, and Zimbabwe. That good enough? One more time, however: my count for Spain is 20 number one hits, not 24.UberCryxic 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See this for Spain and do another count to make sure I haven't made a mistake. I've gone over it several times and I come up with 20.UberCryxic 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the list will be 'messy' with the countries outlined. Just on a point of interest, however, how is it actually possible for Zimbabwe to have music charts? Surely no such thing exists under the authoritarian government of Mugabe? I was just wondering about that; I mean obviously it does, but I'm just not sure how it works in a country like that. Also, you missed Australia, which is a continent. Wouldn't it perhaps be pertinent to add Australia to the list? --Paaerduag 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe had a legitimate chart from the 1960s until the early 1990s. It's had charts in modern times too, but they're not reliable. I'd be fine with including Australia if we dropped Germany. We can't just keep adding nations. We have to put a cap on this at some point. Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Zimbabwe, Australia. I like that list. Objections?UberCryxic 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends, entirely, on which country has more number ones. No point putting in a country with only a few. I'll back either Germany or Australa, whichever has had more number ones.--Paaerduag 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really bad standard to hold. What if he charted heavily continuously in some small nations but didn't sell that much anyway? Those do not deserve equivalent coverage. The more appropriate standard is to focus on nations that are relevant to the worldwide music industry. Despite that, however, I am more than willing to include a few other, less relevant countries in this list, simply for the sake of being "international" and so forth.UberCryxic 03:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that small nations may not deserve equivalent coverage, but neither Germany nor Australia is a small nation. They are both politically important countries, and deserve equal coverage. I simply think that, for the sake of conciseness which seems to be a standard you and Realist have, if we had to choose between the two I'd pick whichever had more hits. Simply because both are basically equal countries, neither is small, but if you don't want both in there then whichever has more hits is probably, IMO, better. (BTW, was bad a reference to Bad?)--Paaerduag 06:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell everyone has been chating away sorry I have been busy. I like the list UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, CANADA, ZIMBABAE, AND AUSTRALIA that is much better. I didn`t incluse Australia because it only had 4 #1`s I thought we agreed the cut off line was 5 #1`s (with the exception of Germany #1`S and CANADA 4 #1`S) however it should now be inluded in after thought. Australia should stay over Germany it had twice as many number ones and is outside of europe its a much better option. Furthermore for spain I counted the reissues making it 25(including say say say again) I think we need to reach a consences on weither or not to make it 20 or 25. What I do no however is that before elvises reissue he had 18 #1`s in the uk and got a further 3 #1`s in the reissue process. Guiness book of world records says he has 21 not 18 so they have counted songs twice. I seriously believe we should do the same. However at lest a consences has now been reached on the countries.Realist2 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your list Realist. As for Spain, I think you may be counting singles that reached number one before 2006 twice.....that's not how it works though, if that's what you're doing anyway. If you leave out the 2006 number one singles that had been number one before, you should come up with 20.UberCryxic 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion of Australia is not only geographically superior to the inclusion of Germany, but is also more notable in the fact it had more number ones. I support the current list. In terms of spain, are we or are we not including the Visionary singles? If not, why not?--Paaerduag 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We're counting the Visionary singles that had not reached number one at an earlier date because that's the option that makes the most sense.UberCryxic 02:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok the list will be UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, CANADA, ZIMBABAE AND AUSTRILIA for spain we will call it 20 #1`s although I personally thing is should be 25, but as we have got this far so peacefully and smoothly it seems a waste to spoil it. If Paaerduag has any issues about it being 20 i`ll give him 24 hours to further express why, to me it seems logical to add them, if Paaer doesn`t get back I will go ahead with the list as it is (Note I will have to go back through the list adding SAY SAY SAY back in where relavent so dont be supprise if some go up a little). I need suggestions on what the list will be called exactly? get back allRealist2 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ok I ashume we have moved off this topic. I will add this list with spain as 20 as no 1 seems to be interested in arguing the case for 25.Realist2 11:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Length issues

I'm very busy with other things at the moment and I cannot read all these comments when they are paragraph after paragraph. Can we please keep it to bullet points? 5 paragraphs on the entire article is reasonable, but I've seen thesis after thesis on one issue typed above. That's a lot of text. In fact, this talk page is harder to get through than the article itself! This article has improved quite a lot thanks to Uber (who apparently needs significant badgering) but is 5 paragraphs on chart positions at one posting at a time really the way to convince each other? I can't keep up with all the text. I've only been gone 10 days.--Manboobies 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So your problem is that there's too much discussion? Too much "text"? Oh ok then....welcome to Wikipedia.UberCryxic 03:02, 10 June 2007

Michael Jackson wikiproject: a few things

Hey people, as some of you know, as a result of the support shown for the proposal, a Michael Jackson wikiproject will be created later this month. The wikiproject will be involved in improving all Michael Jackson-related articles. This is pretty cool and exciting because I think Jackson is either the first or one of the first individuals on Wikipedia who gets an entire wikiproject devoted to him or her. There may be others, but there are not that many. Normally wikiprojects are devoted to subjects like nations, literature, and so on, but Jackson's influence has been so far-reaching that the least contributors interested in him could do is open a project.

Anyway, the main specific thing now is deciding the picture and the message that will go on the project tag that will grace the talk page of all related articles. I propose the following:

  • Message: "This article is within the scope of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Michael Jackson and other related topics. Interested users can join the project and/or contribute to discussion." Something like that. We want something standard and quick. I've seen these types of messages before and they do the job nicely.
  • Picture: I had a crazy idea for this....how about an image of his feet in a cobra stance (kind of like one of the covers for the Number Ones album)? Nothing says Michael Jackson better than that! Haha just kidding, but you get the point. I think that'd be cool though.

So discuss these things and let me know what you think. Try to not talk too much, per Manboobies, because this project is coming later this month and when that happens I'm arbitrarily putting up the message and the picture if no decision has been reached (we have to put up something, so this can't take too long).UberCryxic 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Being the obsessive sort of person I am, I extracted Michael's shoes from the Dirty Diana single cover. Have a look at the cover. I entirely (and VERY neatly, mind you, took me about 20 minutes to perfect) cut out the cool shoes/boots because I think they perfectly say Michael Jackson. I mean, who has cool shoes like that? I mean, who's clothes look THAT cool? Anyway, if anyone agrees, please say. I've actually got it as my msn display picture. Looks good. --Paaerduag 06:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree about the dirty diana shoe`s it would look cool. Another suggestion perhaps. What about a picture from the HIStory promo video with all the soldiers and Statue. Seeing him in that military costume. Nothing said "I am a Fu*king megastar" more than that. It was Jackson rubbing it in the faces of his critics reminding them that he`s the multimillionaire, he`s the icon, and there`s nothing that can be done to break him. Realist2 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he was the multimillionaire until he ran up bets of over $300 million and disgraced himself all over the world. He may still be an icon to the freaks and outcasts of the world, but no amount of money will ever solve his mental problems or perversions. (DaveyJones1968 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Sneaky reference to Unbreakable, off Invincible ay? If the new album's got songs like Unbreakable on it, it's going to sell millions. --Paaerduag 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner. If you wish to discuss your opinions about Michael, you can find several hundred forums around the internet in which to do so. Wikipedia was, and always will be, dedicated to factual information, not rubbish spread by tabloid junkies. Thanks ;) --Paaerduag 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJones listen up smart ass invincible sold 8 million copies. So let me get this straight you want the article to lessen the sales figures of his career and your suggesting invincible was a flop . Are you sure you dont work for the sun newspaper ( a "newspaper in the UK that talks crap" and is truely veinimus ) hey people I smell a Hater!!!!! hahaRealist2 17:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I was not actually thinging about unbreakable but it does supprise me how he manages to cope so well. most people would have killed themselves after having the life he`s had, but despite the obvious affects it has had on him he`s still here, some people joke that he`s not a man but he`s actually got more balls than most when you REALLY thing about it. How many of use would still be here if we had been through all this, I no I wouldn`t have been able to cope. Yeah so like I was saying, consider the HIStory promo, if anyone wants to admit to being a Hater just come out and say it, dont pretend to be neautral because it doesn`t fool anyone, eventually you slip up """I doubt that""". Realist2 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Realist's idea better than my own actually. The HIStory cover seems good to me.UberCryxic 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you thinking about using the eye from HIStory? I'm not so sure about the HIStory cover though. The statue is cool enough, but it's really grey and doesn't really epitomize Michael throughout his life. One thing that does do that is probably either the glove, the peace sign, the moonwalk, or his feet. The HIStory cover just seems a bit bland. That's just my pitch, anyway. Good ideas though people! --Paaerduag 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No not the history cover I mean a shot from the video from the HIStory promo when he walks with all the soldiers thousands and thousands of soldiers. He`s wearing a very interesting military costume which makes him look like a demi god and despite its 1995 he doesnt look to bad in that video. I will have to get a web link for you to look at if your are still confused.Realist2 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Mmmmm I don't really like those photos. I'm still for the HIStory cover.UberCryxic 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Genres

I think Michael should be listed as pop, rock and soul. Michael has been called the "king of pop, rock and soul," and his Myspace lists him as just that. Obviously "r&b" and "soul" are often used interchangably, and while rock can be very specific and narrow, it can also be very broad. Michael is often listed in "history of rock n' roll" type books and there's typically an entry for him in "so-and-so's guide to rock" (go to any bookstore and you'll see what I mean), and some have called him a rock star, such as an issue of TIME from 1970 or so ("Rock Stars Living With Their Parents) and a 1984 issue of PEOPLE ("Rock's Thriller"). Even under a more narrow definition of that word, the following songs would be considered "Rock":

  • "Beat It"
  • "P.Y.T." (in his book, he called the lyrics "rock n' roll" lyrics, and there is a fuzzy guitar bridge, actually I would argue it beefs up both the rock and r&b credibility, inasmuch as it has some things in common with '50s rock/r&b when they were considered the same thing).
  • "State Of Shock"
  • "Dirty Diana"
  • "Smooth Criminal" (maybe not so much, but a metal group called Alien Ant Farm covered it)
  • "Come Together" (a Beatles cover, thus giving him more of a "classic rock," rep, although I wouldn't put his duets with Paul McCartney on this list, as "The Girl Is Mine" is more of a cutsey Sinatra-type thing and "Say Say Say" might work, but is too synth-popish, perhaps)
  • "Black Or White"
  • "Give In To Me"
  • "D.S."
  • "Morphine"

There's more that almost made the list, but I think the point is clear: if you can include instruments that he rarely plays, you can call him a "rock" artist. I could also have gone into how his look is very theatrical, he has (or in the late eighties and early nineties) had very long hair, and he's a man who wears a lot of make up.

A few things, anonymous. He wears makeup to cover up his vitiligo. Also, you missed "Privacy" off invincible, and if you're going to count Jackson 5 hits you missed things like "Torture". But yes, he can be considered quite safely a rock artist. I mean a lot of his rock songs have become classics. "Black or White" is up there with "Billie Jean". --Paaerduag 06:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Please try to maintain an iota of etiquette when conversing on Wikipedia. Lately there have been way too many personal attacks. Personal attack statements give others grounds for immediate deletion, which is the action I have taken in the previous section, removing large segments of text coming from Daveyjones and Realist. I urge all involved parties to be more careful in the future. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but as you saw yourself I did offer a heartfelt apology only for him to ignore and act in a worse manner. I dont want my children or any others peoples children to read that sort of Nazi rubbish. I checked his edit history ans was appauled at his actions, this is truely dispicable behaviour and is intolerable. His comment on many people have been malicious and I cant believe someone who is openly being homophobic is not being banned. If these comments were made on the grounds of race it would be a very different matter I feel. There is a double standard which concerns me.Realist2 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm did you miss what I said, perchance? I said stop making personal attacks. That means now.UberCryxic 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK SORRY :-( Im about to do that chart list now. I will leave the links here, incase I dont cite it properly.Realist2 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[[11]] for uk [[12]] for france [[13]] for spain [[14]] for canada [[15]] for zimbabae [[16]] for australia. Realist2 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to cite those.UberCryxic 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed pictures for the Michael Jackson Wikiproject

Please discussed the proposed pictures in the section below, so as to avoid clutter. Thank you.

Proposed pictures from Realist2

  • [17] History Promo 1
  • [18] History promo 2
  • [19] History promo 3
  • [20] History promo 4
  • [21] Superbowl 1993
  • [22] Dangerous era Live 1
  • [23] Stranger in moscow 1
  • [24] Scream 1
  • [25] Scream live 1
  • [26] MTV 1995
  • [27] Black or white 1
  • [28] Dangerous era live 2
  • [29] Dangerous pic 1
  • [30] Dangerous era live 3
  • [31] soul train live
  • [32] 90`s pepsi
  • [33] livin legend award
  • [34] Jam Vid
  • [35] dangerous era pic 2
  • [36] dangerous era live 4
  • [37] in the closet

Sorry these below are by realist I forgot to sign in.

  • [38] (if paaerduag could do the same as his shoe trick!!)
  • [39] scream promo pick with JJ
  • [40] Bad era Live

Realist2 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed pictures from Paaerduag

File:Dirty Diana shoes.jpg

Discussion on pictures

I thought I would start off the discussion on the pictures I have added. I like sources 21,23,24,29,30,35 and 37. Realist2 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think Dirty Diana shoes are a perfect symbol of Michael.--Paaerduag 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey those are neat, one question I no its dirty Diana but aint those also the shoes in Bad? they look similar. Realist2 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still for the HIStory cover, although the one from "Jam" video looks pretty cool too.UberCryxic 19:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Wikiproject up and running!

Hey guys, I just finished creating the project and some associated templates/tags. You can all visit the project page here and you can also join under the "Participants" section if you are interested in getting involved. That's really the biggest thing for now: join the project. Second big thing: add the project tags to related articles (anything and everything having to do with Michael Jackson). This will help with advertising. Third big thing: add the user template to your userpages. It just basically says that you're a member of the Michael Jackson project. Directions for how to do that are given in the project page and you can always contact me for more information. Once we get the basics down, we'll get into more serious administrative and organizational matters, which I'll fully explain in due time. Be sure to check the project's talk page for news and updates. Finally, for the time being I've used the "Billie Jean" single cover as the main project picture. This is not final so don't worry if you don't like it. I personally like it, but if you don't, we can always discuss it further. I just used that because we needed something. Hopefully you all like this. Good luck and let's get to work!UberCryxic 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the "Billie Jean" single cover has actually grown on me. I think we should keep it. Good work as well, UberCryxic, at starting up the wikiproject.--Paaerduag 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Living with Michael Jackson

The following section of the article seems poorly organized to me:

In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson said that the media was wrong in their comments about him being irresponsible with his children, "I love my children," he explained. "I was holding my son tight. Why would I throw a baby off the balcony? That's the dumbest, stupidest story I ever heard."[77]
In February 2003, a controversial documentary titled Living with Michael Jackson aired in the UK (on the 3rd) and in the US (on the 6th).

It mentions the documentary before the documentary is formally introduced in the next paragraph. Seems strange to read about something, then read about it again as if its the first time (if that makes sense). I think it would read better if we removed the first instance of "In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson", but then the source of the quote wouldn't be attributed in the article text (thought it still would be cited). Alternatively, we could introduce the documentary, and then mention Jackson's reply, but that might break up the continuity of the baby dangling incident paragraph. Anyway, any thoughts?-Andrew c 02:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove "In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson," from the beginning of the sentence instead—.--Manboobies 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.UberCryxic 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_13&oldid=1137006961"