Talk:Michael Jackson

Newer image

Change the picture back. Idiots. Who put that shit picture up? The former one ruled. / Thanks. Fixed now.

The picture from 1984 is appropriate. It is mid-career, between the Jackson 5 era and his solo years, and most importantly, it is the peak of his career, by all accoutns. Thriller was his most successful album, and the most successful album of all times. His official encounter with Ronald Reagan marks a climax that he never reached again, an official recognition of his contribution to American culture, and internationally. None of his subsequent albums sold as much nor received as much critical acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just after adding an image from 1990. If you guys prefer the older one, just change it back. Pyrrhus16 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent. Nice work! TheLeftorium 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a better updated image, don't think it needs a revert, good work! Just a question thou where was the image retrieved from then if there is no link available? Dimario (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked on a Michael Jackson fan board. I knew there were a few White House pictures from 1990, so they were able to supply me with them. Pyrrhus16 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the picture changed again just then or been reverted back to the old one ? I'm confused StephenBHedges (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put back the 1984 image for two reasons: a) the 1990 image has a distracting background, b) the 1984 image shows MJ at the height of his fame.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I further cropped the image (minimized 'distracting background'), can i just say this image is better because of the skin colour difference, an image of Jackson needed to be updated, and that is the best we have and should be kept. Dimario (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we not go even more modern and have the picture of him in front of the This Is It sign (as published in many papers) ? If not then the 1990 picture is better as it is more up to date. StephenBHedges (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That image is non-free, and cannot be used. Gage (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A request to everyone: Please don't change the image in the infobox without posting a link to it on the talk page first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this newer image, feels more appropriate. Wikipedia should not dictate that the Michael Jackson of the Thriller era is the Michael Jackson look, Jackson himself clearly moved on from that look. And while we don't have to put an image of him from his latest days, that 1990 image is a good compromise. I came to look at the article earlier and the 1984 image didn't feel quite right, that's too long ago. 76.208.178.143 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the 1990 image is fine. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree to the 1990 image, much better — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also ok with the new image, although the other one was pretty good too. I just want to point out that the 1990 image can't be attacked on the basis that MJ reached his height during the Thriller era, simply because that's not true, at least globally. Yes, he reached his height with Thriller in the US, but globally, the height of his popularity -- as measured through record sales, concert sales, and other income -- was right around this period, 1989 to 1990. In 1989, he made $125 million, the first time ever that an entertainer of any kind had made more than $100 million in a single year. The Bad World Tour was selling out concerts all over the globe. Long story short: one reason why the 1990 image is appropriate is precisely because it does show MJ at the height of his global career.UberCryxic (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a very visible picture of Michael from the Thriller years in the article. There's a small picture of him receiving an award from Reagan and a video of the Billie Jean/Motown performance, but I don't see a good picture that depicts his career in the early 80's, which was a pivotal time.

A clear picture of him in the early 80's would give the article more context in regards to his changes in appearance. As it stands now, most of the pictures depict him in the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps there is somewhere else where an 80's picture can be placed. Thanks. joe_bob_attacks (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...I disagree with above statement.. this article is not about body dysmorphic disorder, we do not need to focus on his change in appearance but who the person WAS.

I think that the Thriller era image is more appropriate. Being that this is an encyclopedia I think that the more recognizable/iconinc image of a subject should be used when available. In my opinion the Thriller era picture shows Jackson at the point when he was most important to the public, and probably in the fashion that the public will choose to remember him. It doesnt make sense in my opinion to use an image from an arbitrary time period like 1990. If the goal is to depict the subject in a more contemporary fashion wouldnt a 2009 image be more appropriate?

(Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

re: I totally disagree with that. Images of artists are always as modern and current as possible. Add photos of artists in different images and representations later on in the article!

Your argument is not convincing. Read what I wrote above.UberCryxic (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, He was still considered quite a phenomenon with the release of Bad (1987) and Dangerous (1991). I would hardly call that time period "arbitrary". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Let me just say it again: worldwide, by almost any standard you pick, MJ was at the height of his career circa 1990, years after Thriller. To satisfy Wikipedia's global perspective, this image should take precedence over those from any other of his musical eras (if the argument is that we need to put an image that reflects the height of his popularity).UberCryxic (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I had not read this information (hasty, I know) and much of it is new to me. While I still advocate using the most iconic image, I was approaching the idea from my personal expiriences as an American. Considering the information you cite, I must concede your point and agree that the new image is more appropriate. - Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If a 2009 image were available, then yes, but this is the closest image to his appearance over the last two decades of his life. And though that may not be the most important thing, even using the Thriller era images would cause someone else to advocate, like it has in the past, the image we have now. So either way, no one will be happy. Gage (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• What does anyone think about using this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valerious/3680727042/ ? Is it simply not preferred because it's fair use and we already have free images from 1990? — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This image has a CC 2.0 license. However, caution is needed with Flickr images, because the copyright tagging is entirely at the discretion of the uploader. It is not uncommon to come across what look like press photos of celebrities on Flickr, yet they still have CC tags. Let's stick with the current photo for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox is not a PD photo, unless there is a source found. Where did you find the image? If it is on the Getty database, it is copyrighted. If this photo was taken in George Bush's presidency, do a picture search on his presidential website. But, this picture is copyrighted unless you prove that this photo was taken on behalf of the White House. I am bringing this issue to light, because we have had an issue with JFK and JFK Jr.'s infamous hiding underneath the desk picture. The photo wasn't taken on behalf of the White House, but by a private photographer. RE: Second image on Flickr -- that image is copyrighted, because 1.) the account has been uploading copyrighted images 2.) the image would be substantially bigger. miranda 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Michael Jackson was at the height of his career in 1990+ or in the 1980's is a non-issue. Michael Jackson's Thriller years were a pivotal point in time for him, the music world, and music videos in general. The current pictures in the article are 90's-centric. There should be a clear picture of him from his Thriller years included in the article. As I mentioned earlier this would give a context for his changes in appearance. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind either way. I think both images are fine. I only wanted to make sure that the 1990 image was not being dismissed on a false basis.UberCryxic (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the 1990 image, more better.--٩(●̮̮̃●̃)۶٩(•̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(͡๏̯ ͡๏)۶٩(-̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(×̯×)۶ 04:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorribal (talk • contribs)

Why was the image changed again? The 90's image is the best image. If you want a Thriller picture on there so badly then put the 80s presidential picture somewhere in the article and stop screwing with a perfectly fine picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.243.189 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1990 image ran into WP:NFCC issues. For the time being, we have only the 1984 and 1988 images guaranteed as Public Domain. The infobox cannot use a copyrighted image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current 80's presidential photo is appropriate. Hopefully this photo will not be changed. The previous article did not have a clear 80's photo. Even if the infobox photo is changed again, the article should contain at least one clear 80's photo for context. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an 80's photo in the article... and it's from the same time. There's no need for two photos from the same time in the article. The 1990s photo is much better and more recent, he was also at the height of his popularity in the 90s photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.239.80 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The 80's picture of him is not very visible. The current pictures in the article are 90's- centric. There should be a clear picture of Jackson from his Thriller years. The image reverts are getting ridiculous. The image has changed several times just w/in the past 5 minutes. At this point, someone should chose one and go with it. Changing the image to suit everyone's personal whim is not working. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That '90s White House photo is fine and of course, more up to date. The 1984 White House one had been so long and it wasn't very clear. BUT I think there should be a Thriller era photo in the article and also if possible a photo of him from his Jackson 5 years (late '60s or early '70s) BECAUSE Michael's change in appearance was a big part of his life and I think it's pretty essential to include it thoroughly here in Wikipeda. If someone agrees with me and is willing to help, that would be cool. The biggest problem is finding a photo, which can be used here, right? ---alexjean1991 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the current 80's presidential picture is appropriate. Currently the article has several 90's pictures--so the 90's pics are covered.

However, I agree with the previous poster, perhaps there should be a picture from the 60's/70's, with regard to his time with the Jackson 5 (or Jacksons depending on the timeline). I also agree that there should be a more recent photo. However, I think the 80's presidential picture in the infobox is most appropriate. This is an iconic picture and it was an important time in American pop culture. Since there is only one other very small (and not very visible) picture from the 80's, it's important to have at least one good picture depicting the Thriller years. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo

The article states that Jackson had vitiligo, but the only source cited for this claim is statements made by Jackson himself in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993. The only reliable source I could find to verify Jackson's claim was a story from 1993 in the NY Times Doctor Says Michael Jackson Has a Skin Disease which quotes a Beverly Hills dermatologist named Dr. Arnold Klein who claimed that Jackson did indeed have vitiligo. However, the problem is that many sources about Jackson's health have later proven to be unreliable. The NY Times has another article Jackson's Health a Subject of Confusion which quotes a Jackson biographer named J. Randy Taraborrelli as saying:

“Just when you think you have information, someone comes and recants the diagnosis,” said Mr. Taraborrelli, author of “Michael Jackson: The Magic and The Madness,” written in 1991 and updated in 2005. “All of the stories of the different medical issues become such a blur. It just got to a point where I stopped trying to verify.”

I think it would be a good idea for any claims made about Jackson's health be regarded with skeptisim and qualified with language that indicates who is making the claim. --Mktyscn (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic here... People made up other crap about Jackson, therefore Jackson himself can't be believed? Besides, there are photographs of Jackson as the condition progresses that very clearly show the patches of light skin, and there's the videotaped statement of his makeup artist. [5] WillOakland (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you're not suggesting that Jackson never lied to the press. But besides that, the point I am trying to make is that statements about Jackson having vitiligo need to be backed up by an expert (i.e. a doctor) who examined Jackson and is therefore qualified to determine that Jackson had vitiligo. Pictures and statements from other people are not reliable because there are many skin conditions that can cause skin tone irregularities. Mktyscn (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting (saying) is that the tendency of other people to lie about Jackson's skin or anything else does not make him unreliable on the matter, nor the people who knew him personally. WillOakland (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Michael Jackson's vitiligo, Dr. Deepak Chopra also confirmed that he did in fact have the disease in a recent interview on CNN. The transcript for that interview is available here [6]. In addition to the account of his makeup artist, there are various pictures indicating that Michael Jackson likely had the disease [7] [8].

Michael Jackson himself addressed the rumor in his 1993 interview with Oprah. The transcript is available here [9] and the video is available on youtube [10]. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely in violation of Wikipedia that it be stated as fact that Michael Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo. That is taking a side. We are relying on Michael's own report and upon statements by two controversial doctors, both of whom were friendly with Jackson. It should be stated as such. In the context of his entire history (we see that he altered his nose and lips and straightened his hair to look white), Occums's razor suggests he bleached his skin. We should state that the vitiligo story is controversial or challenged by others or that Michael has stated he had vitiligo. We should not allow wikipedia to state that he had vitiligo. If that turns out to be disproven, then wikipedia hasn't just made an error. Stating something as true when one is unsure is as much a lie as stating something as true when one knows it to be false. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 2:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that stating a medical condition is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. This type of strick standard would not likely be applied to anyone else. Although I am aware of skin bleaching, I am unaware of a procedure in which one could lighten their skin so extremely. If there is such a procedure or any evidence that Michael Jackson had such a procedure done, where is the citation? Where is the citation that indicates a valid challenge to his vitiligo? Besides tabloid gossip and conjecture, there is no evidence to contradict the medical condition of vitiligo.

With regard to Dr. Deepak Chopra, I don't believe that he is considered a "controversial doctor." From all appearances, he seems to be a respected medical doctor, who has been continually interviewed in the media during the past week. If there is controversy surrounding Dr. Chopra, please give the citation.

I am in no way POV pushing; I am simply stating that the most likely scenario has some form of citation. With regard to his plastic surgery, that is another matter, which I don't believe is related to the vitiligo. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The photographs, the medical records, the strip search of his body in 1993. Without a doubt this man has vitiligo, it's the very reason he was strip searched in 1993. The article already mentions the tabloid rumours, but they carry little weight. — Please comment R² 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem to state as fact that Jackson had vitiligo if a truly reliable source can be found to back it up. The problem is that sources about Jackson's health are anything but reliable. That's why Jackson's health has been the subject of controversy, speculation, and rumor for so long. Hopefully, some of this will change as details about his autopsy become public. In the mean time, statements about Jackson's health should be attributed to whoever is making the claim and let readers decide if it's believable. Mktyscn (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have given no reason why Jackson and people who knew him directly would not be truly reliable sources. Other people lying about other things is not a reason. WillOakland (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you actually tried reading more than just the first sentence of my responses you would already know the reason. Vitiligo is a medical condition, and therefore only a doctor can credibly claim Jackson had it. The article should cite a reliable source that identifies the doctor -- simple as that. If you knew anything about citing sources properly, you would understand this. Mktyscn (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a citation to a doctor talking about the condition, then argue vaguely that his own dermatologist is unreliable. WillOakland (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're attributing someone else's comment to me. As of right now the only source cited is the Oprah interview, and if you've ever watched it, you would know that Jackson didn't use the word vitiligo to identify his skin disorder. The NY Times article I referred to in my original comment (which quotes Dr. Klein) is a much better source than the Oprah interview. Stop assuming that I'm attacking Jackson just because I think the article should refer to a different source. Jackson's word is not Gospel. Mktyscn (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW... if Michael Jackson himself, those that knew him well, highly famous media journalists and interviewers, and the Jackson family are not good enough Sources who is? You want his doctor to tell you personally? You don't feel that his seeing that man on a more than regular basis backs his comments? The Jackson family is highly secretive because of the abuse of their information once they do let people in. So what do you want before it can be added to this article? Do you want god to tell you personally? I think those sources are highly credible and if the article were not about Michael we would not be at odds at all about this. They are definately credible. 63.229.82.34 (talk)

There are several videos on youtube were you can see that he had vitiligo, especially in the music video "They don't care about us".

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TSEKXXIvI
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGcJFCmnCg&feature=related

Especially in the rebuttal documentary "Take Two: The Footage you were never meant to see" you can here the person that did his make-up admits that he had vitiligo from the early 80s on. There is no form of skin bleeching! How will you bleech the skin? The person is more supposed to die because of the bleech then have its skin clearer. This was all gossip and people believed it because they don't know enough people with vitiligo and these that have vitiligo normally don't have the money to put make-up on it. But MJ had spots on his body till the end of his life - why won't he bleech all of his skin if he did so instead of leaving some spots? --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN has an article about vitiligo here. I'd like to put it in the external links section of either this article or the vitiligo article, but I'm not sure where (or if) it's appropriate. Since many people don't believe Jackson's own statements regarding the disease, I think this CNN article could be useful. --JHP (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, probably better for the vitiligo article, there are some concerns about the loading time of this article so we should be restrictive. — Please comment R² 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about the famous Chellist Jacqueline du Pré which has the following entry "Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, In 1971 du Pré’s playing began an irreversible decline as she started to lose sensitivity in her fingers and other parts of her body. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in October 1973.", This article does not quote a source for the diagnosis nor does anyone question it. Why is this different for Michael Jackson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.235.50 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Persecution by the media

I suggest that we include a page where we write about the relation between Michael Jackson and the media. This has been a very constant topic in his music: have a look at Scream, Tabloid Junkie, the video for "leave me alone", the song Privacy. After Jackson's death there were various magazines that talked about the relation between bad media coverage and his drug disease. Much of the seemingly "eccentric" behavior can be explained by the fact that Michael Jackson had not private life. He himself explains the creation of Neverland and the fact that it has a cinema and a theme park with he being persecuted by media and not able to enjoy a trip to public cinema or theme parks. Debbie Rowe mentions that one reason for divorcing was that she could not stand any more having this life being surrounded by media and not being even allowed to go to the grocery store. --Elaste2000 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had started work on such an article prior to the death, though it would have been a little more neutral than "persecution". :) Now that he has died, the media might reflect on their behavior. — Please comment R² 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So shouldn't we start writing such an article ... we can also call it Michael Jackson's Relationship with Tabloids or something more neutral. I just can't include the link in the main article because I have no editorial rights. Where do you have this article that you have worked upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaste2000 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I've just been collecting references, but everything MJ related is too unstable at the moment. It will be a month or so before I create it. — Please comment R² 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how things work here, as I only registered today - but I have some newspaper- and magazine-articles that talk about this, Jackson is mentioning his relationship with the media in this documentary "take two: the footage you were never meant to see" and then there are a bunch of interviews that he gave also. This could be related to a list of the scandals that were brought up and are questionable. In his early biography Jackson also mentions the problems with the media. And related to this material seem to be some reactions. Which references have you collected?--Elaste2000 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1991 Entertainment Weekly detail about the phrase "King of Pop"

I just incorporated a 1991 Entertainment Weekly reference (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,316363,00.html) into King of Pop (album) and List of honorific titles in popular music which might be worth using in this article. Here's it is in citation form:

<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,316363,00.html | title= Michael Jackson's Black or White Blues | publisher=[[Entertainment Weekly]] | date= Nov 29, 1991 | accessdate=2009-07-03 | quote=[A] highly placed source at [[MTV]] says the network was obligated to refer to Jackson on air as the ''King of Pop'' in order to be allowed to show "[[Black or White]]." An MTV spokeswoman denies that, but the phrase was part of MTV's ads for the video and was repeatedly used by its VJs. A source at Fox confirms that Jackson's people did request that [[Bart Simpson|Bart]] use the phrase "King of Pop" in the video and that the phrase also be used in the network's press releases; "King of Pop" also crops up in Fox's print ads for the video and in press releases by Jackson's publicists, [[Lee Solters|Solters]]/Roskin/Friedman.}}</ref>

For this article, it would be worth accompanying that quote with a source about Elizabeth Taylor's use of the phrase in 1989, though I wasn't able to find such a source online. In the current article, you'll see two references following this statement:

Jackson's success resulted in his being dubbed the "King of Pop", a nickname conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul".

but the only online one of those two doesn't mention Taylor at all. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this citation does have an impact on one of the answers in Talk:Michael Jackson/FAQ. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Given that he effectively gave himself the title "King of Pop," the first paragraph should be rewritten; it suggests that people just spontaneously started calling him "King of Pop." Trivialist (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By: jag:Elizabeth Taylor is the one true friend, confidante and inspiration to Michael Jackson who notably presented him with the name "King Of Pop". Michael Jackson will forever be the King Of Pop and is the King Of Pop to all who loved him. His incredible journey in his life and ours will be remembered with great actions. Michael Jackson was a special gift given to his family and to the world for all to see in our lifetime, to enjoy, for a short while but will forever live on in our hearts. He was an incredible loving and gentle soul with extraordinary talent and as deemed true, will be a legend in our lifetime and an icon forever. To Elvis Presley and James Brown and others who inspired Michael, we thank you. He was all of you in one body. The King Of Kings has greeted the King Of Pop with open and loving arms. May you rest in peace Michael Jackson and thank you. You are now at a place where you are protected and safe and are out of harms way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.94.113 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree that the article should be changed as it doesn’t mention that the title “King Of Pop” is self-proclaimed. 80.235.130.249 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He is called the King of Pop just like Elvis is called the King of Rock and Roll. It is the PUBLIC that gives these titles. Even if you do want to say Michael first said it, you don't know who said it to him or before him that was not in the limelight. The term STUCK. If he was NOT the king of pop Id like to know why the whole World agrees that he is. Please refer to the funeral of Michael that occured today to see a whole wide section of people come and say that he was and is still the king of pop. I cant even think of a reason why this was even discussed. Michael Jackson not the King of Pop? Do you have a competitor? Please don't waste time with this. 63.229.82.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

He self proclaimed at beginning: that is the truth and your statement is true. In fact, he originated the idea. He said one day (heard this on TV, I just recall it, no sources sorry, a commentator said it) : "Why can't I have my own title like Elvis does?" So, he wanted one also. But now, who proclaimed Elvis? Is there an authority entitled to give this type of "honor title"? WHAT-EVER, now! Almost the entire world is now proclaiming he is "the true King Of Pop(, Rock & Soul)" especially those who love him and they are numerous. If he wasn't entitled, the medias and public would have him deprived of that title, and he would have to go back on this. But this wasn't the case. So, accept the title or deprive the King's title (do you remember? : Elvis Presley's one). — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Hi, you should not deny that Michael Jackson converted to Islam.

When did he say that then? — Please comment R² 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He said it when he spend several years of his life in the rich state of Bahrain. Everyone knows this. When you ll see his burial, you will also accept, after that you can add this information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.192.74 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in Islam, the burial is supposed to happen on the same day as the death. As you can see, he was buried several days after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Resources for Michael Jackson converting to Islam were provided to Michael Jackson's wiki, these resources were from so many different organizations from US, Australia, UK, etc..

Of all the disputed claims about MJ, this is far and away the most circular. The WP:CONSENSUS is not to mention this because it can be traced back to a single story in The Sun, which was denied by Jackson's spokesman. See the talk page archive and FAQ. And let's see what happens at the funeral.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting slightly nuts frankly. Just prior to his death he categorically denied he was Muslim, that's the end of the matter, move along. — Please comment R² 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You should make a better FAQ.Talk to Magibon 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody knows" will never fly here. "Everybody knows" that Jackson bleached his skin. "Everybody knows" that he was a child molester. "Everybody knows" that he was an alien from Pluto, etc. WillOakland (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to view this from neutral perspective, first of we do not know his religious status, lets face it these reports show that he probably was a Muslim, if you view the details of the article in The Sun it describes it carefully of how the ceremony took place, how would one be able to make up such stories including having noted the other people present there ie. Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens, and we cannot use this lawyer's denial as a back up to say he that he wasn't, really he probably didn't even hear of the reports or may be covering the story, if you review the whole situation there could be high possibilities he died a Muslim, these sources can be used to back this up. I think the reason why we are forced to think twice about this is because there has been no media attention to the reports, plus no public announcement, though if we were him would we really have to publicly announce this? religion is a personal matter, these could have been exposed in interviews however none took place after the event. Somehow I think these reports can be mentioned in the article, in order to meet the neutrality, visiting users coming over and looking for the story and find its not there would think Wikipedia is taking on the other side than in the middle, where is this neutrality? ...It's not there. Dimario (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this now, anything started by The Sun is not coming within two miles of this article, particularly when the subject has called these rumours bullocks. Take the agenda elsewhere. — Please comment R² 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should I stop this? I believe then I do have a point. My viewpoint is 'he maybe was a Muslim?' - thats neutral, whereas most of pepz here have the view of 'he wasn't a Muslim!' - not neutral. Im not going to add anything, just reminding some users to have a wider perspective to these reports other than being one-sided. Dimario (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun exists to sell newspapers to people of limited intelligence who are quite prepared to be pay for any old nonsense, e.g. "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster". We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I suggest a review of our policy on reliable sources would be advisable. Just because "someone" says it does NOT make it true. Rodhullandemu 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That does not necessary mean all reports created by this newspaper are bullshit, you have to view what type of subject the newspaper is on about politics, gossip etc. In this case MJs religion must have been taken seriously before being published. Dimario (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun never took anything else in his life seriously before writing crap about him. — Please comment R² 00:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies: Category:Converts to Islam: Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in their article to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up. There are no sources which have any level of certainty of his religious beliefs. As noted on the talk page discussions, all major publications which commented on the alleged conversion gave almost exact quotes from The Sun, or specified in their articles that the Sun was their only source of information. Also Wikipedia:BLP: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. If Jackson chose not to discuss his religious beliefs, then it is considered a matter of privacy, and it is not wikipedia's responsibility to present any uncertainty. Finally: Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased: In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. If at some point, someone in Jackson camp disclose official confirmation of Jackson's spiritual beliefs, it will be perfectly legitimate to add that information. However, until then, it remain speculation and is not a matter which is critical to understanding his biography since it is something he chose not to reveal or discuss. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree that Jackson joins in Muslim. He didn't even said that. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 10:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone watched Larry King's interview with Jermaine Jackson on CNN? he asks him will it be a religious ceremony, however Jermaine didn't really say he converted to Islam, he says they were raised as Jehovah's Witness and says they embraced a different religion while traveling, really confusing, what's your opinion? watch here: [11] (from 4:15) Dimario (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, while Michael's reported conversion is not listed on this page due to the dubious sourcing of the claims, he is displayed very prominantly (with his picture at the top of the page) on the list of converts to Islam page. I would alter this myself, but am relatively new to wikipedia and feel that I lack the background to properly rationalize this action, as there is about dozen citations attached to the claim. Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, with detailed explanation on that articles talk page. — Σxplicit 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs

He was a muslim, and he was buried as a muslim, IT'S OFFIACL. So, it must be highlighted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the same way that Freddie Starr officially includes hamsters in his diet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If he was a muslim, shouldn't the body have been buried as soon as it was released by the ME and without all this idolatry? – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, your reaction is really strange, are you a racist or something? Check TV, he was buried as a muslim on the closed service for the dead before memorial in Steples Center. I repeat - it's official. He is a muslim whether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This would require a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This claim was denied by Jackson's lawyer. Hopefully this discussion is settled? — Σxplicit 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, on Michael Jackson funerals Euronews repoter claimed that MJ was buried as a muslim. I will try to find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit the funeral or the memorial didnt even look Muslim, the body was entered to the stage with a hallelujah song with images of a church at the background and ended with a prayer by a Pastor quoting 'father' or 'jesus christ', this must be done by the wishes of his family, if the burial was done in a Muslim way ie. with the janazah then it can be considered, a reliable source would be required then. Dimario (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WillOakland is obviously a major MJ fan. Not very objective at all. Besides "everybody knows" MJ wasn't muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.246 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys this guy seems suspicious since Michael Jackson has not been buried and a simple search on Google will tell you that, Unless you provide a Reliable source the conversion did not happen. Case closed.--Nothingbutgrains (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Death a Hoax?

Los Angeles, California – Several well-placed sourced have indicated that Michael Jackson is alive. Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources close to the pop icon confirmed that Mr. Jackson did suffer what they called a “respiratory and cardiac emergency” on June 25, which prompted a 911 call. Upon his arrival at the hospital, Mr. Jackson’s condition was initially classified as critical, but later downgraded to guarded. During this time, the sources confirmed, there was a media blackout regarding Mr. Jackson’s condition. Meanwhile, rumors that the singer had died began to swirl, reaching a fever pitch worldwide within hours. Sales of Mr. Jackson’s music catalogue immediately skyrocketed, resulting in income to Mr. Jackson that even he had never before experienced in his storied career. The sources confirm that Mr. Jackson’s debts are well in excess the $500 million previously reported, and may in fact be in excess of $1 billion. At the same time, the anticipated net revenue from Mr. Jackson’s planned comeback concerts in London barely exceeded the enormous expenses associated with producing the comeback spectacle. Mr. Jackson’s financial team had concluded that his comeback tour, even if a popular success, would fail to retire his debt, leaving him still deeply in the red. The unprecedented income generated by his reported passing, however, far surpassed the best-case goal of his anticipated comeback tour or any other planned projects. As a result, Mr. Jackson has remained hospitalized and in seclusion. Rumors that Mr. Jackson’s death had been fabricated began to emerge in recent days when there had been no reports of anyone who had actually seen his body. Sources say that Mr. Jackson is planning to emerge in the coming days and announce a confusion of identity with an unidentified body transported to the hospital at approximately the same time that he was admitted. (European News Consortium). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.193.103 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense on stilts without a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's nonsense, period. Anyone who believes it needs to be medicated. WillOakland (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It would make for interesting reading if included as a theory on MJ's death. We should always seek to encourage different points of view and creativity. Besides "everybody knows" MJ is actually living with Elvis in the West Indies. Ijustcan'tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is one clue to how the hoax was staged: Why and how Dimitrie Draghiescu died in Jackson's place 85.227.196.162 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that certainly clears up the reliable source issues... Wperdue (talk)wperdue

Seriously?! Come on people. Zazaban (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. You missed my sarcasm. Obviously a blog intimating that Michael Jackson might have been a vampire is obviously not reliable. Wperdue (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Forget it. Like Kennedy, conspiracy theories will abound. Without reliable sources, it ain't gonna happen here. Bollocks on stilts, otherwise. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has an article about the rumours about Elvis living (Elvis_Presley_phenomenon). The King of Pop died like The King: heart attack, mysterious circumstances, questioned autopsy, rumours about death being a hoax and he (Michael) was nearly buried at Neverland, his version of Graceland. With all these similarities the rumours about Jacksons death are here to stay and if it is possible to mention them in relation to The King it should also be possible to mention them in relation to The King of Pop. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that "Elvis is alive somewhere" is a popular urban legend. However, at the moment there is not enough sourcing to say the same about Michael Jackson, and this could be seen as tasteless.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ELVIS IS DEAD!!?? Ijustcan'tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

agreed.elvis is alive or dead.same can be said for mjMjfan1 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ATV Songs

Verifiable statements and opinions by Jackson and McCartney - or their appointed representatives at the time (eg lawyers) are encyclopedic. The opinions of a biographer of Jackson - on the topic of what McCartney could or could not afford are strictly the opinion of a solitary non-participant and do not belong in an encyclopedic article. The fact that such text may have been in the article for a period of time - without its inappropriateness for inclusion having been identified - is no reason to retain the text once it has been flagged and removed. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

McCartney claimed he and Yoko were ready to buy back the Beatles catalog, and MJ bought it out from under them without their prior knowledge. McCartney hasn't spoken to Jackson since that period, and this was the reason he had not. I read the various interviews with him myself at the time. Of course that isn't stated here. This MJ bio appears to make him a saint who did nothing wrong, and that any negative looking accusations that are even included here were all practically automatic lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We did have Paul's criticism in the article, but a rational sourced response to that criticism was removed continuously, so it became a neutrality issue. — Please comment R² 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So then McCartney's account is left out, while this bio makes it appear he had no interest until after MJ, which makes no sense and which Macca's account is completely contrary. Once again, MJ does nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-instrumentalist

Album credits for Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, and Invincible all credit Jackson with playing either guitar, drums, percussion, vocals, or some combination. Jackson may not have been known specifically for playing instruments, but it is evident he played them in the studio, and especially as an arranger, would require some level of expertise. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but he's certainly not a multi-intrumentalist in the sense of a Prince or a McCartney. In Moonwalk he even makes the distinction himself when describing meeting McCartney - "Paul, who could play every instrument in the studio, and me, a kid, who couldn't." I belive it's stretching it to decribe him as a multi-intrumentalist.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A multi-instrumentalist is described as someone who plays a number of different instruments. Jackson clearly plays multiple instruments and should be classified as such. — Σxplicit 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it is what he is primarily known as which is important, which is singing. None of his instrumental contributions to his recordings are that significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence at all that MJ played any musical instruments? I've never even seen a picture, never saw him play one live, and MJ having that on his album info alone doesn't convince me, given his track record of fact vs fiction. I would bet against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for MJ's arranging/producing, wasn't that what Quincy Jones did on most of those albums? Quincy Jones played a huge part in the making of Thriller and others, and therefore obviously their success. It doesn't appear he's given much credit. It appears it was all MJ, which of course is simply not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson is given numerous credits for composition and instruments in the album booklets. — Please comment R² 15:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I know he is, but Milli Vanilli were given credit for their vocals too. Is there any actual concrete evidence at all of MJ playing any musical instrument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more concrete evidence you need? I remember him playing the piano in a pepsi commercial once :) — Please comment R² 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL I would need more than that. I've never seen him playing an instrument, never seen one picture of him playing an instrument, and never heard any musicians et involved with him ever mention him playing an instrument. Anybody can put that in album liner notes, but the fact is there is nothing that supports it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.15.158 (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with you that album liner notes may not be that reliable a source as the artist can say what he likes - is there any independent corroboration, eg in a biography, of his instrumental ability?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one photo - in 1993 Harry Benson photographed the Neverland Ranch and there is a photo of Michael Jackson playing the piano. He had a piano at Neverland where he also composed part of his songs. I've looked for the photo on the internet but I cannot find it. ButI have the printed photo at home. Evidence for this photo series is on Harry Benson's homepage. He also plays the piano in a youtube video, a commercial for pepsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaste2000 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pan syndrome

Does this really need to be in the see also section, seems trivial. — Please comment R² 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This topic is a strange little paradox. The syndrome is something that Jackson has been labeled with by the press and is based on the popular understanding of him that has developed in his later years. The notion of "peter-pan syndrome" has no basis in real psychologoy and is a pop-culture term. The catch is that within conversation and media coverage i've never heard people use the term to describe anything other than Jackson. So while his link to the "sydrome" may be trivial he is essential to its public understanding. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SEEALSO section is for stuff that isn't already integrated into the article, but which plausibly could fit into it. As for plausibility, the connections between Jackson and Peter Pan are endless (e.g., [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], ad infinitum), with the most (in)famous association coming from Jackson himself. Portillo (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware the grounds for "see also" were that of plausible peripheral connection. If that is the case than I would support the continued inclusion of the "see also". And while I may dislike the use of such a pseudo-phychology term, there is no doubting it has substantial verifiability within the press as it relates to Jackson. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is the best place to bring this, but this came up the other day. Psychologist J.Michael Bailey (who specialises in paraphilias) has written about MJ on 'Scientific Blogging':-[26] & [27]

When I read Portillo's comment I had a bit of déjà vu, which might have something to do with this. Anyway, as for "real psychology", the broader concept of puer aeternus comes up in depth psychology, which isn't mainstream academic psychology but isn't exactly "pop psychology" either. Moreover, mainstream psychologists are cited in the Jackson-Pan sources, and serious studies of everything from anorexia nervosa to gallbladder surgery have used the term. Add to all of this Jackson's own declaration, "I am Peter Pan" ([28]), and you've probably got a decent case for mentioning the syndrome. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: "trivial (peter pan syndrome)" I dont agree that section is trivial at all. I think that many don't understand Michaels view of life and that section is very important to the type of person that he became because of his childhood, his life, and the person that he became. We all tend to have one opinion in common, that Michael never really grew up. That he remained a child in his heart and not only that but strangely to some, he remained a child in all that he did. Its also a very likely factor in his success. The ability to see fun, and look at things in a child like way contributed to his innovations, ideas, and just out there entertainment actions that made him the King of Pop and one of the BEST entertainers that ever lived.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the PETER PAN SYNDROME:

Peter Pan syndrome Sister project Look up Peter Pan syndrome in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Peter Pan syndrome is a pop-psychology term used to describe an adult who is socially immature. The term has been used informally by both laypeople and some psychology professionals in popular psychology since the 1983 publication of The Peter Pan Syndrome: Men Who Have Never Grown Up, by Dr. Dan Kiley. (Kiley also wrote a companion book, The Wendy Dilemma, published in 1984.)

Peter Pan syndrome is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder.

Musician Michael Jackson may have had Peter Pan Syndrome. [14][15][16] In a 2003 interview, Jackson told interviewer Martin Bashir, "I am Peter Pan". Bashir then said, "No, you're Michael Jackson". Jackson then stated, "I'm Peter Pan in my heart". Jackson named his former home "Neverland Ranch". Neverland is the fantasy island in the story of Peter Pan, where children never have to grow up.

Rest in Peace Michael. 63.229.82.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Spelling Issues

Several words in the article, including the word 'honour/honor' are spelt in both British and American English. Should one type be chosen for the article? Mackay64 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find any English spellings, change them to American please :) — Please comment R² 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. Although it does not matter which version of English spelling an article uses, Michael Jackson is considered to be in American English.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think British English would be more appropriate in a scholarly text. Gives an article a more intellectual feel. Ijustcan'tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More recent photo please?

What's with the 1984 small little photo? Can't anyone post up a more recent photo, like 2009 or 2008. I mean, this is MJ we're talking about, who has changed more than anyone else in the period from 84 to even 94. So it's not realistic in such a case to put up a photo that resembled him barely 25 years later.

Please see previous discussion here. Rodhullandemu 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its an unfortunate situation when noone has a recent photo that is eligible for use here. Portillo (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not certain if there is policy or consensus on this, but I question the need for the most recent image being used for deceased individuals. It seems to me that once an individual dies the most current image of that person isnt anymore valid than images from other points during life, as they all equally describe someone who used to live. I would always favor images from the most iconic/recognizable point in that persons life because it correlates most closely for what they did to earn the notability for an article in the first place. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a recent photo is better since it shows what the person looked like at the time of his death. Portillo (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to use a mid-career photo for a deceased person. 1984 was also the peak of his career. As for Marlon Brando, he is best remembered as he looked in his youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Wiki Honor

Someone should quickly add the fact in the summary of the King of Pop's page, that on 7 July 2009, during his memorial service Michael Jackson had been dubbed The Greatest Entertainer of All Time.

22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.144.80 (talk)

By whom? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Berry Gordy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Memorial

Hi there, Pls do include the name of Judith Hill (African-Japanese) as the lead singer during the finale song of the memorial. Many people are combing on the net for her unknown identity but after some searching, we found out her name through other posts but not wikipedia. Please assist to include. Thanks a lot.

Claricecmw (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable references that it was 'Judith Hill'? --Flashflash; 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why someone added to Michael Jackson's Bio that his funeral was intially being reported as the largest in the world. I believe there are many who's funerals were much larger, most recently, Pope John Paul II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gootie01 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Children

Should there be articles on his children, or has it been decided in a past discussion that there shouldn't be? 24.238.83.118 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to creating pages for any of them, as they have done nothing to earn notability outside of being Jackson's children. These aritcles would also very likely be a nightmare to enfore the standards of biographies of living persons as vandalism and tabloids would be likely be prone to these children. Furthermore on moralistic gorunds I feel we should respect their privacy to a degree and not place anymore of a spotlight on these children than has already been done. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Notability is not inherited and the children are not notable for anything other than being MJ's children. In fact it is tempting to request that pages for the children be protected against creation. – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would most definately second this request. Until one of them does of their own to attract notability (not likely for preteens) these pages should be prevented. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I DONT agree at all. Perhaps there shouldn't be articles as there is nothing to say of them until they decide to let us know them (if they do). However they should be mentioned and talked about in his biography here. Michael had children and any BIOGRAPHY or attempt at one mentions spouses, family members and children sired. Those were his children and a huge part of his life, also the reason why he was out of sight for sometime, devoting himself to his kids. I think that we should Definately have a mention of the children Michael the first (Prince), Paris, and Michael II (blanket) Nicknames in or out thats the question. Ages should be included too. Its only that for some reason (maybe that today was michaels funeral (July 07, 2009) it seems that this article is locked for Editing.

Ill be honest and say that I think jealousy or something is the only reason not to list his kids names. It seems only natural to do so. Look at any wikipedia page on an artist and you will see the names of their children. 63.229.82.34 (talk)

No one is disputing whether his children should be mentioned in this article. Indeed, due mention is made of their births, Jackons custody of them, and one of the few pictures in this article features them. What is under discussion is whether they warrant their own articles. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't find any sources

This information should be added but I can't find any sources on the internet any to cite these facts. Can anyone help and add them to the article?:

• In 1992, Michael Jackson performed in a concert against racism in Austin, Texas. The show raised $8000 for charity.
• Although not commercially well known, he co-produced two short horror films "In Dead Moonlight (1995)" and "Werewolves Of Canada (1998)" with Quincy Jones.--122.57.81.126 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Realist is reverting my efforts to tighten the lead. [29] Can you say, please, what is legally or factually inaccurate? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, it is not "child molestation" it is "child sexual abuse". Secondly, there is no way of measuring "badly" damaged his image, the album he released after the 1993 allegations broke numerous records. Thirdly, the Bad video did not have a cultural influence. The article body clearly shows the "Black or White" and "Scream" were the most monumental of his career after the Thriller era videos. The lead is being change regularly with no discussion, his 90's music is being scrubbed off the lead that the expense of American 80's nostalgia. We work on consensus, that's how everything worked prior to the death, and it worked. Now people only use the talk page to bicker as to whether he is a Muslim. Very sad. — Please comment R² 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. What is the difference between child molestation and child sexual abuse? He was charged with seven counts of child molestation.

2. You have again removed the date of his death from the lead, which I can't even begin to imagine the reason for.

3. Why do you say the Bad video had no cultural influence? Don't you remember the impact it had? And why not just add the ones you do think were more influential, rather than reverting the entire copy edit? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The technical term is child sexual abuse, there was no penetration. The cultural influence of Bad really isn't discussed in the body, at least not to the degree that it's noteworthy to the lead. On the other hand, Black/White was watched by 500 million people when released and Scream broke so many records. — Please comment R² 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the dates on the death and funeral needed at the bottom? The date of the death is given in the very first line and the info box. Why does the memorial date need mentioning? We don't mention the date he releases records or was acquitted. It's recentism. — Please comment R² 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The dates are needed at the end for the sake of the flow of the writing, and because they are major issues.

Please produce a source showing that the "technical" term is child sexual abuse, and what does penetration have to do with it? He was charged with child molestation. And it doesn't matter whether Bad is discussed in the body.

Look, Realist, I understand the need to want to "own" FAs, and other articles you've worked on a lot. I understand it, and I respect it, and a little bit of "ownership" is needed with FAs and articles that attract a lot of attention, otherwise they go to hell in a handbasket. But that completely justified sense of protectiveness can't extend to protecting Michael Jackson the person, or to changing legal terms, or misinterpreting policies, or trying to force this article, which is a biography of the person to focus mostly on his music. The article is too long, too wordy, too music-oriented, and I think too protective of him. Issues are swept under the carpet, moved to other articles, explained in a way that makes the chronology unclear. I think you do have to let other people edit it a little for flow. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this were a newspaper, it will never go to bed. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You've made your opinion on the article clear, but this is how it passed FA. The article isn't too ong, although it has expanded a bit since the FA review, slowly we'll get it back. But during the review as Sandy Georgia noted. People were asking for more and more information, at some point she just had to close it. His primary notability is his music and his personal life is sufficiently covered here. We have numerous articles dedicated to his personal life, more than any other public figure I imagine. Also note that child molestation redirects to child sexual abuse. — Please comment R² 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He was charged with child molestation, and that is the term we should use. As for the focus, this is a biography. There are articles on all the albums, singles, and videos. This article should focus on his life, and of course the music is a part of that, but it is only a part. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The types of child sexual assault section from that article explains the differences between the terms. I don't see any reason not to call it child molestation. Why not be specific with which type of abuse was alleged? --Onorem♠Dil 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That could work. — Please comment R² 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A question about "lack of evidence"

In the lede, it references the fact that the 1994 charges were dropped for "lack of evidence" without also pointing out that the reason there was no evidence is that Jackson settled with the family out of court, and subsequently Jordan Chandler quit cooperating with the police. If it's going to be noted that the charges were dropped for "lack of evidence" in the lede, should the settlement not also be noted in the lede? In my view, as it currently stands, having one in the lede but not the other unbalances the article in that it prejudices it in favor of "he must have been innocent" which is different than being found "not guilty." Just my $0.02, as I didn't want to insert a mention of the settlement into the lede without discussion. Unitanode 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed that twice. Realist reverted once, but as things stand now, it just says no charges were brought. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Jackson settled a CIVIL case out of court. The state closed the CRIMINAL case due to lack of evidence. The state could still have prosecuted without the boy on the stand, although it wouldn't have helped their case. — Please comment R² 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The witness withdrew because of the settlement. There was therefore no case that could go forward. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the state was still investigating the case after the out of court settlement, hoping to bring criminal proceedings. A victim does not need to appear in court, especially when they have already made statements to police and social services. — Please comment R² 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is technically true, but Jordan Chandler (as is noted in the article body) quit cooperating at all with the police after the multimillion dollar settlement. That's why the charges were dropped, and if if "lack of evidence" is going to be cited in the lede, the settlement needs to be as well. I loved Jackson as much as anyone back in the 80s, but there's no need to sugarcoat what he was accused of, and how he dealt with it, is there? I don't know whether he was guilty or not. It doesn't matter whether he was guilty or not. What matters is making sure this article isn't biased one way or the other. Unitanode 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The challenge here is to write in a comprehensive and disinterested way about this man's complex life, staying true to the better sources, neither praising nor denigrating unduly, and with no sugarcoating of any kind, but also not with unjustified emphasis on the negative. It is quite a challenge. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The state could still have prosecuted without Chandler had they wished, they obviously did not believe they could secure a conviction without the accuser appearing in court however. Regardless, I think the civil stuff could be mentioned, but the personal paragraph is getting very large now. It might be worth removing the marriages stuff to make room for this. — Please comment R² 16:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just have a quick comment here. In the article "Was Michael Jackson Framed?", written by Mary A. Fisher, and published in GQ Magazine in October of 1994 , it is stated that Jackson was a victim of extortion by Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler's father. Do you think this should be included in this biography?Tintin719 (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Struggled to receive coverage on MTV because he was African American.

According to an article in the Jet (magazine) that statement is controversial and not a fact, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_110/ai_n16807343/. According to MTV the relative (though not complete) lack of black artists on MTV was caused by MTV concentrating mostly on rock music, a genre in which black artists are underrepresented. Someone with editing privileges should change it. See also related comments at the talk page of Billie Jean and Thriller. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Thriller for you, I'll add it here to. — Please comment R² 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not solve the factual inaccuracy. That MJ "struggled to receive coverage on MTV because he was African American" is an accussation and should be presented as such and not as a fact. And it should be said why MTV denies these accussations, that is, because they concentrated on rock music in their early years, a genre that is predominantly "white". According to MTV they also did not bow to the pressure of CBS. Actually, in fact the statement are not even official MTV statements, but statements by Les Garland and Buzz Brindle who were working for MTV back then but not these days and were interviewd by the JET magazine as private persons who formerly worked for MTV. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. — Please comment R² 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lupus and vitiligo

On Good Morning America, Michael's dermatologist stated that Michael had lupus and was being treated for that auto-immune disease for quite a long time. Michael was hypersensitive to sunlight and had to shield himself from the sun's UV rays, which explains the need for the eyeglasses, masks, and umbrella he often carried. The lupus also left terrible scarring on his skin, which he received painful treatments to handle.

The vitiligo that Michael had was particularly severe and posed a major problem for him. It covered all of his body and it was easier to bleach the skin than to try to cover all the whiteness with dark makeup, which would have run anytime he perspired. The Dermatologist said that Michael thought he should look like a work of art and that would explain all the plastic surgery, some of which was required because of the lupus scarring too. Michael was misunderstood and much maligned because he kept his sickness private. Outwardly, he appeared odd, but in fact, he was doing what he had to do to keep from exacerbating his disease. Unfortunately, his dancing probably exacerbated the lupus, since strenuous exercise has to be avoided. Also, his reliance on pain killers and sleep aids obviated all the other precautions he took to avoid exacerbating the lupus. He was a physically ill man and the media's portrayal of him only made him sicker. To read about his lupus go to http://stateandlake.net/ado/2009/06/29/did-michael-jackson-have-discoid-or-systemic-lupus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.223.240 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

-- this article already mentions his changing appearance, health problems, and vitiligo, so I don't really know what you're getting at. As for the Lupus, I myself have never read about it, but if you can provide a verifiable source, then by all means, do so. But, there is no legitimate verifiable source that he bleached his skin, unless you include speculative comments made by individual reporters, or tabloid articles. Michael stated in an Oprah Winfry interview (see the link in the section below) that he did not bleach his skin, but that he did use make-up. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested link to 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey

Michael Jackson's 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey was notable for the length and detail of personal revelations which Michael shared with Oprah, many of which he had never previously made public. We should include a link to the full text, which is available at http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/interviews/oprahinterview.html.

hi I noticed that it says that the interview with Martin Bashir was from the year 1993, but it is from 2003 " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352524/ " --Binga83 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical style and performance

Should we move the musical style and performance section to its own article? That would shave this article down to 101 kb. We could summarize the style/performance article here, summary-style. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, then it would fail FA. He is primarily a musician. That info was specifically added to the articles during the review, per requests. I do agree that we need to expand the info on the documentary/trial, something I lobbied for in the past, but got no feedback. — Please comment R² 17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it might fail FA now, anyway. There's not enough about material that is now widely known and pivotal, and it really ought to be added, but length is a serious problem. Which other sections could you stand to see moved or shortened? Seems to me that the style section is an obvious candidate, because it needs to be dealt with in depth, but it's a separate article in its own right, length-wise, as it stands. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The section has expanded a little bit since the death. I can revert it back to the state it was in prior to his death if you like, and see how much space we get back? — Please comment R² 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't much shorter then. [30] Which other sections could you stand to see moved or shortened, if not this one? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no section can be removed, they are all needed. I'll revert it back to the length it was at pre death, give me a chance, we can always but it back, at least it will be a start. — Please comment R² 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I tried it and it gives us back 1.2 K, it's certainly helpful anyway. — Please comment R² 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help. We need to get this below 100 kb, even with the material that needs to be added, so ideally below 90 kb. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The legacy section seems repetitive, almost like a second lead. Is there anything in there that's not in the rest of the article somewhere? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not going to happen, no-one at the review wanted anything like that, everyone was calling for more information, not less.

I can do it the other way around, remove info from other parts of the article, since their already mentioned in the legacy section (we do need a legacy section). — Please comment R² 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be so long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's length is still acceptable, at least amongst the FA system. Threatening to wipe 35 K off the article is absurd. It simply can't happen. You need to be reasonable. — Please comment R² 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Michael Jackson already has enough splinter articles as it is. Analysis of his artistry is central to his biography and is more than appropriate for the main article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again to Slim, are you still open to reverting this section back to it's pre-death state. It will give us back 1.2 K... It's better than nothing. Let me know. — Please comment R² 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not Slim, but having looked it over (both versions), I think this is the most tenable solution, at least for now. I can't fathom how 35KB could possibly be trimmed from this article without it seeming gutted in the extreme. Unitanode 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Businessman

Realist, you said there was consensus to add to the first sentence that he was a businessman. Can you show me where? He is not notable as a businessman, so I'd be strongly in favor of removing that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it was first disputed here, or there about. Consensus was that he is a businessman. — Please comment R² 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can't see consensus there. People seem to be arguing against it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I would argue against inclusion of that word in the article, I only see one user (CoM) making a strong argument against it at the discussion linked above, and several arguing for it. My main beef with it would be that being a "businessman" is in no way why he's notable. Why should it be included, when really, no one comes to this article wondering "I'd really like to know more about that businessman, Michael Jackson"? How does including it aid and assist the readers of the article? Information about his business dealings can be included without referring to him as something which seems much more appropriate to an article on Warren Buffett than Michael Jackson? Unitanode 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Only CoM argued against it. We later had a request for comment on the issue, but it doesn't seem to be in the archive, are they sent elsewhere? — Please comment R² 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several people arguing against it in the link you posted above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to find the RfC, more people commented, it just doesn't seem to be in the archive. Still more people agreed to it in that link, and numerous sources were presented in favor, no1 presented evidence against. — Please comment R² 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It needs to go because it looks silly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but sources say otherwise. — Please comment R² 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Show me a good source who describes him in the first sentence of their article or book as a businessman. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to do any such thing. Multiple sources describe him as a businessman. I'm under no such strict burden. — Please comment R² 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources such as? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some are in archive link. — Please comment R² 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC here, followed by arguments raised again by CoM here and finally here. Consensus still weighs in favor of keeping it as an accurate term. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Bookkeeper. — Please comment R² 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Today I have read on the Internet that MJ was able to earn 42% percent of the wholesale price of his CDs as much as noone else. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed under Death and Memorial Service Section

Currently reads "The Reverend Al Sharptonwon a standing ovation ..." Can someone who can edit please add a space between Sharpton and replace "won" with "received"? Thanks PRONIZ (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

We seem to have some disputes regarding the content in the lead. By and large, I prefer the version that this article had when it became featured. I am willing to cooperate on shortening the length, but I would urge against sweeping changes that dilute the article's encyclopedic significance. Under any changes, I think the following conditions should apply:

• "King of Pop" should always appear in the first paragraph.
• Three paragraphs minimum, but I'm ok with four, given the importance of the subject.
• No undue weight to controveries, which people aren't paying that much attention to now.UberCryxic (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the copy edit, because it improved the writing, though I'll bear in mind your points. There is currently not enough focus on the personal issues; UNDUE doesn't begin to come into it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The personal issues already get an entire paragraph in the lead. When we start going off about a "controversial" life right in the first paragraph, that's undue weight.UberCryxic (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't UNDUE weight. People always misuse that part of NPOV to keep out material they don't like, and it's really not on. Even President Omaba said yesterday those aspects can't be overlooked. There isn't a newspaper in the world that hasn't discussed them extensively. Entire books are written about them.

I'm going to withdraw from this article for a few hours, because what's been happening here is making me angry, and I don't want to talk out of turn. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well look, I don't want to make anyone mad, so I apologize for any trouble I may have caused. I'm sure we can come to some sort of understanding here; we're both experienced editors. Let me explain my reasoning more carefully. I guess I had several problems with some of the versions that you made, but the biggest was this little tidbit: "[begin first sentence]...popular music and dance, along with his highly publicized personal life, made him a central—and sometimes controversial—part of popular culture for four decades." This part was apparently modified by someone. The latest version did not mention "controversial," which is an improvement. Certain aspects of his life were controversial, of course, but not enough to deserve mention in the first paragraph, which I think should be exclusively reserved for his achievements. The controversies get plenty of attention later on in the lead and throughout the article. To accuse me of trying to keep out material I "don't like" is somewhat misguided because I never suggested we delete the information surrounding his personal life. I'm asking that we put his life in context. In the grand scheme of things, he was an entertainer first, and that's what should go first in the article.UberCryxic (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You reverted a much-needed copy edit of the lead because you didn't like the word "controversial"? And someone else added that, not me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also want to mention another very important fact. We've had fights over variations of this theme for years on this article. Wikipedia has global perspective recommendations to ensure that articles aren't slanted towards a certain viewpoint. If that standard applies anywhere, it apples to MJ, who was popular all over the world. Outside of the Anglophone world, MJ's personal controversies got either very little attention or they did not overshadow his musical career (like an overwhelming majority of people in China thought he was innocent in a poll conducted during the 2005 trial). So I could also argue against undue weight based on Wikipedia's global perspective. The typical person in China, Japan, or France does not think about MJ in the same way that the typical person in the US does, and I don't see why the viewpoint of the latter should override the opinions of people that lived in places where MJ was very popular (sold out concerts, huge sales, etc).UberCryxic (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the English-language WP and we rely on English-language sources. We go by what they say, by and large, simply because we don't know how others are slanting things. The point about this article is that it isn't well-written, either technically or in terms of the impression it gives. A Martian who landed and read this would not leave with the flavor of the man. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What matters here is that the English Wikipedia has certain standards that we should follow. Relying mostly, not exclusively, on Anglophone sources is done out of convenience, but that convenience cannot sabotage the onerous burden that we editors have: to present a version of this article, and of every other article in the encyclopedia, that anyone around the world who reads English can understand rather simply.UberCryxic (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Uber on this, that is one reason why I have tried to keep 80's nostalgia out of the lead and reinforce his important 90's international career. The same applies to the personal life stuff. Unfortunately (for Wikipedia, not because I dislike Americans), 50 % of editors to Wikipedia are American, there will be a lot of US bias, we can only do so much to stop systemic (unintentional) cultural bias. — Please comment R² 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a very strong POV regarding this article, and it shows. It shouldn't show. That is the point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My only point of view is that the article must have an international perspective, and guess what, it works. The article was incredibly stable prior to the death. Now, stop throwing around accusations and insults, try to work with us, instead of dividing. I said two minutes ago that the trial details need expanding, those did receive a lot of coverage worldwide. — Please comment R² 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that that's your only POV. You want to focus almost exclusively on the music. You want to downgrade discussions about his health and drug use. You want to ignore completely some of the personal issues. You want to summarize and quickly pass over two of the most important aspects of his life, namely that he was accused of child molestation, and not only accused, but taken to court. The music wasn't his life, and the music didn't kill him.

You know nothing about my editing history, it was me who added 4 bloody paragraphs on the 1993 allegations, it was me who argued for an expansion of 2005 trial, it was me who set up an entire article for his health and appearance, it was me who set up an entire article for the 1993 allegations after an Uber fan got it deleted and wiped from history. It was me that had to please the demands of 10 FA reviews, asking for more and more details on both personal and musical issues. Don't ever accuse me of this rubbish again. I think your suggestion of removing 35 K on his music is terrible, but I'm not accusing you of bias against Jackson, despite your fascination with his personal life, so show some equal respect please. — Please comment R² 20:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue anymore. The point is that you must let other people edit, and that the article mus reflect what the reliable sources say. People reading it should not be able to guess the POVs of the individual editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cooler heads can prevail here. I'm sort of ok with the last version, minus the "highly publicized personal life" stuff, which can go in the second or the third paragraph. Again, I want to emphasize that the accusation of wanting to focus on the music too much does not bear resemblance to the content of the article, as his personal life and controveries get a whole paragraph in the lead. I can't speak for Realist, but all I'm saying is that the first paragraph should focus exclusively on his achievements. The personal information can follow right afterwards. I don't see this suggestion as something shocking or unbelievable. It seems pretty straightforward to me....UberCryxic (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to argue either, I could look for a PoV in your edits too, but I don't want to, I trust that you have good intentions. Some will argue that you are whitewashing his music achievements and spreading details about his personal life all over Wiki (Lol, I've been accused of that in the past). Suggesting that we remove 35 K worth of musical material isn't helping you, but not once have I accused you of bias against Jackson. Like I said, I've written loads on Jackson's personal life and have written things most fans would rather ignore. — Please comment R² 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing there is undue weight yet either, but the personal paragraph is starting to look bulky. I don't think it matters where "King of Pop" is mentioned, so long as it is. 4 paragraphs is very acceptable for an article of this length, per WP:LEAD. — Please comment R² 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"King of Pop" is a title that establishes notability, and is, in fact, perhaps the most notable characteristic about MJ (ie. that he was a great entertainer). It needs to appear very early on in the article. Refer to Elvis.UberCryxic (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was one of the few remaining global superstars. He was known all over the world, even in the poorest countries. The current lead does not reflect that. I prefer this version:

• Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman, whose unique contributions to music and dance, along with his highly publicized personal life, made him a central part of popular culture for four decades. One of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, his achievements included multiple Guinness World Records—including the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time"—13 Grammy Awards, 13 number one singles, and the sale of over 750 million records worldwide.

Maybe "King of Pop" (or "King of Pop, Rock, and Soul", as he was originally called by Liz Taylor) should be added. Tajik (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we could add King of Pop higher up, and I think we should remove businessman. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the lead prior to Jackson's death as it was well written (barring minor copy-editing) and comprehensive. I find SlimVirgin's arguments to be illogical at best. A simple overview of WP:LEAD, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE proves that point. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What point does a simple overview of LEAD, BLP, and UNDUE prove, Bookkeeper? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD: When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable(Jackson was a successful entertainer for 25 years prior to molestation charges): new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient.

• WP:BLP: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

• WP:UNDUE:Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all (While there may have been a number of views who focused on the molestation charges/odd behavior or even endorsed them as true, he was in fact acquitted and there are infinitely more sources who's coverage focuses on his career and social impact). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slim Virgin and Tajik, the "King of Pop" reference should be in the lead. This is a common and widely accepted term to describe Michael Jackson. I don't see how that is POV pushing. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

spelling mistake

"During the two years between the charges and the trial, Jackson reportedly became dependent on pethidine (Demerol), and lost a lot of weight."

Done. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time, be bold. ;) Theleftorium 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

suggested edit

Change "at aged 50" to "at age 50" within first section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todayishere (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest child's name

According to his birth certificate, Jackson's older son is named Michael Joseph Jackson Jr [31]. Where is the evidence that "after divorce name changed to Prince Michael Jackson" as stated in the article? WWGB (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Prince" is his nickname; and you are right, his legal name is Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. ; there is no evidence of this change to my knowledge; probably either a small case of vandalism, or an editor's personal confusion attributed to this mistake...

--From Wikipedia: naming Convention, nickname section:

"The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time." Although this isn't a page on Prince Jackson, a similar principle should be followed... For further information see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline

Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight loss

Several of the Jackson articles say that the shape of his face changed because of weight loss, though I can't imagine anyone's face changing to that extent because they lose weight. The claim is always sourced to Taraborrelli, pp. 138–144. This is a large page range for a claim about weight loss. Could the person who added that material tell us what Tarborrelli says exactly, with a page number? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead reverts

I have been reverted two times, [32] one for a 'mess' reason, the second one with no reason given except to ask here (sounds rude to me). So, I ask: why the revert? My point is Elvis Presley is given the cultural icon title just after the first sentence. MJ is greater than The King, so why can't we put at minimum the same definition just after the first sentence here for MJ? For excerpt, elvis is refered as A cultural icon, he is commonly known simply as Elvis and is also sometimes referred to as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King". So, the Sometimes referred to as "The King of Pop", he is a cultural icon and a noted humanitarian doesn't sound messy, stupid, unsourced, nor false to me like an affirmation, here, in that article. Besides, I agree the lead is quite long. But that's another point. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 13:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit

under the heading -Music videos and choreography "Martin scoucese who directed the film bad later, said of the singer and dancer that it was 'like watching quicksilver in motion.'

'I was in awe of his absolute mastery of movement on the one hand, and of the music on the other. Every step he took was absolutely precise and fluid at the same time"

Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1486109.php/Shocked_world_pays_tribute_to_King_of_Pop_#ixzz0KgQUpoQR&C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomoal99 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this article now LOCKED? There is no way to edit? Please help.

I find the begining of this article a bit bias. I think the wording should be changed and that there should be mention that this artist was cleared of all charges, and pronounced innocent by a trial by jury.

The one thing not mentioned that is clearly important is the fact that Michael is and was the most famous man/star in the world and that there was MUCH speculation about the fact that there were significant signs that the people pursuing Jackson under those charges later proven to be false dropped charges once Michael agreed to settle by giving them the money amount that they wanted. I do believe that is important to add since accusing someone of a crime until they settle on an amount of money to be paid to you is a CRIME in itself.

"now we know that we know nothing, now that our bright and shining star can slip away from our fingertips like a softly blowing summer wind... in the instant we learned that michael is gone we know nothing..each of us is achingly alone, piercingly alone. Only when we confess our confusion can we remember what he meant to us...." exerpt of Maya Angelou's poem to Michael during his funeral July 07, 2009.:: 63.229.82.34 (talk)

I don't necessarily think that the article is biased, however, I do think that items that were brought up in court should be noted here, such as the mother of the 2nd accuser being previously charged with welfare fraud, which may or may not challenge her credibility [33]. This information is included on encyclopedia.com [34] and should also be listed on Wikipedia. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Singer Songwriter

Hello, it's been awhile since I've edited a talk page, and for some reason, I can't seem to remember how to edit the table of contents and add a new section, so hopefully editing the first one correctly will do nearly the same thing. Maybe someone can either respond here or on my talk page. Even linking me to the wiki editing pages will work.

Regardless, when I went to Michael Jackson's page awhile back (even before he died) and saw that he was listed as a performer and artist I was shocked. I always thought that he wrote at least some of his music (he did). Typically artists who write at least some, if not most, of their music are listed as singer-songwriters. It separates them from performers such as Britney Spears, for example, who primarily perform music written for them by others.

Michael Jackson DID perform music written for him by others, but if you look at his albums (such as Bad (album)) you will see that he wrote and composed every song on it, except for Just Good Friends and Man in the Mirror. As a side note, I find it funny the only song that wasn't a single was Just Good Friends. =P Coincidence?

Regardless, it may seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world to distinguish Jackson as an artist, who not only performed, but WROTE music as well. Simply adding "songwriter" in the description at the top will do.

Thank you. - Lanlost (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to above poster for posting my comments under theirs. I do not know how to post properly on this type of Wiki page, but since my query pertains to "singer/songwriter" category, I'm leaving my comments here. See sub-section: Themes and genres under Section: Musical Style and Performance. "She's Out Of My Life" is used as an example for Michael Jackson's songwriting ability. However, although Jackson was a songwriter, he did not write that particular song. I caught this because I know the song well. It was written by Tom Bahler. Check Wiki's own entries for verification: She's out of My Life ["out" should be capitalized in title for anyone who knows how to change it] and here: Tom Bahler. Song written by Tom Bahler. Copyright 1979 (BMI) International Copyright.

Cheers.

^ To the above poster. You should, after you type a comment like that, sign it. Just use four tildes (~) in a row. ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces in between. It will automatically do the following: - Lanlost (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to you too.

To my mind it should be included that he also was a composer and songwriter - once he wrote most of his songs by himself, but he also wrote for others and for instance composed to songs for the Simpons that were performed by others.--Elaste2000 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How much were the O2 tickets

It says in the article, "Randy Phillips, president and chief executive of AEG Live stated that the first 10 dates alone would earn the singer approximately £50 million.[153]"

The O2 arena has a capacity of 23,000 people so that would mean that Jackson would have made £217 from each and every ticket holder. I appreciate that there might have been merchandising sales and so on, but it still seems a little over the top. Should all quotes be included in the article just because they have been said, or should hype be excluded on the grounds that anyone can claim anything if there is no attempt to distinguish it from the plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The media has reported the tickets cost $85 each and sales of 1 million tickets

(50 performances with 23,000 attending) making 85,000,000. 69.121.221.97 (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead again

I've once again tried a copy edit of the lead for flow. Here is the new version. Here is the old one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On a quick glance, I must say, I kind of like it, I'll read it a few more times to see if it clicks. — Please comment R² 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the KoP title has got to be moved further down (at least out of the first line), people will scream that it's a NPOV violation. — Please comment R² 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the comments I noticed was that people wanted that in the first sentence, which is why I added it. Anyway, it's not an NPOV violation. It's true that he was called that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not sure it sets the right tone, but right now, I can't be bothered with such minor issues. — Please comment R² 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have very minor issues with it here and there, but overall I like it. I'll just make a few more cosmetic changes to ensure the prose flows smoothly.UberCryxic (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates

OK, I know one way we can probably cut 6000-8,000 bytes off the article. Remove all the templates referencing and do it manually. — Please comment R² 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It would make the article easier to read in edit mode, which would improve the writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm open to doing that, but I think we should wait until the article traffic slows down. — Please comment R² 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it's the templates that are slowing the loading time down. I'm using a powerful computer, and I can get other long articles to load easily, yet with this one I can hardly get into it. I'm going to start the process of at least removing the doubled-up refs in the article. I'm seeing some to about.com, for example, which shouldn't be there, and others that are repeated several times throughout a paragraph, even though it's always the same ref. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to duplicate references repeatedly because people kept adding fact tags, even when 1 ref could have been used for a single paragraph. — Please comment R² 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's very annoying when that happens. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a few hidden messages, like, "the following paragraph is covered by all the citations displayed at the end". — Please comment R² 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That might work. Perhaps one at the beginning of each section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I really think this could help reduce the size of the article quite considerably. It might not be the 35 K you were hoping for, but I think we could easily cut 8 K by restructuring the references. — Please comment R² 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep on working on it, bit by bit, whenever there's a lull in the editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, take your time, I'm sorry things got heated yesterday. — Please comment R² 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've removed the templates down to 1990, along with some of the cruft (not much), and it's already making the page easier to load. We're down to 119 kb. I'll keep on doing it as and when I can face it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted a few things, nothing major, but generally, I support the work you have done over the last 18 hours. — Please comment R² 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Album

There is missing a album in the album list (Blood on the dance floor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.214.202 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, however we only list studio albums, Blood is not one. — Please comment R² 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael's hat

Okay I know this is a miniscule thing, and may be a matter of contention, but I thought that Michael's hat of preference [i.e signature hat] as mentioned in the lede was actually a fedora and not a trilby. In Smooth Criminal, the hat is actually a fedora as explained in this website: www.men-access.com/michael-jacksons-signature-hat-fedora. That same website also mentions that the hat he wears in Billy Jean is a fedora. The primary difference between the two hats, is that a fedora has a wider brim, and the brim is usually thicker than that of a trilby. User:Wolfpeaceful|Wolfpeaceful]] (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, the color of the hat is irrelevant, he wore hats of different colors... not all of his hats were black, not even the fedora's.Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fedora. — Please comment R² 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to fedora... if you wish to revert, please discuss why the revert back is necessary. And I'd also advise you to read the website mentioned above prior to making the revert. Thanks, Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with fedora, and I know they weren't always black, but they were mostly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- I don't really agree with the change back to mentioning the color "black", because it creates a false implication that his fedoras were always black; but I'll leave it alone (for now at least) rather than risk violating the three revert rule. A suggested rewording is my advice if you wish to mention the color such as adding ",usually black," or ",mostly black," to be more accurate. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The trademark hat was black. See here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--Slim Virgin... please refer me to a written source; rather than a video performance of Billy Jean... using youtube videos as sources are a bit taboo... read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive170#Videos_Used_As_A_Reliable_Source thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

Lawyer's statement rejecting Michael's conversion to Islam

This is a sourced valid piece of information from the NYDailyNews that I put in yesterday and it was removed by Realist2. Please dont remove sourced information:

• In November 2008, Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan refuted a British press report that Jackson had become a Muslim telling reporters, "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue."[35]

Now if you want to add something else from another reliable source, fine but dont remove sourced information like that.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • There has been a long consensus on this article that the Muslim rubbish isn't going into the article. The article is large, and we don't have space to document occasions where Jackson's lawyer has had to refute tabloid bull shit. We would need an article dedicated to that alone. YOU need to get consensus to include this. — Please comment R² 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I saw it now. Fine, lets keep it out for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying MJ WASN'T MUSLIM!!?? Ijustcan'tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See the previous discussions, scroll up. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of this before, maybe he was or wasn't, I don't know. I do know that even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong, then it's very difficult to convince those who pick up that ref that the ref was in fact wrong. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Children of Michael Jackson

Consensus on this page does not effect that article; it's determined by the AfD. Because people here didn't want them to have an article is now a moot point, so there's no reason not to link to it. Let the closing admin deal with it, as with all AfDs. Michael Jackson doesn't get special rules, we should follow our longstanding global consensus on how to deal with articles at AfD, not follow some small minority here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove the external links

Maybe we should remove the external links? Quite a few seem to be clogging up, most of them tell us nothing more than what the article does, and it might give us back 1000 bytes to write something useful on Jackson. — Please comment R² 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael WAS a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog

I have news that Michael Jackson WAS a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, and the proof is right here: The Truth: Michael Jackson's Sonic 3 Soundtrack--Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- I don't see a problem with mentioning this, in the appropiate section of course... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But then I think that you should also find out something about other things that he liked, for instance the Simpons, Startrek and so on. Some evidence is in his 1988 auto-biography, then his personal interviews and the private home videos that he gave to fox. In which section this would fit? --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing in the lead

Could I ask people not to fiddle around with the writing in the lead, unless you know what you're doing and the change is definitely an improvement? What's happening is one person moves a comma. The next person sees that moved comma, and thinks the paragraph no longer flows, so they move some part of it. A third person sees that moved part, and realizes that it's caused a grammatical error, and has to make a further change. And so on until we have a dog's breakfast. The way it is written at present is grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. The facts are correct. The flow is good. So—please—don't change it unless you're sure your change makes it better! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the writing in the lead is currently foolish hyperbole.

I'm a great fan of MJ but to call him "the greatest entertainer who ever lived" is unilluminating and lame. Am tempted to contribute but am certain there is a small cabal of literary experts that would quickly revert.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My only issue was that the article started with a paragraph, rather than saying Michael Jackson is an entertainer FULL STOP. But it seems to be better now, with a full stop after the greatest entertainer part. Portillo (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok now. I like this version.UberCryxic (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Slim here, as it seems every day recently we've had to watch the lead degrade into gramtical nonsense. I think we should all be super careful on minor edits within, and should probably bring anything bigger to discussion. On that note I would like to alter Jackson's debut date with the Jackson 5 in the lead permanently from 1968 to 1964. At the moment the 1968 date is in contradiction to the article's prose and infobox. I should note that although in 1964 the group was called "the jackson brothers" I think for simplicity's sake they should be reffered to as the Jackson 5 since it is the same group and explaining the name change is too cumbersome and trivial for the lead. I have changed this year several times in the past but it seems the lead keeps getting messed arond with and ultimately reverted. Solid State Survivor (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the phrase "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" in the lead section reads like classic WP:PEACOCK and should be removed. Jackson's reputation is sufficient not to need this sort of hype in the lead. Please let's lose this with no edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is abit biased.--60.240.32.151 (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the truth! Whether he was or not, who knows, but he is widely regarded as such; see the billion people who dropped what they were doing to watch his memorial. Guys, please stop this crazy literal-mindedness. Do we want a well-written lead? If yes, we have one. It's not going to be improved by people saying, "Trademark black fedora? Hang on, I think he once wore a purple one," or "widely regarded as the greatest entertainer? We need to hold a poll before we can say that," or "dubbed the King of Pop? Well, sometimes dubbed it, or dubbed it by fans, or dubbed it since 1982, or dubbed it by Wikipedians." Please! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--why you bring our discussion about the hat here is beyond me. This is the only thing in the lead, I have changed and I mentioned that above, there really was no need to continue the discussion here... everything else I have let other editors work on... as for the color of the hat, I'd rather not mention any color at all, rather than stating any specific color; unless there was a written source that stated otherwise... As for "dubbed the King of Pop" and "widely regarded as the greatest entainer of all time", I could personally care less, whether those sentiments were included or not. However, it does violate the... i.e. "widely regarded " and "dubbed by the King of Pop " nature, "how many is "widely"?... and so on. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on the subject... it only matters that we follow Wikipedia's guidelines, unless there is sufficient cause to do otherwise...Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV, V, and NOR matter. But the writing matters too. You can be as meticulously neutral as you like ("widely regarded as the greatest entertainer by Mr and Mrs Smith, 70 Parson's Lane, Hertford"), but if the writing is bad, people won't want to read it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--... being meticuously neutral is what wikipedia wants you to do... "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." But I understand that these are guidelines and not strict rules, and I personally, have no plans on changing anything else in lede at this time so I bid adeiu... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to show me the FAs you've worked on, where you've managed to combine excellent writing with meticulous, even anal, pursuit of the content policies, without going too far in any direction, I'll be happy to take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--I will do no such thing... I was only quoting from Wikipedia's own policies... I was only reiterating what was previously written... Besides, I don't see how the status of FA, makes following Wikipedia's guidelines any less important, but whatever, you're purely arguing with me, for the sake of argument, now, so I don't care... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagine it's the year 4000. Archeologists have just dug up a solid-bronze, gold-plated casket, entombed in concrete. Inside, they find some bones, and a bit of material that looks as though it was once part of a white glove. They can see by the casket alone that this was someone very important. So they turn to the ancient archives of Wikipedia, July 2009, the last dump to be partly saved just before the October 2009 nuclear world war. All that remains of the biography is the lead.

We want to write a lead now that causes them to say in future, "Ah, now we understand." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not the year 4000. Peacocking is one of the most common causes of complaints in the lead section, which is why the WP:PEACOCK guideline exists. The phrase "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is a stock piece of peacocking and could be rolled out to describe any number of entertainers. It is more like showbiz hype that WP:NPOV writing, which is why it should be toned down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PEACOCK is a guideline, so we're allowed to ignore it. We could each of us pull up a dozen mainstream sources who say he is widely regarded as etc. NPOV writing doesn't have to be boring; in fact, FA writing should definitely not be boring. If you have a better phrase to describe him in the first sentence, where the writing flows well, please suggest it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is not peacocking. Peacocking would be something to the effect of...."Michael Jackson is widely regarded as one of the most spectacular, illustrious, legendary, and promethean figures of human history"....that's peacocking. To say that MJ is regarded as one of the greatest entertainers ever is to establish the notability of the subject. In other words, why is this article important? Why is the subject important? That first sentence is the answer to these questions, and it's a very good answer. There's no problem here.UberCryxic (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Death should be specified

Michael Jackson's death should have been specified in '2006–09: Final years', it should state that he died of cardiac arrest(yet to be disputed people!!), the time and date and so forth. I know EVERYBODY in the whole wide world knew he died but this is an encyclopedia and all facts need to be specified. For example you PUT 'the earth is round' in an encyclopedia. Brush me up if i'm a little sketchy, this is my first contribution on a talk page. 08:34 10 July (UTC) --60.240.32.151 (talk)

I also think that it should be mentioned. I think that we should also mention where he lived after Neverland had been closed. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call Elaste2000 --60.240.32.151 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical experts have pointed out that everybody dies once their heart stops beating, so the phrase "Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest" is misleading. The autopsy report declined to give an exact cause of death pending further investigation on brain tissue samples.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well one can say that he died after suffering cardiac arrest because of an unknown cause, I highly doubt that the specific results of the second autopsy will be released to the general public. --60.240.32.151 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There will be speculation regardless of what the autopsy findings say [36], but Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Intresting you say that, I recently heard from someone say that they found Wikipedia untrustworthy because someone had reported the false death of a celebrity (who I can't remember). It could be a vandal though.--60.240.32.151 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's Memorial Service

However wrote the section about the memorial service forgot to mention all of the performers. I mean, you forgot to mention John Mayers instrumental contribution of Human Nature. Come on people!!

Also it states that Lionel Richie sang a Michael Jackson song. He actually sang a gospel style song that was not Michael Jackson's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjcollectables (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 July, 2009 (UTC)

Did he have any children?

The article states that Deborah Rowe and an anonymous donor had two children, Michael Joseph and Paris. But this means these children aren't the children of Michael Jackson at all. They have no visible negroid traits either, so they couldn't possibly be his children. I suppose the surrogate mother son is the only actual child Michael Jackson had? (provided Jackson really fathered that child). These issues should be made more clear in the article. Nashassum (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It does clearly state that he fathered a child. Regarding his third child: "The mother's identity was never released by Jackson, but he has said the child was the result of artificial insemination from a surrogate mother and his own sperm cells." Further, the anonymous donor referred to in the Deborah Rowe situation does not exclude Jackson. If you have reliable sources either way, I would suggest editing the section and including that information. Wperdue (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

It would be odd to refer to the father as an "anonymous donor" if the father was Jackson, I take this to mean that Jackson was not the father (why else use an anonymous donor). Also, as these children are clearly white with no visible black ancestry, Jackson is by definition excluded as a possible father. Nashassum (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The birth certificate states him as the Father so that makes him the Father, End of story case closed. Also some people that are Bi-racial can inherit more of the white traits than the Black ones just look at Mariah Carey. --70.129.164.68 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)--

Jennifer Holliday

I am adding a reference to a song that Michael Jackson composed and wrote and then arranged for Jennifer Holliday (who later became one of the stars of the Dreamgirls movie) that is apparently not very well known because the record album on which she sang it was never converted into CD form, and has largely been lost from public view. It's a beautiful song, but was never digitized and so it's very rare. Stanford1993guy (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Certification of Vital Record

I have the certification of Vital Record´s Michael Jackson (death) in pdf image, and would like to know, if i upload it here, what kind of Non-free use rationale and license would be necessary to use.

Thanks and best regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Book Dancing the Dream

In 1993 Michael Jackson published his second book, "Dancing the Dream". it is a collection of poems and short stories and reflections. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true..!!  :-) [37] but in 1992, July. Thanks!! Lightwarrior2 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

who might include, can you please leave Dancing the Dream as a link? because, I would like to edit the edit the page afterwards. --Elaste2000 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions

First: What's the deal with the picture changing every few days? your all complaining about the picture, but if we think about this logically we should look at other pages, most other pages i have seen try to show the latest picture of the star, if it were me i would like to see a picture of him making the announcement at the o2, because to tell you the truth i think its unfair that Michael keeps getting remembered for what he looked like in the 80's, i think he would've wanted a picture from the o2 announcement.

Second: Sony (Epic) has confirmed Michael has 2 albums ready for release, a Pop one and a classical one, i think we should make pages for these, only because they HAVE been confirmed (although the release date is still unknown) --Larry 141094 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A) Some editors wanted the picture to be more recent, because the original one with him at the White House was from 1984, when he still had pigment in his skin. He has changed since then, so editors wanted the article to have a more recent picture of his. However, some of those picture have had copyright issues, so they were removed and replaced.

B) A separate page right now? Do we even know the names of the albums? TechOutsider (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy? Innocence in 1993 charges

If this is a reliable source, I feel it should be included. I would've just done it, but I'd rather get some of your opinions first. http://woodenspears.com/michael-jackson-never-touched-me/ Hiphopchamp (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That story has been reported to be false, The kid would automatically lose his Millions if he came out and said he lied. Case closed.--Nothingbutgrains (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't automatically lose the settlement, Jackson's estate would have to sue to get the cash back.  – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Change "at aged 50" to "at age 49" ----- Michael Jackson was 49 years and 10 or so months when he died... - or can't the world do math anymore— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.delange (talk • contribs)

Jackson was born in August 1958 and died in June 2009 — doing the math, he was indeed 50 years old, not 49 — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson had the most watched funeral

It's true Michael Jackson's death was not the most watched on tv(that was Princess Diana's) but combined with the internet viewings of his funeral he had over 50 million. Diana had 33 million in total. YVNP (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! 07/07/09

These facts are from the OK! magazine dated 7th July, 2009:

• He died 10:26 PM UK Time.

• The Jackson 4 signed to Motown in 1968.

• He has the rights to 251 Beatles songs

• Siblings: Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, La Toya, Marlon, Brandon (died at birth), Randy & Janet.

• The street the Jackson family lived on as children has been renamed Jackson Boulevarde.

• Over 750 million albums sold worldwide and over 48 million copies of Thriller shifted, making it the biggest selling album of all time,

with Dangerous coming a close second. First solo artist to generate 4 top ten hits on the Billboard charts from one album with Off The Wall and the first to reach seven with Thriller. Only artist to generate five American singles from a single album with Bad. Also holds the record for most Grammy's won in one year, taking home 8 in 1984.

• Jonelle Procope, president of the Apollo Theater Foundation (Apollo Theater is in Harlem, New York) said: "Michael first performed with his brothers here when he was only nine, winning Amatuer Night in 1969".

I know most of this is already in the article, just thought I would state some interesting facts.
Thanks,
--Flashflash; 12:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Future Recordings.

Could the following information be added to the article under the 2009 (present) section?

Amanda Ghost, president of Epic Records (Jackson's record label), has confirmed that new music from the ill-fated star will be released but it will not be a rushed process. Ghost recognises that there is an 'appetite' for the Jackson recordings to be released but also stated that the label "wants to be respectful to his memory, as well as making sure the music is fantastic so that it does not damage his legacy". She revealed that the star had for several years before his death, been working on new material with Ne-Yo, Akon and will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas. It was previously revealed that Jackson had worked with the latter producer to complete a new dance album. will.i.am stated in an interview that he "would not leak the material" from his work with the late Michael Jackson.

References

I tried to add it myself but apparently im not an experienced/long enough established editor... (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

The first reference is a Wordpress blog. Unless the author is an established expert in whatever he posted about, then no that blog cannot be accepted as a source. Nevertheless, I found a more reliable source from the BBC, right here. Thank you for sharing the information. TechOutsider (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, at least Wacko Jacko'll be remembered

BlacknumberEx (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)