Talk:Michael Jackson

		Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

Vague/dateable language in intro

It's a small point but the quote "Jackson is putting the "finishing touches on his new music" to be released next year." seems like it could be a little more specific... I don't know when it was written, but is there a date-certain (or even approx.) when this is supposed to happen? i.e. "Jackson is... to be released sometime in 2008." Not knowing anything about the supposed album, I can't do it myself.

218.152.32.186 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

"He has been symbolically named the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" by Guinness World Records.[6]"

I like it. It flows better now because of that. Not sure why but it's much less hard to get thru now. Well done.

Is there anything major left or can it not just be FA nom'd now? --Manboobies 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not ready for FA status....not by a longshot.UberCryxic 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

no definately not the history era is still terrible and dangerous isn`t brilliant either, for example you are not alone is not even mentioned despite becoming the first song to debut at #1 in america, still we go on about the 1996 brit awards instead forgetting that earthsong is his biggest uk hit. ha trust me theres a long way to go yet. Realist2 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are relatively minor problems. The biggest problem is the sources. There are no books cited at all. That would (virtually) automatically sink this article's FA nomination.UberCryxic 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Later eras are quite poor... can we please stop focussing on the scandals? It may be tempting for some, but we need to approach this in a balanced manner.--Paaerduag 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me im trying to improve history , but the more experienced uber is not helping. Instead of editing what I have done to make it flow better he deletes the entire thing, which he isn`t allowed to do so long as it has sources (which it does) uber is more than welcome to improve what I have put but cannot delete it.Realist2 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should source that info using a book then? He can't complain if the information is from a book as that then simultaneously does what you want as well as bringing in book sources.--Manboobies 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

single sales

[[1]] looking at this source which we have used in the past because of its reliability and accuracy I have calculated the single sales of each album.

• Thriller 19.55 mil
• HIStory 10.45 mil
• Bad 10.03 mil
• Dangerous 8.36 mil
• off the wall 6.8 mil

As I suspected HIStory was his most successful singles album after thriller and did exceptionally well considering it only released 5 singles as obossed to `bad 8` and `Dangerous 9`. This means the likes of Scream, You are not alone and Earthsong were HUGE internationally , I intend therefore to comment on the singles sales of HIStory in better detail, does anyone have any ideas? Maybe We should say after Thriller History was his most successful singles album? Realist2 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The thriller figure is wrong. It has sold at least 100 000 000 copies. The others are also severe reductions from fact. this must have been made quite a while ago.--Paaerduag 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not on about the thriller album, Im on about the singles off Thriller!!!!!!!!!!!!! These singles sold 19.55 copies together. HIStory has the second best singles sales, this needs mentioning. Realist2 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

article segmentation

this segmentation is crazy. Sorry but it is. We have a HIStory era talking about singles, and about that scandal, but then we have lisa marie marriage, breakup, and ongoing friendship at the other end of the article. I'm sorry but chronology really does seem necessary. Also, why isn't the 'cocker' rubbish put under personal life? Well, I understand why that may be disputed, but this junting of information is really annoying. No one else seems to feel that way though. I suppose that if y'all think it'll get this article to FA, I'll have to put up with it.--Paaerduag 00:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it'll be more likely to be FA status when I can read it all the way through without becoming emotionally, physically and mentally drained by its overlong appearance and lack of, well, excellent prose. I was thinking perhaps some parts of it could be made into a timeline picture or something.--Manboobies 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did clear it up a little, I put the singles in order, I added a little reference to lisa marie presley and the music video, at least its a start but uber deleted it out right. not because it was badly sourced , oh no because it wasnt written in mikipedia fashion. To that I say you can jolly well sort out the language yourself if you dont like it, ha , just dont delete it, because that is not your right at all under wikipedia policy. It seems that if someone is more experienced on wikipedia, they are prepared to edit it to suit the article if it is a point they agree with, however if they dont like what is written they instead delete it. They then have the nerve to tell you that it will only be included if you improve the language when if they wanted to be helpfull and understanding they could spend just 5 minutes of there own time to clear it up and to therefore allow it to stay. Ha but thats only if they like the ideas you are righting about, if it isn`t to their taste they refuse to help you and instead delete it. I wount be pushed around like this, tryly insulting.Realist2 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A article

I believe this is an A article, pretty close to FA. 75.43.168.13 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I might be so bold as to mention that there is in fact no mention of Jackson's wide range of vocal abilities. Can something concrete be found regarding his vocal range? Jackson has written or sung some of the most critically acclaimed songs in history......there may be a need to mention his technical skills as a singer. 67.160.172.22 08:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)OOML

Fosse influence

MJ's style is pretty clearly influenced by modern dancers/choreographers from the 70's, specifically Fosse (check out a video of 'snake in the grass'). There probably should be some mention of Fosse here. 74.135.164.249 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I think he's probably been more influenced by street dancers and James Brown than Fosse, however it probably is worth mentioning. Of course one should also mention his admiration for Fred Astaire. In the Making of Thriller video he mentions how Astaire called him after the Motown 25 performance and called him "one hell of a mover" to which Michael replied "well thank you cause I think you're the greatest!". :: ehmjay 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The video "Scream"

it should be noted somewhere that the video "Scream", a colabaration with Janet Jackson, is the most expensive music video ever made. That's an important fact to include.

it has dont worryRealist2 11:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really an important fact though?--Manboobies 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is, scream is easily in his top 5 if not top 3 most famous videos, its been nominated for more mtv awards than any other video and eventually won 3. it also won him a grammy, so yes I think it is important as the cost was directly related to its succuess.Realist2 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

20 problems

Go to the main page. Click "Printable version". Click print preview. Under File in IE. (If not using IE, load it for this one). 20 Pages. Insane. That's 20 pages I'm proud to have had a hand in, but it's still 20 pages. That's 10 pages overlong, IMO.--Manboobies 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there's a toolbar to let me highlight portions of text in IE? It would be so useful for editing this. A couple of highlights and I could probably do a good rewrite in some places. I initially planned to print off the document and go thru by hand. I'm not willing to use up 20 pages on an internet document however.--Manboobies 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed for MJ? Really?

Is it really needed? I mean, come on, his initials are MJ... his company was MJJ Productions, his logo was a stylized M and J. I think this is just one of those instances of people requiring citations for the tiniest things because it's Michael Jackson. Michael Jordan wouldn't need a citation for his use of MJ... I mean this is just my opinion, but I really don't see the need. I also noticed numerous other instances of new required citations for things that hardly seem to require them (not going to go through and list right now as it's late and I'm tired). Not only does it make the article hard to read, I personally feel that this is just going overboard with people requiring so much to be sourced because this is an article about Jackson. (However I also feel that some of the things that require citations could be removed entirely as they seem to have very little value in the article). :: ehmjay 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not needed. In fact, it's beyond silly.UberCryxic 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it seems silly, whoever made a request for a citation may have had legitimate reasons for doing so. Considering the fact that references help substantiate article content, and are not too difficult to find for the subject matter of this article, it is better to err on the side of "well substantiated". WP policy is quite clear in indicating that "biography" articles are to adhere to the highest standards of verifiability and reliability.

Yes, a request for a cite on this fact may seem silly, but then there is no harm in adding one, and it's good general practice to be on the safe side when dealing with facts about individuals. It also helps to reinforce your credibility to prove you aren't just adding content to WP articles strictly from personal knowledge or opinion. This is *especially* important for "pop culture" and "fan-related" articles such as this one. dr.ef.tymac 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

dont worry i provided a source to shut the critics up.Realist2 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Realist2, I already added cites for the lead section right after I posted my remark here (see fn1), and right before another contributor came in and added some more requests for citations ... hope you didn't think I was criticizing you or anyone else. Thank you for being among the WP contributors who help out and lead by example. dr.ef.tymac 19:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether his initials are MJ. That's obvious. Rather, the question is whether it is true that Michael Jackson is "commonly known as MJ" as the article presetnly asserts. To my mind, this is a false statement; "MJ" is not commonly understood as a term referring to Michael Jackson; few celebrities are known by their initials, and the examples given don't suggest Jackson is, either. The assertion should be removed. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following verbatim text comes directly from a reference that is cited in a footnote of this article:

   "Michael Jackson is commonly known as MJ, or Jacko" 
   
   (emphasis not in original, see footnote 1)

What part of that text strikes you as ambiguous? dr.ef.tymac 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's wrong. Jacko is a commonly understood term referring to Michael Jackson. MJ isn't. I notice that fans keep removing the former and adding the latter. It is possible that the MJ moniker is used within a certain group of people, such as his fan club. However, that's not "common" and would need to be rephrased. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but can you please provide the substantiation for your claim that this information provided in a published and reliable source is incorrect? So far all I've seen is your claim: To my mind, this is a false statement ... perhaps you can understand why this is not enough. "Your mind" is not a published source and WP contributors have no way of independently evaluating the credibility of your "thoughts".

If you expect others to make a good-faith evaluation of the validity of your claims, you will have to start with something a little more substantial than what you have offered so far, otherwise we could go round and round for days playing the "is not!" ... "is too!" ... "is not!" game. dr.ef.tymac 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "published and reliable source" you mention is Buying & Selling Music, Instruments, and Music Collectibles on eBay. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If the term appears only in this book, and is not widely seen in mainstream media (which it isn't), it isn't "common," despite what someone writing about eBay collectibles may have said in a book on that subject. Fortunately, the term has disappeared from the article, so it is a moot point. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not a moot point. You said: 1) if the term appears only in this book; and 2) not widely seen in the mainstream media and 3) it isn't. Now, let's talk about Reliable sources. How many reliable sources do you have to support claim # 3)? So far in this discussion, you've provided *zero*. How many reliable sources do you have to substantiate claim # 2)? So far in this discussion, you've provided *zero*. You also said "if" the term only appears in this book. How is it you can refute the claim of a reliable source with nothing more than an unsubstantiated "if"? WP articles don't get written and referenced based on "if".

Do you have a single shred of documented evidence undermining the credibility of the Ebay reference? Do you have *any* source to back up *any* of your factual assertions? Is everyone supposed to just "take your word" for which sources count as "mainstream" enough for you?

You don't like Ebay as a "widely seen" "mainstream media" source? O.k., fine, try BBC instead:

• [2]

Or, if you don't like BBC, perhaps, you've heard of CNN?

• [3]

Do you think Reuters or Fox news or USA Today might suit your rigorous requirements?

• [4][5][6]

Yes, let's consider reliable sources when discussing edits to WP articles, shall we? Follow the links and you will see *hundreds* of examples. How about you provide *a single* reliable source that supports *any* of your claims. Just one. I don't particularly fancy reading articles that are based on unreferenced personal opinions with *zero* substantiation to back it up. The point about "MJ" is really a secondary issue, the main point is: if you are going to go around linking WP:RS for people, it would be nice if you could actually provide a *single* reliable source yourself. dr.ef.tymac 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for incivility, and please avoid making personal attacks, or you will likely be blocked.

Furthermore, they're not my "rigorous requirements"; they're Wikipedia's. As I said, this eBay book is an unreliable source. Furthermore, no one, including myself, is required to prove a negative; the onus is on those, such as yourself, to demonstrate that something is in common use. As it happens, the majority of the Google searches (not specific articles) point to Jackson's "MJ Publishing Trust" - which, by itself, does not show that the term is in use in a widespread manner to refer to Jackson himself. Several of the others refer to abbreviations of his name held up at protests at which he was present - intended for Jackson himself. The other articles are either written by fans where the context is clear (a not unusual use of initials) or are used on second reference. In no case does it seem that "MJ" can be used without further qualification to refer to Michael Jackson, the pop star. Those who have added "MJ" to the intro have generally also deleted "Jacko" or "Wacko Jacko" - terms that can stand alone in newspaper headlines, and everyone knows whom they refer to, which would seem a pretty fair definition of common; I can only assume that in these cases we are encountering fancruft, as a common and possibly derogatory moniker is replaced by one that appears to have currency only within "MJ" fandom. However, if you can find several articles in mainstream media in which "MJ" is used on first reference or in headlines without accompanying pictures, I might be swayed to agree that that is common use. But a bunch of '"michael jackson" mj' Google searches are far from conclusive. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to yet another "not mainstream enough" argument

There's no need for incivility, and please avoid making personal attacks

Please cite the exact text where I attacked you, or made an uncivil remark. If you do, I will either:

• 1) immediately recant the remark and post a formal apology, making sure not to do it again; or
• 2) explain why the remark was entirely appropriate and consistent with WP policy.

If you fail to honor my reasonable request, I will disregard this comment as unsubstantiated, beyond the scope of this discussion page, and therefore irrelevant.

no one, including myself, is required to prove a negative

This doesn't even make logical sense. Any English statement can be reformulated as a "negative" (For example, "Michael Jackson is not commonly known as anything besides MJ, or Jacko"). If you can clarify this point to actually make rational sense, please do, otherwise I will disregard it as meaningless and irrelevant.

As I said, this eBay book is an unreliable source.

Yes, exactly, as *you* said. Keyword: YOU. May I ask who "you" are? May I ask where "your" credentials come from? May I ask why "your" personal, unsubstantiated opinion of what constitutes a "reliable source" has any independent merit whatsoever? May I ask why "your" statement is not yet another iteration of No true scotsman? May I ask why "you" get to define "the mainstream"?

By the way, if the Ebay book is inherently unreliable, can you please explain why and how you affirmed that the following information from that book is actually correct?

   "Michael Jackson is commonly known as ... Jacko"  (quoting ISBN 1592005004)
   
   "Jacko is a commonly understood term referring to Michael Jackson." (quoting ProhibitOnions)

Are you implying that you get to "pick and choose" which statements from an "unreliable source" are actually reliable? Do you have a single source or reference to WP policy to support "selective reliance" on references? If so, please cite the exact language from policy that permits you to do this. If not, please permit me to disregard your repudiation of the Ebay book as yet another totally unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim.

the majority of the Google searches point to Jackson's "MJ Publishing Trust

This is incorrect. Please look again. Yes, *all* of the Reuters links point to "MJ Publishing Trust", but those are only about fifteen in total. Approximately fifteen out of over 250 does not equal "most". I give specific examples below.

Besides, what does the "MJ" part stand for, and how many people could easily answer this question with no additional context whatsoever?

if you can find several articles in mainstream media in which "MJ" is used on first reference

Whoa, wait a minute. May I ask where you derive your authority to plot out the particulars of how reliable sources must be precisely structured? I've already given you one unambiguous source that you've unilaterally stamped "unreliable" (though even you openly acknowledge that it actually contains correct information) ... and now you get to set up additional hoops that others have to jump through? No. Not having it.

This kind of "requirement" is precisely the scenario that WP:V is designed to prevent when it says:

   The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" 
   in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to 
   Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
   
   (emphasis in original)

I've already met this threshold. I've provided you with exact language from references and WP policy. You've provided *nothing* but generalized WP links, a warning about being blocked, and glib dismissals of Google results and published sources. You have not provided a *single sentence* from a reliable source in support of your view. As far as I can see, it's all just your "personal take" on things. No. No more arbitrary hoops. Please do not waste people's time.

appears to have currency only within "MJ" fandom

Appears based on what, your personal opinion? Sorry, I don't see anywhere in WP where personal opinion counts as substantiation.

a bunch of '"michael jackson" mj' Google searches are far from conclusive

Who said anything about "conclusive" ... the threshold for inclusion in WP is (aww shucks, you already know, so I won't repeat it) ... even if "conclusive" were the threshold, so far all you've given is personal opinion, which is even further from conclusive, in fact, it's irrelevant.

Besides, I wasn't offering just a "bunch of Google searches" just for the fun of it ... those searches actually point to specific articles, which apparently you're going to force me to repost here in order to counter the glib generalizations and incorrect statements.

terms that can stand alone in newspaper headlines

Uhhhmm, you mean news headlines like these? :

• News headline: M.J. has own U.N. in his corner outside courthouse
  • [7]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: Media go into MJ overdrive
  • [8]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: Witness: MJ associate cashed checks
  • [9]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: 'Millionaire' crushes MJ, gets huge ratings
  • [10]
  • (CNN.com)

• Magazine promo: Check Out The New Cover, Gasp at the Latest MJ-Related Disaster
  • [11]
  • (Rolling Stone)

Please, ProhibitOnions, have the decency to acknowledge the merits of the statements that have been provided to you. Either provide a reliable source to substantiate your claims, or come up with something more than just "personal opinion" to explain why all these published sources are "unreliable", this will enhance your credibility and justify my continuing assumption that you are indeed acting in good faith, and not just trying to waste people's time here. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the patronizing and hostile tone of your writing aside; again, have a look at WP:CIVIL. Nevertheless, you have finally provided examples of what I suggested would substantiate the claim that "MJ" can fairly be described as a common term referring to Jackson. Now, what do you have against including "Jacko" (and "Wacko Jacko") in the same sentence? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the track of citing policy to each other, please take a look at WP:ICA. For the second time: if I've said something inappropriate, cite the exact remark so I can either: 1) apologize and avoid making the same mistake again; or 2) explain why it was not inappropriate to begin with. Unfounded accusations provide users with no opportunity for self-correction and no opportunity to demonstrate good faith.

As far as finally providing examples ... they were out there all along. You could have found them yourself. Also, you still haven't substantiated what was wrong with the original cite in the first place. Nevertheless, if you've dropped it, so will I.

As far as adding "Jacko" or "Wacko Jacko" goes, personally, I don't really care either way. My personal opinion, however, is just as irrelevant as yours. If someone deemed that "wacko jacko" was too sensitive or insulting to add to this article in light of WP:BLP, then that's another debate entirely. If you want to argue that it is appropriate, go right ahead. Heck, I'll even support you if you make a good case. dr.ef.tymac 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MJ in lead

The MJ text in the lead is somewhat fancruftic however you have failed to deliver a solid argument against it, ProhibitOnions.

dr.ef.tymac I notice the antagonistic tone of your posts and you don't have to outright insult ProhibitOnions to be worthy of a temp ban, I would support one against you if the case was made for it, given your tone. So take it down a notch and show some respect.--Manboobies 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Manboobies, for expressing your concerns, and for recognizing the value and importance of mutual respect among all WP contributors. I have left a detailed reply on your user talk page. dr.ef.tymac 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead for the inclusion of MJ, while it uses MJ in the headline, never uses it within the body of the article, but DOES use 'Jacko'. That same newspaper chain also uses 'Jacko' in a headline referring Mr. Jackson. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/242502801.html?dids=242502801:242502801&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+21%2C+2002&author=Kurt+Jensen&pub=USA+TODAY&edition=&startpage=D.02&desc=Curiouser+and+curiouser+.+.+.+%3B+Jacko%27s+exploits+through+the+years If 'MJ' is part of the lead in sentance, surely 'Jacko' should be too. 144.15.115.165 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A Article (Debate 2!!!)

Now that an extra 35 sources have been provided is it possible to try to ask for FA? this article is 107,000 bytes long with 150 sources. Mariah carey`s article is FA and is 63,000 with 93 sources so the ratios are very similar. I no its not a clever way of debating the issue but it does show this article is very good in many ways. I still have an issue with pictures, im sure there is a conspiracy on this article to forget that mj is now infact white and that we no longer live in the 80`s,there is no pictures on this article after 1988 which stinks of lamentation of his 80`s career, something that annoys me entirely as you all no, dont get me started on the main picture, its actually quiet offencive to jackson, no other artist has a main picture from donks years ago, there all resent, I think a dangerous or History era picture is much more appropriate here although I no his loyal "Beat it" fans wont allow it. Ive laughed thinking about it, his critics always say "his only good thing was thriller ,it was all down hill from there" can you blame them when his own fans act in the same way? I always believed as a fan for many years it was important to dispel this myth created by the media, maybe im alone. However im not sure how much of an affect pictures have on FA statues.Realist2 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are still many problems with prose and reference formatting. Those have to be fully fixed before this article can become featured. The lead picture is notable and in the public domain. We're not necessarily looking for "recent" pictures as we are for famous ones.UberCryxic 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also a lot of pictures of mj when he was white, they were also famous I would say, superbowl for example, thats very famous. why is it only michael jackson has a picture from 25 years ago, its quite silly. no1 seems to want to address the issue of pictures on this page, Realist2 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A picture from his last concert, the 2001 anniversary thing, would be a nice addition if any newer pics were to be used. (The Elfoid 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

It would be nice to have something resent, people want to pretend we still live in 1983 however. Realist2 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... I have never edited this article or anything, but I just stumbled on it. I see you guys are talking about it being an FAC. One thing I noticed that you have to fix before anything, is the references. A lot of them are just a number, or some are missing information like the accessdate and such. Xihix 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an issue there that must be resolved. Those refs may have to be removed if they are not fully realised, textually.--Manboobies 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?

"While his sexual orientation is debated, it is more likely that he is either transgendered or a homosexual." Sounds like some massive speculation to me. Who says?

I deleted it, its just unsourced shit, Realist2 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What he's more likely to be is speculation, but that his orientation is debated...well, it's not as such. No one really cares now. But in the mid-late 80s it was a serious issue (hence people thinking his wedding to Lisa-Marie was just a publicity stunt to convince people he's a straight man). Don't know a source tho. (The Elfoid 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

he married presley in the mid 90`s not mid 80`s so do you mean it was a big issue while he was still a commercial artist (1979-1997). Realist2 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After his legal issues in 93 he clearly took it more seriously. Around the BAD era he had girls start playing a role in his videos too - something some pages on the singles say was to confirm his sexuality. Go read em. (The Elfoid 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

M.Jackson and Islam?

There are/were rumors/facts(?) about him converting to Islam (Just search the web for it). I know I don't know much about it myself, but shouldn't the topic be mentioned in the article? Atleast as a rumor if it's not right, since it's still a question to me.GLdK 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that he was at least until 2004 islamic to some degree that I no from the biography "The magic and the madness" however michael Jacksons religious views are unknown and ever changing. He has dabbled in many area , a jehova witness as a child, kabbala through Elizabeth Taylor, Scientology through Lisa Maria Presley and Islam through Jermaine Jackson, next week it`l be something else. Realist2 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He apparently only had Nation of Islam security detail at the beginning of the trial 2005, before Thomas Meserau stepped in. He has said up until recent interviews that he believes in God. The security detail doesn't mean a thing and as far as I know he has never identified as a Muslim. Marnifrances 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Morphine reference

this needs to be referenced "Jackson dedicated the album to Elton John, who reportedly helped him through his addiction to painkillers, notably morphine." As far as I know, Michael was never addicted to morphine. He was on percodan and other narcotic painkillers but NOT morphine. "Morphine" was just the title of a song.Marnifrances 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

actually according to the biography the magic and the madness which is very reliable he was addicted to morphine, valium and demerole mixtures of painkillers and tranquilisers. Realist2 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have my copy here and nowhere does it say morphine. Here is a direct quote from page 518 of "The Magic and the Madness", 2003 edition: "...in pain because of dental work and a recent surgery to his scalp...Michael began taking more of the painkillers, Percodan, Demerol, and codeine, as well as tranquilizers Valium, Xanax and Ativan."

Nothing in that book says morphine and I also have another book that verifies what is written above. I am yet to see a book or article other than what is online (from unreliable sources) that says he was taking morphine. We need to reference it or take it out. Marnifrances 11:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected it with the book as a source. Hope its ok. Realist2 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the correction- but what I am saying is that book has NO reference to Morphine at all. Michael Jackson was not on morphine. Can't we correct it properly to read "painkillers, notably Percodan and Demerol". Michael does sing about "demerol" in that song anyway. I vote we take the word morphine out altogether. Marnifrances 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did do it but another edotor keeps reverting my edits at the moment he`s obseesed with the mugshot thing. I changed it to painkillers and tranquilizers using the magic and the madness as the source. I didnt start naming any specifically. If he reverts my edit just revert his so it comes back. Realist2 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks so much! The other book that says almost exactly the same thing is "Michael Jackson Unauthorized" by Christoper Anderson (as much as I hate that book, it still has almost identical info about MJ's rehab to J. Randy's book)I just don't want people to think he was taking Morphine- it's a common myth because he wrote a song with the title. thanks again! I will do if he reverts the edit. Marnifrances 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit again- this is ridiculous! we finally have a referenced source and someone keeps messing with it. It's not us vandalizing! Marnifrances 13:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted him aswellRealist2 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are complete vandals. You are welcome to change whatever you want about morphine in my version in which Jackson's mugshot (notable and sourced) and Rowe's statement about paternity are.

MoritzB 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

haven't you got something better to do? How are we vandals? For one, Realist2 is part of the MJ Wiki project and you're not. I am a writer for www.allmichaeljackson.com so we both know what we are talking about. Rowe has stated over and over that those are MJ's kids, compared to one article where she was "quoted" as saying they weren't. Check your facts and go and find something else to do. what you're "contributing" to the article isn't necessary. Marnifrances 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a part of a project does not give anybody more authority here. And see: WP:RS.

MoritzB 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's white children

According to the MSNBC article Debbie Rowe says that Jackson is not the biological father. This information should definitely replace the unverified, erroneous previous information that both Rowe and Jackson said that Michael is the father. A picture of them: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/02/0201_jackson_kids_2.jpg MoritzB 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your issue with race? I have looked through your contibutions on wikipedia and the only articles you contribute to are those on race (and very controversial topics on race I might add such as how black people have a lower IQ than white people) . I also discovered that you have tried to include the michael jackson mugshot on at least 1 other article. Realist2 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in lamarckism. Because Jackson is black and the children are white this proves beyond doubt that Jackson is not the biological father. Why are you so anxious to delete Rowe's statement reported by MSNBC that Jackson is not the biological father?

MoritzB 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is also direct interviews from her where she verifies that they are his biological children! Check "The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See" and other interviews with her. How are these erroneous or unverified? Marnifrances 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowe may have changed her mind.

MoritzB 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as they went through a custody battle where Rowe tried to get full custody of the kids, wouldn't she have made the argument "he's not the real father" and subsequently had tests done. But that isn't the case, and Michael still has custody. Hence we can only assume he is the father. Not only that I've heard news that someone other than Rowe claims to be the MOTHER but not that Rowe claims Jackson isn't the father. :: ehmjay 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowe says that Jackson isn't the father according to the MSNBC report. It is a reliable source, thus the information has to be included to the article. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about "truth".

MoritzB 12:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

this is NOT a reliable source. It's NOT verifiable material either, it's speculation. Here is the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9916524/ It says "The mother of two of Michael Jackson’s children has reportedly said that the babies were conceived from a test tube." It's taken from tabloid material in Ireland and doesn't state any facts. The other point I would like to make is that this article is in a GOSSIP column of MSNBC. Marnifrances 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However, because the words attributed to Rowe have been published again in countless reliable sources this satisfies WP:RS.

MoritzB 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

mugshot and paternity

this issue should be delt with here,

A) firstly there is no chance in hell you will be allowed to keep that mugshot there, there is an obvious concensus that it is not wanted, its offencive and distasteful, I have seen your past record and your obsession with it.

B) There are much more reliable sources where Rowe says they are the children. So it can stay as it is. To claim that they are not his children on wikipedia must be extremely well sourced, remember michael jackson is a living person, you will have to provide a lot more evidence to back up these claims . Realist2 09:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, the children are white, not black.

MoritzB 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, how many pictures have you seen of his kids? There's not that many around, and plus, who cares? they have a white mother don't they? And WHO CARES? Are you an expert on Genetics? Obviously your reasoning for wanting to include the "information" is to disprove the kids are Jackson's which is not true anyway. Marnifrances 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

another point on the things that Rowe supposedly said: every time she has been "quoted" as saying Jackson aren't MJ's children, it has come from a tabloid source and gossip columns and not her own mouth. These cannot be verified. Every time she has been "quoted" as saying the children ARE his, it has come from her own mouth- from interviews. These can be verified. Marnifrances 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, there is no reason that the mugshot should be removed other than to appease overly-sensitive Jackson fans. It is notable, relevant, and more imporantly: its a free image that accurately illustrates Jackson's current appearance. Put it back in.--Dronzo 13:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not "accuratly" illustrate his current appearance at all, it is obvious that the man was suffering from quite a number of mental and drug related issues at the time of the shoot as well weight problems, he does not look that bad now, it was seen as shocking because people werent used to seeing him like that so obviously its not his normal apperance. There are very few articles on wikipedia where the mugshot is used and those are only on people who were found guilty. Michael Jackson was found not guilty so the article should reflect that. The mugshot would be symbolic of guilt just like the unnessary racist handcuffing episode. if a picture is needed for this episode of his life then this picture which is hardly neutral or reflective of events should not be the one. Realist2 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's nose looks good in the mugshot. As Dronzo said it is a notable, non-free image which illustrates Jackson's current appearance.

MoritzB 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, you no full well what that picture is designed to do. Your obsessed by it. Get another hobby on wikipedia one that doesnt circle the issue of race continually, its quite unhealthly im sure. Realist2 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem.

MoritzB 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its the truth, further more the picture I provided is much more relevent to his career, the album came out on the same day as the raids on his house, you are determined to include the mudshot no matter what, Realist2 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it shouldn't be included.

MoritzB 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus for a start, you have tried to introduce this picture to other articles (unsuccessfully I might add), when an alternative picture is suggested you revert it, you continually breach the 3rr according to your user page, you have been accused of sock and meat puppetary according to your user page, your edits on wikipedia are almost entirely on issues of race. Lets be honest things arent going well for you on wikipedia at the moment are they. Realist2 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Realist2 almost every debate you get into here on other pages you are clearly in support of optimistic views on our dear Mr. Jackson. So you're biased, that much is clear. I would say that the mugshot is important since it tells an important part of the story (The Elfoid 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh still licking the wounds after are debate on "HIStory" and "The Wall" I see.Realist2 06:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get personal on Wikipedia. I just happened to notice several instances recently where you've been involved in arguments because you like Mr. Jackson too much to let his name be tarnished due to your biased nature. I am a huge Michael Jackson fan infact, and it's a shame his career got slowed down big time due to the court case (regardless of his innocence or guiltiness, it did damage his career). But that doesn't mean it should be erased from his history. My prior debate with you was what brought you to my attention, but I have noticed you on numerous articles since I began to take an interest in these topics. Infact reading on your profile your love of Jackson, it's quite clear he's a demi-god figure in your eyes and there's no way you could avoid being biased really.

(The Elfoid 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Some additional points on the mugshot: One of the few high quality images of Jackson without sunglasses, since his appearance (and it's changes) have been a source of constant controversy a good look at the man is important. Also, for once, he's not made up to look good for the press (The Elfoid 15:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree. Unless you can a suitable free image of jackson that relects his current appearance close enough, the mugshot should stay.--Dronzo 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

removing box around references

Hi. I removed the box that was previously enclosing the references list. It caused references not to print, which in my opinion outweighs any benefit of fitting the references in a smaller space on the page: it doesn't hurt anyone to scroll a bit. :) --jacobolus (t) 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to that I've changed the format to a two column layout, just to make the list somewhat shorted, yet still printable
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Michael Jackson's legal troubles

While the 1993 and 2003 charges have been noted on here, no one has really done much to point out how much his career was affected.

The disappointing sales for HIStory and reason why Jackson didn't bother to tour the USA in support of it were considered because the 1993 charges meant the cancellation of his USA Dangerous Tour and a negative profile. I have heard it said that he feared bad press if he did a tour without selling out all dates could further damage his career.

Also I'm sure the fact that he had barely any free time during the trial that began in 2003 delayed the follow up to Invincible, as have the various troubles he's been in since then. Had Jackson not had these trials he would be a bigger star today and his career would probably have been nearer to the strength it had been during the Dangerous era.

I may begin writing some things up but doubt I have the time since it would be a large task.

(The Elfoid 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Its a thought but where to begin on an issue thats so big, is there any room left on the article? It a good point however, if it wasn`t for 1993 dangerous would easily have outsold the bad album worldwide as would HIStory more than likely, its an interesting point. Realist2 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It could go on the end of the Dangerous era. We could say something like "due to legal difficulties (see below), MJ cancelled his US tour for the album and his career was put on ice for a while to sort out problems. This brief lack of activity, and tarnished reputation, were things his career never recovered from. While Dangerous had sales similar to previous release Bad, subsequent releases would do increasingly poorly". Not perfect, but it'd be a start.

(The Elfoid 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Personaaly id like to spell it out crystal clear for people, at the moment bad outsells dangerous by no more than 1.5 million copies, the bad world tour had an audiance of 4.4 million, the dangerous tour only 2.2, if it wasnt for 1993 the 9th single from the album gone too soon would have been a hit and the tenth single Dangerous would have been release. The tour would have reached america bringing audiance figures to the same 4.4 figure, all this and the fact jackson would have still had a clean image would have resulted in dangerous selling at least 5 million more copies and therefore beating Bad. As for the last part about increasingly poor sales, im personally not a fan of writing about something that is obvious, especially when this article is already too big, its clear if a you read the article that his sales were lower after 1993, im not sure it needs to be said. Realist2 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It affected his profession though; Jackson's music became a LOT more bitter post-trial. In general he was much less in love with humanity. Everyone who's reviewed the albums that I've ever seen has commented on how from HIStory onwards he became a different person and the trial had a huge part in that.

Estimated figures say Dangerous is infact 2 million behind, not 1.5 million. But to be honest while you make it sound like it's not a large figure, it is considering Jackson's recent sales. Invincible only sold 8 million, when you start looking at things at that scale 2 million is infact quite a large amount. Dangerous was around 3.5 million people at the tour too.

So the tour was more successful than you thought, and the album still did comparably poorly. Also a trial's results aren't always the same; Judas Priest weren't affected at all by a trial suggesting they convinced children to kill themselves. Tommy Lee was in prison for 6 months for a supposed assault on Pamela Anderson and he's still doing fine. Jackson's fall from fame as a result of such a publicised trial is somewhat unique. I think that once again, as a Michael Jackson fan, you're refusing to allow anything negative into the article (while you keep things like "Bad was second best selling album in the world by sometime before 1993 and sometime after it wasn't" which is vague). (The Elfoid 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Dangerous did not do comparably poorly to bad!! in terms of a percentage difference its quite small, dangerous was much bigger everywhere else in the would outside America and the UK and shows his break into asia. I have given a source that clearly shows that bad was the second best selling album until AT LEAST 1993, its not rediculuse to say on the side picture the mid 90`s its only an extra 1/2 years.Realist2 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, point taken. Fair play to you. I was wrong (The Elfoid 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Time For A New Picture

I must say that picture is nearly 24 years old, somehow i i think we need a new picture of him when he is white? or mabe like a picture pith two pictures of him on white and black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression your trying to cause controversy, no thankyou. personally yes i do want a newer picture but i can see what your intent is from a mile off, you seem to want to make this an issue of race when the debate is about a different picture, personally i have always been in on the side of a picture from the dangerous era when he broke into asia, but its clear this unsigned user would relish in having his mug shot as the main picture. oh and by the way stop reading tabloid crap you tool, he hasn`t remarried, Realist2 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No im a great fan of him but what im trying to say is that picture is not really him anymore so it should be updated with a white photo of him or a photo with both pictures in so people can see both of his looks -gaogier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.229.250 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested numerous times the dangerous era, although Thriller was his commercial hight, i think in terms of pure fame, by the early 1990 he was the most famous person on the planet, he didnt break into asia until the 90`s and i think thats an important issue, his international peak was with dangerous and so to avoid american bias (a huge issue on wikipedia) i think this era would be best for a picture. Realist2 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

loving the new picture its resent and he looks ok, well done , Realist2 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree a Dangerous era photo would be good. --Paaerduag 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reaasons to use a post-Thriller-era photo:

• He had the first child molestation allegations in the early 1990s too. It did raise his profile big time. Even people who didn't listen to much music at all knew him much better then.
• His marriage in 1994 also raised his profile as an individual. He went from music icon to celebrity. A celebrity's image is generally much better remembered than anyone else since they get so much press. In general his entire post-1993 allegations life has been documented far better.
• Thriller's fame as an album now is greater than it was THEN. It took 11 weeks to hit number 1 on Billboard. Bad and Dangerous arrived in the charts at number 1. The Thriller album's chart attack only arrived with the Motown 25 performance. Really at the time he was "the guy who used to be in The Jackson 5 and went solo", by the time of Bad/Dangerous he was "the guy who made the best selling album ever" - a much grander title.
• The present photo his skin is lit up since the photo was taken outside. It looks lighter than it did at that time in his life, and given how much his skin has changed is misleading. People might think it's not just the lighting.
• I don't know exactly but I'm pretty sure globally his chart positions were up for albums in the 1990s
• Since he had so many hit singles on BAD, then went on a huge tour, his face was actually publicised much more. Then there was all the newspaper articles on his skin colour change too. It was the moment he went from a musician to an icon of pop culture.
• Newer photos, being more recent, are fresher in the minds of viewers and more relevant
• Thriller might have sold 104 million albums (supposedly - that debate doesn't belong here), but BAD (32 mil), Dangerous (30 mil), HIStory (30 mil), Blood on the Dance Floor (6 mil) and Invincible (8 mil) total 108 million. That's not including Greatest Hits (3 mil), Number Ones (7 mil), Essential MJ (2 mil)...which brings his total to 120 million album sales post-Thriller. He might have sold MORE during the Thriller era than any other, but it far from represents the majority of his sales.
• A lot of Thriller's vast sales came about after it's actual release. It sells around 60 000 copies annually in the USA alone according to the Thriller page...if you backtrack that a few years it's a significant portion of the album's actual sales.
• He was still in the Jacksons at this point and still considered by most "Michael Jackson from The Jacksons", not "Michael Jackson"
• The guy's changed in appearance beyond recognition completely. Honestly. Having a picture from 1984 as a reference point, when you take into account the unusually rapid rate of change is like showing a childhood photo of someone else as a useful reference.

Personally I think the article needs a Thriller era photo (start of fame), a Dangerous one (height of fame), an Invincible one (from the 30th Anniversary shows perhaps? It was after the release of Invincible that Michael Jackson stopped being viewed as 'current' with the long delay in release to another album, lack of singles, lack of videos, and release of compilations...decline in fame at it's most obvious?) and the mugshot (height of infamy...newish photo...and one of the few photos without loads of makeup). If we did that, removed the present BAD photo, and perhaps put the Dangerous one in the opening profile...it'd be fine. That was we'd have photos from his career peaks in the 80s, 90s and 00s, and a recent photo. The present BAD-era photo isn't great anyway.

(The Elfoid 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

"Weasel" tag added

This site is utterly packed with "weasel" terms. Be careful about this.Boab 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity work

I just wanted to point out that MJ's charity work actually began far before 1984. The Jacksons are noted in several publications as donating $100,000 from the "Triumph Tour" to Atlanta Children’s Foundation. Marnifrances 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it please go right ahead, Realist2 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll dig it up and I will get you to add it- I am terrible at references. thanks. :) Marnifrances 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way realist, do we need a book reference or can we use a website? My article on the off the wall era (including triumph tour) is here if you would like to use it as a source for the charity work. http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/era/off-the-wall/index.html Marnifrances 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use either so this is just fine, I will add it, let me no if your happy with what I put. Realist2 07:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much- I love it and now it's more accurate! wonderful work :) Marnifrances 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested photos

This is the result of quick searches - very quick. Just tell me what you think, for the infobox pic. I know we decided on Dangerous era but I put in a few later ones. They're still during the time when he looked "Dangerous-style" before his face morphed yet again.

http://img.verycd.com/posts/0604/post-240106-1146057913.jpg - The Superbowl performance, Dangerous era. Did he ever get bigger than during that one performance?

(The Elfoid 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

PICTURES SUGGESTED BY REALIST 2

• [12] History promo 3
• [13] Dangerous era Live 1
• [14] Stranger in moscow 1
• [15] Scream 1
• [16] Scream live 1
• [17] Dangerous era live 2
• [18] Dangerous pic 1
• [19] Dangerous era live 3
• [20] 90`s pepsi
• [21] Jam Vid

[22] Bad era Live. Realist2 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

comments on above pictures (all discussions on the above links to pictures should be kept here)

I would choose the 1st picture of the superbowl mainly because i had suggesred that a million times previously. However the reason I dont want the other pictures goes as follows.

• The child molestation 1993 picture should not be the main picture it will only over shadow what the article is predominantly about (his music) it would be almost (but not quite) as bad as the mugshot as the intro picture.
• The history era picture isnt the best quality resolution, if it was a better quality i wouldn`t object to it.
• The press release photo is just a little boring, . Realist2 07:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The child molestation 1993 image I don't suggest we would portray as that. I wasn't saying the caption would be "MJ talking about child molestation allegations", just "MJ, circa 1993". It was the height of his fame really - his celebrity marriages, other trials, and various other events in his life hadn't happened yet. It was the first time people who didn't care about his music would be taking an interest but before his musical career begin it's commercial decline.

The HIStory photo, I'll have a look and see what I can find so we can consider that though. I agree...press photo isn't great now I look at it in detail.

These photos are just examples of stuff I found very quickly from Google searches. The HIStory picture is far from the best we could find of that era I'd imagine, it was just so we had a rough example. (The Elfoid 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah its a good start, i have no objections to the history era, i think a picture from his HIStory teaser music video would be good in his military jacket. Look at the pictures I have added. Realist2 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Scream 1 and Scream Live 1 we should consider. Dangerous Live Era 3 is good too. 90s Pepsi. Bad Era Live. Dangerous Era 2.

Image quality, appropriateness, and what the pictures show means I don't think any of the others you suggested are much good. These things need to show his face clearly (sunglasses I suppose are acceptable since they're as much a part of his face as his body nowadays), and should focus on MJ himself - no Janet, no pyrotechnics in the way etc. Anything grainy's not ideal either, and too much motion tends to distort an observer's view slightly due to odd angles.

If you approve of that Realist2 (since you seem to be the only person in the debate), delete the pics from my list other than the HIStory one and superbowl, and any from yours that you agree we can do without.(The Elfoid 04:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Sure good idea, lets cut this list down a little. Realist2 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I cut the list down a little, i quite like all of whats left, i deleted my superbowl picture because i think yours looks better, so the list is down to about 10 pictures , lets remember though if we really like some of the photos we can put them throughout the article as well, after the main picture i still wanna change the others, anyway so im having a real difficult job deciding what to pick, what do you really hate from whats left, I think thats the best way to look at this. What pictures would you hate to see on it?? Realist2 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My HIStory tour pic's not the best out there. Lets cut it out. A better image from that period might be findable, but that aint it. The Jam video pic looks great in terms of showing his physique and dancing ability - possibly could be used in the article somewhere (in general the pics need sorting out I think) but it's not showing his face really. Dangerous era live 2 his eyes are screwed up, and you can't see them at all in history promo 2. I think his face should be in clear view, unless he has shades on. (The Elfoid 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

ok I deleted your HIStory picture and history promo 4. I didn`t delete dangerous era live 2 because that picture is quite famous and i have seen it used quite often. I think it might be best now if we both pick our top 5 pictures, and see if we have any common ground on our favourites, dont include the jam picture in this, i agree we can use that elsewhere in the article(and you might wanna do the same for the bad era picture???). So what do you think? do you wanna name your top 5? Realist2 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://img.verycd.com/posts/0604/post-240106-1146057913.jpg http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/gallery/dangerousera/pages/dangerousera125.html http://www.mjsite.com/pages/1401

My top 3. Pepsi add is ok too though, at a push. (The Elfoid 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Ok shall we have your superbowl picture as the main picture, then have the bad era picture for the Bad era of the article and have the Jam video for the Dangerous era of the article? Realist2 12:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and cut out the present Bad era photo. We could do with an Invincible era photo and Off the Wall one for the 'physical appearance' part - for comparison. (The Elfoid 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

My thoughts exactly on the bad era photo, the old 1 is shit (no offence). go on elfoid put the 3 new pictures on and then we will carry on debating the other eras. Realist2 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I never manage to upload pictures and get the justification right - it always gets removed. You do it or it just won't last. (The Elfoid 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

ill speck to some1 about it. i cant do it either. Realist2 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot

why does everyone want the mugshot in the page so badly? it's such a sickening photo... please dont put it back again..

219.75.10.110 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo was discussed earlier, generally it was viewed as necessary. Plus who cares if it's sickening? There's photos of penises if you go to the penis article, I don't love that, but it's needed for the article's sake. Some things in life ARE sickening. (The Elfoid 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Connection with Slash

This section appears twice in the article, once under the "Influence" heading, and once under the "Personal life". In both places it contains essentially the same information with slight variations. The information should be merged, and one of these sections removed.71.213.82.71 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

no it only appears as 1 paragraphRealist2 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

................................................................................................

24/10/07

If anyone wants to learn more about 'Slash' they can click his name. The following (deviance) needlessly protracts *this* article and ought be deleted:

'Slash first came to fame as lead guitarist for Guns N' Roses from 1985 to 1996, though he has remained prolific ever since in various ventures such as Slash's Snakepit and Velvet Revolver[134].' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.178.247 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Image

I have reverted the main image back to the previous one, as wiki guidelines and policy state that only free, not fair use, images can be used for the main photo in an article. Please do not revert this image back, or change it to any other fair use photo, as you will be directly convening wiki policy. Thnaks  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe you should put a new main image because the one that is on is not a fair representation of Michael Jackson. It is over 20 years old AND is repeated a few paragraphs down. It does not look like the current appearance of Michael. Another image that is complimentary of Michael should be uploaded such as the one I previously uploaded. - Kaneite

That is all very well, but wiki policy is that only free use images, not fair use images can be used as the main image on an article. If you don't like the current image, I suggest you either; find another free image or change it to the more "recent" mug shot picture, as these are currently the ONLY images hosted on wikipedia that would be acceptable under the current rules.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

about the mogshot you answered: "The photo was discussed earlier, generally it was viewed as necessary. Plus who cares if it's sickening? There's photos of penises if you go to the penis article, I don't love that, but it's needed for the article's sake. Some things in life ARE sickening." (The Elfoid 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

sorry, but what you reasoned isn't reasonable. you compared the mogshot 

with the photos in the type of article you mentioned:

1.but when you write an article about penis or bones or flowers or....

the article should include photos to show what it is like.to give the

visitor a picture of it. FOR ARTICLE'S SAKE. but the mogshot doesn't help the visitor know Mr.Jackson better it just

makes people who love him sad and his enemies happy.

2.among few photos in this page, mostly longshots, such fullshot photo

that he's been forced and surprised by the flash light has a negative

effect on visitor's impression of Mr.Jackson.

3.specially after the recent scandal that he was acquitted of it,it

reminds that period and all the rumours tabloid media made up against

him. please don't help tabloid media.

4.it works negatively in this era that people are waiting for his new

materal.

so it is not necessary. it is botherig to have that mogshot on Michael

michael jackson what really happened

channel 4 has had the highest ratings in a long time, an estimated 19 million brits tuned in to watch the programme michael jackson what really happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.203.240 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a problem with many of these sources regarding POV?

[23] used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. [24], [25], [26], [27] or most information from dedicated fan sites such as [28] and [29].

[30], [31]. Umm, is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?

[32] IMDB is a partially user submitted site. Its information and trivia sections are not journalistic.

All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attmepts at encyclopedaic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references.

Oh well, pop another page in the 'take with a pinch of salt' bin. Le Gibbon 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)