Talk:Michael Jackson

NO MEAT, NO ALCOHOL

it's better be mentioned in the article that he is a vegetarian and is against alcoholism. its stated by many sources.user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it mentions hes a vegetarian, we could add the alcohol thing too but im not sure thats as important. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MJ isnt a vegy anymore and he drinks alcohol too now. During his marriage to lisa marie and in 2003 he ate meat and drink alcohol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think eating or drinking something for several times or for a short period of time doesn't mean that someone's usual diet has changed.there are sources who has stated his usual diet after these times. user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was eating meat and drinking alcohol in 2003 unless you can give a source that says hes gone back to his old ways we can only ashume that he still drinks and eats meat. By the way, your still not signing correctly, you need to make your comment, click the "Sign your Username" button then press save. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Wow. I know you guys are working very hard on this and all, but it reads just like "The magic and the madness", which is a terrible book to use as a reference for MJ. A lot of the stuff taraborelli has written has been proven false. The way it was laid out and written before was far better IMO. What's with the use of Roger Friedman? Why not use accurate references, like The Visual Documentary and Moonwalk? Marnifrances (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we dont have either, since when is Moonwalk considered reliable or up to date? He says he only had 2 nose jobs in that i believe, its not independant. Nothing from Magic has been "Proven" wrong, its just not always a book fans like to swallow, however its the only third party book on jackson that comes close to reliable. If there is anything in the book that has been proven incorrect in court etc please provide a source and we can adjust. The book is generally well respected however, just not so much by MJ fans such as ourselves. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you work really hard on this and I hate to critcise, but IMHO, MATM is a really bad book to use for MJ. a lot of is wrong, especially from 1991-onwards. A lot of it certainly hasn't been "proven" right either. An example is Mj's work on invincible. RT says MJ was lazy and didn't want to work on it and actual people who worked with Mj in the studio say Mj worked VERY hard. Another example is that MJ's camp refuted claims MJ was treated for dependency on drugs in rehab 2003, (although Mj admits he was on painkillers in 2003). RT even says that Jackson wrote YANA. lol. It's sourced mostly by tabloids or "inside sources", as you can see in the references sections. I am not just talking about plastic surgery. Moonwalk would be a better source for earlier eras- how can first hand statements not be reliable?. The Visual Documentary would be the best, most reliable and up to date source. That's just one person's opinion though. Aside from that, the legacy and impact, Thriller, and music sections are great. Are you guys going to include something about the upcoming album? :) Marnifrances (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its neutral, it presents the good and the bad, something 1st person sources by Jackson simply cant bring. I checked my version and that YANA thing must have been corrected. You say Magic isnt reliable from 1991 onward. Moonwalker isnt either since it hasnt been republished in ages lol. We needed something for the 90's onward and his book is considered good my the media. As for you saying things in the book havent been proven right, remember that books are checked somewhat when published. Big lies dont last long before a law suit. Your interpretation of the invincible incident is different to mine. I thought he was saying that MJ did work hard but after three years it got obviously frustrating. In fairness MJ didnt write much of it himself so even I can say that he didnt put his usual heart and soul into it. The book never says he went into rehab in 2003 just that he had a dependancy to Morphine and Demerol (both are painkillers like MJ said himself). We will do the new album yeah, hopefully if he does it. Im not going to add anything though until dates are confirmed, have you seen the article for his new album, its nothing more than tabloid rumour. Since T25 came out I guess that will push the new album back a little. Are you still in contact with Jacksons people? I dont suppose they could give us some pictures of MJ? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I wish you had the visual documentary though- it's neutral as well. This quote in the article says it comes from the book: "In January 2004 following his upcoming trial, Jackson was being treated for a "dependency" to morphine and Demerol.[140]" Again, this was debunked by Raymone. He was not treated according to R. Bain. The only source for this is RT's book. In any case, it's just an observation that parts of the article read just like MATM. Anyways, moving on- The new album isn't tabloid. There's a massive list of quotes- we have them all on our site with sources and videos if you wish to check it out. http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=111 No one can get in contact with Jackson's people. lol. R. Bain has not been responding to anyone- no one knows who to contact. Sorry I can't help you more. As soon as we get a contact, I guess fans will know. :)Marnifrances (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could remove "treated", i suppose that could suggest multiple things including rehabilitation. Ill remove the word treated to be on the safe side. Ill wait for now on the new album, the date keeps changing and I dont think its going to be out till 2009 since T25 is still selling well. If your allowed to use those pictures on the website im ashuming you have copy rights? We are in real need of some up to date pictures the are fair/free use. Is there anyway to help get some on here? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there has never ever been a confirmed date for the new album, but there is no doubt whatsoever it's in the works- even MJ said that he's in the studio "every day" in the Ebony interview. We don't own copyrights, no. We use images from fansites that have been previously paid for from Getty etc and are usually watermarked. I really don't understand the free use images policy on wiki- maybe you can explain it to me? Does it have to be personally owned or taken? Otherwise, there are loads of previously paid for images on MJJpictures.com. Marnifrances (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A free image is one which the original copyright holder (typically the person who took the photograph) has personally uploaded the image to wikipedia and has given legal permission for it to be used on this site. Fair use images are images which are not released by the copyright holder, but uploaded by someone else with a detailed rational on why it can be used on a free encyclopedia under fair use laws. However, Fair use is not allowed on living people. Wikipedia specifies all images of living person must be accompanied by release from the copyright holder or be public domain. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you can help us. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand this. What is public domain? I honestly cannot make sense of it all. If it's something on the internet, I don't understand why you can't just use one from an online newspaper article. We do not own copyrights to any Michael Jackson images. Like I said, they are all from fansites who purchase the images from editorial picture websites like Getty, Rex, etc. You'd have to go to them to purchase or ask for permission to use an image. Wenn may be able to help you. I have also asked fans who have taken pictures of Michael if they'd be willing to contribute, but no one has a recent, clear image that they'd like to share. :( Marnifrances (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for asking people, when i say recent i mean anything from the 90's onward lol, are newest picture is 20 years old like. If anyone is willing to donate anything that would be amazing, if not dont worry. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

The main image is too long; would anybody mind if I crop it upto his bust (and maybe get rid of the hand on him too)? indopug (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the size too, maybe if we tried a few different crops and see what people are happy with. People are really sensitive about the whole pictures issue on this article. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed it for now. There was already one at Commons. indopug (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its much better. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince and Michael Jackson's Black Music on the "Radio"

I took out the following: "Thriller put black music on U.S. radio for the first time in years, paving the way for other acts, such as that of Prince."

It was reffed to a 1988 Washington Post column. I suppose by "U.S. radio" the poster meant mainstream pop radio, which at the time was racially polarized: there was plenty of black music on urban, disco and oldies stations in the 1980s. The Jacksons and Prince were not the only black voices on mainstream white pop radio at the time. Prince's popularity with both white and black fans predated Thriller, by the way: he had been a major star since about 1980 or so. There was a valid point being made, but it needs to made more accurately and with a more definitive reference. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, go look for sources then instead of disruptively removing material. Im busy at the moment. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a philosophical issue: what exactly is/was "U.S. radio"? The most popular stations in most urban markets at the time tended to play disco & R&B, which of course played mostly black artists. But those were considered non-mainstream stations. However, then as now, most stations played rather narrow variations of mainstream rock and roll. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Im not going to get into philosophy with you, however what you did was completely inappropriate and you've done it in the past too. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We might need to add some clarification of exactly how Thriller "paved the way" for Prince's success when Prince's breakthrough albums came out BEFORE Thriller. Controversy and 1999 were both monster hits which got heavy airplay. Prince's first three albums were also very successful. (The answer might be on part that Off the Wall was also heavily played on the radio and sold very well, but that answer doesn't really fit into the narrative of this section. Off the Wall simply was not as spectacular a success as Thriller. ) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince hit his commercial peak after Thriller in 1984. But we dont need to get into the history of music, take it to the pop music article or hisory of black music. This is the michael jackson article, we dont have the space to waffle on about dribble here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

King of Pop should be identified as 'self-proclaimed' and not 'named'

i cant cite the exact source at the moment, but i am fairly certain that the label 'King Of Pop' was a self-proclaimed, and not given to to MJ by public or press as implied in the paragraph. I'm a fan of MJ, but i am also a big fan of nuance accuracy, and the current wording implies inaccurate acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisattva (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the source which is cited in the body of the article under the BAD era:

Well, he was suddenly called “The King of Pop.” Of course, the artist was none other than Michael Jackson, but now he had this official-sounding title tacked onto his name. Where did this royal title come from? Did the media name him that? Did he bestow it upon himself? How would Elvis feel about it? These were questions asked by many at that time. Regardless of its mysterious origins (most accounts said it was self-imposed, although Jackson claims it was taken from friend Elizabeth Taylor’s speech about him at an awards ceremony), the nickname stuck. The premiere of “Black or White” was broadcast simultaneously in 27 countries on November 14, 1991 with an estimated audience of 500 million people — the largest audience ever to view a music video. Michael Jackson was back, and the world took notice.

Michael Jackson talks with Access Hollywood about his return to studio

calling it self-imposed without verifiable information is original research. At least with this article, there is a explaination from Jackson as to where the title came from. If there is a source quoting Jackson calling himself the king of pop, the article can be changed accordingly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would need proof that MJ said "Hey guys I'm the King of Pop" and it would have to be a source from a long time ago, when the name first started being used. If next week he says "Im the King of Pop" that doesnt mean "HE" came up with the name. Its quite hard to prove he started it off, especially when all the sources for that come from unreliable tabloids. You would need a very good source for it - eg His own words. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He actually stated in the 1993 Oprah interview that "I didn't proclaim myself to be anything" and said that Elizabeth Taylor first said 'The king Of pop". In the same interview, Liz Taylor actually says herself "That's why i called him the King of Rock, Pop, everything" These are the direct quotes from the interview-

Oprah: Liz Taylor said you were king of pop, rock and soul. Where did this whole

notion that you proclaimed yourself king of pop come from? Michael: Well, I didn't proclaim myself to be anything. I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am, king of pop was first said by Elizabeth Taylor on one of the award shows. Oprah: And that's where this all started? Michael: Yes, and the fans ... all the stadiums that we played at they'd bring banners saying king of pop and jackets that say king of pop and T-shirts that say king of pop and they chanted outside my hotel, so it just became something that just happened all over the world.

Elizabeth: Uh, and he just, if, if he has any eccentricities, it's that he is like larger than life and some people just cannot accept that or face it or understand it. His talent on

stage, why I call him the King of pop, rock, soul, music, entertainment, whatever,

http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/interviews/oprahinterview.html Marnifrances (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, he has said multiple times he didn't start it, unless there is a strong source we would be accusing him of lying. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

small problem in the LEAD

MJ does not hold the record for the most number one singles in the Billboard Hot 100 era. Both Elvis Presley and Mariah Carey have 18, while Jackson holds 13. If there is a source for this within the article it must be outdated or simple inaccurate. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That "claim" must be removed in the lead. Lets add it until it is proven. --Efe (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SOURCED in relevant section here, it says male only though so I will change that if needs be. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the source and while the claim is there, its still technically inaccurate considering Elvis Presley who has 17 (also credited with 18) number one hit singles on the Billboard hot 100, which even the wikilink in the LEAD mentions. We all love the King of Pop, but the true fact is the King of Rock n Roll still reigns. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After doing a little more research, I'm not sure if they are crediting Jackson because he reached number one AFTER the creation of the Hot 100. Presley officially has 17-18 number one singles, but some or all may have been credited to him after the creation of the Hot 100. Its a matter of perspective. In order to keep it in the LEAD you may have to specify more than any other male artist after the creation of the Billboard hot 100.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, I heard about this issue a long time ago, Elvis's #1s are split between two different era's I believe. Im quite supprised, Ive read that claim for Jackson quite a few times, I thought it was well known. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a heart attack. MJ's still BAD. *smile* The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad? Lol, hes Bad, Dangerous, Off the Wall and Invincible. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist 2: You do many good things here, but I don’t get this:

Before: “Jackson began a solo career in 1972 while still a member of the group.” After: “Still a member of the group; he began a solo career in 1972.” The first version is fine and clear. Your version is awkward and uses a semicolon incorrectly. What gives with edits like this? (And unfortunately, it is not possible to fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exguyparis (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Music video issue

Hi, currently the introduction includes the claim "He transformed the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool." In the body of the article this claim is referenced to the Allmusic.com biography which actually reads "and he was the first black artist to find stardom on MTV, breaking down innumerable boundaries both for his race and for music video as an art form."

I suggest a more accurate sentence for this article would be "His music videos broke new ground for the art form". Firstly, because he is not the sole creator of the innovations found in his early solo videos (which I bleive is implied by the current sentence); secondly, the reference does not mention Jackson as the instigator or catalyst for turning music video into an art form, OR the use of music video as a promotional tool. One needs only look at the wikipedia Music video article to find other promotional videos which pre-date Jacksons innovations. Hey, he made great videos, so there is no need for hyperbole. If you agree then I suggest a suitable change should be made.--Design (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of promotional tool, its not sourced in that specific source I agree, however the music video section as a whole shows this. The line:

"He transformed the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool."

Is nothing more than a summary of what is presented as the section progresses. I agree that the "art form" issue could do with some tweeking, this I will consider. It might be more appropriate so find a better source for that statement as I imagine it would be easy to find. Certainly it was the first time that an artist treated it like a serious art form. I will look into this issue definately. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This Paragraph is Very choppy

Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music in the late 1970s as the first black entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV.

" Following On MTV" That doesnt make any kind of sense. I think "prior to MTV" or "prior to the MTV Era" could sound better. Also whats "crossover" without stating "audience"

"The popularity of his videos aired on MTV, such as "Beat It" and "Billie Jean", helped bring the relatively young channel to fame;"

"The popularity of his videos aired on MTV" That doesnt make sense. Maybe whosoever wrote this part meant "Most popular". Also if its his populularity videos, why exclude the most famous video on the planet Thriller from that part. Especially at the rise of a young channel to fame.

"videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" made Jackson a staple on MTV into the 1990s."

...This is a independent sentence. Another problem with this sentence is..

"made Jackson a staple on MTV into the 1990s"

As I recalled Black or White was released 1992 and Scream was released 1995 so I just think " Into the 1990's" would sound better as "In the 1990's"

Jackson's Thriller has been credited for transforming music video into both an art form and a promotional tool; a concept he would continue to expand upon during his career. Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk.

"Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk."

Sounds good but a LITTLE detail would help. Perhaps saying " With Performances and Music Videos, Jackson would popularize.........etc

His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists.

I think those are edits that would help to have a better read. It doesnt require quotes just a little grammitical adjustment. No disrespect. This is a free encyclopedia and everyone can help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds a little better.

Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music in the late 1970s as the first black entertainer to amass a strong crossover audience prior to MTV. The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV, such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean", and Thriller, helped bring the relatively young channel to fame. Videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" kept Jackson a staple on MTV in the 1990s. Jackson's Thriller has been credited for transforming the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool; a concept he would continue to expand upon during his career. With stage performances and music videos, Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• A)There was no arbitrary date that the "MTV era" began.
• B)The Thriller music video is mentioned in the next line for the artistic aspect, there is no need to mention the video twice.
• C)"With performances and music videos" isn't needed, it's unnecessary puffery of something that it quite self explanatory and only bloats a well cut lead. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what the lead is saying. The lead is saying that Jackson had a "strong crossover following on MTV." This means that there were (white people /& rock fans) who followed Jackson as a result of his MTV stuff. "following" means the same as"audience"/"followers". You just need to read the lead carefully and it will be clear. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my suggestions R2. Ive seen a lot of rewrites of this page since I joined wikipedia in 2005 and a lot of main editors, and vandalism, but you dedicate to this page very nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes some of your suggestions were introduced, im not sure if I've warmed to them yet but I'm glad we could compromise. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Forthcoming album

I'm not sure if this has been thoroughly discussed before, but I noticed that information about Michael Jackson's forthcoming album has been removed from the 2008-present section. Which is intriguing, considering the obvious fact that he is working on an album. The details of which we are probably not certain, but that it is not mentioned at all is weird.

Not long ago I added some information back into the 2008-present section, and made a move of two other sub-sections. It was reverted on the grounds that there was no discussion about it and that I was using forum sources. I admit that I may have been hasty to make the moves without discussion, but for adding the information about the forthcoming album, I really see no reason not to, and nor was I given any from the reverting user's edit summary. As for the sources, I simply (and unknowingly) used the ones already existing in the article about the forthcoming album. One can remove or replace them if you see it as necessary, but they account for only a small part of the article or of my addition, and thus its entire removal I do not comprehend.

I have added back the information about the forthcoming album, and have removed the part sourced by a forum (but which I believe is not disputable and a replacement source could easily be found). I am open to discussion and also propose to move the two sub-sections that I have previously moved, about physical appearance and finances, and put them independently as sections or otherwise. This is due to the fact that they do not form a chronical part of Michael Jackson's biography, and thus putting them at the end of the biography section is not suitable. Naurmacil (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also propose redirecting pages such as King of pop, King of Pop, etc. to the album instead of the singer, now that it is actually an album name; or, at least, make a note about it at the top. I suspect that there will be many more who are searching for the album instead of the singer now with that.Naurmacil (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And the news - Akon released brand new song featuring Michael Jackson. This should be the first song featuring actual vocal contribution by Michael Jackson in a few years - which is pretty big news, and I just noticed it. [5] Naurmacil (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material, firstly we have NO idea when/if this album will ever be released. This has been going on since 2006 and every few months the alleged release date it pushed back. There will be no speculation in the article sorry. Until Sony announce a release date of a new studio album it shouldn't be mentioned. No more tabloid stories, those days are gone. If you can get reliable sources by the BBC etc that give dates (I've looked, no luck there) then fine. At the minute you are adding poorly sourced material in chunks, something that cant happen now that this article is so close to FA. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. True, we don't know the dates, and that was clearly written in the articles; what we know, however, is that he's definitely working on an album, and with the likes of Akon and Ne-Yo. That's it. And that itself is worthy of mention, as is the case in every article of a major singer. Naurmacil (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As for this edit, I find no forum or fansite in the material you removed. Does not your opinion of my edit's lack of credibility derive more from your own lack of willingness to read? Naurmacil (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources (not perfect, I just picked some recent ones and they are a bit off-topic) and added them to the article. Naurmacil (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Too credulous a tone in health concerns

In the section covering michael health concerns, particularly with respect to his skin bleaching, it is matter of factly explained that his dramatic change in skin coloration was due to vitalliago, lupus and drugs he is taking for health reasons rather than any cosmetic proceedures. These explanations are the explanations released by his publicist. Many physicians have commented that they are implausible or unlikely. Shouldn't we make it clear that these are alleged explanations offered in his defense by people loyal to him not independently verified facts?

The reasons for his rhinoplasty are also handled in a similarly unskeptical way.

I am not saying that we can say these explanations are wrong, but I think they should be charecterized as claims rather than facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalchik (talk • contribs) 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not claims made by his publicist at all, stop reading tabloids. This "defense" was made by someone who is even handed to slightly negative when it comes to MJ. Why do you think he married the person who had been treating his illness for 20 years? Why do you think the police checked his penis for vitiligo in 1993? Since you can out and called it bleaching you exposed your biased opinion right off. Wikipedia isn't about presenting to finds of a story for the sake of tabloid readers, its about telling the truth. Regards — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really funny, in the very same section, the very same sources are used to describe Jackson's quite shooking drug problems. Yet you don't have a problem with the book being used for that piece of negative information, interesting, very intersting. It seems sources aren't good enough when they don't fit your opinions but when they do, oh thats ok. Quite clearly that book wasn't written or influenced by Jackson's or his publicist as you suggest. Regards. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Expand 1993 allegations info?

OK at the moment this is all we have to document the 1993 abuse allegations against Jackson:

By the summer of 1993 it was revealed that Jackson allowed children to sleep over at his Neverland ranch, a fact which came under much media and public scrutiny when child molestation allegations were brought against him. Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of molestation. On December 22, Jackson responded to the allegations via satellite from his Neverland ranch and stated that he was "totally innocent of any wrongdoing". The new year saw Jackson settled the issue out of court for an undisclosed sum, reported to be $20 million, Chandler refused to testify.

Originally this did have an article of its own but it was deleted some months back. Thus it seems likely that it needs more coverage here. I wanted to add some details about the strip search he had and his famous response on MTV (I think). Thoughts? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a large expansion, no one complained and the small amount of info was absurd. — Realist² (Speak) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to add that the 1993 out of court settlement Michael Jackson made with the boy and his father was a Civil Settlement that had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. The civil settlement was filed by Evan Chandler when the investigation had just started. Meaning Michael Jackson faced two potential court hearings. The first one would have been the Civil case, which would have meant the Chandler's and the Police would have known Michael Jackson's Lawyers defense strategy.

Michael Jackson's criminal investigation still went ahead after the out of court settlement, and the boy and his family could still have co-operated with the investigation if their goal was really justice ? . Since the 1993 out of court civil case settlement, the law has been changed in California so Civil law suits can't be filed until after the criminal investigation and any trial has been completed.

The fact that Michael Jackson made an out of court settlement on the civil court case, is often used and twisted by the media as an admission of guilt, when it is a completely different kind of legal hearing to a criminal trial like the 2005 trial to which Michael Jackson was acquitted. I think civil court case should be highlighted as a link as should criminal court case to show the difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I altered it so that it reads more clearly;

On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court for $22 million; Jordan refused to testify in criminal procedings, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

Does that clear it up for you? Hope that helps? :-) — Realist² (Speak) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good piece of text, but it the term "civil court" should mentioned, as your text still gives the impression Michael Jackson's out of court settlement is connected to the Chandler and that being the reason why Jordon decided not to co-operate in further criminal proceedings. No one knows why Jordon decided not to co-operate further with the Police (who could have forced him to continue to co-operate), because no one knows what the deal was for the out of court settlement. By USA law both the loser and winner of any civil case are not allowed to talk about any agreements and technicalities as to why they won, lost or settled any civil case. Because Jackson isn't allowed to talk about the out of court "civil" settlement, and because the Chandler's by their own choice decided not to co-operate any further with the police investigation, the public at large assume Jackson bought and silenced Chandler's and that stopped to Police investigation. Even after the out of court settlement Jackson was still under Police investigation over Jordan Chandler's allegations for another 8 months.

I would also like to point out that unlike in 2003, Michael Jackson was never charged by the Police of child abuse in 1993, he was just investigated by allegation Jordan Chandler and his father made after visiting "Civil Lawyer" Larry Feldman before a child psychologist (who's connected to Feldman) contacted the Police. In 2003 many television News programs and newspapers wrongly stated that Michael Jackson was charged in 1993. The fact no one ever mentions the out of court civil settlement was a different type of legal proceeding gives the wrong impression that Michael Jackson was charged, and that the investigation reached a criminal trial, which it never did. Some people may find Jackson's friendship with Jordan questionable because unproven allegations were made against him. But the actions of the Chandler family are also questionable, in the fact they launched a civil law suite at the begining of the investigation. Then when they got money from Jackson(paid by his insurance policy)they decided not to co-operate with the Police any further.

In this part of Jackson's life their are two sides to the story, Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson's. Neither of them are by law allowed to talk about what did or didn't happen, but the media have put it upon themselves to tell Jordan's side themselves with lazy journalism that misses out facts like the "Civil Court Case" was separate to the Police investigation to make Michael Jackson look guilty. Michael Jackson's side of the story isn't told or respected in the media. Only GQ magazine have attempted to tell Jackson's side of this story through people connected to Jackson.

I think your text though good, but should be re-edited to read On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, for the civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan refused to co-operate any further with Police criminal procedings. Jackson was never charged, and state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

I don't think it's everything needs to be told about the 1993 abuse allegations (as I would write a lot more info). But I do wish for the public who want to find out more about Michael Jackson to know that the out of court settlement was a seperate legal case to the criminal investigation. And Evan Chandler (Jordan's father) filed the civil lawsuit against Jackson at the begining of the investigation, as that is those are very important facts that the public should know, regardless of what they think of Michael Jackson in connection to that investigation. If you could add some of this info to your text to give a more accurate account what happened on the legal front in this case, it would be really appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I will include your specific, it is clearer. I don't intend to write any more details about it though. The article gives 3 paragraphs on the case and the allegations have their own article. I will add your further suggestion though. Also, do you have a copy of this GQ magaine? It would be very useful as a source. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your updated text is great. I do have a copy of the GQ magazine, what kind of information would you like from it.

I will take this discussion about GQ mag to your talk page. — Realist² (Speak) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

King Of Pop Rock And Soul

Check out this video from youtube. Relevency? Its when Elizabeth Taylor said "the king of pop rock and soul." It might be able to be incorporated.If not.... It's still funny to watch and see. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8u5zuToIX8

Unfortunately we aren't allowed to use youtube as a source but it's still nice to look at, hehe. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson is the Self-Proclaimed King of Pop, then Elvis Presley is the Self-Proclaimed King, The Rolling Stones are the Self-Proclaimed Greatest Rock'N'Roll Band in the World, James Brown is the Self-Proclaimed Godfather of Soul and Madonna the Self-Proclaimed Queen of Pop. Because all those title were created by themselves or their record companies. So I don't see why Michael Jackson shouldn't be known as The King of Pop because he talented, successful and iconic enough to have that title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Start of solo career

On Michael Jackson's page it states "Jackson began a solo career in 1972". Michael Jackson's solo career started in 1971 when he released his first single Got To Be There.

His first album Got To Be There was released in 1972, but it's the 1971 single that started his solo career. Plus in 2001, Michael Jackson held two 30th Anniversary concerts at Madison Square Garden in New Your to celebrate 30yrs as a solo artist since the release of his first single Got To Be There. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to 1971, thank you. — Realist² (Speak) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Winfrey interview

This did not take place in late 1992 but early 1993 (February 10 to be precise [6]). Should it therefore be moved out of the Dangerous section and into the next section? Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware, I just wanted to keep it separate from the allegations and marriage, I will move it to the correct place. — Realist² (Speak) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know i know

look i know wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and so on,but come on someone put in that hes a pedo,cause it the most obvious thing in the world. Luke12345abcd (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)