Talk:Michael Jackson

Interduction

At the end of this should we add, michael jackson is the biggest selling music artist "alive" right now?, Or something close to it.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's total sales are around 750 million; Paul McCartney's are well over a (American) billion. The current last paragraph of the lead already makes it clear that Jackson is a very successful artist. – iridescent 15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the Beatles as a whole, not McCartney as an individual. McCartney isn't on the list. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't use other Wiki articles as a reference point. — Realist² 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but the fact of the matter is McCartney hasn't sold over 1 billion units. I agree with Rafichamp's idea on this, a sentence saying that Jackson is "the biggest selling artist in the world" - or something along those lines. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, just by having that sentence on the article, it would show a lot of people (mostly new kids) the amount of success he has had over his music career.

Btw Mj was spotted shopping for books yesterday, ultimately removing the conclusion that he is dying of a disease, just wanted to make sure everybody knew that.--RafiCHAMP¹ 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"I agree with Rafichamp's idea on this, a sentence saying that Jackson is "the biggest selling artist in the world" - or something along those lines"... He isn't the biggest-selling artist. That would be the Beatles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.157.95 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"The biggest selling artist in the world". The Beatles no longer physically, or collectively, exist. They are referred to in the past tense. Harrison & Lennon have died, whilst McCartney & Starr are now solo artists. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please drop this one folks, the lead discusses his Guinness World Record as "the most successful entertainer of all time", the reader get's the picture. Let's not have an MJ/Beatles/Elvis flamewar. They've all sold a shit more records than anyone else, that's all that matters. — Realist² 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The greatest entertainer of the XX century?

Would it be correct to consider Michael Jackson the greatest entertainer of the XX century? In my opinion he is. If I am right, then perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article? Пипумбрик (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's records

Why don't you write on MJ's wikipedia page that he is considered as the most sucessful entertainer of all time (it even appeared in Guiness Records book)? Why don't you write that he donated 300 millions to charity? Why do you make MJ look guilty in the 1993 accusations? Why don't you write that he is the most awarded artist of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are issues here with neutral point of view. The statement that Michael Jackson is the most successful entertainer of all time is subjective, and could be seen as a WP:PEACOCK term. The article mentions MJ's donations to charity, but the 300 million figure would require reliable sourcing. The child abuse allegations in 1993 are discussed extensively in the article, but the claim that they make look MJ "look guilty" is a personal interpretation. The statement that MJ is the most awarded artist of all time would also require reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Being the most sucessful entertainer of all time isn't subjective- it's on the Guiness World Records Book. "Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals."- Jordan Chandler, under the influence of sedatives, then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals. You should also point out that, to this day, Jordan is mad at his father, Evan Chandler, and refused to testify in the 2005 trial.

Yes, Jackson is indeed the most awarded artist of all time: http://bix.yahoo.com/top10/39125

Also, Michael is considered as the most sucessful entertainer: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5319.aspx—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Featured article, and has to stick firmly to to WP:BLP. Part of the comments above restate allegations by Jordan Chandler, which although controversial, were never proved in a court of law. The term "highest grossing" would be easier to have a WP:RS than "most successful", which is inevitably subjective. The "most awarded" status comes from a website that looks like it would have issues with WP:RS, while the "most successful" status is linked to an award by Guinness World Records that appears similar to the citation in the article at [5]. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the 1993 allegation coverage makes Jackson look guilty. Per,

• "The friendship between Jackson and Evan Chandler broke down. Sometime afterward, Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over".
• A year after they had met, under the influence of a controversial sedative, Jordan Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched his penis.
• Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial settlement; the negotiations were initiated by Chandler but Jackson did make several counter offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals.
• An official investigation began, with Jordan Chandler's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part. Neverland Ranch was searched; multiple children and family members strongly denied that he was a pedophile. Jackson's image took a further turn for the worse when his older sister La Toya Jackson accused him of being a pedophile, a statement she later retracted.
• Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip search, conducted at his ranch. The search was required to see if a description provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities, but it was not a definitive match. Jackson made an emotional public statement on the events; he proclaimed his innocence, criticized what he perceived as biased media coverage and told of his strip search.
• Jackson began taking painkillers, Valium, Xanax and Ativan to deal with the stress of the allegations made against him. By the fall of 1993, Jackson was addicted to the drugs. Jackson's health deteriorated to the extent that he canceled the remainder of the Dangerous World Tour and went into drug rehabilitation for a few months. The stress of the allegations also caused Jackson to stop eating, losing a large amount of weight. With his health in decline, Jackson's friends and legal advisers took over his defense and finances; they called on him to settle the allegations out of court, believing that he could not endure a lengthy trial.
• Tabloid reaction to the allegations put Jackson in an unfavorable light. Complaints about the coverage and media included everything from bias against Jackson, accepting stories of alleged criminal activity for money to engaging in illegal activity themselves.
• On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, in a civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan Chandler refused to continue with Police criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

The prosecution had one piece of evidence against Jackson, the body strip search, and even that was not a definitive match. It's quite clear that there was a distinct lack of evidence, and the first allegation the boy made was after being drugged by his father. I don't know how you could possibly come to the conclusion that the text paints Jackson as guilty. This would not stack up in court at all, the article makes that perfectly clear. If you have reliable sources that Jordan is now "mad" at his father, please bring it up at the talk page of this article, where it is more relevant. That article makes it perfectly clear that Jordan didn't appear at the 2005 trial. We can't document every detail on this article, that's why there is a separate, more in depth article for the 1993 allegations. — Realist² 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the info about him being the "most successful entertainer of all time", per sources already in the article. Make of the award what you will, it seems rather ambiguous anyway. However that's nothing to do with us, rather, it's the fault of Guinness. — Realist² 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Michael is innocent. I just said that what was posted on Michael Jackson's wikipedia page about the Chandler's case makes Michael look guilty, when, in fact, he is innocent. Was Michael Jackson's wikipedia page written by Diane Dimond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.243.201 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that the Wikipedia page gives Jackson a much fairer shake than anything the mainstream press will give him. Could you please explain which aspects of the text "make Jackson look guilty". Cheers. — Realist² 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

Why wikipedians are finding so much of difficulty to write about conversion to Islam. I want clear answer in simple english.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.15.19 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If English is not your first language, here it is as simple as I can make it:

a) The Sun often has stories that are not true. b) Wikipedia does not have stories if they are not true.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What Ianmacm said. — Realist² 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the claims were denied by Michael's lawyer.

Also- the new house in LA has been confirmed by Michael's spokesperson. Just thought I'd let you know :) Marnifrances (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's still living the good life, completely confusing the press, who had convinced themselves he was bankrupt. Lol, they have started to believe their own lies. :) — Realist² 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to stay away from generalities and inaccurate reportage. Comments on here are unhelpful and do not forward the issue academically. Please refrain from non NPOV comments.

Avenger786 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Credible Reporting on Conversion to Islam

Where news is carried in multiple national, multi-national or global news agencies; it is taken as credible on the balance of probabilities. This is a legal test. We are not applying anything more stringent nor is this required.

This is not a test applied on other articles especially in relation to someone's faith let alone reportage.

If it should be done here then we have serious issues of bias, agenda, POV and discriminatory conduct to answer. There are now enough news media sources (NPOV) which have independently confirmed this - they do not all refer to the Sun as source material. It is not for WPs to have to interrogate news media agencies and reporters about the validity of their claims. They report, we recite, you decide.

It is for WPs to in the least reflect the common knowledge - not bias or agenda driving. Statements like "prove it or move on" are unhelpeful on WP and raise serious questions about the motivation for making such statements especially where they are backed up with disproportionate penalties for accurate article writing. Seniority does not exclude us from error or bias. Ask Dick Cheney. It is however common practice in the modern media age for most news media in the modern age to be 'echoed' across varying sources. This is how many agencies work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539088-michael-jackson-muslim#continueArticle http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8230-michael-jackson-has-converted-to-islam.html

Our own definition of news is: 'News is any new information or information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience. News, the reporting of current information on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines'

Reuters and UPI work in exactly this manner. It is unusual that something so accepted in so many places requires such a debate here. Could it be that the most famous man in pop history potentially converting to Islam raises too many issues. WP does not shirk from article writing on controversial issues. We do not censor the truth. If the story is carried in multiple national or global news sources it should be, despite misgivings, relied upon and reported on if relevent. Despite us deploring them, The Sun and Fox News Corp are news media sources (and sister companies).

If you want to apply an indirectly discriminatory condition on the reporting relating to Muslims, we are on a slippery slope. Someone should give Jimmy a heads up in this case.

Amendments should be made to the article to correspond to at least that it has been reported - to the scale of the reporting. How many Muslims have confirmed to the press directly their faith? Is it something we ask Jews, Christians or any other faith group to do? NB: having recently returned from the Middle East, there is widespread acceptance of this as a matter of fact, including his building and funding of mosques and appearances publically.

Avenger786 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No crap please. There is absolutely no point reporting unsubstantiated rumours about Jackson, because there are just too many of them. If he wants to announce his conversion, he will do it officially, and woolly speculation just won't do; it fails WP:V and WP:RS. Religion is such a personal thing that per WP:BLP we should only report it here if, and when, he chooses to announce it. Let's get it clear; we are not detectives or rumour-mongers here, we are encyclopedia writers, and nothing else. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• first: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Whether or not it is "true" Michael Jackson has coverted to Islam is unverifiable because it is his personal interpretation on the supernatural/God and to-date, has not commented on the subject. These "echoed" sources are derived from an unreliable source. 1,000 X 0 = 0.
• second: accusations of anit-islamic sentiments are incivil. As I said before, it wouldn't matter if MJ had been "reported" to covert to Buddhism, Judaism, Taosim, or another denomination of Christianity. It wouldn't matter if he had "reportedly" denounced religion all together and "became" an atheist. Without a statement from Jackson, its irrelevant as a BLP concern. We have the ability to reason: Is it logical to consider a source reliable when the source cliams their information came from an unnamed third party? I don't believe so. Throughout his career, even Jacson's siblings have made statements about him that were either complete fabrications, or honest mistakes because they didn't speak with him directly. In any event, the alleged conversion has had no impact whatsoever on his career or personal life that we know of. We have an obligation to respect the right to privacy, even if mainstream media does not do the same. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• See Also: WP:REDFLAG. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Michael Jackson's spokesperson called it bullshit. End of discussion. There was no conversion. It's very sad people still believe anything they read in print. — Realist² 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New York Daily news Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue," McMillan told reporters. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain Trial

Should there be mentions of the trial in Bahrain just last winter? Apparently it wasn't just covered by tabloid sites but many news sites. Frankyboy5 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed, Jackson has been involved in hundreds of lawsuits, this was settled out of court, thus, even less notable an example of Jackson's legal issues. Pure recentism. — Realist² 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Need third party input (I'm probably too biased *Rolls eyes*)

Currently the 2000-2002 section has a huge paragraph dedicated to the reviews of Invincible. For consistency, NPOV and article size reasons, I'm slightly tempted to move it all to the Invincible (album). Basically, non of the other albums have review information, we don't have the space for it, so why do we have it for Invincible (possibly his least well received studio albums).

The alternative is that we add critical analysis of all his albums, but the article would be way too big then. I'm also painfully aware that we are reaching the up word limit, and Jackson still has a future career/person life that will need documenting. I also wanted to add more info on his 2003-2005 trial period (sometime in 2009) as it seems a little on the slim side (although everyone seemed happy with it at the FAC). Thoughts. — Realist² 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, if none of the other sections contain reviews, neither should this one. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it to the album article -- it makes more sense to have reviews there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think more information on the sales of the album are important though reviews could be cut back on. I know that Invincible was one of Jackson's lower selling albums, but it's one of his most important for many reasons:

• It was a comeback album (everyone knew Bad, Dangerous and HIStory were gonna be huge - there were big questions over whether Invincible could live up to their standard in a changing music world)
• It was the first album in 6 years (most of the world doesn't know Blood ever came out, don't mention that, most people aren't fanboys like us)
• The big "ITS THE RECORD LABEL'S FAULT NOT MINE!" debacle led to serious questions about the status of older music in the 2000s, and led to the question "Can Michael Jackson survive in the 21st century is he an old man now?". He's survived it and not gained the "old man" manacle that others have (Madonna springs to mind as one who suffered this, and Ozzy too, while others like Aerosmith and Velvet Revolver survived and dodged the "oldie" tag successfully) but at the time the press argued with each other about it a lot. It was a changing point in his career though, he became someone who chugged onwards rather than dazzled people - Invincible was the first MJ album that anyone could ever label "just another MJ album"
• Decline in sales is important because it shows powers at work other than people thinking he's a kiddy fiddler - most people assume his profits dropped off in 93 or 03 and that's not entirely true as this album showed
• The hit single no one expected that late in his career; it was Jackson's equivalent of "I Don't Want To Miss a Thing" (can you believe Aerosmith are an early 70s band that put that song out in the mid-90s?)

The idea was good but I feel too much has been moved. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I haven't moved anything...yet. I'm just talking about the album reviews, all the sales info will remain. The current details on the sales are sufficient, according to WP:UNDUE and SUMMARY STYLE. — Realist² 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important as a kind of analysis of "Michael Jackson in the early 00s" - it best displays his status as a pop icon really. Not what he was...but not out yet. Bad, Dangerous and even HIStory may have been far bigger but really each of those releases Jackson was still the same ol' "mega star" he had been for ages. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

OK, is there any other input on this, no-one has opposed the removal of music review content, The Elfoid brings up some interesting, unrelated points. — Realist² 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move completed. — Realist² 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Losing Popularity

Is this article losing popularity because wasn't this article in the top 99 most viewed wiki pages, now its like 140. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably fluctuates. When I first started editing (18 months ago) someone told me it was just inside the top 200. He hasn't released a studio album since 2001 and hasn't done anything really controversial/dull in more than 3½ years. — Realist² 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion doesn't matter an awful lot. All kinds of crazy things can affect it. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

The Neverland Ranch photo

I'm gonna add a DATE to when the photo was taken since it was so long before the part of the article it's mentioned in (it's next to 2003-2007 and was taken in the late 80s and you can tell from how much the place has changed since then). But I must ask: should it not go EARLIER in the article anyway? I don't have time for a big argument over such a little thing, just throwing in an idea :) (The Elfoid (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually the image belongs to a Wikipedia editor, and he took it in 2008. No it doesn't need to be earlier because Neverland Ranch is discussed in that section. And positioning of images is really not that important anyway in this context. — Realist² 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No new image?

I think the image should be changed to i dont know probably a... white person! by now! new people who do not know him coming to the article will think he is black, when he changed to white. the image should be regarded as out of date or wiki terms un reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.201 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox image shows Michael Jackson in 1984, and admittedly this is quite a long time ago. It is from Wikimedia Commons, so it has no copyright issues. The choice of infobox image has led to debate in the past, although there are some more recent images of MJ in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we refrain from using the terms black/white when referring to his skin condition. An African-American (or any ethnicity for that matter) who suffers from Vitiligo does not "become a white person" because their skin looses pigmentation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the article even has photographic evidence of his vitiligo. You might not agree with his choice to cover up the rest of his skin, but others do the same and ethnicity is a lot more than the shade of skin. While we all agree a more recent free images is needed, we haven't found one as of yet. We have free images of him in 1988, but most people think their not suitable as the lead image. — Realist² 14:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Commons was not much use, I had a look around Flickr for Creative Commons images. This 2007 photo was the best that I could manage, but it is still not ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a very famous image, however it probably doesn't really belong to the flickr person. — Realist² 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eccentric?

The use of the words "eccentric" and "supposedly" in this edit run into issues with words to avoid and avoiding weasel words. Is Michael Jackson eccentric? If so, who says it? The use of words like claimed, supposedly and allegedly are best avoided in Wikipedia articles when they are used to make unsupported statements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "eccentric" is inaccurate, I would rather remove the word eccentric and just keep it as "behavior", the reader can make up their own mind if they read the article in it's entirety. Taking a closer read at the article, this isn't about eccentricity, this is about an individual who is dealing with multiple mental health issues. In that respect, to labeling him "eccentric", as the press might, is rather distasteful. This goes well beyond being a bit of an odd ball. — Realist² 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eccentricity (behavior) has its own article. Although the word is not insulting or abusive, it is often seen as having a negative meaning. Describing MJ as eccentric may be OK in a newspaper article, but it may not be WP:NPOV enough for a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. As I've said to R2 elsewhere, when it comes to Jackson "eccentric" isn't entirely a case of outsiders-looking-in and "diagnosing" him; anyone around in the 80s will remember the non-stop drip-feed of "eccentric genius" stories churned out by Sony's PR. The word might not be suitable in this particular section, which deals with his later life, but the "manufactured public image which then turned round to bite him as it made the public believe he was capable of anything" narrative forms such an important part of Jackson's rise-fall-rise-fall-rise story that BLP considerations in his case become slightly skewed from the norm. And lord knows, it's certainly covered enough. (Yes, the deliberate creation of the "Whacko Jacko" persona is covered in the 1986–1990 section, but not the continuing effects of it in subsequent years.) – iridescent 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Realist - a word like "eccentric" conveys a negative connotation, and wikipedia is not the place to construe such connotations. I agree it should just be "behavior".--Paaerduag (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New Album

Im pretty sure all of you know the leaked song by mj, hold my hand, but since this song was leaked akon said that the song will be removed from his new album, thats pretty frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by all accounts there won't be a new studio album for a while, Jackson and Sony will be spend some time (and money) celebrating the anniversaries of Thriller and next Off the Wall. Besides, who wants to release a make or break studio album in the middle of a recession? — Realist² 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone who knows they have a hardcore of fans who'll buy it come-what-may, whilst their rivals are more dependent on the youth market, thus increasing their chance of a long stay at the #1 position and the credibility-boost that brings, despite potentially lower overall sales? We are talking about the man who released an album six weeks after 9/11… – iridescent 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael has to make this new album, the reason being is that, sony will see if mj releases this album and if it fails or succeeds a lot, there is no middle.--RafiCHAMP¹ 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He won't be releasing a new album under Sony, don't you realize how much Sony stand to gain if his finances do collapse? Anyway this is not the forum, move along folks. — Realist² 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thriller musical set for Broadway

This BBC news item says: Pop star Michael Jackson is to help develop a US stage musical based on the video to his hit song Thriller, it has been announced. Producer James Nederlander, whose company owns nine Broadway theatres, said the star would "participate in every aspect of the creative process".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll fall through at the last moment, haven't you learnt anything about Michael Jackson these last few months years lol ;). Let's just wait till it does happen. We will only have to delete it later. — Realist² 08:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't about to put this in the article. Although there is a Thriller show in London, any bets on the Broadway show becoming reality would be risky.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson himself is not in this show, then it will not be big. Plain and simple.--RafiCHAMP¹ 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sony BMG

Ok so let me get this clear, Michael Jackson is not with Sony BMG anymore? Also will i stay that way?--RafiCHAMP¹ 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)