Talk:Michael Jackson

Thriller Broadway

This event was canceled, due to michael being sued over for some breach in a contract.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear this from? --DHB-XYZ (talk) 22:59 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the New York Times says about the current state of play: [5]. John Landis "filed suit against Mr. Jackson, asking for unpaid profits from the video and a making-of documentary, Variety reported. The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, says that for the past four years Mr. Jackson and his company Optimum Productions have not paid Mr. Landis money he is owed from these projects or accounted for their profits." As ever, nothing is simple with MJ.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL good point.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

I hate it when people undo harmless changes to pages. The phrase "He has been cited as one of the world's most famous men" is used at the beginning and the end of the article, the same exact phrase. I changed the first one to read something like "Because of his presence in popular culture and success in music for over 40 years, he has become a cultural icon." Just what in the hell is wrong with that? It's better than the same exact phrase opening up and ending the article. Why restate ourselves here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.246.99 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to restate what is in the bigger article. His level of fame is noteworthy enough to me mentioned in the lead. — R² 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I was doing... mentioning it in a way that isn't an exact carbon copy of what has already been stated in the article.

New Picture

Ok for some reason, I remember we had the same picture that we have now, except the old one was bigger and more clear, this picture is kinda small and the pixels are bad, we need a new picture.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this picture that billboard has, that photo of michael looks very good.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it belongs to Billboard, not us. — R² 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So are we getting a new picture or or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and the issue that comes up every time is copyright. Due to WP:NFCC, the article is not in a position to use a copyrighted image in the infobox at the top of the page. Attempts at finding an up to date copyright free image of MJ have been unsuccessful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I promise to take pictures myself, if he does anything exciting. — R² 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What happend to that picture of michael we had when he was in the 2006 world music awards in black shades and cloths.--RafiCHAMP¹ 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because we didn't own it. — R² 11:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do you go about owning a picture of someone? You have to take it yourself!? That's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. — R² 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Convert

It has been widely publicised that since November 2008 Jackson converted to Islam. Common Google searches such as [6], [7], [8], [9] (there are more). I really think someones should add it to the section 2008, but I can regretfully say I can't exactly phrase it right without sounding too gossipy. Music isn't really my area of expertise so I thought we could discuss it here. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

you've neglected to read the first two sections of this article talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's camp denies it ever occurred, so it didn't. Please don't believe gossip spread by The Sun. — R² 11:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Every online news story about this is, on closer inspection, a rehash of the original story in The Sun on 21 November 2008 here. The headline was The way you Mecca me feel (geddit?) There is no reliable sourcing for this claim, which has been denied by Jackson's staff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Shoot. Please forgive my ignorance. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't one of his brothers actually convert to Muslim and recommended it to Micheal? Which one was it again? --DHB-XYZ(talk) 13:43 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson is a Muslim. — R² 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson "has superbug"

The Sun for 12 February 2009 has as its lead story that MJ has an infection similar to MRSA.[10]. Other news outlets, such as the Telegraph here are picking up on the story, but are only repeating what The Sun claims. This leads to déjà vu with the conversion to Islam story, so please don't add this to the article unless there is reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to tell the 'The Sun' to **** off, oops, it slipped out. Seriously, do they have nothing better to do. First they (the general media) made up exaggerated claims about his finances (they were calling him "on the verge of bankruptcy" as far back as 1998, still hasn't happened a decade later). Now this health crap. It's lucky that a few people with common sense watchlist this article otherwise it would be a mess. — R² 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder to anyone with a "it's in the paper, it must be true" mentality, even the original story is reporting it as speculation and explicitly labelling it as such (hence the quote-marks in their headline); the pertinent paragraph is "US celebrity plastic surgeon Dr Anthony Youn, who has not treated Jacko but has viewed the shocking photos of the star, said: “It is possible that Mr Jackson has a staph infection or MRSA.". This is a BLP violation if reported as fact, and will be immediately reverted if added to the article and persistent offenders blocked. – iridescent 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Realist 2, I understand your point and am behind you %100, but I changed your "swear word" into stars***, and people will still get your point tho.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to censor that guy? Grow up. This is how real people talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.73.15 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The surprise is that no-one has added this to the article so far. There were numerous attempts to add the "conversion to Islam" story, but it seems that having MRSA is not as interesting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well given The Sun's track record on all things Islam, clearly that story was intended to make him look bad, to tag him to a religion The Sun (and some of their readers) don't particularly like. The MRSA story, on the other had, is more sympathetic in Jackson's favor (the majority of people don't want to see him die of MRSA). Clearly religious 'controversy' is more interesting than sympathetic stories. I think it's good we are having this discussion, clearly more stories will follow, good to be one step ahead of the masses. — R² 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Residence

Isn't he living in Dubai now? -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, California, in a rented mansion. — R² 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Businessman

Following recent edits, I think we need to reach consensus on whether Jackson should be described as a businessman in the lead. Business has played a large part in his life; acquiring the rights to the Beatles songs, landing one of the biggest sponsorship deals in history, etc. The media may not report it too often, as it's positive, but it's still a major part of Jackson. Also a user felt that the word 'however', as seen here, indicated POV. Despite this, the article reached FA status with the word included. The latter isn't too pressing for me, but I feel that Jackson should still be described as a businessman in the lead. Thoughts? Pyrrhus16 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MJ is probably no more of a businessman than any other showbiz star. His acquisition of the rights to the Beatles' songs was his most important business deal, but it is debatable whether he is a businessman in the strictest sense of the word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see what your saying. See also, this discussion. Pyrrhus16 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the intro and no clear section in the article discussing him being a businessman. He's very rich and owns stuff. I think that would be easy to source and could be added. But I think calling him a businessman is a bit strange to say the least, and misleading. The previous discussion also seems to indicate that they were trying to add the fact that he owns (or owned as the case may now be) lots of stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This section mentions his business dealings in depth. As does this one Pyrrhus16 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire section and all it says is he bought a bunch of song catalogs. "He was warned that he would face strong competition, excited, he skipped around the room saying, "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs Branca [his attorney]". He is not a businessman. He's a big success in the music business, would you like to put that in? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of books characterize him as a business man, we could add much much more on it, but we are constrained by space and the specifics are rather confusing. — R² 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So there's more on his "business" career than that he skipped around the room saying, "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs", but we don't have room for it? How much more? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Much more (the 1984 deal is the tip of the iceberg), more info is covered in the article, but more (complex) issues have been omitted. Jackson negotiated many of his contracts alone, and remember he cleverly got the best contract in the music industry, 37% royalty rate before Thriller came out. Most commentators agree that his business dealings were very successful, several sources describe him as a business genius (despite his spending habits). Currently Jackson receives royalties from thousands of songs that don't belong to him. As the article points out, in 2007 he acquired further interest in several hundred thousand compositions. As he gets older, and moves out of the limelight, maintaining his business affairs will be his major job. — R² 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Nothing you state indicates he is a businessman. The closest you come is saying he negotiated a high royalty rate. But certainly thats insufficient. He's an investor maybe in songs collections, and good negotiator (as one of the most succesful artists of all time which is a pretty helpful position to negotiate from) but he's not a businessman. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In 1995, Jackson merged his Northern Songs catalog with Sony's publishing division creating Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Jackson retained half-ownership of the company, earned $95 million upfront as well as the rights to even more songs.[93][40] - With just one example, he has half ownership of a lucrative company. He is business partners with Sony. — R² 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what your definition of "businessman" is, ChildofMidnight. It appears to be rather narrow from what you've been saying so far.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's imagine Michael Jackson wasn't a singer, he would still be notable as a business person. Just because his music career overshadows his business career somewhat, he is still nonetheless a business man. Like I said, as time progresses, his business ventures with Sony and real estate (he just set up a joint company with the group that co-own's Neverland Ranch), with become his main occupation. — R² 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On at least 3 occasions ChildofMidnight has tried to alter the lead to imply that Jackson is not a businessman, despite no consensus to do so. Simply not on. — R² 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 1984 Beatles catalog was not the major component of his his business career. It was the 1995 merger that is the most important aspect (although one could not happen without the other). His business dealings, in music and real estate, are discussed extensively in the article. He currently commands something of a music empire, noted as recently as 2007. — R² 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this issue was started because of another, frankly bizarre dispute. — R² 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

“ To others, Jackson is a surpassingly shrewd businessman, capable of amassing a catalogue of publishing rights to songs by such artists as Sly Stone and The Beatles. ”

Dyson, Michael Eric. The Michael Eric Dyson Reader.

“ Jackson was a great dancer and a superb businessman. Jackson choreographed the release of his 1982 album Thriller to undermine what the Washington Post called "the cultural apartheid of MTV and pcp radio." ”

Troy, Gil. Morning in America.

“ And co-existing in the same head as this unusual personality is a businessman with a sharp mind able to make hard decisions. Michael Jackson is a conundrum. ”

Dineen, Catherine. Michael Jackson: In His Own Words.

“ He's also a very astute businessman," Rev. Jackson says. "No artist has climbed the levels of financial control that Michael has. ”

Jet.

“ He was a very smart businessman, would read contracts as good as lawyers could. ”

Ebony.

“ Michael Jackson 1958— Vocalist, songwriter, businessman ... A powerfully

creative and disciplined artist...

”

Gale Research International. Contemporary Black Biography: Profiles from the International Black Community.

• To be clear, there are about 500 sources which specify Jackson as a "businessman". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Case settled. — R² 12:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those cites DO NOT talk about him being a businessman. Most of them don't even use the term in relation to him, and the ones that do, use it in the sense that he has a shrewd business sense and the articles don't discuss him substantially as a businessman. Please provide a few citations that substantively deal with him as a businessman and use the term directly in relation to Jackson. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your on your own here, nothing seems to satisfy you. — R² 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Childofnight has has to be reverted a 4th time on his article (I just added a dubious tag to the businessman claim despite the strong evidence and consensus against his belief). Given this, and his odd behavior on other articles, I believe it is time to start a user conduct report. — R² 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He blatantly is, per the sources provided above. More info can be provided if necessary, but there is no need. Despite the consensus above, the editor who set up this comment is causing some disruption by asking the FAC director to have the FA statues of this article re examined. — R² 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking a good look at the "sources" for this claim. If there were any good ones Realist would provide them, but there isn't much other than a few mentions of "shrewd business dealings". It's quite a stretch to extrapolate those into him being a businessman. I haven't found a single source that deals substantively with Micahel Jackson as a businessman alhtough he owns some stuff, but maybe someone else can find one? If correcting misleading, inaccurate and undueweight article content is disruption, I am guilty as charged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• By definition of the word "businessman", with the purchase, ownership and direction of a vast catalog of music rights as well as many reliable sources that referred to him as a businessman, including the then head of CBS Records referring to him as "a very smart businessman", I fail to see how he wouldn't be characterized as a businessman. He doesn't just "own some stuff", he invested his money into a very wise purchase and controlled that and his other business investments and dealings. I'd also throw into this that the editor challenged the description on this talk page, wherein she went on to characterize the status of this and other featured articles in this way: "Whoever is designating them as GA, if you are to believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass", as "crap", and then commented, in reference to this issue and another article by saying she "had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!) ... I can't do all the work myself after all." [11] I'd also interject that going against the consensus of editors on a page is not in keeping with the tenets of Wikipedia editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• What a pile of shit. He aggressively acquired the Northern Songs catalogue, against McCartney's interest. Were it not his own personal decision, he was strongly advised to do so, on commercial grounds, and, FFS, his lawyers were paid enough for that. He may not be a "businessman" on his own account, but he certainly has enough clout around him to make smart business decisions- and the deciding factor is whether MJ has the final say-so; and, er, yup, he does. I've had a similar debate as to whether Jade Goody is a businesswoman; if she makes money from commercial eneterprisesm ,er, she is. Likewise, Jackson. End of. --Rodhullandemu 02:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Obviously the music catalogue was acquired for their commercial potential, and regardless of whether Michael or his lawyers do the leg work, he's the one that benefits and he's the one who ultimately is in control of any business ventures that arise through the use of music in his catalogue. "Businessman" seems pretty accurate to me. Rossrs (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• This Snopes article looks at MJ's acquisition of the rights to the Beatles' songs: [12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are we trying to determine if he is or is not a businessman? (a pretty straight-forward question) ... or... Are we trying to figure out if he is known for being a businessman? (a quite different question) Padillah (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure lol, but he seems to fit quite comfortably in both categories. — R² 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would answer he's not known for being a businessman. He's known for his music. No 8 year old has ever dressed up in a white suit and single glove and pretended to make business deals. He's known for his music. But, yes, he is a busniessman and I see no problem mentioning it in the lead. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Answer: Is he, or is he not a businessman. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Then my 2cents is "Yes, he's a businessman". He's not known for being a businessman, he's not famous for being a businessman, he didn't make his money by being a businessman... but yes, he's a businessman. And the impact of having that in the lead (as the single adjective that it currently is) would be negligible. Padillah (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• o.O, hmm, sorry, only a fraction (well about 1/3) of his earnings come from his music/tours. — R² 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. Considering he hasn't toured or made music for almost 20 years, you have a point. Earnings are time-sensitive and I'm sure he's not done earning so it's libel to grow even more than you stated. Still, in all, MJ is more famous and more known for being an entertainer than a businessman. Padillah (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, he last toured in 1997 (last performed for money in 2001) and released multiple million albums in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003 and 2008. His last studio album being 2001. He is certainly still making quite a killing from his back catalog, but his publishing rights bring in $75 million a year according to Forbes. — R² 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way - Not a fan, don't carenot as interested as some. I just dropped by to respond to the RfC. Padillah (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of gathered, no problem :) — R² 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a crappy way of putting that, sorry I hope I didn't offend. Thanks for the AGF. Padillah (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Offend, no way, seriously I've heard a lot worse said about my favorite singer :) — R² 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

"This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses."

Can anybody explain this? -- 200.100.16.83 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was a practicing Jehovah's Witness for a majority of his life. WikiProjects are associated with any article which has any relevance to the subject. In this case, a notable public figure who has practiced this particular religion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Health?

Michael Jackson is suffering from a lung degeneration and there are rumors that he is dying. Any other info on this?

Tabloid smut, don't believe it. Best. — R² 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This claim comes from the writer Ian Halperin [13] and, like other claims about MJ's health, it will not be added to the article without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson "planning to stage comeback in London"

OK folks, here's today's media speculation about MJ: [14]. Connoisseurs of these stories will note the use of phrases like "it has been reported", which mean "we don't actually know if this is true or not." WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS apply here once again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That O2 arena thing has been flouting around for over a year (shortly after Prince did his 21 dates), I honestly can't envision him making the 'comeback' in the US or UK anyway. He'll get a much easier ride in mainland Europe or Japan (as prior album sales prove). Thanks for bringing us up to date with the latest. — R² 11:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

How come there's no image of Jackson holding his baby over the balcony or Jackson in the present day?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we haven't got a public domain photograph of either. These are what there is to work with. – iridescent 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the FAQ, and get's asked regularly on the talk page. People should really read the archives. — R² 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Tour Confirmed

wow, this rumor was true (first timer), michael jackson and his friend go shopping together, then the friend that mj is with confirms a tour starting july, at the O2 arena, although michael didnt say it himself, so we still dont know for sure, but his friend said that there will be a press conference this thursday, so people stay alert.--RafiCHAMP¹ 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you will find the video of mj and his friend, also another video about his friend confirming the tour.--RafiCHAMP¹ 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

http://mjjr.net/news.php Cheers--RafiCHAMP¹ 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)