Talk:Michael Jackson

Voice Type

Jackson was a not a countertenor. A countertenor sings in a trained falsetto voice. The fact that one writer used the term "countertenor" to describe Jackson's singing voice does not make it so. Jackson was a tenor. Like many pop singers, he did use his falsetto on occasion, but his regular singing voice was naturally a high tenor voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.250.247 (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific generations needed?

I don't think specific generation names are really that necessary to mention as the article intro is already so long. I think just saying his music and popularity span several generations or span generations from the 60s to the 00s or something to that liking would be sufficient and still signify the extents of his success. Vpuliva (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pure article spam, it should not be there. MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is that spam? I don't get that at all. Specific generation names are absolutely relevant here; they don't take up much space and each generational moniker evokes numerous relevant variables.TreadingWater (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever that means. So far, it looks, and smells, like bollocks; unless we've stopped writing an encyclopedia, but I've been busy and perhaps missed that. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's the generation that grew up with the Jackson Five, the generation that grew up with Off The Wall and Thriller, and the generation that grew up after Jackson stopped making good music. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

citation needed

In section "Death"
"After four reported suicides over Jackson's death, the Jackson family issued the following statement:"
couldn't find any news about suicides related to Michael Jackson's death. is this true? should it be removed? --Miguelalmeidatorres (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

100 unreleased songs?

Is it true that michael said that he has over one hundred unreleased songs that he said would release for his children when he died? If so, I think that needs a major part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.130.13 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Chamone

Why does Chamone redirect to Michael Jackson? Nowhere in the article nor in this discussion page is it spoken of Chanone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.30.180 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read this deleted material it may make the matter clearer. WWGB (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

'Chamone' is mentioned here. Pyrrhus16 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to that section Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Than you, exactly what I wanted to know :-)) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Why?

Why is this article still locked? It seems like the edits made were in good faith,yet TMZ who is right most of the time and was right about MJ's death is still not enough of a reliable resource for Wikipedia. I think it is a case of power hungry admins locking the article just because they can,that and the fact that they want to tell everyone that they wrote or were in charge of one of the biggest stories ever,Michael Jackson's death. It is time to unlock the article,I mean its been almost 4 days since he died. Is it going to be locked forever? Or locked until after the toxicology reports come in? That way the admins and not us regular folk will get credit for being the first to edit why he died. I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Apparently that is not true.--70.156.0.160 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not locked. It's only semi protected so that IPs cant edit it. Make an account and you'll be able to edit it in 3 days (or so) Corpx (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• 4 days. لennavecia 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Death sub-sub heading

Why is the "Death" section a sub-sub-heading under milestones and such? I'd think it more appropriate as a sub-heading under "Life and career", if not it's own L2 heading. Thoughts? لennavecia 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and changed it. It can always be changed back if that's the consensus, but it seems entirely out of place as a subsection of Milestones, and it's not in line with what I believe is current practice. لennavecia 05:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First vs. Firstly

Sorry to split hairs, but I was always taught that 'first', 'second' is preferable to 'firstly', 'secondly'. I'd rather bring it up here than change it and have it reverted. Thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatles songs

Any info on who will inherit the Beatles song catalog? Or am I missing something and did he already sell them off when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.37.76 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Paul McCartney got them. Zazaban (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a complex area which often leads to misconceptions. Snopes gives the background here, while this Bloomberg article from 26 June says:

Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, the publishing venture owned by Michael Jackson and Sony Corp., will keep control of Beatles songs following the pop singer’s death, said a person with knowledge of the venture’s plans.

Jackson, who died yesterday at age 50 in Los Angeles, owned 50 percent of Sony/ATV, which holds rights to more than 200 songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, as well Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond and others. His stake is worth about $1 billion, said Ivan Thornton, a private-wealth adviser who has worked with Jackson and his family.

Sony/ATV will continue to hold the Lennon and McCartney catalog, said the person, who asked not to be named because the matter isn’t public. The U.K.’s Daily Mirror reported in January that Jackson planned to leave the Beatles rights to McCartney in his will to heal a rift between the musicians. Jackson paid $47.5 million in 1985 to buy the ATV catalog, outbidding McCartney and Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono.

Paul McCartney has never owned the publishing rights to the songs, having declined to buy them in 1984.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording: "Movie" versus "film"

I made a recent change to this article where in one part it says "movie." I changed it to "film" but was reverted by Aaroncrick with the explanation "Movie sounds better and more modern than 'film'."

I disagree with the assertion that "Movie sounds better and more modern than 'film'." My reasoning? "Movie" is not viewed as encyclopedic to many editors here, which is something I have been accustomed to and has led to my not seeing it as encyclopedic either. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And, oh...any thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "film", since "movie" is a bit slangy and mainly an American English term. Other thoughts welcome, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I now agree with Flyer22 after seeing "Movie" is redirected to "Film". Sorry about that. I suppose you leanr something everyday :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and "movie" is also Australian English term, as you never hear of the word "film" here. =) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? I'm Australian and I can say that's absolute nonsense. I don't understand how you could even come up with that, it's just silly. Open up Google and search the word 'film' and restrict your results to Australia. --202.134.251.206 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Favorite food

I noticed his favorite food is not listed anywhere on the page. I recall a radio interview I was listening to back in the heyday in which Michael answered the "favorite food" question with "salt and vinegar Pringles". As someone (amongst many) that believes favorite foods are excellent reflections of a person's personality, I would really like to see this added, but didn't want to go fiddling with one of Wikipedia's top pages without making sure somebody else in the world felt the same way first. Eluminite (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose...respectfully.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Someone could add that, after his death, MJ's songs occupied 8 positions in the iTunes top 10. "Man in the Mirror" occupies the first position. Also, someone could add that Jackson's CDs' sales exploded. http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-itunes-domination/ http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Michael-Jackson-s-Albums-Climb-iTunes-Top-40-Fast-2.png/ http://digg.com/music/Michael_Jackson_iTunes_Popularity_PIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be in Death of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

911 Call from Anonymous caller

Has anyone identified the caller of the 911 call? It seems as though no one has mentioned the persons' name at all which I find odd in such a big death like this. I understand there is 26 pages of talk, but I'm hoping this has not been brought up. AcePuppy (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The caller in the recording is not identified in current media reports [5], but from the contents it is presumably one of the staff at Jackson's mansion in Holmby Hills.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent death tag

I boldly removed the recent death tag a couple times[6][7] with edit comments because I don't think it improves the quality of reading for this article—mostly because this article is not about his death. The current event tag at Death of Michael Jackson takes care of this nicely. The section on his death, in WP:SS is only a few lines on this page. Thus, in my opinion, we should not burden readers with a tag that only affects a minimal portion of this article, as a whole. -Pecoc (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a service to the reader than anything. I think that, as long as the tag is on Farrah Fawcett, it should remain on this page too (incidentally, the tag is still on Ed McMahon, so...) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which makes my argument consistent (unnecessarily so, in my opinion, as I don't consider precedent on other recent deaths an argument). Neither of them have Death pages... -Pecoc (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, you can't argue his death is insignificant to this article. Give it a week or or so, then take it down. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a strawman to state that I am arguing "his death is insignificant to this article", in my opinion. -Pecoc (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What the tag states is very true of this article; RDTs should stay on the articles of recently deceased people for 7 days after the death of the subject. If there should be any exception made to that rule, regarding this article, it should be that the tag remain on the article for a longer, not shorter amount of time, as there will be more info about his death still being announced by the media and added to this article long after the 7 days is up. Information yes (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is this "rule" stated? -Pecoc (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not edit war over this. The tag should stay up for a few days yet, due to the ongoing media coverage and new information emerging.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ianmac on this. Tag should stay up until the stream of new info slows down. I'd add a reminder that this is his main bio and not an appropriate place for minute-by-minute updates of reports on the circumstances of his death, or what's happening with his children, etc. This article should wait until facts are verified in reliable sources, and ideally that enough time has gone by to evaluate their relevance to his bio. Tvoz/talk 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree when Tvoz states, "this isn't the appropriate place for minute-by-minute updates" (better off at Death of Michael Jackson) yet the tag states "Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known" (emphasis added). Therefore the tag is misleading in addition to placing undue weight on such a small portion of this bio. -Pecoc (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Won't the influx of people looking at the Michael Jackson wikipedia page be primarily interested in his death? Think about it. And shouldn't it be made easy for these, most likely, relatively new to wiki users to access? It makes perfect sense if you think about it. I think it should be left up indefinently. Stakingsin (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove it, the message is now irrelevant, especially now that this is not the place that frequent updates are being made. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, it is a helpful tool to non users who are just interested about his death! This is meant to be a free search engine, and it should be easy to use aswell. Not all people know how to use this site, they see a load of links at the top and they look for 'death' It is what you would do if you had never been on wikipedia before, or even if you were an infrequent user.Stakingsin (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Stakingsin, the tag is not supposed to be a WP:DISAMBIG to direct people to the Death of Michael Jackson page. That would be separate discussion entirely. -Pecoc (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

How can he be 11 in 1968? {72.201.168.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Good point, this has been removed. The Jackson 5 says: "By 1968, The Jackson 5 were a headlining act for the All Star Floor Show at Chicago's The Guys' and Gals' Cocktail Lounge and Restaurant. From August 12–27, 1968, The Jackson 5 opened for Motown group Bobby Taylor & the Vancouvers at Chicago's Regal Theater." Strictly speaking, Michael Jackson would have been nine at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, unless I missed it, why is there no mention in the article about MJ being burned during the shooting of a Pepsi commercial? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_4046000/4046605.stm

It's there. While viewing the article, hit ctrl-F to use the 'search' option of your browser to look for 'pepsi'. Tempshill (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy and Charity work

Please expand this section; here is a starting link: http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=1099

58.181.109.126 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)OR 29/june/2009

Some of the charities he supported including USA for Africa, the Make-a-Wish Foundation, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation. He was listed in the guiness book of world records for the most amount of charities supported by a pop star, numbering 39 in total. In 1985 he wrote "we are the world" with Lionel Richie, a song which raised millions of dollars for famine relief in africa. In 1992 he crated ---ill carry on tomorrow... but you get the idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson a Muslim

Michael Jackson was raised a Jehovah's Witness but converted to Islam sometime in 2007 or November 2008 (the actual date is disputed). 3 of the sources in the article cite he was a Muslim, yet no mention of this is made in the article; why has this not been mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.213.178 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ and talk page archive. The consensus is that the single report in The Sun claiming this does not constitute reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Use the Search box above in the Archives... it's been discussed a million times already! Besides, who really cares what religion he is? Does that really matter at this point? He's going to be remembered and evaluated by what he's done... not what religion he is! If he was a church official or did something related to religion, then it might matter! I really think religion should be kept out of Wikipedia! I don't see why it matters what religion someone is? It would be nice to know BUT it really doesn't mean that they practiced it faithfully and/or they might just be claiming to be just to look good. NiteHacker (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because as we all know, The Sun is a crap British newspaper.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 8:49 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Well it is actually one of the top newspapers in the UK, with an audience of 2.05 million, and has won numerous amounts of awards including the British Press Award. DinajGao (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still not a reliable source, especially when nobody else on the planet confirms what it claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was actually accepted and published by the LA Times, NYDN, Washington Post, CBC News, Daily Mail and others. at the moment we cannot really confirm his religious status since hes gone, even though if he was alive for a couple of years he would never publicly say that he has converted really looking at the amount of media attention and scrutiny he received, and I don't really think the media would love to publish that news. the question of his faith was raised again after his death because people starting questioning how the funeral will take place, then I think we can decide. DinajGao (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was Christian... Well, your God is my God!Stakingsin (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that The Sun has a reputation for simply inventing stories, including one which has caused a whole city to refuse to stock it on principle. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also a rag ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice a user changed minor grammar and spelling issues as well as capitalizing "christian" and "god" in other users' posts in this section. Is it permissible to alter discussion from others on a talk page? 63.227.64.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

It is not the done thing. And it is surely good to let people flaunt their ignorance. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, it really doesn't matter... in articles, you can edit for the following reasons... spelling, correcting upper/lowercase and remove curse words. Of course, you can add something to an article if it's relative... BUT you shouldn't remove something... unless it's real extreme. Leave it to more experienced editors or an admin and/or discuss your problem on the discussion page... that's why it's there. Otherwise, you should be careful as to what you do to someone else's work! If it's an obvious problem, then go ahead and edit... if not, try to discuss it first and give the original author a chance to correct the problem. Here, in the discussion page, it really doesn't matter and people write all kinds of things in all different ways but no one takes the time to correct it as it really doesn't matter but if it bugs you, you can just tell the person and let them correct it, if they want, otherwise, just let it go and don't worry about it! NiteHacker (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a new section about Michael Jackson religion should be somehow included in the article. It shouldn't be left out as it overwhelmingly passes WP:N & WP:CRYSTAL. If it is to be included, it should be somehow written in the safest way like "Michael Jackson was brought up as a bla bla bla... It is believed that he has converted bla bla bla". Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 04:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

Given recent events and the nearly 2,500 edits since July 2008 when this article made Featured status, should it go up for a review. --Stephen 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At some point when the world hysteria over his death subsides. FAR at this current point in time would be a nightmare on all editors and the article would probably have to put on probation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think so. One of the criteria for Good and Featured Article status is stability. While the situation is still developing, particularly the impending funeral, autopsy results, and inevitable issues surrounding Jackson's will or other disposition of his property, I doubt this is likely to be resolved in the short term. Meanwhile, there is no particular pressure to re-assess this article against the background of developing events. In short, please let us not get ahead of ourselves and let us the dust settle somewhat. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bookkeeper and Rodhull - this is not the time to do a FAR. Nightmare is an understatement. Tvoz/talk 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edited by a BOT

What? I can't post anything here now? Has my name been entered into the Hugger bot? I made a post and it was removed... apparently, a bot... or someone behind this bot. NiteHacker (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see if you check the page's History, your edit was removed by User:Doniago here. He didn't say why, but presumably because this is not a forum. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see... it's back to business! I will stick to the guidelines then. NiteHacker (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate external link?

Should this be amongst the external links, as it is now? WWGB (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Jackson quotes

No, soundboards are worse that fansites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.4 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

what did Jackson really die from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunniev (talk • contribs) 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have coroners, to find out. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was reported on BBC today (29 Jun 2009) that the family is asking for another autopsy, cause of death is still unclear.Betty Butt (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with sidebar

I tried to add spouses to the sidebar summary. I should be autoconfirmed, and the text is still present. This is what I entered: | Spouse = Lisa Marie Presley (1994–1996)
Deborah Jeanne Rowe (1996–1999) Cmntgmry (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox musician}} does not have a spouse parameter coded. You can only use that parameter if it is contained in the template. – ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Elephant man.

I have a reliable source detailing the attempted purchase of the elephant man. It is published by Candian Broadcast Corp and is preserved at [[8]] 97.112.166.80 (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The above edit was by me, I was unaware i wasn't logged in. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)