Talk:Michael Jackson

Article Split/Tagging

This article at 123kb is difficult to navigate and for users using a slower/older PC it can be difficult to access. I propose that the article is split into two seperate specific smaller articles title Micheal Jackson (the muscian) and Michael Jackson (the person). The first page can focus on his music achievements whilst the second could focus on his personal issues and achievements.

The alternative is to address the potential fancruft, the article might contain too much intricate detail which might explain why the article is so large. Either way discussion should be opened into the future of this article. Please do not remove templates until consensus is reached. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Reluctantly agree here. Since MJ's death, the article has grown beyond the size that is desirable for a single page. Creating Music of Michael Jackson would address this, and allow the main article to concentrate on biographical issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the article into two separate biographies for one individual; I really don't see that working at all. Skimming through the article, I agree that there several lines and paragraphs that are too detailed (for instance, the first child molestation charge section contains way too much info when there's a separate article for it). If anything, we should look for things to take out. For example, under the first marriage section, the sentence "They stayed in contact every day over the telephone" seems useless at best. We should try weeding things like this out. — Σxplicit 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the life and career he had, it's probably about the right length. But it should be trimmed rather than split Pongley (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article definitely needs trimming at the moment, although a split might not be necessary if some of the intricate details leading to cruft were removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's trim it, then split. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above, lets trim first and then if it is still to large we can consider splitting. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

At no point should this article ever be split. Just cut out excessive details. There is not logic in having two biographies for one individual. Jackson already has an a number of "main articles" that deal with intricate details. As a musician, his biographical entry should primarily focus on his music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have no problem moving information out of the Michael Jackson article and into the other ones (such as Death of Michael Jackson), and perhaps even creating other more specific articles; but as proposed, it seems like there are two different people with the same name. -Sme3 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Sme3--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree: I say yes because to me there was two Micheals--Mpurplegirl (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose With respect, Michael Jackson was one person, not two. The art influenced the man, and vica versa, and cannot simply be split apart. However, I would suggest if you want to shorten this article, that you could create pages entitled "Musical career of Michael Jackson" and "Personal life of Michael Jackson", and keep shorter summaries on this page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Im curious to know, how many articles have had a split like this? Portillo (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Michael Jackson the person was an entertainer, one article details his entire life.

• Strongly Oppose A waste of time and one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Michael Jackson was not two people. And if your PC is old and slow then too bad. Some people don't have internet access; it doesn't mean we should have a courier service that prints out articles and fetches it to them.

• Comment I have removed the tagging for the time being, because there is a consensus that the article needs trimming. Even on my modern computer and Internet connection, the page is taking too long to load. The main issue with the trimming process is to avoid dramatic leaps in the page content which could set off edit wars. Before making any major changes (particularly to the lead section), please discuss them on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Only one bio is needed. There was a lot of fancruft and other miscellaneous bullshit in the article even before he died, but that cruft is pretty vigorously defended. There are several sections which could be deleted and/or moved to separate articles and/or pared down. But we only need one bio. If we had two, they would both end up duplicating each other and then we would have twice as much verbiage to wade through. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the bio itself is not bad, and only is about a third of the article. The last two thirds of the article, where we (I am partially responsible for the article) get all profound and expound on his significance, is incredibly boring and needs to be drastically pruned. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A Place With No Name

I want to question the reliability of this information. Is the mentioning of a 25 second leaked snippet really enough to warrant a full section on posthumous music releases? this is the kind of information that could be trimmed from the article. There is little independent or official verification that this is actually a michael jackson recording and not a demo or singer sounding very much like MJ (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

As a matter of fact several sources, including Jackson's former band manager have verified that the song is Michael Jackson and it is indeed a fully recorded song. If you are questioning the section, please read the two debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination). The wikipedia community has mainly agreed that the content is necessary which is why it was merged here from its previous article. But, to repeat myself, there is significant verification that the song is full and that it is Michael Jackson, no question. --JDelo93 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

my issue is more with the fact that the way it is written appears to promote a leaked song which could be breaching copyright and other Laws both in the US and internationally. a whole paragraph just on a 25 second snippet seems excessive. im still questionning the relevance of calling it the first "posthumous release". including such information like "fans claim it was recorded... etc." is no encyclopedic. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

That can be easily removed. And it already has been. That {{pov}} tag was more than a little ridiculous. If it's a simple problem next time, fix it yourself instead of starting unnecessary discussion. Now let's talk about the {{relevance}} tag. I don't know what could possibly make you think that's irrelevant information. This song is the first song released during Michael Jackson's posthumous career. Need I explain more? Discussing a linked song is fine, as long as we don't tell people where to download the music.

I'll keep the {{relevance}} tag until we get more opinion, but I'm removing that {{pov}} tag. That's just ridiculous and lazy. I'm sorry, but it really is. Just remove minor issues. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for removing the section. It only contains information of a leaked snippet and has no official release, so calling it so is amazingly misleading. If we omit unofficially released albums and songs from discography articles (MOS:DISCOG), I don't see why this unofficially released snippet should be any different. — Σxplicit 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally not for including unofficially released material in articles, but it seems to have received a fair amount of coverage, and it is the first song of Jackson's posthumous career. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it the first song of his posthumous career—it's more along the lines the first song snippet that was leaked after his death. I don't agree that it's fair to say this snippet is part of his career if it hasn't been officially released and was illegally leaked. Songs will be officially released in the future and those can be included; this one shouldn't be unless it becomes more notable than just being another leaked song. — Σxplicit 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New Page

I was wondering would it be a good idea to start another page that focuses on the entertainers reaction to MJ's Death? Most of music is influnced by him and many entertainers(Atheles,Actors,Singers,Producers,Directors) released statements. But the page will focus on more notable figures in MJ's entertainment life ITalkTheTruth (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

85.138.123.221 (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/41000/week-ending-aug-16-2009-king-of-country-boots-king-of-pop/ Thriller sales in USA have surpassed Eagles's.

Besides, MJ has sold millions and millions of records after his death, so I think that he has sold, by now, not 750 millions of records but 780 millions.

they are saying dat mjs childrens are not his —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.119.195 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on the dance floor

Just wondering...how come Blood On the Dance Floor isn't mentioned in the list of albums????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniperequinox (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix is a remix album, so it has previously released material but with a new mix. Should it be listed, or is it similar to a compilation album? Comments, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it has enough new songs to be included. Only half of it is a remix album.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

picture

What's wrong with using Michael Jackson June 23, 2009.JPG as the infobox picture? Currently it's on the Death of Michael Jackson page. Shark96z (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is copyrighted and would fail WP:NFCC for the infobox. It has fair use as one of the last images of Jackson before his death. Also, it is arguably not the best illustration of Jackson due to the dim lighting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article because the old 350m/750m sales edit-war has risen again. You have three days to sort it out or seek some dispute resolution. I'm also aware of previous sockpuppetry on this issue. Rodhullandemu 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page. It was in need of it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times and can be searched for in the talk page archive, eg here. Let's say it once again: the sales figures for Michael Jackson's records are estimates, and there are no "correct" figures.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought last time, and think again this time, that a full protection is a knee-jerk reaction so a silly argument, surely a 24h block is a better route, so as not to affect the rest of editors? Remember, just because you can protect pages, doesn't mean you have too. RaseaC (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not necessary to protect the whole article because there is a dispute over one number. Mktyscn (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to me to be a fast-pace collection of reversions between two opposing points of view, both being put by auto-confirmed editors. For that reason, I deemed that semi-protection would discriminate unnecessarily against IP editors. However, the editor pushing the "750m" stance has not come here to justify it, or discuss, perhaps for reasons relating to this topic, and perhaps not. For now I will unprotect the article and advise this editor to discuss here or run the risk of blocking for continued disruption. In doing this, I am guided by |Ianmacm's above comment that we are talking about "estimates", and the issues of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I see have already been discussed ad nauseam. When there is a dispute over "estimates", we really do need to come to a consensus about what constitue reliable sources, or at least agree to wording of the form of "estimates vary between 350m and 750m". I'll leave it up to you. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now, any chance of blocking the two users involved in the dispute for a few days to see if that will encourage them to grow up?!RaseaC (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so: it seems to have stopped since I issued a final warning to the editor pushing the 750m claim, and consensus seems to have developed as expressed below. No admin action is indicated at present, but if it starts again, please notify me, since I'm around between 8am and 2am GMT. Rodhullandemu 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sold about 375 million records worldwide

We're discussing this matter also on the talk page of list of best-selling music artists. Did MJ sold 750 million records or not? The answer is NO. Did The Beatles or Elvis sold 1 billion records? No, they didn't.

Some interesting figures about Michael Jackson's worldwide sales:

Albums

• Studio Albums: 10

1. Got To Be There (1971)- 4,112,879
2. Ben (1972)- 4,401,605
3. Music and Me (1973)- 1,980,440
4. Forever, Michael (1975)- 1,687,234
5. Off The Wall (1979)- 20,000,000
6. Thriller (1982)- 108,000,000
7. Bad (1987)- 32,000,000
8. Dangerous (1991)- 30,000,000
9. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book l (1995)- 22,000,000 (44 million units)
10. Invincible (2001)- 12,000,000

• Total studio albums worldwide sold = 236,182,158

• Compilations: 22

1. The Best of Michael Jackson (1975)- 2,500,223
2. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,600,208
3. Farewell My Summer (1984)-2,087,110
4. Looking Back to Yesterday (1986)- 302,330
5. 18 Greatest Hits (?)- 1,250,000
6. Anthology (?)- 2,655,098
7. Other Pre- 1991 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
8. Their Very Best- Back To Back (?)- 250,000
9. Love Songs (?)- 500,000
10. The Original Soul Of (?)- 377,745
11. The Michael Jackson Mix (?)- 500,000
12. The Best of- The Motown Years (?)- 300,000
13. The Best of- The Millennium Collection (?)- 200,000
14. Love Songs (?)- 50,000
15. Other Post- 1990 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
16. Special CD Box (?)- 4,000
17. Greatest Hits HIStory Volume 1 (2001)- 3,000,000
18. Number Ones (2003)- 7,000,000
19. Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (2004)- 500,000
20. The Essential Michael Jackson (2005)- 2,500,000
21. Visionary: The Video Singles (2006)- 500,000
22. King of Pop (2008)- 400,000

Compilations Sold= 27,476,714

• Other Albums: 4

1. E.T. The Extra- Terrestrial & Singles Packs (1982)- 100,000
2. Dangerous- The Remix Collection (?)- 22,000
3. Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix (1997)-8,000,000
4. Thriller: 25 (2008)- 3,000,000

• Other Albums Sold= 11,122,000

Home Video/DVD: 10

1. Making Michael Jackson's Thriller (VHS- 1983)- 2,000,000
2. The Legend Continues...(VHS- 1988)- 1,000,000
3. Moonwalker (VHS- 1988)- 2,000,000
4. Dangerous- The Short Films [VHS (1993), DVD (2001)]- 575,000
5. Video Greatest Hits- HIStory [VHS (1995), DVD (2001)]- 1,250,000
6. HIStory On Film- Volume ll (DVD- 1997)- 800,000
7. Ghosts (1997)- 250,000
8. Number Ones (DVD- 2003)- 1,600,000
9. The Ones (DVD- 2004)- 125,000
10. Live In Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour (DVD- 2005)- 500,000

Home Video/DVD Sold= 10,100,000

Singles

1. Got To Be There (1971)- 2,245,900
2. Rockin' Robin (1972)- 2,897,300
3. I Wanna Be Where You Are (1972)- 1,321,600
4. Ain't No Sunshine (1972)- 278,900
5. Ben (1972)- 2,865,000
6. Morning Glow (?)- 15,300
7. With A Child's Heart (1973)- 341,100
8. Music And Me (1973)- 12,300
9. Doggin' Around (?)- 5,000
10. We're Almost There (1975)- 403,300
11. Just A Little Bit of You (1975)- 861,100
12. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,756,200
13. Happy (?)- 145,900
14. Farewell My Summer Love (1984)- 788,100
15. Girl You're So Together (1984)- 89,100
16. Touch The One You Love (?)- 1,000
17. Twenty- Five Miles (?)-10,200
18. Ease On Down The Road (1978)- 100,000
19. A Brand New Day (?)- 50,000
20. You Can't Win (1979)- 50,000
21. Don't Stop Till' You Get Enough (1979)- 2,500,000
22. Rock With You (1979)- 2,350,000
23. Off The Wall (1980)- 950,000
24. She's Out Of My Life (1980)- 1,000,000
25. Girlfriend (1980)- 30,000
26. The Girl Is Mine (1982)- 2,150,000
27. Billie Jean (1983)- 6,209,700
28. Beat It (1983)- 4,432,000
29. Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'(1983)- 1,800,000
30. Human Nature (1983)- 1,050,000
31. P.Y.T.(Pretty Young Thing)(1983)- 1,050,000
32. Say Say Say (1983)- 2,850,000
33. Thriller (1984)- 4,427,000
34. We Are The World (1985)- 20,000,000
35. I Just Can't Stop Loving You (1987)- 2,250,000
36. Bad (1987)- 1,628,000
37. The Way You Make Me Feel (1987)- 1,390,000
38. Man In The Mirror (1988)- 900,000
39. Get It (1988)- 180,000
40. Dirty Diana (1988)- 1,200,000
41. Another Part Of Me (1988)- 830,000
42. Smooth Criminal (1988)- 1,350,000
43. Leave Me Alone (1989)- 485,000
44. Liberian Girl (1989)- 165,000
45. Black Or White (1991)- 2,442,400
46. Remember The Time (1992)- 1,300,000
47. In The Closet (1992)- 620,000
48. Jam (1992)- 510,000
49. Who Is It (1992)- 540,000
50. Heal The World (1992)- 1,629,000
51. Give Into Me (1993)- 300,000
52. Will You Be There (1993)- 1,050,000
53. Goon Too Soon (1993)- 60,000
54. Scream/ Childhood (1995)- 2,993,000
55. You Are Not Alone (1995)- 3,086,700
56. Earth Song (1995)- 3,173,000
57. They Don't Care About Us (1996)- 1,764,500
58. Why (1996)- 475,000
59. Stranger In Moscow (1996)- 540,000
60. Blood On The Dance Floor (1997)- 960,000
61. HIStory/ Ghosts (1997)- 375,000
62. You Rock My World (2001)- 1,915,000
63. Cry (2001)- 45,000
64. One More Chance (2003)- 225,000
65. Visionary- The Video Singles (2006)- 350,000
66. The Girl Is Mine 2008 (2008)- 50,000
67. Wanna Be Startin' Somtin' Somethin' 2008 (2008)- 50,000
68. Beat It 2008 (2008)- 50,000

• Total singles sold worldwide = 98,967,600

Total Albums + Singles= 373,748,472 Floydian Tree (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Source?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael jackson 750 million sales as a solo artist no mention of the jackson 5

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-06-26-jackson-faces_N.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29531056/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8121749.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8170429.stm

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world,

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/4977319/Michael-Jackson-fans-face-huge-price-rises-for-London-concert-tickets.html

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20287946,00.html,http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-beatles-business-media-estate.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/wpix-michael-jackson-heart-attack,0,6959872.story

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Memorial-Service---In-Numbers/Article/200907115331455

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?_r=2

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609049.htm

And here is a video which say he sold 750 million as a solo artist still no mention of the jackson 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcQAhIKoL64

Michael Jackson did not sold 750 million records, but about 375/400 million records

The figure of 750 million is highly inflated and statistically unrealistic. There's no consensus about the 750 million.

• CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [5]
• Estimates based on adding up various database sources (see above) show that the figure of 750m is unrealistic
• History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
• Other figures (Beatles etc.) may need reassessment also
• Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
• Sony is a primary source
• WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
• Archive records from reputable sources indicate far fewer sales; BBC reports 165m as of 2003 BBC 2003 - The Age (Australian) reports 350m as of 2006 TheAge
• Wikipedia records indicate the 750 million figure first crept into the Michael Jackson page on the third of November 2006 Wiki750m, the sources given by the contributor were a Belgian fansite MJMTC, this site was publishing a statement by Michael Jackson's publicist Raymone Bain, she had claimed 750 million sales figures, which the Times of India attributes as her statement Times of India as well as the aforementioned WSJ article. Prior to this, worldwide sales listed for Michael Jackson in the Wikipedia pages have ranged from 150 million to 350 million records, gradually increasing as the pages were updated, all of them almost invariably listing Michael Jackson fansites as the source.
• In light of all evidence and claims, and given the conflicting reports by reputable news sources, with each other as well as in some cases themselves, the opponents of the 'edit reversion' request that more research be done into news archives prior to 2006 to either validate or invalidate the 750 million claim before a final justification be made as there appears to be sufficient evidence to indicate the 750 million claim came during the World Music Awards, and as being a publicist's statement, was picked up by major news sources, in which case would put the primary source as Raymone Bain and secondary sources as the reputable news outlets

The Wall Street Journal states:

"Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads. It is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million."

Based on this Elvis sold under 345 million unit /or under 205 million?/ Michael Jackson sold somewhere between 205-345/maybe 386/ million and The Beatles sold over 385 possibly 400-500 million+ /as they do not state numbers/.

His sales figure is about 375-400 million records worldwide. About five times his sales in the US. And that's very rational. We're discussing this matter also at the best-selling artists list.Christo jones (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Against the 750+ million figure:

• Harout72 (talk · contribs)
• JFonseka (talk · contribs)
• PaulStar (talk · contribs)
• Christo jones (talk · contribs)
• 124.179.173.61 (talk · contribs)
• Kiac (talk · contribs)
• 75.142.54.211 (talk · contribs)
• —Kww(talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Floydian Tree (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) MJ sold about 375 million records

This is becoming one of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee debates for which Wikipedia is famous. Here's my attempt to get out of the quagmire: All of the figures are estimates, and although the 750 million figure has been widely quoted in the media, its accuracy has been questioned, most notably in the Wall Street Journal article here. Rather than edit war like kids over which estimate is the "best" one, it might be better to follow User:Rodhullandemu's suggestion that the wording should say something like "estimated sales between 300 and 750 million records", using the WSJ article as a citation. It is unworkable to have constant edit wars over this, so how about agreeing on a form of words similar to this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for that. Mktyscn (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good alternative.Christo jones (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, we seem to be getting somewhere. The only other point to make is that describing Michael Jackson as the best selling male pop artist of all time is also controversial, since the estimates about the sales of Elvis Presley's records have similar problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also voting for this edit!!Floydian Tree (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a possible debate then over who is the "best selling solo male pop vocalist" of all time. I keep changing Jackson to #2 as it is what is stated on Wikipeida here: List of best selling music artists. Perhaps that page needs some revisions? sherpajohn (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists has run into the same problem that we had here, which is the use of estimated sales that can be challenged for various reasons. The article is not a reliable source, and it is best not to set off more edit wars by asking "Who sold more records, Elvis or MJ?" when the answer would contain a large amount of speculation and original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson changed names

Could someone open a section of him being a Muslim?Many citations given.

Ref: Dr R Azrin (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Many cites, all derived from one unreliable source, and he and his people never confirmed it, so, in short, no. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Panther Dance

I really think the Panther Dance should be lised amongst Micheal Jackson's great artistic achievements. It is after all the only dance I know of with no music, other than the sounds of his moves and his expressions of the panther, reflecting the current state of the world, its violence, its racism, and it is a wonderful interpretation unlike anything ever seen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.180.217 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If michael jacksons sales are going to be changed so should elvis and the beatles beacuse they did not sell 1 billion

http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2009/04/29/min1592_195858.php

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk pages for those articles. This talk page is for discussing the Jackson article. Mktyscn (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We could spend hours clogging up the talk pages with arguments over who sold the most records. These figures are always estimates and need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

85.240.175.245 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)In 1996, the World Music Awards gave Jackson the "Best selling American Artist Ever" award. In 2000, Jackson received, from the WMA, the "Best Selling Pop Male Artist Of The Millennium" for having sold 750 millions of albuns. To say that the 750 millions of albums sold were an invention of a Jackson publicist, during the year of 2006, is, at least, stupid. MJ did sell over 750 millions of albuns, according to WMA and many other sources. I understand that people may dislike Jackson and, therefore, want to "hide" his achievements but Wikipedia may lose its credibility.

It looks like this is replacing "Did Michael Jackson convert to Islam?" as the biggest source of circular debate. The article has already been fully protected over this issue, and there is now a WP:CONSENSUS not to cherry pick sources giving estimated record sales. The real risk to Wikipedia's credibility comes from citing sources in a misleading way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

85.240.175.245 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Then, why don't you do the same to the Beatles or Presley? Why do you guys state, in the best selling artists of all time, that those two guys sold over 1 billion of albums? Don't you think that is stupid? Does your rule just apply to Michael Jackson? Why is that?

The sales figures quoted in the media are usually worth about as much as a wooden nickel. You could spend all day citing different sources, and it has nothing to do with being pro or anti Michael Jackson. Just look at the time that has been spent on this on the talk page in the last few days to see how futile it is to be drawn into arguments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael jackson Artist Of The Millenium Award

They Say he has sold more records around the world than any single artists

watch the whole video

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

http://www.worldmusicawards.com/mj.html