Talk:Michael Jackson

Edit request on 11 December 2012

How is whether the heal the world foundation was shut down relevant to his overall contributions to charity. I think this information should be placed in the "contents" section.Billydeecooper (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Did Michael Jackson really sell more than 750 million units?

According to several secondary sources the total amount of Thriller album sales, as well as the total sales of all his musical work, are wrong. Throughout time, numerous contradicting figures have been published, that we should consider before making any final claim.

Some sources, listed chronologically

• Tour Dates [UK] (2004) 135 million albums (including 47 million alone for Thriller)

• Pitchfork Media (November, 2004) 150 million records

• BBC News (2005) 135 million albums

• Pitchfork Media (2005) 150 million records

• Daily News and Analysis (2009) 300 million records

• China Daily (2009) 300 million records

• Daily Telegraph (2009) 300 million records

• CNN (2009) 350 million records

• Jam! / Canoe.ca / World Entertainment News Network(2009) 300 million records

These are the sources that we also should take in consideration (some, because there are other more):

• Wall Street Journal:

According, the Wall Street Journal, the claim that Michael Jackson sold around 750 million, is an inflated figure which was originally stated in 2006 by a primary source, Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, without any factual evidence and probably in an effort to promote album sales. Reference. Later, this exaggerated figure was included in Wikipedia citing a fansite (Exclusivemj or MJTMC) as the source of the information (clearly a primary and a non-reliable reference according to Wikipedia standards). At that moment, this piece of information was published on Wikipedia, it turned into a fact that various sources adopted without contrasting it with more serious and reliable sources, as is the case of MTV and Billboard in 2006. In 2009, at the moment of Michael Jackson death and funeral, this figure was restated once more by several reliable and non-reliable sources, supporting their statements on Wikipedia and Raymone Bain.

• ImpreMedia:

ImpreMedia, is another source that states that the 750 million sold is an statistical fallacy.

• International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI):

Adrian Strain, a musical expert and a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said: When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody. We had to go to the Guinness Book of World Records." This statement demonstrate that even the musical industry, has difficulty finding the real amount of albums sold, which cause them to repeatedly commit mistakes.

Therefore, as there are reliable secondary sources that state that the 750 million units sold is a true fact, there are sources that state the contrary. In an effort to keep the neutrality and reliability of the article I suggest the addition of a note next to the 750 million statement (350-400 million), as follows:.

According to the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, the 750 million units sold by Michael Jackson is an inflated figure that was initially claimed by Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, without any factual evidence and probably in an effort to promote album sales. From 2006 until present time, several sources such as MTV, Reuters and Billboard have claimed that Michael Jackson has sold 750 million units, however, Adrian Strain, a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said that this figure is unreal. (ref=, ref=, ref=....)

In that way we will prevent biased information and allow the readers to judge by themselves what to believe. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful. We don’t have to cherry-pick statements, we have to show all that’s in front of us, especially when it comes from reliable and trustworthy sources.

Thanks. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• support: After a long period of searching, the user Chrishonduras has found several facts that wouldn't be rejected because of the sources above mentionated. Here is the original page, in spanish, that contains the original conduct from the user. Most interesting about is that everything could be possible traced back to this Wikipedia's version, as from some user(s) had edited the article with the wrong numbers. --Phoenix58 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support per above. Dan56 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - as it is best to explain the problem to our readers - We all know that newspapers are not a reliable source for albums sales whats so ever and never will be (A few refs above just mimic whats was here at Wikipedia at the time) .Moxy (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Well explained. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. But if that quote will appear in the article, it needs to be reworded. Something like "According to Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, Jackson sold over 750 million by 2006. Diverse newspapers and news sites consider the sales "inflated", ...". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you all for participating, that's it. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) PD Tbhotch si deseas modificar la cita, adelante.

1/16/2013

My sources are not the problem. ABC News, FOX News, People Magazine, and Katherine Jacksons own book are plenty reliable. And last time I checked, there are a million things that are on wikipedia that are not sourced, if everyone knows its true then its on there, google it for god sakes, are you trying to tell me this is not true? Are you denying the existence of this women? I think because you dont like the fact it is true that you dont want it on there, you have some kind of power trip. This is a fact, not my opinion. MJ has a half sister, anyone who knows anything about this family knows this, there are pictures, articles, recordings, oh and didnt I mention its written about in Katherine Jacksons own book! Get a clue and come down off your high horse, you are not a wiki-God, you dont get to pick and choose what the truth is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Three sources were given for the information about a reported half-sister. None are strictly reliable. A reliable source is not merely about where it is published, but the manner, and specific wording, of the text being used to support contentious information. Pay close attention to the sources themselves, and the wording and nature of the sources:

• One source was to Joe Jackson (manager), a Wikipedia article. For rather obvious reasons, Wikipedia cannot use itself to support some bit of information. Sources need to come from outside of Wikipedia. The information in that article was not itself supported by any sources, so has been removed.
• This source: [5] doesn't directly confirm the fact. Instead it refers obliquely to a "Fox News Report" but does not show that any investigation was done on the information. It also isn't a particularly in depth, it mentions the name in passing. A source for something contentious should be above reproach and in depth, not so brief and questionable. So, we have a Fox News report that we don't have access to check, and a single sentence in a fluff piece. This is not a reliable source regardless of the web site hosting it.
• This source: [6] is a nearly incomprehensible rant on a message board. Sorry, but anybody can post anything on message boards. It isn't a reliable source.

If this is all we have, this in no way has the claim been verified to say that, unambiguously, this woman was his half sister, nor do we have any evidence that others besides herself consider her claim credible. At best we have her own unverified claims. This has no bearing on whether or not her claims are, or are not, true. That is irrelevent to this discussion. What is relevant is if we can verify that her claims are true (or at least widely considered credible) and we have zero evidence of that in the three sources that have been provided. If it is true, please provide in-depth, credible sources which show that likely. What has been provided so far does not cut it. --Jayron32 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Your addition of that information is, as of now, invalid. The evidence you are presenting is not enough to support the claim; for something so serious like that you'll need a much more reliable secondary reference. I am not referring to the source(s), but to the half-paragraph mention which you claim backs up the idea of an affair. That something is mentioned in ABC news is not enough. And no, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. While not outright discounting the claim, you will need a heck of a lot more to insert that blurb into the biography. Once you have it, please post it here so it can be discussed and agreed upon. I will remind you at this point of WP:3RR. Continual edit warring can and will result in a temporary preventive editing block. Find valid sources, and bring them forth. That's how it works around here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

wow, this goes back to you thinking you are a wiki-God. I think the fact that it is written in Katherine Jacksons book, My Family, is pretty clear evidence this women exists and is related to the family. I think if you spent a mere 10 minutes on the internet, you would understand this women is alive, real, and related. I do not have access to the womens birth certificate. You seem to be applying an insurmountable standard of evidence in order to place this fact on the page. Not even the Jackson family themselves can come up with enough evidence to satisfy what you are looking for. Im sorry, but if you dont see/understand/realize that this women is Joes daughter, hence then making her Michaels half-sister, then it boggles my mind that someone such as yourself would be allowed to edit wiki articles. What would be good enough for you? Do you want MJ to come back from the dead and say this is true? Get a clue. You just dont like this fact so you dont want it there. There are MILLIONS of things on wiki that are unsourced, but they are on there because it is general knowledge and fact. I am not EVER going to stop editing this page with that fact because it is true, you cant get around it, you dont get to pick and choose what truths of MJ's life we get to tell and what we will hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, why is this fact presented on Katherine and Josephs wiki pages and not Michaels? Do we hold a different standard of evidence for the two? {{rpa} If you dont want that fact on there, then go take it off of those pages. You cant have it on one and not the other. <BLP violation> Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop attacking and making BLP violations, otherwise I will report your account. If other article is unreferenced, source it, that comment is irrelevant here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That other stuff exists is irrelevant; if anything you should be able to get a source from another article and use it here. But I'll note you have not. If the evidence for your claim is so overwhelming how is it that you can't come up with a reliable source that backs it? And while you're at it, please sign your comments and be nice. Anyway... to other editors - to resolve this dispute, would [7][8][9] these sources be considered acceptable? As I said, I did not discount the claim, and a quick google search seems to indicate that it is true. In order: Fox News, People Magazine and The Telegraph. If so, let's get this over with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This fact is on Michael Jacksons mothers and fathers wiki pages. I did not put it there. You cannot have it on one without having on the other. It is common knowledge amongst anyone who follows the Jackson family that this women is Joes daughter. It has been confirmed by multiple family members, it is in Katherine Jacksons book. Is she lying? Are the family members lying? How can we have this fact on the parents wiki pages and not Michaels? Why do we have two different standards of evidence for the two pages? There is unsourced material all over wiki, you just want to be right.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And if my sources are no good, then why are these sources accepted for other pages? Every single source I provided has been used on other articles. And like I said before, even without that point, there is common knowledge all over wiki that is not sourced.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well for one thing you can't use other Wikipedia pages as a source. Second of all, if you want to use a book as a source, then actually add it as a source. It's recommended that you do this using Template:Cite book in the following format: <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |title= |url= |accessdate= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=}}</ref>. Finally, It's actually not true that common knowledge is fine on Wikipedia. Unsourced content is tolerated—but if a claim is challenged by another user, then WP:reliable sources must be provided to verify the claim. Even something as basic as the shape of the Earth would need a source if it is challenged. And of course, the article on Michael Jackson is a WP:featured article, and to be approved as a featured article, everything needs to be sourced, no matter how mundane. Trinitresque (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is ridiculous. Fox, ABC, People magazine, and everyone I mentioned are plenty reputable. They are good enough to be used as sources on other wiki pages. I am not sure exactly what source you would like if these are not good enough. By this logic, CNN would not be good enough, the Washington Post would not be good enough, Time magazine would not be good enough. I am not exactly sure what sources there are out there besides publications such as these. What would be good enough? Should I get a video of Joe Jackson saying "this is my daughter, which by extension makes her Michaels half-sister." Every source used on wikipedia for other articles are from such sources, what other sources are there? This is a case of you not wanting it there, so you are taking it off of there. Rather then keeping wikipedia accurate, informative, and telling all aspects of stories, you choose to delete this fact. There is a page on 9/11 conspiracies, what sources are there other then crazy people sitting in their mothers basement. You have placed a standard of reliability impossible to meet. If the sources I have provided are not good enough, then nothing is in your eye. You have not heard the last of this or me.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Read and understand our policy about living persons. Both, Joe and Katherine, as well as Joh'vonnie are living persons. The problem are not the references, the problem is that those references are based upon a book, written by Katherine.

• ABC - "from one of his affairs, according to a Fox News report in 2004."
• Fox - "Katherine's ... revelation that her husband..."
• Wikipedia and The ABC Forum? - Please, read WP:IRS

Every reliable reference falls into what Katherine Jackson said, in her autobiography My Family. Even if the Washington Post or CNN say something, every information will fall into what Kate said because there is no further evidence about this, unless there is a DNA proof. If "[t]here is a page on 9/11 conspiracies" still being irrelevant here. 9/11 is not about three living persons. Also, I don't see this information at Joe Jackson (manager) page, and at Katherine Jackson it appears where it corresponds, at My Familiy. And if you want to threat us with "You have not heard the last of this or me", we can choose to ignore you or if necessary blocking you for violating the BLP policy and/or disruptive editing. This article is *about* Michael Jackson not his family. Also, this is not a war. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not following the discussion. I proposed three sources that back up your claim, and seem to be reliable. Now, let's wait until the other involved editors sign off on them, and you'll be free to add them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay I am not threatening you, I just can't for the life of me understand why this would not be included. We are talking about Michael Jacksons life in this article, this is a fact in it whether we like it or not. His brother Brandon that barley survived birth is mentioned, as this should be to. I am not sure what proof there is this is his step-sister other then getting a DNA test, which obviously wont happen. In my opinion, his parents are very credible, and good enough to use as sources. They say this happened, then this happened. There are a million Michael Jackson facts that solely go on the word of people close to him. I think we can all agree this women exists, this women is Joes daughter, and that by extension makes her Michael Jacksons half-sister. It is not a fact the family enjoys talking about, but neither is any of the allegations, yet these are all mentioned on his page. I think it is pretty clear, adding all sources together, this story is true.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:SELFPUBLISHED (I asked you to read IRS): "Self-published [sources] (My life) ... may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as: 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people)". Katherine is talking about Joe and Joh' in a self-published book. Do you have a reference of Joe discussing this? On a side note, Brandon is relevant because he was his twin brother, but the article does not include more information about his other brothers and sisters. Now, the text you want to add to the article include a WP:SELFPUBLISHED #2 violation, a BLP violation, and information that is not relevant to the life of Michael itself (do we discuss Janet's life and career here? This aplies to all other siblings). Also, why you insisted to add it here and not to other Jacksons' bios? This info would be relevant, at most, at Joe and Katherine biographies, if properly sourced, but not to either of other Jackson family members. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And to who said they didn't see it on Katherine Jacksons wiki page, go to the My Family section. And you say the article is about Michael Jackson, not his family. That is an interesting take on it considering his family is specifically mentioned in the article. All of his brothers and sisters are mentioned, and even, as I said before, the one that barley survived birth. So why would she not be mentioned.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And to add to what I was saying before, I find it odd that the sources I provided earlier in addition to the words in Katherine's book were not good enough or reliable while Source #24, Taraborrelli, who was only a friend of Jackson was apparently a good enough source. If his book is used as a source in the very same article, other sources proposed should be good enough to be used.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with your "other stuff exist" arguments, they are weak. If Taraborrelli is not reliable, discuss and manage to remove his references. But consider Taraborrelli did not write a book about himself and cited other people such as Michael Jackson, like Katherine did. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, how do we know any of what Taraborrelli said in his book is true and factual? I mean after all, who was he? He was just a mere "friend" of Jackson's. How can we be so sure any of what he said isn't just pulled out of the air and produced to sell his book? After all, Jackson had thousands of "friends". And here I am, trying to add a small fact that is said by his mother, not a friend, his actual mother, and it is being denied. Last time I checked, someones mother was more of a reliable source then a "friend". Fine, you want to leave this fact out, go ahead, but you sir are wrong. You are merely flexing your Wikipedia power and can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• J. Randy Taraborrelli, journalist and biographer. He has several New York Times' best-selling book. If Taraborrelli is not a reliable source, open your case at WP:RSN and search for consensus to eliminate his references from Wikipedia.
• The Magic and the Madness, book described as "This book is the fruit of over 30 years of research ... including Michael [interviews]", "Cutting through tabloid rumours, J. Randy Taraborrelli traces the real story behind Michael Jackson"
• "Jackson had thousands of "friends""
• "trying to add a small fact that is said by his mother," - a BLP violation that is not relevant to Michael Jackson life.
• "Last time I checked, someones mother was more of a reliable source then a "friend"." [sic] - If a mother says that Earth is flat, is she "more reliable" than a friend who works at NASA?
• "You are merely flexing your Wikipedia power and can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy" - I don't have any Wikipedia power, I only tried to explain you Wikipedia policies
• "can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy." - Whatever that means, you haven't given or understood:

a) Joe's acceptance of that "fact", as you've called it.

b) Why a book, written by Katherine, satisfies the WP:SELFPUBLISHED policy.

c) Why we should post a BLP violation.

d) Any lack of understanding Wikipedia policies, including, but not limited to, WP:BLP, WP:NPA and WP:IRS (SELPUBLISHED).

d) Any reason why this is relevant to Michael Jackson biography, but not relevant to his other siblings or father (you never tried to do add it somewhere else).

e) "If {we} want to take it out then {it's} fine", why you have proved the contrary?

f) This is not about winning. If you believe that attacking me or somebody else will make you "win", i.e. this being included in the article, let me inform you that you won't "win". Basically, because you don't want to understand we have policies and we cannot talk about living persons based upon alleged ideas rather than already confirmed ones. Do you have any birth cerfiticate or DNA test, or any other evidence that doesn't include Katherine, to call this "true"? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

While not making any judgment about whether the claim is true or not, this is too important a claim to be stated as fact in a featured article unless the sourcing is rock solid. There is an element of anecdotal evidence and hearsay in the sourcing rather than direct evidence from the people concerned, which leads to a clear cut WP:BLP issue. This should not be in the article unless the sourcing improves considerably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson did not sell 750 million

The Wall Street journal in 2007 debunked the sales claim . Please remove it from the article . http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.119.3 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can join and give your opinion at the current discussion in this section. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson record sales have been debunked

Please remove the statement that mj is the biggest selling pop artist with an estimated sales of 750 million

1) the Wall Street journal did an article debunking the 750 million sales as a pr stunt. In the article it even mentions that some news outlets began using that number . Those sources have been cited in the mj wiki article . ( obviously all incorrect ) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

2)mj is the biggest selling pop artist either . Sony bmg released a public press statement that " unequivocally , elvis Aaron Presley is the biggest selling artist in the history if POPular music " Sony also is the record company of mj . Sony itself considers elvis the biggest selling . Please remove the line from mj . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.148 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I told you above, we are discussing this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson record sales have been debunked

Please remove the statement that mj is the biggest selling pop artist with an estimated sales of 750 million

1) the Wall Street journal did an article debunking the 750 million sales as a pr stunt. In the article it even mentions that some news outlets began using that number . Those sources have been cited in the mj wiki article . ( obviously all incorrect ) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

2)mj is NOT the biggest selling pop artist either . Sony bmg released a public press statement that " unequivocally , elvis Aaron Presley is the biggest selling artist in the history if POPular music " Sony also is the record company of mj . Sony itself considers elvis the biggest selling pop artist. Please remove the line from mj wiki.

198.228.200.148 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting, but the link doesn't work for me - could you just check it and repost it if there is an error?--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange sentence in lead

"With videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" he continued to innovate the medium throughout the 1990s, as well as forging a reputation as a touring solo artist." I don´t understand what innovate the medium means, or what the videos got to do with his reputation as a touring solo artist. If this could be made clearer, it would be a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"King of Pop" removal from the lead

Chrishonduras removed "King of Pop" from the lead on the basis of WP:PEACOCK. But, in my opinion, WP:PEACOCK does not apply because it is about biased claims without attribution. The title "King of Pop" is not biased with regard to Michael Jackson, and nor is it unverifiable; it is a title that is verifiably most commonly applied to Michael Jackson. This is why the King of Pop disambiguation page is about Michael Jackson. I view the "King of Pop" title as suitable for the lead because of the Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names policy. However, as that policy states, if there is something notable about the "King of Pop" title on its own, which I believe that there is, a separate name section is recommended. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He is widely known as the King of Pop, that is his title. It should not have been removed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On a side note: If a section was created specifically about his "King of Pop" title, it would likely be redundant to what is stated about him at different parts in this article; I mean that comments about his singing, music and dancing style, and impact would no doubt be used to explain how he acquired the "King of Pop" title, and that these comments would be redundant to what is already in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The rules are not negotiable. Is better mention this, in Legacy section, for example, but not in the introduction. Madonna for example, is another example of how she is known by his nickname of the Queen of pop, but there is no mention in the introduction, but in the appropriate section. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but come on man. He is the king of pop, that is an accepted nickname for a man who was the biggest star in the world.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I'm not sure what rules you are talking about. But the Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names rule, which is a policy, is clear. And Madonna is not known as the "Queen of Pop" as extensively as Michael Jackson is known as the "King of Pop." One too many others also have the "Queen of Pop" title, as shown at Honorific nicknames in popular music (which is also what Queen of Pop redirects to). And as for rules not being negotiable, there is a WP:Ignore all rules policy. If you want "King of Pop" to stay out of the lead, I'm not going to fight it because I don't care too much about it remaining out of the lead. But I do consider your removal to be wrong. My vote, like two others so far, is to return "King of Pop" to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Estimated, Flyer22. As well as one too many others also have the "Queen of Pop" (Madonna) title, one too many others also have the "King of Pop" title. Not all media refer to Jackson as the King of Pop. We always mention this, but in the correct section, not in the introduction. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not many, or too many, have been given the "King of Pop" title. Simple Google searches will show that. Various reliable sources also state that Michael Jackson is commonly known as the "King of Pop." You will find no such reliable sources stating that anyone else is commonly known by that title. And, again, I'm not sure where you are getting your rules from, but you are wrong (as I've already shown above).

For the others, Chrishonduras added the "King of Pop" information lower in the article, which I responded to in an edit summary. His grammar for that addition needs fixing, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: Chrishonduras left me a message on my talk page; because of that message, it appears that there will be no objection from Chrishonduras if the information is added back to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Chrishonduras added "King of Pop" back to the lead, and I tweaked it and his wording about it lower in the lead.[10][11][12]. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sales of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson, The Beatles and Elvis Presley have acid places listed as top-selling acts of all time. No exact sales figures of any of them, however there is speculation that The Beatles, Elvis, and in 2012, Michael Jackson has sold m {as of 1 billion records worldwide. However Bein Raymond said when sued Michael Jackson that had sold over 1 billion records worldwide .. I believe that, as Wikipedia is one of the world's most powerful sites net sales of Michael Jackson would have to be 750 - 1000 million albums sold worldwide, since in 2006 the IFPI stated that MJ had sold 750 million records worldwide and Thriller sold 104 million copies. Here's proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WviiygVo3Oc). Please put that MJ recapasiten and sold between 750 to 1000 million units. Also in 1996 the WMA also certified MJ as the biggest selling artist of all time, here is the proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cEx6xKdcmNY). Besides stating that sales of Elvis can also be inflated like that of The Beatles. According to the IFPI MJ sold more than 350 million albums in Europe, The Beatles 400 million and Elvis 300 000 000.

We also demand that the revenue and earnings section of MJ, is modified because the assets of MJ when he died was USD 5.5 billion, and earnings all their lives were more than USD 7 billion. We also ask you to create an article about The Michael Jackson Company LLC. I wrote an article about TMJC, I would appreciate if you read (http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/1292040).

 No IFPI never said (in 2006 or in later years) that MJ had sold 750 million records worldwide and Thriller sold 104 million copies. Rather, Adrian Strain, a musical expert and a representative from the IFPI has said: When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody. We had to go to the Guinness Book of World Records. Moreover, Raymone Bain is not a reliable source. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

--TMJC Diego Marandino (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC) If you hear the WMA take as platform IFPI figures and if you see the video I put, you'll notice that the IFPI is who gave the figure. See some of the WMA, which is not going to hurt. Also nobody says that MJ sold 400 million to put that you do not put anything I think it is best to put the figure 700 millions-1 billon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMJC Diego Marandino (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Joe Jackson or Michael Joseph Jackson

Michael's death certificate says: "Michael Joseph Jackson", but his driver's license, passport and several court documents say: "Michael Joe Jackson". Which variation would you list in the lead?

Examples: http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/michael-jackson-drivers-license.jpg?w=315&h=189&crop=1 http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/michael-jackson-1980s-drivers-license-pic__oPt.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kvYJOjDaKfI/S5gMpeMqcmI/AAAAAAAAArg/_VzWryMUnKA/s400/currentpassport.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/0430041jacko1.gif

Israell (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Summary below - but pls see Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 29#Michael's Middle Name

Like his father "Joe" seems to be a short form.....as seen in....

• The reference in the article

File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg

• Joseph is also used on his LAST WILL

Last Will and Testament

• His fortune was all under the title Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson

Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson aka Michael Jackson

• Books he has written and published like Moomwalk use Joseph

Michael Jackson (13 October 2009). Moonwalk. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-307-71698-9. Retrieved 11 November 2011.

• In interviews with him over the years "Ebony" has used "Joseph"

Johnson Publishing Company (December 2007). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 94. ISSN 00129011.

Johnson Publishing Company (May 1984). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 163. ISSN 00129011.

• Looks like he wrote "Joseph" himself on his kids Birth certificates

MJ jr and Paris birth certificates

• 3 of his children also have this middle name - I think this would be odd if his name is simply Joe.

Mary K. Pratt (1 January 2010). Michael Jackson: King of Pop. ABDO. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-60453-788-8..Moxy (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna is the most downloaded artist. ( not mj )

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_rihanna-most-downloaded-artist-of-all-time_1658380

Please remove in mj wiki that michael jackson is the most downloaded artist of all time

71.234.119.3 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson is NOT the most downloaded artist of all time

Billboard recently released there figures for the year . Rihanna is the most downloaded

TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS
(Based on digital track sales from 7/4/2004-1/1/2012)
 
 	  	Artist	  	  	Units Sold
1			 Rihanna			 47,571,000
2			 Black Eyed Peas			 42,405,000
3			 Eminem			 42,290,000
4			 Lady Gaga			 42,078,000
5			 Taylor Swift			 41,821,000
6			 Katy Perry			 37,620,000
7			 Lil’ Wayne			 36,788,000
8			 Beyonce			 30,439,000
9			 Kanye West			 30,242,000
10.			 Britney Spears			 28,665,000

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report

Please remove the mj line stating that he is

71.234.119.3 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Michael Jackson became the most downloaded artist of all time on 29 August 2010. The wording of the sentence does not specify whether or not he still is the most downloaded artist of all time, so it does not need to be changed. Trinitresque (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson did self proclaim himself king of pop

In a chapter of I Want My MTV: The Uncensored Story of the Music Video Revolution, former employees of MTV claimed that Michael and his "people" made tons of ridiculous requests during the 90s. These requests were outlined in a memo, which was leaked to Rolling Stone by Kurt Loder. One of them was for veejays to always refer to him as the King of Pop. Of course, the network claims they "warned" him it would backfire, because there is only one King - Elvis. ( I want my MTV book ) 71.234.119.3 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MTV became very tabloidish during the years, and they piled up a lot of rumour and slander about Jackson in their documentaries. MTV people never talked to Jackson, there is no confirmation about that (and there would not be, basically all of Jackson's management firms complained that he was not cooperative, he hated to do the PR -- yes, despite all the myths about the contrary -- most of the calls were never returned, Jackson did not want to talk about PR even to his own management, let alone MTV), so there is no single case of Jackson ever self-proclaimed himself to be anything but singer, songwriter, etc. The management, of course, could require and demand whatever from the parties they dealt with, but this has nothing to do with Jackson "self-proclaiming" himself anything. Finally, ). DenisRS (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Section "Death" should be renamed to "Homicide"/"Involuntary manslaughter"

JFKennedy article's corresponding section named by the matter of fact: "Assassination". Jackson did not just "die" on his own, it was homicide, he was (involuntary) slaughtered. This was established by both authorities ("homicide), right after his death, and by the court of law ("involuntary manslaughter").

So there are two options to deal with this nonsensical situation: rename section of JFK's article to "Death" or rename section of this article to "Homicide". Since the first option is quite strange, considering the fact that JFK did not just die, it was assassination, the only sane solution was the second option, because Jackson did not just die either. Both JFK's assassination and Jackson's homicide are established by the exactly the same level of quality of sources by Wikipedia's definition, so we can not just go with "Oh, lets continue to have double standard about this and leave it as it is" argument. DenisRS (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - "Homicide"/"Involuntary manslaughter means death. As for JFK it was a plan to kill him - not the same case here is just an "Accidental death" by way of Involuntary manslaughter .Moxy (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - "Death" is just fine as section heading. The controversial details can be explored in the content of the section, not in the section heading.Jpcohen (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"King of pop"

Last January, I removed the "King of Pop" pseudonym from the article's lead based on WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:PEACOCK, provided that this name has not only been given to Jackson. Despite this, users Flyer22, Status and Comatmebro opposed the change; Flyer22 stated that PEACOCK did not proceed in this case, and that Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names applies in Jackson's individual case, adding that "Not many, or too many, have been given the "King of Pop" title. Simple Google searches will show that." I may have not done the best at basing my claims on PEACOCK, but to be sincere, I still think that it is incorrect to put the alias in the lead, when several sources argue the exact opposite. These are some of the references that we may take into consideration:

"King of pop" alias in some other artists

Robbie Williams:

• [13] (Evening Standard)

• [14] (Canoe.ca) Note: October, 1999

• [15] (Daily Star)

Elvis Presley:

• [16] (Radio Cooperativa) Note: In Spanish

• [17] (The Independent)

Justin Timberlake:

• Kimberly Dillon Summers 2010, p. xxiii (Justin Timberlake: A Biography) from ABC-CLIO

• Tony Napoli 2009, p. 33 (Justin Timberlake: Breakout Music Superstar) from Enslow Publishers

• [18] (Bio. UK)

Usher:

• [19] (Billboard)

• Geoffrey M. Horn (Usher) from Gareth Stevens

• Vibe May 2004, P. 36 (Vol 12, no° 5)

Elton John:

• [20] (Today's Zaman)

• • • • • • • • • • Now Jacko's case (Some references and That is not punitive)

Pre-Wikipedia

• [21] (Billboard; 1993) Note: The self-proclaimed King of Pop

• [22] (The New York Times; 1994) Note: "sometimes called "the king of pop"

• [23] (SF Reviews; 1999) Note: "Michael Jackson crowned himself the "King of Pop"

• Rosemarie Garland Thomson 1996 p. 369 (Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body) from New York University Note: "When Jackson, irked by the fact that "They call Elvis [Presley] the King," asked "Why don't they call me that?" he was ... Jackson countered with a campaign to cement his own sobriquet, "The King of Pop," in America's cultural consciousness"

• [24] (Today (U.S. TV program)) Note: "In the year 1991, when MTV was still primarily known for playing music videos, a new album from an artist who helped define the channel in the ‘80s was being released. This album was going to be huge, and MTV kicked into high gear promoting its world premiere airing of the first single’s video. The album was called “Dangerous.” The single was called “Black or White.” And the artist? Well, he was suddenly called “The King of Pop."

• [25] (Entertainment Weekly; 1997) Note: "Michael Jackson crowned himself the King of Pop"

• Campbell B. Titchener 1998 p. 173 (Reviewing the Arts) from Routledge Note: "The self-proclaimed "King of Pop"

Post-Wikipedia

• [26] (The New York Times; 2005) Note: "Self-proclaimed king of pop"

• [27] (Houston Chronicle) Note: "The self-appointed King of Pop"

• Victor Pross 2009, p. 23 (Icons & Idols: Pop Goes the Culture) from AuthorHouse Note: "The self-proclaimed King of pop, public curiosity"

• David Kastin 2002 p. 286 (I hear America singing: an introduction to popular music) from Prentice Hall Note: [...]"when Michael Jackson crowned himself King of Pop, he was simply engaging in a desperate attempt to revive a flagging career"

• Margo Jefferson 2006 p. 52 (On Michael Jackson) from Pantheon Books Note: "He crowned himself the King of Pop and arranged two marriages"

• Mari Hadley 2009 p. 61 (Michael Jackson Master of Illusion: The Final Curtain Call) from Xlibris Corporation Note: "The self proclaimed King of Pop a title penned him by his close friend, Elizabeth Taylor when she announced him at an awards show".

• [28] (CMJ; 2002) Note: [...]"the self- proclaimed "King Of Pop"

• Jaap Kooijman 2008 p.88 (Fabricating the Absoulte Fake: America in Contemporary Pop Culture) from Amsterdam University Press Note: "His controversial image intensified later on in the 1990s with his self-proclaimed title of being the King of Pop"

• Alexander L'Estrange, Simon Lesley 2008 (Michael Jackson Smash Hits) from Faber & Faber Note: [...]"the illustrious career from the self-proclaimed King of Pop"

• [29] (Wall Street Journal) Note: "The self-proclaimed King of Pop"

According to John Sinkevics from The Grand Rapids Press, when covering the death of Jackson, the press had to mandatorily use the "King of pop" alias. I, with this evidence, beg you to see that Jackson is not the only one to have received the King of Pop title'. In an attempt to keep neutrality and avoid slants on the article, I think that we shoudl mention the title in the appropriate section, but not in the lead. We can take a look at the references from the music industry like Billboard, where other artists have been named "King of Pop". Also, we cannot hide the other truth that is covered by many other references from scientific, academic or musical sources, be it from the 90s decade or the 2000s, where is revealed that, originally, the "King of Pop" alias was a self-proclamation by Jackson himself, and a merketing strategy. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No one in our previous discussion ever stated that Michael Jackson is the only one who has been called "the King of Pop." Everyone refer to what I stated in the discussion Chrishonduras is referring to. I stand by all of what I stated there (currently seen higher on this talk page). I basically stated that no one else is known as the "King of Pop" as widely as Michael Jackson is; unlike the others, he is literally known by that title, not just someone who has been called "the King of Pop." Google searches with the many reliable sources about the matter, the WP:Original research method of simply asking people who is "the King of Pop," and any other method, shows that no one else is known as the "King of Pop" as widely as Michael Jackson is; it's that simple, really. There are no reliable sources that argue that Michael Jackson is not the person who is most known by the "King of Pop" title. And it's because of all of this, Chrishonduras, that I consider your tampering with the King of Pop disambiguation page in the way that you did (after you altered Honorific nicknames in popular music by adding other people who have been called "the King of Pop") to be completely WP:UNDUE. But unlike you, I am not especially focused on this topic, and so I will not revert you on that; but make no mistake about it...it's wrong.

As for the claim that Jackson demanded that the press refer to him as "the King of Pop," even if true, which is something you obviously got from this section (currently seen higher on this talk page), that is irrelevant. Fact is...no one else is known by that title as thoroughly as he is. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And scientific sources? There are no scientific sources that discuss the "King of pop" title. Try to relax on this topic.

Anyway, since you are so focused on this topic, I will leave a message with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians matter about this. [Edited in "With the exception of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television"], the other music-focused or music-related WikiProjects currently aren't as active as these two are. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Confusing - not sure what is being argued here. The opening of this topic is about the removal of a term - yet that same post (by the same person) gives many many examples of the term used. What is being asked here?Moxy (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22 I think this has strayed. In no time I mentioned that the three said Jacko was the only one who has been called "King of Pop". This is what I say (now, that's what I want to look good). First, the Google search does not add or remove anything, because Wikipedia is a priority for Google. In fact, is perhaps the first result that one can obtain (vicious circle).

Yes, I totally agree with you that the fact that Jacko has self-proclaimed not add or remove anything in principle. The problem is that some are still calling him "The self-proclaimed King of Pop" and this must not be left ignored. In addition, others have already been self-proclaimed, So clear example is Kanye West. My edition disambiguation of "King of Pop" is not bad (what truth, if there are multiple truths?) because after all that implies that you do not use common sense and to be honest, violate policy WP:Pointy ("eye", policies are ambivalent, in any case, ignore the rules). Finally, I am calm, and I clarify that I am a fan of Jackso, but first am impartially. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Moxy What I propose is that, given how many artists have received the KoP title, we should avoid using it specifically for Michael Jackson on the lead, and explain it thoroughly on the correspondent section. My belief is that saying that he is also known as the King of Pop gives undue weigh to him, and leaves apart the rest of artists who have also receive such name. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

have you looked at real books on the topic over news sources? book search on the topic - That seen we can remove it from the lead as its in the "Legacy and influence" section anyways. Moxy (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, you are the one, who above, used the the words "provided that this name has not only been given to Jackson." and "when several sources argue the exact opposite." For the first, I showed why that is irrelevant. For the second, I showed why that is not true. There still, of course, are not many notable people who have been called "the King of Pop" and there are no people who are known (I repeat "known") as, instead of having simply been called, "the King of Pop." And there are no reliable sources that argue that Michael Jackson is not the person who is most known by the "King of Pop" title. I don't see what else there is to argue about this or why you are so obsessed with this topic, so much so that you altered the King of Pop disambiguation page and the Honorific nicknames in popular music article to try to strengthen your argument. But you are wasting my time, or rather I am letting you waste my time. And, yes, Google matters when it shows that Michael Jackson is the person most well-known by this title, through various reliable sources even attributing the term to only him and/or discussing how he became known by that term. WP:CONSENSUS was, and currently still is, against you on this. And you decided to rehash this topic so soon after it was resolved. A waste of my time. I have WP:COMMONSENSE; it appears that you don't, and are also the one who has decided to be WP:UNCIVIL with your latest post (21:25, 12 February 2013) above. And if anyone has violated any guidelines or policies on this matter, it has been you. You who didn't even apply WP:PEACOCK correctly. You who made the King of Pop disambiguation page WP:UNDUE; it's WP:COMMONSENSE that most people who type in "King of Pop" will be looking for the Michael Jackson article or for other information about Michael Jackson. You who therefore were being WP:POINTY. And I mostly definitely do not ignore Wikipedia rules, unless in a case where I were to follow the WP:Ignore all rules policy. You were wrong and are still wrong. Accept it.

Moxy, Chrishonduras is basically arguing that since Michael Jackson is not the only musical artist to have been called "the King of pop," he shouldn't be referred to as such in the lead. If you haven't already, refer to the previous discussion about this that is noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that now - There are many cases like this as the press will label people indiscriminately. What we need to look at is who is referred as the king of pop in real publications - not news story. Honorific nicknames in popular music should use sources by real publications - not news articles looking to garner traffic. Like with "King of Rock and Roll" - many have had this title linked to them by the press but without even saying who i am talking about we all know who i am referring to right - same here. All that said you care if its out of the lead - but still in the article under "Legacy" section - as its clearly a part of his legacy.Moxy (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I care if it's removed from the lead. I feel that it should stay because of the reasons I've already gone over. Chrishonduras will believe that he's right (even more than he already does), for the flimsy reasons he's mentioned, if it's removed. He needs to learn how to use Wikipedia guidelines and policies properly, not continue to think that his misuses of those guidelines and policies are correct. Chrishonduras, you should actually read what WP:UNDUE means. It begins stating, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

And do read the rest of that policy. What you have done regarding this matter is WP:UNDUE because the vast majority of people, including reliable sources, refer to Michael Jackson, as opposed to anyone else, as "the King of Pop." That simple. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"the vast majority of people, including reliable sources" They also neglect to mention he gave himself the title. If he'd been called that by somebody else, it would merit inclusion. This is in the same vein as Ali calling himself "The Greatest": puffery. Delete. At a minimum, "self-proclaimed" should be attached. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If Jackson gave himself the title, the difference between him and Muhammad Ali is that Jackson became more well known by his title than Ali did by "The Greatest." People usually specify who they are talking about when they use "The Greatest" title, especially since it's more generic. In contrast, people very often simply state "The King of Pop" when referring to Jackson. I don't see what Jackson giving himself the title, if he did, has to do with whether or not we should mention in the lead that he is well known by that title. And Ali's "The Greatest" title is currently mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article about him as well...without any mention that he gave himself that title. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

rihanna is the most downloaded artist

TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS

(Based on digital track sales from 7/4/2004-1/1/2012)

      Artist        Units Sold  

1 Rihanna 47,571,000 2 Black Eyed Peas 42,405,000 3 Eminem 42,290,000 4 Lady Gaga 42,078,000 5 Taylor Swift 41,821,000 6 Katy Perry 37,620,000 7 Lil’ Wayne 36,788,000 8 Beyonce 30,439,000 9 Kanye West 30,242,000 10. Britney Spears 28,665,000

68.199.5.208 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)