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)

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)

Here is a link to portions of the MTV book. Anyone have a link to the Bob Jones press release? GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor was the one who initially proclaimed MJ as the King of Pop, she did it at an awards show, that's is when MJ agreed to it and liked it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

there are numerous articles and books that state mj demanded to be called king of pop or you wouldn't get acess to him. do you honestly think all these articles are just one giant conspiracy? you do realize that mj paid marlon brando to speak for him. does it really matter that Elizabeth taylor publically stated when mj enforced it? use common sense please. please at least put there are articles and books who state it was self proclaimed , even the wall street journal did.

71.234.119.3 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 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:

• [5] (Evening Standard)

• [6] (Canoe.ca) Note: October, 1999

• [7] (Daily Star)

Elvis Presley:

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

• [9] (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

• [10] (Bio. UK)

Usher:

• [11] (Billboard)

• Geoffrey M. Horn (Usher) from Gareth Stevens

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

Elton John:

• [12] (Today's Zaman)

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

Pre-Wikipedia

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

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

• [15] (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"

• [16] (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."

• [17] (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

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

• [19] (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".

• [20] (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"

• [21] (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)

I am sorry I haven’t replied sooner. First of all, to Moxy: Like Michael Jackson, there are several artists that had been regarded as the King of Pop, as is the case of Justin Timberlake. This fact can be easily verified with numerous secondary sources and not only with news outlets. Independently from your own personal point of view, that all aliases should be strictly supported by non-news sources, which in my belief is unfair, I don’t believe that employing sources as Billboard, BBC, MTV, The Guardian or Rolling Stones (among many others) is wrong. In fact, sources such as The Guardian or the BBC are written by specialist in different branches, specially music critics and reporters with vast knowledge of popular culture. Aren’t aliases within the context of popular culture? Why do we have to cherry-pick sources or suppress evidence, we shouldn’t be judges of the information, we should accept everything that is publish through secondary sources.

To Flyer22: With all respect, I believe that you have misunderstood my message, to the point that you are no longer presuming good faith. Honestly, I don’t consider wrong to share my point of view, especially when I am formulating it with the support of several trustworthy sources. I never start debates with the idea of losing my time or your time, or with any bad purpose. As I have previously explained, I am starting this dialogue with the objective to find a solution and to let more people participate in this discussion. As I have said before, Jackson is not the only artist that has been regarded as the King of Pop. As well, there are other aliases that should be considered, as "Jacko" or "The Self-proclaimed King of Pop". We also should consider if those aliases only apply to the United States, we cannot assume that he is regarded as the King of Pop in every country (and that would be even violating WP: PEACOCK); we should be precise with information to prevent biases .

Solutions:

1. Remove all the aliases from the introduction and include them in the right section of the article.

2. Maintain all the aliases in the introduction stated in a way to prevent biases, and keeping in consideration if these aliases apply to all the countries in the world or just the United States.

3. Maintain neutrality by replacing the phrase “Often referred to” with “Often referred by some media sources as the King of Pop”

Since our task as editors of Wikipedia is to present unbiased information, this is my proposal. I hope that we are able to find a solution to this issue. Please forgive me if I have offended someone with my words. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above about why you are wrong to want to remove "the King of Pop" from the lead and your acting as though others are well known by that title, especially since the way that you apply our policies and guidelines on this matter is odd/wrong. I never stated that it was wrong for you to share your point of view; I stated that your point of view on this matter is wrong and that the sources do not support that anyone else is as widely known as "the King of Pop" as Jackson is. Yes, that applies to the United States and outside of the United States, as many sources show. Even if it only applied to the United States, it would still not be a WP:PEACOCK matter. And again, there are no people who are known (I repeat "known") as, instead of having simply been called, "the King of Pop." The question is not have other musical artists been called "the King of Pop" (and the great majority of them have not, as I've already stated). The question is who is most widely called/regarded as "the King of Pop." And that person, as shown by the vast majority of reliable sources, is Michael Jackson. That is where the WP:UNDUE policy I suggested you read comes in. Some other musical artists have only been called "the King of Pop" by a minority of sources; they are nowhere close to being called "the King of Pop" as often/widely as Michael Jackson is. I don't know what it is that you fail to understand about that.

In the previous discussion, it was me who stated, "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." I also stated, "I'm not sure where you are getting your rules from, but you are wrong (as I've already shown above)." It was you who left this message on my talk page and soon added "King of Pop" back to the lead (and I tweaked that addition and your addition about it lower in the article). WP:CONSENSUS was achieved for leaving "King of Pop" in the lead. So until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved for removing it, I'm going to press for it staying in the lead.

And using "Often referred by some media sources as the King of Pop" in place "Often referred to as the King of Pop" is hugely downplaying the fact that Michael Jackson has been referred to that way by most, if not by all, professional media sources, and that he continues to be the one person most referred to by that title. Again, this is where WP:UNDUE comes in. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to state that things worded along the lines of "some people," or some variation of that while including "some," is often considered WP:Weasel wording even when sources support it. "Some" should be avoided when it can be avoided. We already have "often" in the sentence, which is a word that WP:Weasel wording also mentions, and that's enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You know I didn't read this whole conversation, but I read enough to say that when anyone in the world hears the name "the king of pop", they think of Michael Jackson, this is a given. Whether or not Justin Timberlake is referred to as the same name (which I've never heard before or with anyone else for that matter), but whether or not Timberlake is referred to as the king of pop is irreverent. When people think of MJ, they think "king of pop".Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

King and Queen of Pop

Hi. Sorry for coming to this discussion until now, but I've been very busy in the last few days. I've talked to Chrishonduras and I think I understand what's the origin of this problem. "King of Pop" is a title given to Michael Jackson (by himself, the media and the public), when anyone talks about the "King of Pop" the most obvious thing is that he/she is talking about Michael Jackson, besides there are a lot of performers who have recieved the same title (by themselves, the media and the public). Although there were/are/will be a lot of singers consdered "better than him", he always will be known in the pupular culture by this alias. The same thing applies to "Queen of Pop". "Queen of Pop" is a title given to Madonna (by himself, the media and the public), when anyone talks about the "Queen of Pop" the most obvious thing is that he/she is talking about Madonna, besides there are a lot of performers who have recieved the same title (by the media and the public). Although there were/are/will be a lot of singers considered "better than her", she always will be known in the pupular culture by this alias.

But there are some users who are against using the term "Queen of Pop" in the introduction of the article Madonna (entertainer) and they oppose to redirect Queen of Pop to this article. In the talk page you can see that he (and other users) tried to change this saying basically: that no one else is known as the "Queen of Pop" as widely as Madonna is; unlike the others, she is literally known by that title, not just someone who has been called the "Queen of Pop." Google searches, the WP:Original research method of simply asking people who is the "Queen of Pop," and any other method, shows that no one else is known as the "Queen of Pop" as widely as Madonna. And finally, they showed that there are no reliable sources that argue that Madonna is not the person who is most known by the "Queen of Pop" title. However, the answer was "no". Their main arguments: other performers have recieved the same title and that including this alias will be a violation to WP:PEACOCK.

So, everybody expects that when an alias is "shared" by a lot of performers, the title won't appear on the introduction and the term won't redirect to the article of any of this artists. But, when Chrishonduras looked for "King of Pop", he was redirected to this article. He tried to change this situation according to he was told on the discussion about Madonna and Queen of Pop. If you still can't see the irony of this case, let me put this with other words: Why the arguments that don't allow to Madonna be denominated as the "Queen of Pop" in Wikipedia are the same arguments that allow the use of Michael Jackson's title of "King of Pop" in his article? --WABBAW (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WABBAW, are you Chrishonduras? I'm so suspicious that you are that I am close to reporting at an appropriate venue, or to an appropriate person, that you two are one and the same. Unless you mean that you've talked with Chrishonduras by email(s) or elsewhere on Wikipedia about a similar matter, I don't see where you've talked with him about this particular issue on Wikipedia (judging by your talk page and his talk page, and your currently very few contributions for this year). You also used my arguments, some of my exact phrases, and altered them a bit at some parts. For example, most of your comment seems to argue for using "the King of Pop" in the lead as opposed to not using it; and on that note, your English seems to be on the same often-awkward level as Chrishonduras's. Like I told Chrishonduras in the previous discussion about this topic, Madonna is not known as "the Queen of Pop" as extensively as Michael Jackson is known as "the King of Pop." I also doubt, for a topic such as this (well known titles), that more than a few others have referred to WP:PEACOCK in the same inaccurate way that Chrishonduras has. And when you stated that Chrishonduras was redirected to this article when he looked for "the King of Pop," you must not mean a WP:REDIRECT; I state that because the King of Pop has been a disambiguation page for years, and the only way it redirected people to Michael Jackson is by mentioning that the title may refer to Michael Jackson or to his King of Pop album. That is, before Chrishonduras changed the disambiguation page and made it WP:UNDUE (acting as though anyone else is as commonly/widely known as "the King of Pop" as Michael Jackson is). Disambiguation pages should start off naming what the term/phrase most commonly refers to, if it does most commonly refer to something; in this case, that is no doubt Michael Jackson.

If you are Chrishonduras, which I believe that you are, this is another aspect of what I meant by you wasting my time or rather me letting you waste my time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Flyer22, WABBAW is WABBAW and I am I; In fact, you can check if you like. Finally, I've given up arguing. You have more reason than me, that means I neither stop having it, in principle. Regardless of the above, this has helped me to have a counterproposal to the case of Madonna, all users previous arguments who have argued this (forgive the redundancy), the nick "Queen of Pop" is widely associated with She perpetuated in every time, not just at the height of his career, and this is a massive multi-language references, unlike other artists. In fact, I have all the links necessary. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that you aren't WABBAW. But I'd very likely need more evidence than what I've mentioned above to show that you two are one and the same anyway. As for everything else, like I stated, "I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above." You clearly should let this topic drop. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And regarding the links in your "you can check if you like" wording, reporting you if I felt that I had strong evidence is not what Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is about. Further, linking to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest shows more of the misuse of policy and/or guideline type of linking/reasoning that you practice (seemingly often). Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

xD. Flyer 22, we are both from the Spanish wikipedia. I make most of my contributions on that proyect. This is my user talk page on the spanish wikipedia es:Usuario discusión:WABBAW, where you can see the messages that Chrishonduras has left me. And yes, we both have some issues with English language... Anyway. I used modified versions of your arguments to emphasize the irony of this situation. Still, my main question remains unanswered. Why the arguments that don't allow to Madonna be denominated as the "Queen of Pop" in Wikipedia are the same arguments that allow the use of Michael Jackson's title of "King of Pop" in his article?--WABBAW (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated, "I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above." Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

But if I'm wrong about assuming that you two are the same person, which it now seems that I likely am (judging by the talk page you linked to), I apologize for that. I did consider that you aren't the same person, especially since you sign your user names differently. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Just wanted to give props to the person who put up the new picture. I vote to keep it there. RabidMelon —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the corresponding picture description in the |alt= parameter in the infobox. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a shot at changing the description in this edit. Feel free to improve it. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is not the most successful artist

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

please remove an outdated 1996 gwr record that has clearly been broken. 1)all mj concert records broken 2)fastest sell out broken

2013 gwr "elvis is the biggest selling solo artist in history with one BILLION in sales"

= more success

thank you

131.239.63.3 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

But you do agree that at the time stated he was correct? Perhaps a rewording.Moxy (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

i understand your point, but stating an old 1996 gwr that has never been stated again by gwr is misleading. all musical artists have to be defined sales or hits. influence, or even awards is ambiguous at best.most of mj awards were not around in the seventies and prior. i would put" in 1996 he was considered the most sucessful by gwr."

2602:304:5B71:379:F53E:F0B6:93E5:4EEA (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Same topic, same reply: A billion record sales is inflated beyond belief, even for The Beatles who have astronomically outsold Presley in both album and single sales (Elvis hasn't even one album in the top sellers list after all). As for the "most successful artist" tagline - this is not based on sales but on accolades. Michael Jackson has won and received nominations for far more recognized awards than Elvis Presley and The Beatles combined. Alone he holds more world records than any other music artist, not to mention more albums in the top sellers list than any other artist (5) indicating longevity of popularity and success over a long time period. He holds the record for best selling studio album (Thriller) and best selling remix album (Blood on the Dancefloor) of all time, along with countless other firsts (8 Grammys in one night, the same album being the best seller for two consecutive years, etc.) and records which still remain today. Beyond his own music, he helped create (and his Estate now co-owns) the largest music publishing catalogue in history. And on top of all that, Guinness World Records have the prerogative to award "Most Successful Entertainer" to the recipient of their choice. Mc8755 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvis Presley (USA) is the best-selling solo artist, with 1 billion sales worldwide (129.5 million in the USA). That is the exact statement from the gwr website. i fail to understand why mj wiki editors would use an old 1996 ambiguous record "most sucessful" for michael jackson but disregard elvis current 2013 achievement. clearly mj is NOT the most sucessful in sales or billboard hits. i respectfully request to either accept gwr record of a BILLION for elvis or disregard mj ambiguous record. thank you

the silent majority.

68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Michael Jackson's GWR is currently still valid and was awarded in 2006, not 1996. Why would it not be included? On Elvis' article he has his record listed as best-selling solo artist of all time. Sales are '"NOT"' the sole measurement of success and Jackson has far outstripped Presley in terms of award nominations and wins and so is recognized by GWR as most successful entertainer. This recognition still stands. It's time you go over it and moved on. And FYI, Garth Brooks has higher US certifications than Elvis so you continually throwing in the 129.5 million US certified sales isn't helping your non-existant case. Mc8755 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael Jackson has never been the most downloaded artist

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

please remove that mj was the most downloaded artist. according to soundscan/billboard he never was.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100106007077&newsLang=en

12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that Billboard did to refute Nokia's survey. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is the biggest selling digital artist in 2009 with more than 15 million track sales. ◦ In 2008, Rihanna was the biggest selling digital artist with 9.9 million track sales. (exact statement from soundscan/billboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states "on 29 August 2010, he became the most downloaded artist of all time". It appears that your reference is for 2008 & 2009 only. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

completely incorrect. riaa website on 4/16/13 shows elvis at 134.5 million albums certified to garth 128. mj is only at 71 million. I don't buy the award argument either. 1)mj estate uses riaa certifications as wards. the elvis estate or beatles do not count riaa certs as wards. most of his wins were from the wma. on there website "winners are determined by internet the voters, the buying public" that is complete nonsense and you can multi vote. to further debunk the wma . art baine , the official ifpi rep in 2009 "we do not know how many records mj has sold, we had to go to the gwr' "ifpi does NOT track individual artists" wsj 2009. if the ifpi didn't know, how exactly did mj win the diamond choprin award. also, in the "I want my mtv book' john landis witnessed mj demanding awards "the bigger the better". lastly a lot of his awards are after the seventies and can only be won by African americans.

mj was not the most successful. .only the most successful at hype

12.40.50.3 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013

Good evening, I would like to advise that the following links no longer exist:

23. ^ a b The Jackson Five, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Retrieved May 29, 2007.

79. ^ "Newswatch Magazine – The Man, His Weird Ways". Newswatchngr.com. July 5, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2009.

107. ^ a b c "Jackson receives his World Records". Yahoo!. (November 14, 2006). Retrieved November 16, 2006.[dead link]

114. ^ "Blacks who give back'". Ebony. March 1990. Retrieved March 14, 2010.

116. ^ Gray, Chris; Shah, Saeed (October 3, 2002). "Robbie swings historic record deal with EMI". The Independent (London). Retrieved March 24, 2010.

129. ^ a b c d Johnson, Robert (May 1992). "Michael Jackson: crowned in Africa". Ebony. Retrieved July 23, 2008.

189. ^ Toumi, Habib (January 23, 2006). "Jackson settles down to his new life in the Persian Gulf". Gulf News. Retrieved November 11, 2006.

190. ^ McNamara, Melissa (March 17, 2006). "Jackson Closes Neverland House". CBS News. Retrieved April 25, 2010.

193. ^ "Michael Jackson Sails With Two Seas". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved April 25, 2010.

207. ^ "Choose The Tracks On Michael Jackson's 50th Birthday Album!". Sony BMG. (June 20, 2008). Retrieved June 20, 2008.

215 ^ Foster, Patrick (March 6, 2009). "Michael Jackson grand finale curtain-raiser". The Times (London). Retrieved March 24, 2009.

217. ^ "Michael Jackson: The Last Rehearsal". Life. June 29, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2009.[dead link]

227. ^ a b Harvey, Michael (June 26, 2009). "Fans mourn artist for whom it didn't matter if you were black or white". The Times (London). Retrieved June 26, 2009.

237. ^ a b Skok, David, Internet stretched to limit as fans flock for Michael Jackson news[dead link], The Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2009.

254. ^ "Michael Jackson Homicide Ruling". Retrieved August 24, 2009.[dead link]

280. ^ "IMMORTAL, the highly anticipated musical tapestry for Cirque du Soleil’s Michael Jackson THE IMMORTAL World Tour". Sony Music Entertainment. Retrieved October 4, 2011.[dead link]

344. ^ "Free Services for PR :: News :: Press Releases". Pr-inside.com. Retrieved 2012-04-16.

361. ^ "More adds, loose ends, and lament". The 120 Minutes Archive. July 25, 2009. Retrieved July 26, 2009.

Perhaps it should be replaced. Can I make substitutions? Bye :) LilaMJ (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

LilaMJ (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One way to replace sources that are WP:Dead links is by using Internet Archive. Generally, a source shouldn't be removed simply because it's a dead link; one reason, like I stated, is because the links can usually be updated with an archived version. See the WP:Dead links page for the rest of why removing dead links generally is not a good idea. If the dead link is replaced with a completely different WP:Reliable source that supports the same material, then that is always fine. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... using Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done for each reference you listed, I added the new URL, and archive URL, or tagged it as a {{dead link}}. Still working on improving other references. GoingBatty (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson is not the most sucessful

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please stop using an old 1996 GWR award that guiness has never stated again Most of mj awards were not around during the seventies . Michael jackson is not even in the top ten best selling artists per certified riaa sales . He doesn't have the most number one albums or hits . All of his concert records have been broken .

Elvis Presley (USA) is the best-selling solo artist, with 1 billion sales worldwide (129.5 million in the USA). ( exact GWR 2013 statement ) they have credible data to back it up

Billboard top 40 hits ( ninth edition ) 2010 Most top ten hits 1) elvis 38 2) Madonna 37 3) the beatles 34 4) michael jackson 28 5) Janet jackson 28 Most chart hits 1) elvis 114 2) Elton John 58 3) the beatles 52 12) michael jackson 38 Most number one hits 1) the beatles 20 2) elvis 18 3) Mariah Carey 18 4) michael jackson 13 Most weeks at number one position 1) elvis 80 2) Mariah Carey 79 3) the beatles 59 4) boys to men 50 5) usher 43 6) michael jackson

Artist Certified Units in Millions BEATLES, THE 177 PRESLEY, ELVIS 134.5 BROOKS, GARTH 128 LED ZEPPELIN 111.5 EAGLES 100 JOEL, BILLY 81.5 PINK FLOYD 74.5 JOHN, ELTON 72 STREISAND, BARBRA 71.5 AC/DC 71.5 JACKSON, MICHAEL 70.5 Riaa 3/14/13

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-selling-artists

Level Title Artist Label 29 THRILLER JACKSON, MICHAEL EPIC/LEGACY 29 EAGLES/THEIR GREATEST HITS 1971 - 1975 EAGLES ELEKTRA 23 GREATEST HITS VOLUME I & VOLUME II JOEL, BILLY COLUMBIA 23 THE WALL PINK FLOYD COLUMBIA 23 LED ZEPPELIN IV LED ZEPPELIN ATLANTIC 22 BACK IN BLACK AC/DC EPIC 21 DOUBLE LIVE BROOKS, GARTH CAPITOL NASHVILLE 20 COME ON OVER TWAIN, SHANIA MERCURY NASHVILLE 19 THE BEATLES BEATLES, THE APPLE 19 RUMOURS FLEETWOOD MAC WARNER BROS. 18 APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION GUNS N' ROSES GEFFEN 17 BOSTON BOSTON EPIC 17 THE BEATLES 1967 - 1970 BEATLES, THE EMI 17 THE BODYGUARD (SOUNDTRACK) HOUSTON, WHITNEY ARISTA

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-100-albums

Please don't forget until the early seventies singles were the dominate purchase ( not albums )

There is no way that michael jackson should be stated as most sucessful anymore . There is a reason why GWR never states that about mj after 1996 Please remove that statement

Thank you

71.234.119.3 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear person whose name is not my concern,

Clearly you haven't done your research properly. The sources you chose for your research are ones that are sure to show Presley as the most successful. This is biased and honestly, irritating. We do not want and opinion. We want the facts. In the 2009 Guiness World Records, Michael Jackson remains the most successful recording artist, and the most famous human on Earth.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1452 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

you should NOT be a wiki editor. since when did gwr, riaa and billboard become biased.???? isn't it ironic that the mj wiki page uses billboard, riaa and gwr as sources? also, mj was stated as most successful in 1996, NOT 2009. please note that in 2009, the wall street journal debunked the 750 million ablum sales claim from the mj camp. art baine, the official ifpi rep" we do NOT know how many records mj sold" clearly the only accurate worldwide tally would be riaa because they CERTIFY. mj is NOT the most successful per billboard, riaa and the ifpi. I am sure you realize the majority of mj awards were NOT around in the seventies. some are only awarded to a certain ethnicity as well. GWR 2013 states elvis sold a billion and is the biggest selling solo artist in history. that clearly is quantifieable and shows elvis is the most successful artist in history thank you (the silent majority)

12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your kidding right they dont say a billion do they. Not sure people undersnatd what a billion is. - simply not possible - no one is even close to that - not even Guy Lombardo.Moxy (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Don't know what's funnier about 12.40.50.3's post - the silent majority signing, or the non-stop contradictions. If Elvis can claim a billion from just over 200 million certified sales, Jackson should have no problem claiming 750 million from just under 160 million certified sales. Claimed sales have been "debunked" for both artists (see here) placing Elvis at roughly 100 million above Jackson and 100 million below The Beatles (which is nonsensical considering Beatles easily top a higher margin by comparison to Presley). Once again, re-emphasizing here: Nowhere in this article does it is state or imply that Michael Jackson outsold Elvis Presley, nor does it claim that Michael Jackson is the most successful artist of all time. The IP-address posts are becoming redundant fairly quickly. Mc8755 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead states "Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records" but does not have a reference indicating which year. Leo1452, could you please add a reference from the 2009 (or later) Guinness World Records book for this statement? Does it define GWR's definition of "most sucessful"? Success could be measured by US-only album sales or US-only chart success via the RIAA statistics, but I think worldwide success would be a more interesting metric. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Considering GWR is a record that would need to be surpassed to be revoked, the year in which it was awarded is hardly a necessary inclusion. For the record, Jackson won Most Successful Entertainer of All Time, Highest Paid Entertainer of all Time and First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 million Dollars in a Year (among other GWRs not exclusively realting to being an entertainer) in 2006. Regarding to what the tagline refers to explicitly, this is a burden of proof on GWR, not Wikipedia. If it were sales alone Jackson would be noted as the highest selling entertainer/solo artist which of course he isn't as Elvis Presley and The Beatle's claims outdo his. Mc8755 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what's funnier about 12.40.50.3's post - the silent majority signing, or the non-stop contradictions. If Elvis can claim a billion from just over 200 million certified sales, Jackson should have no problem claiming 750 million from just under 160 million certified sales. Claimed sales have been "debunked" for both artists (see here) placing Elvis at roughly 100 million above Jackson and 100 million below The Beatles (which is nonsensical considering Beatles easily top a higher margin by comparison to Presley). Once again, re-emphasizing here: Nowhere in this article does it is state or imply that Michael Jackson outsold Elvis Presley, nor does it claim that Michael Jackson is the most successful artist of all time. The IP-address posts are becoming redundant fairly quickly. Mc8755 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE stop being a wiki editor. you clearly are biased to this article. elvis never claimed anything. gwr 2013 recognizes a BILLION in sales for elvis. ironic, this mj article uses gwr for there beginning tagline, yet now you disregard what gwr states currently about elvis.mj camp cant claim 750 million because the wall street journal in 2009 debunked it. gwr has credible data to state one billion for elvis.the gwr old 1996 record for mj is ambiguous at best. what is the criteria for his sucess? it certaintly cant be for sales or billboard hits. if you disregard elvis 2013 gwr record, i ask then you remove mj old gwr one then too. thank you the silent majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm the biased one while you keep posting and capitalizing the word billion to attempt to make it mean something and reposting the same crap over and over. View the article List of best selling music artists and see that one billion is not a total held for any artist, even The Beatles. These inflated numbers were made by PR teams and record labels to promote back-catalogue sales, they are not realistic, though clearly logic is lost on you. Elvis' camp promoted his billion tagline just as MJ's camp did with his 750 million. Back in the real world, Jackson's sales are at 400 million, Elvis' are at 500 million - this is reflected by Elvis being regarded as the best-selling solo artist of all time. The 2006 GWR (not 1996) is at the discretion of GWR - not you, and not Rolling Stone, of whom you're so fond. Jackson's award may be ambiguous, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or superseded by Elvis because you say so (over and over). Jackson is the most awarded artists in history, he also earned more money in his lifetime, perhaps these make up the criteria the award is based on; again it's at the discretion of GWR. But please, disregard my post and write another rambling post with plenty of CAPITALS and RIAA lists of certified sales; going in circles is less fun that in looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc8755 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. wiki is supposed to present facts. its a verifieable fact that elvis listed as the biggest selling with a billion in sales. yet, you refute it. conversely, you will post mj 2006 record even though you admit "most successful" is ambiguous as best. why does the mj wiki article mention mj 13 number ones but the elvis article does not state in the beginning that he has 18 number ones.i also showed from billboard top 40 book (2010) that elvis clearly dominated the billboard charts. in otherwords why is the mj wiki page written from a fan and the elvis page written from a nonbiased observer. please put the changes I supplied in the beginning for elvis. even if you disagree with billboard, rolling stone and gwr they are well respected organizations. thank you the silent majority

76.222.86.76 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo

Hey could someone add a picture of MJ during the rehersal of this is it ?MJ1982 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us one (or a link to one) that is not copyrighted? Cresix (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's birth name

According to Jermaine Jackson's 2011 biography "You Are Not Alone - Michael: Through a Brother's Eyes", on page 42, Michael Jackson's birth was registered under the name of "Michael Joe Jackson". Although on his death certificate, his name was "Michael Joseph Jackson", this was definitely not his birth name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1452 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed on page 43, as well as the copyright page of the book. GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note regarding the discrepancy in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit - pls discuss before changing again no conspiracy stuff - - dont let them trick you. Michael Jackson Faked His Death or Michael Joe and Michael Joseph are twinsMoxy (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• 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

• His children also have this middle name -

Mary K. Pratt (1 January 2010). Michael Jackson: King of Pop. ABDO. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-60453-788-8.

.........Moxy (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've actually heard that his middle name was Joe several times.Zdawg1029 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is correct he used it on many occasions - but hes Estate (were all the money goes), Birth certificate, Death certificate, Will, His books the he wrote, any old interviews refer to his full name as Joseph, his kids have this name.. it goes on and on. You would think that someone would have called Ebony magazine after getting it wrong 3 decades ago so they would not use if for the next 30 years. This name problem has never been a problem till he died and all the guess work started to show up. Same happens to many stars -if your alive they kill you if your dead its not you = Paul McCartney Is Dead or that Elvis is alive because his tombstone is wrong. Moxy (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has his death certificate as the only reference for his birth name. You mentioned that Michael's birth certificate has his full name as Joseph, but when I perused the documents you provided above I didn't see any that explicitly stated that his birth name was "Joseph". Since you believe Jermaine's book is not a reliable source for Michael's birth name (why?) could you please add a reference to the article that says his birth name was "Joseph"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont understand what your saying - his legal middle name is there in the official legal document? That said its a primary source so pick any of the above and I will add them - what one do you believe is a better source then the State of California? - his estate papers? his books? his will? his Ebony articles? There is also his marriage license? his autopsy report? and from the horses mouth if you will - 1994 court tapes that have Michael stated his full legal name as Michael "Joseph" Jackson? Any is good for me.

As for Jermaine's book - just read it - see for your self - Jermaine Jackson (13 September 2011). You Are Not Alone: Michael, Through a Brother's Eyes. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4516-5159-1. see this first - a review Moxy (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moxy! I'm not disputing the legal name on his death certificate, or the legal name he used at various points in his life. However, since you say he used both "Joe" and "Joseph" throughout his life, I think it would be appropriate to find a source that specifically indicates his birth name. (For example, it would be incorrect to use John Lennon's death certificate to state that his birth name was John Winston Ono Lennon.)

Page 43 of Jermaine's book specifically talks about Michael's birth name. However, since reliable sources say that many other details of Jermaine's book are incorrect, I'm not going to object if you say that we shouldn't use his book as a source for anything.

Do any of the sources you provided specifically mention his birth name, or are you just assuming that his legal name remained unchanged throughout his life? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Music videos and choreography

There's a some what mistake in this section in regards to the Smooth Criminal video. In the video itself, the anti-gravity lean was accomplished using cables and it wasn't until MJ went on tour and wanted to perform the move that him and designers came up with the special shoe that gives them the ability to perform the move. And with that being said, I think the fact that they had to have pegs come out of the stage and the performer had to hook their feet into the pegs should be mentioned in there with it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to make it more clear? What about what is below.Moxy (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• From this -

For "Smooth Criminal", Jackson experimented with an innovative "anti-gravity lean" in his performances

• To this perhaps -

While preforming "Smooth Criminal" on tour, Jackson experimented with an innovative "anti-gravity lean system" to mimic the effect archived in the video.'

I can write something sometime today or this week that I think will explain it pretty well. I will post it on talk first. But it is definitely true about using cables in the video then the development of the shoe for live performances.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I came up with real quick, I suppose if I thought about it longer I might be able to come up with something better but I think it explains it pretty well without being to long or complicated:

For Smooth Criminal, Jackson experimented with an “anti-gravity lean” in which the performer keeps two feet flat on the ground and leans forward at close to a 45 degree angle. In the video for Smooth Criminal, this was accomplished using wires supporting the performer, but when Jackson wanted to unveil the move live, he and designers had to develop a special shoe that had a notch in the heel that the performer would then hook into a peg that shot up out of the stage allowing them to lean forward at a steep angle without falling. The move required a good amount of strength as you had to essentially rely on yourself to lean forward and come back up. Jackson was granted U.S. Patent No. 5,255,452 for the device. Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW thats way to much info for such a small thing - SO thats a no for me - need to stop adding all this fluff - just facts. That said the above could go to Smooth Criminal#Anti-gravity lean.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay well how about this then, I dont think this is long at all. I think it says everything that needs to be said. He did after all create this dance move and develop the shoe that allowed them to perform it, so I happen to think it is something that is absolutely worth adding, I think that is the point of Wikipedia after all, to explain who the person is and their history and accomplishments.

"For the Smooth Criminal video, Jackson experimented with an anti-gravity lean where the performer leans forward at an angle. To accomplish this move live, Jackson and designers developed and patented a special shoe that locks the performers feet to the stage. allowing them to lean forward. Jackson was granted U.S. Pentent No. 5,225,452 for the device." Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better no fluff - just fact - I say add it.Moxy (talk)

On a side note would be best to use real publications over news or random website whos link will be dead in a few months - there are hundreds of books that can be read and used as seen here. Think I am going to start fixing this problem - see if I can find proper sources for lots that is here.Moxy (talk)

Edit Request: Adding Janet Jackson & Eddie Van Halen to "Associated Acts" section (@Moxy)

When you deleted Janet Jackson & Eddie Van Halen from the associated acts section, you stated as your reason that that is not what the section is for. By that logic, the Jackson 5 & the Jacksons should be removed as well, because they too were associated with Michael Jackson.

All these 4 artists were in collaboration with Michael Jackson, and in the cases of Janet Jackson and Eddie Van Halen, they worked directly with him, hence their greater importance than the Jacksons, which didn't work on new material with Michael Jackson as solo artist. So I think they should be included. Retrospector87 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggesting we add people that have simply "collaborated" with him - this would be an endless list that would include people much more prominent then Eddie Van Halen such as Paul McCartney. So what we have here is the bands hes directly "associated" with - the 2 bands he is credited as begin a member of. Not a list of people that have credits on "his" albums.Moxy (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The only "associated acts" other then the 2 obvious ones that even seems remotely worth putting there would be Janet Jackson, but certainly not Eddie Van Halen. I'm trying to think of reasons of why we would put Janet there but am coming up empty other then the fact they are siblings and worked together on one song. I don't think I would care if just she was added but you all can decide that. But I agree, the list would be endless if you wanted to put everyone he has ever worked with there. And remove the Jackson 5 and the Jacksons? No.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, see Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts for the proper use of the field. GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me. But FYI "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" is a reason not to put an associated act in that section, according to the rule you so nicely pointed out to us.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Zdawg1029. "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" is not reason enough to put the artist(s) in question. The factor that convinced me these artists should be included in the section was referred to in the purpose line of the association section, because they were "...significant and notable to this artist's career." Janet Jackson should be obvious -- they collaborated on one song which nonetheless received numerous, renown accolades, which benefited Michael of course. In Eddie Van Halen's case, the fact of cross-genre collaboration was a major first in the popular music industry, a fact that speaks to the King of Pop's creative legacy. Retrospector87 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cant look at this article as a fan - a solo in one song did not change the world no matter how much you like it. Not seeing any reason to add these people but fluff. I think we should add Rockwell (musician) hes my favorite collaboration ... if you get my meaning.Moxy (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy, I just don't think a solo in one song, no matter how popular or important the song was in terms of his career, should be added to that section. There are certainly other places for it, but not under associated acts. Like I said before, the only name I could even remotely see being added to the obvious 2 would be Janet. But I agree, Rockwell would be a hilarious add considering it was my favorite collaboration as well, but obviously that should not be added.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Me liking these songs don't have anything to do with do with my request. I am particularly fond of "Another Part of Me", but no collabo there. I've stated my reasons which obviously was looked over, suggesting that maybe the King of Pop's huge credentials don't nicely fit with the by-the-number template referred by myself and others. And the songs world-changing? I cited significance to the artist's career. If the industry firsts those songs set (the cross-genre first & the most expensive video produced up til that time, Van Halen & Janet Jackson respectively) aren't important and material enough to consider adding these artists, it's 2 sticklers vs. 1 non-stickler. Even so, I do have to agree with the "great" suggestion of adding Rockwell. I'm sorry but that collaboration had almost no meaning to Michael Jackson. It had meaning to Rockwell! Thanks for the sarcastic hit gents! Retrospector87 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Rockwell was a joke, but also made as a point to the number of people we could put there and how it would never end. I see your point, but I still have to disagree with doing it. It is a section for associated acts, not one time collaborations. The Wiki guide thing even says not to put one-time collaborations there, I would have thought that would have been the end of the discussion. As Moxy said, where would it end? We could put a million people there, The Beatles, Paul McCartney, Rockwell, Slash, 3T, Akon, 50 cent, Sheryl Crow, I could go on forever. There are more appropriate places to note collaborations such as the pages for the individual song or the page for the album. You could probably even make an argument to make an entire page devoted to people MJ collaborated with since it was so extensive (I'm not implying to do that). There are just better and more appropriate places to put such information. I think the reader gets a very good view of who MJ was and what he did in life and his impact on the world without putting such information there.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The case here then is between sticklers and non-sticklers to the template. That guide did mention the one-song clause -- it said that one-song collaborations "shouldn't" be in the section. But's it's a guide, not binding like Wiki's rules of conduct. If one, like myself, sees a reason that this "shouldn't" be followed, certainly there's no reason for me to stop to attempt to change it and have a discussion over it. And, per the rules of conduct, the majority has it for not adding these artists. And yes, the list can go on and on, but I wouldn't have it long. Paul McCartney is a maybe, only because he's freaking Paul McCartney. Retrospector87 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we really still debating this? I don't understand why you are so adamant about adding these names. It is such a minor detail. Who exactly would you propose we add to the section and for what reason?Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry did you not read my post? We're not. Retrospector87 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cooled off now, ace? Retrospector87 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was never "heated" to begin with.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1991–93: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII

Hi, I propose adding the following sentence immediately after speaking of the Heal the World Foundation:

The singer was included in the Guinness Book of Records for being the Star who has donated to charity more than anyone else. It is estimated That the figures for donations, at least Those known to be $ 300 million

Thank youLilaMJ (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its the biggest private charity organosation in this area. MJ1982 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is scribd.com considered a reliable source? I don't read Italian - which sentence in the unonotizie.it reference refers to Guinness or the $300 million figure? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, GoingBatty, scribd.com considered a reliable source: I used it on the page of Michael Jackson-wikipedia italian. On Scribd. com are inserted the most documents also of some significance. On page unonotizie.it speaking of tours donated to charity. And for $ 300 million, there is another source. Thanks!! --LilaMJ (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Third paragraph under '93

Third paragraph under '93 should be removed or changed. It references an affidavit and emphasizes nude photographs of boys even though that document says both heterosexual and homosexual materials were found. It shouldnt be there in the first place anyways because the affidavit is from the 2003 raid, not '93. It also cites Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, sources that are untrustworthy and biased. The wording of the section on the strip search attempts o downplay the inaccuracy in the description. It is clearly written to be highly prejudicial against Jackson.

The section should be completely rewritten or thrown out altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyefoxmason (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you its definitely not an open minded source, But please remember to sign your post !MJ1982 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll remember to do that from now on. But that section definitely needs to GO or be altered to not be so prejudicial. Whoever wrote it obscured the facts and slipped in certain buzzwords to make Jackson look perverted, particularly the cutesy "books and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing." Setting aside the fact that the source it cites isn't even from the '93 raid and that Sneddon was caught trying to fabricate/plant evidence on Jackson later on with a magazine dated long after the Arvizos had left for good, it also notes that BOTH heterosexual and homosexual materials were found. Therefore it does not belong in the section about the Chandlers and their allegations at all. Anybody who would stretch the facts this far in order to give a negative picture of Jackson is clearly hellbent on character assassination. And then it cites Orth and Dimond, people who are militantly anti-Jackson, rather than reputable sources such as J. Randy Taraborrelli or Aphrodite Jones. Whoever has the authority to edit Jackson's page needs to do something about this. It's outrageous. Eyefoxmason98.232.88.150 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the third paragraph completely would also require removing the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Do you have a suggestion as to how to alter the paragraph? GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You could return to the way it was before this or simply preface the next paragraph that starts with "Jackson's friends..." with:

Search warrants of Jackson's home and condo, as well as the Jackson family home in Encino, did not turn up any incriminating material. A strip search of Jackson's body, done in order to corroborate a description of his genitals given by Chandler, yielded inconclusive results.

Those are widely reported facts that can be found almost anywhere. You could cite Taraborrelli's book, Fischer's article or almost any other reputable source. A concise statement like that is all that needs to be said. Including details about the porn or Jackson's pubic hair, his disfigurement due to vitiligo are only tools by Jackson's detractors to dirty him up and give readers a false impression of his guilt. Give them the undisputed facts and let them decide. Or you could simply go back to the way the section was before the atrocity of the truth that it is presently. Whatever you do, DON'T leave it like it is now. That is unacceptable. Eyefoxmason 98.232.88.150 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl Halftime Show

Anyone have any thoughts about adding something short to the section about the Super Bowl stating how MJ was the first big name act to perform the Super Bowl halftime show in an effort to keep ratings high, which had been declining in previous years. I think it says something that out of all the acts in the world they could have gotten to perform the show to draw and keep interest, they picked MJ because of his global appeal and big draw power.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael is NOT the most downloaded artist of all time

Please remove " that michael jackson was the most downloaded artist " . He never was even on the date provided by the Okia article . Rihanna always was .

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1003442

Rihanna is the most downloaded artist in musicalhistory, it has been revealed today.

The 'We Found Love' stars outfits maybe getting skimpier and smaller but her digital sales are soaring with every release notching up millions of downloads for the Bajan star.

Rihanna becomes the most downloaded artist ever

The singer has topped a poll of digital downloads and has beat some impressive contenders.

The stats are according to Nielsen Soundscan, which provide sales data to the music industry show that in less-than a decade, Rihanna has had her songs downloaded over 42 million times, taking her from an unknown teenager to global superstar. Not bad huh?

Here’s the top 10:

1. RIHANNA 42,571,000

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

Nilsen/ soundscan ( 1994-2012) This ckearly shows mr jackson was never the most downloaded artist

Thank you

76.222.86.76 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The story you cite is dated 2012. You'll need to provide the 2010 version of that list to counter the claims from Ovi, which were reported by MTV UK and NME that, as of 2010, Jackson was the #1 downloaded artist. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tricky thing that is, reading the complete context and all. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael has never been the most downloaded artist

Please remove that michael jackson was the most downloaded artist . The Ovia article is wrong .

Here is the 2010 billboard / soundscan report that refutes it

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110106006565/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2010-Music-Industry-Report

TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS (Based on Digital Track sales from 7/04/2004-1/02/2011)

Artist

Units Sold 1 Taylor Swift 34,269,000 2 Black Eyed Peas 33,831,000 3 Rihanna 33,673,000 4 Eminem 33,279,000 5 Lady Gaga 29,311,000 6 Kanye West 25,343,000 7 Beyonce 25,136,000 8 Nickelback 23,919,000 9 Michael Jackson 23,218,000 10. Katy Perry 22,574,000

Michael jackson never was the most downloaded in 2010

198.228.200.169 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. The article, and the reference, is talking about the most downloaded artist "of all time" up to that point in 2010. The link you posted is data collected for the "52-week period January 4, 2010 through January 2, 2011". You're trying too hard to remove something you're not reading clearly. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)