Talk:Michael Jackson

		Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Suggestion: Songwriting/production credits section?

There is no mention of songs he has written or produced for other people. Notably "Do the Bartman", "Happy Birthday Ashley", "Muscles" or some of the songs on 3T's first album. - or am I mistaken and it is featured somewhere else. If not, please can someone set this up, I haven't got the sources and honestly I don't know much about it, which is the reason why I think it would be good information to have. Thank you! TwinqleTwinqle (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

HIStory

IMDb says HIStory IS the largest selling multiple-disc album of all time..

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/bio

"His album "HIStory: Past, Present and Future - Book I" has sold 16 million copies worldwide since its release in 1995, making it the biggest selling multiple-disc album of all time."
Sai2020 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is unreliable? Thats stupid.. The IMDb website consists of the largest accumulation of data about films.... (from Wikipedia).. Definitely it's reliable.. Σαι ( Talk ) 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in Invincible section

The version of the article that Realist2 is insisting on is not NPOV. Prior to my edit it read:

Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music. That said an album that sells 8 million copies is still considered a huge success in the majority of cases.

There may be a source for this opinion, but it is still an opinion and does not belong here. The last sentence is also not NPOV as it reads as being defiant, and dismissive towards negative opinions of the album. Just let the facts speak for themselves: 8 million in sales is a large number, there is no need to belabor the point. I have changed it to:

Despite the middling reviews, the album still sold 8 million copies, making it one of that year's most popular albums.

This is, I think, a more evenhanded treatment. Before undoing this edit, I think it should be discussed here on the talk page to see how other editors feel. DiggyG (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly do not threatem me on my talk page, ashume good faith, my edit is sourced, yours is not. You had a problem with this section about 6 weeks ago and reverted it. You said at the time you reverted because the source was from a book published in 1991 so was therefore false, when i changed the source to the 2004 edition of the book (sorry folks at the time I just copied and pasted the 1991 book info, I no im a bad wiki, but its an easy mistake) you left it no problem. Now you come back removed the sourced material, add your own unsourced material, threaten me on my talk page. The real reason you altered it 6 weeks ago wasnt because it was the wrong edition of the book " which is the image you wanted to give off" it was rather because you didnt agree with it. As for the unsourced sentance about 8 million generally being a good sales figure, that part is correctly unsourced and if you would like to remove that 1 line you are more than welcome. Please do not mislead with your intentions are reasoning.Realist2 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is probably appropriate to state the sales figures for the album. However, it is not necessary to insert commentary addressing the worth of published reviews. Michael Jackson has received a huge amount of press coverage, and more books have been written about him than most other public figures. Out of all of those articles, websites, and books, it is not surprising that it is easy to find a source for opinions such as "the negative reviews of this album were unfair" (I'm paraphrasing) - nevertheless these opinions do not belong in the article. DiggyG (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is when it was so riff, find me 5 neutral reviews on invincible that didnt go on and on about how fucked up he is, what that well researched book said was completely fair and true, if you want to say reviews were shit, well i would like to say that they hardly ever talked about the music rather his image, its not a lie, if you read reviews you will see what I mean, find me just 5 revies that actually talk about the music over his image.Realist2 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues

After having gone through this article, I found quite a few problems. For one, there is quite a bit of unsourced material. I found one citation that did not contain the information it states and that has been tagged accordingly. Also, when a book is given as a reference, a page number or numbers needs to be included for verification. Two citations were also tagged because they're from IMDb. IMDb is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used to reference a biography (See here for a discussion regarding the matter). I've also tagged those accordingly. Lastly, there are quite a bit of POV statements and peacock terms. For instance:

Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music. That said an album that sells 8 million copies is still considered a huge success in the majority of cases.

Saying that a review is "unfair" is a point of view statement. What one person sees as unfair, another can see as perfectly fair. Statements like this should not be in an encyclopedia whether they are sourced or not. A reliable source will sometimes include an opinion, but those opinions need to be left out in the context of Wikipedia. I removed the last sentence because that is clearly an opinion and there was no way to reword to make it acceptable. Plus, that information isn't really needed. A reader can make up his or her own mind once they read a neutral statement. It is fine to state that the album was given harsh reviews and people focused on the person, not the album, but it is not necessary or acceptable to assert an opinion to make the subject appear sympathetic. I know Jackson is a controversial figure and it seems that some statements are attempting to defend him or his actions. Looking back on the edit history, it seems that if changes are made, they are quickly reverted. These issues need to be addressed and fixed BEFORE the tags and templates are removed. I'd like to point that that I did not remove the statements I had issues with, but instead tagged them so the original author has the chance to reword the content. The only substantial edits I made were regarding grammar, peacock terms, text formatting, and overlinking. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No that isnt an opinion, its fact, you find me 5 proper reviews about invincible that talked about the music and not about his image, you wount be able to do it, its fact that they went on about his image, thats not a opinion, it actually happened and is sourced accurately. That sentance I used was not edited, i wrote it exactly as it was in the book, word for word. Other than that what you did was great, it will motivate people to get this page sorted, 1 think, i dont know how to give page numbers. Would you show me how to do it, using page 116 as a example.Realist2 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute what the book said because I don't have the book. The fact is, a book can have an opinion as well. A person writes a book and a person, by nature, has opinions. As I stated earlier, it is acceptable to say that the reviews did not focus on the album content, but the person and their behavior. Why you're arguing that point is beyond me because I said that was fine to include. I said the last sentence of those few sentence I used as an example was not acceptable. Words like "huge success" are peacock terms and very hard to prove as success is relative. As far as page numbers, you can go here and follow the directions. If you have any trouble, let me know and I'll help you. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the paragraph on invincible:

Though Jackson claimed that the albums sales were poor compared to previous releases, factors that contributed to its lower sales included no world tour promotion as well as only one music video release. Few reviews were actually negative, but most felt it was Jackson's least impressive effort yet.[93][94][95] Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music.[Neutrality disputed — See talk page][96][page # needed]

It admits it is his lowest selling studio album, it admits it was his least impressive album (it has 3 sources that say it was his shittest album this is anti invincible overkill), then there is the part about reviews often being unfair, concentrating on his image. My god this paragraph is SO anti invincible your right it isnt neutral, some of this negativity need removing.Realist2 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's skewed to be anti-Jackson. More importantly no single editor has veto rights over this page, if you disagree with the current edit, that's fine, but it's poor manners to immediately revert edits that you disagree with. DiggyG (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Futher Reading

I would like to submit for the FURTHER READING section an analysis of Michael Jackson, entitled Machind In a Promised Land. Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2005_v4_n4/lewis-17.htm Thanking you for the consideration, Artsandopinion (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

Also Known as Manchild

That one's not going to go down with me, if anyone dares put that in the article they are up for a fight! Gaogier (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Hi, According to the Wikipedia policies that govern our contributions here to Wikipedia, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (seeWP:REDFLAG). The policy states that "Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material." The policy also says that this requirement "especially applies..." for "biographies of living people."................................................................There are some exceptional claims in the MJ article (e.g., that he has "planetary influence", the most famous entertainer, etc), which are sourced from websites that are not independent, reputable MEDIA sources. For example, there are several exceptional claims which cite the BMI.com website, such as the "planetary influence" claim. BMI is a performing right organization that collects license fees on behalf of its songwriters, composers and music publishers. BMI represents songwriters, including MJ. BMI is not a good source for exceptional claims; it is not a music magazine, it is not a newspaper, it is not an academic journal... but most of all, BMI is NOT INDEPENDENT FROM Michael Jackson. ............................................................BMI represents MJ and his songs, and gains its revenue from the use and licensing of these songs. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. If you want to have claims that "MJ has planetary influence", which is an exceptional claim, the source should be TIME magazine, The New York Times, or a similarly, highly-respected source...................As such, I argue that the claims which are sourced to non-independent websites such as BMI should be removed, unless an exceptional, reputable source can confirm them.Nazamo (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Slash does not play on invincible

Also look at the credits of the Vince album. Here's proof:

"We also asked SLASH about the song "Privacy" on Michael Jackson's forthcoming album, Invincible. We told Slash that it sounds like Michael says "SLASH" right before a short guitar solo, but SLASH insists he did not play on this album. He said maybe they borrowed something from HIStory or Dangerous, but he certainly would remember if he had played on the album. " http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72735147381551&mkt=en-GB&lang=en-GB&w=9d3f596c&FORM=CVRE

just to settle that issue once and for all. :) Marnifrances (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for FA

I did it. Please support the nomination. Thank You
Σαι ( Talk ) 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Tags

What other sources do we need and where is neutrality disputed? Σαι ( Talk ) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See the above sections "NPOV in Invincible section" and "Article issues", both of which focus on one sentence in the "Invincible" section, which already has an inline neutrality tag, along with a few borderline "peacock terms" that are sourced. I've removed both tags because I think dispute-tagging the entire article is overkill in this case. In regards to the request for additional citations, there are more than 180 inline citations in this article, so I'm not convinced there's a systemic problem with sourcing. It would be much more helpful to use the {{fact}} tag to mark specific sources. szyslak 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what i meant was that there are no current issues with article.. Σαι ( Talk ) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who tagged the article and I'm fine with it being removed. I originally added the tag(s) when there was quite a bit of POV, peacock terms and missing/bad citations. Since that time, everyone has done an excellent job of addressing the issues, so the huge tag is no longer needed. Pinkadelica (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

one of the problems pointed out in the nomination is the article's size. the influence section is the biggest i think and im going to start a new page Michael Jackson's influence on the music industry. ill start tomorrow.. i will cut down things from here and put them there. i need your comments and your help. so let's start! Σαι ( Talk ) 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• 1STHey yes, i know a simple method, a merger, in the influence section there is a huge section on the thriller album. Me and elfoid have really neatened up the Thriller album article and there is plenty of space for this info to go. Its very well written and could be sent right over to the Thriller article, it would help both the Michael Jackson and Thriller article reach FA.

There is already enough info on Thriller under the Thriller era section of the Michael Jackson article so that Thriller influence section could be sent over and there would still be lots of info on Thriller here.

Lets send the Thriller influence section over to the Thriller album, as its quick, easy, unlikely to create edit wars which new articles tend to do, will help get Micheael Jackson up to FA, will help get Thriller up to FA and there will still be plenty of Thriller info here under the Thriller era section. Realist2 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• 2ND Me and elfoid wanted to make an article about ALL michael Jacksons music videos. If we do, which i want to, we can merge the MICHAEL and MTV section to it.

Great so I'll send over Legacy of Thriller to the Thriller article. Σαι ( Talk ) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill help you with the new article about music videos. my knowledge is very limited though.. Σαι ( Talk ) 07:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem mate, we`ll start it in a few weeks though, getting this article up to FA is going to take a little longer than you hoped, but it WILL get there. That merger took off 5,000 bytes and it was easy. If you want you can set up the page "Michael Jackson and Music Videos" and send the MJ and MTV stuff straight over. That way at least its off the Michael Jackson article.Realist2 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged third child

So I thought I was adding an uncontroversial and mysteriously missing fact from the article when I added the thing about having a third child, Prince Michael II aka Blanket. User:Realist removed as "tabloid trash," and upon redoubling my efforts, indeed, I cannot find any mention of it that doesn't come from a tabloid.

Here's the problem: I had been under the impression this was just common knowledge. While Wikipedia surely cannot be in the business of spreading rumors, debunking rumors is potentially fair game. Frankly, if I had been a little busier at work, I would have gone away with the impression still remaining the Michael Jackson did indeed have a third child, and that the WP article was just missing the fact because it had gotten blanked accidentally in a major edit or merge.

It's a tough call per WP:BLP, but it may be worth explicitly debunking the claim within the Marriages and Children section. Failing that, there should at least be a comment in the article source telling people not to add it... (I did my homework and checked the Talk page first before adding the "fact", and maybe there's a discussion back there somewhere, but I ain't combing through 15 pages of archives, no sir!)

Or has this all been debated to death in one of the other 15 pages of archived talk pages?? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, didn't he talk about Blanket in the Bashir interview?? This transcript says so, although I recognize that website is not a reliable source either, but I have heard the same quote from the Bashir interview other places, I thought... am I misremembering? Is the Bashir interview not considered a reliable source? Or what?? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I am now quite certain that MJ talked about it in the Bashir interview. I am currently attempting to locate an appropriate clip on YouTube, after which I intend to properly cite the interview, provide a link to the YouTube version of the interview, and only repeat what Mr. Jackson has said in his own words. I cannot see how one could object to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow every MJ story out there like the dedicated fans do, but it seems that there is no disputing that he has three children, the third of which is named as described by Jaysweet. I'm at a loss to explain how all the people that follow his every move have (1) made no mention of how many children he has, or (2) the name of the third child. I've edited your original sentence and added more references. Realist, in the future, rather than completely reverting something added by another editor, could you please take their addition and at least keep the part that isn't in dispute? Have fun, everyone.—Mrand ^T-C 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

lol i know it must have slipped our minds Realist2 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn he specifically said "surrogate" in the Bashir interview. There is a transcript of the Bashir interview from mjshouse.com that is cited in this article and in many other Wikipedia articles, which contains the following text:

Bashir: "Is that how Blanket was born?"

Jackson: "I used a surrogate mother and my own sperm cells."

I'm not comfortable citing that transcript (despite the fact that this very article does so several times, heh) because in my opinion it does not meet WP:RS -- even though I do in fact believe the transcript to be correct.

That said, I don't feel a burning need to mention the surrogate angle, especially if it is controversial, because of course WP:BLP should always err on the side of caution. As long as Prince Michael II aka Blanket is mentioned, I am satisfied. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Finances Section

This section is terribly sourced and written. Most is also speculation based on tabloid rumour and Roger Friedman's "inside sources". I recommend we take out all but the sourced info until someone can supply sources for the other information. Marnifrances (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree , unsourced material needs removing.--Realist2 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Download, is it copyright

Well virgin media have put this image up on their site to download and i just wondered could it be a free use image?

• http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/desktopwallpapers/michaeljackson.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can .--Realist2 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Era Image

Where has it gone, it was okay! why have we lost the bad era image? --Gaogier ^Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was replaced with a picture of the bad world tour. That picture was eventually removed as it wasnt free use but the old picture wasnt put back on. I tried to add it from wiki commons a week ago but i found it too difficult. Realist2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Put this one on for now?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_1988_by_himself.jpg

--Gaogier ^Talk! 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ok i will, but its not a good quality picture......--Realist2 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a good quality version on the net but would that still be counted as fair use?Gaogier ^Talk! 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

File:1987MichaelJosephJackson.jpg

Michael Jackson in 1987

There, Fix the image description for me Gaogier ^Talk! 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ill copy this on . Realist2 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a fan site

The article contains much useful information, but its makeup and contents are very apologetic. The first thing the general public think of when they hear the name Michael Jackson is not the music, but the controversy surrounding his physical appearance and his private life. Almost all we get on this are quotes by Michael Jackson himself, which I do not think many people outside the fan circles will find particularly convincing. More extensive and more balanced sections are needed on these issues, whereas the albums section could do with some abridging.--84.190.49.142 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)