Talk:Michael Jackson

		Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |16

Religion

What religion is Jackson (he is listed as a "former" Jeovahs Witness)? Did he convert to Islam? Somebody knowledgable should mention details of his beliefs in the article.

SerpentOfDarkness (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He left the Witness religion a while back, however tabloids state that he is now a muslim. Jackson doesnt comment on his life anymore and has never sais he is muslim. Also at his trial he wore good luck charms from the witness religion so maybe he still has some association with it. Iy doesnt matter, until he states what he is, its not for us to decide. Also please start new sections at the bottom of the talk page in the future, its like a wiki tradition or something, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but the Witnesses don't use good luck charms or symbolic images. Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, thats what the media called them at the time, still , who knows or cares. Yet again religion manages to cause controversy, lets just drop this one. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Samples

Should audio samples be added to the relevant sections in the same way that has been done to Janet's wiki page? - Kaneite

What is Michael Jackson's current record label?

Anyone know for sure? 76.124.165.253 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He did Thriller 25 with sony, he doesnt have an official record deal but considering the success of Thriller 25 maybe sony with resign him? Although im not sure MJ wants anything to do with sony really. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm performing a copy edit on the article and I want to note a few issues I've been noticing throughout, especially with a view towards FAC.

• There is an issue with how numbers are written in the article—sometimes in words (i.e, thirty-seven) and sometimes in digits (i.e., 37). According to WP:MOSNUM, as long as the numbers can be written in two words or less, it is acceptable to write the words, but the method used should be consistent. Pick one way or another.
  • I dont care how its done, but i cant do it myself i have a wierd thing about numbers. Could you make it consistant in accordance with how you are used to seeing it?
• A similar nitpicky issue: both the serial comma and the non-serial comma are used here—pick the one you want.
  • Im a non serial person myself (one, two and three)
• In the section where Jackson's family members are discussed, he is the only one referred to as "Jackson", whereas the others are called by their first name. To avoid confusion, shouldn't his name be rendered as "Michael" in that particular section?
  • It was criticised last at the FA that he was called michael, i changed it to Jackson throughout, but we could change those sections back yes.
• I've noted a few other issues inline, commented out. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All, replies by me R2. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll go back and double-check the numbers. (That summary of the MOS is slightly simplified; it's generally accepted that numbers are always words if they're less than ten, the issue really arises for double-digit numbers.) Gusworld (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But everything in the same sentance must be formatted the same way remember, lol this is why i hate numbers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a rule I'm aware of, it isn't in the MOS, and there are some clear and obvious counter-examples (e.g. dates rendered in a sentence would always feature numbers no matter what else is going on). The fundamental rule is consistency within the article, and there's probably a few words that slipped by me, will check. Gusworld (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I argued against it put thats not what the folks at the FA said, they wanted consistancy within the sentance, see this is why i dont get involved. Way to much hastle. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Child Molestation charges in the LEAD

I'm not attempting to censor the article in anyway, but the lead is designed to be an overview of a person's entire biography and I have a concern the lead goes into far too much detail over the matter. Although I agree the charges against Jackson had a dramatic impact on his own personal life and pop culture, it is not the only thing Jackson is notable for, nor is it the cornerstone of his overall biography.

Wikipedia:BLP#Basic_human_dignity and Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight offer guidelines, but I'd also like to see opinions from Administrators who commonly deal with BLP articles. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section in the lead is overly detailed re the charges -- there was a point when this section was actually the most detailed account of the issue in the article, but pretty much every detail here is now in the main body, so that aspect could certainly trimmed. On the other hand, I think the lead doesn't say enough (that is, it says absolutely nothing) about the other aspects of Jackson's life that have made him controversial. To pick a few: the skin colour issue, his unusual romantic and family life, and examples of eccentric behaviour (the sleeping chamber, Bubbles, Elizabeth Taylor, Diana Ross emulation etc.). I don't think any of these need especial emphasis, and some probably don't need to be in the lead at all, but it's ridiculous to pretend that collectively they're not a significant aspect of Jackson's public persona or that they haven't impacted his career in later years. Long before there were child molestation allegations, plenty of people thought Jackson was odd, and that's not acknowledged at all in the lead. Gusworld (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed revision of the last paragraph

Jackson's personal life has caused significant controversy; while the singer has given several hundred million dollars to charity, his change in physical appearance and controversial actions have damaged his reputation among some of the public. As a result, Jackson has suffered commercial decline as well as media scrutiny since the mid-1990s.

the rest of the lead would be deleted as these issues are covered in the body of the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As a basic structure I think this is good, but there's a few specific issues:

• The "while the singer has given several hundred million dollars to charity" bit needs some work. For one thing, it's a specific enough claim to need a reference. For another, using it in this clause prior to describing the controversies surrounding Jackson seems to me to violate NPOV. Jackson's charitable work clearly deserves mention in the lead, but to infer as this sentence does that these works should have affected the public's view of other incidents and allegations is neither neutral nor sourced. I'd suggest discussion of Jackson's work for charity would be better placed in the achievements and career material preceding this section.
  • It was sourced when the "Charity work" section was there, i must have deleted it when sticking it all in chronological order. Ill have to drag up the source from the history, fun. When i get the source ill move the sentances placing. My opinion was that his charity work is part of his personal life, at least thats what most biographies on wikipedia do. I just wanted to keep all the personal stuff together.--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE
• I don't think that it's appropriate to link the People v. Jackson material to "controversial actions" and say nothing else whatsoever. While there undoubtedly doesn't need to be such a detailed discussion of the 2001 case in the lead, the fact is that Jackson has been the subject of two separate sets of allegations of this kind (one settled, one found not guilty), and I think that some mention of that needs to be made. (Even the least Jackson-aware FA reviewer is going to wonder why there's no mention of the topic in the lead, for one thing.)
  • I expanded on the first alligation, im not sure what else you would like to add about the second alligation, could you be specific, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• "have damaged his reputation among some of the public" is awkwardly phrased - it seems to be trying to avoid saying "damaged his public reputation", perhaps on the grounds that it's not a universal view (especially among fans). But the word used is "damaged", not "destroyed", so I think the simpler version would be OK. At any event, needs refining.
  • DONE
• Media scrutiny of Jackson began well before the mid-1990s, though it undoubtedly intensfied then.
  • Jackson has been under media scrutiny since birth im not sure that should be used, its not very clear what that means anyway. Negative media coverage is much better (which is already in the lead).--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to attempt a rewrite along these lines if someone else doesn't want to. Gusworld (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the points you brought up. I'm not the expert on any of the subject so I'll leave it to you or another editor. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed revision of the last paragraph by Realist2

OK so that negative tabloid crap paragraph has got really big now, should we split it into 2 smaller paragraphs?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been completely rewritten by someone who has expertise in getting articles to FA, the ultimate goal of this article. Personally i think it looks a lot better. I thank Happyme22 for his contribution. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually just performed a copyedit on the lead in accordance with WP:LEAD, as Realist said, because it was overly long. I attempted to generalize much what was written, including the molestation charges. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its ace. ;-) Also feel free to slap me for accidently rollbacking you, slip of the mouse. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi all, I've just recently given this article a thorough copyedit, which has hopefully helped it. Here's some things that still need to be worked on before it can become featured:

• Citations: sections needing additional citations for verification:
  • "1958–1975: Early life and career debut"
  • the last two paragraphs of "1991–1994: Dangerous"
  • last sentence of the first paragraph of "1995–1997: HIStory"
  • last paragraph of "2001–2002: Invincible"
  • second paragraph of "2003–2006: Living with Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson"
  • first paragraph of "2008: 25th anniversary of Thriller"
  • the entire Legacy and influence section (including "Style and performances" and "themes and generes")
  • "Physical appearance"
• Citations: make sure that all citations are in proper cite format (see {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite video}}, etc.) For book sources, I would suggest gathering them all and placing them in a "References" section below the footnotes; use the last name of the author of the book and page number when citing it in a footnote (example as you have done: "Taraborrelli, p.435–436")

*Citations: the language parameter does not need to be specified for publications that are printed in the U.S. (in this case), such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, etc.

*Wikilinks: I would suggest going through and adding wikilinks to sections "Physical appearance" and "finances"

*Content: Perhaps talk a little more about Jackson's personal life. I know his two marriages are mentioned, but perhaps some detail could be added regarding his wife, where they met, why they married, why the divorced, etc. Also, who was the mother of his child born in 2002? Since this article is about Michael Jackson, all aspects of his need to be covered.

• • Ill try expanding on that, as for the mother of his 2002 child, it was a suragote mother, the identity is confidential, this of course could be added to the article.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, it's a great article but needs just a little more work before it can become FA. After completing the above tasks, I would recommend a peer review, or if you feel the article is ready, go straight on to FAC. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, article is looking much better now. I'm going to have another read of this version and see if there's any extra material that should be added (as raised in earlier discussions) and how the influences/themes section is shaping up. I also still have some concerns regarding some of the references, which I think over time have come to be associated with information they don't contain (e.g. the Taraborrelli references to the White House visit, as discussed earlier on this page.) Gusworld (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, happyme22. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Charitable donations

The claim that Jackson has donated several hundred million dollars to charity (which appears in the lead and is then sourced later in the article in the 2003-2006 section) still hasn't been adequately documented. Of the two references (99 and 100 as I write this), the first from the Sunday Times is in large part a copy of an earlier version of this Wikipedia article and thus unacceptable as it creates a circular reference. (The fact that the writer is listed as 'Pretty Young Thing' makes it pretty clear this is not standard newspaper copy, by the way). The second is Taraborelli; this was published in 2004, so clearly can't say how much Jackson has donated as of 2006, two years later. I'm not disputing that Jackson has engaged in significant charitable activity, but if we want to quantify it, we'll need a better source. Gusworld (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Im looking into getting a something extra for that, ive noticed something WAY more important tho. There is no mention of jacksons drug problems. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the prescription painkiller stuff at the end of the Dangerous tour as well as in 1995? That had completely slipped my mind. There's an account in Taraborrelli, though that also suggests it was a hoax designed to distract from the Chandler allegations. It probably needs to be mentioned. Gusworld (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he never said that, he said thats how the media reacted to it, he did go into rehab and elizebeth taylor helped him through it. The book also says he started using them again around the time of his trial.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether you're referring to T or Jackson himself here. T quotes Jackson's own statement as saying "I became dependent on the painkillers to get through the tour"; I think that's pretty unambiguous. T doesn't really draw any conclusions about the truth of the statement as far as I can see, but notes that many observers thought it was a hoax; if we use that book as the source, it would be unrepresentative not to mention that. Gusworld (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The book says the MEDIA didnt buy the story, but the book does talk about his stay in rehab, how elizebeth taylor helped him through it and how Lisa Maria helped him. The auther himself does not dispute jackson had a drug problem. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the 1993 context, T talks about the rehab stay, but largely in the context of Jackson's broader issues (his relationship with Jordan Chandler and his father); he refers to "much-needed counselling" but rather pointedly doesn't make it drug-specific; and he quotes Taylor as saying that prayer is all that's left for helping Jackson, but doesn't list any other direct material assistance at that time. On the whole, I think T avoids the issue of whether Jackson was addicted or not. In any event, the fact that Jackson's claim to be in rehab was widely derided itself might be seen as noteworthy (it's a demonstration of his continued adverserial relationship with the media for one thing, which is actually something that might deserve slightly broader discussion in the overall article). Gusworld (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill read into it and look for specifics, its been a while, maybe the book isnt crystal clear on it. If not ill get another source. My intention is to set up a section on jacksons health problems, weight issues, drug issues even mental issues if thats needed. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That physical appearance section needs to be cleaned up, lol

I guess the tag told you what is going on with that section. It describes his hair style change, which I think is kinda ridiculous to put in there because it makes it seem like a fan did that, lol. The discussion could just put it down to the cited quotes about how his skin color change and how his face has changed from 25 years before. No need to talk about the hair, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i moved that paragraph elsewhere, the physical appearance section is changing, its becoming a physical appearance and health concerns section as the too are so linked. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were reliable sources!

Rodhullandemu had sent me a message that I would be blocked for adding links that are "in breach of copyright laws" on the page of Michael Jackson. I would like to say that those links are reference to back up my contributions. The article doesn't acknowlege the fact that he is a beatboxer who is arguably better than Justin Timberlake, and yet, wikipedia acknowleges Justin Timberlake as a beatboxer, and not Michael Jackson. The article also doesn't acknowlege the fact that Michael Jackson was taught by Poppin' Taco. It is in line with the hegemony that he is a dancer on his own, when the reality is that even the amazing Michael Jackson had a dance instructor.

Those links that I am in trouble for, are simply suppose to be reference to back up my claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therainbow (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem which you fail to recognize is that YouTube is NOT considered to be a reliable source for wikipedia. Blogs, youtube and other web forums which have illegally reproduced/uploaded material protected by copyright cannot be used as a source. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And you have one of the worst records for copyright breaches that I have seen here. That's why I suggest you find out pronto what you can and cannot use, otherwise you can count your future editing days here on the fingers of one gloved hand. Regards. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, they arent reliable, i would advise you not to reinstate them (that would make it three times). If you are unsure about the reliability of a source stick it on the talk page or come speak to me and i can help you out. One gloved hand, lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable enough? http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/documentaries/beatboxing.shtml http://www.michael-jackson-trader.com/tours/dangeroustour.htmlTherainbow (talk)

As far as it goes, yes, but it doesn't mention Jackson, so it's useless here. --Rodhullandemu 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first is a reliable surce but doesnt actually mention Jackson, per rods statement. The second is unreliable per the last FA review of this article. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Humanitarian" contradiction

Resolved

"Jackson was first viewed as a humanitarian following his burning accident with Pepsi when the cola manufacturer gave Jackson $1.5 million, an out of court settlement that he donated to the Michael Jackson Burn Centre.[31]"

"[Heal the World] was the first instance where Jackson became seen as a humanitarian.[36]"

Which of these statements is correct? Pennywisepeter (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill get it sorted now, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Political views

Does anyone know anything about his political views ? I cant remember a time where he has spoken about social issues, bar aids and poverty and whats he talks about in his music. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there was that stuff about soldiers dying in their glory on the song History, but we can't really get into lyrical analysis, because he can and will change his mind about issues over time as we all do.--Manboobies (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, im trying to remember if he ever made any comments in interviews or something. He has been associated with both political parties. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags and record sales

Hey Realist2, you took out the fact tag someone had added this sentence in the lead: "Five of his studio albums, Off the Wall (1979), Thriller (1982), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995), have become some of the world's best selling pop records." on the grounds this is established later in the text. While we have sales figures for all these records, I don't think that the case is made for all of them being best-sellers in absolute terms (clearly it's done for Thriller, but it's dubious for most of the others). I agree the records and their sales need mentioning in the intro (indeed, I pushed for this earlier), but we probably need a more neutral formulation for this sentence to avoid the need for a reference. Gusworld (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt see it as a problem, every album is accurately sourced, additionally the sentance says POP records not out of every record, just the catagory that is pop. I have to go now, if you still feel its a nessary requirement even in the context that its only in reference to the genre of pop i will happily find a source when i return later today. ;-) Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the individual figures are there, but the problem is the main article doesn't always put the sales into a broader context (ie how they compared to others at the time). If we're going to call them "some of the world's best-selling pop records", that's a strong claim (pop is a broad category), and it needs someone to have explicitly stated that, not just the fact there are sales figures further down. I'll try and work out a more neutral way of phrasing it if a source proves tricky (it probably shouldn't). Gusworld (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill do it asap, im quite tired at the moment with exams, ;-( . Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think we need a new picture to headline this page, lol.

The other one was too long and this one is not only too long but to me, it STILL seems like a "private picture". I've seen some have different varied ways of viewing that photo, one showing Michael around what appeared to be fans from Tokyo and then others show his face upfront. I would think a picture of him performing or an "iconic" picture probably from the "Thriller" days (not the 1984 Reagan one) would be better and be firmly approved by people here as a good picture for the page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note it would have to be a copyright-free image for the infobox, per image policy. We've already some edtors trying to put fair-use images in, and that's not allowed. --Rodhullandemu 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brotha, seriously, unless you can go back in time to 1985 take a picture of MJ and bring it back here you dont have a chance. Wikipedias policy on pictures sucks, there aint nothing we can do about it. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu's intrepretation is not correct according to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions: Fair use images are allowed on the page in infoboxes. Rmhermen (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Its really irrelevant as we dont have any fair use pictures anyway. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure wouldn't hurt though, LOL! BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get a fair use picture of Jackson in the mid 1990's to show his change in appearance, on the face of it you think that would be a good rational, yet it failed, its just impossible. We have no way of arguing for fair use when we have free use pictures available. Sorry i think we just have to put up with what we have. ;-( Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU AND LETS CORRECT SOME MISSINGS

Wikipedia is one of the sources I always recommend people to refer if they are looking for the latest information about an issue. About Mihael Jackson article, you've put a nice effort here and it seemed that it's gonna be good but I noticed some points that we can correct together and help it more close to an ideal wikipage.

1.there are unsourced and unconfirmed information that attracts more attention at personal parts.(we know that it is not business that can be discussed this way. it is personal issues and better be less refering to what people say and romours cause it makes it be like the way tabloids work things out, we all know that this page is about an issue, that there is enough romours and myth around about it.)

2.the part about Themes and genres doesn't sound like as equal as it should be and seems misunderstood. it is not concerning all the aspects of Mr.Jackson's Themes and genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.22.5 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

please dont delete topics unnecessarily

please dont delete topics unnecessarily. lets try to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.22.5 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

VERY GOOD AND LETS MAKE IT BETTER

I must declare, from the last time i visited Michael Jackson page it has fairly improved. the information has become well detailed from reliable sources and gives us a fair view of MJ's career. Mr.Jackson's marriages and children is not separated from the other parts of the article and is free of romours and uncomfirmed information that is a good professiona and respectful act.

sure it's the best version of this page i've ever seen yet. thank you and let me beg you to pay attention to some parts that i think can be better:

1. 1995—1999: HIStory

about Mr.Jackson's second marriage:

"....Originally there were no plans to marry but following Rowes first pregnancy, Jacksons mother intervened and persuaded them to."

but the only reliable information that I found about the way they married is:

"...Chuck Henry: After the divorce, Debbie, who met Jackson while working at a doctor's office, again brought up the subject of children. Debbie Rowe: "Michael," I said. "You know my, my offer still stands." Chuck Henry: So if you want to be a parent Debbie Rowe: So I said, I said... Chuck Henry: I'm available? Debbie Rowe: So I said, "If you still want to be a daddy, I want to do it." Chuck Henry: A week after that story broke; Debbie got a call from Jackson. Debbie Rowe: He asked me if I would get married, and I said, "You really want to?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "It's not gonna affect our friendship, and we're still going to be friends, right?" And he said, "Promise." "Because, the first time this marriage interferes with our friendship we're going back to being friends, and forget this other stuff." And he said, "It won't happen, I promise." Chuck Henry: So now you've had the baby. Debbie Rowe: It was the world's best experience...."

SOURCE: Debbie Rowe Interview I (May 21, 1997) Los Angeles TV reporter Chuck Henry for KNBC-TV (Channel 4).

it shows that they had planed to marry before having their first child. I haven't seen any other reliable source with reliable information about Deborah Jeanne Rowe's first pregnancy before

planing to marry and marriage.

2.2001—2002: Invincible

about the reasons of low sales of invincible album comparing to previous releases:

"...The sales for Invincible were low compared to his previous releases, which may be due to the lack of a supporting world tour and because only one music video was released to promote the album. While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive,[95][96] negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music...."

and after this paragraph MJ's problmes with sony are opened that is the main reason of two first reasons mentioned above. I think it's gonna be mentioned in the first paragraph after the other two.

3.Physical appearance and health concerns

unlike the other parts of the article this part is suffering from giving too much reliability to unconfirmed and unsourced romours:

"....The structure of his face has changed as well, and several surgeons have speculated that Jackson has undergone multiple nasal surgeries, a forehead lift, thinned lips, and cheekbone surgery.[143] ........... as well as more throughout his career.[144] Jackson had his third rhinoplasty in 1984, another in 1986, and had a cleft put in his chin.[144] By 1990, the full extent of Jackson's surgery was known; those close to the singer estimated he underwent ten operations on his face, up to this point..........Some suggest that changes to his face are, in part, due to periods of significant weight loss..........Witnesses reported that Jackson was often dizzy and speculated that he was suffering from anorexia nervosa...."

after enjoying the previous parts, this part made a ( ?!!!!! ) in my mind.

4.Finances

in this part:

"...In 1984, he paid for the Thriller music video using his own money,..."

there is an interview with John Landis saying:

".... There were already two successful videos that had been made [from the album]:“Beat it” and “Billie Jean.” Plus, the album was already No. 1 and had sold more records than any other in history when the video premiered. So Michael said, “Well, I'll pay for it”, and I said, “Absolutely not.” He was still living with his parents then....."

SOURCE: John Landis About Making Thriller Video (24-4-2008) In preparation of the special Thriller Night at the Tribeca Film

Festival director John Landis gave an interview to Metromix New York