Talk:Michael Jackson

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

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n24.de%2Fnews%2Fnewsitem_3734500.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Jackson-family-wants-second-autopsy-Coroner/articleshow/4711175.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/michael-jackson-fans-arrive-from-all-over-the-world-for-memorial-service-20090707-db30.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/music/2009/05/21/1242498844872.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wall Street Journal states:

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

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

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

Against the 750+ million figure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what would be an accurate source for this kind of information, then? There is no question that his numbers have elevated since his death. We certainly can't rely on his label, and I can't think of any other free source to be honest. I believe that the album titles in question are already in the Platinum range, so I wonder how we go about looking for sources to make his pages factual and up to date? Does anyone have any ideas?Stryteler (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-many-albums-did-michael-jackson-sell-755/tab/comments/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The beatles talk page for their sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles

Elvis Presley talk page for his sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elvis_Presley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And also go here to debate about these artist sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Who sold the most records?

• Thought for the day:

“ The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. ”

- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Let's not fill up the talk page on this issue today. Please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lover Jason Pfeiffer ?

• The Sun:Jacko 'gay lover': I lost a soulmate
• Bild: Klinik-Mitarbeiter behauptet: Ich war Jackos letzter Lover!
• Queer:Krankenpfleger: Ich hatte Sex mit Michael Jackson (german)
• Express:Jason Pfeiffer will Jackos Liebhaber gewesen sein (german)
• Webnews:Jason Pfeiffer

Jason Pfeiffer last lover of Michael Jackson ? GLGermann (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is notable and trustworthy how? Not only is this unlikely, but the photo looks faked. For instance, why is it so grainy? Does the Sun website scan their own pages to post them? lol. Too funny that some morons will take this seriously. Ccrashh (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

you can find this discussion over the sexual orientation of Michael Jackson in many english and german websites, online magazines and online newswpapers. GLGermann (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your links were for articles about one guy's supposed claim that he was Jackson's lover. Whether or not Jackson was gay is open to debate and the only available commentary on it is hearsay. Unless we have an undisputed source, it is simply pure speculation and has no business being on Wikipedia. Ccrashh (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had pretty much everything here since Michael Jackson died, and even The Sun uses the word "claim" to describe this story. Apart from the clear WP:BLP issues, the image looks as though Jackson's head could have been photoshopped in afterwards. Unsuitable for the article without a evidence a lot stronger than this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The story about Jason Peiffer and Michael Jackson in The Sun and many different newspapers, also here in german magazine, should be part of the biographie. Also the author Ian Halperin said, that Michael Jackson had sexual affairs with gay men in his last years. So the discussion over the sexual orientation should be part of the article.

• Focus:Heimliche Romanze Liebte Jackson einen Arzthelfer? (german)
• (austria)
• Mirror:Michael Jackson’s ‘gay lover’ speaks out
• Telegraph:Clinic worker claims to have had homosexual love affair with Michael Jackson
• OneIndia:Jason Pfeiffer had gay love affair with MJ

So there are many articles in different countries, which report over the gay love affair. GLGermann (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:REDFLAG. Currently the only reliable source would be the Telegraph. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has faced this situation many times before, most notably over the "conversion to Islam" saga. What happens is that the stories go round the newspapers prefixed by the word "claim". This is a newspaper's way of saying: "We don't know if this is complete bollocks, but we are going to print it anyway." This type of situation is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Homicide

A "law enforcement official" has told the AP that Jackson's death has been ruled a homicide. However, the findings have not yet been publicly released. Should it go in now or should we wait?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The affidavit was released via the media, and there was mention of cell phone records also. My question is: why in the world wait for 82 minutes to call 911? If you work and are staying somewhere, you should know the address where you are...especially if you are a personal physician performing private duty. This same doctor refused to sign the death certificate at the hospital. Interesting...Stryteler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

What we can do is report that the story has been carried by a number of major news outlets. We would need to figure out where it came from though, as the fact we can report on isn't the claimed ruling, but just the claim itself - rather the news report/repetition thereoft. -Stevertigo 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And we should not go further than this, particularly to label it as "murder", because "homicide" includes lesser offences, such as manslaughter. Therefore, I will revert recent edits to that effect, and if necessary, protect the article (again!) Rodhullandemu 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We cite the best source noting it as a homicide and move on until more information is made available. However, we do not avoid noting it, as it from a reliable source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A "claim" from an unattributed source is still rumour, and has no place here. WP:BLP still applies to those who may be subject to charges, and should be scrupulously sourced. In passing, I saw on a forum a claim that Michael Jackson was Welsh. Let's have that in, too, shall we? Rodhullandemu 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've put it back in, quoting two news outlets, which both use the (presumably same) anonymous source. Superm401 - Talk 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not currently accurate. Stick to the facts we know:

1. The Associated Press reported on a tip:
   1. wherein an anonymous law enforcement official
   2. is claimed to have given the AP details
   3. about the LA coroner's report on MJ's former body
   4. ..in which MJ's death is ruled as a homicide
      1. Due to an overdose of a strong anesthetic
2. Lots of other news outlets picked it up

Note that things get fishier and more speculative as we get into "details." We can stick to the first column (no indents), and maybe a bit of column 2 (first indent), but all the rest is hearsay, and uncyclopedia-ic. -Stevertigo 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This happens time and time again, and is tiring to the point of exhaustion; it's too much trouble to police, if you like. Wikinews is meant for this sort of thing, and here, we should stick with facts, and only facts. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the report is certainly a fact. And that the report contains a tip is a claim made by a reputable news source, so we can attribute that, and give a bit about what the tip was about. The news media themselves have apparently backed off a bit from the hyperbole. -Stevertigo 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is more of the same, because it quotes an off the record source. Wikipedia's hands are tied here by WP:BLP and WP:RS. Unless anyone is charged in connection with Jackson's death, the article cannot recycle what off the record sources said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please make correction to reference #179

Please edit the first use of reference #179 (located in Section 3.3 Michael_Jackson#Vocal_style). Kindly change it from

<ref name = "Nelson George overview 24"/>

to

<ref name= "Nelson George overview 24">George, p.24</ref>

This should to correct the cite error in all subsequent uses of reference #179.

Thank you74.178.202.219 (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"King of Pop" should be in boldface

I'm not sure what the "This is not a legal alias nor an official stage name - do not place in bold font" note is all about, but WP:MOSBOLD indicates that "proper names and common terms for the article topic" should be in boldface. "King of Pop" is both a proper name and a common term; whether or not it is also a "legal" name or an "official" term is immaterial. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. On further thought, I wonder if somebody misunderstood the meaning of "proper name". This is a grammatical term, not a legal one, and it applies perfectly well to an epithet like "King of Pop" when the epithet pertains to a specific individual, such as Jackson. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The title of the article is Michael Jackson, not "King of Pop". Just because some people describe Jackson as the king of pop does not mean that his name is "King of Pop". The article on Aretha Franklin does not have "Queen of Soul" in bold, nor does the article on James Brown have "Godfather of Soul" in bold. "King of Pop" is also not the title of the article, and if you put "King of Pop" into the search box, it will refer you to the article on honorific titles in popular music. Mktyscn (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, but I think you might have missed the point. The point is that, according to current Wikipedia guidelines, "King of Pop" should be in boldface. The question of whether or not the guidelines themselves are flawed is an entirely separate issue (and is fair game for an entirely separate forum), but the question of whether these guidines prescribe boldface in this instance would appear to be answered with a definitive, "Yes." Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP guideline says that article titles should be in bold typeface. I'm not disagreeing with the guideline; I'm disagreeing with your conclusion that the phrase "King of Pop" falls under the guideline. I don't know if others agree with me, but the fact that there is a comment in the article to not put it in bold typeface suggests that it's been discussed before and consensus went against it. Mktyscn (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article refers to Michael Jackson, whom some refer to as The King of Pop. What people call/called him is up to them, as it stands, and as an encyclopedia, his name was not the King of Pop nor was he, arguably, indeed the King of Pop. Therefore it should not be in bold. Thanks RaseaC (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

• I was the one who added the note. "King of Pop" is not his alias, stage name nor is it within current wikipedia guidelines. I wholeheartedly disagree King of Pop would be considered a proper name under guidelines established by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names. WP:BOLDTITLE states: "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the article's subject should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface." The article's subject is Michael Jackson, not the "King of Pop". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As a reference: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is "Queen of England", but we don't have that in bold print in her article, nor do we have "President of the United States" in bold print in Barack Obama's article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I can (sort of) see where you're coming from here, but I feel that you're mistaken for a few reasons:

• WP:MOSBIO says nothing whatsoever about the nature of proper names--understandably so, because proper names, also known as proper nouns (notice the redirect?), are a grammatical concept that is hardly unique to biographical language. Blarney Stone is just as much a proper noun/name as Barney Frank. As far as Jackson is concerned, both "King of Pop" and "Captain EO" are as much proper names as "Michael Jackson"; "Captain EO" is fictitious and has never been synonymous with the real-life Jackson, but even it should be recognized as a grammatically proper name/noun before any stylistic (as in "MoS") qualifications come into play.

• Yes, WP:BOLDTITLE says that the first appearance of the article's subject should be in boldface. And WP:MOSBOLD adds to this by saying that, within the first paragraph, the first appearances of "proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms" should also be in boldface. "King of Pop" is both a proper name (i.e., a proper noun) and a common term (i.e., a synonym) for Jackson.

• In contrast, "Queen of England" and "President of the United States" are not proper names/proper nouns/synonyms for Elizabeth II or Barack Obama, respectively. They are names of positions that these people happen to be filling at the moment. The articles about the people could reasonably use the names of the positions to indicate other individuals. For instance, if the Barack Obama article were to say, "During his presidential campaign, Obama criticized the President of the United States", it obviously would not mean that Obama had criticized himself in a bid to succeed himself as president. Your analogy might work if the Kingdom of Pop were due for a successor to the throne, but there is no stretch of the imagination by which "King of Pop" could be taken (especially in this article) to refer to anyone but Jackson. It is a synonym/alternative name for him. Again, legality or officiality have nothing to do with it. The titles, "Queen of England" and "President of the United States", are quite legal and official, but they're not in boldface because they are not alternative names for their articles' subjects, but are rather the only names for the positions that these subjects hold. "King of Pop", although considerably less formal, should be in boldface because it is an alternative/common/proper name/noun/synonym for Jackson himself.

I hope that this has helped to clarify things somewhat. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting, but the upshot of it is that this is an article about Michael Jackson, that's his name and that's the name of the article. If his birtch certificate stated King of Pop as his name then you would have an argument. It doesn't, you don't. You think he's the King of Pop, and that is the POV of you and others, that is not a basis for boldtype. I personally think he's an over-hyped performer who, at best, sang a few good songs probably written by others, but I'm not arguing for that to be in boldtype am I?RaseaC (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that a guideline called WP:MOSBOLD indicates that "King of Pop" should be in boldface. If you feel I have misread this guideline or am misapplying it, then please feel free to explain exactly where my error lies. Initially, at least, your attempt to play the "POV" card strikes me as a strange and circuitous approach to discussing font style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're misreading it, having looked at it again I don't think you've read it at all! It clearly states proper names, the proper name in question is Michael Jackson. Therefore MJ is in bold. It really is that simple. It is your POV that MJ was the KoP, and anyone else that refers to him as such is also exercising their POV, the fact that he is a good singer, and therefore the KoP is purely for each and every reader to decide. That's my reasoning. This is all very timewasting on account of, short of guidelines being changed, the article will remain as is. RaseaC (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is WSJ Article the best for us to use

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

It also states

It is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million

This means he has out sold elvis

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide

It also speaks about other artists sales

Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million.

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

revise 350 to 750 million records to 750 millionrecords or more

the wall street journal article and other articles on michael jackson record sales are inaccurate .same as elvis or the beatles just say estimated at 750 million records ( with proof ) the wall street journal is not a record sales company and many people have reputed sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overcome35 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See above, ad nauseam. The citation wars on this issue achieve nothing, as all of the figures are estimates. The Wall Street Journal article gives the best overall analysis of the brouhaha.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can undertand than but it also says The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales are Inflated so why are they still at 1 billion

moreover about elvis the article tells us michael jackson is second only to the Beatles in sales

futhermore in the list of best selling artist abba are above mihcael jackson even though they have only sold over 100 as the wall street joural article tells us

Why are these artist sales not being changed but michael jacksons sales are i can not understand that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The "estimated sales between a and b" language is the result of the fact that the actual sales number is unknown, and there is no way to be sure which estimate is closer to the actual number. This has been discussed at length and the current language is the consensus. If the language on other articles is different, it's because different people work on those articles and the consensus is different as a result. Mktyscn (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW MATERIAL

MICHAEL JACKSON HAS ALSO RELEASED NEW MATERIAL IN THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION BOX SET IN 2004. ONE MORE CHANCE IN 2003 WAS NOT THE LAST TIME THE PUBLIC SAW NEW MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.12.217 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arists such as elvis and the beatles getting treated differently in terms of sales to michael jackson

I have read everthing in the talk page about michael jackson sales

Every article which say he has sold 350 million also says he has sold 750 million

I think people here have something against him beacuse only his sales are being changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the world music awards said in 2006 have said he has sold 750 million are you saying they are wrong http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcQAhIKoL64

how could the wsj which does not even calculate his sales be right

like every article they are just saying he has sold that amount

this is beyond a joke

I don't know anything about this, but I'd advise you to calm down, be civil, and realise that you're making some pretty serious accusations against more experienced editors. From your comments, you clearly have a point of view which you want to get across, but what you need to do is find some reliable sources (of which YouTube videos are general not) and present your opinions in a well thought out and civil manner. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

I apologize for my comments i was just angry at to how some artists are treated differently to others

IF you read all the infomation above there are reilable sources for the 750 million figure

And here are two more http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614744/jackson_michael.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614744/jackson_michael.jhtml

and also this i what wikipedia say about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/entertainment/most_successful_entertainer_of_all_time-Michael_Jackson_sets_world_record%20_90258.htm

http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-sold-more-th/

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,20767067-10388,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15738748/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Clifffrichard this the 7th time you have spoken about his sales I Can understand that you are a michael jackson fan but please just give it a rest

if you really what to get your point across argue here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Clifffrichard, I'd advise that you ignore that piece of advise. If you have something to say, feel free to say it - just make sure you do it in a civil manner. Debate is healthy for Wikipedia. People telling others to keep there points to themselves, is not. Clifffrichard, if you have an a point to raise, raise it. Alan16 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

maybe elvis and the beatles did outsell michael jackson but how could they sale 650 million more records than him that can not be right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Clifffrichard I think your arguements are getting pointless the beatles and elvis sales will remian at 1 billion so will michael jackson sales of between 350 million to 750 million whether you like it or not I think you should give up beacuse it is quiet obvious he has not sold 750 million

Jamesyull how are my arguements pointless you know I am right about beatles and evlis presly beacuse they havent sold 1 billion You are really stating to get me angry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Be civil everyone. Jamesyull, Clifffrichard can put his point across if he wishes. It isn't for you to decided what gets said and what does not. Alan16 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamesyull I know you have something against michael jackson and that is the reason why you what to hide his sales come on anyone with a commen sense will know that the beatles or elvis have not sold 1 billion records that is 650 million more records than michael jackson even the wall street jounrl article says he is second to the beatles in sales Clifffrichard (talk

Cliffrichard you are very childish also you are not intelligent if you think michael jackson has sold 750 million just get overself his music was not that good eiether —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF he has sold 750 million http://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Jackson

are you trying to angry me beaucse the last part of what you are saying is disrespectful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

come cliffrichard is obviously disabled look what he writes are you trying to angry me

haha that is hilarious

how could we take his comments seriously he cant even spell

Michael Jackson "still alive"

This comes from a video posted originally on Liveleak (best known for its gore content). Other media outlets are picking up on the story, eg here at the Chicago Tribune. The video is nonsense because we do not get to see Jackson's face at any time. Some people must be very easy to please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This surely doesn't deserve a place in the article, and this isn't a forum, so... Why? Alan16 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought that American news outlets couldn't possibly get any worse!!! It's probably interesting for someone, but has no place in an encyclopedia. RaseaC (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no intention to violate WP:FORUM here, but someone did make this edit earlier today. Everything turns up here if the media has mentioned it. Incidentally, check out www.mj-conspiracy.com for more "information" about this subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I wasn't accusing you of violating WP:FORUM, I was just curious as to why you'd posted it. With that diff I can see why (I'd personally have included the diff in your original post). Anyway, it's ridiculous. He's as dead as a dodo. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

This is one of the top stories on AOL today.[7] People read these things and then add them to Wikipedia. As Dr McCoy would say: "He's dead, Jim."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? Have you forgotten this : "With Michael Jackson you never know the truth". He could possibly be alive laughing at us right now --Mpurplegirl (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. I'm fed up with all the damn media coverage about him - imagine the amount of coverage that would spawn. Alan16 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why God invented WP:FORUM. RaseaC (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By that I'll assume you mean: This is why evolution lead us to realise that Wikipedia talk pages turning into forum pages was not a good idea. ;-) Alan16 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what's true or what people believe, I would say that the media attention to the video makes it noteable. Though it would be more suited to Death of Michael Jackson than the biographical article. Friginator (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost chocked on my coke, are you serious?!!! RaseaC (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope not. Alan16 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)