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)

Take this conversation somewhere else. The rest of us have already reached consensus on how to present the numbers, and the last thing we want to see is the two of you use the talk page to fling your feces at each other like a couple of monkeys at the zoo. P.S. learn how to sign your comments. Mktyscn (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As you lot are saying the wsj article is right why not change the beatles , elvis,abba sales beacause this article claims these artists sales are also wrong

it also states michael jackson is only second to the beatles in sales so elvis sales most be wrong beacuse this means he has sold less than michael jackson

please the beatles might have outsold michael jackson but they have not sold 650 million more records than him

if you have come to that concultion that the article is right you also have to change these artists sales not alone michael jacksons

if wikipedia can change MJ’s figures down to 350 million, why don’t they cut Elvis’ and the Beatles’ down? Before his death, on wikipedia, it said he had sold 750 million with idk maybe around 6 sources, now it is cut down to 350 million with only two sources. On the other hand, the beatles and elvis have always been listed as 1 billion+ with only 3 sources and that’s not right. There are more sources saying 750million for MJ than those saying 350Million, even when his publicist was suing him, she still said he had sold over 1billion+ around the world. And we all know Thriller has sold over 50 million copies, so people need to stop saying it hasn’t. I believe it has sold over 100million.

wikipedia is wrong they said that michael jackson sells are in 350 million lower then abba

Michael sold 750 million albums and more, whether or not he sold more or less than Elvis, Michael was a humanitarian also. He wrote his songs as an inspiration to all mankind. Elvis was just a musician that is it. Michael jackson might of had problems with the media and all but he still gave back to the community, even when some of the community didn’t have his back. He gave to the underprivileged and that’s what makes him michael Singer , songwriter and humanitarian Clifffrichard (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that MJ sold over 750 Million records simply because all those articles you link simply state that? Do you think it likely that MTV did a pile of research and came up with that number OR did they just simply reiterate what someone else said and were too lazy to look into it further? Frankly, the reference #2 is more trustworthy. Other than throw-away comments in the articles you posted, you still haven't offered any proof to your claim. On, and learn to sign your comments please. Ccrashh (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

so are you saying the beatles sales of over 1 billion sales are right but micael jackson of 750 million are wrong

come on the beatles or elvis did not sell 650 million more records than him

elvis and the beatles dont even have the top selling album

thriller sold 78 million more than The Beatles highest selling Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which sold 32 million

elvs is not even on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

were did there sales come from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles article states somewhere between 600 million to 1 billion, not over 1 billion - and it links to articles that state it is difficult to estimate. Prior to 1980, it is difficult to estimate record sales (even after, it is difficult) so that is why the Beatles and Elvis are "treated differently". MJ's are more verifiable, in some ways, and the verifiable numbers are used. By the way, to sign your comments, type four tildes (~) characters after the last line. The tilde can be found,usually, to the left of the 1 key - you will have to use the SHIFT. Ccrashh (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

so are you saying the beatles and elvis sales will remian at 1 billion even though it is not right that is totaly unfair if we are treating these artists differently to other music artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this article says between "350 to 750 million" like the Beatles article says "between 600 million and 1 billion" I don't see an issue. If you are talking about linked articles on Record/Album sales, then I agree that those should be addressed. But you should take that discussion to those articles, not here. Ccrashh (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ok i undertand that but what about elvis becacue at the beinging of his article it says He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley

I think that should be changeed

beacuse the article which state this is also not reliable http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson sold a maximum of 350 million records worldwide, far less than either Elvis Presley or The Beatles. (RichardSalway (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

are tying to say elvis or the beatles have sold 650 million records than him that is lie

and the wsj article we are using says he is the second best selling artist behind the beatles that means he has outsold elvis and that is the truth wheither you like it or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No he hasn't. Jackson has sold about half of Presley's record sales. Elvis is the biggest selling solo artist of all time by a considerable margin. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

no i have calcutaed each of these artists sales elvis has sold less than michael jackson

500 Million to 1 Billion

Artist	Country	Genre	Estimated Sales	Certified Sales
The Beatles		Pop Rock	1 billion	400 Million
Elvis Presley		Rock and Roll	1 billion	300 million
Michael Jackson		Pop / R&B / Rock	750 million	373 million

Elvis has sold less records than Jackson? AHA HA HA HA! Yeah, that's a good one! Let me put you in the picture, boy. Elvis Presley has outsold Jackson by a VERY wide margin. (RichardSalway (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Be civil everyone. Alan16 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

no you are wrong i have calculated elvis sales he has sold 300 million woldwide none of the article for elvis sales which claim 1 billion have so you are wrong

this just shows my point of artits getting treated differently it not right

if we are going to keep elvis sales at 1 billion we should also change michael jackson sales to back to 750 million

No, YOU are wrong. Jackson has sold less than half as many records as Elvis. (RichardSalway (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

This is getting rather pointless now. The numbers have been agreed by consensus. Leave it alone, it is getting boring: "Yes he has!" "No he hasn't!"... Give it a rest. Alan16 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok if this make you happy elvis might have outsold michael jackson but he has diffently not sold 1 billion records that is 650 million records more than jackson

elvis has only sold more records in the usa than him every other country in the world jackson has sold more records

1 billion records for elvis is as wrong as jacksons sales of 750 million

elvis is not even in the top selling albums lists just accept jacksons sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... I personally do not care. But this has been decided. Please just leave it. This is going nowhere. And will you please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~)... Please!. Alan16 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

i know you got something against him and thriller has sold 104 million records woldwide enlarge the pitcure http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg

I do not see things like this for elvis and the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

cliffboy you might have learning difficulties but you did give good statements about wackos sales he might out sold elvis but the beatles come on let me give you the best option stay of the talk page even alan16 is insulting you who was being nice to you earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insult everyone, but this is just getting ridiculous. This has been discussed and there has been a consensus reached. Alan16 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

cliff dont get upset no one takes things on wikipedia seriously

remember anyone can edit wikipedia these people are not experts

most of these articles are unrealible

but jackson is in the top 2

i do not like michael jackson but i cant lie about what he has achieved i apologise for my comments about him

and finaly the beatles have outsold him

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)

"Elvis is still alive" has been around for years, and is discussed in Elvis Presley phenomenon. The claim about Michael Jackson has hit the mainstream media, eg Telegraph San Francisco Chronicle, which says that the video may have been faked by the German TV company RTL. Not so long ago, this would have been seen as tasteless and disrepectful, but once something goes round the Internet for long enough, it usually generates mainstream media coverage.

There is a press release from RTL here. It is in German, and apparently says that the video was made as a test of the public's gullibility for the show "explosiv", broadcast on 27 August 2009. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way this doesn't deserve a place in any article. It is one video that is very very grainy, and now a couple of news sources have picked it up. It's just the usual crap after somebody famous has died. Alan16 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is not notable enough for the article. It is interesting though, and is reminiscent of the row over Wikipedia's Maurice Jarre article.[8] There is an old adage that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has got its boots on, and it looks like someone at RTL was testing this with the coroner's office video. The original Liveleak video is called Michael Jackson still alive after helicopter transport to coroner, and was posted on 25 August 2009. In the space of two days it had been mirrored on YouTube and discussed in the world's media. Not bad going, and there are some lessons here about the reliability of the Internet as a source of information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree this should stay out. I don't think this is along the same lines as the elvis phenomenon because Elvis has been dead for ages, and therefore is noticeable. If we're still getting this kind of rubbish in a few years about MJ then maybe there is a reason to include it, until then it is just post-death hype and is not encyclopedic. RaseaC (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skin bleaching

Looks he did bleach his skin.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The first search of Michael Jackson's bedroom a day after his death found marijuana, skin-bleaching and hair-growing ointments, anti-insomnia pills and empty bottles of several anti-anxiety drugs, according to court documents unsealed Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/28/jackson.home.search/index.html?iref=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.31.1 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is to the article. Also, what is it with people and not signing their comments on this page. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Alan16 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Most of the information here looks reliable, because it is based on court documents that have been released to the public, rather than anonymous briefings. As the article points out, there is little new here. On the skin bleaching issue, the article says "Also listed on the detective's report was Benoquin ointment, a medication used to lighten skin pigmentation in people with vitiligo, a skin condition. Jackson's dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, said on CNN's "Larry King Live" last month that he had treated Jackson for the condition, which causes irregular patches of white skin. "His was bad because he began to get a totally speckled look over his body," Klein said."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

Shouldn't there be a separate section in the article regarding the longtime controversy regarding Jackson's alleged homosexuality and pedophilia? (RichardSalway (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I feel there is no need as they are all really rumors from not very reliable sources. And Jackson always said he wasn't so why should we ? StephenBHedges (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. RaseaC (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I think this is notable since he was more famous for his controversial private life than he was for his music. FWIW, there are quite a few people including fans who do not believe he was a pedophile, but do believe he was a repressed homosexual. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

And their POV is certainly very interesting, but isn't encyclopedic. RaseaC (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless it may be worth mentioning his denials that he was homosexual. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't think so. If he was gay and denied it then yea maybe but essentially it went like this:

Random person: 'You're queer'

Michael Jackson: 'No I'm not'

Random person: 'Oh, OK.'

I see nothing noteworthy there. RaseaC (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There remains considerable debate after his death as to whether Jackson was a homosexual, and indeed whether he ever had a sexual relationship with an adult. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

The controversy over his conformance/nonconformance to gender roles, and the effect on perceptions of his sexuality, is documented and I've tried to add it to the appearance/health article, but I have not yet found an acceptable wording. People might be surprised to know that it goes back to 1978, before he had plastic surgery, developed vitiligo, straightened his hair, or became mega-famous. WillOakland (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about you guys go ahead and provide a reliable source to backup these claims, then we have encyclopedic content. Until then we have rumours, and this is not a rumour mill. If you want MJ to be gay then either keep that in your own fantasy world or provide hard (pardon the pun) evidence. RaseaC (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)