Talk:Michael Jackson

195.93.21.66 has put defamatory remarks on this page. This is vandalism. Please delete such remarks by him or anyone else immediately, and, if ongoing, report to WP:AIV. Tyrenius 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Some thoughts from a fan

Okay, I'm completely new to Wiki so go easy on me. First off, interesting debate here and much more civilised than any MJ message boards! But I do think there's a lot of insider MJ missing from this encyclopedia write-up. I wish more of the message board people would come here and help out. Here are a few notes for now:

This write-up is extremely unbalanced, not in terms of fact/opinion but in the weight that's given to the last 5 or 6 six years versus his earlier career. Obviously, writers have more fresh facts/data for this time period, but it's unfair to lump Thriller into a 10-year period and then give a special section to a 2-year period involving the Bashir video.

Here's how I'd divide this write-up to make it more encyclopedic. I'll give categories here with a few notes on things that might be changed/added:

"Early life and career: 1966 – 1981" Make end of title 1981 not 1980. You could even divide into "Early life and the Jackson 5: 1966 - 1975" and "The Jacksons and Going Solo: 1976 - 1981." Section needs some work. Where are all the details about the Jackson 5 and Jacksons? It's strange that we get a petty exchange between MJ and Gloria Allred (under "Berlin and Bashir"), but no real details or quotes here. Relationship between MJ and Berry Gordy (his second Dad), fact that MJ recorded so much and "missed out on his childhood" (common theme in later interviews), alleged abuse from father, blossoming dance talent, appearance in "Free to Be You And Me" video, robot dance move, Ed Sullivan appearance (!), more hits from Jacksons including "Shake Your Body (Down To The Ground)", emergence of MJ as songwriter on songs such as "Blues Away" (first solo writing credit, off The Jacksons) and "Heartbreak Hotel" (off Triumph) and "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and "Working Day and Night" (on Off the Wall). There's a lot to add here.

"The Thriller Era: 1982 - 1985" I'd make this a separate section. This is the era that defined his career and changed pop music! It's missing a lot of details; again, why do we get so many details from Bashir video and zero quotes from this era?! Motown 25 performance at the very least needs some beefing up. This was considered a revolution when it aired. Maybe add anecdote about Fred Astaire calling up MJ the next day and telling him he was a "hell of a mover." Maybe some quotes from MJ about the album, what he wanted to do with it? Maybe notes on impact of Thriller video (on other artists, commonly mimicked choreography, etc.), fact that he brought Emmanuelle Lewis and Brooke Shields to the Grammy Awards, fact that he started jogging with the military and wearing some crazy military garb. So much to add, so little of it here!

"More Success and Controversy: 1986 - 1992" This would be a new section, possibly with a different title. Maybe "Bad and Dangerous: 1986-1992"? Seems cumbersome to list the album titles, but that's really the best way to chart his career. This section needs a mention of the fact that the National Inquirer claims MJ *gave them* the pictures of the hyperbaric chamber and told them to print it with the word "Weird" in the headline, meaning MJ wanted some "weird" tabloid coverage and toyed with the tabloids for a bit, though it obviously got out of hand. I've seen this mentioned in several biographies and (I think) the show 60 minutes. No mention of film Moonwalker?! Also mention fact that Oprah interview was a major television event, over 50 million viewers, I believe. Dangerous album gets majorly shortchanged here. And "which was accompanied by a controversial music video featuring scenes of a sexual nature, violence and racism" is weak; the controversial part was the dance sequence at the *end* of the video, and there was no "racism" just some KKK graffiti on a window that he angrily smashes (though I don't believe that was in original version). Should also mention morphing technology used in video, which was groundbreaking at the time.

"First Allegations and Aftermath: 1993 - 2001" If later sections are going to be really specific, this needs to be a separate section. Really, the allegations defined this era; all his music is a reaction to it, both HIStory and Blood on the Dancefloor. Lots of angry, weird music. And what about all the crazy promotion for the HIStory album?! He floated a statue of himself down the Thames, for crying out loud, and the promo video is totally over the top propaganda (in a fabulous way, IMO). Also, re: "Jew me, sue me" lyrics, I don't think this is encyclopedic because it gives a one-sided version. MJ has said "I was using myself as the victim" and identifying with the persecution of Jews or something to that effect; in other words, he's saying "Jew me" (or, persecute me the way the Jews were persecuted), and then he says "sue me" because...it rhymes. It's breathtakingly naive, but this is what he claims. Worth noting. For Invincible, you might note the efforts to bring MJ back to his earlier Off the Wall sound on a few songs like "Butterflies." It's also noteworthy that he *finally* started singing songs about relationships again and stopped singing about 1993 allegations. This section is missing Madison Square Garden 30th Anniversary shows, on 9/7 and 9/10/01 (a wealth of freakshow details, also noteworthy for pairing him with Liza and producer David Gest, and MJ was later Best Man at their crazy wedding). Might also note that MJ fled NYC after 9/11, and Corey Feldman claims he didn't offer him a ride in his limo, causing a rift in their friendship (petty detail?).

Okay, I think rest of the sections can keep their titles, but the trial section needs beefing up! So many details worth adding there, including fact that E! re-enacted the trial scenes daily, tabloid coverage, snazzy Mr. Blackwell-approved outfits daily, pajama mishap, reports of physical/mental deterioation, anticipation of the verdict; really, in my mind, the frenzy over the trial is eerily almost as fervid as frenzy during Thriller era, like a counterbalance to his career. Not an encyclopedic theory, but worth noting for context.

That's all for now. Sorry to take up so much space. Feel free to comment, edit, delete, whichever. I'll be back to make some comments to the main text if people like my ideas. --Steverino 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Steverino, this article needs beefing up. Aeneiden-Rex 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think u should change the article the way u've written here, it's good.Aeneiden-Rex 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. In all truthfulness, Jackson's career and height of popularity was in the earlier years and those sections should be far larger than the sections regarding recent controversies. There needs to be some work done. But the problem is if Jackson fans make any changes trying to ballance the early years non-Jackson fans tend to call it POV. If the controversies are made larger the Jackson fans get upset and then wars start and nothing gets done. I feel that fact is more important than rumours and possibilities. I'm not saying the controversies do not belong - but this article needs more about Jackson's career not his private/social life - he is afterall an entertainer. :: ehmjay 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree a bit and think that it's acceptable to list the controversies in detail. It's part of his legacy, whether fans like it or not. I believe more than 50 million people watched the announcement of the trial verdict, which is about the number of people who have bought the Thriller album (and same number who watched Oprah interview!). So I think the career and the controversy should balance each other out similarly in this article. The only thing I have a problem with is the fact that huge chunks of career are done in a few paragraphs whereas the last few years are picked apart year by year. I'll go into the article and edit a bit if I have some time this weekend. 12.149.50.2 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree that the controversies are nescicary to the article, however as you said, I do not think that they should be the largest section or that is to say they should be balanced out. They are an important part of Jackson's life however so is the music. :: ehmjay 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversies should be listed, but not too long. It gets boring and most of it is pretty much heresay anyway. Snowbound 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversies have by far surpassed and ended his music career, which is why he's bankrupt and living in exile.

I think what ehmjay says is right about people will claim POV is being used. However, personally I think Jackson had a great music career, and this should be described in great detail, but the controversies have indeed changed the way we view this man. I think his controversies have sadly overshadowed and blighted a great career.Littlepaulscholes 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Conduct on this page: this is a warning

I would like to remind all contributors to this article and this page to please maintain a good standard of civility, even if you disagree strongly with another editor.

Furthermore, this page is not a place to express personal opinions, especially derogatory ones and even more so as this is a biography of a living person, where the bias is towards restraint. Some of the edits I have seen in the edit history are completely unacceptable, defamatory accusations, and must not recur.

This page is for discussion about material that can be used to improve the article. To that end, statements should be made with a view to following NPOV and be verifiable. These are non-negotiable policies, and persistent violation of them will be regarded as disruptive behaviour.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish, and if there is anything you want to bring to my attention, please provide diffs. (ask if you're unsure about how to do so).

Thank you and I urge you to strive for a good level of co-operation with fellow editors to increase the standard of this important article, which obviously generates a lot of passion.

Tyrenius 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification: this is a warning

It is particularly important when there is contention that all material is meticulously referenced. Please study the policy VERIFY on this and do not put forward anything that does not follow it. Likewise personal opinions should be kept out of the argument. Stick to a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The third non-negotiable policy is NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Continued violation of these policies can lead to being blocked.

Tyrenius 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New additions in the intro

I have added some more information to highlight the stature and importance of Michael Jackson, something that I think this article has done a relatively poor job at. A user informed me that previous consensus decided not to use nicknames, but I just want to point out that these are not nicknames. A nickname would be something like "Wacko Jacko," not the "best-selling artist of all time," which is more like a descriptive term. Hope that clarifies the issue.UberCryxic 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether you call them "labels" or "nicknames" or descriptors or whatever is irrelevant. After many months debating and arguing, the consensus reached on this talk page was strongly against including this information in the introduction. I have removed it. Please do not re-insert it. There is no consensus for your edits and the last person who carried on about this was blocked for four weeks. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Although terms such as "Wacko Jacko" some of you may consider to be damaging to Mr.Jackson, can one help but realize it is true? How can one support a man who could committ such horrible acts. He may have been found not guilty, but what jury member or judge could sent the "King of Pop" to jail. The evidence of the sexual molestation charges was overwhelming, but greatly ignored by the court. Try and convince yourself all you want that our beloved Michael is a harmless man, because we all know he isn't. I found it appaling that people stood outside the court room supporting Michael. This is children we are talking about, these children's lives have been scarred for life, and yet we have these insane fans who think he is a civil man. Civil is not a term to be used with Michael. To be accurate with the behaviors of the "King of Pop" I'd use a name such as Derranged Pervert, which honestly describes Mr.Jackson. Why would one spend millions upon millions of dollars on a place that would attract children to his home. Obviously, Michael has fooled you all, and I am sorry to the families he has hurt that they have to endure these fans saying Michael is innocent. Put you, or your child in that place, and then tell me that you still support that monster of a man.

Not to start a war here or anything, but for one to see that "the evidence of child molestation was overwhelming" is quite ridiculous. The trial was not televised, and the evidence not shown to the public. How one could say it was overwhelming is beyond me. Oh and don't forget to sign your posts. :: ehmjay 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead statement

The following statement is taken from this site, which is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page for Michael Jackson:

"As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."

The statement nicely highlights the musical importance of Michael Jackson, and I believe it should be included in the opening paragraph of the lead (after the first sentence). Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is subjective opinion and not fact. Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is opinion, and like all opinions it is necessarily subjective, so no need for tautology. However, you also have an opinion regarding this matter, and I do not see why your opinion should hold more weight than that of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I object in the strongest possible terms to this quote being inserted into an otherwise neutral introduction. The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the article and this quote heavily slants the article. It took months for us to negotiate the introduction. It is currently as NPOV as we could possibly get it. I believe that inserting such a slanted quote into the introduction would start another war as people attempt to balance the article to re-achieve a NPOV intro. Such a slanted opinion does not belong in the introduction. Again, strongest possible objection. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(most of this comes from Funky's talkpage) According to WP:V:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.

In fact, I am well within my bounds to include the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

And also from the same place: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.UberCryxic 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence, it does not matter that some here do not think that it is true or a fact. A reputable source gives it forward as an assertion, theory, or opinion (call it whatever you want), and as such I am well within Wikipedia regulations to include this material. Sarah and I were talking about placing it somewhere else besides the lead, something which I agree with. Any suggestions as to where?UberCryxic 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your statement that "it does not matter that some here do not think that it is true," for me personally, whether I think it is true or not is completely irrelevant. It is simply a matter of having an article which conforms to neutral point of view policy. I am not a Jackson fan or hater and am not interested in pushing one side or the other. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then per my suggestion in your talkpage, perhaps prefacing the comment with "According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" would make it more appropriate and NPOV.UberCryxic 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with including that information. Perhaps it should be added in the second paragraph, at the end after it mentions the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame provided that the clause comes from the R&RHoF. Michael Jackson truly is up there with the Beatles and Elvis. Also, I'd consider the R&RHoF a good source. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The addition will not be okay unless it's something in the form of:

Jackson's success lead to the Rock and Roll hall of fame asserting that "As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."

Personally i think it doesn't work as well with all the text but you'll need it to keep it in context.--I'll bring the food 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me if it reads something like that.UberCryxic 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO I think that this information is relevent and should be included in the article, 'however' not in the opening paragraph for reasons that Sarah Ewart mentioned above. The article does not do a good enough job of looking at Jackson's career as a musician on the whole, thus I think the quote is relevent - however the first paragraph is not the place for it. As you said - this is an opinion but one of a rather respected source and is just as valid as having anything in the Elvis article refering to him as "the king of rock and roll". Perhaps we should discuss where it belongs? :: ehmjay 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All-right let's just do a quick vote here. If you support the inclusion of that statement in the article, write two things: either Support for Lead or Support for Body. The first means you agree to put it in the lead somewhere, while the second you agree to put it in the non-lead part of the article somewhere. Finally, Object if you do not want that statement to be placed anywhere within this article. Ok....

• Support for Lead Per above reasons.UberCryxic 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support for Lead provided it goes in the second paragraph. --MPD01605 (T / C) 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you try to put it in the lead, you can expect "Wacko Jacko" to be going back in 5 minutes later. Neither should be in the lead. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a nickname at all, whereas Wacko Jacko is. By the policy that previous users have reached, Wacko Jacko will be promptly removed.UberCryxic 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous agreement was to remove both. Both used to be in the lead sentence. Both were removed. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not neutral enough for a lead. Sorry. And I won't be helping you write it now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that does disappoint me. Anyway, as I understand it, the previous agreement was that no nicknames would be allowed. That means no things like "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko." This is none of that, and as such it is more than appropriate for inclusion.UberCryxic 20:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's not neutral enough for a lead."

If it is prefaced with "According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," then it satisfies NPOV. I thought we clarified this in our private discussions. What's with the change of mind (or heart) now?UberCryxic 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. I told you I wouldn't object to it going in the body and I don't. I have said from the start that it does not belong in the lead becuase it slants the article The lead needs to be neutral. Trying to put this in the lead is simply POV pushing. Taking "Accoring to..." in front of it doesn't make it any less POV. I could just easily get a quote and say "according to...Michael Jackson is frequently referred to as Wacko Jacko." Such things are slanted POV and do not belong in the lead. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so I understand before I make my reply, are you supporting for body then? Or are you waiting for further consultation?UberCryxic 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say I support it being in the body, however, I do not object if it is included in an appropriate place, such as the mention of the Hall of Fame, as we discussed the other day. If you put something like that in the lead, it's going to start up another edit war, which is something I'm really opposed to. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify because if you are, in principle, supporting for body, then I see no reason why we're arguing. Ideally I would like this to be included in the lead because it is very general information, but I'd be fine if it was included anywhere.UberCryxic 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I object for the same reason as funky monkey. It's simply not NPOV.--Crestville 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Sarah, as I alluded to earlier, the lead and the article in general does a poor job of highlighting the importance of Michael Jackson from a musical perspective. In the lead of The Beatles article, you have statements like...

The Beatles were one of the best-selling popular musical acts of the 20th century.

The Beatles were an English music group from Liverpool who continue to be held in high esteem for their artistic achievements, their huge commercial success, their groundbreaking role in the history of popular music, and their contributions to popular culture.

For the lead in Elvis,

In a musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings, and record sales, and became one of the biggest selling artists in music history.[1]

The young Presley became an icon of modern American pop culture,

No equivalent statements exist for the MJ lead. The lead here does a very good job of highlighting his accomplishments (that is, listing off what he did), but it does a poor job at telling someone why Michael Jackson is important. Ok....he had the greatest selling album of all time; why is that important? Some of that has to be conveyed in the lead. I consider it POV pushing on your part to exclude the label "King of Pop," which is universally known and recognized, but I complied regardless. As long as it comes from a reputable source, there is no reason with highlighting the musical importance of Michael Jackson.UberCryxic 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then likewise, there should be no problem including negative views to balance out your POV. Can't you see why what you're trying to do is so contentious? I don't think you can compare MJ to the Beatles or Presley articles because, though they had controversies, they did not polarise people the way MJ has. We need a neutral intro or the edit wars will start up again. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They are being compared musically. There's a difference between that and your implication. How is it contentious to say that his fame is equivalent to that of Elvis Presley or The Beatles? I believe there was a study done a few years ago that found Michael Jackson was the most recognizable human on the planet.UberCryxic 05:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

<after edit conflict> No, you were just comparing the articles. Also, I didn't say I had a problem with you highlighting, through sourced comments, what many people consider the musical importance of Jackson. I just have a particular problem with you doing it in the lead. I said I don't object to it being in an appropriate part of the article. On an unrelated point, would you mind changing your preferences Special:Preferences so it stops marking all your edits as minor. It is very misleading having content changes etc marked as minor. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the basic fact that he is just as famous as Elvis or The Beatles is the closest one can reasonably come to undeniable.UberCryxic 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I make most of my edits as minor manually, simply because often I don't feel like explaining the change (after all, most editors simply check the different versions of the history anyway, so it's irrelevant).UberCryxic 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I SUPPORT BODY because I think that the quote is relevent, although not needed in the leading paragraph. However, UberCryxic does make a very good point that this article does not do a good enough job of highlighting Jackson's importance in the music industry. Once again, I must point people in the direction of Encyclopedia Britannica's Article on Jackson which does highlight Jackson's career as a musician very well. Also it is important to note that in their leading paragraph it does make claims such as "who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s.". If a professional encyclopedia can make such a bold statement in their leading paragraph - the statement we are discussing should not be so tough to put into the body of this article. But that's just my opinion. :: ehmjay 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Minor_edit. Minor edit means you're making trivial changes. To knowingly mark content changes as trivial is extraordinarily dishonest. Some people's watchists don't even display minor edits. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So far in this vote, we are divided between two people who want the statement in the lead, one person who wants it in the body, one person who, in principle, would not mind the statement in the body, and one person categorically rejecting. Should we give this more time or should I go ahead and put the statement somewhere in the body now? If the latter, any suggestions as to where?

Regarding the minor edits, you make a good point about the watchlists. That's really the only good reason for clarifications.

However, this, "Minor edit means you're making trivial changes. To knowingly mark content changes as trivial is extraordinarily dishonest.." is irrelevant because a responsible Wikipedia editor would check any and all changes, regardless if they were trivial or not. Think about it: even if a change has a description, editors normally check the history anyway. If I don't want to take the time, or more importantly if I don't have the time, to write a description for my change, then I won't. Check the history.UberCryxic 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that marking an edit as "minor" is not a sign of dishonesty or treachery. I just don't want to take the time of telling people about an edit that they can easily identify themselves, unless it's something really major. In those cases, I do write descriptions (check my history I have plenty of descriptive comments for edits)UberCryxic 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement has been inserted under the Bad section.UberCryxic 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

If the text below belongs anywhere, it doesn't belong where I found it (the section dealing with Jackson's trial). I removed it and placed it here, maybe there is a place for it elsewhere (but to be honest it sounds a little silly to me).--Pathlessdesert 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Jackson's personal troubles, he has also dealt with problems of others posing as him. Jackson has a wide range of performance and personal impersonators—ranging from worldly successful body doubles to performers. In the United States alone, the likes of E'Casanova and Edward Moss have played Jackson in films Back to the Future 2 and Scary Movie 3, respectively. Moss also covered the role of Jackson in the E! network's courtroom reenactments. Other impersonators like to keep Jackson's image clean, and impersonator Joby Rogers has turned down roles that defame Michael Jackson's image. The Connecticut impersonator (who is signed as the Michael Jackson) has said to have turned down roles playing Jackson in handcuffs or in other negative situations. According to his website, Rogers continues to portray a late-1980s Michael Jackson in a stage play, Ken Davenport's The Awesome 80's Prom, in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and formerly, Baltimore (local impersonator Matt Macis played Jackson there).

Maybe in a trivia section or something along those lines - but it certainly doesn't need to be in the trial section. However it is really well written and somewhat interesting infomation. :: ehmjay 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jackson's children

People on this page have claimed that the legitimacy of Jackson's children has been tested. What was the outcome of that test? last month, people said it would happen before september! what was the result? shouldn't the result be incorporated into the article. if the test has not yet happened, when is it going to happen? shouldn't that be in the article? --Paaerduag 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read there was no such test taken because both parties (Jackson and Rowe) knew the legitimacy of the children. However they have been in a courtroom "battle" for custody. You can get some information here and here. However like I said - I have never heard any official word about these so called tests. I've only seen them mentioned by trolls on this wiki-talk page. Of course I could have just missed that newsflash. :: ehmjay 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was a DNA test. This is from Fox News:

"Jackson and Rowe have two children, Prince and Paris, while Jackson’s third child, a boy nicknamed Blanket, was acquired by Jackson when he used an anonymous surrogate. According to my sources, between the now defunct couple, Rowe is the only biological parent of Prince and Paris. This is how Michael Abrams, Jackson’s lawyer, described the situation in a letter on July 5, 2005, to Rowe's then-attorney Iris Finsilver: “As you know, one of our clients [Jackson] is the custodial parent of two children born by one your clients [Rowe].” He did not refer to Jackson as the children’s father. Four years earlier, Rowe characterized the reason she had the children in her testimony. “I did it for him to become a father.” A settlement now would be much different than the one that was drafted in July 2005. Rowe would likely get all the money Jackson has put in escrow since October 2003, when he cut her off from her alimony, and she will probably get a bonus as well. But the main thing Rowe gains here is the ability to see her children on a regular basis. The settlement comes at an opportune time in Jackson’s strange life for Rowe. Until May, he claimed the non-Hague country of Bahrain as his residence. Now that he is domiciled in Ireland, the settlement will actually be enforceable." (195.93.21.66 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

• The above comment refers to the Fox News article that can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215785,00.html - Ashadeofgrey 18:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How to cite the same source twice

Please note that when citing the same source twice please follow these instructions (i have noticed that "the times" is cited 3 times in a row towards the end and that the official jackson site is used as a source 10 million times for the same page.--I'll bring the food 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

<snip copy and paste> For instructions on citing a footnote more than once, please see WP:FOOT. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One should be particularly careful when deleting the first of multiple named references, because the footnote text will be deleted unless it is copied to the second (now first) ref tag.

This information is taken from WP:FOOT--I'll bring the food 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

King of Pop

I believe that there should be a reference in the starting sentence of the article to Jackson's fan name "The King of Pop". I THINK that this has been discussed before, but that was a LONG time ago and I wasn't involved in that. Below I will provide evidence as to why I believe a reference should be added.

1) Other articles with common media/fan-dubbed names:

• Elvis Presley has an extensive 17 words explaining various naming conventions
• Steve McQueen's nickname 'The King of Cool' is given

2) When you type "King of Pop" into Google, the first FIFTEEN hits (the entire first page and half the second) solely relate to Michael Jackson, proving that this nickname is in no way 'unused' or 'rare', but is in fact very much alive and well.

3) In front of THOUSANDS of fans in Tokyo, Michael Jackson is not only named the 'King of Pop', but also the 'King of Pop, Rock and Soul'. Here's the link [1]

4) On CNN.com, when "The King of Pop" is typed into search under a Cnn.com search, there are more than 50 pages related to Michael Jackson directly. The link is here, [2], and it proves that "The King of Pop" is a label still used by the INTERNATIONAL MEDIA when discussing Jackson, and it is used quite frequently. This is no minority fan name. This is a name that is wide spread.

5) In terms of foreign language wikipedias, the following have the nickname 'The King of Pop' in the introduction (I'll put the links here so that you all don't accuse me of lying):

• Spanish Wikipedia [3]
• French Wikipedia [4]
• German Wikipedia [5]
• Swedish Wikipedia [6]

The 2nd largest language by distribution in the world, French, gives the nickname. German, also a widespread language, gives the nickname. Spanish, still widely spoken in Mediterranean areas as well as foreign communities, gives the nickname. And Swedish Wikipedia, a language abundant in the Nordic countries and Scandinavia, gives the nickname. Obviously it is widespread. If anyone thinks it is not, look at the proof (use Bable Fish Translation if unsure of the languages).

I will be adding more evidence as time passes, as I'm sure many here will be quick to crucify my opinions. --Paaerduag 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I swear this page is going back to like it was back in november 2004.--I'll bring the food 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can people just stop digging their noses in the past and actually bother to read the evidence, not just blatantly accuse me of stirring up trouble? Read the evidence at LEAST, for God's sake. It is really quite clever what some people here are doing; they are refusing to even COMMENT on this post, therefore making me unable to change ANYTHING, and therefore keeping the nick name out of the title. Clever, but unless you can tell me why we shouldn't have the title in here WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED, I don't see why I shouldn't just put it in. --Paaerduag 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you reach consensus first before overriding an already agreed consensus. As it already stands it was decided to remove BOTH well used nicknames, ie. King of Pop and Wacko Jacko. If you want to re-add one, you will have to be prepared to add the other as AGREED by consensus of all involved parties in this artcle. I have removed KOP until such time a FRESH consensus is agreed, this is per Wikipedia policy. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  08:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Funky Monkey. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Funky Monkey, I agree we should wait until there is a concensus before we add it into the article, but Paaerduag does make some good points. Perhaps it's time we discuss it again? After all, that is the point of this discussion section. :: ehmjay 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Both nicknames by which he has been known are fully covered in the article. Frankly, putting KoP in the lead 'graph only serves, it seems to me, to make the days in which it was apt seem very long ago indeed. Robertissimo 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to discuss this issue, but it is absolutely not fine for Paaerduag to try to independently overrule the consensus and insert words which have been very contentious and were removed after an agreement was reached during a very, very long debate. Paaerduag needs to negotiate a new consensus if he wants to put the nicknames back in, instead of acting on his own and ignoring the existing one. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Sarah. I hadn't realized he had gone and made any changes - which I agree was not a good idea to do before we had discussed it. Anyways - I agree that it is a change worth looking into - but not entirely needed. Either way, I'd love to discuss it (in a calm and reasonable manner).:: ehmjay 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear something up. I knew full well that what I was doing was wrong, and NOW I regret it in part. This is because people were simply ignoring my comments, and that is how they were effectively blocking my opinions (shared by others) out. This really frustrated me, and I apologize for my outburst. I hope that you don't hold that against me, because it was swiftly and justly reverted. Anyway, the consensus that was reached was that wacko jacko AND KoP would either both be kept or both gone. I was not aware of that until now, as I explained. Let me just say, if people are criticizing me for reopening this discussion, how can a 'consensus' ever be reached!? anyway, it is in my opinion that my next course of action is to justify why KING OF POP SHOULD STAY WHILE WACKO JACKO SHOULD NOT. I will gather evidence immediately, and add it shortly. --Paaerduag 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my evidence (more will be added):

1) Not a SINGLE other-language wikipedia even MENTIONS the derogatory name Wacko Jacko, so why should it be in the introductory sentence. On the other hand, KoP is mentioned in the intro several times (read above evidence)

2) Wacko Jacko was NOT coined by the people; it was a product of media imagination, which in turn was adopted by Jackson-haters. My point, if you are wondering, is that if nicknames are truly popular shouldn't they be coined by PEOPLE? People who's jobs don't involve spinning stories, but who are ordinary and adopt a popular name. That is the case with King of Pop. It was popular, and like Elvis' 'King of Rock', was not the invention of the media. You may think this is stupid (in fact, i'm sure many here already loathe me), but I'm trying to make a point.

• Wacko Jacko = Media invention.
• King of Pop = Name given by the people, not influenced by the media and its spinning webs.

--Paaerduag 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. We aren't governed or even guided by what other wikis do.
2. Please prove that "the people" coined the term "King of Pop" and not "Wacko Jacko". And please explain the relevance of the origin of the terms. I don't think the origin of words determines their notability. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One could have this argument indefinitely, and indeed I think a very good case could be made for exactly the reverse of Paaerduag's: "king of pop" is rather transparently a publicists' creation, one that the subject and his wranglers clung to long after it had become a faintly embarrassing reminder of better times (the photo of the star in his glory that leads off this article, after all, is more than 22 years old; older, in fact, than many of today's hitmakers). "Wacko Jacko," on the contrary, having gained currency in gossip columns and other popular media, would have faded away quickly if it had offended a substantial portion of their audience, and so might be considered as the actual "people's choice." Robertissimo 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If one traces the origins of "King Of Pop", I beleive it was first used by Elizibeth Taylor when she introduced Michael Jackson at either an awards show or a performance. Now it's no secret that Taylor and Jackson are friends - however that does not mean it was coined by a publicist, nor does is mean it was coined by Taylor herself. Needles to say "Wacko Jacko" is still used, however usually by the mainstream media. I think the most compelling argument for using "King of Pop" is to look at a professional article from a reputable encyclopedia: Encyclopedia Brittanica. Here it mentions "King of Pop" and does not mention Wacko Jacko - while this is not in the introduction of the article it does give clout to the legitimacy of this name. Now, as for the image being shown on the page - that argument is moot. The reason that image is used it that it is Public Domain and the Wiki Rules state that if a public domain image exists, it must be used. There was a period where a photgraph of Jackson accepting his recent award in Japan was used. Personally I don't really care if the "King of Pop" is mentioned in the first paragraph since it is covered in the body of the article. I wouldn't mind seeing it there, however I also don't mind if it's not. I do however think that Wacko Jacko has no place in the opening paragraph whether KoP is there or not. That's just my opinion however. :: ehmjay 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide sales of Thriller

I would like to know if this source confirming that Thriller has sold approximately 60 million copies is appropriate for the article. It is a news article from BBC here is the link.[7]--Stardust6000 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, to me BBC seems like a pretty credible source. However I'm sure others will argue No, and will want to continue to use the out of date, inaccurate Guinness number (let me remind everyone that Guinness is not always correct, seeing as they have the run-time of the Thriller video incorrect, and Jackson made 2 other videos that were longer than Thriller, yet it's still credited as the "Longest Music Video") :: ehmjay 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is fine to use as a source. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your replies, I'll add this to the article now. Take care for now.--Stardust6000 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly, Thriller according to most sources I've read are somewhere around 50 million, these sources include actual recorded figures of album sales. BBC is hardly a reliable source for gathering record sales data, it is just a rough estimate. Lets stop exaggerating, Thriller sold so many it hardly seems worth exaggerating it more. 81.156.67.125 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well someone has already confirmed that BBC is a fine source. And most sources people use are the Guiness source - most people who reference are using it as their reference (be it any other articles). The fact is the guiness number is out of date and wrong. Stick with the BBC source. :: ehmjay 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The BBC are not only extremely reliable but their figure is also the most up-to-date.--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PICTURE!!!

This picture does not represent Michael Jackson in a good way. Why isn't there a more recent picture of him? This was in the 80's.. We are now in 2006, coming into 07 soon! Can you not change it? I think it is disrepectful..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.143.135 (talk)

We have to use the one thats up because of the Wikirules regarding Public Domain photos. :: ehmjay 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take photos of "the gloved one" then. -I'll bring the food 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Genres

I note a slight edit war on this. Please note all genres must be based on sources. EG: www.allmusic.com. His genre is simply R&B. It's his style which is new jack swing, pop, pop/rock etc. The article should be altered to reflect that. -I'll bring the food 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POV additions to lead

DenisRS repeatedly adds:

(being raised among other nine children of different ages and two adults in just couple of bedrooms, Jackson insisted that there is nothing controversial in his doings, and that he never invited or asked any children to stay with him, and that parents had to make the approval)

after the statement:

His frequently held sleepover parties received disparaging media coverage after it was revealed that children frequently shared his bed or bedroom

The question is do we want something like this in the intro?--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, would support anything that is sourced and isn't in brackets--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 10:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the comment on Steve Irwin's page is totally different; the reader may not know anthing about the so-called "baby dangling" incident. (Plus that comment isn't sourced either)--Ashadeofgrey (Talk) 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's just going to look stupid as sharing a room as a kid is something lots of people have done, but most (I'd say 99.9999999 %) don't have little children coming for sleepovers. Arniep 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jackson said to the mother of Jordie Chandler that sleeping with kids is not unnatural and she had just been conditioned to believe that it was wrong. So when the quote above says "he never invited or asked any children to stay with him" it doesn't look like he tried his best to discourage the sleepovers either. Arniep 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)