Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20


MJ also known as Michael Joe Jackson?

i didnt know that.. Sai2020 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yes thats his middle name, its family tradition that he takes his fathers name as his middle name. It is also the reason Michael is the middle name of Jacksons children.Realist2 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, the "King of Pop" thing still doesn't sit right with me. We should keep it, but it's a title not a name. You'd not go up to him and say "Hi Mr. King of Pop" would ya? Needs a rephrasing. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

I would... Sai2020 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah i wouldn't say "Mr. King Of Pop" but I'd surely say "Your Majesty" or somethin like that...
Sai2020 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it to him but i often reefer to him as The King Of Pop, No one goes up to him and says hi Mr. Michael Joseph Jackson ether do that say that does not mean anything. Gaogier (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to point out a title and a name are not the same. To be a king is a title. Like Elvis was "the king", not "king".

(The Elfoid (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC))


Okay we need to add "the" Gaogier (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

MJ and MTV in the lede section

The lede states that MJ's videos on MTV had the effect of "leading the relatively young channel out of obscurity." The source, an ABC News article about the devotion of MJ's fans only mentions MJ and the early days of MTV in one sentence, when it states that MJ put MTV "on the map." I have changed the lede so that it accurately states what the source says (put MTV "on the map"), but an editor has changed it back to the "out of obscurity" wording. Paraphrasing content is a legitimate and good technique. If the source had several paragraphs discussing the relationship between MJ and MTV in the 1980s, you could try to paraphrase it. But since the source only mentions the issue once, I argue that it is misleading to claim that the source says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity" when the source has a different tone, of saying he put MTV "on the map." A subtle difference, perhaps, but an encyclopedia has to be reliable.Nazamo (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, here is the sentence from the ABCnews article: "They may fondly recall how Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................I argue that the editor is adding POV (point of view) by purporting that the article says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity." The article never states that MTV was in a position of obscurity. Instead, it states that MJ's pioneering videos "put MTV on the map."Nazamo (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not true at all. This is OR, but I was sort of there (well, a viewer, anyway, in those days). MTV was a well-known network that was being criticized for not showing any black artists. Michael Jackson's videos were a breakthrough in the race area, but not in the ratings area. Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

no he did have a positive affect on ratings actually, please lets get real.Realist2 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson helped MTV to grow, the viewing figures for his Thriller video's premier was huge. But people did know about it before.(The Elfoid (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I just did research on the whole MTV and MJ connection and the big issues, as identified by Tom McGrath in "Michael and MTV" from MTV: The Making of a Revolution (Philadelphia: Running Press, 1996) (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id127.htm) are: A) MTV executives believed that MTV was a "rock" channel, so they didn't initially want to play black artists such as Rick James or Michael Jackson....then, after much protest and criticism from black artists, "on March 2, one week after the song hit No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100, the "Billie Jean" video debuted on MTV."...B) When MTV executives saw the "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" videos " they were absolutely floored by "Beat It."", with its choreography and dancing...." Never before had there been a video like this one. Almost single-handedly, this shy former child star had taken the entire field of music video and lifted it up a notch artistically. The reaction to both clips once they'd been aired -- and to the songs, and to the album, and to Michael himself -- made that clear. All across the country, in bars and basements and breakfast nooks and anywhere else that the MTV pipeline reached, people were watching the two clips and nodding that, yes, these were the best they'd ever seen, these were what video had the potential to become. Certainly record sales reflected people's excitement. Thriller had already sold more than two million copies by the time MTV first played "Billie Jean," but after the video went on the air, the album began to sell at a remarkable eight hundred thousand copies per week."....C) MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.... "Michael Jackson was the hottest pop star on the planet in nearly twenty years -- and you could see him almost hourly on your favorite music video channel. While Michael and MTV were both absolutely on fire, the two weren't competing with each other; they were helping each other. Some would turn on their televisions merely to catch "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," and then find themselves mesmerized by the rest of what they were seeing on MTV. Others would tune in merely to watch MTV, and then find their jaws dropping at Michael's videos. The synergy was phenomenal. It was as if a couple of supercharged rockets had somehow hooked up in midair, and now the two of them were hurtling toward the heavens, linked together and moving faster than anyone could ever have imagined."...........................................................To summarize, the story in a BOOK about MTV and MJ is that MTV wouldn't play black artists, then MTV saw MJ's amazing videos, and played them, and the videos became super popular, and then MTV and MJ were "helping each other." Based on the guidelines for Wikipedia, the most reliable sources should be emphasized. I argue that the storyline from a BOOK about "Michael and MTV" from

MTV: The Making of a Revolution is a more reputable source than ONE SENTENCE in an ABC news article about the dedication of Jackson's fans, which states that "Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................As such, I argue that the line "put MTV on the map" should be replaced with the history outlined by Tom McGrath, that MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.Nazamo (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

incorrect numerous reliable sources have said that michael jackson saved MTV as its figures were starting to decrease, MTV did not let billie jean or beat it play on mtv , they only played rock videos, the reason they agreed to the videos was because they were pressurised. MJ`S company headed by walter (I forget his sir name) told MTV that if they didnt air the videos he would remove all his other artists such as elton john from mtv`s playlist and expose them as racists. They then agreed, there was no friendship, partnership, they didnt want his videos played, myv gave into pressure. This can all be sourced accurately by the highly acclaimed biography MAGIC AND THE MADNESS. Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Realist2, thanks for your message. Can you get more detail on the ideas and statements from the book Magic and Madness. As I am sure you are aware, Wikipedia articles must be based on the most reliable sources. You state that the source that I have proposed using is incorrect, based on what Magic and Madness has. Fine. That doesn't mean the source I am proposing can't be used in the article. Rather, when there are 2 points of view, both from reputable published sources, the Wikipedia article should acknowledge both points of view. I am going to add a paragraph on MTV and MJ which outlines the points of view put forward in the Tom McGrath book. Then you can add the ideas from Magic and the Madness, which claim that MTV's viewing figures were decreasing, etc, and the different ideas will all be there. In the past, you have reverted changes that I have made to this article, particularly this "MJ and MTV" section, in which I argued that you were not using the correct wording, based on the ABC News article source (the article says "put MTV on the map", not "MJ led MTV out of obscurity"). In this case, I have done research, and I have found a published source to back up my proposed changes. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I would ask that you not revert changes that are made based on reputable published sources. Thank youNazamo (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

how to do that and shall we nominate this article? Sai2020 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually isn't that far away, in my humble opinion, and should be quite possible to do since the article is well referenced. Having said that, shouldn't even be considered until the "articles with unsourced statements" and "pages needing cleanup" tags are fixed. Additionally, my opinion is that the article needs work in two areas to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: the lead needs to be much more concise (it certainly doesn't need to list every album), and down in the body of the article, the section for each album needs to be reduced to a summary, with the gory details moved to the article dedicated for that album. Some of the "summaries" seem to contain more info that then article dedicated to the album! Have fun, —Mrand T-C 15:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. thanks
Sai2020 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

why no response Realist2 and The Elfoid? Sai2020 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

because mj is too contriversial, they will never let it be FA. Realist2 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that for a second. And I'm a realist! You won't know until you try. Like I said, I don't think the article is that far off.—Mrand T-C 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If this album is to be nominated, it needs some cleaning up. In particular, parts read as though they've been written by someone whose first language is not english. I've done a re-write of some sections, more work should be done. I would suggest that the article is too long. A lot of the info on the various albums/movies/tours etc should not be in the main article, but should be relegated to the individual pages for those albums/movies etc. I'm not saying it should be removed from wikipedia, it just needs to be put on the various Jackson-related articles, instead of cluttering up the main page. I would also suggest that editors first focus on technical aspects of the clean up (grammar, spelling, flow & readability), before trying to address POV questions. DiggyG (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

replacement for mugshot is proposed for deletion

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MJcopyright_free.jpg

Sai2020 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of signature

hi I changed my signature.. just thought you all should know

Σαι ( Talk ) 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Songwriting/production credits section?

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

HIStory

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

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

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

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

NPOV in Invincible section

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

Of those that were negative they were often unfair discussing the singers perceived eccentric image rather than the music.[1] That said an album that sells 8 million copies is still considered a huge success in the majority of cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Issues

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

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

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

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

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

This is the paragraph on invincible:

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

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

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

Futher Reading

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

Also Known as Manchild

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

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

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

Slash does not play on invincible

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

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

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

Article nominated for FA

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

Removal of Tags

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

See the above sections "NPOV in Invincible section" and "Article issues", both of which focus on one sentence in the "Invincible" section, which already has an inline neutrality tag, along with a few borderline "peacock terms" that are sourced. I've removed both tags because I think dispute-tagging the entire article is overkill in this case. In regards to the request for additional citations, there are more than 180 inline citations in this article, so I'm not convinced there's a systemic problem with sourcing. It would be much more helpful to use the {{fact}} tag to mark specific sources. szyslak 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well what i meant was that there are no current issues with article.. Σαι ( Talk ) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who tagged the article and I'm fine with it being removed. I originally added the tag(s) when there was quite a bit of POV, peacock terms and missing/bad citations. Since that time, everyone has done an excellent job of addressing the issues, so the huge tag is no longer needed. Pinkadelica (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

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

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

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

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

  • 2ND Me and elfoid wanted to make an article about ALL michael Jacksons music videos. If we do, which i want to, we can merge the MICHAEL and MTV section to it.
Great so I'll send over Legacy of Thriller to the Thriller article. Σαι ( Talk ) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Alleged third child

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

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

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

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

Actually, didn't he talk about Blanket in the Bashir interview?? This transcript says so, although I recognize that website is not a reliable source either, but I have heard the same quote from the Bashir interview other places, I thought... am I misremembering? Is the Bashir interview not considered a reliable source? Or what?? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, yes, I am now quite certain that MJ talked about it in the Bashir interview. I am currently attempting to locate an appropriate clip on YouTube, after which I intend to properly cite the interview, provide a link to the YouTube version of the interview, and only repeat what Mr. Jackson has said in his own words. I cannot see how one could object to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I could have sworn he specifically said "surrogate" in the Bashir interview. There is a transcript of the Bashir interview from mjshouse.com that is cited in this article and in many other Wikipedia articles, which contains the following text:
Bashir: "Is that how Blanket was born?"
Jackson: "I used a surrogate mother and my own sperm cells."
I'm not comfortable citing that transcript (despite the fact that this very article does so several times, heh) because in my opinion it does not meet WP:RS -- even though I do in fact believe the transcript to be correct.
That said, I don't feel a burning need to mention the surrogate angle, especially if it is controversial, because of course WP:BLP should always err on the side of caution. As long as Prince Michael II aka Blanket is mentioned, I am satisfied. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Bad Era Image

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

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

Put this one on for now?

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

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

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

File:1987MichaelJosephJackson.jpg
Michael Jackson in 1987

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

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

Conversion to Islam

Several sites claim that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam. I don't see it anywhere in the article. Chenzo23 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because only the far right pay any attention to peoples religion, normal people aren`t interested. Realist2 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have recent photo of michael wearing a wonderful little silver cross round his neck while he looks down on the media in shame and sadness as they snap 1000's of photos of him, he tries to make me media leave him alone, he even makes songs like, Leave Me Alone, Privacy & Tabloid Junkie but still they don't stop, but back on subject he's wearing a cross so i question the religion thing.. Gaogier Talk! 02:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. Please read The ebony interview. He clearly speaks about God and even refers to him as "Jehovah". Please do research beyond tabloids for information like this. Marnifrances (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SUBJECT CLOSED Gaogier Chat! 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Damaged rep

" However, Jackson's controversial appearance and actions have damaged his reputation in the eyes of some of the public and album sales have been in decline since the mid 1990s"

Can someone make it more clear which public it is referring to? Cause, I know that his reputation is like dead in the US. But what about Japan? I remember reading something years ago, and it seemed his rep was not as damaged as in the US

If someone can make this more clear, I will be so gratful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Artist of the Millennium Award

The article states that he received from WMA an award for this, yet the reference quoted states he did not. This should be removed. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct I removed it. Realist2 (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

We have two government pictures here, they are the only pictures that we truly know will stay stable, any chance we can find more. Gaogier Chat! 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

About the WMA award show

we should include this info in the article " The 2006 show which also featured the legendary Michael Jackson was held at Earls Court in London, United Kingdom. The show is broadcast to North and South America, all of Europe, the Middle East, Japan and South East Asia, all of mainland China, some other parts of Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Africa reaching an estimated worldwide audience of around one billion viewers, in over 160 countries. [2] "

at least include how around one billion people watched it. Radiohumor (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done --Realist2 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Question

Should 'Bad in Japan 1987' be added to the video releases at the very bottom and a page created for it? - Kaneite

I heard that its been shelved now, Realist2 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It (the DVD, Bad in Japan) was never an official release. Ever. It was "released" by a bootleg company. (Crime Crow). The same concert was, however, officially released in Japan on VHS in 1988. Marnifrances (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info as i was about to order it on zavvi.co.uk, where it says it will soon be available. - Kaneite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneite (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NON-STOP

There is a part titled "Return to music" though Mr. Jackson always insists that he's never stop makin' music and there are news about him workin on his forthcoming album since 2003. i think this is what some people and some media like very much to label artists with. however he's realy never paused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.92 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

I noticed the 'further reading' section contains some books. How about including some documentaries in there too. I know there are plenty of them. They're just as informative. Shoop85 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Shoop85

ATV

According to the Michael Jackson biography 'The Magic & The Madness' by J. Randy Taraborrelli, Michael has earned at least $240 million from ATV. In 1993, EMI paid him $150 million to administer the songs from the ATV catalogue. And another $90 million was paid to him in 1995 when he merged it with Sony, creating Sony/ATV. Jackson still owns 50%, and the catalogue is supposed to earn $80 million in revenue annually, which technically earns Michael $40 million. So I think Jackson's financial situation is made out a lot worse than what it actually is.

Yes jacksons financial situation is complex, both sides spin on this issue and it probablt wont be even known for sure. Realist2 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Finances Section

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

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

I noticed some of that information can be found in the trial transcripts, however they are not on this computer. I am leaving a message on my talk page to help source the top part of the section.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Often referred to as MJ

The last thing I want is to get into an edit war. I have asked to please discuss this on the talk page because I don't want to get a 3R warning. I have yet to see a legit reason for these five words. Until my experience with Jackson fans, I had associated MJ with Michael Jordon. Could someone simply please explain to me where this info comes from and give me the quote from the source? As I stated above, newspaper headlines will often abbreviate, and thats not always a good source when an article is already way too long. I really would love to see this read as an encyclopedia article and not a fan page. So I there is a legit reason for these five words, I'm all for it. --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to read the archives on this issue , a debate ensured on this issue not so long ago and the consensus was to keep it. Realist2 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read them, and from what I can see, there is no consensus at all.--DizFreak talk Contributions 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol it wasnt like an offical declaration basically the losers just went away sulking. However a consensus can change freely and you are more than welcome to start up a new debate on the issue. Realist2 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am opening a new discussion on this issue, as well as several other points. I would like this article to be shortened and more encyclopedic as I've stated earlier. I admit we probably won't agree on each change, but I think we both would like a good article on the subject. I noticed you referenced a book that uses the term MJ. Can you share the context with me?--DizFreak talk Contributions 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The source used for the MJ statement is USAtoday.com , a website not a book. Realist2 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a notation inside the code that references a book. That is what I was discussing. The USA Today article does not speak to the MJ nickname at all. It simply uses the initials in the Headline, and the name "Michael Jackson" inside the body of the article.--DizFreak talk Contributions 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey im more than welcome to work with you and come to comproises on things . Sorry I am THE Michael Jackson expert here on wiki EVERYONE who knows me here on wiki agrees to that much. Often things are removed or changed on wiki and these tend to be on the same issues that are debated over and over again. Im not actually fussed on the whole MJ thing but i was unholding an informal consensus already reached on multiple occasions. Feel free to ask me anything or if you have any quiries, the lenght of the article is indeed long but its actually not our fault believe it or not. We have had chunks of things from the article merged to other pages already so that has helped but a month ago a consensus was reached to merge info about jacksons finances to the jackson article. Aside from that when considering lengh remember that jackson has had a 40 year career, as a group AND solo artist, is one of the most famous people alive and has a very complex personal life, there IS a lot to write about. Additionally, i have concerns about removing info about his career, at the moment the aticle has a 60/40 split in favour of his career over his personal issues, his career should actually have a larger preportion, removing career info will only turn it into a gossip column. Realist2 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing ive really wanted to do is get ride of that "Themes and Genre" section and instead put audio samples throughout the article. This would be good because;

  • That section is the only truely poorly sourced /pov section and would improve the credibility of article.
  • It would remove 1000`s of bytes from article.
  • It would give people their own chance to judge his changing styles and they can make their own opinions unstead of reading ours. Realist2 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page.--DizFreak talk Contributions 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents: MJ has often been referred to as MJ. His current team is called or referred to as "Team MJ"; he is referred to as MJ in the book "The Magic and The Madness" and by writers J Randy Taraborelli and Roger Friedman, and other writers and columnists, as well as amongst fans and has been for years. I'll find a couple of page references from my ridiculous MJ book collection. Marnifrances (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Hey guys, was there ever a discussion on the references section using 3 columns? I didn't want to change it unless there was, but I'm gonna point out that the references are almost illegable (and one or two are totally illegable) in the three column format. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I should throw in that I'm aware theres loads of them, but really, which is better; readability or compactness? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does LaToya have vitiligo too?

MJ is still claiming he has vitiligo, but his sister LaToya is almost white too... so does she have vitiligo too? Or does she have the same bleaching treatment? Me!20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

As with the Thriller page, it is clear that you obviously haven't learned anything from your 24 hour ban for edit warring. The moment the ban is over, here you are once again reverting genuine and CORRECTLY made edits. It is obvious that you do have the maturity to edit Wikipedia responsibly. I will once again make the point clear that you do not own the Thriller or Michael Jackson articles on Wiki, and if you persist in continuing to edit war just to force your own personal opinions across, then I will report you again and ensure you receive a far longer ban. The information that Jackson made the claim himself about Thriller's album sales is RELEVANT to the article as it, in itself, is POV (namely his own). Your opinion that user:Elfoid is a neutral editor is your own POV, and one that I do not share. In fact I am not even convinced you aren't one and the same person.MassassiUK (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Charity donations

The article has this statement: "At the World Music Awards in 2006 Beyonce announced that Jackson had given $300 million to charity.[191](more than any other celebrity apart from Oprah Winfrey)[192]". However, this doesn't seem like it can be true, as Bill Gates has given $300 million to India to fight AIDS, among many other projects with his foundation. In fact, according to the Bill Gates article, he has donated $29 billion from 2000-2004 alone. Citation 192 is his IMDB biography, which says that this is only his claim (and is not sourced), not that he has actually donated this much, and perhaps even meaning that he was under the mistaken impression that Oprah was the #1 donator to charity. Merick (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed [192]. What i will say on this is, they are saying "Celebrity", hes the second most charitable celeb. Different ppl have different opinions on what a celeb includes, you might thing Bill Gates is a celeb others might not. When looking at the 300 mil fig, its important to note that the VAST MAJORITY of that was given between 1992-1993. Jackson gave ALL the money from his Dangerous world tour to charity. We know that the "bad" world tour before it grossed 125 mil, im guessing ruffly therefore the dangerous world tour raised about 150 mil for charity as tickets were more expensive. Its quite save to say the 300 mil is reliable considering hes spent 25 years as a humanitarian. Realist2 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Themes and Genre Section

Hey I suggest we remove the "Theme and Genre" section. Its hugely unsourced and pov tagged. This artickle is huge and its removal would cut things down. We can put music samples throughout instead which would allow ppl to make their own judgements on it rather than giving out pov slated opionions. Thought? Realist2 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackson 5 section

Hey I suggest we remove the Jackson 5 section. The article is so big we should really stick to his solo stuff with a link to the Jackson 5 article. What do ppl think? Realist2 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be foolish to exclude that. The Jackson 5 are as much a part of Michael's history as his solo career is. I say leave it in there. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ill dispute that its "as much a part of Michael's history as his solo career". lol .Realist2 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Think about it, it'll be like taking out The Supremes section in Diana Ross' page, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
its an essential aspect of his overall biography. it needs to stay. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"king of pop"

Suggest we remove this entirely, or at least from the first part of the article, as it is no longer (if it ever really was?) a common denomination for him. LarsHolmberg (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

no. Realist2 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate beyond "no"? You know, like maybe your reasoning? heh...
As for my opinion, I think the King of Pop thing is probably okay, as that was once quite a common term for Mr. Jackson. At one point recently it read "self-proclaimed" King of Pop, which I think is maybe a little better... At one point, he was commonly referred to that way, but frankly I haven't heard anybody call Michael Jackson the King of Pop in quiiiite some time. "Self-proclaimed" seems a little bit more fair... But I think it is also probably okay the way it is.
(BTW, I'm a little disturbed that it says "commonly" referred to as MJ and King of Pop, and then provides only one source for each. One source does not "commonly" make...) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that its only america and the uk that has such a terrible titilating press machine. Realist2 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cardell, Chris. Michael Jackson: King of Pop. Jam, 1992. ISBN 0951931903.
And that's only five of about 20 books that have been published during the past four decades that equate Michael Jackson with "King of Pop." To put it as simply as Realist2 (talk)did- to answer your question: no. In fact, all these books can be used as verifiable references for the articles opening sentence.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Realist2 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lars, under most reasonable standards, "King of Pop" is definitely a common sobriquet for Jackson. Just do some online searches and you'll find a bonanza of references from reputable sources that include KOP. In the public conscience, KOP is synonymous with Jackson; that is, when those words are heard, one normally thinks of Jackson. That's pretty much all that matters, or all that should matter, when deciding on this issue.UberCryxic (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By god, i thought you had died Ubercryxic. Its been a while. Realist2 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah I've just been really busy.UberCryxic (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as you had a good reason lol. Oh and you better has bought Thriller 25 lol. Realist2 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha no I didn't buy it. I didn't really like the remixes; it was kind of like a perversion of his original work, which is good enough as it is. MJ needs to release new material...the sooner the better.

Lots of things have changed in this article since I was last here. There are plenty of typos and grammar errors...what happened? The lead stinks right now - the smooth prose and word flow just isn't there anymore.UberCryxic (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead was chopped up as some felt it was too long, they removed chunks of info from it. Ive been busy trying to keep the article down to 100,000 bytes, there have been numerous mergers etc. Why not give the lead another re working?Realist2 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I like the version that was there when I left. No need for a rewording at all. The Influence section has also been totally ruined. Sigh...this happens frequently in Wikipedia; articles generally improve over vast swathes of time, but in the interval they often undergo wild qualitative fluctuations.UberCryxic (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes a lot of the ifluence paragraphs were sent off to other articles. In its place came lots of nasty stuff on his personal and financial troubles. Still your a great writer and should invest some of your wiki time on it lol. Another thing is that soon im going to ship some details about thriller 25 over here so the article will get bigger soon. Realist2 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If we keep the "King of Pop", I don't see a valid reason to exclude his most common name in Australian English, "Jacko". I added it and cited it with <ref name=TheWestAustralian>{{cite web|[[http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx|http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx]]?StoryName=464813}}</ref> twice and each time User:Realist2 removed it almost immediately. The user claims that it is universally derogatory, but the citations in the page suggest that it is only derogatory when used in GB and then only when it is prefixed by "Wacko". I haven't seen any sources supporting a claim that it is universally derogatory and all it takes is one source, like the one I added, to disprove such a notion. Anyhow, if we want to represent a worldwide view, than including one major Anglophonic dialect's nickname like the "King of Pop" requires us to include every major Anglophonic dialect's nickname. I'd like to see some sources that contradict this statement, or even general opinions from other users. :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already had this argument, i asked an admin for their advise and it was said to be unsuitable in the lead not to mention the fact its already mentioned in the content of the article. Jacko is derogatory in the vast majority of the world infact when reading into this i learnt that Australia was one of the first countries to pick up the Jacko/ Wacko Jacko moniker. Its origination in Australia was ment to be derogatory and i dont think much has changed. Realist2 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion User:Realist2 refers to started on the edit notes and then proceeded via User talk:Thecurran#Your edits on michael jackson, User talk:Realist2#re: Jacko, User talk:Ericorbit/Archive11#Jacko, and User talk:Thecurran#re:Jacko but it wasn't a straight path. Heal the world; Earth Hour is tommorrow, Saturday, March 29th at 8-9 PM (20:00-21:00). You can get the full details at http://earthhour.org/ . :)--09:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurran (talk • contribs)
Please note that MTV UK used the term, Jacko, for him in a sense that wasn't derogatory in one of our own sources, http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/16112006/jackos_back , and that the article as it stands never uses "Jacko" without appending "Wacko" before it. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Think of it like this, if michael in a rare strock of humanity decided to sit down for an hour long interview and that interviewer called him "Jacko" one of the following would occure.

  • He would end the interview
  • Spit on the interviewer
  • The interviewer would be found in a shallow grave 2 weeks latter.

Its not about what me or you find offensive its about what the "living person (michael Jackson)" would find offencive. If me or you called him Jacko to his face it...... think about it. Realist2 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the important criterion is whether Jackson would find the name offensive. As a counter-example precedent, I present the very first line of Amy Fisher, which includes a term I am sure Ms. Fisher would whole-heartedly disapprove of. If it's the name a person is commonly known by, it could be appropriate for the intro text whether they like it or not.
I think a more important thing to consider is the quality of the sources that use the term "Jacko." I hear it all the time, but only in tabloids and entertainment news. When Jackson was in the lead stories in all the mainstream news outlets a couple years ago with his, ahem, legal troubles, I never once heard the AP refer to him as "Jacko." It is appropriate to mention waaaay down in the article that tabloids and such call him that, but it is not appropriate for the lead.
I'm still not super-crazy about King of Pop in the lead, but I think it is probably okay. As UberCryxic said, when you hear King of Pop, you think Michael Jackson. I am not sure the inverse is true any longer, though, and that's why I am ambivalent to it's presence in the lead. Mainstream news outlets haven't called him the King of Pop in quite some time either... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to make too big a thing about it here, but UberCryxic's references for the "King of Pop" designation consist of three references that are over a decade old, and two that are obviously very pro-Jackson. FWIW. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacko/wacko jacko is mentioned in the content of the article. Realist2 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant (although going back I see what I wrote was not clear).. I think that where it's currently mentioned is appropriate. I think it is in the right place. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, also you say you havent heard him called King of Pop in a while, maybe thats just your country that gives him bad press, Europe , Asia, Canada, South America still crown him. Realist2 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also America will come back around, a crappy reissue of Thriller has just sold 1.4 million copies in 6 weeks. MJ can still shift huge numbers even in the US. A new studio album can still be huge. Realist2 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Heh, also, you are assuming I am American, how do you know for sure? :p Okay, you happen to be right, but I don't say my nationality on my User page or anywhere else...
I'm still skeptical, as I get most of my news from BBC anyway (unfortunately, these days pretty much all of the big American news outlets are either overrun with fluff stories or are hopelessly biased..) and I still haven't really heard the phrase recently... but in any case, it's nothing I'm willing to get into a big thing about. It belongs in the intro for sure, and the way it is phrased is not terrible. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You use american spelling occasionally. Also you cant trust the BBC its institutionally biased itself, although i usually agree with its bias lol. Realist2 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, there's a few words that I actually prefer the British spelling (e.g. "theatre"), but your right, I usually use American spelling. Very observant. Of course BBC has some instituional bias, there is no such thing as 100% unbiased, but news.bbc.co.uk is closer than any other source I've found so far. I've hear Der Spiegel is worth checking out to get the more continental spin on things, but I don't care for their format, so I can't bring myself to read it, heh... Anyway, we are getting waaay off topic here. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you dislike US sources and Australian sources, but like the BBC, this links for you: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?go=homepage&scope=all&tab=all&q=Jacko&Search=Search :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a complimentary name, it ends there, Realist2 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2, I really don't mean to disrespect you but I think the BBC's opinon here is more important than yours on its own. At the bottom of http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/ , it says explicity, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites", which strongly implies that it is responsible for the content of internal websites, as one would expect. A quick look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/jacko.shtml confirms for me that BBC is comfortable using the term, "Jacko", to describe Michael Jackson. I understand it if his monikers are listed in a subsection outside of the introduction, like in Greeks#Names used for the Greek people, as long "Jacko" is kept in league with "MJ" and "the King of Pop". The argument to ban the term, "Jacko", but keep the term, "Wacko Jacko" however seems quite weak, as non-tabloid media seem to prefer "Jacko" over "Wacko Jacko". Especially, now that the Amy Fisher intro has been highlighted, it seems adding "Jacko" to any list of nicknames here is the only reasonable way to stem having to include "Wacko Jacko" there. If we include "Jacko" there, we can sidestep having "Wacko Jacko" there because it is merely the more neutral "Jacko" with a rhymed preposed word that bears a negative connotation. :)--Thecurran (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We arent saying he isnt sometimes called Jacko, im aware he's called that, the issue is it shouldnt be in the lead. Realist2 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

Okay, so why do you think the "King of Pop" and "MJ" belong there, but "Jacko" doesn't? If you're aware that he's called that, then shouldn't our audience know too? Where would you like us to tell the audience? :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It already says in the "Bad" section. Realist2 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Jacko" part if this convo is continued in the section below. --Thecurran (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2004). The Magic and the Madness. Headline. ISBN 0-330-42005-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ http://awards.montecarloresort.com/03/w03pre00.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_16&oldid=1140126246"