Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

The lead

lede should only summarize the central aspects of his whole career ,, not his albums charts and sexual things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMlove (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The lead definitely needs some work. Per Wiki policy, it needs to provide an overview of his whole career that (in theory) could be read without progressing into the main article. As such, it's inevitable that controversies such as the 2003 trial will need to be mentioned.

At the moment, the three paragraphs of the lead essentially boil down to (1) major career milestones (2) documented achievements (awards, sales) and (3) controversies. For that reason, the last sentence of paragraph 2 probably belongs at the beginning of paragraph 3.

There's still some awkward phrasing in the lead that needs work (the sentence about the major albums is a good addition but needs rephrasing, for example, and the charity mention doesn't fit at the end of the sentence it's added to). Thriller's status as the best-selling album of all time probably should lead off the achievements paragraph. And there are elements of Jackson's career which need mentioning in the first paragraph: there's nothing at all about the Jacksons or Motown, which clearly should be in there. Gusworld (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All the personal life (including charity work)/controversy is now in the large bottom paragraphy. His early career has also been expanded. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RIAA figures

Notice that US certification for #1s was just added. Rather than using a CD booklet, it'd be better to refer directly to the RIAA database (which would also be a useful reference for many other places in the article). Here's the link for all MJ's certs:

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Michael%20Jackson&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=100

Also, the stuff about "owing to strong long term sales" comes across as peacock terms, and would be better omitted (ie something like "peaked at #13 in the U.S. but was certified platinum in 2005"). Gusworld (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not peacock at all, its his best selling back catalog album BY FAR. Even in america. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, i kept some of the sources in because they still give peak positions, something the RIAA source obviously doesnt. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection stands, because strong is being used to describe the record's sales performance (note that certification reflects shipments, not sales). Platinum certification in 2005 is a fact; calling this "strong long-term sales" is interpretation, which would need a reliable source (which the CD sleeve notes are not in this context, BTW).

Top-selling back catalog album is a messy term: what about Thriller 25? What about HIStory? If the claim is "best selling album in the US released by Jackson which contained no new material" then we're approaching indiscriminate information status. Bottom line: the fact should speak for itself.

Re peak positions, Billboard has useful lists at

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=4902&model.vnuAlbumId=497792 (singles) http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.chartFormatGroupName=Albums&model.vnuArtistId=4902&model.vnuAlbumId=497792 (albums)

which might also be helpful for US peaks. (Not objecting to additional sources for chart data, of course, haven't checked the specifics of the edits and they may all be overseas numbers.) Gusworld (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a collaborations section? Jackson has collaborated with a lot of very famous acts from all genres. However im not sure if its that important for the main career section. If all collaborations are together its something people can go right to. Collaborations i can think of are;

Diana Ross, McCartney, Janet, Steve Wonder, Slash, Freddie Mercury, (All those on Thriller 25), then you have the whole Prince and Madonna thing.

Maybe a section for it would be good? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The others that occur to me are Rockwell, Mick Jagger, Eddie Van Halen. For collaborations which charted, I think it makes more sense to put them in the chronology, because it helps convey Jackson's dominance in music during that period (except for Janet and Thriller 25, most of these were in the 80s, and most did result in chart records). Janet and the 25 stuff are already in there, as is "We Are The World", so if we create a collaborations section, then that information will either end up duplicated or need to be shifted. On reflection, I think the details about both Prince and Madonna belong in the articles on the relevant albums, not in the main biography, since ultimately neither resulted in a released record. There's enough detail to cover without adding in unreleased records that weren't widely publicised ("What More Can I Give" is a different case).

On the whole, I think it would be wise to resist adding sections if the information can be sensibly incorporated elsewhere -- the article is already very long and separate sections have a tendency to attract cruft. Collaborations are part of Jackson's professional career and it makes sense to present them in context, not as a separate group.

A separate collaboration issue is how Jackson's videos from Dangerous onwards (and also including Liberian Girl) made prominent use of guest stars. Don't think this needs exhaustive coverage, but it is probably worth mentioning as it's a major shift from the 80s videos. Gusworld (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In america Number ones has been his best selling album in 2006 and 2007 (maybe further back but i cant remember), it was outselling Thriller 2 to 1. Obviouly this year with T25 will change that but generally Number ones is still/was grossing more money for jackson than any of his studio albums. I will remove the Prince thing. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That celebraty thing is already covered in the michael jackson music videos article.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not that long an article anyway. It was 125,000 bytes, now its less than 90,000. It will probably peak at 95,000 which will be fine for FA. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales: Even taking that as fact (and we don't have a source that says that), it's still an intepretative leap to describe the sales as "strong", because that also implies comparisons with other artists' chart performance. If we had a source stating Jackson's catalog sales over the relevant period (which would imply serious SoundScan access), then a sentence saying "#1s has been Jackson's best-selling catalog title in the US since 2005" would be defensible, but we don't -- and whether that should be in this article or the #1s article would also be an issue. (Further on in the editing process, there'll probably need to be a broader discussion of how much chart data is appropriate for each title, and the balance between US and other information, but there's a way to go before we get there.) Did you transfer the Prince ref into the Bad album article?

Re collaborations: self-evidently, the fact that it's in the videos article doesn't mean that it shouldn't necessarily be mentioned here. Re: length -- it's getting better but I still think it could cover more ground in the same or less space. It is definitely improving though, which is the main thing. Gusworld (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The prince info is already in the bad article, lol i dont think we should talk about the cameo appearances when we dont even talk about the videos much themselves. The article had a music videos section but it was sent over to the michael jackson music videos article per merger consensus. The reason for that was to cut the articles length down. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not suggesting that we need exhaustive information, but a brief mention of this change in approach might be worthy. Probably worth revisting further on in the article's development rather than getting hung up on it now. (Information migrated out of an article is generally summarised in the original unless it's patently unrelated, and the article does go to some lengths to establish Jackson's particular relevance to the history of music video.)

Still need to resolve the #1s sales description issue and reach a mini-consensus on musical collaborations. Gusworld (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts i removed the strong sales thing, since it only peaked at number 13 yet sold over a million copies, the reader can see for themselves that it must have had good long term sales. Im gunna look for a more up to date source than RIAA, sales are closer to 1.4 million. If you wanna do a cameo video thing it might be better to bring all that music video stuff back over. Im not infavour of a collaboration section on second thoughts, its not that important, i want to make other sections more comprehensive, such as the dancing and themes and genre section. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- the facts shouldn't need adornment. The cert is worth noting even if a more recent sales figure appears. The themes and genres section needs a lot of work -- I wouldn't look to expanding it until the issues with the existing text are resolved (and yes, I'll list the issues I've identified ASAP). Gusworld (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we wait till the themes section is sorted and then expand it. It doesnt mention blood or invincible which is odd. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Themes and genres / music videos

Here's a far from exhaustive selection of criticisms of the section as it stands:

• There's really no discussion of musical genre in here at all. Categorising genre is a fraught activity anyway, especially with access to reliable sources, so I'm not suggesting much could be added here, but the heading might need changing to reflect what's actually present.
• There's not sufficient sources, and those that are present are rather selectively represented. The main thrust of the New York Times review, for instance, is to argue that Jackson's lyrics are not particularly personal or well-written, but that's entirely ignored in the citations, some of which don't appear to match claims made in that review at all.
• Similarly, the last sentence in the third paragraph doesn't make much sense, and the review it cites tends to suggest Jackson fails to work well with changing music trends, contrary to this section.
• There's loads of examples of weasel words like "some" (a serial offender here), "most" and "arguably". In part, I think it's because there's actually not enough sources to hold up the arguments the section wants to make and keep it from being original research. In this context, making sweeping claims based on a single review (and not citing those sources in the text as well as the footnotes) isn't sufficient.
• Something which is lacking in general in the article but which impacts on this section is discussion of Jackson's increasing prominence as a composer (a handful of songs on Off The Wall and Thriller, virtually all solo compositions on Bad, predominant co-writes on subsequent releases).
• The discussion of "Man In The Mirror" fails to mention that Jackson didn't compose this song.
• I think there needs to be a clearer statement of purpose for this section more before material gets added. Is it a discussion of Jackson's lyrical concerns? If so, then these need to be more clearly articulated (the obvious candidates being the perils of celebrity, statements about world affairs, and perhaps a general lack of love songs) and sourced. If the section is going to look more broadly at Jackson's evolution on an album-by-album basis (either in terms of their "sound" -- a tricky business -- or critical reaction), then the case could again be made that this should be treated in the main body of the article with each album, rather than placed in a chunk at the end.
• A final question to consider which might help clarify what the section is aiming to achieve: what precisely would be lost from the article if this entire section got deleted?

Whatever approach is taken, more care is needed with sources to avoid misrepresentation and original research. (One random thought: reviews from Robert Christgau, a well-regarded critics whose stuff is all archived online, might be useful here.)

Anyway, some food for discussion! Gusworld (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It should just be a section on the Themes and genres. Themes as in topics of discussion, genres as in rock, pop, jack swing etc. Nothing more, nothing less. But you need to start making some edits, i dont think these are things i can do alone, we still need that number conversion as well. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This from the mariah carey article would be a good guide to follow. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Carey section limits its discussion of genre to Carey's comments about genres she admires. I'm not aware of Jackson having made that kind of comment about other artists in terms of his recent career (there's plenty in Taraborrelli about his influences up until 1978, but that's not very useful in terms of his most successful career period). Some of the other territory covered in Carey's Artistry section (pretentious section title, BTW) is dealt with here in Influence (another area to discuss . . .)

Anyway, I'm not inclined to do a major edit on this section right now because my immediate reaction would be to ditch the whole lot (per the last question), wait until the other sections of the article are all bought up to scratch, and then see if it was worth revisiting. I suspect (perhaps wrongly) that that's not the approach you want to pursue, and I don't want to incite a large-scale edit war. I will get onto the numbers though! Gusworld (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the last FA review, there must be some form of artistic commentry other than his dancing. Im really considering bringing the music video stuff back.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is going to be a section on artistic achievement (which the current section doesn't approach in any way really), then no doubt the videos will need to be part of it. Will leave it to you to decide whether it's worth migrating both sections onto the talk page for detailed discussion, killing the section and starting again, or leaving it for a while to address other stuff. Gusworld (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This was the section on Music videos. We could edit it on that page, when we are happy with it, we could then bring it back. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, could you do a fiar use rational for this, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a discussion of music videos has to be a bit broader than just looking at MTV, which is what a lot of that section is about. Not saying that shouldn't be in there, but the focus needs to be on what Jackson achieved and what distinguishes his music videos from others, not just that he was a staple of MTV (bit too US-centric for one thing). More positively, the sections on short films and group dancing are a good place to start. But I do actually want to sort numbers before I turn my attention to this (and the FU rationale). Gusworld (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree it needs to be broader, but its a good template, and we can do all the work on that page, even discuss it on that talk page. Please do the numbers tho, i cant, i makes me sick to write " Michael is the 7th child of the jackson family", lol, its just not right.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Don't panic, seventh wouldn't change. The major change is in numbers above ten that can't be expressed in two words and chart positions. Gusworld (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying numbers policy (RESOLVED)

As discussed, I'm planning to edit the article to make the usage of numbers consistent. In particular, I want to ensure greater adherence to the following policy from the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]:

"In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)."

As per this policy, my preference is for using numbers for everything above nine (makes the articles easier to read), but there are doubtless contexts where the spelled-out form will remain for elegance or consistency with general Wikipedia approach.

More particularly, I'm going to change all sales figures and dollar references to numbers, and the vast majority of chart positions into the form #16, #2, #45 etc. Note this doesn't affect sentences discussing overall performance i.e. the article would still say "Jackson scored six consecutive number one albums".

FWIW, There's no consensus in featured articles about how to present chart positions; I've seen approaches from absolutely everything in numeric form to absolutely everything spelled out. This approach makes it easier to distinguish chart data at a glance from other numbers, which is why I'm advocating it.

This will involve a very large number of changes, but I'm not going to make any alterations during the "numbers edit" other than these, so no-one need worry about any substantive shifts in the text.

Any comments before I get started? Gusworld (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, go ahead, ill cry about it when i see the result. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

how do i write on the page

how do i put news on the page and remove lies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jackson article attracts a high percentage of vandals, so adding material straight to the page isn't as easy as it normally is on Wikipedia. If your account has only just been created, you can't edit this page as it's semi-protected -- but if there's particular bits of the content you have objections to or think they can be improved, mention them here on the talk page, where they can be discussed and implemented if appropriate. Gusworld (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive just checked this guys other contributions. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 11:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Right, thats it, enough is enough, im calling for semi protection AGAIN, i dont care frankly if a few ip address's cant edit. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers editing, stuff to think about

is now done across the article. I didn't make any other changes on this run (which took considerable personal effort). Going through the text reinforced that there's an awful lot of copy editing to be done, plenty of structure and consistency problems, and still a lot of material that's questionable, and some material that's missing. Here's a few random thoughts while I remember them:

• The picture of the Hollywood Walk of Fame star isn't justified by the article, which makes no mention of it. Should be added at the appropriate spot in the chronology.
• The cropped main image of Jackson (from the White House visit) looks odd and doctored -- I think it would work better if it was just a cropped shot with the original background.
• The section on Jackson's 1984 White House visit cites Taraborrelli as a source, but Taraborrelli has nothing whatsoever to say about the significance of Jackson's visit in terms of race relations (the text is identical in both editions I have). Another cite is needed if that claim is going to stand.
• There needs to be a more consistent approach to how albums are discussed, ensuring that each album includes relevant production information, released singles, chart positions and sales, and critical reception. Most albums have some of this -- and some albums obviously deserve more coverage than others -- but there's a definite lack of consistency, and the common tendency for more recent albums to have more detail, regardless of their overall importance in Jackson's career.
• The Thriller 25 section in particular is an indecent mess, so I might turn my attention to that first. Gusworld (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more: the claim that Jackson is frequently referred to as MJ in the introduction is not supported by the cite or the article and seems highly dubious and irrelevant to me. The nickname is never mentioned again in the article, and the only citation is a single newspaper article where the nickname is used once in a headline and not at all in the text. To jump from 'Abbreviation used in headline' to 'often referred to' is a mighty big leap. I can well imagine that the abbreviation MJ is often used in chat rooms and forums, but that doesn't justify its inclusion here.

Look at it this way: far more people would recognise the nickname 'Wacko Jacko' as referring to Jackson, and we have a sourced discussion of that within the article, but I know there have been consistent objections to even mentioning that nickname in the lead. If we can't mention one widely-recognised nickname, why should we mention another which hasn't got any evidence -- and in the very first sentence to boot? Gusworld (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed MJ, i always found it tacky anyway. The main picture can stay, its free use, its never been complained about, its been there a year, your assessment is a personal point of view. I added the info on his wall of fame into article. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hollywood Walk of Fame reference looks rather tacked on in the Influence section (gives the impression it's being mentioned there so that the picture can stay there). Would make more sense in the chronology, I think (the reference, that is). Given the relatively low barrier to getting a star on the walk, I'm not sure it's the best achivement to kick this section off with either. Gusworld (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 redraft

OK, here's a first draft of a rewrite of the Thriller 25 section. I've removed most of the individual chart detail, as this is much more suitable to the album article than here (and quite a bit of it was unsourced), and reworked a bunch of messy stuff. The reviewer stuff would need references but those could be grabbed from the album article quite easily, and it's important to include that kind of context. It's perhaps debatable whether the Price stuff needs to be there, but I'm not too fussed either way.

At this length, it's also debatable whether this needs to be a separate 2008 section or should be incorporated into other chronology. I think the current chronology lacks internal logic, and that the previous section could finish post-trial in 2005, with subsequent activity in a new section that includes this. Thoughts?

Main article: Thriller 25

On February 11 2008, Jackson issued a 25th anniversary edition of his top-selling album Thriller called Thriller 25. The edition included the original nine tracks from Thriller; five remixed tracks featuring new production and guest appearances by contemporary performers will.i.am, Fergie, Kanye West, and Akon;; a brief extract from Vincent Prince's voiceover session for the song "Thriller"; "For All Time", a previously unreleased track dating from the "Thriller" recording sessions; and a DVD featuring the three music videos from "Thriller" and Jackson's performance of "Billie Jean" at Motown 25. Reviewers had a mixed response to the re-recordings but praised the original album.

Thriller 25 was a commercial success, peaking at number one in eight countries and on the United World Chart . It reached #1 on the US Top Pop Catalog Albums chart (as a reissue, it was not eligible for the Billboard 200 ), selling 166,000 copies in its first week

Internationally, "The Girl Is Mine 2008" was issued as the first single from the album, while in the U.S., "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008" was the first release. Gusworld (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that first sentence should read "On February 11, 2008, Sony issued a 25th anniversary edition of Jackson's top-selling album Thriller called Thriller 25." -- Jackson himself didn't release the album. (Broader issue for the article: we've got Jackson's denunciation of Sony but no mention of the fact that he's yet to sign a contract with anyone else, and has co-operated with Sony for this release.) Gusworld (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You havent included total US and World sales. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the US sales is entirely spurious (the linked article says nothing about total US sales). The world total is pretty much original research, since each individual chart only includes that week's sales, and WP:OR argues against substantial synthesis of information. Gusworld (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The link says "his first gold record in a zillion years" gold = 500,000. The world chart was fine on the last FA so it stays. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate reference for making a sales claim -- it doesn't become a gold record until it gets certified by the RIAA, and we have no evidence that this passing reference equates to a properly researched sales claim. The fact that no objection has previously been raised to the inclusion of this information is not a basis for keeping the world figures either -- there are plenty of things which were never raised a problem in the article when it was last up for FA that have been changed since. Gusworld (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All sources were deemed reliable, im not getting into this, i removed all unreliable sources per the last FA. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, that is not a relevant argument in this context. A gossip columnist using the line "his first gold record in a zillion years" is not an appropriate source for the claim "the album has sold 500,000 copies in the US" -- it's a throwaway comment with no source for the data. The synthesis of data to advance a position is a violation of WP:OR. I'm raising those objections now, so they have to be dealt with now -- previous FA discussion does not come into it. Gusworld (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a few days away from this, its doing my head in, lets take a few days off and come back refreshed, we have like a million ideas/preposals floating around and i have a million GA reviews to get through. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- though obviously vandal watch will need to be maintained. Gusworld (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical Appearance, "Jackson Source"

What is this "Jackson Pg..." reference that is listed in the section about his appearance. It doesn't seem to be clear on what it is, and the part that talks about how in is autobiography he only had two operations is sourced by that too. It's not a real source. Frankyboy5 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be Taraborrelli not jackson, i dont know why i did that. cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is Michael Jackson's current record label?

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Molestation charges in the LEAD

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

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

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

proposed revision of the last paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed revision of the last paragraph by Realist2

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

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

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

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

Copyedit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charitable donations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

Audio Samples

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

If we can get some with rationals, thriller is in there, i honestly cant be ..... though. Im quite tired of wikipedias policy on these issues. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That physical appearance section needs to be cleaned up, lol

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

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

Those were reliable sources!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Humanitarian" contradiction

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Political views

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

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

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

Fact tags and record sales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And only if they cannot be replaced by free images, per WP:NFCC#1, which they obviously can, since we've had them. --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

VERY GOOD AND LETS MAKE IT BETTER

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

1. 1995—1999: HIStory

about Mr.Jackson's second marriage:

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

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

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

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

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

planing to marry and marriage.

2.2001—2002: Invincible

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

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

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

3.Physical appearance and health concerns

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

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

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

4.Finances

in this part:

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

there is an interview with John Landis saying:

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

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

Festival director John Landis gave an interview to Metromix New York —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.22.5 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While they are controversial statements, they are sourced by a reliable book, if you have sources that contradict them please bring them to the talk page and we can happy build consensus and made alterations. Cheers Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

dear Realist2 I brought sources that are reliable. they contradict statements already in Mr.Jacksons article. please tell me about your source and what other sources seem satisfying. I think the sources that I've found have brought interviews, so they are reliable enough, and do not raise controversy unlike the statements already in Mr.Jacksons article.

and if you think your source is still reliable enough, I suggest we better have both of these statements from both of of sources in every topic in the article cause they contradict eath other completely. it can be helpful for articles reliability.

and please tell me what do you think of No.2 and No.3 ? peace

WP:RS. Minkythecat (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have published sources, your just telling me you heard something somewhere, sometime not so long ago. Just because something is controversial that doesnt mean it cant be documented. Please provide actual proof that contradicts my published source and ill happily compromise. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ok Realist2, I will check it and soon will share what I find. and please tell me what do you think of No.2 and No.3 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ok Realist2, I know you work hard to make the best of it. I will check it and soon will share what I find. and what about puting information from BOTH sources about these two topics so we could have both. these statements contradict eath other completely. having both can serve the article's raliability. and please tell me what do you think of No.2 and No.3 ?

Im waiting for some reliable sources to see what i think. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |} This ip address has not returned with any reliable sources regarding his complaints. Can this section be deleted please before its auto archived, its a waste of archive space, we already has 18. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title headings

I just changed the title headings. Originally i just favoured giving the time period. Subsequently however the album title of that era was also added. This is fine however in a FA review they will complain that there are things in each section that arent to do with the relevant album. They did it at the last FA. Therefore i decided if we are going to be specific and give the album name we are going to have to mention the other major events mentioned in these eras. I went ahead and did it although i know its not perfect. So if anyone wants to complain about my descriptions please post here. If we want to make it really simple we can just go back to the basic dates. Cheers. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

University Education

I heard that Michael Jackson attended Bringham Young Univeristy? Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.16.118 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can say a categorical 'no' to that one -- it's never been mentioned in any of the biographies, and given how young he was when his career began, university of any kind was never really an option, I'd suspect. (Michael Jackson itself is not an uncommon name, so it's likely that another student of that name might have given rise to a rumour. That's pure speculation and not suitable for the article, of course!) Gusworld (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he hasnt been in education for a very long time, he can barely read or write. He doesnt actually write songs either, he speaks into a voice recorder and gets someone else to write it up because he cant spell. Additionally when recording a song he doesnt sing from a sheet of paper, he sings from memory. That actually might be worth adding to the article, its not the conventional method. Sorry for going of track. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the off-track is more useful than the original question! Would indeed be a good detail in a section about Jackson as a composer (which is a topic the Themes and genres section needs to tackle, IMHO). Gusworld (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, im doing a plan with another editer outside of wiki for the Themes section next week, i will bring that up and discuss, it critical to his artistry, lol, amazing how these things just pop up. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it's been mentined in many places that he reads stories to kids and the ability to read and write and compose songs and music isn't depending on university education. and I don't know which reliable source has stated that he can barely read or write or He doesn't actually write songs either and he gets someone else to write his songs up because he cant spell. these statements seem so unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that MJ has a great personal library in Neverland Ranch. sure he didn't make it to just stare at the pictures of the books and I've heard that he does alot of research when he needs to. so please don't make RIDICULOUS statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The short film Ghosts was written by Jackson and Stephen King ...LoL...DON'CHYE WANNA SAY michael has dictated and Stephen has written!!!!!!!!!!!LOL! there are many other things too. thank you!at least you made me laugh for suggesting a story about a writter who can bearly write or read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The irony here is overpowering, but I shall resist it. --Rodhullandemu 14:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I help myself Realist2 and just say :what you stated is not reliable. it is strange to read things like this here.

Please stop spamming the talk page. MJ is a musical genious, but you can be a genious and not be able to spell, its nothing new. Einstein was dyslexic yet hes a genious. MJ thinks of the songs in his head but just gets someone who's good at grammer to write it up for him, its still HIS song. I dont understand whats so controversial about saying the truth. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

we dont know from where this contradicting statement has poped up. stating getting some one good at grammer (sometimes) is something and stating someone bearly be able to write and read is something else.

It comes from a published book, dont worry, this is a talk page. I slightly exaggerated sorry, i have no intention of wording it that strongly within the article. However Jackson does have serious problems with writting, not so much reading. You need to chill out a little, worry more about whats in the article rather than the talkpage. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please sign your post, if you dont a BOT signs for you which wipes this talk page off my watchlist until the next edit. Unless you sign I dont check. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)