Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Main contributers

If you consider yourself a main contributer to this article and you want to be harrassed by millions of ips asking annoying questions, please add your name to the template at the top of this page. Your contributions will be checked, if you have only made three edits to the article you will be removed shiftly. Note that this is to help inexperienced editers find someone that can help them, it is not a declaration that you own the article. Adding your name will neither boost your states nor reflect badly on you. Its probably best that your signed on to the MJ wikiproject aswell. Ensure your talk page is NOT semiprotected and have an active email address with wiki. Cheers — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson Wikiproject - UP & RUNNING!!!

If you are interested in the upcoming Janet Jackson Wikiproject please see the Janet Jackson talk page and place it on your watchlist. As the Janet article is part of the MJ project the visa versa will occur on the Janet Wikiproject. Thus the MJ article WILL be tagged inside the Janet Wikiproject as will all members of Janets family. This is a net gain for the MJ article and we have a vested interest in its success. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This user participates in
WikiProject Janet Jackson.

Glad to see all the enthusiasm, all further questions should now be delt with at the Project talk page here where we will discuss our first tasks. Put the project on your watchlist, add the badge to your user page by pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Janet Jackson/Userbox}} .Then add your name on the user project page here. Feel free to wish the JJ group your support, remember the MJ article will be a part of either WikiProject which will be very nice. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A NEW MAIN PHOTO

hi everybody. here is a good new pic of MJ from Christian Audigier 50th Birthday Party(2008)that we can use as a latest photo of him in replacement for article's old main photo.

Image:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/26/article-0-015E4F5900000578-231_468x649.jpg

this is the webpage, my suggested photo is the first photo of the article:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1021948/Reclusive-Michael-Jackson-parties-Britney-Fergie--refuses-sing.html

and another one:

Image:http://mjjpictures.free.fr/20062008/various/audigier/034.jpg

Unless you are the photographer and own the legal rights to these photos and agree to release them into public domain, we can't use them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

well...why don't you ask the photographer? please find a way like the way you've got the right of already present photos on the article. I've seen, we have always alot of problems about putting photos on MJpage even when very good photos are just available!!! but it doesn't seem so on the other wikipages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be totally honest guys. Seeing as Wikipedia strives for neutrality and accuracy, the hillbilly, whitetrash image of Michael Jackson just needs to go. Seriously, the viewer is almost automatically made to think that Mr. Jackson is a scumbag. I think a more neutral portrayal is needed. Besides, this was probably just some funny guy's work that hasn't gotten taken down yet. --Stanli121

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about, it might be my English, would you care to expand. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The existing photos are here because the copyright owner has licensed them appropriately (e.g. the main image) or because of public-domain status (e.g. the White House shot). Photos aren't simply "just available" -- and the fact that some other pages on Wikipedia violate copyright by stealing images from other sources is not a justification for doing so here, it's an argument for fixing the other pages.

Many contributors here have expressed frustration with Wikipedia's image policy, but it exists for good and sensible reasons, and we have to work within it. The pictures you've suggested are both owned by commercial picture agencies, who have no reason to give the copyright away -- their business depends on selling them, in fact, so I can see little value in pursuing that angle. Gusworld (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The pictures would be useful, but not as the main picture, the discoloration of his fingers could be used for the vitilgo part of the article. However we dont a right to use these pictures im afraid. Too bad. Until MJ comes offer to my end of the world I cant get a picture of him. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

VERY GOOD AND LETS MAKE IT BETTER_2

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

HI Realist2. I dont know why you erased it the time before but as I stated before:

i'm busy with my university exams and it will take along time, so i would appreciate if someone helps me with it.

i still wonder what is wrong with putting statements from both sources in every mentioned topic so people can read both of them.

you wanted me to reply so: please dont erase it and answer me about the last paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You havent provided any sources, you are bulking up this talk page unnessarily, i WILL NOT be answering anymore questions regarding this until you actually present valid sources that I can see. You have ranted about this for a number of weeks and have had plently of time to find stuff. Again I will wipe this off shortly as you are repeating yourself. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a great idea just to delete, but an unproductive discussion such as this seems to be can be marked as archived using {{discussiontop}} and {{discussionbottom}} if it's going nowhere. --Rodhull andemu 17:02, 1 June 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.

as you wish....i didn't want to annoy you Realist2, you are overreacting.I dont know why you treat me like this. everyone lives a comment and discuss it here. and... it is not for a number of weeks. by the way i cant help it. i'd do whenever i can.(sorry i didn't wanna make a new topic i tought you'd be angry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

a source about finances topic:

".....I handed Michael the phone back and he said, 'Oh that's OK, I'll pay.' And I said, 'Mike, I can't spend your money...The record company had no money in it, Michael had no money in it;.... "

^ Michael Jackson's Monster Smash. Telegraph (2007-11-25). Retrieved on 2008-04-20 page 3

seems its reliable for you. excuse me...but all you've made on me and finding it in sources brought in the article makes me wonder if you've read the sources you've brought carefuly. I just try not to doubt your realistic views. I'll come up with more as soon as I can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i read it again and read my book, it appears that he offered to pay for it, then changed his mind. Instead he made the documentary and convinced MTV to pay for the documentary and thus the video. This actually makes him look even smarter. Thanx for sorting that out. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome. and i think we can find more about the points i mentioned. ( you see that i just took it out from sources of article itself). by the way most of them are very personal (marriage and health) and no one can realy know about it exactly and it takes time to reveal the proof (I cant trust anything about it). that's why i say lets mention both contradicting statements with no tabloidy thing, wish you would agree ...any help is appreciated.peace.User:diclo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of it came from tabloids rather from well researched, published books, however if you spot any other obvious mistakes let us know. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I have set up a FAQ for this talk page, the banner is close to the top. Its designed to gives editers answers to questions. Firstly it stops editers having to ask the same questions unnessarly, also saving talk page space and time replying. We often get questions about photos and having "Jacko" in the lead, im sure theres a few others. Feel free to add to it, make sure any policy comments are accurate. We might consider potential questions here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Q1 - Why no recent Photos
A1 - Fair use and Free policies relating to photo's - Bad photos will be removed at FA reviews anyway

Q2 - Why no "Jacko" in lead
A3 - Archived consensus's not to, derogatory, only used in some countries and is discussed in relevant section of article.

Q3 - Is Jackson A Muslim
A3 - ~~Dont be stupid~~ Jackson has not said so in his own words

Q4 - This article is 95,000 bytes, isn't that a little long?
A4 - The Bob Dylan article is 140,000 bytes long and is a Featured article, as long as everything is note worthy it should be included.
- Suggestions made by Realist²

OK, I went ahead and did that, if you can make/suggest improvements or additions please do. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Media/Tabloids section

I was considering adding a section about how he is viewed and treated by the media. Clearly he deserves some of it but clearly a lot of it isnt his fault. I think we need to talk about what the media has done to his image and their obvious bias against him - such as not telling the truth about his vitiligo, saying he wouldnt employ people with AIDS, his successful lawsuits against the media and their behaviour at his trial.

Of course this is going to be a POV nightmare but its a dominant part of his life. I see it as MJ started it by making up wacky stories about himself and then the media started to make up (mostly) loads of rubbish.

I think this is going to be a challenge, particulary for me as i openly hate how he is treated, but its something that long needed to be addressed. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Michael's life has been very ridiculed over the years for no reason but it's important to point that out and do it in a way that both sides can agree on. Because not all of us are gonna agree about Michael Jackson, we're just not. Despite his overwhelming popularity and his legendary status, he is also one of the most polarizing figures in the last 50 years or so of popular culture so yeah we can bring attention to that part of his life and not seem like a fan-biased opinion but a more constructive one. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

what a great idea! thank you for bringin' it up. for an MJology page, it's realy needed cause they always play their role between MJ and people, positive or negative. someone who wants to know about MJ needs to even it out too.it challenges people's intelligence. nowhere in media they realy mention what they do to people because its media and when a kinda feeling like this comes, they cover it so fast, with a mass of earfillings to block MJ, what he does and peopl's intelligence.it needs to be mentioned separately as a new section and be discussed fairly.thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you reword your paragraph, im struggling to understand your point, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NO MEAT, NO ALCOHOL

it's better be mentioned in the article that he is a vegetarian and is against alcoholism. its stated by many sources.user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it mentions hes a vegetarian, we could add the alcohol thing too but im not sure thats as important. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MJ isnt a vegy anymore and he drinks alcohol too now. During his marriage to lisa marie and in 2003 he ate meat and drink alcohol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think eating or drinking something for several times or for a short period of time doesn't mean that someone's usual diet has changed.there are sources who has stated his usual diet after these times. user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was eating meat and drinking alcohol in 2003 unless you can give a source that says hes gone back to his old ways we can only ashume that he still drinks and eats meat. By the way, your still not signing correctly, you need to make your comment, click the "Sign your Username" button then press save. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Wow. I know you guys are working very hard on this and all, but it reads just like "The magic and the madness", which is a terrible book to use as a reference for MJ. A lot of the stuff taraborelli has written has been proven false. The way it was laid out and written before was far better IMO. What's with the use of Roger Friedman? Why not use accurate references, like The Visual Documentary and Moonwalk? Marnifrances (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we dont have either, since when is Moonwalk considered reliable or up to date? He says he only had 2 nose jobs in that i believe, its not independant. Nothing from Magic has been "Proven" wrong, its just not always a book fans like to swallow, however its the only third party book on jackson that comes close to reliable. If there is anything in the book that has been proven incorrect in court etc please provide a source and we can adjust. The book is generally well respected however, just not so much by MJ fans such as ourselves. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you work really hard on this and I hate to critcise, but IMHO, MATM is a really bad book to use for MJ. a lot of is wrong, especially from 1991-onwards. A lot of it certainly hasn't been "proven" right either. An example is Mj's work on invincible. RT says MJ was lazy and didn't want to work on it and actual people who worked with Mj in the studio say Mj worked VERY hard. Another example is that MJ's camp refuted claims MJ was treated for dependency on drugs in rehab 2003, (although Mj admits he was on painkillers in 2003). RT even says that Jackson wrote YANA. lol. It's sourced mostly by tabloids or "inside sources", as you can see in the references sections. I am not just talking about plastic surgery. Moonwalk would be a better source for earlier eras- how can first hand statements not be reliable?. The Visual Documentary would be the best, most reliable and up to date source. That's just one person's opinion though. Aside from that, the legacy and impact, Thriller, and music sections are great. Are you guys going to include something about the upcoming album? :) Marnifrances (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its neutral, it presents the good and the bad, something 1st person sources by Jackson simply cant bring. I checked my version and that YANA thing must have been corrected. You say Magic isnt reliable from 1991 onward. Moonwalker isnt either since it hasnt been republished in ages lol. We needed something for the 90's onward and his book is considered good my the media. As for you saying things in the book havent been proven right, remember that books are checked somewhat when published. Big lies dont last long before a law suit. Your interpretation of the invincible incident is different to mine. I thought he was saying that MJ did work hard but after three years it got obviously frustrating. In fairness MJ didnt write much of it himself so even I can say that he didnt put his usual heart and soul into it. The book never says he went into rehab in 2003 just that he had a dependancy to Morphine and Demerol (both are painkillers like MJ said himself). We will do the new album yeah, hopefully if he does it. Im not going to add anything though until dates are confirmed, have you seen the article for his new album, its nothing more than tabloid rumour. Since T25 came out I guess that will push the new album back a little. Are you still in contact with Jacksons people? I dont suppose they could give us some pictures of MJ? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I wish you had the visual documentary though- it's neutral as well. This quote in the article says it comes from the book: "In January 2004 following his upcoming trial, Jackson was being treated for a "dependency" to morphine and Demerol.[140]" Again, this was debunked by Raymone. He was not treated according to R. Bain. The only source for this is RT's book. In any case, it's just an observation that parts of the article read just like MATM. Anyways, moving on- The new album isn't tabloid. There's a massive list of quotes- we have them all on our site with sources and videos if you wish to check it out. http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=111 No one can get in contact with Jackson's people. lol. R. Bain has not been responding to anyone- no one knows who to contact. Sorry I can't help you more. As soon as we get a contact, I guess fans will know. :)Marnifrances (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could remove "treated", i suppose that could suggest multiple things including rehabilitation. Ill remove the word treated to be on the safe side. Ill wait for now on the new album, the date keeps changing and I dont think its going to be out till 2009 since T25 is still selling well. If your allowed to use those pictures on the website im ashuming you have copy rights? We are in real need of some up to date pictures the are fair/free use. Is there anyway to help get some on here? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there has never ever been a confirmed date for the new album, but there is no doubt whatsoever it's in the works- even MJ said that he's in the studio "every day" in the Ebony interview. We don't own copyrights, no. We use images from fansites that have been previously paid for from Getty etc and are usually watermarked. I really don't understand the free use images policy on wiki- maybe you can explain it to me? Does it have to be personally owned or taken? Otherwise, there are loads of previously paid for images on MJJpictures.com. Marnifrances (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A free image is one which the original copyright holder (typically the person who took the photograph) has personally uploaded the image to wikipedia and has given legal permission for it to be used on this site. Fair use images are images which are not released by the copyright holder, but uploaded by someone else with a detailed rational on why it can be used on a free encyclopedia under fair use laws. However, Fair use is not allowed on living people. Wikipedia specifies all images of living person must be accompanied by release from the copyright holder or be public domain. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you can help us. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand this. What is public domain? I honestly cannot make sense of it all. If it's something on the internet, I don't understand why you can't just use one from an online newspaper article. We do not own copyrights to any Michael Jackson images. Like I said, they are all from fansites who purchase the images from editorial picture websites like Getty, Rex, etc. You'd have to go to them to purchase or ask for permission to use an image. Wenn may be able to help you. I have also asked fans who have taken pictures of Michael if they'd be willing to contribute, but no one has a recent, clear image that they'd like to share. :( Marnifrances (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for asking people, when i say recent i mean anything from the 90's onward lol, are newest picture is 20 years old like. If anyone is willing to donate anything that would be amazing, if not dont worry. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

The main image is too long; would anybody mind if I crop it upto his bust (and maybe get rid of the hand on him too)? indopug (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the size too, maybe if we tried a few different crops and see what people are happy with. People are really sensitive about the whole pictures issue on this article. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed it for now. There was already one at Commons. indopug (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its much better. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince and Michael Jackson's Black Music on the "Radio"

I took out the following: "Thriller put black music on U.S. radio for the first time in years, paving the way for other acts, such as that of Prince."^[1]

It was reffed to a 1988 Washington Post column. I suppose by "U.S. radio" the poster meant mainstream pop radio, which at the time was racially polarized: there was plenty of black music on urban, disco and oldies stations in the 1980s. The Jacksons and Prince were not the only black voices on mainstream white pop radio at the time. Prince's popularity with both white and black fans predated Thriller, by the way: he had been a major star since about 1980 or so. There was a valid point being made, but it needs to made more accurately and with a more definitive reference. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go look for sources then instead of disruptively removing material. Im busy at the moment. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a philosophical issue: what exactly is/was "U.S. radio"? The most popular stations in most urban markets at the time tended to play disco & R&B, which of course played mostly black artists. But those were considered non-mainstream stations. However, then as now, most stations played rather narrow variations of mainstream rock and roll. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Im not going to get into philosophy with you, however what you did was completely inappropriate and you've done it in the past too. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We might need to add some clarification of exactly how Thriller "paved the way" for Prince's success when Prince's breakthrough albums came out BEFORE Thriller. Controversy and 1999 were both monster hits which got heavy airplay. Prince's first three albums were also very successful. (The answer might be on part that Off the Wall was also heavily played on the radio and sold very well, but that answer doesn't really fit into the narrative of this section. Off the Wall simply was not as spectacular a success as Thriller. ) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince hit his commercial peak after Thriller in 1984. But we dont need to get into the history of music, take it to the pop music article or hisory of black music. This is the michael jackson article, we dont have the space to waffle on about dribble here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

King of Pop should be identified as 'self-proclaimed' and not 'named'

i cant cite the exact source at the moment, but i am fairly certain that the label 'King Of Pop' was a self-proclaimed, and not given to to MJ by public or press as implied in the paragraph. I'm a fan of MJ, but i am also a big fan of nuance accuracy, and the current wording implies inaccurate acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisattva (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the source which is cited in the body of the article under the BAD era:

Well, he was suddenly called “The King of Pop.” Of course, the artist was none other than Michael Jackson, but now he had this official-sounding title tacked onto his name. Where did this royal title come from? Did the media name him that? Did he bestow it upon himself? How would Elvis feel about it? These were questions asked by many at that time. Regardless of its mysterious origins (most accounts said it was self-imposed, although Jackson claims it was taken from friend Elizabeth Taylor’s speech about him at an awards ceremony), the nickname stuck. The premiere of “Black or White” was broadcast simultaneously in 27 countries on November 14, 1991 with an estimated audience of 500 million people — the largest audience ever to view a music video. Michael Jackson was back, and the world took notice.
Michael Jackson talks with Access Hollywood about his return to studio

calling it self-imposed without verifiable information is original research. At least with this article, there is a explaination from Jackson as to where the title came from. If there is a source quoting Jackson calling himself the king of pop, the article can be changed accordingly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would need proof that MJ said "Hey guys I'm the King of Pop" and it would have to be a source from a long time ago, when the name first started being used. If next week he says "Im the King of Pop" that doesnt mean "HE" came up with the name. Its quite hard to prove he started it off, especially when all the sources for that come from unreliable tabloids. You would need a very good source for it - eg His own words. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He actually stated in the 1993 Oprah interview that "I didn't proclaim myself to be anything" and said that Elizabeth Taylor first said 'The king Of pop". In the same interview, Liz Taylor actually says herself "That's why i called him the King of Rock, Pop, everything" These are the direct quotes from the interview-

Oprah: Liz Taylor said you were king of pop, rock and soul. Where did this whole
notion that you proclaimed yourself king of pop come from? Michael: Well, I didn't proclaim myself to be anything. I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am, king of pop was first said by Elizabeth Taylor on one of the award shows. Oprah: And that's where this all started? Michael: Yes, and the fans ... all the stadiums that we played at they'd bring banners saying king of pop and jackets that say king of pop and T-shirts that say king of pop and they chanted outside my hotel, so it just became something that just happened all over the world.
Elizabeth: Uh, and he just, if, if he has any eccentricities, it's that he is like larger than life and some people just cannot accept that or face it or understand it. His talent on
stage, why I call him the King of pop, rock, soul, music, entertainment, whatever,

http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/interviews/oprahinterview.html Marnifrances (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, he has said multiple times he didn't start it, unless there is a strong source we would be accusing him of lying. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

small problem in the LEAD

MJ does not hold the record for the most number one singles in the Billboard Hot 100 era. Both Elvis Presley and Mariah Carey have 18, while Jackson holds 13. If there is a source for this within the article it must be outdated or simple inaccurate. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That "claim" must be removed in the lead. Lets add it until it is proven. --Efe (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SOURCED in relevant section here, it says male only though so I will change that if needs be. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the source and while the claim is there, its still technically inaccurate considering Elvis Presley who has 17 (also credited with 18) number one hit singles on the Billboard hot 100, which even the wikilink in the LEAD mentions. We all love the King of Pop, but the true fact is the King of Rock n Roll still reigns. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After doing a little more research, I'm not sure if they are crediting Jackson because he reached number one AFTER the creation of the Hot 100. Presley officially has 17-18 number one singles, but some or all may have been credited to him after the creation of the Hot 100. Its a matter of perspective. In order to keep it in the LEAD you may have to specify more than any other male artist after the creation of the Billboard hot 100.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, I heard about this issue a long time ago, Elvis's #1s are split between two different era's I believe. Im quite supprised, Ive read that claim for Jackson quite a few times, I thought it was well known. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a heart attack. MJ's still BAD. *smile* The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad? Lol, hes Bad, Dangerous, Off the Wall and Invincible. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist 2: You do many good things here, but I don’t get this:

Before: “Jackson began a solo career in 1972 while still a member of the group.” After: “Still a member of the group; he began a solo career in 1972.” The first version is fine and clear. Your version is awkward and uses a semicolon incorrectly. What gives with edits like this? (And unfortunately, it is not possible to fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exguyparis (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Music video issue

Hi, currently the introduction includes the claim "He transformed the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool." In the body of the article this claim is referenced to the Allmusic.com biography which actually reads "and he was the first black artist to find stardom on MTV, breaking down innumerable boundaries both for his race and for music video as an art form."

I suggest a more accurate sentence for this article would be "His music videos broke new ground for the art form". Firstly, because he is not the sole creator of the innovations found in his early solo videos (which I bleive is implied by the current sentence); secondly, the reference does not mention Jackson as the instigator or catalyst for turning music video into an art form, OR the use of music video as a promotional tool. One needs only look at the wikipedia Music video article to find other promotional videos which pre-date Jacksons innovations. Hey, he made great videos, so there is no need for hyperbole. If you agree then I suggest a suitable change should be made.--Design (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of promotional tool, its not sourced in that specific source I agree, however the music video section as a whole shows this. The line:

"He transformed the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool."

Is nothing more than a summary of what is presented as the section progresses. I agree that the "art form" issue could do with some tweeking, this I will consider. It might be more appropriate so find a better source for that statement as I imagine it would be easy to find. Certainly it was the first time that an artist treated it like a serious art form. I will look into this issue definately. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This Paragraph is Very choppy

Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music in the late 1970s as the first black entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV.

" Following On MTV" That doesnt make any kind of sense. I think "prior to MTV" or "prior to the MTV Era" could sound better. Also whats "crossover" without stating "audience"

"The popularity of his videos aired on MTV, such as "Beat It" and "Billie Jean", helped bring the relatively young channel to fame;"

"The popularity of his videos aired on MTV" That doesnt make sense. Maybe whosoever wrote this part meant "Most popular". Also if its his populularity videos, why exclude the most famous video on the planet Thriller from that part. Especially at the rise of a young channel to fame.

"videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" made Jackson a staple on MTV into the 1990s."

...This is a independent sentence. Another problem with this sentence is..

"made Jackson a staple on MTV into the 1990s"

As I recalled Black or White was released 1992 and Scream was released 1995 so I just think " Into the 1990's" would sound better as "In the 1990's"

Jackson's Thriller has been credited for transforming music video into both an art form and a promotional tool; a concept he would continue to expand upon during his career. Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk.

"Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk."

Sounds good but a LITTLE detail would help. Perhaps saying " With Performances and Music Videos, Jackson would popularize.........etc

His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists.

I think those are edits that would help to have a better read. It doesnt require quotes just a little grammitical adjustment. No disrespect. This is a free encyclopedia and everyone can help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds a little better.

Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music in the late 1970s as the first black entertainer to amass a strong crossover audience prior to MTV. The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV, such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean", and Thriller, helped bring the relatively young channel to fame. Videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" kept Jackson a staple on MTV in the 1990s. Jackson's Thriller has been credited for transforming the music video into both an art form and a promotional tool; a concept he would continue to expand upon during his career. With stage performances and music videos, Jackson popularized physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A)There was no arbitrary date that the "MTV era" began.
B)The Thriller music video is mentioned in the next line for the artistic aspect, there is no need to mention the video twice.
C)"With performances and music videos" isn't needed, it's unnecessary puffery of something that it quite self explanatory and only bloats a well cut lead. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what the lead is saying. The lead is saying that Jackson had a "strong crossover following on MTV." This means that there were (white people /& rock fans) who followed Jackson as a result of his MTV stuff. "following" means the same as"audience"/"followers". You just need to read the lead carefully and it will be clear. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my suggestions R2. Ive seen a lot of rewrites of this page since I joined wikipedia in 2005 and a lot of main editors, and vandalism, but you dedicate to this page very nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes some of your suggestions were introduced, im not sure if I've warmed to them yet but I'm glad we could compromise. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Forthcoming album

I'm not sure if this has been thoroughly discussed before, but I noticed that information about Michael Jackson's forthcoming album has been removed from the 2008-present section. Which is intriguing, considering the obvious fact that he is working on an album. The details of which we are probably not certain, but that it is not mentioned at all is weird.

Not long ago I added some information back into the 2008-present section, and made a move of two other sub-sections. It was reverted on the grounds that there was no discussion about it and that I was using forum sources. I admit that I may have been hasty to make the moves without discussion, but for adding the information about the forthcoming album, I really see no reason not to, and nor was I given any from the reverting user's edit summary. As for the sources, I simply (and unknowingly) used the ones already existing in the article about the forthcoming album. One can remove or replace them if you see it as necessary, but they account for only a small part of the article or of my addition, and thus its entire removal I do not comprehend.

I have added back the information about the forthcoming album, and have removed the part sourced by a forum (but which I believe is not disputable and a replacement source could easily be found). I am open to discussion and also propose to move the two sub-sections that I have previously moved, about physical appearance and finances, and put them independently as sections or otherwise. This is due to the fact that they do not form a chronical part of Michael Jackson's biography, and thus putting them at the end of the biography section is not suitable. Naurmacil (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also propose redirecting pages such as King of pop, King of Pop, etc. to the album instead of the singer, now that it is actually an album name; or, at least, make a note about it at the top. I suspect that there will be many more who are searching for the album instead of the singer now with that.Naurmacil (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And the news - Akon released brand new song featuring Michael Jackson. This should be the first song featuring actual vocal contribution by Michael Jackson in a few years - which is pretty big news, and I just noticed it. [1] Naurmacil (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material, firstly we have NO idea when/if this album will ever be released. This has been going on since 2006 and every few months the alleged release date it pushed back. There will be no speculation in the article sorry. Until Sony announce a release date of a new studio album it shouldn't be mentioned. No more tabloid stories, those days are gone. If you can get reliable sources by the BBC etc that give dates (I've looked, no luck there) then fine. At the minute you are adding poorly sourced material in chunks, something that cant happen now that this article is so close to FA. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. True, we don't know the dates, and that was clearly written in the articles; what we know, however, is that he's definitely working on an album, and with the likes of Akon and Ne-Yo. That's it. And that itself is worthy of mention, as is the case in every article of a major singer. Naurmacil (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As for this edit, I find no forum or fansite in the material you removed. Does not your opinion of my edit's lack of credibility derive more from your own lack of willingness to read? Naurmacil (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources (not perfect, I just picked some recent ones and they are a bit off-topic) and added them to the article. Naurmacil (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Too credulous a tone in health concerns

In the section covering michael health concerns, particularly with respect to his skin bleaching, it is matter of factly explained that his dramatic change in skin coloration was due to vitalliago, lupus and drugs he is taking for health reasons rather than any cosmetic proceedures. These explanations are the explanations released by his publicist. Many physicians have commented that they are implausible or unlikely. Shouldn't we make it clear that these are alleged explanations offered in his defense by people loyal to him not independently verified facts?

The reasons for his rhinoplasty are also handled in a similarly unskeptical way.

I am not saying that we can say these explanations are wrong, but I think they should be charecterized as claims rather than facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalchik (talk • contribs) 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not claims made by his publicist at all, stop reading tabloids. This "defense" was made by someone who is even handed to slightly negative when it comes to MJ. Why do you think he married the person who had been treating his illness for 20 years? Why do you think the police checked his penis for vitiligo in 1993? Since you can out and called it bleaching you exposed your biased opinion right off. Wikipedia isn't about presenting to finds of a story for the sake of tabloid readers, its about telling the truth. Regards — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really funny, in the very same section, the very same sources are used to describe Jackson's quite shooking drug problems. Yet you don't have a problem with the book being used for that piece of negative information, interesting, very intersting. It seems sources aren't good enough when they don't fit your opinions but when they do, oh thats ok. Quite clearly that book wasn't written or influenced by Jackson's or his publicist as you suggest. Regards. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Expand 1993 allegations info?

OK at the moment this is all we have to document the 1993 abuse allegations against Jackson:

By the summer of 1993 it was revealed that Jackson allowed children to sleep over at his Neverland ranch, a fact which came under much media and public scrutiny when child molestation allegations were brought against him. Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of molestation. On December 22, Jackson responded to the allegations via satellite from his Neverland ranch and stated that he was "totally innocent of any wrongdoing". The new year saw Jackson settled the issue out of court for an undisclosed sum, reported to be $20 million, Chandler refused to testify.

Originally this did have an article of its own but it was deleted some months back. Thus it seems likely that it needs more coverage here. I wanted to add some details about the strip search he had and his famous response on MTV (I think). Thoughts? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a large expansion, no one complained and the small amount of info was absurd. — Realist² (Speak) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to add that the 1993 out of court settlement Michael Jackson made with the boy and his father was a Civil Settlement that had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. The civil settlement was filed by Evan Chandler when the investigation had just started. Meaning Michael Jackson faced two potential court hearings. The first one would have been the Civil case, which would have meant the Chandler's and the Police would have known Michael Jackson's Lawyers defense strategy.

Michael Jackson's criminal investigation still went ahead after the out of court settlement, and the boy and his family could still have co-operated with the investigation if their goal was really justice ? . Since the 1993 out of court civil case settlement, the law has been changed in California so Civil law suits can't be filed until after the criminal investigation and any trial has been completed.

The fact that Michael Jackson made an out of court settlement on the civil court case, is often used and twisted by the media as an admission of guilt, when it is a completely different kind of legal hearing to a criminal trial like the 2005 trial to which Michael Jackson was acquitted. I think civil court case should be highlighted as a link as should criminal court case to show the difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I altered it so that it reads more clearly;

On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court for $22 million; Jordan refused to testify in criminal procedings, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

Does that clear it up for you? Hope that helps? :-) — Realist² (Speak) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good piece of text, but it the term "civil court" should mentioned, as your text still gives the impression Michael Jackson's out of court settlement is connected to the Chandler and that being the reason why Jordon decided not to co-operate in further criminal proceedings. No one knows why Jordon decided not to co-operate further with the Police (who could have forced him to continue to co-operate), because no one knows what the deal was for the out of court settlement. By USA law both the loser and winner of any civil case are not allowed to talk about any agreements and technicalities as to why they won, lost or settled any civil case. Because Jackson isn't allowed to talk about the out of court "civil" settlement, and because the Chandler's by their own choice decided not to co-operate any further with the police investigation, the public at large assume Jackson bought and silenced Chandler's and that stopped to Police investigation. Even after the out of court settlement Jackson was still under Police investigation over Jordan Chandler's allegations for another 8 months.

I would also like to point out that unlike in 2003, Michael Jackson was never charged by the Police of child abuse in 1993, he was just investigated by allegation Jordan Chandler and his father made after visiting "Civil Lawyer" Larry Feldman before a child psychologist (who's connected to Feldman) contacted the Police. In 2003 many television News programs and newspapers wrongly stated that Michael Jackson was charged in 1993. The fact no one ever mentions the out of court civil settlement was a different type of legal proceeding gives the wrong impression that Michael Jackson was charged, and that the investigation reached a criminal trial, which it never did. Some people may find Jackson's friendship with Jordan questionable because unproven allegations were made against him. But the actions of the Chandler family are also questionable, in the fact they launched a civil law suite at the begining of the investigation. Then when they got money from Jackson(paid by his insurance policy)they decided not to co-operate with the Police any further.

In this part of Jackson's life their are two sides to the story, Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson's. Neither of them are by law allowed to talk about what did or didn't happen, but the media have put it upon themselves to tell Jordan's side themselves with lazy journalism that misses out facts like the "Civil Court Case" was separate to the Police investigation to make Michael Jackson look guilty. Michael Jackson's side of the story isn't told or respected in the media. Only GQ magazine have attempted to tell Jackson's side of this story through people connected to Jackson.

I think your text though good, but should be re-edited to read On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, for the civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan refused to co-operate any further with Police criminal procedings. Jackson was never charged, and state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

I don't think it's everything needs to be told about the 1993 abuse allegations (as I would write a lot more info). But I do wish for the public who want to find out more about Michael Jackson to know that the out of court settlement was a seperate legal case to the criminal investigation. And Evan Chandler (Jordan's father) filed the civil lawsuit against Jackson at the begining of the investigation, as that is those are very important facts that the public should know, regardless of what they think of Michael Jackson in connection to that investigation. If you could add some of this info to your text to give a more accurate account what happened on the legal front in this case, it would be really appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I will include your specific, it is clearer. I don't intend to write any more details about it though. The article gives 3 paragraphs on the case and the allegations have their own article. I will add your further suggestion though. Also, do you have a copy of this GQ magaine? It would be very useful as a source. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your updated text is great. I do have a copy of the GQ magazine, what kind of information would you like from it.

I will take this discussion about GQ mag to your talk page. — Realist² (Speak) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

King Of Pop Rock And Soul

Check out this video from youtube. Relevency? Its when Elizabeth Taylor said "the king of pop rock and soul." It might be able to be incorporated.If not.... It's still funny to watch and see. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8u5zuToIX8

Unfortunately we aren't allowed to use youtube as a source but it's still nice to look at, hehe. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson is the Self-Proclaimed King of Pop, then Elvis Presley is the Self-Proclaimed King, The Rolling Stones are the Self-Proclaimed Greatest Rock'N'Roll Band in the World, James Brown is the Self-Proclaimed Godfather of Soul and Madonna the Self-Proclaimed Queen of Pop. Because all those title were created by themselves or their record companies. So I don't see why Michael Jackson shouldn't be known as The King of Pop because he talented, successful and iconic enough to have that title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Elvis wasn't the "self-proclaimed" King. He was given that title by a news reporter in the press, and it stuck the same way "Elvis The Pelvis" stuck. Elvis would never accept that he was the King of anything, very often citing Jesus as the "only King". The others I can't speak for, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were given their titles in similar fashions. 81.151.69.169 (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Start of solo career

On Michael Jackson's page it states "Jackson began a solo career in 1972". Michael Jackson's solo career started in 1971 when he released his first single Got To Be There.

His first album Got To Be There was released in 1972, but it's the 1971 single that started his solo career. Plus in 2001, Michael Jackson held two 30th Anniversary concerts at Madison Square Garden in New Your to celebrate 30yrs as a solo artist since the release of his first single Got To Be There. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to 1971, thank you. — Realist² (Speak) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Winfrey interview

This did not take place in late 1992 but early 1993 (February 10 to be precise [2]). Should it therefore be moved out of the Dangerous section and into the next section? Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware, I just wanted to keep it separate from the allegations and marriage, I will move it to the correct place. — Realist² (Speak) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

hundreds of edits today

Can someone explain why tons of tiny edits are showing up: why can't these be done in larger chunks? Also, I see now the function of the "age" template in the infobox, but stating his age, to me, is not a high priority. Can the template be made to optionalise the autoformatting of the date? It looks funny with "age ..." in black and the birth date in bright-blue underlined. Tony (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because English isn't my first language and I make LOADS of mistakes :-) Feel free to have whatever date system you want, it's all yours, but oddly it caused quite a stir with numerous reverts. — Realist² (Speak) 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FA Status

To all the Jackson haters - HARHAR.--Manboobies (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. — Realist² (Speak) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Someone's written "big fagget" at the beginning paragraph. Can someone revert the article and lock it for a while. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of, the article already has a minor form of protection, if things worsen (which I don't think they will) then it will be fully protected, but that is very unlikely. Thanx. — Realist² (Speak) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We won't be seeing that user account operating again. Semi may be justified as a long-term protection but we really can't keep it fully locked down unless it's under concentrated attack or the subject of edit warring. --Rodhull andemu 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring? Oh god, wait til he releases a new studio album, I can already hear the POV pushers marching. — Realist² (Speak) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Well thanks guys for the removal, and to whoever that wrote "big fagget", take some English lessons. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction should be shorter

The introduction to this Article should be shorter and easy to read quickly without requiring any scrolling on a typical screen. The user who wants more detail will, of course, keep reading.

Right now, if I view it on a 800x600 screen, the introduction takes around 2.5 screens. Even on a 1600x1000 screen, with the font size set to a size that I find comfortable, the introduction doesn't fit on one screen. Rahul (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the article has just passed FA review almost unanimously and the consensus was that the lead was a strong point. The size is perfectly in proportion to the rest of the article and shouldn't be cut at the expense of neutrality. — Realist² (Speak) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro is perfect. Size is not an issue. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of one concerned with the throughness and accuracy of the Article, I'm sure the introduction is excellent. It's comprehensive enough to stand alone, and doesn't exceed four paragraphs, as the Wikipedia guidelines state. I'm sure the people involved in the FA review were looking for qualities such as thoroughness, accuracy, and neutrality.

But I'm sure people not looking for thoroughness are not represented on the FA panel or in the comments above. From the point of view of one who wishes to scan many articles looking for specific types of facts, looking only briefly at each article, the introduction for this one fails quite badly. It takes too long to read and then to skip past and reach the table of contents. Note that the Wikipedia provides a "Hide" link for the table of contents but not for the introduction.

The same thoroughness could be achieved by making the current introduction into a separate section entitled Overview, and replacing the current introduction with a far briefer one. This would let the person wishing to do a quick survey of many articles (a) read the revised introduction in a few seconds, and then see (b) the table of contents without scrolling down, and then (c) optionally read the Overview, with no loss of flexibility, but with a significant gain in efficiency. Rahul (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't how things are done. — Realist² (Speak) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to extend this argument indefinitely, so I will conclude with: I intended this to be not about how things are done, but about how they ought to be done, and why they ought to be done that way. Rahul (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. You could propose it on the talk page of WP:LEAD and see what feedback you get there.Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that would be something that would have to be applied to all articles on wikipedia, and this talk page is not going to reach that type of consensus for the entire community. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

problem of priority in the LEAD

The lead seems to consider MJ's greatest claim to fame is his crossover potential on MTV. While that was an important ingredient in his fame, the prioritization of it is extremely reductive. In any case, MJ differed from his contemporaries in many ways. Motown artists tended to favor simple, even stilted dance moves; Michael Jackson transferred virtuosic elements of funk, and later breakdancing, into the genre. But unlike funk and rock artists of his time, Michael Jackson's songs, sometimes co-written with composer Quincy Jones, had a crossover appeal reminiscent of Motown's earlier artists. MJ's already vigorous appeal exploded across generations and demographics because he was recognized as a figure with a unique combination of talents in otherwise divergent areas of songwriting, dancing, and singing. The introduction should emphasize the uniqueness of that mixture before it proceeds to discussion of MTV, which was an important boost AFTER his first mega-successes with album sales. Blcarson (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While it was obviously important, he was already an international star, and the MTV factor doesn't explain his popularity outside the US – even Europe didn't get MTV or any equivalent until 1987 (and then, limited to the then-tiny number of people with satellite dishes), let alone Asia. I'm not convinced by "credited for transforming the music video into an art form and a promotional tool", either – Bohemian Rhapsody had already opened that particular door. – iride scent 09:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What about adding this (which is sourced within the article);

Jackson's versatility allowed him to experiment with various themes and genres. As a musician, he has ranged from Motown's dance fare and ballads to techno-edged new jack swing to work that incorporates both funk rhythms and hard rock guitar.

Thoughts. — Realist² (Speak) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New Album

I know you have said realist, that you don't believe sources that Mj's making a new album, but so many collaborators have been quoted- direct quotes- as working on Mj's new studio album. This was a quote from a Ne-yo article today:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24173707-5003421,00.html

The concept for the album is to try to turn the focus back on Michael Jackson musician rather than public freak.
"We're trying to get people to ignore the rumours about his personal life and get back to the reason why we loved Michael Jackson in the first place, the entertainment value," Ne-Yo says. "We want to get the music right. He's still dancing, doing his thing; it should be good."

They cannot all be talking about T25 or the KOP releases- Ne-yo has worked on neither. It is a fact there is new music in the works. Several people who have not worked on T25 or KOP have said they are working on new music with MJ. I think this definitely needs a mention, as well as the leak of Akon & Mj's "Hold My Hand" single, and upcoming fashion line as confirmed by Christian Audigier.

Here's the list of quotes by collaborators for the new album: http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnifrances (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

These rumors have been going around for two years now, I'm bored of adding it then deleting it when it never occurs. Even the article dedicated to it was deleted because it was such a joke. Nothing is being added to the article until it is confirmed by Jackson or sony, we can't trust the tabloid spin machine to tell the truth, it's just lie after lie. Vegas, Jackson 5 reunion, huge statue in dessert, various claims of new album, they hyped up him performing Thriller at the award show. It's all B.S. When we have official dates and statements, we add. Besides even "confirmed" projects never end up happening with Jackson, it's best to wait until we can see it before our own eyes. I don't own the article though so I'm leaving the debate open to all. — Realist² 05:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. There is no indication of a title or an actual release date. It will not be added to the biography or discography section until both are set in place. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for breaking news. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is direct quotes from the artists not enough? What I gave you is not tabloid sources, they are direct quotes, from interviews with the artists. Even Raymone Bain confirmed Jackson was working on new music. I don't understand how this is not enough to even just say "MJ's publicist confirmed in 2007 that Jackson was working on new music". Also, as per the direct quotes by the collaborators, no one is allowed to give out titles, release dates, etc. What about the "Hold My Hand" single? That was leaked in July and has been confirmed as the lead single from Akon's new album. You could at least put something about that in the article- because it's a definite. Marnifrances (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why mention the single? It would only get a mention in the main article if it was notable (charted well/critical acclaim), neither have occurred yet. We avoid recentism unless it's notable. We don't know if "Hold my Hand" will become notable. Until the is a confirmed date/title the album won't be mentioned, this isn't new to wiki policy or tradition, particularly regarding a featured article. — Realist² 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said your source was a tabloid. However, even if it were a source from the associated press in Jackson's own words there is no point in adding it until we have a confirmed title and release date (implying the album is actually finished), otherwise it falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand. Loads of leaked singles make artists' wikipedia page. If you want notability, there are hundreds of articles about the song, including on Billboard. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003824224 And we seriously can't say 'it is confirmed Michael Jackson is working on "new Music"?' at least? Marnifrances (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your right, leaked songs appear on many articles, not featured articles though. I'm sorry, I'm not budging on this album thing, but others can still say their piece. — Realist² 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You'll notice the vast majority of music articles on wikipedia are nowhere near Featured Article quality. Coincidence? i think not. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's really sad, considering that it is relevant, notable (both album and Akon single) and tells people who don't know about MJ that he is actually working. I'd be curious to see what other people think. Marnifrances (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

^ Harrington, Richard (1988-10-09). "Prince & Michael Jackson: Two Paths to the Top of Pop". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[WashPost1-1] Harrington, Richard (1988-10-09). "Prince & Michael Jackson: Two Paths to the Top of Pop". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[1]