Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Exaggerated numbers

What's with all the exaggerated numbers in this article? A billion people watched his memorial? I don't think so. Where did that number come from? Who did the estimate? And 750 million albums sold? The sources I've seen put the figure at 250 million. This looks more like a fan page than an encyclopedia. 174.114.14.202 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of siblings

There are in fact 10 Jackson siblings... Michael is the eighth. His younger brother, Brandon, died shortly after birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DansHistory (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 November 2011‎
I'm not able to edit this and it's frustrating! The article actually says he's the eighth after saying he's the seventh.

Actually, there are eleven Jacksons, if you count Joe Jackson's illegitimate daughter Joh'Vonnie Jacksons. But who's counting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.236.150 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011‎
I am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.234.101 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2012‎

Removal of stuff june 9th

I have removed lots of the trivia HERE that was added and also removed the guess work sourced to a fan site. done as per Wp:article size and wp:fansite. Article sizes does not mean content should be removed because of size...but I do believe the additions are the type that were removed before because of this. Is there any info others see that can be saved if so pls speak up.! Moxy (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Why are there repeated citations to anti Michael Jackson fansites, like "MJfacts.info"? It would seem to me some people are attempting to promote their own websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.136.82 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2012‎

Edit request on 4 December 2012

he donated more than 300 million dollars to charity.

Saikrishnan78 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

sources - http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5811/2009-06-28.html http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/charities.html http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090704004919AAomxLn http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/michael-jackson http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-money-has-michael-jackson-donated-to-charity-and-aid-to-people-in-his-life http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1058618

how many more do you need?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.87.203 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Associated acts

Michael Jackson was also associated with Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, USA for Africa, Janet Jackson and a lot more people. Somebody type down these people. It's not like MJ was the King of Nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.7.210 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pianist

Michael Jackson was not a professional pianist. This is not a controversial statement. It's a very basic fact. Now, in pop music, there are many singers who are also professional pianists: Randy Newman, Billy Joel, Elton John, Rufus Wainwright, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles are all good examples. But Jackson is not an example of one of these singer-pianists. Jackson is a wonderful singer, no doubt. But it is very misleading to list him as a piano player.

  • For better or worse, the commonly accepted Wikipedia standard seems to be to describe celebrities in terms of pretty much everything they've ever done in the public sphere. That's why Bruce Willis is listed as a "musician," for example.Flourdustedhazzn (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Funeral broadcast

The article currently contends that over one billion people watched the broadcast of Mr. Jackson's funeral. The citation meant to support this astounding claim actually insists that the number was somewhere between 2.5 and 3 billion people. Given the obvious falsehood of this claim, the citation should be deleted. Ideally, so should the claim, since it is preposterous. Flourdustedhazzn (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree - reworded "Jackson's death triggered a global outpouring of grief and a live broadcast of the public memorial service viewed around the world" - lets see what others say.Moxy (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Michael Jackson really sell more than 750 million units?

According to several secondary sources the total amount of Thriller album sales, as well as the total sales of all his musical work, are wrong. Throughout time, numerous contradicting figures have been published, that we should consider before making any final claim.

Some sources, listed chronologically
  • Tour Dates [UK] (2004) 135 million albums (including 47 million alone for Thriller)

These are the sources that we also should take in consideration (some, because there are other more):

According, the Wall Street Journal, the claim that Michael Jackson sold around 750 million, is an inflated figure which was originally stated in 2006 by a primary source, Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, without any factual evidence and probably in an effort to promote album sales. Reference. Later, this exaggerated figure was included in Wikipedia citing a fansite (Exclusivemj or MJTMC) as the source of the information (clearly a primary and a non-reliable reference according to Wikipedia standards). At that moment, this piece of information was published on Wikipedia, it turned into a fact that various sources adopted without contrasting it with more serious and reliable sources, as is the case of MTV and Billboard in 2006. In 2009, at the moment of Michael Jackson death and funeral, this figure was restated once more by several reliable and non-reliable sources, supporting their statements on Wikipedia and Raymone Bain.

ImpreMedia, is another source that states that the 750 million sold is an statistical fallacy.

Adrian Strain, a musical expert and a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said: When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody. We had to go to the Guinness Book of World Records." This statement demonstrate that even the musical industry, has difficulty finding the real amount of albums sold, which cause them to repeatedly commit mistakes.

Therefore, as there are reliable secondary sources that state that the 750 million units sold is a true fact, there are sources that state the contrary. In an effort to keep the neutrality and reliability of the article I suggest the addition of a note next to the 750 million statement (350-400 million), as follows:.

According to the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, the 750 million units sold by Michael Jackson is an inflated figure that was initially claimed by Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, without any factual evidence and probably in an effort to promote album sales. From 2006 until present time, several sources such as MTV, Reuters and Billboard have claimed that Michael Jackson has sold 750 million units, however, Adrian Strain, a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said that this figure is unreal. (ref=, ref=, ref=....)

In that way we will prevent biased information and allow the readers to judge by themselves what to believe. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful. We don’t have to cherry-pick statements, we have to show all that’s in front of us, especially when it comes from reliable and trustworthy sources.

Thanks. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • support: After a long period of searching, the user Chrishonduras has found several facts that wouldn't be rejected because of the sources above mentionated. Here is the original page, in spanish, that contains the original conduct from the user. Most interesting about is that everything could be possible traced back to this Wikipedia's version, as from some user(s) had edited the article with the wrong numbers. --Phoenix58 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Support per above. Dan56 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - as it is best to explain the problem to our readers - We all know that newspapers are not a reliable source for albums sales whats so ever and never will be (A few refs above just mimic whats was here at Wikipedia at the time) .Moxy (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. But if that quote will appear in the article, it needs to be reworded. Something like "According to Raymone Bain, who was the singer publicist at that time, Jackson sold over 750 million by 2006. Diverse newspapers and news sites consider the sales "inflated", ...". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you all for participating, that's it. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) PD Tbhotch si deseas modificar la cita, adelante.

1/16/2013

My sources are not the problem. ABC News, FOX News, People Magazine, and Katherine Jacksons own book are plenty reliable. And last time I checked, there are a million things that are on wikipedia that are not sourced, if everyone knows its true then its on there, google it for god sakes, are you trying to tell me this is not true? Are you denying the existence of this women? I think because you dont like the fact it is true that you dont want it on there, you have some kind of power trip. This is a fact, not my opinion. MJ has a half sister, anyone who knows anything about this family knows this, there are pictures, articles, recordings, oh and didnt I mention its written about in Katherine Jacksons own book! Get a clue and come down off your high horse, you are not a wiki-God, you dont get to pick and choose what the truth is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Three sources were given for the information about a reported half-sister. None are strictly reliable. A reliable source is not merely about where it is published, but the manner, and specific wording, of the text being used to support contentious information. Pay close attention to the sources themselves, and the wording and nature of the sources:
  • One source was to Joe Jackson (manager), a Wikipedia article. For rather obvious reasons, Wikipedia cannot use itself to support some bit of information. Sources need to come from outside of Wikipedia. The information in that article was not itself supported by any sources, so has been removed.
  • This source: [1] doesn't directly confirm the fact. Instead it refers obliquely to a "Fox News Report" but does not show that any investigation was done on the information. It also isn't a particularly in depth, it mentions the name in passing. A source for something contentious should be above reproach and in depth, not so brief and questionable. So, we have a Fox News report that we don't have access to check, and a single sentence in a fluff piece. This is not a reliable source regardless of the web site hosting it.
  • This source: [2] is a nearly incomprehensible rant on a message board. Sorry, but anybody can post anything on message boards. It isn't a reliable source.
If this is all we have, this in no way has the claim been verified to say that, unambiguously, this woman was his half sister, nor do we have any evidence that others besides herself consider her claim credible. At best we have her own unverified claims. This has no bearing on whether or not her claims are, or are not, true. That is irrelevent to this discussion. What is relevant is if we can verify that her claims are true (or at least widely considered credible) and we have zero evidence of that in the three sources that have been provided. If it is true, please provide in-depth, credible sources which show that likely. What has been provided so far does not cut it. --Jayron32 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Your addition of that information is, as of now, invalid. The evidence you are presenting is not enough to support the claim; for something so serious like that you'll need a much more reliable secondary reference. I am not referring to the source(s), but to the half-paragraph mention which you claim backs up the idea of an affair. That something is mentioned in ABC news is not enough. And no, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. While not outright discounting the claim, you will need a heck of a lot more to insert that blurb into the biography. Once you have it, please post it here so it can be discussed and agreed upon. I will remind you at this point of WP:3RR. Continual edit warring can and will result in a temporary preventive editing block. Find valid sources, and bring them forth. That's how it works around here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
wow, this goes back to you thinking you are a wiki-God. I think the fact that it is written in Katherine Jacksons book, My Family, is pretty clear evidence this women exists and is related to the family. I think if you spent a mere 10 minutes on the internet, you would understand this women is alive, real, and related. I do not have access to the womens birth certificate. You seem to be applying an insurmountable standard of evidence in order to place this fact on the page. Not even the Jackson family themselves can come up with enough evidence to satisfy what you are looking for. Im sorry, but if you dont see/understand/realize that this women is Joes daughter, hence then making her Michaels half-sister, then it boggles my mind that someone such as yourself would be allowed to edit wiki articles. What would be good enough for you? Do you want MJ to come back from the dead and say this is true? Get a clue. You just dont like this fact so you dont want it there. There are MILLIONS of things on wiki that are unsourced, but they are on there because it is general knowledge and fact. I am not EVER going to stop editing this page with that fact because it is true, you cant get around it, you dont get to pick and choose what truths of MJ's life we get to tell and what we will hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to mention, why is this fact presented on Katherine and Josephs wiki pages and not Michaels? Do we hold a different standard of evidence for the two? {{rpa} If you dont want that fact on there, then go take it off of those pages. You cant have it on one and not the other. <BLP violation> Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop attacking and making BLP violations, otherwise I will report your account. If other article is unreferenced, source it, that comment is irrelevant here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That other stuff exists is irrelevant; if anything you should be able to get a source from another article and use it here. But I'll note you have not. If the evidence for your claim is so overwhelming how is it that you can't come up with a reliable source that backs it? And while you're at it, please sign your comments and be nice. Anyway... to other editors - to resolve this dispute, would [3][4][5] these sources be considered acceptable? As I said, I did not discount the claim, and a quick google search seems to indicate that it is true. In order: Fox News, People Magazine and The Telegraph. If so, let's get this over with. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. This fact is on Michael Jacksons mothers and fathers wiki pages. I did not put it there. You cannot have it on one without having on the other. It is common knowledge amongst anyone who follows the Jackson family that this women is Joes daughter. It has been confirmed by multiple family members, it is in Katherine Jacksons book. Is she lying? Are the family members lying? How can we have this fact on the parents wiki pages and not Michaels? Why do we have two different standards of evidence for the two pages? There is unsourced material all over wiki, you just want to be right.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And if my sources are no good, then why are these sources accepted for other pages? Every single source I provided has been used on other articles. And like I said before, even without that point, there is common knowledge all over wiki that is not sourced.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well for one thing you can't use other Wikipedia pages as a source. Second of all, if you want to use a book as a source, then actually add it as a source. It's recommended that you do this using Template:Cite book in the following format: <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |title= |url= |accessdate= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=}}</ref>. Finally, It's actually not true that common knowledge is fine on Wikipedia. Unsourced content is tolerated—but if a claim is challenged by another user, then WP:reliable sources must be provided to verify the claim. Even something as basic as the shape of the Earth would need a source if it is challenged. And of course, the article on Michael Jackson is a WP:featured article, and to be approved as a featured article, everything needs to be sourced, no matter how mundane. Trinitresque (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is ridiculous. Fox, ABC, People magazine, and everyone I mentioned are plenty reputable. They are good enough to be used as sources on other wiki pages. I am not sure exactly what source you would like if these are not good enough. By this logic, CNN would not be good enough, the Washington Post would not be good enough, Time magazine would not be good enough. I am not exactly sure what sources there are out there besides publications such as these. What would be good enough? Should I get a video of Joe Jackson saying "this is my daughter, which by extension makes her Michaels half-sister." Every source used on wikipedia for other articles are from such sources, what other sources are there? This is a case of you not wanting it there, so you are taking it off of there. Rather then keeping wikipedia accurate, informative, and telling all aspects of stories, you choose to delete this fact. There is a page on 9/11 conspiracies, what sources are there other then crazy people sitting in their mothers basement. You have placed a standard of reliability impossible to meet. If the sources I have provided are not good enough, then nothing is in your eye. You have not heard the last of this or me.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Read and understand our policy about living persons. Both, Joe and Katherine, as well as Joh'vonnie are living persons. The problem are not the references, the problem is that those references are based upon a book, written by Katherine.
  • ABC - "from one of his affairs, according to a Fox News report in 2004."
  • Fox - "Katherine's ... revelation that her husband..."
  • Wikipedia and The ABC Forum? - Please, read WP:IRS
Every reliable reference falls into what Katherine Jackson said, in her autobiography My Family. Even if the Washington Post or CNN say something, every information will fall into what Kate said because there is no further evidence about this, unless there is a DNA proof. If "[t]here is a page on 9/11 conspiracies" still being irrelevant here. 9/11 is not about three living persons. Also, I don't see this information at Joe Jackson (manager) page, and at Katherine Jackson it appears where it corresponds, at My Familiy. And if you want to threat us with "You have not heard the last of this or me", we can choose to ignore you or if necessary blocking you for violating the BLP policy and/or disruptive editing. This article is *about* Michael Jackson not his family. Also, this is not a war. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You are not following the discussion. I proposed three sources that back up your claim, and seem to be reliable. Now, let's wait until the other involved editors sign off on them, and you'll be free to add them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay I am not threatening you, I just can't for the life of me understand why this would not be included. We are talking about Michael Jacksons life in this article, this is a fact in it whether we like it or not. His brother Brandon that barley survived birth is mentioned, as this should be to. I am not sure what proof there is this is his step-sister other then getting a DNA test, which obviously wont happen. In my opinion, his parents are very credible, and good enough to use as sources. They say this happened, then this happened. There are a million Michael Jackson facts that solely go on the word of people close to him. I think we can all agree this women exists, this women is Joes daughter, and that by extension makes her Michael Jacksons half-sister. It is not a fact the family enjoys talking about, but neither is any of the allegations, yet these are all mentioned on his page. I think it is pretty clear, adding all sources together, this story is true.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:SELFPUBLISHED (I asked you to read IRS): "Self-published [sources] (My life) ... may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as: 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people)". Katherine is talking about Joe and Joh' in a self-published book. Do you have a reference of Joe discussing this? On a side note, Brandon is relevant because he was his twin brother, but the article does not include more information about his other brothers and sisters. Now, the text you want to add to the article include a WP:SELFPUBLISHED #2 violation, a BLP violation, and information that is not relevant to the life of Michael itself (do we discuss Janet's life and career here? This aplies to all other siblings). Also, why you insisted to add it here and not to other Jacksons' bios? This info would be relevant, at most, at Joe and Katherine biographies, if properly sourced, but not to either of other Jackson family members. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And to who said they didn't see it on Katherine Jacksons wiki page, go to the My Family section. And you say the article is about Michael Jackson, not his family. That is an interesting take on it considering his family is specifically mentioned in the article. All of his brothers and sisters are mentioned, and even, as I said before, the one that barley survived birth. So why would she not be mentioned.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And to add to what I was saying before, I find it odd that the sources I provided earlier in addition to the words in Katherine's book were not good enough or reliable while Source #24, Taraborrelli, who was only a friend of Jackson was apparently a good enough source. If his book is used as a source in the very same article, other sources proposed should be good enough to be used.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with your "other stuff exist" arguments, they are weak. If Taraborrelli is not reliable, discuss and manage to remove his references. But consider Taraborrelli did not write a book about himself and cited other people such as Michael Jackson, like Katherine did. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, how do we know any of what Taraborrelli said in his book is true and factual? I mean after all, who was he? He was just a mere "friend" of Jackson's. How can we be so sure any of what he said isn't just pulled out of the air and produced to sell his book? After all, Jackson had thousands of "friends". And here I am, trying to add a small fact that is said by his mother, not a friend, his actual mother, and it is being denied. Last time I checked, someones mother was more of a reliable source then a "friend". Fine, you want to leave this fact out, go ahead, but you sir are wrong. You are merely flexing your Wikipedia power and can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdawg1029 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • J. Randy Taraborrelli, journalist and biographer. He has several New York Times' best-selling book. If Taraborrelli is not a reliable source, open your case at WP:RSN and search for consensus to eliminate his references from Wikipedia.
  • The Magic and the Madness, book described as "This book is the fruit of over 30 years of research ... including Michael [interviews]", "Cutting through tabloid rumours, J. Randy Taraborrelli traces the real story behind Michael Jackson"
  • "Jackson had thousands of "friends"" [citation needed]
  • "trying to add a small fact that is said by his mother," - a BLP violation that is not relevant to Michael Jackson life.
  • "Last time I checked, someones mother was more of a reliable source then a "friend"." [sic] - If a mother says that Earth is flat, is she "more reliable" than a friend who works at NASA?
  • "You are merely flexing your Wikipedia power and can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy" - I don't have any Wikipedia power, I only tried to explain you Wikipedia policies
  • "can't take having to admit fault or hypocrisy." - Whatever that means, you haven't given or understood:
a) Joe's acceptance of that "fact", as you've called it.
b) Why a book, written by Katherine, satisfies the WP:SELFPUBLISHED policy.
c) Why we should post a BLP violation.
d) Any lack of understanding Wikipedia policies, including, but not limited to, WP:BLP, WP:NPA and WP:IRS (SELPUBLISHED).
d) Any reason why this is relevant to Michael Jackson biography, but not relevant to his other siblings or father (you never tried to do add it somewhere else).
e) "If {we} want to take it out then {it's} fine", why you have proved the contrary?
f) This is not about winning. If you believe that attacking me or somebody else will make you "win", i.e. this being included in the article, let me inform you that you won't "win". Basically, because you don't want to understand we have policies and we cannot talk about living persons based upon alleged ideas rather than already confirmed ones. Do you have any birth cerfiticate or DNA test, or any other evidence that doesn't include Katherine, to call this "true"? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
While not making any judgment about whether the claim is true or not, this is too important a claim to be stated as fact in a featured article unless the sourcing is rock solid. There is an element of anecdotal evidence and hearsay in the sourcing rather than direct evidence from the people concerned, which leads to a clear cut WP:BLP issue. This should not be in the article unless the sourcing improves considerably.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson did not sell 750 million

The Wall Street journal in 2007 debunked the sales claim . Please remove it from the article . http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.119.3 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can join and give your opinion at the current discussion in this section. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson record sales have been debunked

Please remove the statement that mj is the biggest selling pop artist with an estimated sales of 750 million

1) the Wall Street journal did an article debunking the 750 million sales as a pr stunt. In the article it even mentions that some news outlets began using that number . Those sources have been cited in the mj wiki article . ( obviously all incorrect ) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

2)mj is the biggest selling pop artist either . Sony bmg released a public press statement that " unequivocally , elvis Aaron Presley is the biggest selling artist in the history if POPular music " Sony also is the record company of mj . Sony itself considers elvis the biggest selling . Please remove the line from mj . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.148 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I told you above, we are discussing this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson record sales have been debunked

Please remove the statement that mj is the biggest selling pop artist with an estimated sales of 750 million

1) the Wall Street journal did an article debunking the 750 million sales as a pr stunt. In the article it even mentions that some news outlets began using that number . Those sources have been cited in the mj wiki article . ( obviously all incorrect ) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

2)mj is NOT the biggest selling pop artist either . Sony bmg released a public press statement that " unequivocally , elvis Aaron Presley is the biggest selling artist in the history if POPular music " Sony also is the record company of mj . Sony itself considers elvis the biggest selling pop artist. Please remove the line from mj wiki.

198.228.200.148 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting, but the link doesn't work for me - could you just check it and repost it if there is an error?--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange sentence in lead

"With videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" he continued to innovate the medium throughout the 1990s, as well as forging a reputation as a touring solo artist." I don´t understand what innovate the medium means, or what the videos got to do with his reputation as a touring solo artist. If this could be made clearer, it would be a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"King of Pop" removal from the lead

Chrishonduras removed "King of Pop" from the lead on the basis of WP:PEACOCK. But, in my opinion, WP:PEACOCK does not apply because it is about biased claims without attribution. The title "King of Pop" is not biased with regard to Michael Jackson, and nor is it unverifiable; it is a title that is verifiably most commonly applied to Michael Jackson. This is why the King of Pop disambiguation page is about Michael Jackson. I view the "King of Pop" title as suitable for the lead because of the Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names policy. However, as that policy states, if there is something notable about the "King of Pop" title on its own, which I believe that there is, a separate name section is recommended. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He is widely known as the King of Pop, that is his title. It should not have been removed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
On a side note: If a section was created specifically about his "King of Pop" title, it would likely be redundant to what is stated about him at different parts in this article; I mean that comments about his singing, music and dancing style, and impact would no doubt be used to explain how he acquired the "King of Pop" title, and that these comments would be redundant to what is already in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The rules are not negotiable. Is better mention this, in Legacy section, for example, but not in the introduction. Madonna for example, is another example of how she is known by his nickname of the Queen of pop, but there is no mention in the introduction, but in the appropriate section. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but come on man. He is the king of pop, that is an accepted nickname for a man who was the biggest star in the world.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Chrishonduras, I'm not sure what rules you are talking about. But the Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names rule, which is a policy, is clear. And Madonna is not known as the "Queen of Pop" as extensively as Michael Jackson is known as the "King of Pop." One too many others also have the "Queen of Pop" title, as shown at Honorific nicknames in popular music (which is also what Queen of Pop redirects to). And as for rules not being negotiable, there is a WP:Ignore all rules policy. If you want "King of Pop" to stay out of the lead, I'm not going to fight it because I don't care too much about it remaining out of the lead. But I do consider your removal to be wrong. My vote, like two others so far, is to return "King of Pop" to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Estimated, Flyer22. As well as one too many others also have the "Queen of Pop" (Madonna) title, one too many others also have the "King of Pop" title. Not all media refer to Jackson as the King of Pop. We always mention this, but in the correct section, not in the introduction. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not many, or too many, have been given the "King of Pop" title. Simple Google searches will show that. Various reliable sources also state that Michael Jackson is commonly known as the "King of Pop." You will find no such reliable sources stating that anyone else is commonly known by that title. And, again, I'm not sure where you are getting your rules from, but you are wrong (as I've already shown above).
For the others, Chrishonduras added the "King of Pop" information lower in the article, which I responded to in an edit summary. His grammar for that addition needs fixing, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: Chrishonduras left me a message on my talk page; because of that message, it appears that there will be no objection from Chrishonduras if the information is added back to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: Chrishonduras added "King of Pop" back to the lead, and I tweaked it and his wording about it lower in the article.[6][7][8]. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sales of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson, The Beatles and Elvis Presley have acid places listed as top-selling acts of all time. No exact sales figures of any of them, however there is speculation that The Beatles, Elvis, and in 2012, Michael Jackson has sold m {as of 1 billion records worldwide. However Bein Raymond said when sued Michael Jackson that had sold over 1 billion records worldwide .. I believe that, as Wikipedia is one of the world's most powerful sites net sales of Michael Jackson would have to be 750 - 1000 million albums sold worldwide, since in 2006 the IFPI stated that MJ had sold 750 million records worldwide and Thriller sold 104 million copies. Here's proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WviiygVo3Oc). Please put that MJ recapasiten and sold between 750 to 1000 million units. Also in 1996 the WMA also certified MJ as the biggest selling artist of all time, here is the proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cEx6xKdcmNY). Besides stating that sales of Elvis can also be inflated like that of The Beatles. According to the IFPI MJ sold more than 350 million albums in Europe, The Beatles 400 million and Elvis 300 000 000.

We also demand that the revenue and earnings section of MJ, is modified because the assets of MJ when he died was USD 5.5 billion, and earnings all their lives were more than USD 7 billion. We also ask you to create an article about The Michael Jackson Company LLC. I wrote an article about TMJC, I would appreciate if you read (http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/1292040).

 No IFPI never said (in 2006 or in later years) that MJ had sold 750 million records worldwide and Thriller sold 104 million copies. Rather, Adrian Strain, a musical expert and a representative from the IFPI has said: When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody. We had to go to the Guinness Book of World Records. Moreover, Raymone Bain is not a reliable source. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


--TMJC Diego Marandino (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC) If you hear the WMA take as platform IFPI figures and if you see the video I put, you'll notice that the IFPI is who gave the figure. See some of the WMA, which is not going to hurt. Also nobody says that MJ sold 400 million to put that you do not put anything I think it is best to put the figure 700 millions-1 billon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMJC Diego Marandino (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Joe Jackson or Michael Joseph Jackson

Michael's death certificate says: "Michael Joseph Jackson", but his driver's license, passport and several court documents say: "Michael Joe Jackson". Which variation would you list in the lead?

Examples: http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/michael-jackson-drivers-license.jpg?w=315&h=189&crop=1 http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/michael-jackson-1980s-drivers-license-pic__oPt.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kvYJOjDaKfI/S5gMpeMqcmI/AAAAAAAAArg/_VzWryMUnKA/s400/currentpassport.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/0430041jacko1.gif

Israell (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Like his father "Joe" seems to be a short form.....as seen in....

  • The reference in the article
File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg
  • Joseph is also used on his LAST WILL
Last Will and Testament
  • His fortune was all under the title Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson
Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson aka Michael Jackson
  • Books he has written and published like Moomwalk use Joseph
Michael Jackson (13 October 2009). Moonwalk. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-307-71698-9. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  • In interviews with him over the years "Ebony" has used "Joseph"
Johnson Publishing Company (December 2007). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 94. ISSN 0012-9011.
Johnson Publishing Company (May 1984). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 163. ISSN 0012-9011.
  • Looks like he wrote "Joseph" himself on his kids Birth certificates
MJ jr and Paris birth certificates
  • 3 of his children also have this middle name - I think this would be odd if his name is simply Joe.
Mary K. Pratt (1 January 2010). Michael Jackson: King of Pop. ABDO. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-60453-788-8..Moxy (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna is the most downloaded artist. ( not mj )

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_rihanna-most-downloaded-artist-of-all-time_1658380


Please remove in mj wiki that michael jackson is the most downloaded artist of all time


71.234.119.3 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael jackson is NOT the most downloaded artist of all time

Billboard recently released there figures for the year . Rihanna is the most downloaded 

TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS
(Based on digital track sales from 7/4/2004-1/1/2012)
 
 	  	Artist	  	  	Units Sold
1			 Rihanna			 47,571,000
2			 Black Eyed Peas			 42,405,000
3			 Eminem			 42,290,000
4			 Lady Gaga			 42,078,000
5			 Taylor Swift			 41,821,000
6			 Katy Perry			 37,620,000
7			 Lil’ Wayne			 36,788,000
8			 Beyonce			 30,439,000
9			 Kanye West			 30,242,000
10.			 Britney Spears			 28,665,000

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report

Please remove the mj line stating that he is

71.234.119.3 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Michael Jackson became the most downloaded artist of all time on 29 August 2010. The wording of the sentence does not specify whether or not he still is the most downloaded artist of all time, so it does not need to be changed. Trinitresque (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Section "Death" should be renamed to "Homicide"/"Involuntary manslaughter"

JFKennedy article's corresponding section named by the matter of fact: "Assassination". Jackson did not just "die" on his own, it was homicide, he was (involuntary) slaughtered. This was established by both authorities ("homicide), right after his death, and by the court of law ("involuntary manslaughter").

So there are two options to deal with this nonsensical situation: rename section of JFK's article to "Death" or rename section of this article to "Homicide". Since the first option is quite strange, considering the fact that JFK did not just die, it was assassination, the only sane solution was the second option, because Jackson did not just die either. Both JFK's assassination and Jackson's homicide are established by the exactly the same level of quality of sources by Wikipedia's definition, so we can not just go with "Oh, lets continue to have double standard about this and leave it as it is" argument. DenisRS (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - "Homicide"/"Involuntary manslaughter means death. As for JFK it was a plan to kill him - not the same case here is just an "Accidental death" by way of Involuntary manslaughter .Moxy (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagree - "Death" is just fine as section heading. The controversial details can be explored in the content of the section, not in the section heading.Jpcohen (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael is NOT the most downloaded artist of all time

Billboard recently released there figures for the year . Rihanna is the most downloaded

TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS (Based on digital track sales from 7/4/2004-1/1/2012) 

               Artist                  Units Sold

1 Rihanna 47,571,000 2 Black Eyed Peas 42,405,000 3 Eminem 42,290,000 4 Lady Gaga 42,078,000 5 Taylor Swift 41,821,000 6 Katy Perry 37,620,000 7 Lil’ Wayne 36,788,000 8 Beyonce 30,439,000 9 Kanye West 30,242,000 10. Britney Spears 28,665,000 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report

Please remove the mj line stating that he is

71.234.119.3 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Michael Jackson became the most downloaded artist of all time on 29 August 2010. The wording of the sentence does not specify whether or not he still is the most downloaded artist of all time, so it does not need to be changed. Trinitresque (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect . Per soundscan michael was NEVER the most downloaded artist . Soundcan report is from 2004-2012. Please remove that mj ever was . He was not and " of all time " is clearly misleading .

71.234.119.3 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

michael is not the most succesful artist of all time

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

please remove that michael jackson is the most succesful artist of all time. the guiness award in 1996 never stated "of all time". that is misleading . GWR also to present (2013) has never stated that they still consider mj to be most sucessful. please remove.68.199.5.208 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

All things considered - he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidMelon (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He is the most successful, whether or not GWR says so.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As a recording artist, Presley’s accomplishments are unparalleled. He is believed to have sold more than one billion records worldwide, about 40 percent of those outside the U.S. Presley still appears to hold the largest number of gold, platinum, and multiplatinum certifications of any artist in history; as of While certainly other artists preceded him to the alter of rock & roll, he is indisputably its king.'2010, 151 different albums and singles. He remained an unmatched chart performer from the Seventies until the first decade of the 21st Century when, as the population of record buyers increased, the chart numbers of top sellers like Mariah Carey and Madonna began to challenge his. According to Billboard, Elvis had 149 charting pop singles: 114 Top 40, 40 Top Ten, and 18 Number Ones

rolling stone bio

131.239.63.3 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/elvis-presley/biography#ixzz2LpzVV4u3 Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

  • A billion record sales is inflated beyond belief, even for The Beatles who have astronomically outsold Presley in both album and single sales (Elvis hasn't even one album in the top sellers list after all). As for the "most successful artist" tagline - this is not based on sales but on accolades. Michael Jackson has won and received nominations for far more recognized awards than Elvis Presley and The Beatles combined. Alone he holds more world records than any other music artist, not to mention more albums in the top sellers list than any other artist (5) indicating longevity of popularity and success over a long time period. He holds the record for best selling studio album (Thriller) and best selling remix album (Blood on the Dancefloor) of all time, along with countless other firsts (8 Grammys in one night, the same album being the best seller for two consecutive years, etc.) and records which still remain today. Beyond his own music, he helped create (and his Estate now co-owns) the largest music publishing catalogue in history. And on top of all that, Guinness World Records have the prerogative to award "Most Successful Entertainer" to the recipient of their choice. Mc8755 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


incorrect. gwr does not lie and requires credible proof. they state one billion for elvis. the beatles certified by riaa are 177. elvis is certified at 138. i hardly consider the beatles number astronomically greater than elvis. most of mj awards were not around during elvis time. some of the awards are only given to black artists. according to jhon landis, mj denanded them or he wouldnt show up at the award show.(i want my mtv book)

riaa certified top 100 albums 1)thriller and eagles greatest hits 29 platinum (elvis christmas album 10 platnum (bad album 8 times platinum (off the wall 8 times platnum (dangerous 7 times platnum (elvis golden records v1 6 times platinum (invinceable mj 2 times platinum (ELVIS BIGGEST ALBUM OUTSOLD 4 of mj biggest albums)

michael is not the most sucessful, elvis clearly is.

71.234.119.3 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't doubt that Elvis Presley outsold Michael Jackson, but sales are not the sole basis of success for an artist as my reply clearly states. Michael Jackson's awards include 15 Grammys and a Bambi award (both of which were around long before Elvis hit the big time), AMAs and several other awards listed here were around during the time Elvis was putting out music. On top of current music accolades, Jackson received a Presidential Award from then-president Ronald Reagan in 1984, as well as back-dated awards like the Chopard Diamond Award (in 2008) and American Music Awards which don't require current work but records that still exist regardless of new work; GWRs work the same including the award for most successful entertainer of all time. The fact that GWR awarded this to Jackson means it is a reliable reference that should be left in the article. (Not that it matters, but if you want to quote exaggerated sales, Sony claims Michael Jackson sold 750-800 million records pre-2009 and his Estate claimed last year his sales crossed one billion also The sales you listed above are RIAA sales for the US only, worldwide sales of top albums do not feature any Presley record). Several firsts occurred in more recent years after the awarding of Jackson's GWR you're so opposed to, including having the first music video (Thriller) added to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, the largest (financially) music contract in history worth $250 million to his Estate in 2009, largest posthumous sales in the year following an artist's death, exceeding Elvis and John Lennon's, highest grossing concert-movie of all time (This Is It), not to mention continued streams of awards posthumously like more AMAs, more GWRs, reinstatement of the MIchael Jackson Video Vanguard VMA award in 2011..... The list goes on. Jackson merits the award he was given, GWR have not revoked it and most certainly haven't given it to Presley. Nowhere in the article does it state or imply that Jackson outsold Elvis; removing it for that reason is completely moot. Mc8755 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Motown 25 section

Does everyone agree with my additions to the section about the Motown 25 anniversary show? Is there anything else you would add, take away or change? After doing extensive reading on Michael Jackson, and watching just about every documentary about him, my additions I can assure you are accurate. I do realize they need to be cited which I didn't bother to do. I suppose if someone demands it then I can find the sources for everything, but anyone who has ever studied MJ would know this all to be true. It's pretty common knowledge amongst his followers. Thoughts? Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced material - as per WP:BURDEN.Moxy (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Jackson felt that he was doing to much television at the time, he initially declined to perform at the show and instead preferred to remain seated in the audience. However at Berry Gordy's insistence, Jackson agreed to perform with his brothers again under the condition that he was allotted time for a solo performance.[citation needed]

Jackson's performance of "Billie Jean" was unique in that no other artist during the show was permitted to perform music that was not written under the Motown label.[citation needed]


Jackson's performance would be considered a pivotal moment in his career and widely hailed as what launched him to become a superstar, including Berry Gordy who stated that the performance "launched him into the stratosphere.[citation needed]

I suggest you do some reading up on Michael Jackson. You find all of this to be factual and a part of his history, and very well should be included in his wikipedia page. It is all widely known amongst anybody that follows Michael Jackson. What you are doing is deleting history. I understand that most material needs to be sourced, all of this information has been stated in many interviews by multiple sources.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN = The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.Moxy (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
We cant use Wikipedia its self as references - pls read over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I would suggest to propose any changes here first - let experienced editors review the information and sources. Than you Moxy (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"King of pop"

Last January, I removed the "King of Pop" pseudonym from the article's lead based on WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:PEACOCK, provided that this name has not only been given to Jackson. Despite this, users Flyer22, Status and Comatmebro opposed the change; Flyer22 stated that PEACOCK did not proceed in this case, and that Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names applies in Jackson's individual case, adding that "Not many, or too many, have been given the "King of Pop" title. Simple Google searches will show that." I may have not done the best at basing my claims on PEACOCK, but to be sincere, I still think that it is incorrect to put the alias in the lead, when several sources argue the exact opposite. These are some of the references that we may take into consideration:

"King of pop" alias in some other artists

Robbie Williams:

Elvis Presley:

Justin Timberlake:

  • Kimberly Dillon Summers 2010, p. xxiii (Justin Timberlake: A Biography) from ABC-CLIO
  • Tony Napoli 2009, p. 33 (Justin Timberlake: Breakout Music Superstar) from Enslow Publishers

Usher:

  • Vibe May 2004, P. 36 (Vol 12, no° 5)

Elton John:

                    • Now Jacko's case (Some references and That is not punitive)

Pre-Wikipedia

  • [19] (SF Reviews; 1999) Note: "Michael Jackson crowned himself the "King of Pop"
  • Rosemarie Garland Thomson 1996 p. 369 (Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body) from New York University Note: "When Jackson, irked by the fact that "They call Elvis [Presley] the King," asked "Why don't they call me that?" he was ... Jackson countered with a campaign to cement his own sobriquet, "The King of Pop," in America's cultural consciousness"
  • [20] (Today (U.S. TV program)) Note: "In the year 1991, when MTV was still primarily known for playing music videos, a new album from an artist who helped define the channel in the ‘80s was being released. This album was going to be huge, and MTV kicked into high gear promoting its world premiere airing of the first single’s video. The album was called “Dangerous.” The single was called “Black or White.” And the artist? Well, he was suddenly called “The King of Pop."
  • Campbell B. Titchener 1998 p. 173 (Reviewing the Arts) from Routledge Note: "The self-proclaimed "King of Pop"

Post-Wikipedia

  • [22] (The New York Times; 2005) Note: "Self-proclaimed king of pop"
  • Victor Pross 2009, p. 23 (Icons & Idols: Pop Goes the Culture) from AuthorHouse Note: "The self-proclaimed King of pop, public curiosity"
  • David Kastin 2002 p. 286 (I hear America singing: an introduction to popular music) from Prentice Hall Note: [...]"when Michael Jackson crowned himself King of Pop, he was simply engaging in a desperate attempt to revive a flagging career"
  • Margo Jefferson 2006 p. 52 (On Michael Jackson) from Pantheon Books Note: "He crowned himself the King of Pop and arranged two marriages"
  • Mari Hadley 2009 p. 61 (Michael Jackson Master of Illusion: The Final Curtain Call) from Xlibris Corporation Note: "The self proclaimed King of Pop a title penned him by his close friend, Elizabeth Taylor when she announced him at an awards show".
  • [24] (CMJ; 2002) Note: [...]"the self- proclaimed "King Of Pop"
  • Jaap Kooijman 2008 p.88 (Fabricating the Absoulte Fake: America in Contemporary Pop Culture) from Amsterdam University Press Note: "His controversial image intensified later on in the 1990s with his self-proclaimed title of being the King of Pop"
  • Alexander L'Estrange, Simon Lesley 2008 (Michael Jackson Smash Hits) from Faber & Faber Note: [...]"the illustrious career from the self-proclaimed King of Pop"

According to John Sinkevics from The Grand Rapids Press, when covering the death of Jackson, the press had to mandatorily use the "King of pop" alias. I, with this evidence, beg you to see that Jackson is not the only one to have received the King of Pop title'. In an attempt to keep neutrality and avoid slants on the article, I think that we shoudl mention the title in the appropriate section, but not in the lead. We can take a look at the references from the music industry like Billboard, where other artists have been named "King of Pop". Also, we cannot hide the other truth that is covered by many other references from scientific, academic or musical sources, be it from the 90s decade or the 2000s, where is revealed that, originally, the "King of Pop" alias was a self-proclamation by Jackson himself, and a merketing strategy. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No one in our previous discussion ever stated that Michael Jackson is the only one who has been called "the King of Pop." Everyone refer to what I stated in the discussion Chrishonduras is referring to. I stand by all of what I stated there (currently seen higher on this talk page). I basically stated that no one else is known as the "King of Pop" as widely as Michael Jackson is; unlike the others, he is literally known by that title, not just someone who has been called "the King of Pop." Google searches with the many reliable sources about the matter, the WP:Original research method of simply asking people who is "the King of Pop," and any other method, shows that no one else is known as the "King of Pop" as widely as Michael Jackson is; it's that simple, really. There are no reliable sources that argue that Michael Jackson is not the person who is most known by the "King of Pop" title. And it's because of all of this, Chrishonduras, that I consider your tampering with the King of Pop disambiguation page in the way that you did (after you altered Honorific nicknames in popular music by adding other people who have been called "the King of Pop") to be completely WP:UNDUE. But unlike you, I am not especially focused on this topic, and so I will not revert you on that; but make no mistake about it...it's wrong.
As for the claim that Jackson demanded that the press refer to him as "the King of Pop," even if true, which is something you obviously got from this section (currently seen higher on this talk page), that is irrelevant. Fact is...no one else is known by that title as thoroughly as he is. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
And scientific sources? There are no scientific sources that discuss the "King of pop" title. Try to relax on this topic.
Anyway, since you are so focused on this topic, I will leave a message with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians matter about this. [Edited in "With the exception of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television"], the other music-focused or music-related WikiProjects currently aren't as active as these two are. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confusing - not sure what is being argued here. The opening of this topic is about the removal of a term - yet that same post (by the same person) gives many many examples of the term used. What is being asked here?Moxy (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22 I think this has strayed. In no time I mentioned that the three said Jacko was the only one who has been called "King of Pop". This is what I say (now, that's what I want to look good). First, the Google search does not add or remove anything, because Wikipedia is a priority for Google. In fact, is perhaps the first result that one can obtain (vicious circle).

Yes, I totally agree with you that the fact that Jacko has self-proclaimed not add or remove anything in principle. The problem is that some are still calling him "The self-proclaimed King of Pop" and this must not be left ignored. In addition, others have already been self-proclaimed, So clear example is Kanye West. My edition disambiguation of "King of Pop" is not bad (what truth, if there are multiple truths?) because after all that implies that you do not use common sense and to be honest, violate policy WP:Pointy ("eye", policies are ambivalent, in any case, ignore the rules). Finally, I am calm, and I clarify that I am a fan of Jackso, but first am impartially. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Moxy What I propose is that, given how many artists have received the KoP title, we should avoid using it specifically for Michael Jackson on the lead, and explain it thoroughly on the correspondent section. My belief is that saying that he is also known as the King of Pop gives undue weigh to him, and leaves apart the rest of artists who have also receive such name. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
have you looked at real books on the topic over news sources? book search on the topic - That seen we can remove it from the lead as its in the "Legacy and influence" section anyways. Moxy (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Chrishonduras, you are the one, who above, used the the words "provided that this name has not only been given to Jackson." and "when several sources argue the exact opposite." For the first, I showed why that is irrelevant. For the second, I showed why that is not true. There still, of course, are not many notable people who have been called "the King of Pop" and there are no people who are known (I repeat "known") as, instead of having simply been called, "the King of Pop." And there are no reliable sources that argue that Michael Jackson is not the person who is most known by the "King of Pop" title. I don't see what else there is to argue about this or why you are so obsessed with this topic, so much so that you altered the King of Pop disambiguation page and the Honorific nicknames in popular music article to try to strengthen your argument. But you are wasting my time, or rather I am letting you waste my time. And, yes, Google matters when it shows that Michael Jackson is the person most well-known by this title, through various reliable sources even attributing the term to only him and/or discussing how he became known by that term. WP:CONSENSUS was, and currently still is, against you on this. And you decided to rehash this topic so soon after it was resolved. A waste of my time. I have WP:COMMONSENSE; it appears that you don't, and are also the one who has decided to be WP:UNCIVIL with your latest post (21:25, 12 February 2013) above. And if anyone has violated any guidelines or policies on this matter, it has been you. You who didn't even apply WP:PEACOCK correctly. You who made the King of Pop disambiguation page WP:UNDUE; it's WP:COMMONSENSE that most people who type in "King of Pop" will be looking for the Michael Jackson article or for other information about Michael Jackson. You who therefore were being WP:POINTY. And I mostly definitely do not ignore Wikipedia rules, unless in a case where I were to follow the WP:Ignore all rules policy. You were wrong and are still wrong. Accept it.
Moxy, Chrishonduras is basically arguing that since Michael Jackson is not the only musical artist to have been called "the King of pop," he shouldn't be referred to as such in the lead. If you haven't already, refer to the previous discussion about this that is noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that now - There are many cases like this as the press will label people indiscriminately. What we need to look at is who is referred as the king of pop in real publications - not news story. Honorific nicknames in popular music should use sources by real publications - not news articles looking to garner traffic. Like with "King of Rock and Roll" - many have had this title linked to them by the press but without even saying who i am talking about we all know who i am referring to right - same here. All that said you care if its out of the lead - but still in the article under "Legacy" section - as its clearly a part of his legacy.Moxy (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I care if it's removed from the lead. I feel that it should stay because of the reasons I've already gone over. Chrishonduras will believe that he's right (even more than he already does), for the flimsy reasons he's mentioned, if it's removed. He needs to learn how to use Wikipedia guidelines and policies properly, not continue to think that his misuses of those guidelines and policies are correct. Chrishonduras, you should actually read what WP:UNDUE means. It begins stating, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."
And do read the rest of that policy. What you have done regarding this matter is WP:UNDUE because the vast majority of people, including reliable sources, refer to Michael Jackson, as opposed to anyone else, as "the King of Pop." That simple. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
"the vast majority of people, including reliable sources" They also neglect to mention he gave himself the title. If he'd been called that by somebody else, it would merit inclusion. This is in the same vein as Ali calling himself "The Greatest": puffery. Delete. At a minimum, "self-proclaimed" should be attached. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
If Jackson gave himself the title, the difference between him and Muhammad Ali is that Jackson became more well known by his title than Ali did by "The Greatest." People usually specify who they are talking about when they use "The Greatest" title, especially since it's more generic. In contrast, people very often simply state "The King of Pop" when referring to Jackson. I don't see what Jackson giving himself the title, if he did, has to do with whether or not we should mention in the lead that he is well known by that title. And Ali's "The Greatest" title is currently mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article about him as well...without any mention that he gave himself that title. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I haven’t replied sooner. First of all, to Moxy: Like Michael Jackson, there are several artists that had been regarded as the King of Pop, as is the case of Justin Timberlake. This fact can be easily verified with numerous secondary sources and not only with news outlets. Independently from your own personal point of view, that all aliases should be strictly supported by non-news sources, which in my belief is unfair, I don’t believe that employing sources as Billboard, BBC, MTV, The Guardian or Rolling Stones (among many others) is wrong. In fact, sources such as The Guardian or the BBC are written by specialist in different branches, specially music critics and reporters with vast knowledge of popular culture. Aren’t aliases within the context of popular culture? Why do we have to cherry-pick sources or suppress evidence, we shouldn’t be judges of the information, we should accept everything that is publish through secondary sources.

To Flyer22: With all respect, I believe that you have misunderstood my message, to the point that you are no longer presuming good faith. Honestly, I don’t consider wrong to share my point of view, especially when I am formulating it with the support of several trustworthy sources. I never start debates with the idea of losing my time or your time, or with any bad purpose. As I have previously explained, I am starting this dialogue with the objective to find a solution and to let more people participate in this discussion. As I have said before, Jackson is not the only artist that has been regarded as the King of Pop. As well, there are other aliases that should be considered, as "Jacko" or "The Self-proclaimed King of Pop". We also should consider if those aliases only apply to the United States, we cannot assume that he is regarded as the King of Pop in every country (and that would be even violating WP: PEACOCK); we should be precise with information to prevent biases .

Solutions:

1. Remove all the aliases from the introduction and include them in the right section of the article.

2. Maintain all the aliases in the introduction stated in a way to prevent biases, and keeping in consideration if these aliases apply to all the countries in the world or just the United States.

3. Maintain neutrality by replacing the phrase “Often referred to” with “Often referred by some media sources as the King of Pop”

Since our task as editors of Wikipedia is to present unbiased information, this is my proposal. I hope that we are able to find a solution to this issue. Please forgive me if I have offended someone with my words. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above about why you are wrong to want to remove "the King of Pop" from the lead and your acting as though others are well known by that title, especially since the way that you apply our policies and guidelines on this matter is odd/wrong. I never stated that it was wrong for you to share your point of view; I stated that your point of view on this matter is wrong and that the sources do not support that anyone else is as widely known as "the King of Pop" as Jackson is. Yes, that applies to the United States and outside of the United States, as many sources show. Even if it only applied to the United States, it would still not be a WP:PEACOCK matter. And again, there are no people who are known (I repeat "known") as, instead of having simply been called, "the King of Pop." The question is not have other musical artists been called "the King of Pop" (and the great majority of them have not, as I've already stated). The question is who is most widely called/regarded as "the King of Pop." And that person, as shown by the vast majority of reliable sources, is Michael Jackson. That is where the WP:UNDUE policy I suggested you read comes in. Some other musical artists have only been called "the King of Pop" by a minority of sources; they are nowhere close to being called "the King of Pop" as often/widely as Michael Jackson is. I don't know what it is that you fail to understand about that.
In the previous discussion, it was me who stated, "If you want 'King of Pop' to stay out of the lead, I'm not going to fight it because I don't care too much about it remaining out of the lead. But I do consider your removal to be wrong. My vote, like two others so far, is to return 'King of Pop' to the lead." I also stated, "I'm not sure where you are getting your rules from, but you are wrong (as I've already shown above)." It was you who left this message on my talk page and soon added "King of Pop" back to the lead (and I tweaked that addition and your addition about it lower in the article). WP:CONSENSUS was achieved for leaving "King of Pop" in the lead. So until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved for removing it, I'm going to press for it staying in the lead.
And using "Often referred by some media sources as the King of Pop" in place "Often referred to as the King of Pop" is hugely downplaying the fact that Michael Jackson has been referred to that way by most, if not by all, professional media sources, and that he continues to be the one person most referred to by that title. Again, this is where WP:UNDUE comes in. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to state that things worded along the lines of "some people," or some variation of that while including "some," is often considered WP:Weasel wording even when sources support it. "Some" should be avoided when it can be avoided. We already have "often" in the sentence, which is a word that WP:Weasel wording also mentions, and that's enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You know I didn't read this whole conversation, but I read enough to say that when anyone in the world hears the name "the king of pop", they think of Michael Jackson, this is a given. Whether or not Justin Timberlake is referred to as the same name (which I've never heard before or with anyone else for that matter), but whether or not Timberlake is referred to as the king of pop is irreverent. When people think of MJ, they think "king of pop".Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

King and Queen of Pop

Hi. Sorry for coming to this discussion until now, but I've been very busy in the last few days. I've talked to Chrishonduras and I think I understand what's the origin of this problem. "King of Pop" is a title given to Michael Jackson (by himself, the media and the public), when anyone talks about the "King of Pop" the most obvious thing is that he/she is talking about Michael Jackson, besides there are a lot of performers who have recieved the same title (by themselves, the media and the public). Although there were/are/will be a lot of singers consdered "better than him", he always will be known in the pupular culture by this alias. The same thing applies to "Queen of Pop". "Queen of Pop" is a title given to Madonna (by himself, the media and the public), when anyone talks about the "Queen of Pop" the most obvious thing is that he/she is talking about Madonna, besides there are a lot of performers who have recieved the same title (by the media and the public). Although there were/are/will be a lot of singers considered "better than her", she always will be known in the pupular culture by this alias.

But there are some users who are against using the term "Queen of Pop" in the introduction of the article Madonna (entertainer) and they oppose to redirect Queen of Pop to this article. In the talk page you can see that he (and other users) tried to change this saying basically: that no one else is known as the "Queen of Pop" as widely as Madonna is; unlike the others, she is literally known by that title, not just someone who has been called the "Queen of Pop." Google searches, the WP:Original research method of simply asking people who is the "Queen of Pop," and any other method, shows that no one else is known as the "Queen of Pop" as widely as Madonna. And finally, they showed that there are no reliable sources that argue that Madonna is not the person who is most known by the "Queen of Pop" title. However, the answer was "no". Their main arguments: other performers have recieved the same title and that including this alias will be a violation to WP:PEACOCK.

So, everybody expects that when an alias is "shared" by a lot of performers, the title won't appear on the introduction and the term won't redirect to the article of any of this artists. But, when Chrishonduras looked for "King of Pop", he was redirected to this article. He tried to change this situation according to he was told on the discussion about Madonna and Queen of Pop. If you still can't see the irony of this case, let me put this with other words: Why the arguments that don't allow to Madonna be denominated as the "Queen of Pop" in Wikipedia are the same arguments that allow the use of Michael Jackson's title of "King of Pop" in his article? --WABBAW (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WABBAW, are you Chrishonduras? I'm so suspicious that you are that I am close to reporting at an appropriate venue, or to an appropriate person, that you two are one and the same. Unless you mean that you've talked with Chrishonduras by email(s) or elsewhere on Wikipedia about a similar matter, I don't see where you've talked with him about this particular issue on Wikipedia (judging by your talk page and his talk page, and your currently very few contributions for this year). You also used my arguments, some of my exact phrases, and altered them a bit at some parts. For example, most of your comment seems to argue for using "the King of Pop" in the lead as opposed to not using it; and on that note, your English seems to be on the same often-awkward level as Chrishonduras's. Like I told Chrishonduras in the previous discussion about this topic, Madonna is not known as "the Queen of Pop" as extensively as Michael Jackson is known as "the King of Pop." I also doubt, for a topic such as this (well known titles), that more than a few others have referred to WP:PEACOCK in the same inaccurate way that Chrishonduras has. And when you stated that Chrishonduras was redirected to this article when he looked for "the King of Pop," you must not mean a WP:REDIRECT; I state that because the King of Pop has been a disambiguation page for years, and the only way it redirected people to Michael Jackson is by mentioning that the title may refer to Michael Jackson or to his King of Pop album. That is, before Chrishonduras changed the disambiguation page and made it WP:UNDUE (acting as though anyone else is as commonly/widely known as "the King of Pop" as Michael Jackson is). Disambiguation pages should start off naming what the term/phrase most commonly refers to, if it does most commonly refer to something; in this case, that is no doubt Michael Jackson.
If you are Chrishonduras, which I believe that you are, this is another aspect of what I meant by you wasting my time or rather me letting you waste my time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Flyer22, WABBAW is WABBAW and I am I; In fact, you can check if you like. Finally, I've given up arguing. You have more reason than me, that means I neither stop having it, in principle. Regardless of the above, this has helped me to have a counterproposal to the case of Madonna, all users previous arguments who have argued this (forgive the redundancy), the nick "Queen of Pop" is widely associated with She perpetuated in every time, not just at the height of his career, and this is a massive multi-language references, unlike other artists. In fact, I have all the links necessary. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that you aren't WABBAW. But I'd very likely need more evidence than what I've mentioned above to show that you two are one and the same anyway. As for everything else, like I stated, "I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above." You clearly should let this topic drop. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And regarding the links in your "you can check if you like" wording, reporting you if I felt that I had strong evidence is not what Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is about. Further, linking to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest shows more of the misuse of policy and/or guideline type of linking/reasoning that you practice (seemingly often). Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

xD. Flyer 22, we are both from the Spanish wikipedia. I make most of my contributions on that proyect. This is my user talk page on the spanish wikipedia es:Usuario discusión:WABBAW, where you can see the messages that Chrishonduras has left me. And yes, we both have some issues with English language... Anyway. I used modified versions of your arguments to emphasize the irony of this situation. Still, my main question remains unanswered. Why the arguments that don't allow to Madonna be denominated as the "Queen of Pop" in Wikipedia are the same arguments that allow the use of Michael Jackson's title of "King of Pop" in his article?--WABBAW (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated, "I don't have much more to state to you on this matter other than what I have already stated to you above." Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
But if I'm wrong about assuming that you two are the same person, which it now seems that I likely am (judging by the talk page you linked to), I apologize for that. I did consider that you aren't the same person, especially since you sign your user names differently. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013

Good evening, I would like to advise that the following links no longer exist:

23. ^ a b The Jackson Five, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Retrieved May 29, 2007.

79. ^ "Newswatch Magazine – The Man, His Weird Ways". Newswatchngr.com. July 5, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2009.

107. ^ a b c "Jackson receives his World Records". Yahoo!. (November 14, 2006). Retrieved November 16, 2006.[dead link]

114. ^ "Blacks who give back'". Ebony. March 1990. Retrieved March 14, 2010.

116. ^ Gray, Chris; Shah, Saeed (October 3, 2002). "Robbie swings historic record deal with EMI". The Independent (London). Retrieved March 24, 2010.

129. ^ a b c d Johnson, Robert (May 1992). "Michael Jackson: crowned in Africa". Ebony. Retrieved July 23, 2008.

189. ^ Toumi, Habib (January 23, 2006). "Jackson settles down to his new life in the Persian Gulf". Gulf News. Retrieved November 11, 2006.

190. ^ McNamara, Melissa (March 17, 2006). "Jackson Closes Neverland House". CBS News. Retrieved April 25, 2010.

193. ^ "Michael Jackson Sails With Two Seas". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved April 25, 2010.

207. ^ "Choose The Tracks On Michael Jackson's 50th Birthday Album!". Sony BMG. (June 20, 2008). Retrieved June 20, 2008.

215 ^ Foster, Patrick (March 6, 2009). "Michael Jackson grand finale curtain-raiser". The Times (London). Retrieved March 24, 2009.

217. ^ "Michael Jackson: The Last Rehearsal". Life. June 29, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2009.[dead link]

227. ^ a b Harvey, Michael (June 26, 2009). "Fans mourn artist for whom it didn't matter if you were black or white". The Times (London). Retrieved June 26, 2009.

237. ^ a b Skok, David, Internet stretched to limit as fans flock for Michael Jackson news[dead link], The Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2009.

254. ^ "Michael Jackson Homicide Ruling". Retrieved August 24, 2009.[dead link]

280. ^ "IMMORTAL, the highly anticipated musical tapestry for Cirque du Soleil’s Michael Jackson THE IMMORTAL World Tour". Sony Music Entertainment. Retrieved October 4, 2011.[dead link]

344. ^ "Free Services for PR :: News :: Press Releases". Pr-inside.com. Retrieved 2012-04-16.

361. ^ "More adds, loose ends, and lament". The 120 Minutes Archive. July 25, 2009. Retrieved July 26, 2009.

Perhaps it should be replaced. Can I make substitutions? Bye :) LilaMJ (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


LilaMJ (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One way to replace sources that are WP:Dead links is by using Internet Archive. Generally, a source shouldn't be removed simply because it's a dead link; one reason, like I stated, is because the links can usually be updated with an archived version. See the WP:Dead links page for the rest of why removing dead links generally is not a good idea. If the dead link is replaced with a completely different WP:Reliable source that supports the same material, then that is always fine. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 Doing... using Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Done for each reference you listed, I added the new URL, and archive URL, or tagged it as a {{dead link}}. Still working on improving other references. GoingBatty (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Hey could someone add a picture of MJ during the rehersal of this is it ?MJ1982 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us one (or a link to one) that is not copyrighted? Cresix (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Just wanted to give props to the person who put up the new picture. I vote to keep it there. RabidMelon —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the corresponding picture description in the |alt= parameter in the infobox. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I took a shot at changing the description in this edit. Feel free to improve it. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Music videos and choreography

There's a some what mistake in this section in regards to the Smooth Criminal video. In the video itself, the anti-gravity lean was accomplished using cables and it wasn't until MJ went on tour and wanted to perform the move that him and designers came up with the special shoe that gives them the ability to perform the move. And with that being said, I think the fact that they had to have pegs come out of the stage and the performer had to hook their feet into the pegs should be mentioned in there with it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to make it more clear? What about what is below.Moxy (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • From this -
For "Smooth Criminal", Jackson experimented with an innovative "anti-gravity lean" in his performances
  • To this perhaps -
While preforming "Smooth Criminal" on tour, Jackson experimented with an innovative "anti-gravity lean system" to mimic the effect archived in the video.'

I can write something sometime today or this week that I think will explain it pretty well. I will post it on talk first. But it is definitely true about using cables in the video then the development of the shoe for live performances.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I came up with real quick, I suppose if I thought about it longer I might be able to come up with something better but I think it explains it pretty well without being to long or complicated:

For Smooth Criminal, Jackson experimented with an “anti-gravity lean” in which the performer keeps two feet flat on the ground and leans forward at close to a 45 degree angle. In the video for Smooth Criminal, this was accomplished using wires supporting the performer, but when Jackson wanted to unveil the move live, he and designers had to develop a special shoe that had a notch in the heel that the performer would then hook into a peg that shot up out of the stage allowing them to lean forward at a steep angle without falling. The move required a good amount of strength as you had to essentially rely on yourself to lean forward and come back up. Jackson was granted U.S. Patent No. 5,255,452 for the device. Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW thats way to much info for such a small thing - SO thats a no for me - need to stop adding all this fluff - just facts. That said the above could go to Smooth Criminal#Anti-gravity lean.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay well how about this then, I dont think this is long at all. I think it says everything that needs to be said. He did after all create this dance move and develop the shoe that allowed them to perform it, so I happen to think it is something that is absolutely worth adding, I think that is the point of Wikipedia after all, to explain who the person is and their history and accomplishments.

"For the Smooth Criminal video, Jackson experimented with an anti-gravity lean where the performer leans forward at an angle. To accomplish this move live, Jackson and designers developed and patented a special shoe that locks the performers feet to the stage. allowing them to lean forward. Jackson was granted U.S. Pentent No. 5,225,452 for the device." Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better no fluff - just fact - I say add it.Moxy (talk)
On a side note would be best to use real publications over news or random website whos link will be dead in a few months - there are hundreds of books that can be read and used as seen here. Think I am going to start fixing this problem - see if I can find proper sources for lots that is here.Moxy (talk)

Michael jackson did self proclaim himself king of pop

In a chapter of I Want My MTV: The Uncensored Story of the Music Video Revolution, former employees of MTV claimed that Michael and his "people" made tons of ridiculous requests during the 90s. These requests were outlined in a memo, which was leaked to Rolling Stone by Kurt Loder. One of them was for veejays to always refer to him as the King of Pop. Of course, the network claims they "warned" him it would backfire, because there is only one King - Elvis. ( I want my MTV book ) 71.234.119.3 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MTV became very tabloidish during the years, and they piled up a lot of rumour and slander about Jackson in their documentaries. MTV people never talked to Jackson, there is no confirmation about that (and there would not be, basically all of Jackson's management firms complained that he was not cooperative, he hated to do the PR -- yes, despite all the myths about the contrary -- most of the calls were never returned, Jackson did not want to talk about PR even to his own management, let alone MTV), so there is no single case of Jackson ever self-proclaimed himself to be anything but singer, songwriter, etc. The management, of course, could require and demand whatever from the parties they dealt with, but this has nothing to do with Jackson "self-proclaiming" himself anything. Finally, ). DenisRS (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a link to portions of the MTV book. Anyone have a link to the Bob Jones press release? GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor was the one who initially proclaimed MJ as the King of Pop, she did it at an awards show, that's is when MJ agreed to it and liked it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

there are numerous articles and books that state mj demanded to be called king of pop or you wouldn't get acess to him. do you honestly think all these articles are just one giant conspiracy? you do realize that mj paid marlon brando to speak for him. does it really matter that Elizabeth taylor publically stated when mj enforced it? use common sense please. please at least put there are articles and books who state it was self proclaimed , even the wall street journal did.

71.234.119.3 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is not the most successful artist

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

please remove an outdated 1996 gwr record that has clearly been broken. 1)all mj concert records broken 2)fastest sell out broken

2013 gwr "elvis is the biggest selling solo artist in history with one BILLION in sales"

= more success

thank you

131.239.63.3 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

But you do agree that at the time stated he was correct? Perhaps a rewording.Moxy (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

i understand your point, but stating an old 1996 gwr that has never been stated again by gwr is misleading. all musical artists have to be defined sales or hits. influence, or even awards is ambiguous at best.most of mj awards were not around in the seventies and prior. i would put" in 1996 he was considered the most sucessful by gwr."

2602:304:5B71:379:F53E:F0B6:93E5:4EEA (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Same topic, same reply: A billion record sales is inflated beyond belief, even for The Beatles who have astronomically outsold Presley in both album and single sales (Elvis hasn't even one album in the top sellers list after all). As for the "most successful artist" tagline - this is not based on sales but on accolades. Michael Jackson has won and received nominations for far more recognized awards than Elvis Presley and The Beatles combined. Alone he holds more world records than any other music artist, not to mention more albums in the top sellers list than any other artist (5) indicating longevity of popularity and success over a long time period. He holds the record for best selling studio album (Thriller) and best selling remix album (Blood on the Dancefloor) of all time, along with countless other firsts (8 Grammys in one night, the same album being the best seller for two consecutive years, etc.) and records which still remain today. Beyond his own music, he helped create (and his Estate now co-owns) the largest music publishing catalogue in history. And on top of all that, Guinness World Records have the prerogative to award "Most Successful Entertainer" to the recipient of their choice. Mc8755 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Elvis Presley (USA) is the best-selling solo artist, with 1 billion sales worldwide (129.5 million in the USA). That is the exact statement from the gwr website. i fail to understand why mj wiki editors would use an old 1996 ambiguous record "most sucessful" for michael jackson but disregard elvis current 2013 achievement. clearly mj is NOT the most sucessful in sales or billboard hits. i respectfully request to either accept gwr record of a BILLION for elvis or disregard mj ambiguous record. thank you

the silent majority.

68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Michael Jackson's GWR is currently still valid and was awarded in 2006, not 1996. Why would it not be included? On Elvis' article he has his record listed as best-selling solo artist of all time. Sales are '"NOT"' the sole measurement of success and Jackson has far outstripped Presley in terms of award nominations and wins and so is recognized by GWR as most successful entertainer. This recognition still stands. It's time you go over it and moved on. And FYI, Garth Brooks has higher US certifications than Elvis so you continually throwing in the 129.5 million US certified sales isn't helping your non-existant case. Mc8755 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael jackson is not the most sucessful

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please stop using an old 1996 GWR award that guiness has never stated again Most of mj awards were not around during the seventies . Michael jackson is not even in the top ten best selling artists per certified riaa sales . He doesn't have the most number one albums or hits . All of his concert records have been broken .


Elvis Presley (USA) is the best-selling solo artist, with 1 billion sales worldwide (129.5 million in the USA). ( exact GWR 2013 statement ) they have credible data to back it up


Billboard top 40 hits ( ninth edition ) 2010 Most top ten hits 1) elvis 38 2) Madonna 37 3) the beatles 34 4) michael jackson 28 5) Janet jackson 28 Most chart hits 1) elvis 114 2) Elton John 58 3) the beatles 52 12) michael jackson 38 Most number one hits 1) the beatles 20 2) elvis 18 3) Mariah Carey 18 4) michael jackson 13 Most weeks at number one position 1) elvis 80 2) Mariah Carey 79 3) the beatles 59 4) boys to men 50 5) usher 43 6) michael jackson

Artist Certified Units in Millions BEATLES, THE 177 PRESLEY, ELVIS 134.5 BROOKS, GARTH 128 LED ZEPPELIN 111.5 EAGLES 100 JOEL, BILLY 81.5 PINK FLOYD 74.5 JOHN, ELTON 72 STREISAND, BARBRA 71.5 AC/DC 71.5 JACKSON, MICHAEL 70.5 Riaa 3/14/13


http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-selling-artists

Level Title Artist Label 29 THRILLER JACKSON, MICHAEL EPIC/LEGACY 29 EAGLES/THEIR GREATEST HITS 1971 - 1975 EAGLES ELEKTRA 23 GREATEST HITS VOLUME I & VOLUME II JOEL, BILLY COLUMBIA 23 THE WALL PINK FLOYD COLUMBIA 23 LED ZEPPELIN IV LED ZEPPELIN ATLANTIC 22 BACK IN BLACK AC/DC EPIC 21 DOUBLE LIVE BROOKS, GARTH CAPITOL NASHVILLE 20 COME ON OVER TWAIN, SHANIA MERCURY NASHVILLE 19 THE BEATLES BEATLES, THE APPLE 19 RUMOURS FLEETWOOD MAC WARNER BROS. 18 APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION GUNS N' ROSES GEFFEN 17 BOSTON BOSTON EPIC 17 THE BEATLES 1967 - 1970 BEATLES, THE EMI 17 THE BODYGUARD (SOUNDTRACK) HOUSTON, WHITNEY ARISTA

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-100-albums


Please don't forget until the early seventies singles were the dominate purchase ( not albums )


There is no way that michael jackson should be stated as most sucessful anymore . There is a reason why GWR never states that about mj after 1996 Please remove that statement

Thank you

71.234.119.3 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear person whose name is not my concern,

Clearly you haven't done your research properly. The sources you chose for your research are ones that are sure to show Presley as the most successful. This is biased and honestly, irritating. We do not want and opinion. We want the facts. In the 2009 Guiness World Records, Michael Jackson remains the most successful recording artist, and the most famous human on Earth.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1452 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

you should NOT be a wiki editor. since when did gwr, riaa and billboard become biased.???? isn't it ironic that the mj wiki page uses billboard, riaa and gwr as sources? also, mj was stated as most successful in 1996, NOT 2009. please note that in 2009, the wall street journal debunked the 750 million ablum sales claim from the mj camp. art baine, the official ifpi rep" we do NOT know how many records mj sold" clearly the only accurate worldwide tally would be riaa because they CERTIFY. mj is NOT the most successful per billboard, riaa and the ifpi. I am sure you realize the majority of mj awards were NOT around in the seventies. some are only awarded to a certain ethnicity as well. GWR 2013 states elvis sold a billion and is the biggest selling solo artist in history. that clearly is quantifieable and shows elvis is the most successful artist in history thank you (the silent majority)

12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your kidding right they dont say a billion do they. Not sure people undersnatd what a billion is. - simply not possible - no one is even close to that - not even Guy Lombardo.Moxy (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't know what's funnier about 12.40.50.3's post - the silent majority signing, or the non-stop contradictions. If Elvis can claim a billion from just over 200 million certified sales, Jackson should have no problem claiming 750 million from just under 160 million certified sales. Claimed sales have been "debunked" for both artists (see here) placing Elvis at roughly 100 million above Jackson and 100 million below The Beatles (which is nonsensical considering Beatles easily top a higher margin by comparison to Presley). Once again, re-emphasizing here: Nowhere in this article does it is state or imply that Michael Jackson outsold Elvis Presley, nor does it claim that Michael Jackson is the most successful artist of all time. The IP-address posts are becoming redundant fairly quickly. Mc8755 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


The lead states "Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records" but does not have a reference indicating which year. Leo1452, could you please add a reference from the 2009 (or later) Guinness World Records book for this statement? Does it define GWR's definition of "most sucessful"? Success could be measured by US-only album sales or US-only chart success via the RIAA statistics, but I think worldwide success would be a more interesting metric. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering GWR is a record that would need to be surpassed to be revoked, the year in which it was awarded is hardly a necessary inclusion. For the record, Jackson won Most Successful Entertainer of All Time, Highest Paid Entertainer of all Time and First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 million Dollars in a Year (among other GWRs not exclusively realting to being an entertainer) in 2006. Regarding to what the tagline refers to explicitly, this is a burden of proof on GWR, not Wikipedia. If it were sales alone Jackson would be noted as the highest selling entertainer/solo artist which of course he isn't as Elvis Presley and The Beatle's claims outdo his. Mc8755 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what's funnier about 12.40.50.3's post - the silent majority signing, or the non-stop contradictions. If Elvis can claim a billion from just over 200 million certified sales, Jackson should have no problem claiming 750 million from just under 160 million certified sales. Claimed sales have been "debunked" for both artists (see here) placing Elvis at roughly 100 million above Jackson and 100 million below The Beatles (which is nonsensical considering Beatles easily top a higher margin by comparison to Presley). Once again, re-emphasizing here: Nowhere in this article does it is state or imply that Michael Jackson outsold Elvis Presley, nor does it claim that Michael Jackson is the most successful artist of all time. The IP-address posts are becoming redundant fairly quickly. Mc8755 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


PLEASE stop being a wiki editor. you clearly are biased to this article. elvis never claimed anything. gwr 2013 recognizes a BILLION in sales for elvis. ironic, this mj article uses gwr for there beginning tagline, yet now you disregard what gwr states currently about elvis.mj camp cant claim 750 million because the wall street journal in 2009 debunked it. gwr has credible data to state one billion for elvis.the gwr old 1996 record for mj is ambiguous at best. what is the criteria for his sucess? it certaintly cant be for sales or billboard hits. if you disregard elvis 2013 gwr record, i ask then you remove mj old gwr one then too. thank you the silent majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'm the biased one while you keep posting and capitalizing the word billion to attempt to make it mean something and reposting the same crap over and over. View the article List of best selling music artists and see that one billion is not a total held for any artist, even The Beatles. These inflated numbers were made by PR teams and record labels to promote back-catalogue sales, they are not realistic, though clearly logic is lost on you. Elvis' camp promoted his billion tagline just as MJ's camp did with his 750 million. Back in the real world, Jackson's sales are at 400 million, Elvis' are at 500 million - this is reflected by Elvis being regarded as the best-selling solo artist of all time. The 2006 GWR (not 1996) is at the discretion of GWR - not you, and not Rolling Stone, of whom you're so fond. Jackson's award may be ambiguous, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or superseded by Elvis because you say so (over and over). Jackson is the most awarded artists in history, he also earned more money in his lifetime, perhaps these make up the criteria the award is based on; again it's at the discretion of GWR. But please, disregard my post and write another rambling post with plenty of CAPITALS and RIAA lists of certified sales; going in circles is less fun that in looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc8755 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


I am confused. wiki is supposed to present facts. its a verifieable fact that elvis listed as the biggest selling with a billion in sales. yet, you refute it. conversely, you will post mj 2006 record even though you admit "most successful" is ambiguous as best. why does the mj wiki article mention mj 13 number ones but the elvis article does not state in the beginning that he has 18 number ones.i also showed from billboard top 40 book (2010) that elvis clearly dominated the billboard charts. in otherwords why is the mj wiki page written from a fan and the elvis page written from a nonbiased observer. please put the changes I supplied in the beginning for elvis. even if you disagree with billboard, rolling stone and gwr they are well respected organizations. thank you the silent majority

76.222.86.76 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit Request: Adding Janet Jackson & Eddie Van Halen to "Associated Acts" section (@Moxy)

When you deleted Janet Jackson & Eddie Van Halen from the associated acts section, you stated as your reason that that is not what the section is for. By that logic, the Jackson 5 & the Jacksons should be removed as well, because they too were associated with Michael Jackson.

All these 4 artists were in collaboration with Michael Jackson, and in the cases of Janet Jackson and Eddie Van Halen, they worked directly with him, hence their greater importance than the Jacksons, which didn't work on new material with Michael Jackson as solo artist. So I think they should be included. Retrospector87 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggesting we add people that have simply "collaborated" with him - this would be an endless list that would include people much more prominent then Eddie Van Halen such as Paul McCartney. So what we have here is the bands hes directly "associated" with - the 2 bands he is credited as begin a member of. Not a list of people that have credits on "his" albums.Moxy (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The only "associated acts" other then the 2 obvious ones that even seems remotely worth putting there would be Janet Jackson, but certainly not Eddie Van Halen. I'm trying to think of reasons of why we would put Janet there but am coming up empty other then the fact they are siblings and worked together on one song. I don't think I would care if just she was added but you all can decide that. But I agree, the list would be endless if you wanted to put everyone he has ever worked with there. And remove the Jackson 5 and the Jacksons? No.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, see Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts for the proper use of the field. GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me. But FYI "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" is a reason not to put an associated act in that section, according to the rule you so nicely pointed out to us.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Zdawg1029. "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" is not reason enough to put the artist(s) in question. The factor that convinced me these artists should be included in the section was referred to in the purpose line of the association section, because they were "...significant and notable to this artist's career." Janet Jackson should be obvious -- they collaborated on one song which nonetheless received numerous, renown accolades, which benefited Michael of course. In Eddie Van Halen's case, the fact of cross-genre collaboration was a major first in the popular music industry, a fact that speaks to the King of Pop's creative legacy. Retrospector87 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cant look at this article as a fan - a solo in one song did not change the world no matter how much you like it. Not seeing any reason to add these people but fluff. I think we should add Rockwell (musician) hes my favorite collaboration ... if you get my meaning.Moxy (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy, I just don't think a solo in one song, no matter how popular or important the song was in terms of his career, should be added to that section. There are certainly other places for it, but not under associated acts. Like I said before, the only name I could even remotely see being added to the obvious 2 would be Janet. But I agree, Rockwell would be a hilarious add considering it was my favorite collaboration as well, but obviously that should not be added.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Me liking these songs don't have anything to do with do with my request. I am particularly fond of "Another Part of Me", but no collabo there. I've stated my reasons which obviously was looked over, suggesting that maybe the King of Pop's huge credentials don't nicely fit with the by-the-number template referred by myself and others. And the songs world-changing? I cited significance to the artist's career. If the industry firsts those songs set (the cross-genre first & the most expensive video produced up til that time, Van Halen & Janet Jackson respectively) aren't important and material enough to consider adding these artists, it's 2 sticklers vs. 1 non-stickler. Even so, I do have to agree with the "great" suggestion of adding Rockwell. I'm sorry but that collaboration had almost no meaning to Michael Jackson. It had meaning to Rockwell! Thanks for the sarcastic hit gents! Retrospector87 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Rockwell was a joke, but also made as a point to the number of people we could put there and how it would never end. I see your point, but I still have to disagree with doing it. It is a section for associated acts, not one time collaborations. The Wiki guide thing even says not to put one-time collaborations there, I would have thought that would have been the end of the discussion. As Moxy said, where would it end? We could put a million people there, The Beatles, Paul McCartney, Rockwell, Slash, 3T, Akon, 50 cent, Sheryl Crow, I could go on forever. There are more appropriate places to note collaborations such as the pages for the individual song or the page for the album. You could probably even make an argument to make an entire page devoted to people MJ collaborated with since it was so extensive (I'm not implying to do that). There are just better and more appropriate places to put such information. I think the reader gets a very good view of who MJ was and what he did in life and his impact on the world without putting such information there.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The case here then is between sticklers and non-sticklers to the template. That guide did mention the one-song clause -- it said that one-song collaborations "shouldn't" be in the section. But's it's a guide, not binding like Wiki's rules of conduct. If one, like myself, sees a reason that this "shouldn't" be followed, certainly there's no reason for me to stop to attempt to change it and have a discussion over it. And, per the rules of conduct, the majority has it for not adding these artists. And yes, the list can go on and on, but I wouldn't have it long. Paul McCartney is a maybe, only because he's freaking Paul McCartney. Retrospector87 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we really still debating this? I don't understand why you are so adamant about adding these names. It is such a minor detail. Who exactly would you propose we add to the section and for what reason?Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry did you not read my post? We're not. Retrospector87 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cooled off now, ace? Retrospector87 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was never "heated" to begin with.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1991–93: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII

Hi, I propose adding the following sentence immediately after speaking of the Heal the World Foundation:

The singer was included in the Guinness Book of Records for being the Star who has donated to charity more than anyone else. It is estimated That the figures for donations, at least Those known to be $ 300 million [1][2]


Thank youLilaMJ (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its the biggest private charity organosation in this area. MJ1982 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is scribd.com considered a reliable source? I don't read Italian - which sentence in the unonotizie.it reference refers to Guinness or the $300 million figure? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, GoingBatty, scribd.com considered a reliable source: I used it on the page of Michael Jackson-wikipedia italian. On Scribd. com are inserted the most documents also of some significance. On page unonotizie.it speaking of tours donated to charity. And for $ 300 million, there is another source[3]. Thanks!! --LilaMJ (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Third paragraph under '93

Third paragraph under '93 should be removed or changed. It references an affidavit and emphasizes nude photographs of boys even though that document says both heterosexual and homosexual materials were found. It shouldnt be there in the first place anyways because the affidavit is from the 2003 raid, not '93. It also cites Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, sources that are untrustworthy and biased. The wording of the section on the strip search attempts o downplay the inaccuracy in the description. It is clearly written to be highly prejudicial against Jackson.

The section should be completely rewritten or thrown out altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyefoxmason (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Yes I agree with you its definitely not an open minded source, But please remember to sign your post !MJ1982 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll remember to do that from now on. But that section definitely needs to GO or be altered to not be so prejudicial. Whoever wrote it obscured the facts and slipped in certain buzzwords to make Jackson look perverted, particularly the cutesy "books and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing." Setting aside the fact that the source it cites isn't even from the '93 raid and that Sneddon was caught trying to fabricate/plant evidence on Jackson later on with a magazine dated long after the Arvizos had left for good, it also notes that BOTH heterosexual and homosexual materials were found. Therefore it does not belong in the section about the Chandlers and their allegations at all. Anybody who would stretch the facts this far in order to give a negative picture of Jackson is clearly hellbent on character assassination. And then it cites Orth and Dimond, people who are militantly anti-Jackson, rather than reputable sources such as J. Randy Taraborrelli or Aphrodite Jones. Whoever has the authority to edit Jackson's page needs to do something about this. It's outrageous. Eyefoxmason98.232.88.150 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the third paragraph completely would also require removing the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Do you have a suggestion as to how to alter the paragraph? GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You could return to the way it was before this or simply preface the next paragraph that starts with "Jackson's friends..." with:

Search warrants of Jackson's home and condo, as well as the Jackson family home in Encino, did not turn up any incriminating material. A strip search of Jackson's body, done in order to corroborate a description of his genitals given by Chandler, yielded inconclusive results.

Those are widely reported facts that can be found almost anywhere. You could cite Taraborrelli's book, Fischer's article or almost any other reputable source. A concise statement like that is all that needs to be said. Including details about the porn or Jackson's pubic hair, his disfigurement due to vitiligo are only tools by Jackson's detractors to dirty him up and give readers a false impression of his guilt. Give them the undisputed facts and let them decide. Or you could simply go back to the way the section was before the atrocity of the truth that it is presently. Whatever you do, DON'T leave it like it is now. That is unacceptable. Eyefoxmason 98.232.88.150 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael is NOT the most downloaded artist of all time

Please remove " that michael jackson was the most downloaded artist " . He never was even on the date provided by the Okia article . Rihanna always was .


http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1003442



Rihanna is the most downloaded artist in musicalhistory, it has been revealed today.

The 'We Found Love' stars outfits maybe getting skimpier and smaller but her digital sales are soaring with every release notching up millions of downloads for the Bajan star.


Rihanna becomes the most downloaded artist ever

The singer has topped a poll of digital downloads and has beat some impressive contenders.

The stats are according to Nielsen Soundscan, which provide sales data to the music industry show that in less-than a decade, Rihanna has had her songs downloaded over 42 million times, taking her from an unknown teenager to global superstar. Not bad huh?

Here’s the top 10:

1. RIHANNA 42,571,000

2. BLACK EYED PEAS 42,405,000

3. EMINEM 42,290,000

4. LADY GAGA 42,078,000

5. TAYLOR SWIFT 41,821,000

6. KATY PERRY 37,620,000

7. LIL WAYNE 36,788,000

8. BEYONCE 30,439,000

9. KANYE WEST 30,242,000

10. BRITNEY SPEARS 28,665,000

Nilsen/ soundscan ( 1994-2012) This ckearly shows mr jackson was never the most downloaded artist

Thank you

76.222.86.76 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The story you cite is dated 2012. You'll need to provide the 2010 version of that list to counter the claims from Ovi, which were reported by MTV UK and NME that, as of 2010, Jackson was the #1 downloaded artist. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Tricky thing that is, reading the complete context and all. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael has never been the most downloaded artist

Please remove that michael jackson was the most downloaded artist . The Ovia article is wrong .

Here is the 2010 billboard / soundscan report that refutes it


http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110106006565/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2010-Music-Industry-Report



TOP TEN SELLING DIGITAL ARTISTS (Based on Digital Track sales from 7/04/2004-1/02/2011)


Artist

Units Sold 1 Taylor Swift 34,269,000 2 Black Eyed Peas 33,831,000 3 Rihanna 33,673,000 4 Eminem 33,279,000 5 Lady Gaga 29,311,000 6 Kanye West 25,343,000 7 Beyonce 25,136,000 8 Nickelback 23,919,000 9 Michael Jackson 23,218,000 10. Katy Perry 22,574,000


Michael jackson never was the most downloaded in 2010

198.228.200.169 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. The article, and the reference, is talking about the most downloaded artist "of all time" up to that point in 2010. The link you posted is data collected for the "52-week period January 4, 2010 through January 2, 2011". You're trying too hard to remove something you're not reading clearly. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has never been the most downloaded artist

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

please remove that mj was the most downloaded artist. according to soundscan/billboard he never was.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100106007077&newsLang=en

12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that Billboard did to refute Nokia's survey. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is the biggest selling digital artist in 2009 with more than 15 million track sales. ◦ In 2008, Rihanna was the biggest selling digital artist with 9.9 million track sales. (exact statement from soundscan/billboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states "on 29 August 2010, he became the most downloaded artist of all time". It appears that your reference is for 2008 & 2009 only. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


completely incorrect. riaa website on 4/16/13 shows elvis at 134.5 million albums certified to garth 128. mj is only at 71 million. I don't buy the award argument either. 1)mj estate uses riaa certifications as wards. the elvis estate or beatles do not count riaa certs as wards. most of his wins were from the wma. on there website "winners are determined by internet the voters, the buying public" that is complete nonsense and you can multi vote. to further debunk the wma . art baine , the official ifpi rep in 2009 "we do not know how many records mj has sold, we had to go to the gwr' "ifpi does NOT track individual artists" wsj 2009. if the ifpi didn't know, how exactly did mj win the diamond choprin award. also, in the "I want my mtv book' john landis witnessed mj demanding awards "the bigger the better". lastly a lot of his awards are after the seventies and can only be won by African americans.

mj was not the most successful. .only the most successful at hype

12.40.50.3 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's birth name

According to Jermaine Jackson's 2011 biography "You Are Not Alone - Michael: Through a Brother's Eyes", on page 42, Michael Jackson's birth was registered under the name of "Michael Joe Jackson". Although on his death certificate, his name was "Michael Joseph Jackson", this was definitely not his birth name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1452 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed on page 43, as well as the copyright page of the book. GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added a note regarding the discrepancy in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit - pls discuss before changing again no conspiracy stuff - - dont let them trick you. Michael Jackson Faked His Death or Michael Joe and Michael Joseph are twinsMoxy (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The reference in the article
File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg
  • Joseph is also used on his LAST WILL
Last Will and Testament
  • His fortune was all under the title Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson
Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson aka Michael Jackson
  • Books he has written and published like Moomwalk use Joseph
Michael Jackson (13 October 2009). Moonwalk. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-307-71698-9. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  • In interviews with him over the years "Ebony" has used "Joseph"
Johnson Publishing Company (December 2007). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 94. ISSN 0012-9011.
Johnson Publishing Company (May 1984). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 163. ISSN 0012-9011.
  • Looks like he wrote "Joseph" himself on his kids Birth certificates
MJ jr and Paris birth certificates
  • His children also have this middle name -
Mary K. Pratt (1 January 2010). Michael Jackson: King of Pop. ABDO. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-60453-788-8.

.........Moxy (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've actually heard that his middle name was Joe several times.Zdawg1029 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is correct he used it on many occasions - but hes Estate (were all the money goes), Birth certificate, Death certificate, Will, His books the he wrote, any old interviews refer to his full name as Joseph, his kids have this name.. it goes on and on. You would think that someone would have called Ebony magazine after getting it wrong 3 decades ago so they would not use if for the next 30 years. This name problem has never been a problem till he died and all the guess work started to show up. Same happens to many stars -if your alive they kill you if your dead its not you = Paul McCartney Is Dead or that Elvis is alive because his tombstone is wrong. Moxy (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article has his death certificate as the only reference for his birth name. You mentioned that Michael's birth certificate has his full name as Joseph, but when I perused the documents you provided above I didn't see any that explicitly stated that his birth name was "Joseph". Since you believe Jermaine's book is not a reliable source for Michael's birth name (why?) could you please add a reference to the article that says his birth name was "Joseph"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I dont understand what your saying - his legal middle name is there in the official legal document? That said its a primary source so pick any of the above and I will add them - what one do you believe is a better source then the State of California? - his estate papers? his books? his will? his Ebony articles? There is also his marriage license? his autopsy report? and from the horses mouth if you will - 1994 court tapes that have Michael stated his full legal name as Michael "Joseph" Jackson? Any is good for me.
As for Jermaine's book - just read it - see for your self - Jermaine Jackson (13 September 2011). You Are Not Alone: Michael, Through a Brother's Eyes. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4516-5159-1. see this first - a review Moxy (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moxy! I'm not disputing the legal name on his death certificate, or the legal name he used at various points in his life. However, since you say he used both "Joe" and "Joseph" throughout his life, I think it would be appropriate to find a source that specifically indicates his birth name. (For example, it would be incorrect to use John Lennon's death certificate to state that his birth name was John Winston Ono Lennon.)
Page 43 of Jermaine's book specifically talks about Michael's birth name. However, since reliable sources say that many other details of Jermaine's book are incorrect, I'm not going to object if you say that we shouldn't use his book as a source for anything.
Do any of the sources you provided specifically mention his birth name, or are you just assuming that his legal name remained unchanged throughout his life? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you removed the {{failed verification}} tag without answering this question or providing a reference to his birth name. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
At this point Its up to you to disprove all the sources above. Even the Jermaine Jackson source that has credibility problems says this is what's on his birth certificate. As for your example with Lennon - I urge you not to read to much in to all these conspiracies POV's Moxy (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The article uses his death certificate as proof of his birth name. If one of the many sources above mention his birth name, then please add it to the article. Jermaine's biography clearly states: "'Joe' was his middle name, as recorded on his birth certificate." My Lennon example has nothing to do with a conspiracy, just an example of a man whose legal name at birth and legal name at his death were different. GoingBatty (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
OOOOOOOOOO I understand what your saying now.... We have no records that Michael ever changed his name in the manner that John or even Marilyn Monroe did. Someones legal name is their birth name if they have not changed it officially. As i have mentioned before this name problem never was a concern till he died - .Moxy (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Michael was always referred to as "Michael Joseph Jackson" going back to even the J5 days. But I understand the confusion because when he was on trial in 2005 they referred to him as "Michael Joe Jackson" so it's definitely head scratching. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl Halftime Show

Anyone have any thoughts about adding something short to the section about the Super Bowl stating how MJ was the first big name act to perform the Super Bowl halftime show in an effort to keep ratings high, which had been declining in previous years. I think it says something that out of all the acts in the world they could have gotten to perform the show to draw and keep interest, they picked MJ because of his global appeal and big draw power.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a short statement about why MJ was selected for the show. I just think it was important to point out that of all the performers they could have selected to keep ratings high, they picked him, starting a tradition of getting big name talent in the future. I cited it to. Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Paris Katherine Jackson redirect

I was looking at WP:TOOSOON and looked at the deletion discussion for Paris Katherine Jackson, and clicked on the link. I saw that it was redirected to a section that has now been renamed to put the years at the front of the heading. As I am not an admin, I cannot fix it, would it be possible for someone to do so? —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Sarah 04:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fansite

I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's but not a wikipedian and I think the opening to this article isn't objective or encyclopedic. Not only does it make statements without citation it actually reinterprets known facts about Jackson's life. For example

"In the mid-1990s, he was accused of child sexual abuse, but the case was settled out of court for about $25 million and $2 million and no formal charges were brought"

The implication is that because it was settled out of court Jackson was exonerated. In truth, the opposite was the case and that is a fact of history. The people writing this article need to know that there are avenues for fandom but an objective encyclopedia isn't one of them 90.245.40.2 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - what is your suggestion to make this statement more accurate? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone could read that sentence and conclude that settling out of court exonerates him. If anything, it make him look guilty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You haven't answered GoingBatty's question. How would you rewrite the sentence to make it more neutral? Also, implying that the settlement made Jackson look guilty would be just as biased as a sentence implying that the settlement made Jackson look innocent. Jpcohen (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
IP, per WP:LEAD, the lead generally doesn't have to be directly sourced if the content mentioned in the lead is sourced lower in the article. That's why some parts of the lead aren't directly sourced, though editors have placed sources at the parts that are likely to be challenged. Direct quotations and contentious information in the lead about living people are the exceptions to sourcing the lead being a case-by-case matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The line you've used as an example above has a WP:Reliable source attributed to it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the above; the line is neutral in stating what happened factually. Nothing about guilt/exoneration is referenced or implied - no formal charges were brought and a financial settlement was reached out of court. How else would you reword it? Mc8755 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael was not a composer , producer or arranger

" say say say " was coauthored by Paul mcartney , a man who could play all the instruments in the studio and score every part , and a kid me , who couldn't " mj Direct quote from moonwalker


Thank you


71.234.118.65 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Jackson composed, produced and or arrenged Why (3T song), Centipede (song), Eaten Alive (song), Muscles (song) and Night Time Lover, just to cite a few. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth Ranking

So I wasn't the one that changed this on the page or brought the argument up in the first place, but surely there must be something better we can write to indicate that Michael was the 7th of nine children that survived. While it is true he technically was the 8th because Marlon's twin Brandon had died shortly after birth, on almost every documentary and what not I have ever seen on MJ, and there has been a lot of them, he is always referred to as the 7th of 9 children. Thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions?Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the documentaries because they're known for getting some information wrong. Brandon's early death doesn't make Michael the seventh child anyways. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THE HYPERBOLE ABOUT MJ BREAKING DOWN RACIAL BARRIERS

One point of fact that keeps coming up in his career is that he broke down racial barriers on MTV. In a sense that’s true but it’s much more accurate to say that it was actually CBS Records honcho Walter Yetnikoff – he was the one who told the network that they weren’t gonna get ANY more videos from the label’s artists unless they put Jackson in rotation. MTV caved in and it turned out to be a huge boost not just to Jackson but also to for the network

THIS WIKI ARTICLE IS CLEARLY SYNCOPHANTIC IN TONE. AT LEAST BE HONEST.

http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/debunking-myth-michael-jackson-broke-down-mtv-racial-barrier-and-exposing-hypocritical-media-reports-it-daily-swarm-report/

THANK YOU

71.234.118.65 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the Wikipedia article states that the videos were credited for breaking down racial barriers. I don't see where it states who was responsible for getting those videos on MTV. Could you please be specific about which sentences in the Wikipedia article you would like to be changed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess that sentence about the aforementioned videos "Beat It", "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" "breaking racial barriers" when it was really just the "Billie Jean" video that did it perhaps but even that's debated. It could be best to say the videos transformed the medium into an art form and promotional tool than just become a "racial barrier breaker" because even when Michael got heavy play on MTV, others like Rick James complained about not having his videos played on the channel and accused it of racism well after Michael's videos became popular. And it wasn't until Run DMC, probably, that black artists started to come to MTV in bigger doses. Again that's disputed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Spouses, Children in lead

Most leads for deceased entertainers list spouses and children. Is there an established reason these do not appear in the lead here, or should they be added for consistency? Qermaq (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it on Elvis, Sammy Davis or Marvin Gaye's articles so I don't know where it should be so in MJ's case. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Description of Michael in intro and introduction section in general

Not that I'm trying to compare this article with other featured/good articles but it seems with this one, there seems to be a strong emphasis about how many things are used to describe MJ. Most of the stuff are located inside the infobox. All I'm saying is maybe we shouldn't have this sentence:

"Michael Joseph Jackson was an American singer-songwriter, entertainer, dancer, arranger, music producer, choreographer, actor, businessman, musician and philanthropist."

I suggest this shortened description:

"Michael Joseph Jackson was an American singer-songwriter, dancer, businessman and philanthropist".

Since he was mostly known for those four occupations. The other occupations are listed neatly in the infobox so I don't think it needs addition to the intro section. Then again, I wonder why "entertainer" is listed as an "occupation". I understand that it's used in death certificates to describe famous celebrities (see Marvin Gaye's, MJ's, Elvis Presley's for examples) but I don't know how "entertainer" is an occupation by Wikipedia standards? Also, Michael wasn't known as an "actor" per se. Maybe he was an actor in his "short film" videos and a few movies but he was never known for his movie/film work but I guess it's understandable since the "Thriller" video definitely is enshrined as a "historic and cultural" film. But I suggest we only list actor in the occupation portion of the infobox.

Also, the entire introduction could also be shortened, namely the death part. I also indicate parts of the intro is outdated and will probably need an update. Like instead of mentioning those death details, just have it as:

"Jackson's death in 2009 from propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication triggered a global outpouring of grief and a live broadcast of the public memorial service viewed around the world."

I also suggest removing additional information like the estate signing a renewed contract, which by now is old news, you can leave that in the "aftermath" section or in the career section. But I don't think it's appropriate for the intro. Also suggest removing the "most downloaded artist" sentence from the intro, not because it's not true but because it should only be mentioned in one of the paragraphs, not the intro. I don't know what to suggest about the charity number but I guess we can leave that there.

Also I suggest maybe we also need to change the years Michael was actually active in his professional career. Michael (and others) listed his "professional" career starting in 1964 but I don't find that to be accurate. Michael's first public performance was in 1964 but he didn't turn professional until around 1967 or 1968 and I think 1968 is a good year because he signed with a major label - Motown - that year. So technically his professional career was 41 years, not 45. But I guess many people - including the person that finalized his death certificate thought it was fit to put 45.

Let me know what you think. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about cutting any part of the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it adequately summarizes the article, which is also of a significant size. I don't see how the death paragraph, which is already small, can be cut without losing an important summary of the information about Jackson's death. We definitely shouldn't have a single-sentence paragraph for his death, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs advises against single-sentence paragraphs. And since most this article's lead was included, in a different form of course, when it passed as a WP:FA, that's another reason I'm not too open to cutting portions of the lead. What should and shouldn't be in the lead was analyzed then. Of course, Jackson was still alive at that time, but you can't tell that from looking at the current lead (for example, any present tense information with regard to him being alive has obviously been changed to past tense). Like I stated in the "Confusion of subject matter in sections" discussion above, "Information about Jackson's death is what led to the lead exceeding four paragraphs. And given that the topic of this article is Michael Jackson, which means that there are significantly a lot more major points to summarize than the average musical artist or even the above-average musical artist, it's understandable that this article's lead is currently as long as it is."
As for the beginning of his professional career, his Jackson 5 career is clearly being counted. The lead, for example, states, "The eighth child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene along with his brothers as a member of The Jackson 5 in 1964, and began his solo career in 1971." That's correct. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think shortening it would lessen the significance of some points of the article. Also there's a difference between public performance debuts and professional music scene. Technically I always held the belief he started in 1968. I still think we need to shorten the list of descriptions about what MJ did. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This link (taken from the top of this article's talk page) shows what the lead looked like when the article passed as WP:FA in 2008; if anything, with the exception of the death paragraph, can be cut from the lead without damaging it, the way the lead was formatted then may hold the answers to that. And I know that you mean his performing with his brothers is different than having a professional career. But if sources, especially most sources, state that Jackson's professional career began in 1964, then so should we. We shouldn't add our WP:Original research about when his professional career began. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Understood on the original research thing. I'll leave it then. But yeah I can probably trim parts of the information with the exception of the death details. Anyway, how don't we trim the descriptions as I initially wrote as part of this section? Like instead of listing every occupation in the intro, just have three or four of the occupations listed while everything else stays on the infobox. That can be a start, right? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusion of subject matter in sections

The organization of this article really is poor. Most other biographical articles separate personal and professional lives. Information about his marriage and children should not be intermingled with album releases -- "Label dispute, Invincible, and third child" is a particularly egregious example. There are also duplicate sections, such as 4.1 Influences and 5 Legacy and influence. Someone needs to sort this out into a much better and more coherent structure. Bookgrrl (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Bookgrrl. The organization is fine for the most part. Like I stated at Talk:Whitney Houston#Call for cleanup, "The Personal life section is integrated into each section of the Life and career section; this is the typical format for musical artist biographies, at least for WP:GAs and WP:FAs. See Madonna (entertainer), Janet Jackson, Beyoncé Knowles and Lady Gaga for examples. It keeps the personal life matters together with what was going on at that time in the artist's life; this is in contrast to including all that information in a Personal life section, which can seem to be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The Michael Jackson article didn't use to have a Personal life section either, and the one that's currently there is a one-sentence section pointing readers to articles that go in-depth about his personal life."
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above, because you didn't and originally commented as an IP before you signed in. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe that's what Bookgrrl meant. There's enough discussion about Michael's children in his personal life article. Then again I see your point about it going together with what was going on with Michael at the time. And I have to agree with the structure of this rather well referenced article which has been a featured article since post-death. I was actually going to talk about the intro and explaining all of that about Michael being this and that when it's all in the infobox section. I was thinking putting in "recording artist, singer-songwriter and humanitarian" to shorten it. But of course this is not gonna be agreed upon other Michael Jackson article editors here (of which I'm a member). BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that the Life and career section of the Beyoncé Knowles article is currently split so that there is now a Personal life section separate from the Career section, but, as you all can see from the other WP:GA or WP:FA examples, that's not what is usually done for these type of articles (WP:GA and WP:FA musical artist biographies).
As for the lead, at five paragraphs, the lead of this article already exceeds the four-paragraph limit set out by WP:LEAD; it shouldn't be significantly expanded any further, not without cutting back some of the other detail so that the lead doesn't exceed five paragraphs. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of those in favor of shortening the intro. There should be at least a three paragraph limit (or how many paragraphs max) to the introduction, it stretches too far than some featured/good articles on Wikipedia. And why is his signature out of his infobox? Don't people have to put signatures from celebrities inside the infobox? I don't understand why it's out of it? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Information about Jackson's death is what led to the lead exceeding four paragraphs. And given that the topic of this article is Michael Jackson, which means that there are significantly a lot more major points to summarize than the average musical artist or even the above-average musical artist, it's understandable that this article's lead is currently as long as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Right his death paragraph is what is making the intro look out of whack to me. It definitely needs to be shortened. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that there is no |signature= parameter in Template:Infobox musical artist. GoingBatty (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh OK GoingBatty, so it stands. Got you. Just was wondering about the signature, thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 13:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
@BrothaTimothy: - You may be interested in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_7#Signature. GoingBatty (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks GoingBatty. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to delete the "subgenres" from the genre list?

I understand why some think the notion that Michael did new jack swing to be important but I don't think it really exemplifies Michael's entire musical style because his whole career was based on pop, rock and R&B and new jack is a subgenre of R&B in which he spent roughly four years with the genre. So I think it's time to eliminate new jack swing from the genre portion of the infobox. What do y'all suggest? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Blanket" was NOT a newborn in November 2002

Blanket was born February 21, 2002; he would have been nine months old by November. He certainly would not have been a newborn. I amended the article accordingly.

Sources:

http://www.biography.com/people/prince-michael-blanket-jackson-ii-20858461

http://www.celebritybabyscoop.com/2013/02/21/birthday-blanket-jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.9.236 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual Overhaul Recommendation

Better quality photos improve the overall feel of the article. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesWashington433 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

How is whether the heal the world foundation was shut down relevant to his overall contributions to charity. I think this information should be placed in the "contents" section.Billydeecooper (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Picture Titles

Hi, All the pictures have some weird text you can se if you check the html source or hover your mouse over the pictures, for example:

"An African-American man with shoulder length black curly hair wearing a black jacket and pants adorned with buckles singing into a microphone with his eyes closed. He is holding the microphone stand with both hands. Bright stage lights are visible in the background."

//Oscar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.116.128 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Feel free to improve the text if you can. GoingBatty (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson record sales

As per the statement of Michael Jackson estate, the artist has sold an estimated 1 billion records worldwide Here's the source - [4] [5]

  • While MJ's sales are astronomical, they're far from a billion as are Elvis' and The Beatles'. Those types of numbers are made up by labels to sell more of their back catalogues. The closest estimation of MJ's solo sales (excluding Jackson 5 and The Jacksons sales of somewhere in the region of 80-100 million records) is ballpark 400+ million. Sales weren't tracked half as well in the 80's as they are since the Soundscan era began. so it's difficult to be precise with these numbers. See here for the best tracking of top artists' sales, the sources are the closest we can get for now. Mc8755 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. Therefore, it'll be useless to post that on the article. It's just a label claim. Same with Elvis and the Beatles. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My comment was saying that the one billion figure shouldn't be included. I specified that "over 400 million records" is the best sourced figure for Michael's solo sales and it's the figure used in this article and the List of best-selling artists article. Elvis and The Beatles also have similar well-sourced tallies of 500 million and 600 million used in that list, though The Beatles article still ridiculously has the billion figure included three times. I wasn't advocating changing the numbers here at all. Mc8755 (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's real name-MICHAEL JOE JACKSON

DEAR WIKIPEDIA I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT MICHAEL JACKSON'S NAME IS MICHAEL JOE JACKSON NOT MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON HIS FATHER'S NAME IS JOE ON THE CONTRARY,HIS NAME IS ATTACHED WITH HIS FATHER'S NAME THERE'S NO ONE NAMED JOSEPH IN THE FAMILY KINDLY SEE TO IT AND CHANGE IT THAT'S A REQUEST PLEASE SEE TO IT AND DON'T LET ANYONE GET THE WRONG INFORMATION.182.68.11.93 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed several times in the talk page archive. Jackson's death certificate and legal documents in 1133603: The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson use Joseph. The main issue here is verifiablility.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 30#Michael Joe Jackson or Michael Joseph Jackson -- Moxy (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Having had another look at this, it is not quite as simple as it seems. This article assembles various documents where Michael Joe Jackson is used, (eg here). Surprisingly, given how famous he is, there does not seem to be any online scan of MJ's birth certificate. Throughout his life, there was some variance in how MJ was referred to in legal documents (Joe is used on his 1980s drivers license) and this is why confusion has arisen. Perhaps the article should make some reference to this, rather than asserting flat out that Michael Joseph Jackson is the correct version. This also has implications for Trial of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess we could mention both as they do at Britannica as a note - To me its still all conspiracy crap as seen [26] (must still be alive LOL) - this was never a problem before his death as seen at Johnson Publishing Company (December 1984). Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. p. 156. ISSN 0012-9011. Michael Joseph Jackson, whose middle name is his father's first. Who would name thier kid "Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr." if there name was not Michael Joseph Jackson. But what can we do ... I think most people will get it anyways in the end. -- Moxy (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The biggest issue is that the court documents relating to the alleged child abuse cases use Joe. The court would presumably have been careful to use his full legal name rather than a nickname. The missing piece in the jigsaw is the birth certificate (Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories springs to mind here). As WP:V says, ""When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree - they would use what his license say (his ID for that state). I can link transcripts of court cases but better if we here it from MJ himself - from his 1994 trial....Michael Jackson and the Dangerous Court Case Deposition 1994. But as I said before does not really hurt anyone if we mention both. - Moxy (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2013

I would like to request this letter so I can edit this article and make some changes. Zenki Pedere (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 12 December 2013

Is anyone going to mistake Michael Johnson for Michael Jackson? I don't understand why this "not to be confused with" appears at the top of this page? Take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.189.221 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Done I'm not sure what the article gained by having it there, so I removed it. If somebody disagrees, please chime in here right after you re-add it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

HUMANITARIAN

Could someone put him in the Humanitarian category? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.197.191 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

plus Added Category:American humanitarians (and fixed four other categories). GoingBatty (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.197.191 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why

Is this page locked? There is a claim in need of citation in the first paragraph? Are we really so scared someone might remove the blatant fan pandering and lack of NPOV from this article? --Anymouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.8.174 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Lunar "ownership"

The article contains a paragraph under the "Aftermath" section detailing MJ's purported ownership of vast tracts of the Moon. Since no one can officially own any non-terrestrial territory, what's the point of having this in the article? Michael Jackson is just one of countless others who have paid to own parts of the Moon, Mars, have stars named after them, etc. none of which is real, legal or recognized by the scientific & international community. "His" crater doesn't exist, at least not as belonging to him or being named after him - it was named by a private organization with no authority to name lunar locations. Normally I'd simply be WP:Bold and delete the content myself, but given the nature of the article I figured I should bring it up here first. Coinmanj (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jordie chandler never stated if mj was or was not circumcised

Your article is misleading . There is no credible source anywhere that states Jordan chandler described mj pen us as circumcised . Court documents show that judge Melville even agreed to the match . Please remove .


http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf



He said ..... "He (Jordy Chandler) described Jackson genitalia, it was unique because of the discolouration. And then we obtained a search warrant to photograph Jackson to cooperate, what the child had said. When photographing Jackson's genitalia, it did cooperate. In other words, the boy saw Jackson naked. Does that mean Jackson molested the child? No, but it adds to the credibility of the child". Bill dworin



Dr. Richard Strick was a doctor who was present on behalf of the local authorities during the photographing of Michael Jackson's dingdong. He said that Michael Jackson's genitalia was very oddly coloured with dark skin and light skin. He says he was later told that the boy (Jordy) description absolutely matched with the photographs that were taken.


The description matched and no where did Jordan chandler state mj was or was not circumcised Please remove 71.234.118.65 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Did you see Jordan's official description? Unless you have, you are just repeating information f'loons pass around. The only people who have seen it, apart from the children he molested, are the attorneys, the judge, and the police. Everything else is speculation. Now, the D.A. wanted to introduce the drawing, description, and photos of Michael's blotchy penis in court because they were a match, but nothing was said about foreskin. Much was said about a blotch the child could have only identified by being intimate.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

Mesereau said one without the other would be hearsay, which is laughable because Sneddon had every intention of introducing all of it in court. But if you read the document, nowhere does Mesereau say it wasn't a match.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

But most telling was Judge Melville's response. There was quite a discussion about introducing the evidence into court, under 1101(b), Character Evidence, for which the judge said was pointless, at this late date. It should have been introduced early in the trial, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. But he went on to say, "And secondly, I think -- even though your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay."

http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court_Tra...

/////////////////////////

ALERT!!!

IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE AN Anti-MJ TOPIX FORUM VISITOR (ABOVE)and not only are most of the links not working, but the fact that one of the links is to the infamous, MJ-BIAS mjfacts site is very telling in itself!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.87.127 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Court documents are not biased floon. Lying to the public and distorting facts is. No where is there any statement or court document that states jordie chandler stated mj was or was not circumcised. Bill dworin confirmed the match. This article is biased and misleading . Wiki should be about truth, not to please syncophantic fans.


Dworin: “We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.” Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?” Dworin: “Yes.” Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.” Dworin: “Very much so.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080078#.Usl1hH-9KSM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.118.65 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

self proclaimed king of pop

this article besides clearly written by fans is incorrect. mj did indeed self proclaim himself. there are numerous witnesses to this.


Larry Stessel, an executive at Epic Records at the time, explains the origin of the name:


Michael called me one day and said, “I want to have a nickname, like ‘The Boss’ or ‘The King.’” I said, “Well, Bruce Springsteen is ‘The Boss,’ and Elvis Presley is ‘The King.’ You can’t be the King because you’ll never live it down. The press will rip you apart.” But Michael would not let this go. He hired his own personal publicist, Bob Jones. And one day, Bob issued a press release announcing that Michael Jackson was the King of Pop. Michael went rogue on us. (i want my mtv book )

you artitcle also states unparalled influence which is complete hyperbole. no hostorian has ever said such.lets tone in it please and be relasitic.

thank you

68.199.5.149 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect. Michael points to an introduction by Elizabeth Tayler here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s92BVuQbuyg as the origin of this phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.189.221 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Mj was a notorious liar and hype man . This self commissioned painting shows how self proclaimed mj really was floon.

http://www.bizarbin.com/bizarre-things-owned-by-michael-jackson/knighted/

71.234.118.65 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Yes, yes, that book...When it comes to MJ, it amounts to nothing but another book with another lie about Michael Jackson. They couldn't even get the dates right...They claim and lie that MJ started all of this and in the early 90's, yet they didn't bank on the fact that all the while, there was actually evidence out there that Michael was being called the KOP not long after he dazzled the world during the Thriller era / Motown 25th appearance.


First of all, below is a quote from MJ when questioned on same. Furthermore, the fact that Michael was either not aware of, or had forgotten that he had already been referred to as the King of Pop way back then, is also very telling:


During Oprah interview - Early 90's:


“I never "self-proclaimed" myself to be anything. If I called up Elizabeth Taylor right now, she would tell you that she coined the phrase. She was introducing me, I think at the American Music Awards, and said in her own words – it wasn’t in the script – “I’m a personal fan, and in my opinion he is the king of pop, rock and soul.” Then the press started saying “King of Pop” and the fans started.

This self-proclaimed garbage, I don’t know who said that.” - Michael Jackson in answer to Oprah Winfrey, and to which can also be viewed on YouTube.

And lastly:

Here are just two newspaper articles ALREADY referring to MJ as the ‘King of Pop’ as far back as 1984: Case in point, Michael had ALREADY long ago, been referred to as KOP. Read within the text, also!


IF THE LINKS DON’T WORK simply paste into Google, the full text heading under link:

sdilej.eu/pics/088a009e9369460093d94ce032ce68cc.jpg

Or, paste following into Google:

1984: New York Post – ‘The New King of Pop’ then click on Images tab. First picture/article.


1984: Chicago Sun-Times article referring to MJ as the "reigning King of Pop http://mjjnewsarchives.tumblr.com/post/8484139379/michael-joseph-jackson-the-reigning-king-of

Or, paste following into Google and click on Image tab: 1984: Chicago Sun Times Michael joseph Jackson the reigning king of pop


If trouble with above links /title texts, then both articles can be found on the same page as here: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=8143 Regardless of it being a “fan” site, the information is factual, tangible and that is all that should matter…it is usually the fans who have more information, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.87.127 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)



And yet another tabloid-style lie deliberately put out around the same time (Early 90's, when MJ was being referred to as KOP, again) is that MJ also DEMANDED Oprah refer to him as The 'King of Pop' in the interview at Neverland. However, at least Oprah had the decency to admit he never said such a thing.


Here is the video evidence - from 3:10 to 5:00 where Oprah explains the title King Of Pop and Michael answers!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqLj330G4A4&feature

And, it does not matter what sources I have posted above because the facts are there in black and white (Newspapers) AND on live video (Oprah squashing yet another nasty, anti-MJ rumour, by admitting that MJ had NOT demanded any such thing from her).

Bold textYou can rant all you like and continue repeating the nasty rumours that were deliberately put out about MJ back in the early 90's, but you cannot change the facts - or the fact that you have gladly fed off tabloid style fodder about MJ and parroted it here. Try as you may, but you can never wash the above facts away!! 86.42.87.127 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You wish floon Larry stressel is on record stating mj wanted to be called king . Many artist in print have been called kop. M Jackson was the only one who enforced it . Funny for the this is it concert promotion floon, the podium and banner have king of pop. Normal people don't just take the word of the accused without checking all the evidence . There are witnesses ,mj arrogant psintings and the podium where he spoke. He was self proclaimed . All the facts show it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.118.65 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is michael Jackson lying to oprah concerning another matter. It's common sense, that mj would lie about self proclaiming too. This in addition to him speaking on a pedestal with kop,numerous witnesses including Kurt loder and Adam corrola.

Jackson biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli identified Michael Levine as the PR pro who spread the phony story that Michael slept in a hyperbaric (oxygen) chamber. Jackson personally concocted the hoax (and others) and ordered it disseminated for the purpose of boosting press coverage, thereby increasing record sales. Jackson's manager promised Levine additional work if he cooperated.[23]

In February 1994, PBS's Frontline showed Michael Jackson telling Oprah that it was the tabloids who concocted the hyperbaric chamber story and that he can't understand why people would buy those magazines. A spokesman for the National Enquirer confirmed Tarborrelli's version that it was Jackson's people who created the story. They even supplied the photographs.


71.234.118.65 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Spiritual Theory Warning For Jackson Family

Musion Eyeliner - Mulliner and Mulsanne mispelt/rearranged (s(Z)ion Eye for Muliner, U(r)line for Mulsane) - Z (China should be wary) and R (can't really say but doubtless anything mispelt could be linked to this). Jackson's image and thus SOUL will be used to power vehicles by Bentley BUT possibly 'ghettoise - any and all users of the vehicle).

I doubt the family of the Jacksons want Michael's 'great stardom' to be frittered away in vehicles for Zionists? Then again Michael Jackson did cause many deaths by proxy during his time while alive, the drug taking alone would be enough to take out Acheh or Yunnan . . . and would the Judaists be saving the world this time? Possibly if Musion Eyeliner closes down after energic parity is reached AND if Jackson was a subvert Islamist, meaning Bentley would be Islamising by proxy AGAIN - Dubai link?

Or would the world prefer to buy NEUTRAL intent free named vehicles from China or other countries instead (don't buy Chery or any English name vehicles because of the NLP if you're an English language using person or your country has people named Chery . . . ) so that no colouring of the vehicle by any personality will impinge on the user's experience but neutrality only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.148.254 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Earnings & Wealth

Hi guys, I was just looking over this section where an unrealistic figure of Jackson's $130 million asset value in 2003 is present. Surely this is incorrect, most people would realize that his assets were worth much more, considering The Beatles catalog which was merged with Sony to produce the Sony/ATV publishing, Jackson's own music catalog, Neverland and other business ventures. Should we go ahead and remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we cannot inject our own beliefs about whether the estimates are realistic or unrealistic. The article should cite what the sources say, not what we as Wikipedia editors believe. By the way, the executors of Jackson's Estate valued the ENTIRE estate as having a net value of only seven million dollars at the time of death, while the Internal Revenue Service claims the Estate had a net value of over a billion dollars at the time of death. Now, there's a difference of opinion! The IRS says that the Estate owes over 700 million dollars in Federal estate taxes and penalties. I have added a section on that dispute as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The dispute is now before the United States Tax Court. That's going to be an interesting story to watch. Famspear (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing in the article

Michael Jackson was an artist too. He did sketches and drawings. This info is not included in the article. Please, include them. My references are:

Not sure if it's notable enough to include..... IMDb is not a good source, though..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that it's not especially notable right now. Musicians often venture into other lines of creative outlets, to little or no consequence. If his art somehow makes a greater impact in the future, than that would be different. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Say Say Say"

Probably should note Say Say Say as a significant collaboration. It was a top ten song/video for both Michael Jackson and Paul. Shjacks45 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think any mention of individual songs outside the ones that were instrumental in defining his career and sound don't really warrant a mention in the main article. The Album Pipes of Peace and Say, Say, Say seem to take care of that just fine. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviated name- 'MJ'

Closing discussion started by sockpuppet of Abhijit038. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Would anyone care to explain why his abbreviated name - MJ has been not mentioned in this article? If my memory serves me right, it was there before in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundblack (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything to suggest that the abbreviation of his name is notable. If you can find some credible sources that suggest that, it can be included. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Brandon Howard

Not exactly sure what to do with the article and THIS information, so I thought I'd leave it on the talk page.

On March 5, 2014, TMZ published a report claiming that Brandon "B" Howard, the son of 80s songstress Miki Howard, had planned to release DNA proof that he was Jackson's son.[6][7] On March 6, 2014, during a live press conference, the results of the DNA test were announced allegedly proving that Brandon Howard is Michael Jackson's son.[8][9]

--Nk3play2 my buzz 22:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This came from some weird website, FilmOn.com and one of the people behind it was behind the ill-fated George Zimmerman fight with DMX. Miki Howard's son is trying to distance himself from this mess that he had a part in making. I call this news suspect. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
TMZ (who broke the original story) just updated saying how the DNA results were faked so it's safe to say that this story does not belong in this article whatsoever. AngelOfSadness talk 14:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
DNA results weren't legitimate; WP:NOTNEWS, nonsense not worthy enough for inclusion. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Insurance company didn't pay

I'm sorry but as I'm reading from what was going on in 1993-94 when the first child molestation allegations came up, we have to be factual about who paid what. As far as I know and from the mouths of many, including Thomas Mesereau himself, Jackson's insurance carrier did not pay the settlement. Only Jackson himself paid. I understand editors of the article want to keep it respectable to Jackson but let's not distort facts. Jackson himself settled, not an insurance company/"insurance carrier". BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Length

Anyone else starting to think this article is getting too long? Should we discuss possibly splitting this article up or trimming it in some way? Twyfan714 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If cutting down detail, which parts would you suggest are too lengthy? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the part about his changing appearance and health is just a rehash of that article. I think we can trim that down, or even eliminate it with a link to the respective page on that. His death section is also really lengthy and could use some trimming as well. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. His changing appearance and health issues page already discussed a lot about this, I'd definitely cut portions of it too. If I think of other sections to shorten, I'll bring it up here too. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 09:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll try to trim some of the repetitive details on his appearance in his early life and career, they're covered in detail elsewhere.Rosalina523 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Sheepsylvia (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Michael Joseph Jackson

Not done: as you have not requested a change - the article already states Michael Joseph Jackson.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

'"Intro"'

Michael Joe Jackson (August 29,1958 - June 25, 2009) was an American [[singer-songwriter], dancer ,(entertainer) arranger , music producer , choreographer , actor , businessman , musician and philanthropist .Often referred to as the King of Pop or by his initials MJ. Michael Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. His contributions to music, dance and fashion, along with his publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades. And on this month of April, year 2014, The MJJ Estate received an award for another achievement for the album Thriller for reaching 100 million worldwide sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 Moonwalker 1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What sources state Thriller sold that many copies this year? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Search for "doing to much television at the time". That should be "too" I think. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your note! Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Holographic video

Jackson performed at the 2014 Billboard Music Awards. I just heard on the radio how that was possible. Did I not look carefully enough, or was this not included in the article, and if not, can it be?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A "hologram" of what appeared to be Michael performed but I don't think it's necessarily to add on to the article. I don't recall when Elvis and 2Pac's "hologram" performances happened, it wasn't documented on their respective articles. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, didn't Justin Timberlake have MJ as a hologram open for him just recently? Or am I getting this mixed up with something else? Eman235/talk 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Doubt it. It would've been in the news if that was the case, unless I didn't hear about it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thought it was on BBC...but maybe I'm just getting it mixed up with this :/ Eman235/talk 22:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Known around the globe as "MJ" - Not just the" King of Pop"!

Why have the initials "MJ" been taken out from the introduction section of this article? “MJ” was / is a world-renowned shorter version for Michael Jackson!

He has been called "MJ" just as much as he was called the "King of Pop”. Wikipedia editors or not – No one should have a right to just come along without any explanations and try to toss out something which has long been associated / embedded as part of his identity as an entertainer. That is beyond disrespectful!

Michael Jackson’s initials – “MJ"- is instantly recognisable to millions around the world – including its use of logo on all kinds of Jackson-related merchandising / memorabilia. Why on earth was it removed?

The famous “MJ” initials need to be put back into the introduction section.

In the meantime, I don’t know when an editor will see this post, but I will be back regarding this issue. Unbelievable!

Because "MJ" is his nickname and not a professional alias/title like King of Pop. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


"MJ" was not a "nickname" - Nicknames for MJ were: "The Gloved One" - Because of MJ's trademark single glove - and the lesser used following: "The Earl of Twirl" - because of the way he was able to spin while dancing - and "The Thriller" - for obvious reasons. Same as "Magic" Johnson being another nickname - because of the way he handled the ball. Elvis the Pelvis - because of the way he moved his hips - Especially in a society that was quite closed-minded at the time. They are examples of real nicknames! MJ" were his actual initials and used just as much as the title, "The King of Pop" around the globe, both verbally, and on Michael Jackson merchandise / logos, etc. Again, it was not a "nickname" (as is all mentioned, above) - it was a very commonly used abbreviation of his full name and nothing else. Initials of one’s first and Surname is not a "nickname".

At the age of 21, Michael Jackson actually wrote a manifesto which included the lines: "MJ will be my new name. No more Michael Jackson." However, Michael didn't know that he would also be crowned the "King of Pop" a few years down the line, and when that happened, he was then referred to under both that title, and his initials. No matter which way anyone tries to cut this, "MJ" is synonymous with Michael Jackson ...and on a global scale. Sooner or later someone may include this again, and if removed, then a new debate can begin. Whoever removed this was wrong to, when they know they are simply his initials. Why did they not ask others for some kind of feedback first, instead of using "nickname" as an excuse for removing it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.64.112 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"MJ" is also heavily used with regard to Michael Jordan. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Everyone has initials, and initials aren't encyclopedic. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As stated, "MJ" is not entirely exclusive to Jackson. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To ALL (Above)replies...You can go on and on with excuses - It doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson was and still is, also well known by and called by his initials, MJ - just as much as Michael Jackson and even more so than "The Gloved One".

@Mlpearc: We know everyone has initials...What is your real point with that reply? Not "Everyone" was and is globally referred to by their initials, on a regular basis - as was and is, Michael Jackson!!

As for Michael Jordan, that is a lie... Say MJ in my part of the world and Michael Jackson, The King of Pop comes to mind, NOT Michael Jordan, the basketball player. America is not the rest of the world. 86.42.64.112 (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.66.78 (talk)

Net Worth

Why is MJ's 2007 net worth listed in the profile box? It's outdated and redundant just from Estate's valuation of $1.1bn by the IRS in 2013 (a point mentioned in this article).Mc8755 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Joyceabalos (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)by Joyce[10][11] According to the rolling stone Michael Jackson was the world's greatest entertainer. One of the most explosive performances I've ever witnessed was Jackson sliding across the stage at the Motown 25th-anniversary show. Just watching that made us all know: That's what greatness is, and anything that doesn't measure up to that is beneath greatness?

Net worth mentioned in the article is outdated. As of 2014, most of his debt jas been payed off. Recently, his art collection was found from his residence which is valued at $900 million. As of 2014, Sony ATV is valued at a minimum of $5 billion given that it was able buy EMI Music Publishing for $2.2 billion .Athough it's true value can never be estimated as it owns millions of songs. So according to MJ'S 50% share his share values at a minimum of $2.5 billion. His own music publishing company, Mijac is valued at $150 million. That makes around $3.55 billion to his net worth. His 2009 documentary, This Is It made $300 million worldwide, 80% of which went to Jackson Estate. That makes it $3.8 billion. According to Forbes, after his death in 2009 his estate has made over a billion dollars from album sales, immortal tour, publishing etc till 2012. Forbes announced his 2013 earnings at $130 million. That makes it $4.93 Billion. And this does even include his earnings from album sales and touring before his unfortunate death. During his career he made over $500 million from touring. And with his album sales estimated at a minimum of 400 million before his death his earnings were around $300 million. Also another $50-70 million from commercials and merchandise. After taking out a $500 million debt, his net worth as of 2013 is a minimum of $5.3 billion. And this will only continue to grow due to his fairly consistent album sales and 50% stack in Sony ATV Music which is now the largest publishing company with revenue of around $100 million every year. Also, his estate's new $250 million deal with Sony for next 7 albums.

References

  1. ^ "Michael Jacksons Humanitarian Efforts". scribd.com.
  2. ^ "Poche parole sul grande pacifista Michael Jackson". unonotizie.it. 20 agosto 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Humanitarian: Guinness Book Of Records Names Michael "Most Support Charities"". ireport.cnn.com. 30 giugno 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand--footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012-136740033.html
  5. ^ http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/01/michael-jackson-sells-1-billion-copies-worldwide/
  6. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/05/michael-jackson-son-brandon-howard-dna-evidence/
  7. ^ Golgowski, Nina (March 5, 2014). "Singer plans to produce DNA evidence proving he's son of Michael Jackson: report". Daily News. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  8. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/06/michael-jackson-son-brandon-howard-dna-test/
  9. ^ Bucktin, Christopher (6 March 2014). "Michael Jackson 'fathered lovechild as DNA test proves he has a secret son'". Daily Mirror. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
  10. ^ http://www.whoismorefamous.com/?fulllist=1Michael Jackson named as one of the most famous man of all time.
  11. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/michael-jackson-20110420

Michael Jackson?

Uh, who is Michael Jackson? He's a great singer of making albums! --Allen talk 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And what edit would you like to propose? I think multiple users have already told you not to comment on talk pages unless you want to discuss an edit to the article. Kirin13 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It's Michael Jackson, how'd he died in 5 years ago? --Allen talk 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have an edit to propose or not? Kirin13 (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Read the section of the article called Death and Memorial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Death_and_memorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.155.10 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"U.S. Federal estate tax problems" Part

Should "U.S. Federal estate tax problems" part be independent? I think it can be put in "Aftermath" paragraph before "In February 2014, the Internal Revenue Service reported that Jackson's estate owed them $702 million......" --Wzy0532 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Nokia Music Store

I fail to see the importance of the following sentence, which is in the lead: ”In what would have been Jackson's 52nd birthday on August 29, 2010, he became the most downloaded artist of all time in Nokia Music Store.”

Isn’t the ”Nokia Music Store” a pretty trivial thing compared to his other achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.193.248 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. If it was Apple, it would've been a bigger deal. I was thinking of deleting that part but apparently the main editors were alright in keeping it there for some reason. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

he could bend until 25 degree but most of sites try to show his moves are fake and base on a kind of shoe. jack raye say he is the only person can do this magic dance.the until gravity dance made quarrel in world. after 2 years some institutions started to terminate the magic dance from peapole mind untill they can forgot the reality. also we never see that moves from 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.101.36.133 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

include xscape album on discography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xscape_(album)

200.104.193.105 (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Not sure why I've marked as done since I've not done a thing and agree with Snuggums we don't add compilation albums there. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 Not appropriate to include as it is a compilation album. According to WP:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, only studio albums should be listed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

The filmography mentions Ghosts but omits Thriller, I dare say the latter is more important. I'd edit it myself if I could... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.213.83.195 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Thriller is a music video while Ghosts is a short film. Music videos don't belong in filmography sections of biography articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, I'd agree that music videos don't belong there, but if Ghosts qualifies as a short film, why doesn't Thriller? They're both extended music videos if you ask me. Anyway, no biggie, just thought it was odd. 193.213.83.195 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ghost is a short film"?

The likes of Ghost and Thriller, to name just two, were ALL short films - No wiki editor can claim otherwise. That is what the man himself, MJ, meant for them to be - and that is what MJ referred to them as, regardless of the opinion of any wiki editor.

'Thriller 30th Anniversary Celebration Of Short Film': https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/thriller-30th-anniversary-celebration-of-short-film

'Jackson’s Thriller video set for 3D makeover'

Michael Jackson’s iconic ‘Thriller’ video will be released in 3D next year.

"The 14-minute 1983 classic short film will be overhauled by original director John Landis after he resolved a dispute with the late star’s estate, and it could even be released in cinemas.":


http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-jackson-thriller-3d-rerelease/ 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.77.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ghosts was not a music video for any of his songs, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

make bad tour in the photo description as the Bad tour

108.206.62.171 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad appears to be capitalized everywhere it's used in the article to refer to the album, song, or tour. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

daughter link

the link to his daughter in the information box just links back to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.99.9 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have unlinked her now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

In 2004, Jackson was the centre of a parody scandal by rapper, Eminem. In Eminem's music video for Just Lose It he dresses like Michael, pokes fun at his plastic surgery and brings up his child sexual assault allegations. Due to this demeaning song and video, a huge number of Jackson's friends and fans supported him against Eminem, and Jackson even spoke to Steve Harvey in his radio show expressing his anger towards Eminem's depiction of him and asked for TV stations to stop playing the video. [1] Kaitlynnjong (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3738514.stm

Commentary of "New York plastic surgeon Dr. Pamela Lipkin"

Is there a reason why we should include her opinion in this article? There are thousands of other doctors' opinions that can be shown here. This one doctor's opinion shouldn't be singled out in this article. Epic Genius (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

Instrument: vocals, keyboards, synthesizer, guitar, drums, bass, piano, percussion

Cavid.dolman (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't list every instrument Jackson has ever used; we just list those he is best known for playing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Debbie Rowe

A very plausible search term, but just about every source talking about Debbie really pertains more to ex-husband Michael. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and she doesn't have enough to warrant a separate article per WP:BLPFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't think she deserves a Wikipedia article either, no offense to the subject. But what else she is notable for other than her marriage to Jackson? Infobox says Known for: Marriage to Michael Jackson. And that's enough to meet notability criteria? --Chamith (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If that article is going to be merged, it should be merged with Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, where it already points to in its Relationship with Michael Jackson section (which is also most of the Debbie Rowe article). Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, Flyer, that personal relationships page is also probably best merged here as well (if not deleted). It's basically a bloated content fork with excessive detail on relationships when all the important points are summarized on this bio page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
For one, I think that the Michael Jackson article is big enough as it is, and that we have WP:Spinout articles on this topic for valid reasons. For two, I think that the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson article is a decent article about a WP:Notable topic, which is why it's a WP:Good article. Yes, yes, I know that WP:Good article standards were different at that time, but such a difference does not lead me to discredit a Wikipedia article's quality. How the article has changed over the years is what does. I'm not a "newer is better" person when it comes to WP:Good article and WP:Featured article status. If you want to tear the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson article down, I won't stand in your way. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Debbie still gets media coverage after Michael's death and played an important role in his life. The article has survived AFD twice and is in ten+ different language Wikipedias. I don't agree with merging the personal relationships page either as that was created as this article was long enough as is and the information would only be summarized or bloat the page. GuzzyG (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether the personal life article stays or not, you've overlooked how she fails notability per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLPFAMILY. Her only coverage is based on family affiliations, which is not by itself enough to warrant a separate article. As for previous AFD's, voters likely overlooked those factors as well, and consensus can change when it comes to an article standing on its own. Just to clarify, if the personal relationships article were to be merged, only a bit of info would be added, as the most important aspects are already summarized in this page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

:: You're right, sorry. Support merge of Debbie. Still not a fan of the personal life merge though.GuzzyG (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just seen news coverage over her custody battle over her daughter, so am now neutral. GuzzyG (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - this is the junk that was moved from this article years ago as per a consensus at the GA and then FA reviews. The other article should be deleted with a redirect at best....not junk moved here. We have no need in this article to talk about her early life etc...-- Moxy (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also willing to have her article simply redirected. She fails notability criteria for biographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose and I am going to remove the tags. Be practical, the material is of wide interest but best not cluttering up this article. Debbie Rowe isn't notable except for her relationship with Michael Jackson, but that doesn't mean that it is ill-advised for her to have an article. A break out article is tbe best way to present the information in a way with is useful to the reader. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to delete the tag from his articl as it is locked, but I removed it from the other one. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You CANNOT remove merge tags when involved in a merge discussion. An uninvolved user must do that. WP:INTERESTING isn't really a convincing argument for keeping (or not keeping) an article as it doesn't showcase how the subject is (or is not) notable. She fails notability criteria for biographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Click on WP:INTERESTING, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Debbie Rowe is irrelevant in the world of Michael Jackson. Wikipedia should keep Michael Jackson to be limited to only himself as an artist and himself and leave out x-wives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCCF:8920:3C1C:EE9A:E3B3:535 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the intent; see WP:Merging. I recommend including a bit of info on her here, and for her article to redirect to this one. The page should give at least some detail (although not excessive) on his marriages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The plethora of reliable sources in the article demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:GNG and is therefore entitled to a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is how sources really pertain more to Michael than Debbie, and notability is not inherited. Please also see the "Family" and "Invalid criteria" section of WP:Notability (people). Being a family member by itself is NOT enough to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The two IPs suddenly popping up on the same day to weigh in here is suspicious, given that this discussion has been slow. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Paris Jackson

I'm not sure where else to bring this subject up, but does anyone else think it is a good idea to make a page for Paris Jackson? She does after all have a IMDB and www.biography.com page. She was voted into People magazines most beautiful people list.Zdawg1029 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not now; she was redirected here due to lack of independent notability. Paris is known for very little outside of being MJ's daughter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If I had a penny for the number of people on Wikipedia that had a page that were known for far less than her, I would be a millionaire. Is she actually not notable, or is it just your opinion that she is not notable?Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not independently notable enough for own page per WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sales

"...and estimated sales of up to 400 million records worldwide,[413][414][Note 1] which makes him the 3rd best selling artists of all time just behind Beatles and Elvis Presely."


Sorry, but if you are talking on a GLOBAL scale, then there is absolutely NO evidence at all, that Michael Jackson's record sales is behind the "Beatles and Elvis Presley"!! There never was, and still isn't any such evidence of this repetitive claim.

In fact, there is more evidence suggesting otherwise, A few of Michael's albums are in the top selling records, worldwide. He was the most famous and most popular artist ever, on a global scale ...With his name even known in the remotest parts of the planet. Even the figures put into the wiki page for ALL THREE top selling artists, is highly unlikely. However, on a global scale, MJ has more than likely long outsold the Beatles and Elvis Presley. He was also the first artist to OFFICIALLY sell over 100 million records outside of the US; which again, contradicts the above claims. There is also NO worldwide chart evidence - Past or present - that shows any kind of phenomenal sales mentioned in the wiki 'Best Selling' list to support such claims for the "Beatles and Elvis Presley". It is just the same rumours and stories - and especially for the latter artist - of unfounded, "Lost sales / Unaccounted sales / and Uncounted sales which are being used to try and explain such high figure claims. Absolutely no REAL evidence to this day!

Sorry, but no matter what way one tries to spin these old, unfounded rumours, the above is the truth! Zero evidence ...Especially on a global scale!! I don't feel these kinds of remarks should be included in an article when no OFFICIAL proof...When, after all is said and done and spun...there is STILL zero evidence!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.73.243 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on citation style

RfC closed with a result to retain the citation style present at the time the article successfully passed candidacy for Featured Article status. With due respect to the 5th pillar, the rough consensus in this instance is that guidelines given at WP:CITEVAR are more useful for improving the citation style for this article than ignoring them might be, and that while improving the citations to make them more consistent with each other and easier for readers to follow is always better for the project, introducing piecemeal variations to the article's citation style most likely is not. KDS4444Talk 10:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the citation style on this article be changed from the complex, mixed style, to:

  1. Shortened notes linked with {{sfn}} and CS1 citation templates;
  2. CS1 citation templates, without shortened notes;
  3. Another style (specify); or
  4. No change (=use the style established at the time of Featured Article promotion, which is CS1 + manually formatted short citations).

See WP:CITE, WP:CITEX, and WP:CITEVAR for further information. GregJackP Boomer! 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support No. 4, no change. GregJackP Boomer! 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 4; change isn't needed, and neither is this RFC to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree on both issues, however Synth is not hearing the other editors tell him not to change it, so the Captain Obvious approach is my attempt to settle the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 19:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Incorrect, this article is a huge mess and I don't even understand why you adopt such a disrespectful attitude towards my work. Changes are needed to improve the quality of the style used throughout this article Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No change, but grateful thanks and support for fixing citations (especially the bare URLs) to conform with the long-standing style. Synhtwave correctly identified the existence of problems with incomplete citations on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you explain why it shouldn't be changed ? It would be more useful to provide a more detailed explanation. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support regularising the references to use one style (CS1 plus sfn) per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout" and WP:SFN. At present the article contains CS1-style, hand-written text, pseudo-harvard style book cites, bare urls, even a file on Commons, many of which are inconsistent even within each type. No change simply isn't an option here. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for you input. This is exactly what I did first, as there was no consistent style throughout the article, but other editors don't seem to understand it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not about us not understanding anything; it's that you did not initially make this out to be a matter of making the citation style consistent throughout the article, that you introduced more citation inconsistency in the article, and that you don't even believe in WP:CITEVAR. I am to believe that your goal was to make the article have a consistent citation style throughout when you don't even believe in WP:CITEVAR and have stated that you edit articles in clever ways so that editors don't object to you violating WP:CITEVAR? Your initial responses were that having inconsistent citation styles is not a problem, changing citation styles is never a problem, and that you were seeking to reduce the size of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Incorrect, I added a proper and uniform archiving citation style throughout the article to prevent dead links (as explained above) and to reduce the size of the article. I've already explained why WP:CITEVAR was irrelevent in this case, why I couldn't archive all the references and why I decided to clean this article up to make sure that everything was consistent. Also I've already cleaned up numerous articles before this one (even other some other featured articles) so I know what I should do and shouldn't do to improve the readibility and the quality of the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Not incorrect; what you and others (others far more familiar with WP:CITEVAR than you are) stated is seen at this talk page and at the WP:Citing sources talk page, and you still fail to get the point. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
          • And since you mentioned the Amy Winehouse article above as part of your defense of violating WP:CITEVAR, I'll go ahead and link to it with this edit so that editors can see a clearer example of the way you violate WP:CITEVAR. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
            • And you really think it's going to change something ? You're clearly trying to give an incorrect view of my hard work across other articles. It's not even related to this article anyway. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Wrong about what I intend. And the Amy Winehouse article is related to the recent WP:CITEVAR matter at this talk page, which is why you are the one who first mentioned that article in the initial WP:CITEVAR discussion above. And that my pointing to that example in this section won't change the way you add references is a problem, but that's already been made abundantly clear. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                • It's completly unrelated as there was no violation anyway, so your comments are definitly incorrect. I only mentioned this article to make it clear I perfectly know what I've been doing so far and that my changes are perfectly accepted by most editors. Such disrespect towards my edits is unacceptable. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Wrong; and I don't need to state more since various others have been very clear on the way you cite/disregard WP:CITEVAR. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • ...because as I explained here WP:CITEVAR is an abused guideline which is respected by few people. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
                      • That is your opinion that others (including me) have disagreed with; I see no need to continue a discussion with you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
              Jesus, how many articles has he just arbitrarily changed the citation style on? I was of half a mind to revert that one too, but there have been too many intervening edits. I will start fixing them (i.e., restoring the original citation style) reference by reference, unless he can provide a policy-based reason for violating WP:CITEVAR. GregJackP Boomer! 01:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
              Stop trying to destroy my hard work and starting your wikihound behaviour, it's not going to succeed in any way. Also it clearly proves you're so addicted to this underused "guideline" that you're now adopting an obvious bad faith attitude toward my edits. You statements are not even correct. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Gee, that sounds like you have an ownership issue over your edits. Are you saying that your edits cannot be improved on, or be brought into compliance with the guidelines? GregJackP Boomer! 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You're completly incorrect : there are several editors I knew who regularly edits the articles I've looking at and I don't undo their edits. I only make sure to keep an eye on them to make sure everyhting's correct regarding their content and quality. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Synthwave.94: You're welcome. Nevertheless, these are often prickly issues and not everybody is going to agree with wholescale changes. I would strongly recommend that when you make changes to regularise references, you proceed one section at a time and give other editors time to review your changes. As soon as you meet opposition, you go the talk page and explain what you're trying to do; listen to other editors' concerns and try to establish consensus for the changes you propose. Be prepared to give way when trying to build a consensus and look forward, rather than trying to defend what's in the past. This RfC is an opportunity for you to explain how you think the references should be and you should try to explain that as clearly as possible. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your advice, but I've always made huge, massive changes without being reverted at all, even on some other featured articles. I've already stated above why I think my changes are better than the current citation style used in the article (and why this article is a huge mess anyway). Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There is an established citation style for this article. You can see it here. It uses CS1 and manual short citations (not {{sfn}}). Unfortunately, in his previous "bold" effort, Synthwave disregarded the established style entirely and created a mish-mash of styles, introducing his adaptation of {{wayback}} for some and using other forms for other citations. This article's citations should be returned to the established style, not to the mish-mash that this well-intentioned effort created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Please examine the revision of 29 May 2015, just before Synthwave edited the article. In the first bunch of refs, I found:
        1. {{cite web|last=Novack |first=Janet ...
        2. County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. (2009). [[:File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg|Michael Jackson death certificate]]
        3. "He wears the crown as the King Of Pop because no artist has broken his record of selling nearly 60 million copies of a single Album (Thriller)", in Lewis, p. 3
        4. Young, p. 17 and 19.
        5. Young, p. 18—19.
        6. Taraborrelli, pp. 20–22
        7. [//web.archive.org/web/20080915120706/http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/vh1_news_presents/82010/episode_about.jhtml Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood], [[VH1]], June 20, 2008.
        8. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8121599.stm Can Michael Jackson's demons be explained?], BBC, June 27, 2009.
        9. [[Daniel Schechter]], Erica Willheim (2009). "The Effects of Violent Experience and Maltreatment on Infants and Young Children". In [[Charles H. Zeanah]] (Ed.). ''Handbook of Infant Mental Health''—3rd Edition. New York: Guilford Press, Inc. pp. 197–214.
        10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldyRUqGN3XA
      • That consists of: CS1; a commons file; handwritten with a sort of harvard, but with a quote first; handwritten harvard, but using 'and' for multiple pages; handwritten harvard, but using 'p.' for 'pages'; handwritten harvard, but without the terminal punctuation; a handwritten external link plus a date-but-we-don't-know-if-it's-publication-or-accessdate; a variant on the previous one; a handwritten kind-of-API-style; and a bare url to a YouTube video.
      • I take your point about the 2008 revision, but I have difficulty in calling last month's version "an established style". I am equally baffled by the commentators who who think that this standard of referencing is "Fine" for any article, let alone a Featured one. --RexxS (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't see anyone saying that last month's version was good, but I see a lot of people saying that the recent effort to impose {{sfn}} and {{wayback}} templates (the wayback template isn't even intended for use in citations at all) is making it even worse. Doing it correctly is faster and easier than screwing it up. I can't think of a single argument against matching the existing CS1 style when adding archive links. Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
          • The only argument ever against using CS1 (or sfn, for that matter) is CITEVAR, and some folks will use that to justify keeping poor referencing. I'm not one of them. But I think that I'm the one who is arguing to regularise the mess of refs we have now to CS1, while your !vote above seems to be "No change", or am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately you seem to be the only one who thinks my changes are justified and who clearly understands this article is a mess. I did exactly the same thing for some other featured articles without receiving negative comments about my changes. An article like this one should clearly use a better reference style instead of the poorly defined one currectly used throughout the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
              • No one, and that includes editors at the aforementioned WP:Citing sources discussion, has stated that the mish-mash style is a good thing for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                • It's not a "mish-mash style" in any way. The Wayback Machine template can perfectly be used to prevent in an article without any problem. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Once again you have failed to comprehend what I meant; by "mish-mash style," I meant the current citation style of the article, the one you came in and changed. You are acting like editors are perfectly fine with that style; they are not. Also, most of them are not perfectly fine with all of your citation style. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • The currect citation style is a "mish-mash style" while the one I brought was definitly better, more consistent and perfectly improved the citation style of the article. The old one is a mess, as proved above. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 4 - Fine as it is - Also agree with Snuggums why the bloody hell start an RFC over it ? ... Seems a waste of time IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The citation style is poorly defined, as explained above by RexxS. It would be much more interesting to change it into a better one due to the huge mess found throughout the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My bad didn't spot who the nom was - Perhaps a discussion between a few woulda been better but hey ho who cares . –Davey2010Talk 00:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you please explain why the citation style shouldn't be changed ? It is poorly defined and changing it would be definitly more appropriate to help cleaning up the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because the changes are not being made competently. There is an existing style, but you are not changing the citations to a uniform style, just some of them. When the article went through the FA process, the citations were uniform. GregJackP Boomer! 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been editing a huge number of articles before this one and I perfectly how to improve the quality of the style used throughout an article. The citation style used over this article is a mess, as proved above by RexxS. I've already explained why I couldn't archive all references. I'm perfectly competent in this field and it's definitly not you who would teach me and to do it anyway. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, well, the misspellings and incorrect grammar indicates that there could be a competency issue, but assuming that they were mere typos the question would be simple. If you are capable of correctly implementing a consistent style, why haven't you done so? I'm glad you are open to someone mentoring you on this, would you like me to find someone? I would be happy to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I did so : I added a definitly better citation style to the article but you blindly cancelled my edits without showing any form of respect towards them. On the other hand I don't need you or someone else to teach me anything else, because I've been regularly thanks for my edits, which clearly prove they are both correct and helpful. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I should've explained why a lot better than that .... So here I go - Personally I hate the style and prefer the other version where the cites are next to the statements and under the references heading you have reflist and that's it but at the end of the day changing this entire article would lead to problems such as edit wars, disagreements and no-doubt cite cock ups along the way - I personally feel it's a lot easier to keep it as it. –Davey2010Talk 01:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • An article like this one clearly requires a better defined style. The old one is messy and everything's wrong about it. It's an obvious proof that WP:CITEVAR is nothing but a stupid guideline which prevents editors like me to improve the overall quality of articles. I regularly do this and I mainly receives positive feedback, which is an obvious proof there's nothing wrong about establishing a better defined style.
  • Support option 1 regularizing with short sfn and CS1 templates. As far as I can see option 4 is a contradiction since the article currently does not consistently use CS1+manual short refs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your answer. I see you're able to see that there's no consistent citation style in the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrivia

Would you all please clarify whether by "no change" you mean "no change to the long-established style" (which is CS1+manual short citations, although it hasn't been enforced well since the FA nom quit editing) or "no change to the mish-mash of styles currently on the page"? I tried to clarify the question the other day, but RexxS and I want to make sure that I've correctly interpreted your comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No change to long-established style. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No change to long-established style. GregJackP Boomer! 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No change to long-established style. –Davey2010Talk 00:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I can now see there's a clear desire to return the article to CS1/manual-harv. Although I would prefer CS1/sfn to that (mainly because you don't have to check if you're duplicating a short ref when you add a new one), I have no problem in supporting CS1/manual-harv over what is in the article now. I suspect maunus is likely to respond similarly, but I won't assume so. If that turns out to be the case, I suggest that represents an overwhelming consensus and we could close this RfC by mutual consent and then get on with sorting out the references. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I can support that as a compromise as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just like RexxS, I clearly prefer CS1/sfn and the already archived references to keep both the overall quality and the readibility of the article. There's no way this article should be kept this way. One of the most viewed article on Wikipedia should clearly features a good and better defined style than the old and poorly defined one. It's obvious the CITEVAR "guideline" is clearly inappropriate in this specific case and should clearly be ignored. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
None of what you say is clear actually clear. The old style is no less defined than Cs1/sfn, the only difference is that the short references aren't linked. I do think that linked references are better than unlinked ones, but this is exactly where citevar applies, and if there is no consensus for adding linked refs then they have to stay out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Synthwave.94, it doesn't matter what you think at this point, the consensus is that the article will use CS1/manual-harv. Should you attempt to force the changes you want against the consensus of editors, it would be considered to be disruptive editing. I would recommend that you drop the stick. You may want to read this essay by another editor about the position you are now in. GregJackP Boomer! 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no consensus at all at this point. There are as much editors who agree with the changes (including myself) than editors who disagree with them. The main problem is the existence of CITEVAR, which prevents the change of style, and I suggest you to stop arguing over this rule. Should I point out that Wikipedia is not a law book : just because CITEVAR exists doesn't mean it's always appropriate (and it's not an essential guideline anyway). Guidelines and other rules are only a compilation of suggestions to help improving articles. My suggested changes were made to remove all the mess from the article and nothing else. I think it's time to ignore the guideline once for good and to change the citation style used since the article was identified as a featured article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong on all accounts. You have been told this repeatedly and your failure to hear it is getting problematic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest we just close the RfC and wait. If he edits against consensus we can then look at the appropriate sanction for him. If he really doesn't hear this, let him have enough rope and go from there. GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 9 June 2015 (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.

Reference style

Synthwave.94, regarding this edit you made, I'm not stating that I mind your reference style change (I like the book style change for the book sources), but I'm taking the time to point out that WP:Featured articles should have consistent citation style and that, per WP:CITEVAR, an editor should attempt to discuss significantly changing the citation style of an article (when it is clear that a discussion is likely to result, that is; by that, I mean the talk page of a relatively active article, very active article, and/or highly watched article). Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong about my changes ? The article was a huge mess and I only wanted to clean it up archiving sources, etc. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94, I'm simply stating that the reference style for a WP:Featured article should be consistent and that you should typically discuss such a significant reference style change; I've already been over why above. I didn't start this section to contest your changes; as noted above, I stated, "I like [your] book style change for the book sources." Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I usually don't have any problem with this kind of edit (and I've already cleaned up several featured articles before). Even if I changed some citation styles it is in order to improve it anyway : the way I cleaned up the article greatly reduced its size without removing any reference or any piece of text, which is quite a good thing. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
By "usually don't have any problem with this kind of edit," I take it that you mean that editors usually don't revert and/or question you on it? If that's the case, and if it's perhaps the case that editors have not pointed you to WP:CITEVAR before me, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow WP:CITEVAR; they likely didn't care or didn't know about WP:CITEVAR. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, you can see that as recently as this discussion, editors are clear about following WP:CITEVAR. I understand what you mean about size when it comes to those who have a poor Internet connection. But per WP:Article size, it's the readable prose, not the references, etc., that editors should typically be taking into account when considering if an article is too big. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, editors don't seem to care about WP:CITEVAR and don't seem to take care about the way I clean up an article. For example, I recently cleaned up the Amy Winehouse article the same way and, as you can see, my improvements are still here (even if I've already edited the article before). I'm sometimes thanked for my clean up edits so I imagine I'm doing a good job. Regarding the size of the article, I can tell you it's clearly the references which provide more weight to an article size. As I said, I didn't remove any piece of text and I managed to remove over 30kB to this already huge article archiving a huge number of references (even if it's true there's a lot of text too). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It does not seem that you are fully considering what I am stating. Again, I am letting you know that editors do care about WP:CITEVAR; I pointed to an example of that fact. And I can point to many more examples. WP:CITEVAR is a guideline because what it states should generally be followed. I don't think that you should essentially be stating, "Well, WP:CITEVAR exists, but I'm never going to follow it." I'll go ahead and WP:Ping one of the editors who I know cares a lot about WP:CITEVAR: SlimVirgin. Maybe she will provide some words of wisdom for you on this matter. If you continue to ignore WP:CITEVAR now that you've been pointed to it, there will be future instances of people reverting you and/or complaining about you not following it. If I were to take this matter to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, there would be editors there telling you to stop violating WP:CITEVAR. I also care about WP:CITEVAR, and I will revert an editor who comes in and significantly changes the citation style of an article that I heavily edit. In the case of the Michael Jackson article, I don't heavily edit it, and, as mentioned above, I like your changes with regard to the book references. As for article size, I reiterate that you should be basing kilobyte size on the readable prose, not references or anything else. If you look at this section of WP:Article size, it states, "The largest articles (by markup size, not readable prose size on which the above size guideline is based) are listed at Special:Longpages." That's because, well, WP:Article size is based on readable prose. I never stated that references cannot affect article size; I simply stated, "it's the readable prose, not the references, etc., that editors should typically be taking into account when considering if an article is too big." Yes, WP:Article size cares about matters other than readable prose affecting article size; that's why it has a "Technical issues" section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand why you focus so much over this guideline. I often edit articles edited by several users and they don't care if I clean up after them. I'm sometimes thanked for this reason, which is an obvious proof it doesn't really matter if you work with other open-minded editors. I edit articles in a clever way so editors don't complain about my edits (you're even saying you like the book style I used throughout the article) so there's no valid reason to point out this kind of issue. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't "focus so much over this guideline." I was clear in my first post in this section that I started this section to bring your attention to an aspect of WP:Featured articles and a guideline that you should generally follow; I stated, "I didn't start this section to contest your changes." You continued this discussion as though I was specifically asking you to revert your changes. And now you are essentially stating that you refuse to adhere to the WP:CITEVAR guideline, and that your "clever editing" can prevent you from having editors challenge you on ignoring that guideline. This makes it very valid that I drive home the point that you generally should not be going to articles and changing the citation style to your personal preference. While WP:Ignore all rules is occasionally a good route to go, occasionally is the keyword there. It should not be used as an excuse to generally ignore a WP:Policy or guideline. Generally following a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not mean that I am not open-minded; it means that I play by the rules unless there is a good reason not to. That you are sometimes thanked for violating WP:CITEVAR does not mean that those editors are open-minded; as I indicated above, it likely means that they don't know of WP:CITEVAR. Many Wikipedia editors are not as familiar with Wikipedia rules as they should be. There are articles that I could suggest you edit so that you can see that you will be reverted for a WP:CITEVAR violation. The way that you are being flippant about this matter is tempting me to address it at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. If you had simply indicated that you understand the aforementioned WP:Featured article matter and the WP:CITEVAR matter, why WP:CITEVAR is important, this discussion would not have continued. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Side note...after seeing the change to the refs you can see how badly sourced the article has gotten.-- Moxy (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said above the article was a huge mess and, to be honest, I really don't have the impression someone seemed to take care about cleaning up the article before me. I want to point out (and to make Flyer22 understand) that there was no consistency at all throughout the article : references were put at the end of the article while other references were used elsewhere. Several books were put at the end of the article as sources but were not used at all, there was also a huge number of "unused" sources which should have been removed before, and numerous dead links I managed to archive (except only one). I also archived numerous dead links (and also other references which were still working) in order to reduce the size of this already huge article. Finally I didn't talk about it before but it took me two days to do all of this, in order to give a proper and uniform style citation to the article so I think one should respect what I did so far. So WP:CITEVAR doesn't seem to apply here due to this lack of consistency thorughout the article. And as you can see I'm still improving it because I noticed there were several facts which were not exactly mentionn in some sources. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94, you don't seem to care about WP:CITEVAR; that is why this discussion continued, and is why I have taken it to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources; I think it is best to continue the discussion there, since you noted above that you go around changing the citation style of articles. On a side note: Given WP:Layout, your statement of "references were put at the end of the article while other references were used elsewhere. Several books were put at the end of the article as sources but were not used at all" makes no sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And as for your consistency argument, it does not seem to me that you understand WP:CITEVAR; it is explicitly clear about what should be done. What you did was come in and change prominent existing styles of the article; in other words, you came in added the styles you prefer. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Numerous references were not used at all (including several books) so I removed all of them from the article. Sources were arranged in an incorrect alphabetical order at the bottom of the article, above the book references, while there were other references which where used in the lead/in different other sections of the article. The article was a huge mess (and as Moxy pointed out, the article was badly sourced, as you may have remarked throughout my numerous recent changes) and I did what seemed to be the best thing to do for this article. Nobody seemed to take care about cleaning up the article anyway so I went ahead and focused about cleaning it up, something which took me two days. Even if you said you like some parts of my changes, I must point out that you're the only editor around here who decided to evoke a "guideline" which is not even relevent here. It seems to be respected by a small number of editors, doesn't seem to be useful to improve the quality/readibility/accessibility of an article, and seems to be heavily linked with the ownership behaviour anyway (a sensitive case that you should be aware of and which is not welcomed over Wikipedia articles because of the problems it generates). Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As previously indicated, point 2c of WP:Featured article criteria requires consistently formatted inline citations. Also, we have guidelines for a reason, so they should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: This is what the References section looked like before you edited it. You stated, "Numerous references were not used at all (including several books) so I removed all of them from the article." So you know that none of those references were used in the article? How? You have access to all those sources? Mind giving a few examples of references that were not used in the article? You stated, "Nobody seemed to take care about cleaning up the article anyway." You are wrong; Moxy, SNUGGUMS and myself have been keeping junk out of the article or taking care of it in other ways. Reference matters are obviously not the only way to clean up an article. You stated, "and as Moxy pointed out, the article was badly sourced." There is no "was" there; Moxy stated, "after seeing the change to the refs you can see how badly sourced the article has gotten." That is a present tense matter. You stated that I "decided to evoke a 'guideline' which is not even relevent here." That again shows that you don't understand WP:CITEVAR and have no respect for it; it is indeed relevant here, and I've been over why above. Only after I took the matter to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources for outside input did you start to state that WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant here. You stated, "It seems to be respected by a small number of editors, doesn't seem to be useful to improve the quality/readibility/accessibility of an article, and seems to be heavily linked with the ownership behaviour anyway (a sensitive case that you should be aware of and which is not welcomed over Wikipedia articles because of the problems it generates)." And that misguided notion is exactly why I took the matter to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. You imply that I have WP:OWNership issues because I follow WP:CITEVAR and pointed you to it because you clearly repeatedly fail to follow it. Well, now I know why you still have not commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources; but no matter, though, since I will simply note your misguided notions there at that talk page. And if I see you violate WP:CITEVAR in the future, I will do something about it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you finally commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. Good. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes some references were unused because there was an <!--Unused citation--> template to prevent error messages, which clearly means they were not used at all. There was no inline citations for some books so I removed them because it means they were not used to support any statement. I said "nobody seemed to take care about cleaning up the article anyway" because of all of this, the numerous dead links and other mess regarding the way the citations were used. WP:CITEVAR has nothing to do here as there was no consistency and no specific citation style used. Also I never said that you, Flyer22, had ownership issues, I'm only stating that the "guideline" seems to be heavily linked with this disruptive behaviour. I only wanted to clean everything's up in a good way and did what was the best thing to do. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The biggest problem at the moment regarding your feelings about WP:CITEVAR, other than the fact that you think it's unimportant, is that you keep insisting that it is irrelevant in this case; it's not, as made very clear by WhatamIdoing in the "How important is WP:CITEVAR" discussion. As for WP:OWNership issues, it seemed to me that you were implying that I have them or possibly have them, especially given what I have stated above and your tone; I am very good at reading between the lines. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
But then again, I gather that anyone with common sense would conclude that you were stating that I (and generally other people who follow WP:CITEVAR) have, or likely have, WP:OWNership issues because of this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, addressing where you stated, "There was no inline citations for some books so I removed them because it means they were not used to support any statement.", it's sometimes the case that book sources are used to support statements in an article without there being inline citations used in those instances; this is partly why Template:No footnotes exists. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Again I never said that you, Flyer22, or any people who follows the guideline, has ownership issues. I'm only stating this guideline seems to imply an ownership behaviour, while an article is not supposed to belong to anybody and can be edited by everyone to improve it. The guideline may exists but I still don't see how relevent it is to improve the quality of an article, especially when there's no specific citation style defined throughout a specific article. I've edited a huge number of articles before this one and I mainly received positive feedback regarding the way I clean up articles, which is in my opinion an obvious proof of my competences. I've been adviced to modify some details about it and I did it to be even more competent regarding citing and improving all kind of things in an article. Regarding the book references I imagine that a featured article like this one which doesn't use any form of inline citation for a specific book means this book is not used at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your change of citation style. WP:CITEVAR states that unless you have consensus to change it, the citation style used by the first major contributor is used. This is especially relevant on featured articles, where the citation style must be consistent throughout. GregJackP Boomer! 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok so can I restore my changes to improve the article ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I "authorized" to restore my changes ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You are free to add to or edit the article, but if you intend to change the citation style, you must first obtain consensus to do so. That means you can add all of your changes, but that they must meet the current citation style, not a style that you prefer. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I restore all the references I archived for example ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK here are the following reasons why I think my changes were better :
  • I archived references to change/prevent link rots, and this is the reason why I heavily use the Wayback Machine template throughout the article (and also in order to reduce the article size)
  • I added the {{sfn}} template because it automatically links the in-text template to the book/journal/magazine at the bottom of the page, which is useful for both the reader and other editors
  • I moved all references at the bottom of the article in the corresponding sections of the articles where they should appear because :
    • they were put in an incorrect alphabetical order
    • some of them were "unused"
    • other references were used in other sections of the articles (including in the lead section)
  • Therefore I removed all the references (online sources and books) which were not used (or at least didn't seem to be used) at all in the article
  • Finally numerous references were incomplete (eg. the author of the online source was missing, an incorrect parameter, such as "work" instead of "newspaper, magazine or publisher" was used,...)
Now is there anyone who clearly disagrees with any one of these changes ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you are asking if you can put them into the article one by one, using the current citation style, sure. If you are asking if you can just click 'undo' and add them back the way you had them, no, you cannot do that. You cannot change the citation style without consensus. You may start an WP:RfC about changing the citation style if you want, but that will take up to 30 days or so to resolve. As for your actual reference changes, I don't really care, you can make all the changes you want so long as they use the current style of the article. You have to get consensus to change the citation style. It's that simple. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And what is this "current" citation style ? I don't see any. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll be waiting to see what other editors think about my changes anyway. You're not the only editor to watch this page and there are probably other editors who agree with my changes. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

Good, that's what you're supposed to do, get consensus. The easiest way would be to start an RfC on the subject. Would you like me to do that for you? GregJackP Boomer! 04:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I oppose using {{sfn}} in this article. I oppose re-instating the Wayback archive citations, because the citation format for those news articles does not match the citation format for other news articles.
I strongly support restoring the addition of complete citations to deal with the WP:Bare URL problem. This edit shows an example of what I think is very helpful and should be restored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: : You can do it if you want.
@WhatamIdoing: : Why do you oppose the use of the {{sfn}} template ? Can you provide a more detailed explanation ? Also archiving is essential to prevent link rots. I know some editors who often archive references in order to prevent dead links, even if the urls are still working, because of all the problems linked with the urls which don't work any longer. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur with WhatamIdoing on {{sfn}}, on the archive citations, and the URL issues. Synthwave.94, I was making the offer to help you, if you wanted to change the style. I don't really care, the style can stay the same and it is fine with me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You can start a RfC for me. I temporarily restored uncontroversial changes, but I obviously want to restore as many changes as possible in this article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's just stick with the currently used style, no need for RFC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wayback template

Synthwave, there's a difference between archiving a page and changing the citation template. If you start with this:

{cite web|last=Novack |first=Janet |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/03/irs-we-made-a-mistake-valuing-michael-jacksons-estate/ |title=IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate |work=Forbes |date=October 3, 2014 |accessdate=November 7, 2014}}

which looks like this:

Novack, Janet (October 3, 2014). "IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate". Forbes. Retrieved November 7, 2014.

and the link still works (it does), then leave it alone. But if you really think that it urgently needs a link to the Internet Archive, then that's fine: add the link to the existing citation. Make it say this:

{cite web|last=Novack |first=Janet |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/03/irs-we-made-a-mistake-valuing-michael-jacksons-estate/ |title=IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate |work=Forbes |date=October 3, 2014 |accessdate=November 7, 2014 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20141108021317/http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/03/irs-we-made-a-mistake-valuing-michael-jacksons-estate/ |archive-date=November 8, 2014}}

so that it looks like this:

Novack, Janet (October 3, 2014). "IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 8, 2014. Retrieved November 7, 2014.

Don't change it to this:

Novack, Janet (March 10, 2014). {Wayback|title= IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate |url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/03/irs-we-made-a-mistake-valuing-michael-jacksons-estate/ |date= 20141201001517}}. Forbes.

so that it looks like this:

Novack, Janet (March 10, 2014). IRS: We Made A Mistake Valuing Michael Jackson's Estate at the Wayback Machine (archived December 1, 2014). Forbes.

Keep as much the same as you can. If you want to add (currently unnecessary) links to the archives, then that's okay, but just add them to the existing citation. Don't write a completely different citation using a style that doesn't match (e.g., a style that puts the magazine's name after the archive link). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What WhatamIdoing has stated about the way that we should use Internet Archive in a reference is the way that I do it, but I only do that once the URL has become a WP:Dead link. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
All URLs are already in the Wayback Machine anyway, because I checked each online reference. If a link gets broken then I would archive it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. You are changing the style of the citation every time you do this. You can archive it without changing the citation style. That means using the syntax outlined above instead of what you are doing currently. GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
And why was this template created for in this case ? Numerous editors use it to prevent dead links and there's no valid reason not to use it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
And no valid reason change the style, either. Note the RfC, below. GregJackP Boomer! 14:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question: {{Wayback}} is an External link template, and is intended for use in the ==External links== section (e.g., to show the WP:ELOFFICIAL website of a now-defunct business). These differ from citation templates and attribution templates like {{EB1911}}. The purpose is noted in the blue box at the top of the category: "The pages listed in this category are meant to be templates providing external links." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

As of this post the most recent edit is by Northriver2, changing the lead image. I didn't revert (per WP:0RR) but would invite Northriver to explain his motives. Eman235/talk 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Child abuse accusations

The article mentions nothing about this pretty big aspect of Jackson's life. It should at least point to respective Wiki article on this topic due to the huge toll it took on his career. Rbaleksandar (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

perhaps you should read the article again--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Here they are: '1993–94: First child sexual abuse allegations and first marriage', '2003–05: Second child sexual abuse allegations and acquittal' Beingsshepherd (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

thumbnail

202.60.62.100 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It's not clear why we need to mention a thumbnail in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

The Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, in the year 1993 was eliminated from the award show. MTV denied that the withdraw of the award was correlated with the accusations Jackson was facing.

Russell, Deborah. "Fallen Stars Rise Again At Video Music Awards." Billboard 106.39 (1994): 40. Music Index. Web. 28 Sept. 2015. Cassievmolina123 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
  • If you want to add information please say exactly where you want to add it to. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Net worth material

With this and this edit, D4iNa4 removed net worth material, stating "was not official" and "Not an official estimate, just a view." Other content in the "Earnings and wealth" section are "just views" as well; they are estimates, and the section even states, "Estimating how much of these earnings Jackson was able to personally pocket is difficult because one has to account for taxes, recording costs and production costs." I'm not sure what "official estimate" D4iNa4 is looking for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I expect you to answer here. If you do not, I'll leave the matter up to a WP:RfC. You appear to be removing things from articles based on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT view. What is the valid or solid rationale for the removal in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These estimates are effectively new and one person's opinion. Earlier version shown that the estimate was 236 million from 2007,[27] and it was largely believed too. How come there was a rise of 800 million when he had loan of more than 500 million?
There is no reliable data about the net worth, and this article was a featured article. I don't think that such controversial material needs to be added. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
D4iNa4, I appreciate you explaining. I don't care much about the content in question; it's just that I don't like to see things removed on what seems to be a purely WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. I still stand by my "Other content in the 'Earnings and wealth' section are 'just views' as well; they are estimates" commentary, though. I don't see anything wrong with including estimates from WP:Reliable sources in the "Earnings and wealth" section, as long as we don't go overboard on that. But I agree that we shouldn't have just one estimate in the infobox when the matter varies according to different sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is still currently a WP:Featured article, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with including reliably sourced estimates either. When including the 2007 figure in infobox, looking back into the linked diff, that was based on the most recent estimate listed in the net worth section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thiller jacket photo

The file Michael Jackson's Thriller jacket.jpg is a non-free image, but it doesn't have non-free use rationale, which should be added. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. – Editør (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it from this article for now. It wasn't particularly beneficial to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

Michael Jackson was the seventh child in his family, not the eighth. Randy was the eighth. 114.78.99.4 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Michael was in fact the eighth. Just because his elder brother Brandon died within 24 hours of birth doesn't mean he can be discounted entirely. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2016

84.250.220.254 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Michael was in fact eight

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

MANNNY0811 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I have to add something about his life.

And what would that be? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

100 million figure

BrothaTimothy, with this and this edit, you argued against including the 100 million figure, stating that it's "an exaggerated number." What do you mean? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say inaccurate. I don't know why I went with exaggerrated lol my apologies. BrothaTimothy (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
BrothaTimothy, that's not the point. My point is that if various WP:Reliable sources cite that number, we can report that number. If that number has been proven wrong, then we should note that in the article with a WP:Reliable source. If both numbers are reported in sources, we should note them, not choose one or the other based on our own personal opinions. What proof do you have that the number is wrong? That's my point.
On a side note: Remember to sign your username; I signed for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The sales have previously been discussed at Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album)/Archive 6#Thriller's Total Sales. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it's been going back and forth with people keep adding the 100 mill figure. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Also Flyer22 Reborn, how do you know if that 100 mill figure is accurate? I say it's wrong because countries' record sales differ. America being the only country where an album can sell 10 million copies in actual sales numbers whereas in the UK, the best-selling album there is over 6 million and Japan's international figures have artists from overseas going as high as 3 million. That's why. I thought it was that simple so I'm surprised you are bringing this up. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I brought it up because you were removing material based on what seemed to be your personal disagreement with it; you've done this before at this article (and at other articles), which is also witnessed by this recent edit. I don't keep up with what the media is stating about Michael Jackson. I don't keep up with the music industry. I was not adding, removing or asserting anything in the article about the 100 million figure. I didn't state that it's accurate or inaccurate. The WP:Burden was not on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Added {{cbignore}} after link in article, page cannot be crawled by web.archive. Eman235/talk 10:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion

In the infobox: Christianity suggests as if Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian. That's why I suggested nondenominational Christianity, but the article keeps being edited and parts of it deleted without any reasonable arguments. Thoughts?Ernio48 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's actually best to just discuss such details within the article body. His religious affiliation isn't a key part of his notability, and Template:Infobox person says "Include only if relevant". I've removed it from the infobox accordingly and have no objection to discussing nondenominational Christianity within article prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

I think the lead section for this article isn't as good as it could be right now.

As per WP:LEADLENGTH, leads should be no longer than four paragraphs long, but this is "a general guideline" and not an "absolute rule". (I have to say this seems a strange rule to me; wouldn't it be more useful to specify a recommended wordcount than a recommended number of paragraphs?) As the current lead has two very long paragraphs, creating a dense wall-of-text effect, I would argue in favour of disregarding the guideline in this case and splitting them up. I've already tried to trim a few excess words and details, but there might still be more to be done in that area.

I also feel that having the paragraph about Jackson's personal scandals last is a mistake. This information simply doesn't work as a concluding paragraph, and doesn't fit the general chronology of the lead. Popcornduff (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've started a discussion about the lead length guidelines on the Manual of Style talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


i feel we shouldn't have his personal life at the bottom of lead , it may be a mistake. but it should be his death at bottom of lead. this is my opinion we should manage like other wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0MamMa (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The standard structure is to summarise their life and career, then their lasting legacy, influence, impact etc - ie the stuff that exists beyond their lifetime. Popcornduff (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted to the longstanding lead because I'm not keen on this version of the lead, which mentions his death before finishing mentions of his accomplishments and legacy, and because I don't like that version of the lead ending with the child sexual abuse stuff by its lonesome. Yes, it is at the end of the lead in the long-standing version, but it is combined with the personal life information in a way that flows well and naturally, and the death aspect is last in that version. So I agree with Backham123 (talk · contribs) on his statement that "We should have personal life and Death at the bottom of lead not before his fame." We commonly have the personal life and/or death information last in the lead of our biography articles.
That stated, I'm not opposed to trimming by Popcornduff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Boxing Career

I was reading the article and was surprised to see no mention of his short but glittering underground boxing career. I am surprised that none of his so called "fans" have written this section yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannarockwithyouallnightdanceyouintothesunlight (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Associated Acts missing one

Under the main photo where it lists birth date and all that info, the associated acts only lists the Jackson Five. The Jacksons is not included. Michael Jackson and his brothers (minus Jermaine) became The Jacksons after they left Motown and signed to Epic. Motown would not let them keep the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlitskeyes (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding that would be redundant since The Jacksons is the same as Jackson 5 (minus one member). Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

Please add the following 623-page book to the bibliography - thanks. The author's name is Carl Toms, the title of the book is "Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons", the place where it was published is Leicester, and the name of the publisher is Matador: Toms, Carl (2010). Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons. Leicester. Matador ISBN 978-1848763-401 124.187.236.72 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Before it can be added there, the book should be cited somewhere within the article body. Feel free to mention anything from that book worth including in the article that it doesn't already have. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

May be this photo to?

http://static.idolator.com/uploads/2010/12/michael_jackson-compressed.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.177.181.160 (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This photo is from Jackson's half time performance at Super Bowl XXVII in January 1993. It looks like a press photo which would be copyrighted, so it would have problems with WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

File:Michael jackson 1992.jpg

Is this image really free? It was added on April 26 by a user whose only activity was adding this and another MJ picture. Both seem like copyvio to me, since Google reverse image search gives some results from before these were posted on Commons. Perhaps it should be nominated for deletion on Commons. κατάσταση 04:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Katastasi, I reverted that lead image, which was added by Akhiljaxxn. I don't think it's Casta03's own work. There are some articles where we use non-free images for the deceased, such as the Matthew Shepard article or the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article, but we obviously don't allow people claiming pictures of public figures as their pictures unless they really are their pictures. Also, I prefer the previous image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair use is perfectly fine (as long as there are no free pictures available), but in this case Casta03 uploaded a non-free image as free, and not fair use. Thanks for reverting. κατάσταση 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Then why we cant use some of his last pics of mj from this is it tour announcement or world music award 2006 as his lead image ? It will be good if mj has a colour picture as his lead image ,coz he was not from a black and white era 06:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Akhiljaxxn (talk)

Akhiljaxxn, I prefer that we use an image of Jackson at the height of his career or close to the height of his career; that's one reason I like the current image. The other reason I like it is because I like its overall look (the pose, the outfit, that he's performing on stage) and I think it's stylistic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn there is lots colour picture Of Mj Singing and Dancing From his different world tour like Bad ,Dangerous and Histiry , Can You please help to put one from These? I erote about this to MJ Estate some moths ago and they replied me that they will take action on this regards but still no nothing Akhiljaxxn (talk)07:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn, point to some of the different color images and I'll see if we can agree on one. Other editors are free to weigh in as well, of course. On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this section since this article is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn 1 hope you will take initiative on this regard ...Thank You Akhiljaxxn 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs)

choreography

I would like to have acknowledged his choreography influence by Bob Fosse. I just watched Pajama Game's Steam Heat and thought I was watching Michael Jackson's choreography. If West Side story was his favorite movie that he loved and watched over and over, he was also influenced by Jerome Robbins. 2602:306:31B7:9140:7416:C64:959B:1DCA (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Joan Brannigan

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=steam+heat&view=detail&mid=997A30998B603B498F91997A30998B603B498F91&FORM=VIRE

Jackson’s ‘porn hoard’ in secret Neverland cupboard

In June 2016 it was claimed that Jackson had stockpiled underage, violent pornography at his Neverland Ranch. Reliable sources include: Esquire Magazine, Huffingtom Post, The Times, The Australian, etc etc. But no mention in the article? Seems significant. 217.38.83.145 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done those are based off of a fake release from RadarOnline, which is by no means a credible source. Huffington Post isn't exactly the strongest of sources either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Wooo. Big denial. Where's your source that the RadarOnline report is "fake"? And you're saying The Times is not a WP:RS? Hmmm. 217.38.84.144 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1) I'm not suggesting that The Times is unreliable, only that RadarOnline is, plus The Times is only saying that this report came from RadarOnline anyway. 2) The Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department has said they released all of their official documents, and that this wasn't among them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

An article in The Sunday Times dated 26th June 2016 written by Rod Little, that a secret room was found in Micheal Jackson's Neverland ranch that was full of paedophile porn. The room was triple-locked and contained lots of photo's of naked boys. Also there was lots of dolls, a giant Mickey mouse and a nice signed photo of Macaulay Culkin. This is all that has been apparently revealed in a video made by the Santa Barbara County district attorneys office and sherrif department. scope_creep 14:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC) All those pictures are verified on court and some of them are fabricated and The artist of a photo tabloids claim was found at Michael Jackson's home in 2003 says THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN IN 2008 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Michael Jackson is the seventh child in the Jackson Family. NOT eighth as it is written. Thank you Joanne :)

173.34.177.5 (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done He actually IS the eighth. Just because one of his brothers lived for less than 24 hours doesn't mean he can be discounted entirely. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox musical vs. person

Jackson is a musical artist, if infobox person allows more parameters then embed it towards the bottom, but musical artist should be first. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Him being a musical artist isn't by itself a good reason not to use Infobox person. See my comments here for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
No thanx, I am contesting these changes, so off you go to gain consensus to change it to person. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't try to reverse the situation into me when it had Infobox person for quite some time before you just today decided on your own to change it. If anything, YOU are the one who needs to seek consensus. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well let's see how it goes. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@JennKR:, @Bryantriplex: One small fact is there was never any discussion or consensus to change to "person" in the first place, Please return it to "musical artist" until consensus is reached. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: as Snuggums explained above, per WP:STATUSQUO, the onus is on you to gain consensus for a change/addition that is contested. There is no need to have a consensus for a change that isn't contested - Wikipedia encourages people to be bold - which Snuggums was on 4 March 2014 when he changed the Infobox. The article has since used Infobox person consistently for over 2 years, and there is therefore a clear implied consensus. If any editor felt that this was the wrong change then he/she could have disputed the change by bringing it to the talk page. As such, it was wrong of you to tell Snuggums "so off you go to gain consensus" both in terms of policy and your tone. Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@JennKR:, @SNUGGUMS: Fine, whatever, I'm done trying to keep musical articles consistant, I'm tired, 10 years is a long time. Do what you will the infoboxes. Have a nice day, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Musical Instruments

Michael Jackson has credited as playing keyboard, synthesizer, guitar, drums and percussion on his 'HIStory'album but which is not listed here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the "instruments" parameter of the infobox is only for instruments the artist is well known for—i.e., vocals, in this case. Eman235/talk 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly as you say. It's been discussed multiple times before (see archives).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian

I'm surprised that nobody has added 'Humanitarian' in the first section, alongside singer, actor, producer, etc. Can this be added? He was constantly juggling humanitarian work of all kinds, alongside his main career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.219.43 (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 

He tried to heal the world and his Humanitarian is true so i agee with user 78.17.219.43  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backham123 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Current Networth

According to celebrtitynetworth.com,therichest.com and Forbes MJ estate worth of $600 million[1][2][3] but which is not listed on the lead Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Celebritynetworth.com and therichest.com are not reliable sources. Neither is TMZ, and I don't see anything from Forbes mentioning $600 million. Not sure about earnthenecklace.com. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.earnthenecklace.com/michael-jackson-net-worth-hauls-750-million-from-a-new-sony-deal/
  2. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/lists
  3. ^ http://m.tmz.com/#article/2015/06/25/michael-jackson-6-years-death-anniversary-estate-money-billion-kids-children/

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

The seventh child of the Jackson family, Michael Jackson was NOT the eighth child from the union of Joseph and Katherine Jackson's nine children, he was the "seventh" as Janet and Randy are both younger that he. DevQueen (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done he was in fact the eighth of their ten children; just because his elder brother Brandon lived for less than 24 hours doesn't mean he can be discounted entirely. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

Moonwalkerlover (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)In the article it states that Michael Jackson is the eight child of the Jackson family when in fact he is the seventh child, this is well known as in many of his drawings he drew the number seven and his mother stated in an interview that it was his favorite number as he was the seventh child. Please correct this error in the first paragraph of the article the second line.

 Not done the list showing he was eighth is on our Jackson family article

- Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This has been raised before and the confusion occurs because Brandon Jackson died shortly after birth.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Cite error: The named reference family was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Smith, Jessie Carney (1996). Notable Black American Women: book II. VNR AG. p. 323. ISBN 9780810391772.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_30&oldid=1147974471"