Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The Jeffersons

I noticed that in the filmography Jackson is listed as appearing in The Jeffersons episode. However to my knowledge that is not his voice and therefore I don't think it should appear in his Filmography. Any thoughts? --:: ehmjay 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, remove it.--88.105.98.172 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Rowe isn't Michael Jackson

Can anyone explain why the link from the Michael Jackson section "Visionary and Tokyo: 2006 –" that says "Deborah Rowe" links right back to Michael Jackson? She does not have her own page, but still...

No "but still," she is otherwise non-notable.--88.105.103.134 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that because she does not have her own page it links back to Jackson. It should probably link to a section of the Jackson page that mentions her. :: ehmjay 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. There shouldn't be circular internal links in the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Page

Thank goodness this page is looking better then it did a few months back.Most editors are doing good job. I was just hoping there can be more about the Dangerous Era. I mean like the superbowls, videos, lifetime acheivement award at the Grammies, and concerts rather then just Black or White and Oprah

What Constitutes as a Source?

I was just wondering, after reading parts of the article and this talk page in which people are asking for sources - what exactly constitutes a source? Does it have to be a link to a webpage that everyone can access, or could it be a reference to a book that has this information that one would have to locate? How about a televison program or documentary? The reason I ask is that: a) it appears that in most cases these sources are websites b) websites can be extremely non-reliable as anyone can make them c) There are numerous books that are full of reliable facts (I noticed someone removed information regarding Captain Eo from the main article because it was unsourced. I have a book on Disneyland that talks all about it - could this be used?) d) What about television programs that count down "the top 10 greatest artists of the 80s" - if Jackson makes the list could I site that for him being one of the greatest artists of the 80s? Would this be considered POV?

Like I said, I don't honestly know what the policy is - obviously you want something that anyone can check - in which case a book might be hard to track down. But as I mentioned, its a lot easier for a website to post "lies" than it is for a book to be published that isn't factual. There are flaws either way, so where exactly does wikipedia stand?

Anyway's I'm just curious.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) .

Yes, books and articles from reputable newspapers or magazines are usually considered acceptable, have a look at WP:RS for more info. Arniep 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You can use programmes and documentaries. Just make sure you reference them properly. See CITE. If there are conflicting sources, it is quite possible that they should both be used and the different points of view stated. Deciding which is right and which is wrong may well be OR. NPOV applies to wiki editors, not to sources. Tyrenius 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clearing that up for me - and sorry about forgeting to sign my post ;) :: ehmjay 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LIES!

"No it wasn't. The Dangerous album in 1991 was his last hugely successful release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'll bring the food (talk • contribs) ."

I did not post that comment. This is a complete fabrication. Somebody please look through the talk page history and discipline the person that did this fabrication!--I'll bring the food 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Jackson&diff=61720653&oldid=61705437 --I'll bring the food 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one second, I think this was a misunderstanding on Dynesius' part. Because you were the one who started the topic he assumed you posted that comment however you did not. You noticed that Dynesius posted in his comment to be sure to sign your posts assuming that you had just forgotten. I have a feeling that the post was contributed by our mystery friend who never signs his posts. I will make the change. Once again a misunderstanding. However it reminds us: SIGN YOUR POSTS! :: ehmjay 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As Ehmjay explained it was an honest misunderstanding. I looked through the history and found out it was actually 195.93.21.66 who made the comment. Dionyseus 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I figgured that's what happened. Thanks for doing some cleaning up Dionyseus. :: ehmjay 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Added update on Schaffel trial

I just added some much needed info about the Schaffel trial. Since I have never actually done anything like this before, I may have done the formatting wrong or something, so someone who is less new to the editing process can go and clean up any mistakes I did. I tried to be as unbiased as possible stating only the facts. :: ehmjay 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's good! It was in the wrong place so I moved it.--I'll bring the food 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

I'm not sure who added the tag to the main page - but just curious as to what they were having troubles with. (I'm mainly adding this because the tag says there is discussion on the talk page - but there wasn't before this tag was added - so we should do so now.) :: ehmjay 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I don't see what anyone can do about it if no details are not given on the talk page. --OnesixOne 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Jyank91 has being reported to an admin. If he vandalizes again [1][2][3], he will be blocked. --OnesixOne 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Jyank91 indefinitely as a vandal only account, but he might be back.... Tyrenius 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

Are you sure that Michael Jackson was born on August 29? Some sources such as IMBD have that he was born August 28. If he was born on August 29, why do most people say August 28 instead? Sandy June 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking around or posing a legitimate question: but yes. His birthday is Aug. 29th 1958. Also - just checked the IMDB - and it is listed as the 29th. :: ehmjay 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question. I was reading an article about Michael's childhood career and it said that he was born on August 28, 1958. I now know that that person was making a mistake. Sandy June 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just wasn't sure. But yes, his birthday is the 29th.

the OTHER Michael Jackson

Um, there is a very famous beer expert named Michael Jackson. I went to a beer festival here in Oregon with 5,000 other people just to hear him speak. I think he deserves a notation on the MJ page? --Mrtobacco 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that he has his own WP page (Michael Jackson (beer expert)), as do a number of other "Michael Jacksons", I'd say there is no logical reason to list him on this page. --Mhking 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. 'comment withdrawn' :) --Mrtobacco 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Paragraph of "Bad and Dangerous"

In the "Bad" subsection, the following sentences occur: "Bad spawned seven hit singles [19] While for any other artist this would be a fantastic achievement, this particular artist was Michael Jackson. Numerous critics slated the lower sales of Bad and a perceived stripping down of the epic nature of Jackson's work as part of the beginning of a decline in Jackson's career, although it should be noted that if Jackson did decline, it was from a great height."

The first sentence has no terminating punctuation. The second sentence seems unencyclopedic, and I feel should be removed. In the third sentence the word "slate" seems like a mistake. I'm not sure what the author meant, but it makes little sense as it is.

Normally I would change these myself, but in this case I'll leave it to someone who is authorized to do so.

I think that sentence needs to be re-written. To have 7 top 10 and 5 of those on no 1 is not a failure even for MJ. if it was the beginning of Jackson's decline is very disputable. Aeneiden-Rex 08:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson sold less, it was a decline in sales. So it was a decline. Sentence does however require a rewrite.--I'll bring the food 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes a decline in sales maybe but defintely not a decline in his career. Aeneiden-Rex 08:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay now? -A Shade of Grey

Yes I think it's good now. MJ's career didn't decline with Bad but the sales did. Aeneiden-Rex 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a decline in quality as well. The songs on Bad were vastly inferior to the songs on Thriller, and this was reflected by the lower sales.

No I the quality wasn't bad, do you seriously think that to have 5 No 1 singles from the Bad album to be a decline? His career and quality didn't decline but his sales did. Aeneiden-Rex 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bad album was just a remake of Thriller, with less good songs. The Dangerous album was a return to form, apart from the stupid songs like "Heal the World". It's no coincidence that Dangerous has sold more copies than Bad. Jackson's decline began in 1987. -- User:195.93.21.66.

How does one define "quality" in respect of an album? -A Shade Of Gray

In terms of the quality of Jackson's 5 albums, Thriller was the best and Invincible the worst.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs)

If you think THriller is the best and Invincible is the worst , that's just your opinion and in no way the truth. Aeneiden-Rex 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the opinion of 90% of the world. Thriller won loads of Grammies and every song was good apart from "The Girl is Mine", while Invincible received terrible reviews and poor sales because it was thoroughly mediocre music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs)

90% of the world? I doubt that 90 % of the world has heard and compared Thriller with Invincible. Invincible got "terrible reviews"? Well maybe where you live but not here it didn't. Even if a record gets grammies it doesn't necesarily mean it was a good quality record. Whether it was good or not is just a matter of opinion. Aeneiden-Rex 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To try and keep the focus here - no matter what you say regarding "quality" it will be a matter of opinion. The article should ONLY state the sales declining and not quality of the album (unless of course you're refering to sound quality in which case I think that my unremastered vinyl of Bad always did sound much better than Thriller lol). :: ehmjay 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How does one define "quality" in respect of an album?

Compare the commercial and critical reception? Both initially and over a period of time? Is that stupid?--Crestville 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just a matter of opinion. Aeneiden-Rex 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. His last worthwhile release was Dangerous, 15 years ago. HIStory was just a greatest hits package with incessant focus on the 1993 sexual abuse controversy, ie the stupid "DS" song. Blood on the Dance Floor flopped, and Invincible was generally slated as thoroughly mediocre music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs)

Yes it is, it's just a matter of opinion, it's always a matter of opinion, just because you didn't like HIStory and Invincible doesn't mean that they accutally are "low" quality albums. Aeneiden-Rex 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Aeneiden-Rex is correct, this entire arguement is based around opinions. While some opinions may be more widely regarded (ie. Thriller being one of the best albums of the 80s, Invicibile being a flop) these are still JUST opinions. The only thing that we can look at is album sales - and I'm sorry - but if an album sells a million copies I'd think it was pretty darn sucessful. :: ehmjay 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

11 million copies is still not a bad number and I doubt that it cost 30 million $ to make the album. Aeneiden-Rex 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

300m $ in debt? I very much doubt that, where do you get that number from? As always you refuse to provide any sources for your statements. Why should he return to america? Aeneiden-Rex 08:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[Refactored to remove unverified negative comments]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs)

This "conversation" is losing it's direction. I think that the making of "Invincible" did cost something in the tens-of-millions. But if a CD costs say ten dollars times that by 11 million and it's not that bad...Also some lawyers ARE saying that MJ is in debt, but that's recently been disputed as some other experts have looked at it and said that it's not the case. Also, he is currently working on an album that will be released in 2007. I think it's clear, also, that the quality of an album is simply opinion, whether that be a professionals opinions or yours and mine. - A Shade Of Gray 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"African American" publicist Raymone Bain

The article contained the following text:

On June 10, Jackson's African American publicist Raymone Bain was fired

I've removed "African American", because I think it refers publicist's race, which isn't relevant here (and the connotation could be considered non-NPOV). If, however, Raymone Bain's job was to publicize to African-Americans, and if it is relevant to the article, then somebody should state so here and re-edit the page.—Wonderstruck 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - there is no need for it to mention her race. :: ehmjay 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Raymone Bain

I request the statement claiming that Ms. Bain continues to make "unofficial" statements regarding Michael. I believe she is his PR again. MaJic 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WMA

Whichever idiot, stop reverting the factual information that MJ had recieved the WMA award as the best selling male artist of the millenium. It belongs in the article, it belongs in the opening and here's a source for you idiot in denial.

http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/musicawards.html

No. 1s

Michael Jackson's last no. 1 in the US is not One More Chance. One More Chance only reached no. 40 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks. Who Is It is the last no. 1 in the US. It went to no. 1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart. Butterflies from 2002 went to no. 2 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart and must be considered his last hit so far. For further info plaese see the singles discography

You mean "You Are Not Alone", right? - A Shade Of Gray

I agree with gray. You Are Not Alone was the last No1 hit in the US. MaJic 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article potential candidate.

This article should be nominated for candidacy, it is completely suitable. It's probably one of the most heavily sourced and well written articles on Wikipedia. --I'll bring the food 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would make the chop. It's a bit controvercial for starters.--Crestville 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a very well written article though I think it needs some changes before it's nominated. Aeneiden-Rex 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No acting career

I think the article should mention that Jac kson has never had an acting career, unlike Bing Crosby (4 Oscars), Frank Sinatra (2 Oscars), Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Sir Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey etc - yet more evidence of how the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" is overrated.

Jackson was in 2 Hollywood films, made numerous short films, has guest starred on The Simpsons...how is that less valid then any of the others you listed (appart from not winning any academy awards? Yet more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. :: ehmjay 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing yourself in two bad movies hardly constitutes an acting career. Bing Crosby will always be superior to Jackson in every way.

Yes, Bing Crosby was in more movies and is a better actor than Jackson, but Jackson is not a REAL actor. And for a singer he's actually not that bad of an actor. As for playing himself, he was not playing himself in The Wiz. And like I said before, when you get right down to it he has actually been in quite a number of films and shorts - which in my opinion constitutes an acting career. As for Crosby being superior...thats a matter of opinion. It's my opinion that as a man who sang romantic songs and jazz tunes Crosby probably was better. And as a pop star and dancer Jackson would beat Crosby single handedly. :: ehmjay 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus Bing is the biggest movie star in history after John Wayne and Clark Gable, and he had the biggest selling single for 55 years and was worth $700 million. Jackson's paltry ten years at the top don't even compare with Der Bingle's fifty-year career.

Bing was worth 700 million? that's funny, as he died in 1977... 700 million in his time would make him the Bill gates of his day.. so your claims about his alleged wealth and equally false record sales figures are balderdash.

Nope. Bing owned oil wells, baseball teams, hotels, working farms, golf courses etc. Maybe you should investigate just how successful and important he was.

You're right - it doesn't...you cannot compare two completely different entertainers when they have such a different career. If you were to draw a comparison between Jackson and say, Madonna then perhaps we could make some arguments here - but you're not. You're comparing Jackson to a person who's actual CAREER was more or less over by the time his was taking off. Oh and since your so into sordid histories and rumours regarding celebrities, you should know that Mr. Crosby also came under fire for abuse towards children - his own in fact. Of course I'm sure you'll mention these are just allegations...:: ehmjay 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course since Jackson was found not guilty of doing this it doesn't really matter. :: ehmjay 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort of like Marlon Brando? And where did you get 90% of the world's population. That figgure is WAY off. Oh and as I've mentioned many times before...citation? :: ehmjay 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tarita made it quite clear in the book that Brando, for all his financial problems and lawsuits, was still powerful enough to prevent her from telling the truth during his lifetime. In any case Bing wore a red cardigan, green trousers and a yellow fedora. While his friends Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra and John Wayne wore ties, Bing continued to wear a bow tie. The Old Groaner is clearly the hardest man here:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1165/Mptv/1165/0898-0032.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Crosby,%20Bing

You've proved nothing. You've only mentioned that this woman CLAIMS she was unable to make CLAIMS...and that Bing Crosby wore bowties - which hardly proves anything! :: ehmjay 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that Bing was a great hero because he entertained the troops in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, was a major celebrity supporter of the Republican Party, was the second richest man in Hollywood, and continues to outsell all other entertainers every Christmas. In 1960 he received a platinum record as First Citizen of the Record Industry for having sold 200 million discs, a number that doubled by 1980. Between 1915 and 1980 he was the only motion-picture star to rank as the number one box-office attraction five times (1944-48). Between 1934 and 1954 he scored in the top ten fifteen times. He appeared on approximately 4,000 radio broadcasts, nearly 3,400 of them his own programs, and single-handedly changed radio from a live-performance to a canned or recorded medium by presenting, in 1946, the first transcribed network show on ABC, thereby making that also-ran network a major force. In a great many of his films, he played lighthearted comedy and musical roles as a singer or songwriter. His usual casual approach belied the fact that Crosby was a fine dramatic actor, as witnessed by his portrayals in Little Boy Lost (1953), The Country Girl (1954), Man On Fire (1957), and his last major film Stagecoach (1966). He also starred in the television movie Doctor Cook's Garden and won much critical acclaim for his performance. His last television appearance was in "Bing Crosby's Merrie Olde Christmas" which was taped in England and shown in the United States on 30 November 1977, and in the United Kingdom on 24 December 1977. This final show has also been available on commercial video. Endorsed Republican candidate Wendell Willkie in the 1940 Presidential election, because he strongly believed President Franklin D. Roosevelt should only serve two terms of office. When Roosevelt was easily re-elected, Crosby vowed never to become publicly involved in partisan politics again.

Yes Bing entertained troops during the wars, kudos on that (although there weren't many major wars going on at the time of Jackson's career). Yes he outsells artists at Christmas time (Jackson is a jahova's witness and has never recorded a Christmas album apart from the Jackson 5 christmas album which until recently was hard to find). Crosby is an excellent entertainer - there is no doubt about it. I respect him. However I would not call him the greatest entertainer of all time. I would not call Jackson the greatest of all time. The fact is, no matter who says what its all a matter of opinion. However - Jackson has won numerous polls calling him "artist of the century", "musicial of the millenium" (something one would think would go to Beethoven or Mozart), "greatest artist of the 80s". The fact is you cannot compare to careers that have a 30-50 year difference. Yes Bings album have sold lots and are still selling. Thriller is still selling - the number keeps rising - much like Bing's. However Bing Crosby may be the greatest entertainer to you - but not to others. That is something that you have to expect. And not only that - you can't just post rude comments about other artists who you dislike. To go back to the topic at hand - Jackson's acting career is just as valid as Madonna's, or any number of musicians turned actors. Yes, not as big as others but it is still worth mentioning. Let's put this debate to rest. Crosby is a great entertainer. So was Jackson. :: ehmjay 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a poll taken by some news shohw or a television show like Biography (I cant remember exacly who, it was a long time ago) in which he won. :: ehmjay 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found a few of them from the List Of Michael Jackson Awards wiki-page:

American Music Awards:

• Artist Of The Century Award (January 9th)

Bambi Awards (Berlin, Germany)

• Pop Artist of the Millennium

World Music Awards

• Best Selling Pop Male Artist of the Millennium

Those are just three that I could find quickly. There are more - that site is missing quite a few (BET Awards, RMAs) --:: ehmjay 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, during the latest Visionaries releases each single that has been re-released has made it into the charts - the lowest being at #34 (at least if my memory serves me correctly) and the highest charting at #11 (all this info was obtained here). If you look at the wikipage Best Selling Artists of All Time you'll see Jackson appears alongside the Beatles and Elvis, at the page Best Selling Albums Worldwide Jackson holds the top spot, and also appears in the list at Best Selling Music Artists (and bear in mind on that page its listed alphabetically not by number of albums sold). So to say that Jackson hasn't sold many records or as many as Bing Crosby (and to say Crosby has sold over 1 Billion) AND that Jackson isn't still selling records...is incorrect. :: ehmjay 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite probably Crosby has sold over a billion records, it's just that we can only confirm 900 million sales. Remember that recording sales were not carefully measured in the 1930s. Crosby is so clearly the greatest that nobody except The Beatles can even compare with him.

Bing didn't sell 900 million. complete fabriction. Nowhere near. He sold (as of 2002) 160 million.

Is that supposed to be funny? "White Christmas" alone sold 50 million copies as a single, and 100 million in compilations. Bing's sales can be confirmed at over 500 million. Remember that from 1931 until 1950 he was literally the biggest star on the planet.

There has yet to be any evidence to show that Bing Crosby has sold over 500 million. :: ehmjay 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

here; here; here; here; and here. Reserch should be the very foundation of an argument. Otherwise you could end up looking a bit silly.--Crestville 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Im just curious - if this is the case then why does the guiness site list Crosby as the "Biggest Xmas Hit" and not as biggest selling artist - and Jackson as "Best Selling Album". Not only that, the Guiness page now confirms the 51 million sales of Thriller, and two of the articles you posted RE: Bing appear to be Independant research - something we aren't supposed to take into account. --:: ehmjay 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't rely on the Guinness site for all your information. They are actually wrong about the "Thriller" album's sales, which in fact add up to 47 million copies. I believe Jackson actually shares the "Best Selling Album" title with another artist. Crosby has the biggest single of all time, "White Christmas" which sold more than 50 million copies as a single and had to be re-recorded in 1947. 55 years after it first appeared the song was overtaken by Sir Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" as the fastest selling single, but that doesn't really count as people only bought it because it was a tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales. In the last five years sales of "Candle in the Wind" have declined dramatically, while Bing's Christmas albums continue to bring him ahead every year. Most sities agree that Bing is the second biggest selling artist in history with 900 million, after Elvis Presley's estimated 1.1 billion.

"Most sites" do NOT state Bing as the 2nd biggest selling act. Most sites don't even include him (his sales info is dodgy and based on a lot of record company say so and fan sites.. a bit like Jackson really). However, Bing has sold a lot, but nowhere near the 900 million claims (it's closer to 160-180 million as of today). He was huge a long time ago BUT the world population and record buying customers were MUCH lower back then and he is not selling today like one of the hottest acts. Elvis Presley and The Beatles, for example sell a lot more than Bing Crosby nowdays and have done for many decades and enjoyed their peaks when the popualtion and record buying public were much larger. Michael Jackson too has sold a lot more than Bing from the mid-1970s on. In order for Bing to have sold the claimed 900 million (that very few actually believe) then he would have had to have outsold MJ from "On The Wall" onwards and also outsold Paul McCartney's post-Beatles carrer since the 1970s. Complete nonsence. Furthermore "White Christmas" has not sold 50 million copies as a single, that was a claim rused out after "Candle in the Wind 97" by Elton John outsold it, but it is not true and I'm afraid "Candle in the wind '97" does count, you have a non-argument, we could easily argue that Christmas songs don't count as they are mere cash-in's on the worlds most commerical holiday. 74.65.39.59 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Crosby sold more than 200 million records worldwide in the 1930s alone, at a time when people had far less money to spend. It is an indisputable fact that at his peak Crosby was bigger than Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and The Beatles combined. With crooning going out of fashion in the 1960s it is difficult for young people today to appreciate just how major Crosby's influence and success was. Of course Bing's fan sites are very biased in his favor, but I would think that is inevitable with any iconic star, whether it's Crosby or Jackson or Presley. This conversation started about how Jackson never had an acting career unlike many over entertainers, and has now turned into an analysis of why he is so unbelievably overrated. Elvis fans always try to make out Bing had no competition until Sinatra arrived, yet the fact is Bing was holding off about a dozen big stars including Al Jolson. Besides The Beatles (who blew him off the map), Elvis had Englebert Humperdinck, Adam Faith, Bobby Darin, Matt Monro etc - pleasant enough pop stars but ahrdly big leaguers. If only Bing had continued to release albums regularly after he left Decca in 1955, then his supremacy would be unchallenged. You know from that time until 1974 he didn't perform live at all, except for his annual Christmas shows. I have just ordered the picture of Crosby, Sinatra, Hope and Wayne from the MPTV to go on the wall.

Please - reamin civil and do not attack other users because they disagree with you. :: ehmjay 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bing Crosby fan has to realise that people will dissagree, espically when he has no proof of his/her claims. I also find bemusing at how he/she claims Elvis only had minor league stars to compete with, what about Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Pat Boone, Cliff Richard and so on and so forth in the 1950s-early 60s alone (I.e BEFORE the beatles) and then, of course, Presley remained in the game throughout the 60s and 70s, continuing to sell and score hit's despite new stars coming up. Furthermore, Englebert Humperdinck claims to have sold more than 150 million records (presumably if this were true most of them were sold before 1977). Not that I believe it myself, but it's just as probable as these claims for Bing Crosby. 74.65.39.59 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By the end of the 50s Buddy Holly was dead, Little Richard had retired, Cliff Richard had found religion, Jerry Lee Lewis was in disgrace, Pat Boone had declined, and Chuck Berry was in prison. Until the Beatles arrived in America in 1964 Presley had no real competition. As soon as the British Invasion began, he was blown off the map by the Fab Four, the Stones, Bob Dylan and everybody else, and he never regainied his former success until after his death.

I am a massive fan...but an acting "career" really is stretching things in my view. Snowbound 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I never even heard of Bing Crosby before reading this talk page. The guy must have hid his success very well, either that or just like some oher singers he was successful in the u.s and UK only which hardly constitutes international success and recognition.

Most people I know here wouldn't recognize a Presley song, but half of Mj's 80's songs they will. MJ is up there with the likes of Elvis, and the Beatles in sales and fame power and is the most well known man in the world, more so than the Pope or the president of the u.s. he's one of few artists who has a "perfect pitch" -read psychology today- so he has a very versatile and powerful voice. He never had a successful acting career so no I woulndn't call him an actor, but do you say "he never had an acting career" in every article were the subject did not? Einstein, Bill gates? No. Editor18 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this section can be archived as well. Because, put this way, how can somebody source something that didn't happen? Moreover the discussion seems to be between the unsigned "Bing Crosby fan" and everyone else, no offense to that person. - A Shade Of Gray

nielson soundscan

I would like to remind the anon IP who keeps saying "check the nielson soundscan figures" that these A) only count US sales, B) are in a private database which you need to pay to access. Therefore expecting people here to pay to view such figures is not acceptable as a sourcing plan --I'll bring the food 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Skin Colour

How did he change from black to white?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.182.212 (talk)

According to Jackson, he suffers from the skin disease vitiligo which causes a loss of pigment in the skin. Originally he was able to even it out using brown/black makeup but eventually there were so many white patches it made more sence to use white makeup to even everything out. While many people say this is a load of crap, and that Jackson bleached his skin because he no longer wanted to be black, his makeup artist Karen Faye has confirmed that he does have a condition in numerous interviews, and has explained how they went about covering it up with makeup. Now dont be surprised if this whole section disapears rather quickly though, as this is a topic just waiting to be vandalized. :: ehmjay 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you know, you could just point them to the article on it.--I'll bring the food 15:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's true. I sorta forgot about that... I guess I just figgured if they posted it they would come here for an answer. Anyways, as I'll Bring the Food said, if you're really interested just check out the article...but my "synopsis" gives the basic rundown. :: ehmjay 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an article here Physical appearance of Michael Jackson. Either he has vitiligo or his skin has been damaged by him bleaching it- take your pick. Arniep 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Some of This Page?

I was just wondering, this page is getting pretty long. Would it be possible to add some more of it to the archive so there is less scrolling required to get to the newest posts? Just a thought. :: ehmjay 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I archived as much of the older stuff as possible as well as the off-topic editor stuff. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! :: ehmjay 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Archived a bit more.--A Shade of Grey 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

The article should mention Jackson's support for the Iraq war. By 2003, when it had not been released, Jackson called Schaffel with more urgent messages saying he had a plan for the recording to be a charity project tied to the Iraq war. "It should be for America in Iraq," Jackson said in one message. "It's a perfect cause. It means more now than any other causes." It's hilarious how the isolated loser churned out "We've Had Enough" in 2004 to jump on the bandwagon while quietly supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If it can be proven (with cited sourced) it can be mentioned...otherwise it has no place here. Also POV comments do not belong. :: ehmjay 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One telephone message, taken completely out of context. A while ago, tabloids used another indirect phone quotation to prove that Jackson be "anti-Semitic"... The poor fellow cannot say anything without being recorded and analyzed. (Who has never cursed or said the wrong words in a telephone conversation?) Remember, Jackson presently lives in an Arab country, much closer to the Iraqi disaster than most Americans. One of his best friends, the Bahraini crown prince, is an Arab, culturally a "brother" of the suffering Iraqis. "America in Iraq" does not necesarrily mean "the American invasion of Iraq". Jackson might as well have refered to the poor American soldiers who are forced to die for nothing in a foreign country. Before we make any conclusive remarks, let's wait till someone has asked Jackson what he really means (if he has an opinion at all). - P.S. A larger percentage of blacks than whites believed in Jackson's innocence during last year's trial. Bab

Well, I don't know much about Jackson, I have heard the same number of people deffending him as attacking him, so I have a neutral opinion on him. About his support to Iraq war, well, it wouldn't suprise me as a Unitedstatian success in Iraq would mean another market to dominate therefore increasing Jackson's incomes, but of course I say it just as a speculation from my part. Secondly, let's take into account how supportive or indifferent have been most Arab nations on Iraq's issue. Bahraini government is well known for its ties with USA and UK therefore being a supporter of military interventions of the previously mentioned nations in the Middle East regardless of cultural or historical liasons with their brother Arabians so the Bahraini prince being friend of Jackson does not imply that either of the two persons is against the intervention in Iraq and thus less implies that they're not supportive of it. To me, even if there's not factual evidence of which I know (although I think somewhere there is), seems as a very probable posibility that Jackson is suportive of military intervention in Iraq. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma

NPOV Discography?

Could someone (perhaps the person making the comment) what exactly is POV about the Discography? Or exactly what the tag is refering too? I would gladly go through and make the changes, but I don't know what needs to be changed. :: ehmjay 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I realize that all of those are different things that need to be fixed - not "Format NPOV Discography" but "format", "NPOV" and "Discography". Needless to say, if someone wants to inform me what needs to be done to the Discography I'd love to do it. I'm looking for somethign to keep me busy this week. :: ehmjay 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask FuriousFreddy who made the request. Tyrenius 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who thinks this article needs a clean-up? I don't think it needs much clean-up. Who put the tag up there and why? What is wrong with this article? Aeneiden-Rex 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

The Oprah Winfrey Interview was in 1993, however the information regarding the interview is in the 1985-1990 section. It was very much more related to the Dangerous era. After the interview was screened worldwide, sales of the Dangerous album soared. It was a little after this that the allegations came out. What does anyone else think about moving this information?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleDragon (talk • contribs)

Makes sence to me. :: ehmjay 15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than move the whole section on the Oprah Winfrey show, as it relates to a discussion on his skin colour, I have just added the year 1993.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleDragon (talk • contribs)

Millions

Jackson has sold over 215 million records (singles, albums, downloads) as a solo act.

It must be more than 215 millions if you count in singles, albums and downloads, as a solo act. It's up to 300 millionsAeneiden-Rex 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Actually it's only 170 million.

no way, that's not true.. MJ has sold way more than 170 Aeneiden-Rex 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not 170 million, it's not above 300 million, it's 215 million.

where did you get that number from?Aeneiden-Rex 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing a study on the music industry, record sales and world-wide charts (both sales and airplay - including backlog sales too). Once I archive this research, I'll put it all up for all to see. I have been looking at all sales claims from all "sources" I can find, looking at reports from the industry (both labels and record shops across the board) and the charts. I am doing my own encyclopedia, a music one that will eventually be available in book form, it's going to take a number of years yet though to complete, so by the time I have finished I'm sure the figure will have grown a little.

As it stands, the wikipedia policy is not to accept independent research. :: ehmjay 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

170 million maybe an old number is the "overblow hype MJ sales" department, but in the real world he has now really reached that figure in 2006. Yes, the MJ hype machine still proclaims him as the biggest selling solo artist, but that dosen't mean anything to people who don't look at this court jester of pop through rose tinted glasses and see him for what he really is - a very over-rated once upon a time time star who no longer sells at all. He's not even the biggest selling pop artist - Sir Elton John has sold over 250 million records, and that figure is confirmed by the RCIA.

I don't think anyone has claimed he is the biggest selling artist. And he does continue to sell albums, one only has to look at the charts to see this is true. :: ehmjay 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look here or here to show that jackson is still in the charts. :: ehmjay 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MJ has not sold 170 millions as of 2006 as a solo-act, where do you get this number from? he's at least sold 215 million. MJ still sells very well. , maybe not in america, but is that a wonder? You need to be more objective.Aeneiden-Rex 08:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson may get it the charts when he has something new out, but this quickly falls off. This is not "selling very well" for an artist of his stature and limited discography. It would be selling very well if it was someone like Mick Jagger, who can't even sell a solo record, but not for someone like Jackson. ehmjay please don't give us links to mickey mouse charts. 74.65.39.59 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just wait for his new album and you'll see how well that record will sell.Aeneiden-Rex 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It will probably sell as well as his most recent efforts, so it will hardly be a blockbuster success 74.65.39.59 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Invincible might not have been a blockbuster but it was still not a failure. Let's just wait and see, I don't count on MJ becoming as popular as before, in America, with his new album, but it will still sell very well, because he still MJ.Aeneiden-Rex 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was a faliure, it was a #1 album (for a week) but lets not forget it was sold with something like 5 diffrent covers, when his other albums such as "Thriller" and "Bad" came out they old had one - meaning it was less well recieved by the public at large than the sales look. 74.65.39.59 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His dispute with Sony & Mottola resulted in less promotion of Invincible. Promotion is very important, and Jackson wanted to release more singles from it but they were all cancelled.[ Anyway Invincible was a succes, not as big as Thriller and Bad, but it still went up to no 1 in 13 countries[4], so I don't understand when some people call it a failure. Aeneiden-Rex 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are always two sides to a story. Sony promoted the album for 6 months spending $55 million on promotion and production [5]. Needless to say, they were not going to contine to promote it forever, they have other things to do that concentrate on one artist. Sony probably didnt release any more singles because they had a lot of other acts who were selling better and having much bigger hits than Jackson was having at that time. So while it's true Jackson may have wanted to promote it more, Sony had a right (and one that could be justified) to pull the plug. 74.65.39.59 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they had a justified right to do it, I just think that they don't consider MJ to be priority no 1 anymore. Invincible has sold well, and "You Rock My World" was a big hit, though the dispute resulted in only 1 single released. Aeneiden-Rex 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there was another single issued after You Rock My World, it only made something like #13 in the UK and din't fare much better elsewhere - hardly a big hit. You Rock My World was not a big hit either, a medium sized hit, yes, big hit, no. It didn't last too long in the charts or the publics memories. Sony had a lot of other stars that were selling both more singles and albums than MJ at this point and as Sony run a commerical business, not a Michael Jackson fan club, the reason for pulling the promotion on the album after half a year seems justified. 74.65.39.59 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest: SONY cannot complain about MJ's sales. Everybody who says MJ doesn't sell anymore is wrong. Check the soundscan/nielsen figures and you'll see Michael Jackson's weekly sales have been higher for months than Prince's(before his new album) and madonna's. (I think they are comparable artists). Figures are based on US sales. Weekly average is between 8 en 12.000 copies with highs after his acquittal, about 25.000 copies!