Talk:Beat It/Archive 1

Key
Which key is this pitched in? Sounds to me like somewhere between like E flat and E (something like E quarter flat..). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.209.208 (talk)
 * According to MusicNotes.com, it's in G Major - Ashadeofgrey 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I compared that sheet music with the actual song, and it sounds like the sheet music is a half step higher. I tried playing the bass along with the song, and it sounds like E flat minor (G flat major), although it may be tuned slightly higher. Some of the bass tabs I found are in D minor, though. To add more confusion, at least one live version seems to be played in an even lower key (C minor). -71.80.31.11 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So called release date of BI 2008
As there is neither a commercial nor a promotional single for BI 2008 (yet), the charts are calculated of downloads of this track. It is only available on Thriller 25 so this release date is the release date for BI 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence or conspiracy theory?
I've noticed some things:
 * Beat It was written because Jones needed a song with a strong rock-'n'-roll theme like My Sharona, which was parodied by Weird Al.
 * Beat It was also parodied by Weird Al.
 * Both parodies were about food.
 * Eat It reached #1 in Australia but Beat It only reached #2.

Freaky or what? Scott Gall 09:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen: One Take or Two?

 * "Beat It" is also notable for its guitar solo, a guest performance by Eddie Van Halen. He did the solo for the song in one take."
 * "According to another story; It was common practice during the time to knock on ones own guitar to signify you were ready to come in for your guitar solo. The knock that was heard in the song was Eddie Van Halen preparing to come in and rip out that amazing solo on only his second take."

That whole section needs to be re-written. It is too informal.

I agree; actually, a big portion of the article is very informal and reads like a personal review rather than presenting information about the song. It needs to be completely rewritten in order to be neutral. 67.107.46.162 12:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * About the knocking sound just before guitar solo, Quincy Jones states in Off the Wall with bonus tracks (remastered 2001), that the knock came about when a trainee sound engineer knocked on the door of recording booth, before realising that there was recording in progress. Then Michael and Quincy decided to let it stay on the final cut. I'm poor with this wikipedia thing, but if someone could find references and add this info to the article, it'd be really cool. It's a beautiful example of a mistake in recording, that has made it into final cut, and in the one of the most sold records in the world :) -Sound Engineer of Some Kind 212.246.71.11 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michael Jackson beat it uk single cover.jpg
Image:Michael Jackson beat it uk single cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumor?
I had heard that this video had actual gang members - does anyone know where these rumors came from, or am I mistaken (or was it "Bad" that had the gang members?)FlaviaR 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

bad had the real gang members, as for beat it i dont know. Realist2 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy Cover
i think fall out boy's version needs a seperate page since it is their album's lead single and it has charted already.... a suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.231.222 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cover versions don't normally get their own page, although a separate and expanded section within this page might be appropriate. Wolfer68 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope it doesnt take up too much space. Realist2 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it will. I expect a short chart life. This is no "Without You" by Mariah Carey.

It will help MJ's sales which is the real reason its been released so im happy. Realist2 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

General
I'm not sure Gigwise.com is reliable, I avoid using it. — R  2  17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting is good. — R  2  17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just discovered the WP:REFTOOLS script a few days ago. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You should mention that a sample of "Beat It" was used on the remix of "2Bad" from Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix. — R  2  18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, everything else is great, nominate when your ready :) — R  2  18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate it now, cheers. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy of release and reception section
This article claims that the single "Beat It" was "certified gold, a few months after it's (sic) release, for shipments of at least 500,000 units." However, from 1958 through 1988, the Recording Industry Association of America required sales of one million units for a gold single. "Beat It" was certified gold on May 9, 1983, representing sales of one million records. See RIAA certification or these other sources for more information.

Whitburn, Joel. The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (2004):13

Campbell, Mary. (AP) "Record certifications: gold singles are ahead of last year while other numbers are similar" Daily Collegian July 28, 1983. Piriczki (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I'll change it accordingly. In the future, please state things like this on the article's talk page or on a user's talk page. Discussion is the key. If you don't discuss possibly controversial edits, people will think your causing trouble. Thank you. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Repetition
The introductory article and the first article after the table of contents are very very similar, could someone change one of them to make it less repetitive? Meemat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Under 'Music Video' Subheading: "It was also the first music video to suggest that dancing in unison is tantamount to getting along." Is this vandalism, or am I missing what the sentence is saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampfox1942 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some very strange things in this article-- people, including myself, have removed weird sentences like this (as well as the repetition of entire sentences described above) and somehow they keep reappearing. I'm going to try yet again... --Replysixty (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would that be vandalism? It is a sourced fact. Now, the lead is meant to repeat some information. I'll work on rewording it later, but for now I'm reverting your changes to the lead, as they are quite significant and without consensus.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 08:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That awful line is sourced, but it is hardly a fact. It is a matter of interpretation of the video that dancing in unison is "tantamount" to getting along, whatever that's even supposed to mean. Besides being confusing, it's not notable-- people dance in film for all kinds of reasons, including to symbolically mean "getting along", and it's certainly not unique to this video. Why is this important anyway? The changes to the opening pararaphs I made are significant in that they are tighter, better written, and give notable facts about the song/video without all that fluff about the production itself, which appears elsewhere in the article. My obligation is to make the article better, and that's what I did. The edits speak for themselves-- I don't see why you think it's a good idea to revert to a version with grammatical errors. --Replysixty (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for the change? There is none. You are starting to become disruptive here, so I suggest you use the talk first and then we can work on changes if there is consensus to do so. The only consensus for your significant edits to the lead, is from yourself. As I said before, I can work on rewording the lead later. For now, I'm trying to keep it clean of unsourced crap and trivia, as all Michael Jackson articles are receiving higher than normal traffic.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 08:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is myself and Swampfox, who aside from you are the only to weigh in on this. Wikipedia is a product of and for the public-- it's not yours or anyone else's job to watchdog and pre-approve changes. I'm putting my edits back as they make for a better article. I have already described why I changed what I changed, but I'll do so again-- the edits avoid repetition of identical language contained elsewhere in the article, significantly tighten language and focus on facts surrounding the song rather than anecdote and unsourced speculation about its production. The edits removes the appearance of POV and also corrects errors in punctuation. The sentence about "tantamount to getting along" is confusing, unnecessary interpretation whose factual basis is subject to controversy and has no business in an encyclopedia. Sentences like "Jones had wanted an ambitious black rock 'n' roll song, however, Jackson had never previously shown an interest in the genre" are equally confusing. What is an "ambitious black rock 'n' roll song" supposed to mean? Ambitious how? Creatively? Musically? In terms of Jackson's career? Jones' career? And jeesh- forget "ambitious"-- what is a "black rock 'n roll song" supposed to imply? Rock and roll is a music genre that has origins in traditionally "black" music-- why is the word "black" there at all? Why is that notable? The rest of the sentence is a run-on. Then, the next sentence " Eddie Van Halen was drafted in to add the distinctive overdriven guitar solo with tapping" has an unclear structure. It sounds as though tapping was used to draft Eddie Van Halen. The fact that he thought the phone call to "tap" him was fake is an interesting little tidbit... that has no business in an article lead. The whole Eddie Van Halen sentence is totally random and has no connection to anything else in the paragraph. The phrase "drafted in" is weird too. "a feat matched by very few artists. " A "feat"?!! Is the article trying to impress me? One might think so, given the following phrases: "ambitious black rock 'n' roll song", "worldwide commercial and critical success", "One of the most lauded songs in history", "Honored numerous times", "the best-selling album of all time", etc. etc. all in three paragraphs. I think we get it. Then we have "the song's corresponding music video" Corresponding? A better word might be accompanying. "The lyrics are about defeat and courage" -- the word "courage" doesn't appear in the song, so I'd like to have some context for this interpretation. Is this a consensus view? What specifically about defeat and courage is it about? How about this gem-- "The song was promoted with a short film that featured Jackson bringing two real life gangs together through the power of dance. "  First of all, the "short film" did not feature Jackson bringing two real-life (a hyphen would be nice here) gangs together. The real-life gangsters were background extras. They did not dance; the dancers danced. Jackson did not really bring them together (except to shoot a music video), and who knows whether they were from two, three, or nine gangs, whether those gangs were rivals, etc. The current sentence makes it sound like the video is a documentary of Jackson teaching two gangs to dance. In short, the lead of this article is an abortion, and it would take much too long to go through every single word change and explain how and why I fixed it. The edits speak for themselves, and I'm being bold. So let's just do this-- if you have a problem with my edits, please let me know which ones you didn't like, and why, and we can discuss further. But please stop reverting or we'll be at this forever. Just remember- your advance approval is never required for anyone to make edits that improve the article. Thanks. --Replysixty (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tosh! There is no consensus for your changes to the lead. Swampfox1942 has not even mentioned the lead. I have no problem with people editing articles that I have worked on, however, your edits are significant and without consensus from anyone. As I've said three times now, I will work on the lead once the traffic decreases.
 * See Meemat's comment above. I have no reason nor obligation to wait for you to work on the lead at your convenience.  Wikipedia belongs to all of us.  You do not own this article and have no special claim to it.  The status quo page has no special status either. --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead was changed after Meemat's comment two months ago.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I* changed it to take out the repetitive language. *YOU* reverted it!! --Replysixty (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressing your other concerns, "tantamount to getting along" means "equal to getting along", and I don't find it confusing at all.
 * The "consensus" is that it IS unclear, as is much of the rest of the opening. I have taken steps to fix this. -Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus on it being unclear, other than from yourself?  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Swampfox (above): "It was also the first music video to suggest that dancing in unison is tantamount to getting along."  Is this vandalism, or am I missing what the sentence is saying?"  I am not the only one confused by this sentence. --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ambitious" may mean a song that goes all out, one that doesn't hold back.
 * "Goes all out"?! You're joking now, right? --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A "black rock 'n' roll song" is a rock 'n' roll song created by black people. He wanted a rock 'n' roll featuring a black vocalist, as opposed to a white one.
 * You still haven't told me who "he" is. So there's that.  Then there's the fact that Jackson "wanting" a rock and roll song featuring a black vocalist is a bit redundant-- does Metallica want "white" heavy metal songs?  Was there a shortage of Jimmy Hendrix, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, etc. albums that day? --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "He" meaning Quincy Jones. As made quite clear in the lead.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after *I* fixed it for you and you had reverted it several times! --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else added the Van Halen line,
 * Hang on, mate. Isn't Eddie Van Halen white? -Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. Although I can't quite see where I disputed that.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jones wanted a "black" rock and roll song, which you define as being made by black people (jesus, this is such an absurd conversation...) and he "taps" a white guitarist. This is so ridiculous.  Please, I beg you, bring in an admin, so we can end this standoff. --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * which, again, I will work on tightening.
 * No need. I tightened it already. --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what they call it nowadays?  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Feat" is not there to impress anyone; it was a feat. "Worldwide commercial and critical success", "One of the most lauded songs in history", "Honored numerous times" and "the best-selling album of all time" are not POV statements either; they are facts.
 * The fact that I had a solid BM today could also be described as a "feat". But it and the other "factual" language are laudatory overkill.  --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be. Although I don't really see the achievement in that.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you haven't seen the BM. Or the numerous awards it won.  --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The song's corresponding music video" is used to ease in the short film, as it has not been mentioned previously in the lead. "The lyrics are about defeat and courage", which is true, as sourced in the prose below. Just because the lyrics don't mention those exact words, doesn't make it untrue. "The song was promoted with a short film that featured Jackson bringing two real life gangs together through the power of dance." Agree with your comment on this, and will remove the 'real life' part.
 * It's hard to respond to someone who thinks that "the lyrics are about defeat and courage" is illuminating or informative. May I suggest as a replacement-- "The lyrics are about things and stuff." --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may suggest, but I'm sure your request will be declined. "Things and stuff" isn't quite specific enough.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious. More important, you are not in a special editorial position to "decline" anything.  This isn't your article. --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also want to say that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, detailing why the song is notable. The version before yours did that. In your version it says; "Rolling Stone magazine placed "Beat It" in the 337th spot on its list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and on the list of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll." Why are they more important than any of the other polling lists the song has been placed on. In my opinion, a 337th position isn't notable enough for the lead either. I feel the structure I have used in the lead, as seen in other articles I have brought to GA (namely "Billie Jean"), is much better at summarizing. Also your the one that has a problem with the article, so it's you that needs to use the talk page.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, on that last point-- you're the one with the problem, as I've changed it again. And will continue to do so if you continue to make the article crappy again.  Before I changed it, I found entirely NEW spelling errors.  The opening bit should say why the song is notable.  If you have some better awards it won, fine-- but this isn't the place for MJ's resume.  One or two illustrative awards will do.  We get the point. --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one with the problem. You're the one making the article "crappy". You're the one being disruptive by significantly changing the lead without consensus. What spelling errors? Are you completely inebriated? To my knowledge, my version of the lead did assert notability? But what do I know? Afterall, I'm only the one that's been bringing these "crappy" articles to GA.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To anyone (admins?) reading this-- you are getting the irony, right? Ehem...
 * No, your ["You're" is a contraction of "you" and "are"] the one with the problem. Your [Ditto] the one making the article "crappy". Your [Sigh] the one being disruptive by significantly changing the lead without consensus. What spelling errors? Are you completely inebriated? To my knowledge, my version of the lead did assert notability? [Inappropriate question mark] But what do I know? Afterall ["After" and "all" are two words]... --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your lead paragraphs have contained run-ons, spelling errors, unclear pronoun references, clumsy wording, repetitive information, a fawning tone, unsourced weasel words, etc. Reviewing your last reversion of my edits contains a reference to "drink driving" for crying out loud.  A few inadvertent mistakes are acceptable and inevitable, and not all grammar is clear-cut.  Others will find, debate and fix mistakes.  But you- you are an awful writer.  So just... stop reverting back to your brilliant lead paragraphs until you've passed 5th-grade English, okay?  (No offense to fifth grade English students is intended.) --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I've fixed it for your. The question mark is used because I'm asking a rhetorical question. Of course I'm a crappy writer. I've done no real work here at all.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing the lead back again and will take some of your points on board. If your unhappy with the change, then open a Request for Comment, because I doubt we will agree on a version.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to the good version. I humbly request that you refrain from altering the page until you've read Elements of Style.  Save us both some time.  Thanks. --Replysixty (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in no way obliged to read anything, and I certainly won't in order to satisfy your disruptive editing. Perhaps I'm typing in Swahili, or perhaps you are totally clueless, but on Wikipedia, we go by consensus. There is no consensus for your changes to the lead. I think I've assumed good faith and satisfied your disruptive editing for too long now. Change the lead without consensus and I will seek administrator assistance to deal with this.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do so. --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A third opinion has been requested. I'll take a step a back, now, before I get blocked because of your unacceptable behaviour.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
A third opinion has been requested by myself to determine which lead would be more appropriate. I feel that my version of the lead summarized the article quite well, without having to use scraggly paragraphs of unimportant information. It is a structure that has been successfully employed on several articles I have worked on, such as "Billie Jean" and "We Are the World". Neither of these have ever received complaints about the structuring used, nor has this (other than the concerns of Replysixty). I'm not going around in circles edit warring with someone who fails to wait on consensus before drastically overhauling a lead during a time when stability within Jackson related articles is a must. I, therefore, welcome a third opinion.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 20:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my concerns-- while both paragraphs are similar, there are still serious flaws with Pyrrus16's version, which I have tried to correct several times - only to be reverted again and again. Among these flaws are unnecessary phrases (including "Prior to the song's creation," and "Cited as one of the most lauded songs in history,"), grammatical errors including a run-on sentence ("...featuring Jackson, however, the singer..."), strange sentence structure ("Honoured numerous times—including two Grammy Awards, two American Music Awards...") and misspellings ("anti-drink driving"). I am also concerned with the awkward, random production note "Jones had wanted an ambitious black rock 'n' roll song", which, while better-written compared with previous incarnations, still feels unclear for reasons stated previously. Finally, I don't think my changes are "drastically overhauling" or destabilizing anything, nor do I think any time is a particularly bad time to improve the article. Regardless, Jackson has been dead now for weeks. --Replysixty (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note: "anti-drink driving" is not a spelling error. It's a British spelling that perhaps isn't employed in America.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 08:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jackson has been dead now for weeks." what? jackson browne is dead? Fp cassini (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no- Jackson Pollock. He's been dead for --Replysixty (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Without having read any of the prior discussion, I must say I prefer Replysixty's version. Pyrrhus16's version is good, but it doesn't seem to flow as well as it could. Also, Replysixty's version is a bit more well-written in my opinion. Just my $0.02. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support Pyrrhus16's version. It just reads better; Replysixty's is just too patchy. Fair enough, there are errors, but these aren't a reason to choose the other version. They can very simply be fixed. "Anti-drunk" with a "u" sounds absolutely crazy to my non-American brain, but if that's the way it's done over the pond then it should conform as the article is on an American artist (obviously). Same for "honoured", I guess? Fix the issues in the Pyrrhus16 version, totally, but a re-structuring is not needed. U-Mos (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed those two spellings in the example lead above. Spellings like that are always tricky when you've grown up with them. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Replysixty's version. The other one has lots of pointless details that spoil the flow, especially so early in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More stuff that annoys me about the Pyrrhus version: The extra comma in "defeat and courage, and have been said", and "becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time."  followed closely by "...propelled Thriller into becoming the best-selling album of all time."  Are these liner notes?   Do we need the linguistic repetition?  Also, Pyrrhus, while I appreciate you retroactively fixing (some of) your grammar and spelling errors throughout this discussion, it doesn't exactly make for a fair evaluation, since you consistantly reverted the corrections every time I fixed them.  Regardless, I think we have that consensus you wanted.  3-2.  My version stays.   --Replysixty (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not numbers. Your version isn't perfect either. It contains the following factual inaccuracy: "Following the successful chart performances of the singles Thriller, "The Girl Is Mine" and "Billie Jean", "Beat It" was released on February 14, 1983 as the album's third single." "Beat It" was not released after the "Thriller" single; "Thriller" was the last released from the Thriller album. Also, "Thriller" the single should not be italicised.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. The Italics in "Thriller" came from a version that preceded mine and the sentence is exactly the same in both versions.  I have no issue with you changing it.  Same with the factual accuracy about the album.  I kept the extant facts in the previous version; I only reorganized and improved flow.  BTW-- Consensus is the 3-2, PLUS the 2 comments previously cited in our discussion PLUS I see yet another edit today from someone who also cut the "ambitious black rock 'n' roll" stuff in the body.  That's consensus.  BTW-- FWIW I do remember the Thriller video coming after the Beat It video.  I think it went:  Billie Jean, Beat It, Thriller.  That's just going from memory.  It's been a few years.  --Replysixty (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Thriller album is referred to in my version. You changed the sentence and called it a single.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. The words were transposed.  I fixed it. --Replysixty (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

About that gang leader in the music video
In the music video, there is a gang leader with a dragon on the back of his jacket. He looks a bit like Freddy Mercury, doesn't he? BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He may well do, but it's unsourced, trivia, and not notable to either the song or music video in any way.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be notable to the music video if it were sourced. After all, articles on other Jackson songs state what celebrities appeared in the music video (Eddie Murphy, Iman, and Magic Johnson in "Remember the Time", Wesley Snipes in "Bad", Macaulay Culkin, George Wendt, and Tess Harper in "Black or White", Lisa Marie Presley in "You Are Not Alone", Chris Tucker, Michael Madsen, and Marlon Brando in "You Rock My World", Slash in "Give In to Me", Joe Pesci in "Smooth Criminal", Naomi Campbell in "In the Closet", Michael Jordan in "Jam", everybody in "Liberian Girl"). --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be notable if it was him, but it is not. It is Michael Peters.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand
This article contradicts itself regarding the song's peak position in New Zealand. In the "release and reception" section, it says it topped the charts in New Zealand, but further down, the chart table says it peaked at #14. Of those two, only the latter gave a source that was immediately viewable. Which one is correct, and are there any other sources confirming that? --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get around to fixing that shortly. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. :) I've seen a lot of sources saying it reached number one in New Zealand; I'm beginning to think that the allcharts sites (i.e. australian-charts.com, etc.) are not completely updated. In the case of "Beat It," I think they only have information for three weeks of the song's performance in New Zealand. In other words, their information goes to the song's third week on the charts (when it was at #14) and then stops there. The song probably continued to climb the charts afterward, they just don't have any info on subsequent weeks. That's my theory, anyway. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. It reached number 24 in New Zealand in 1983.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this chart, however, it was #1 during the week of May 29th, 1983. It remained #1 for the next four weeks after that. However, it did peak at #24 with its re-entry into the charts this year following Jackson's death. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)--From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)