Talk:HIStory: Past, Present and Future - Book I/Archive 1

Controversial lyric from TDCAU
There is also another controversial lyric in TDCAU where Michael sings "Don't you say that I fucked a baby". Should this be included in the article? Street walker 11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of that lyric...are you sure its not a missheard lyric?
 * OMG! it's actually true. I am quite familiar with this song and did not realize the existence of the lyric until recently. I looked it up but it isn't credited on any lyrics sites as it is a backing lyric that would normally be represented with brackets, ex: "what about the crying man? (what about us?)/what about Abraham?" (Earth Song). The lyric appears during the last chorus where Michael sings over-top of the chorus. Following the line "All I want to say is that they don't really care about us", he sings over-top "we're deep in the fire/I'm here to remind you" and then seemingly "Don't you say that I fucked a baby", trying to pass it off as scatting. It is the last line of the song before Michael repeats "All I wanna say is that they don't really care about..." three times and then concludes the song with "All I wanna say is that they don't really care about us". I can't say for sure that that is exactly what he says because he grunts it more than the other lines, possibly for the reason of denying the lyric's existence. HIStory is notorious for hidden lyrics, ie: "D.S." where Michael credits the lyrics "Dom Sheldon" and "Dom S. Sheldon" when he clearly sings "Tom Sneddon" and "Thomas Sneddon", in order to avoid being sued. GreekStar12 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To: Funky Monkey
I am unable to send messages through net send at the for the time being. So this will have to do. -

The word Brilliant is neither in-favor or going against MJ. It is not impartial to any opinion. It is fact as 20 weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 singles chart is a brilliant achievement, especially considering it debuted at #1 – it is said so on the old Michaeljackson.com website, and on, though not in so many words, http://www.mjinf.co.uk/index.html - a website which I have provided a fair amount of information to – that which is used as the source of most of the data on Wikipedia History page. I am not sure why the word Brilliant would cause such offensive. I have been making tons of updates lately, and I don’t appreachet someone else changing something, even though minor, just because they don’t approve of the man. Would you do the same with Madonna or Elvis, I don’t think so. If you check their relevant pages you would see many instances of exagerations by fanatics - if it get reverted again I will only change it back, and I wont be intimadated by being threatened of banned from Wikipedia. I will be adding more to the HIStory page soon, as well as most of the other pages concerning MJ in the coming weeks, as I fell the information already written is inadequate. As for Gorm, I give a meaningful sorry, I just find it annoying when edits are made by Jackson haters.

About your second message, I will have to just revert it again at an appropiate time! I'm not being stopped! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Appropiate (talk &bull; contribs).
 * A few things:
 * Using the word "brilliant" in this context is indeed a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. A minor one, sure, but there should be no objections to its removal.
 * "I don’t appreachet someone else changing something, even though minor, just because they don’t approve of the man" – If you don't want your contributions edited mercilessly, you're in the wrong place. Also, you are ascribing a motive to Funky Monkey. Please assume good faith.
 * "Would you do the same with Madonna or Elvis, I don’t think so." – If you see similar flowery language in Madonna's or Elvis's articles, feel free to remove it.
 * "if it get reverted again I will only change it back, and I wont be intimadated by being threatened of banned from wikipedia" – If you refuse to play nice with other editors and abide by consensus and applicable policies, your contributions will not be welcome here. Please mind the three-revert rule and understand that revert warring is harmful to the encyclopedia.
 * In short: be willing to discuss your changes on the talk page, and also be willing to compromise if necessary, and you won't have any problems. android  79  20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed and will not reinsert brilliant - am now leaving
To Feitclub, Clown person, Android79 and Funky Monkey. I do not know why the word "Brilliant" causes such offensive. And I know your all just going to post more annoying wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I wont read - but Brilliant does not impeach WP:NPOV in my opinion - if would take the time to read the sentence in its context you would notice the word wasn't used to "unbalance" the pages neutral point of view, but is used as fact. 20 weeks (equaling to 5 months) on the US Billboard Hot 100 is a brilliant achievement - as if it stayed in the charts for more than 20 weeks it would have to be above certain position, and if not then it is removed - so 20 weeks is the maximum it can achieve in most cases, add that fact together with the fact that You Are Not Alone got to and debuted #1 also makes it even more brilliant - I wanted that achievement to be noted in some way, but it seems people find it inappropriate and impolite. One of you said I was impolite, well in fact I have been the one making strenuous efforts to improve this page over the past few weeks, and have inserted many pieces of information from reliable sources - what have you four done lately to the page to both expand and improve it - NOTHING - except for taking certain part outs that, in your opinion, break WP:NPOV. I haven't broken any regulations, whoever controls wikipedia haven't told me to stop, and they didn't stop me editing the page after a third time - so keeping on posting policy reminders has no effect on me and doesn't urge me to stop doing something I'm allowed to do.

As I'm sure you've notice there been a battle of removing/reinserting - well I am ending it now, NOT because I getting bored/fed up and NOT because I realize a mistake, no, because I’ve realized its pointless - I will let you get your own way if that’s what you want, well there you go, I have removed brilliant myself. I wanted to re-edit and type a brand new and better a better biography, as-well as other pages concerning MJ because at present they are NOT GOOD, but instead I'm deleting my account and will not return as its obvious that any changes I make will only be scraped. Patronizing me, speaking to me in an authoritarian manner or ordering me to stop doing something does not impress me, nor have any impact on what I do. I have told other Michael Jackson fan's and forums about this Brilliant matter, and I see some of them have helped me out. Though I won’t revert the current page - they may, so you will have to keep an eye on it.

I'm sure your all great people - I hold no bad feelings.

Right, that’s me done. appropriate over:)

"Biggest selling multi-disc album"
This is obviously incorrect. This is nowhere near the top of List of best-selling albums worldwide, double disc or not, and it's fairly clear that Pink Floyd's The Wall (a double album) at 23mln units sold ranks far above HIStory. I removed this claim until someone can verify it. 212.219.92.98 09:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, List of best selling albums seems to contradict this. 212.219.92.98 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's The Wall was certified at 23x platinum for shipments of 23 million in the United States alone, and world-wide has sold an estimated 30 million copies - making it the best-selling multiple-disc album of all-time. It's shipped 5 million copies more in the United States, than HIStory has world-wide. HIStory, with 18 million sales, isn't quite the best-selling multiple-disc album, but among the best-selling multiple-disc albums in history.

Merging of D.S:
I see no reason why the D.S. page shouldn't be merged with the HIStory page, it is of course one of the albums songs. I'm a bit surprised that there is an entire page allocated to D.S. - after all the song wasn’t released as a single, it isn't really anything that special of a song, and isn't widely known outside of the Jackson community. If it is going to put merged then I think it should not be "over mentioned" and the explanation should stay brief - 2 or 3 lines max.

I extended the HIStory page a few weeks’ back so that all of the album singles were mentioned, and even though D.S. isn't a single I'm fine with it being merged. However I absolutely disagree with all 15 of the albums songs being included and having each there own little bit as it would be completely pointless and rather silly. The HIStory page as it currently stands is very large compared to other similar pages, and I would also disagree with it being extended further on other aspects as all things important are already mentioned.

But for the matter of D.S., I think it’s a good idea. Appropiate 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Censored?
Just a question about "They Don't Care About Us"; did certain pressings of the album insert sound effects over the words "jew" and "kike", or did all versions of HIStory come like this? If it helps, I'm Canadian and mine did come with the mild censoring. --Matharvest 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When HIStory took critism for the lyrics of "jew me" and "kike me" they added these sound effects for the re-release. Also in the re-release the opening music of the track HIStory was changed...possibly for legal reasons. There are Canadian versions that do not contain the sound-effects (I own the Casette version which I know for a fact does not...however I got it during the first release). There is also another pressing of the cd with a silver disc rather than gold which is considered to be rare. : ehmjay 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual lyrics are "Do me" and "hike me". If you are familiar with Michael Jackson's peculiar accent (e.g. "come on" = "shammon") they are actually very clear. I don't think there was anything to censor. However, someone (the record company?) evidently feared that those lyrics may be misheard (which is what happened) and so they censored them. I've got the original 1995 issue, which features the full lyrics to "They Don't Care About Us" and the full Mussorgsky intro to "History". Ugo1970 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson acknowledged his "poor choice of words" in the wake of the controversy. There's no record of him claiming that the words "Jew" and "kike" were the result of people mishearing. Unless you have a citation that backs up your claim, then it doesn't belong on the page.Revmagpie (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The official sheet music (by Warner Bros. Publications) says "chew me" and "hike me". All printed versions of the song I've seen have that, and also most (if not all) of the unofficial transcriptions of the song by fans, according to Google, have that. "Jew" and "kike" appear only on Internet pages highlighting the controversy. I was wrong about "Do me" (though it appears later in the same line) but I don't think I am wrong about "hike me". I isolated the vocals on that line with Audacity and at least "hike me" is very clear. I think that MJ talked about poorly chosen words because he realized too late that they could be very easily misheard, considering his accent - indeed that wouldn't be the first time he pronounced an aspirated H as a K. It's true that he never said that "Jew" and "kike" are the resuit of people mishearing, but he also never said that he deliberately inserted those words into the song. It's indeed a controversial matter. However, how come those supposedly racist words were censored in the reissue, and the other profanities ("fucking" in "Scream" and "shit" in "This Time Around") were not? Ugo1970 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because they weren't racist remarks. "Hike me" doesn't make much sense. In context, Jew and Kike are clearly the words being used (and they make sense, regardless of how offensive they may be.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.243.189 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, neither "don't you black or white me" really makes sense, that line as a whole is a little bit clumsy IMHO. However, it's actually possible that he does sing "hike" as "kike": in the Bucharest 1992 show (the one released on DVD in the Ultimate Collection), during "I'll Be There", he clearly sings "I reach out my kend (= hand) to you".Ugo1970 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Include Info RE: Different Releases?
Should the article mention the 3 different releases of HIStory. There's the original which is uncensored, the censored version which censors the lyrics in TDCAU and contains different intro music during HIStory, and then the silver CDs which are considered to be rare (however I'm not sure which versions they contain, censored or uncensored) : ehmjay 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging of many HIStory songs
User:GassyGuy has been recently redirecting the articles for This Time Around, DS, Money, 2 Bad, Tabloid Junkie and Little Susie back to the HIStory page. He is basically deleting these articles just due to his own decision. These articles are all likely going to be expanded, what with the new Wikiproject dedicated to Michael Jackson, so User:GassyGuy's attempts seem quite unfair. I would urge User:GassyGuy to please desist from making such brash decisions, which he alone cannot make.--Paaerduag 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was simply working within the consensus (note I say consensus, which implies I wasn't working alone) at WikiProject Songs that generic album tracks that are not the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources are not, in fact, notable, and therefore do not merit their own articles. The fact that a WikiProject exists or that articles can be expanded does not justify their creation or continued existence. However, since you are being uncooperative AND making borderline threats, I will go ahead and propose these mergers formally and open them up for community consensus, even though such consensus technically already exists. GassyGuy 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia works on concensus. Yes, I am well within my rights to question your edit. What do you mean by my being uncooperative? Wikipedia is based on reaching consensus, so I don't really think it's appropriate that you say I'm being uncooperative when I'm simply doing what every single wikipedian is entitled to do, questioning an edit. No, I do not believe that you automatically have consensus. Each case is individual. And please, remember to assume good faith, instead of accusing me of threatening you. That was not my intention, and I am not sure what it is that I said, exactly, which led you to that conclusion. Regardless, I do not believe that these articles should be redirected to the album page, and I believe consensus should be reached by the community regarding this isuse.--Paaerduag 06:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah before you delete the articles, realize that they can be expanded to be longer and are notable for being on the highest selling multiple disc album of all time. Superior1 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes the albums notable, not the songs - and I didn't delete anything, I redirected them to the page for their parent album, which is the usual procedure for articles about non-notable songs. GassyGuy 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting is akin to deleting: you deleted the text by redirecting back to the HIStory page.--Paaerduag 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you don't automatically have consensus. I just checked out WP:SONG, and apparently "There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs." --Paaerduag 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached: you alone want the articles to be merged, whereas both Superior1 and I believe that they should not be merged. Removing tags; plenty of time has passed. Paaerduag 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we do this with the album tracks from Thriller, Bad and Dangerous too? Superior1 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should definately consider it. I mean, these songs are all notable and worthy of separate articles.--Paaerduag 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there's only two album tracks on Thriller and Bad, and about... 3-5 on Dangerous? As for Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible, I don't think they're notable enough for each song to warrant an article. Superior1 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There, I went and did Thriller. Superior1 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Paaerduag, I'm noticing a pattern with you :P. You want a million articles on any given topic! (The Elfoid (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

Merger proposal
If it goes in here we don't need to retain the tracklist or infobox. The useful content on the HISTory Vol. 1 page becomes dramatically lower. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:History album cover.jpg
Image:History album 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
The longer name of HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I is the name the media (allmusic, Rolling Stone, Robert Christgau, etc.), and using subtitles referred to by the media is the correct way to go (just like how Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is more correct than Talladega Nights). I recommend also that the search term "HIStory" automatically redirect here, but have a HIStory (disambiguation) page to list off all of Jackson's releases with HIStory in the title (or possibly just list them in History (disambiguation)). Xnux  the   Echidna  19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as "HIStory" redirects here, I have no problem. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I don't think there' any consensus against the move, so I'll go ahead and move it. Xnux   the   Echidna  23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wall sold better than HIStory
Change the comment that this is the best selling double album ever BACK please.

This album has sold 18.5 million copies worldwide. The Wall has sold 30 million copies worldwide. Go figure.

If you absolutely insist on ignoring me (Realist you have had this debate with me and admitted I was right! Now you change it when my back is turned? Tough luck bro, this argument's one I'm never giving up on :D) I'll give some interesting sales comparisons.

US: The Wall is 23x Platinum and HIStory is 7x Platinum Canada: The Wall is 20x Platinum and HIStory is 5x Platinum UK: The Wall is Platinum and HIStory is 5x Platinum

Now, US sales units count each copy of The Wall as "one US unit of album sales" because the RIAA state any album under 100 minutes in length but too long to fit on a single CD is still a single album. AKA if one copy of The Wall is sold in the USA, it adds one sale to the count despite being 2 CDs. This is not true of the longer album HIStory.

NO YOU HAVE THAT BACKWARDS. The Wall is one of the double albums counted twice. So in the US it's actually sold about 11.5 million. Think about it a second... You're suggesting it's sold more than 'Dark Side of the Moon'. Nope, sorry...

However, that's got to still be more than the flaming piece of turd known as 'HIStory'

However, when looking at international sales, we cannot use the RIAA system because that is a national one.

Globally, 18.5 million copies (37 million CDs) have sold for HIStory. For The Wall, 30 million copies have sold - 60 million CDs.

It is not particularly easy to find a source for the 60 million count, but I can do if necessary. Either way though, you can go online and find out that 46 million CDs were sold in the USA alone, higher than the global figure for The Wall.

If we are talking about which product sold more copies, the type of sales unit used is irelevant. How many CDs ended up in how many people's pockets is what counts.

Change it back to how it was or learn to count. (The Elfoid (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
 * OK, I've given an attributing source. Your job is to find a reliable source (on the same wavelength as MSNBC) that specifically says "The Wall is the best selling multiple disk album WORLDWIDE". You can then put it next to the current claim and write... "Conversely the (Eg BBC) cite The Wall as the best multi disk album worldwide". Wikipedia has really tightened up on original research. — Realist  2  15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a sales figure is more accurate than a claim since a claim could be looking at out of date information. I can find a sales figure that "beats" any you can find but not a rival claim. I don't know how to resolve such a situation. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
 * That really would amount to original research. Remember numerous sources give numerous claims for an album. I mean, I could find a reliable source that says Bad sold 20 million copies, yet I can also find a reliable source that say's Bad sold 30 million copies. You need a source for the slogan itself. Currently the article is 100% accurate, MSNBC cites it as the biggest selling multi disc album of all time. Remember, wikipedia isn't necessarily about what's true or fair, wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say. — Realist  2  13:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is just that if there is no sales figure anywhere implying there are more than 60 million HISTory CDs in the world available, things are...odd. I think we should ask for some advice here since it's complicated. And because people will keep editing it without thinking so I want the debate set to rest in a concrete way. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Tell you what, show me your sources, I'll read through them and see if they are OK. You need good sources though. — Realist  2  19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales
Both this and the page for his other album Dangerous claim to be the second biggest selling albums after Thriller. Obviously they both can't be the second biggest selling, so which is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.215.6 (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no mistake at all. This articles say's that HIStory is his top "grossing" album after Thriller, in terms of money and profit. That doesn't mean it outsold Dangerous. — Realist  2  13:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Links to use

 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/22893883.html?dids=22893883:22893883&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jun+18%2C+1995&author=ROGER+CATLIN%3B+Courant+Rock+Critic&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=ONCE+THE+INDISPUTABLE+KING+OF+POP%2C+JACKSON+BADLY+NEEDS+A+HIT+TO+REVIVE+HIS+CAREER+IS+MICHAEL+HISTORY%3F&pqatl=google
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/1995/06/16/1995-06-16__history__lessons__royalties.html
 * http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950619&slug=2127154 - Indepth info on history promo vid.
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987454-2,00.htm International sales figures for HIStory as good as Thrillers
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61146527.html Extravagant world tour detail, lead single only track from remix album played at tour

Respect
I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson but isn't it a sign of respect to use the term "late" for something belonging to a person when he passes away.
 * Are you suggesting we go through all seven million Wikipedia articles and put "late" before the name of every dead person? faithless   (speak)  01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

History is not the best-selling multiple disc album ever
Hello, I'm new on Wikipedia, so sorry for my (maybe wrong) remarks. The source that claims that History is the best-selling double album is maybe reliable for Wikipedia, but incorrect. Look to the following figures:

I know that when a source is reliable, Wikipedia-users are satisfied. But reliable sources can contain false information. There's a lot of critism about Wikipedia because all the incorrect figures and data. So, maybe it is sometimes necessary to use the common sense. Is it possible to change this error? "the best-selling album" should be "one of the best-selling albums". Thanks a lot.Floydian Tree (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I know that own research is not allowed on Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for your remark. History sold less copies than The Wall, that's a fact. But the source mentioned in the article is reliable. I don't find other reliable sources. For me, the article should mention "one of the best-selling albums", like you suggest.Christo jones (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source states as fact that HIStory is the best selling multi disk album of all time, at 40 million units. No source that we can find has ever called The Wall the best selling and no source has ever recorded sales as high as 40 million units. — Please comment  R  2  21:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I've found some sources who called The Wall the best selling double album worldwide. For example this one: or this one . History sold about 3,5 million copies in the US (and he was an American), The Wall sold 13 million copies (and Pink Floyd is a British band). So, it's totally incorrect to claim that History is the best-selling double album. It's one of the best-selling double albums. Even The White Album of The Beatles (19x platinum in the US alone) sold more copies than History.84.198.76.105 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not appear to pass the requirements of WP:RS. — Please comment  R  2  14:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The sales for Europe are not inflated. The population of Europe is twice the population of the United States (Pink Floyd is a European group!). It's not realistic to say that The Wall sold over 13 million copies in the US and hardly 7 million copies in the rest of the world. History (1995) sold 20 million copies worldwide? With only 3,5 million copies in the US? Maybe possible, but The Wall (1979) sold more copies and that's very logic, because it's an older album. History is moreover partially a compilation album, it's not really a studio album. Look to the following sales: US + Canada + France + Allemagne + Italy + UK = 13,5 + 2 + 1 + 1 ( even 2) + 1 + 1,7 = 20,2 million double albums (without counting the sales of all the other countries like Australia, New Zealand,...).

--> So, History is one of the best-selling double albums worldwide. Is it possible to change this in the article? Thanks!84.198.76.105 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not presented one source to back up your original research. — Please comment  R  2  18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On this talk page there are already THREE POSTS about this ERROR, namely "Biggest selling multi-disc album" + "The Wall sold better than HIStory" + "History is not the best-selling multiple disc album ever". I think it's time to change this error (in this article and the article about the album History)! Only two words should be added: ONE OF (the best-selling...) 84.198.76.105 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

--> Selected sales of History

= total (inclusive Japan) = 15 million?

Selected sales of The Wall:

Total (without a lot of European countries) = 19,66 million copies.

It's very clear: History is - ONE OF - the best-selling double albums.84.198.76.105 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia article for The Wall states that it sold 30 million copies (60 million units), while HIStory is stated to have sold 20 million copies (40 million units). Last time I checked, 30 is higher than 20. 142.68.93.244 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF
What the hell does Charlie Chaplin have to do with this??? Also, the article says Jackson had help from Jackson himself. Awesome Wikipedia quality! --194.137.242.115 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Chaplin wrote the final song on the album which Jackson did a cover of. I assume that the other Jackson would be Janet. Awesome idiots surfing Wikipedia who have no idea how the internet works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.243.189 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Promo
Shouldn't the promotion section be a little larger? I mean didn't this album have the biggest/most expensive promotional campaign in history ($30M)? I would expand it myself but I don not know much about it.GreekStar12 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

--173.71.134.219 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Michael Jackson was the best that u could ever ask for

"Best selling multiple disc of all time"

 * I see that this topic has been broached before (see 3 topics up). The only original source for the 21 (42) million figure is Jackson's management.  Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal on the imprecision of worldwide sales totals in general, and of Jackson's exaggerated totals in specific:
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html
 * Everyone here already understands the trouble with worldwide sales figures and certifications, so there's no need to detail those issues. However, substantial sales totals are available for "HIStory" (nearly 11 million, as shown by the country-by-country chart on this Wikipedia page).  The chart includes enough data that to extrapolate another unverified 10 million copies sold would be a leap of faith.  And the same math doesn't work for other top albums.  For example, applying a similar rate of increase to "Thriller" would produce a figure of over 175 million sales.
 * There's also the problem of 3.9 million sales for the single-disc version of the greatest hits half. Those may be valid sales numbers for the single-disc, but they certainly cannot be applied to a multi-disc sales total, let alone towards "the best selling multiple disc ever."  I haven't been able to find any sales source that distinguishes between the two versions of the CD.
 * I think the fairest and safest way to approach the information is to credit "HIStory" as one of the top-selling double albums, which it certainly is, while acknowledging the heftier claim made by Jackson's publicists.
 * For the European paragraph under "Chart performance," the word "meanwhile" must be deleted-- UK figures are already included within European sales. It'd be like saying the album "sold well in the United States, and also in California."208.120.6.159 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HIStory in the Best selling multiple-disc of all time for a solo artist, not for every category. SJ (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * History is maybe the best-selling double album for a solo artist, but it's surely not the best-selling double album of all time. Pink Floyd's The Wall sold in 1990 already 19 million copies (not units, but double albums, look to the very reliable source of the New York Times). At this moment The Wall sold at least 13,5 million copies in the US only. So, we can better say that History is one of the best-selling double albums worldwide or the best-selling double album for a solo artist. Greets.Christo jones (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that we can better say "History is the best-selling double album for a solo artist". Ok? Floydian Tree (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. We have a source that complies with WP:RS that specifically labels it the best selling multi disk album of all time. Please read WP:RS, and WP:V. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth. Please do not confuse US certifications (in relation to The Wall) and worldwide sales (in relation to HIStory). The two are not interchangeable. — R  2  22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wall sold at least 14 million copies in the US. In 1991 the total sales for that album stood at 19 million copies. Now, The Wall sold about 30 million copies. Following the Italian source History sold 20 million copies until 2001. That's totally unrealistic. The second source did contain a lot of errors. The bullets mention some achievements of MJ and yes, the source says 20 million. But it's surely not the best-selling double album. The source says nothing about 40 million units, so we're not sure. All this information should be deleted, because it's so wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.78.66 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

why child abuse allegation in intro
why are the child allegations in the intro to an album,  when  they  should be in the  main article--72.153.84.110 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the allegations, and the effect they had on Jackson, are a central theme in the HIStory album. The reader needs to understand WHY Jackson is so angry, upset etc. — R  2  14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

in reviewing the intro to Off the wall, Thriller, Bad, and Dangerous they seem to leave the "inspirations" for the content of the album for later in the article, while the intro deals with more statistical information,--65.10.26.40 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad were largely dance orientated albums, Jackson's personal life did not affect their content very much. His latter albums were much more biographical in nature. HIStory presented a fundamental shift in Jackson's sound, it was overtly aggressive in nature. Almost every song on HIStory deals with Jackson's perceived victimization, loneliness and isolation. This all steams from the allegations and how he was treated at the time. You only have to read the reviews of HIStory, they all attribute the allegations as the central theme in this album, therefore it is arguably notable enough for the lead. — R  2  20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As per WP:LEAD, some controversies must be on the first 4 paragraphs. Tb hotch Ta lk 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

then as per "wp:lead" Off the wall, Thriller and Bad should be the same not different in the intro.--65.11.249.101 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thriller it's already a FA, so the article it's OK. Bad and Dangerous are being expanded, you can comment if the inspiration could be at first. Tb hotch Ta lk 17:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

and don't  forget  Off the  wall.--65.10.25.246 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course this does not make any difference to the stupid people of Atlanta and Miami, but I don't care. TbhotchTalk2 Me 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) ........the preceding note was left when i tried to edit a page on Invincible, is this consistent with wikipedia policy?--65.10.2.20 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can say this, if you think you are stupid that isn't my problem. And well, remember you wanna make only 5 studio album on Jackson career. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

to begin with i think the worldwide sales of the album should be  reflected earlier in the intro plus other adjustments .--68.215.6.8 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

so maybe 173.58.79.109 should be banned for speaking his mind.--65.10.1.100 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinks
There are a few deadlinks in which there is nothing on web.archive.org that need to be addressed:


 * http://www.mjvisionary.com/mjvisionary.html (Ref #72)
 * http://www.chartsinfrance.net/certifications/artiste-302.htm (Ref #66)
 * http://www.bpi.co.uk/platinum/platinumright.asp?rq=search_plat&r_id=20948 (Ref #64)

–MuZemike 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)