Talk:Michael (Michael Jackson album)/Archive 1

Two versions of article for this album
the other entry is titled Michael (album).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let keep this on one page to make it easy -  see Talk:Michael (album) PS yes merge,04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree, i wont comment here further, and neither should anyone else, until merge is settled.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
already done by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, this has 2 versions, the other is at Michael (Michael Jackson album).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It just a double ..But keep all info and refs in the transfer...we must take a look make sure non is copyrighted.Moxy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment We have Michael as a soundtrack for the movie Michael, which is prior art (with no article created yet), so does that mean we should call MJ's album "Michael (Michael Jackson album)", or is the fact that this will likely be the more notable one, just "Michael (album)"? No other albums listed at allmusic, and no other albums so named on wikipedia. I'm leaning towards "Michael (album)" as its the first one created here, and will be the more notable. You are of course correct about the transfer of info/refs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, redux As would be expected, the cover has been uploaded twice, so we have to delete one of the files.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * merge has been done, but info and a ref lost in the process...Lets take the time and fix this.Moxy (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support history merge into this article. No other albums called "Michael" exist. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge into this page. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone :: closing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"stylized"
Most album covers, as well as most books, have the title/name printed in all capitals, though the formal name (as listed in record company catalogs, etc) has just the first letter of each significant word capitalized. I dont think we need to describe the album name as "stylized as MICHAEL".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the reason for its removal yesterday(today). :) Yves (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Probably could have just done it myself, but thanks for stepping up and being bold.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! I've seen it done before and removed a lot from many album articles, so I decided to do the same. So many albums are like this, and capitalization is not considered styling. Yves (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News seems to be an independent article
In accordane with WP:NSONGS, it did not fail any longer, and many reviews now are for the song, not the album. 01:48, Parabola1999 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual version would only has original researches and critical reception, that is not enough for meet the WP:N criteria. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With WP:N and WP:NSONGS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Now Breaking News had been charted, and now there are plenty of verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article for it, so it is time to set this song as an independent article. Parabola1999 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Small change to first paragraph.
Thriller (and all other albums) are described as "the sixth studio album by..."

In that case, I feel this article should start with something like Michael is the seventh album to be released since Michael Jackson's death in June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - and a small change to the end of the article: removal of the Produced By MJ category, since (1) it was finished after he died, and (2) "Lenny Kravitz confirmed that he had produced, written, and composed Another Day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest starting with "Michael is the upcoming seventh posthumous album" at the very beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * noth the seventh, the 11th. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the Original Research
This article is actually quite badly written in some places. For example it talks about "Hold My Hand" being the first single but then in the next sentance it speaks of "Breaking News" and has garbled terminology like commerical single and promotional single to radios. None of the sources actually call "Breaking News" a single. It per Sony's own words is a preview of the album. None of the sources in anyway confirm it was sent to radio. Billboard even says... Radio stations chose to pick up the song... that's different to the label making it available for stations to add to their playlists. The song was not released to radios at alll... certainly not with the current sources.

The promotion section should have one paragraph about "Breaking News", followed by second paragraph about "Hold My Hand". The controversy of whether it is Jackson's voice or not should appear in a seperate section because it is of great importance. It has recieved lots of coverage which questions other songs not just "Breaking News".

Also per the sources given, its a compilation of unreleased recordings. A compilation album can still count as a studio album but the primary infobox should be green. There is no way of knowing whether Jackson would have recorded these songs and then intended these exact songs to appear on the same album. Some are likely to be demos while others will be completed recordings. Either way they fit the bill of compilation more than a studio album. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. SJ (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at addressing some of your concerns.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You've done exactly what was required. I was going to do them (you'd think after two years you have enough experience to make bold changes) but I was worried that regular contributors would object to me hacking away at the splinters sticking out. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(I Can't Make It) Another Day
I noticed that (I Can't Make It) Another Day already has an article whereas it may be even less notable than "Hold My Hand". Yet another candidate for redirecting to album page? werldwayd (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not less notable. That song has been released already in the Kravitz album Baptism, albeit in an altered version. It has it's own unique history separate from the Michael album. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hold My Hand have its own article, since it has gained notability and is released as a single now? Frankyboy5 (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Day is written both by Michael Jackson and Lenny Kravitz. The version on Babtism ("Storm") is different than this one. The chorus is notably different, and all this points to that: This song is written by both! Also. How do we know who has written the other songs on the album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.172.183 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Behind the mask
Why doesn't anybody talks about this song? It was first recorded on the lates 70's by the Yellow Magic Orchestra, and later bought by Quincy Jones to Michael in order to release it into Thriller. Greg Phillinganes released it in his 1984 album Pulse with a new arrangement and extra lyrics by Jackson and Jones, and then, as the keyboardist of Eric Clapton, he later re-recorded it for Clapton's 1986 August. I don't have the time nor the strength to add it in the article with all the citations needed and all. It was easier years ago ... Thanks all for your efforts.

Engarbo (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is reliable resources to support the information, and there is suitable section for it, just add it to the article. If the song meets WP:SONG with enough reliable resources to support, just set up a new article. Parabola1999 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Warnings
This is to let all involved in the current edit war that this is to stop now. DO NOT REVERT AGAIN! (I will report the next person to do so) As all have reverted more then 3 times at this point. I have asked for the page to be locked (see here This has been done for 48 hours). I dont care who thinks there right or wrong - work it out. Moxy (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just blocked Chelo for 2 weeks because he revert-warred after having been warned about that just last night. As far as I can tell the edit war was basically him against a couple other editors, so with him blocked there is probably not a need for page protection anymore. He won't be able to contribute to the discussion during this time, but it looks to me like he has already done so in the past, so maybe you guys should get a 3O or something like that in the meantime to help settle this; more back-and-forth from the same people is not going to change things. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So basically this should be resolved then? Good! So the current version is the right one (that is what the majority wish to see - by way of reliable references>) If so we will just let the time run-out (only 2 days) - Moxy (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion on what version is the right one, I have no interest in the content, I was only involved in the behavioral issue, so don't take anything I say as endorsement of any version. As for the protection, I have already contacted the protecting admin asking him to look here. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Also, I removed the message about how to make edit requests, as there are already instructions on the template at the top of the article.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over quotes from twitter
Below is the info I had posted to the 'Controversy' section:

Some people have said that Twitter is not valid but did not explain in rolling back my edits. I have stated that the mainstream media is now treating the twitter posts as valid sources e.g. Liz Taylor & Randy Jackson have been often cited and one quote from a TJ Jackson tweet was already part of a reference (Seattle Times). I have put in my references how the accounts quoted can be verified. I think it's possible in these cases to treat the twitter accounts as you would the official websites of the artsits. And I have asked that there be a discussion of this here as oppose to just rolling back all the changes without any explanation or addressing my points. So PLEASE DISCUSS FULLY. Some very useful info here.

--

Jackie Jackson wrote on his Twitter account, "My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album."

Taj Jackson wrote about the album controversy on his Twitter account on November 8 and November 10, 2010. He re-tweeted a Twitter post of his brother TJ Jackson regarding one of the disputed album tracks, "If you heard the acapella you would be even more disgusted. Sampled breaths after sampled breaths mixed in with fake vocals to try to fool u" TJ also noted another clue about the track, "Sounds like Jason Malachi to me too. The vibrato is a dead give away that it's not my uncle." TJ also notes "They should only release songs that everyone KNOWS are my Uncle" and "And no one is questioning the vocals on majority of the upcoming songs" Similarly, Taj also wrote that all they want is the "questionable songs" to be removed and that he will "ALWAYS support" the seven "great" songs that "no doubt, 100 percent Michael Jackson songs on the new album." Furthermore, Taj writes that he will be buying the new album because "If it doesn't sell like it should, they will say he is not significant anymore."

Taj's brother Taryll Jackson also wrote about the album on his Twitter account. He wrote, "I was at the studio when these questionable files were delivered. I heard these "so-called" Michael Jackson songs raw and without the distraction of the well produced music by Teddy Riley." He cites significant missing evidence for questioning the validity of that song "Breaking News" and others "I questioned the validity of the vocal's on 'breaking news' and several other songs of theirs that I've heard and they told me no other takes or tracks exist. They claim my uncle was so happy with the performance he instructed them to delete all the other files. I had the honor to learn and watch my uncle record my entire life and that is NOT how he worked. No outtakes, no other tracks, no backups, no proof. roughly 10 songs they turned in… same story for all of them. I asked for the computer it was created on... they said it broke. I asked for the original hard drive... they said it was destroyed. One dubious excuse after another." He also confirms Randy Jackson's assertion that the account of the meeting in the Estate letter released by Howard Weitzman was inaccurate, "there are many inaccuracies and omissions in that statement. For one, I was also in that meeting and that was not the outcome.

Aleskr (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As was said on your talkpage self-published sources or links where people beside the "responsable of the account" have contact are not reliables. Stop with this. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The people I quoted on twitter are responsible for their postings. As stated, they can be verified, linked to official websites. Randy Jackson & TJ Jackson have both been previously quoted from their twitter in the media and there are other cases. If you are really aggravated by this discussion, you can leave it alone. I'm not here to get personal. I have been sharing my info in an impersonal manner. Aleskr (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look what Jackie Chan Tweeted, he is responsable of his account, he commented it? No, was his assisstant. Is easy to hack Twitter as well, remember Spears or Obama's accounts were hacked. You can say they say those comments, but how YOU EXACTLY know they posted and not an assisstent or a hacker. Also, self-published accounts are not Reliables sources (see WP:SPS). Tb hotch Ta lk C. 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aleskr is correct. Twitter qualifies as a self-published source.  See WP:TWITTER.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Album type
"Michael is not a completion album. All the songs (except hold my hand) are previously unreleased songs, and those songs were done in a studio, therefore it should be classified as a studio album or at least a studio/completion album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.180.44 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Read my last post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_%28album%29#Compilation_.2F_Studio_album_war SJ (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a 'completion album'. Learn the proper definitions or learn to spell.188.223.120.131 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First single Hold My Hand
The first single Hold My Hand was written by neither Michael Jackson nor Akon. It is written by Claude Kelly (and produced by Akon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmbjerg (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please lock the Hold My Hand page from being deleted? Someone has gone and deleted it twice already. The song is obviously the first single and definitely deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.150.193 (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously are not aware of the rules. Per WP:NSONGS a song is only notable for its own page when it charts, and/or recieves independent coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. This is not yet the case for this song. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Time will solve this and very soon... in a matter of couple of weeks as it no doubt will chart, because it is hugely popular and has been known for fans for a long time. I suggest those interested with the song continue editing in your own userspaces and add more information and launch it the first week you see the song in the US Hot 100 or the UK chart or whatever. werldwayd (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NSONGS doesn't replace WP:NOTABLE. If it passes WP:NOTABLE - which it clearly does - then an article deserves to be created.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's check the 5 points of WP:Notability (a.k.a WP:GNG) of the current article:
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed -> yes and no, have 6 sources, but have many unsourced facts.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, -> ✅
 * "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources -> No, all backround is based on Sony Entertainment source, all the other 5 sources are for the reception.
 * "Independent of the subjec" Can be merged easily here.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. ✅
 * As you can see not pass the Notablility criteria. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Significant coverage" - Yes, there are numerous reliable sources to establish this topic's notability including MTV, Billboard, New York Daily News, NME, Reuters Los Angeles Times, Vibe Rolling Stone magazine, FOX News, Chicago Sun-Times, The Independent, MSN News, The Washington Post, and numerous others: Google news search and Bing news search.✅
 * "Reliable" - Yes, these are all reliable sources. ✅
 * "Sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" - Yes, these are all secondary sources.✅
 * "Independent of the subject" - Yes, there are dozens of secondary sources independent of the subject.✅
 * "Presumed" - Yes, this is a major single from one of the biggest artists of all-time, not some garage band that nobody's heard of.✅
 * This easily passes WP:NOTABLE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * do not use the stupid argument "all songs of Michael are notables because he is one of the biggest artists of all-time" Because not all songs of Michael are notables. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawman. I did not say all songs of MJ are notable. I said that a major single is, expecially when coverage has been so widespread.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is a "major single" because.____ put your reason here (keep in mind that it is not a Jackson sinlge, is an Epic single released under his name). Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note .....What we realy need is an album box option of "Posthumous album".Moxy (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't work out because a posthumous album can be a studio album, greatest hits/box set/compilation album, live album, etc. Chelo61 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Randy Jackson's comments: A compromise proposal
I propose that we restore the content but this time cite Rolling Stone magazine. I believe that this addresses everyone's concerns about citing Twitter feeds. Does anyone reject that Rolling Stone magazine is a reliable source for music? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I object because Rollingstone.com goes dead after a while and it too has been criticised for bloggery. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never used it but there's something called web citation that allows you to create a permanent backup copy of a web page so links will never go broke. But if you don't like Rolling Stone, how about The Guardian?  Unfortunately, it doesn't go into as much detail.  Perhaps we can cite both?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point.... Rollingstone has been criticised for bloggery in the past and also the fact is the story reported by both comes from twitter. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, Twitter is a primary source and The Telegraph and Rolling Stone are secondary sources. I'm not even sure I understand your objection.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter is NOT considered a reliable source on Wikipedia... thus how can we treat any reliable secondary source reporting about something said on Twitter reliable if we ourselves don't consider twitter reliable? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're misinterpreting the guideline. Twitter is reliable for the opinions of its author per WP:SPS.  That fact that secondary reliable sources have reported on it confirms that they think it's authentic.  I'm offering a compromise but you don't seem to want to compromise on this point, nor have you offered a counter-compromise.  Would you like to take this to Reliable sources noticeboard and let uninvolved editors weigh in?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter IS reliable when you not use Twitter as the source. A reliable source must say "RJ said on his Twitter..." reference: The New York Times or another reliable source. Tb h®tch Ta lk © 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did point to two other secondary reliable sources, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian. Anyway, we don't seem be getting anywhere so I've opened a thread at WP:RSN here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, this is a verified Twitter account. The blue and white check mark indicates that the account has been verified. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Coming from the RS/N question, both RS and Guardian are reliable sources for reporting that Randy disputes the authenticity via twitter messages, and that fact only (they, as that have fact-checked in past, likely have verified that the Twitter account is Randy Jackson's). They cannot be used to make the the non-attributed claim of the authenticity question. --M ASEM (t) 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Be Included?
The album leaked all over the internet today, that should probably go in right? There's insane editing going on in this article at the mo, so I'm not gonna throw any edits in there, just letting you guys know. Mc8755 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a reliable source first. The article is locked anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not worthy yet still a bit early - not in main news yet - and if true we should wait for Sony to comment, but looks like its out there in some form ...This last week from TMZ and Michael Jackson’s New Album “Michael” Leaks to BitTorrent.Moxy (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News Critical Response
I've removed the critical reception to "Breaking News" because we have a whole article about the song now. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call. I was going to suggest removing this, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave Grohl

 * I'm going to assume the addition of Dave Grohl in the track list is a joke? Funny
 * 8. 	"(I Can't Make It) Another Day" (featuring Lenny Kravitz and Dave Grohl) 	Lenny Kravitz 	3:55 *Trailmixjustin (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, it is not a joke http://www.nme.com/news/michael-jackson/54161
 * Trailmixjustin (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added this ref to the article (#39) Moxy (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

New Michael Jackson album review: track-by-track
Here's a potential source to work into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * New review by Time magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lenght
Yesterday, I bought the album and the lenght is 41:41. Would someone please change that?! MrPalpatine (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't change that, because the site is protected MrPalpatine (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on! Notice me MrPalpatine (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment (urgent)
In light of the number of protections this page has been through, as well as the on-going disputes can we conclude whether this is a compilation album or studio album? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Compilation of unreleased demos - as per definition Songs were never intended to be released together in this format - album was complied from previous recordings that did not make the original studio albums and now is complied for sale. Web definitions for Compilation album  and Web definitions for Studio album.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Compilation, per my previous comments in the above sections I would be inclined to support this too. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Studio, and I thought we couldn't vote here in Wikipedia. Those "web definitions" uses Wikipedia and Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Compilation albums have previous released songs. A "compilation of unreleased tracks" does not make sense. You might as well call every single studio album a "compilation of unreleased tracks". Chelo61 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When songs are not intended to be released together or remixed its a compilation of previous work (dose not matter there new to the world - there old to MJ and the studio)see example.Moxy (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote its a formal discussion. I've asked people to state their view and formally support it with evidence. And as a last resort in WP:DISPUTE resolution and trying to solidify a WP:CONSENSUS it can be used but like I said this is a discussion because some editors refuse to accept consensus. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats different. The example you showed me is more of a remix album/studio album like Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix. Chelo61 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than having a circular argument please refrain from changing the page to an alternative type. Equally please now wait for other users to respond and be aware of WP:IDHT. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying compromise while this discussion goes on and it is you who do not "get the point". Chelo61 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From what i see above your the only one that has this stand (still). Dont you think its possible your mistaken on your personal definition?Moxy (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When there is an existing consensus you're supposed to get a new one not try and compromise to "shove" your opinion through. Its not 'me' its the existing consensus. The fact that at least two other editors agree that this isn't a studio album and a new consensus has not been established you're edits now put you at risk of blocking because you've violated WP:3RR, something you've been in trouble for in the past. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess when hes back from his block we can talk again. 4 reverts in 30 mins does not look good for Chelo61 - looks like Chelo61 does not care about our procedures.Moxy (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin so I cant issue the block but I've issue the warning and now he's breached it I'm sure someone will intervene. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit conflicts keep on happening before I can answer and then I have to come up with a new answer. I DO care about your procedures. You guys also keep on reverting my edit so that means you guys also violated WP:3RR. How do you even know about the past, have you been stalking my edits? I don't "shove". A consensus haven't been established ever since this discussion began. Chelo61 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR occurs when ONE editor's reverts surpass three times in 24 hours. Yours now stand at 4 or 5 within 30 minutes.... --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear the editor does not care see -->Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringMoxy (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly YOU DON'T know what I think. I notice that you guys always attack me and ignore all the points I maded. Chelo61 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys just want me block so I won't be able to discuss here, which by the way I was told to do discuss and HAVE been discussing. Chelo61 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Compilation As per the never-ending reasons why. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And those reasons are... Chelo61 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you actually read them? There's been numerous talks about it. Just look above. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I read them just does EVERY single one of those reasons reflect YOUR reasons. Chelo61 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unconfirmed, there are quite some web verification to support compilation, but also some for studio, and until now, non-official annoucement found by Epic or Sony. As we know, defination is made by people, the war can never end until there is an official annoucement, but the annoucement seems not to be important for sales or promotion, and this album fits both of the defination of studio album and compilation. We cannot make an easy decision. Just keep it as an "posthumous album with previously unreleased songs" will be accurate. 03:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabola1999 (talk • contribs)
 * that doesn't solve the problem of the infobox. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Compilation album. More than 3 editors have said for the AFOREMENTIONED reasons that this is a compilation album. This are NOT one single person's reasons as claimed by User Chelo61. Chelo61 is the ONLY ONE claiming contrary without any VALID, VERIFIABLE 3RD PARTY SOURCES. And no, 'original material' does NOT equal 'studio album'.46.64.21.150 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Compilation album and i explained above the motivations. Furthermore, i also posted in the main page many reliable sources that call Michael compilation album. SJ (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Lame. This dispute is WP:LAME.  It's unfortunate that editors are edit-warring, getting blocked and the page needs to be locked down for the next two weeks because this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a shame... there was a consensus but some editors refused to expect the outcome and have caused disruption leading to the lockdown of the article and this official/formal discussion about the status of the album. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody has lost their minds over this album. I've been reading everything in here and this discussion has gone way too far. The page was first created as a studio album but then SJ changed to compilation album for some reason (I checked the page's history.). When I first heard of this album I knew it was a studio album. We even have the track listing that confirms this album is a studio album. Also compilation albums are albums that have previously released material. Even though the album is being released after the death of Michael Jackson, that doesn't mean this album is a compilation album (albums of previously released material). If he was alive, you guys wouldn't even be having this discussion. ZDriver (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ZDriver's first edit. talk • contribs --John KB (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The ZDriver account is a sock puppet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're comments do not address the concerns that we have no way of saying that these songs were intended to be released together. A compilation album is a collection of material that was not created or idealised to be released together. They're brought together from different recording sessions/creations. A studio album implies a set thought process and commonality to create a single record. None of that is present with this record. Additionally there are loads of reliable sources calling this a compilation album. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Compilation per sources and an edit war started by one user who doesn't know the difference between single and song. --John KB (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User ZDriver claims that when he/she 'first heard of this album [he/she] knew it was a studio album' because 'the track listing confirms this album is a studio album'. This is nonsense. The presence of a track listing does not prove that it is a studio album, nor does it substantiate ZDriver's belieft that 'it was a studio album'. ZDriver has also failed to read the clear guidelines that prove that compilations do NOT have to be previously release material. ZDriver also asserts that this entire discussion hinges on Jackson's mortality, which is again untrue. The guidelines do not discriminate between the living and the dead.46.64.21.150 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Milk and Honey (album) and Menlove Ave., posthumous releases by John Lennon, are both listed as studio albums. I don't really know much about 2Pac, but R U Still Down? (Remember Me) and Still I Rise (album) are also listed as studio albums.  This article may be out of sync with the rest of the community.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Many articles in Wikipedia aren't full correct. An example is G N' R Lies, that would listed as EP, but is listed as studio album. Furthermore, Milk and Honey is listed in compilation in the discography page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon_discography It is listed in compilation and in note is written "Compilation comprises outtakes recorded in 1973-74". However, i found this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-vogel/is-michael-really-michael_b_791987.html It confirms that Michael is not the exact album Jackson would have created. SJ (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ideally, we should be consistent. Is there a Wiki Project for Music where we can invite input from other editors who work on these types of articles?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A note at WP:NALBUMS? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a WikiProject Music. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also a WikiProject Michael Jackson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimi Hendrix's Valleys of Neptune which was also released this year is listed as a "studio album". Ditto for The Notorious B.I.G's Born Again (The Notorious B.I.G. album) and Duets: The Final Chapter.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The summarised case for classification as COMPILATION

I have decided to gather the thoughts of various editors including my own to present the case on 2 levels why this album should be classified as a compilation. The first will be to assert the reasons why it should be in that category, and the second why it should not be in the 'studio' category.

Why it should be classed as a compilation:


 * 1. There are more 3rd party verifiable sources classifying the album as a compilation than a studio album.
 * 2. Jackson's participation/work on the album alone are not enough to warrant it being an idealised, finished "studio album". Jackson was not present to approve the final versions of the songs, let alone the track listing, artwork etc. This was done by various producers and the record company. They were responsible for choosing, ordering and hence compiling the material into one album.

The argument against being classed a compilation:


 * 1. The case for it being classed as a studio album relies on the equation that just because the album is a Michael Jackson album, that it is indeed the finished article that Jackson had been working on and had already completed. We know that this is not true, both from the technical manipulations required to complete the album, as well as the fact that Jackson was working on material with producers such as will.i.am, Ne-Yo and RedOne which were not included on the album. Further doubt has also been cast on the last 2 tracks of this finished album's tracklist which date back to the 1980s - that Jackson might not have chosen to release them if they had been languishing in the vault for over 20 years. Some of the tracks present on the album could very well have been intended to be on the album that Jackson WOULD have finally released, but the fact is we can never know, and because of that this cannot be considered Jackson's finished album because it was NOT finished before his passing.
 * 2. The case also on the definitions of 2 key terms. Firstly, the definition of "new/original material" and "studio album". "New/original material" is the same as "previously unreleased material". Here, the DATE of the material released is mixed up with the TYPE of material being released along with the PLACE the album was completed in. The songs were previously unavailable in this finished format, thereby rendering it NEW (DATE), and the type of material was also original and unheard before (TYPE), and finished in a studio (PLACE) by 3rd party producers. The problem lies with the compounding of the 3 terms, where 'studio' (PLACE) is assumed to equal 'studio' (TYPE) album. Clearly, by carefully defining these terms according to logic, one can see that while the album was indeed completed IN a studio and released as new/original/previousl unreleased material, it is NOT the finished work that Jackson had COMPLETED in the studio before his passing. A studio album implies a set thought process and commonality to create a single record. None of that is present with this record. The songs may have been recorded at different times (DATE) but there is no proof that they were ever idealised to be released together as THE final studio (TYPE) album.

If anyone, having read this summary feels contrary and is able to bring up a new point with a logical and coherent reason why Michael should not be classed as a compilation instead of a studio album, please feel free to share.46.64.21.150 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian's review of 'Michael'
Can someone pleaseput Kitty Empire's review of 'Michael' onto the review section?

The review is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/12/michael-jackson-album-review-kitty-empire?INTCMP=SRCH

--Bartallen2 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Just to clarify, this is actually the Guardian's sister paper The Observer. The Guardian review (by Alex Petridis) is here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Compilation / Studio album war
There is an ongoing edit war between editors who believe this is a compilation album, and some who believe it is a studio album. We need to reach a consensus here, so that the Michael Jackson template can also reflect this. In view of the writing style of previous release Looking Back to Yesterday, I am of the view that this is a compilation album, even if the tracks were produced in a studio, and were unreleased prior to December 2010. According to Compilation album: "Other single-artist compilations, such as rarities or B-side collections, albums compiled from radio sessions, songs performed by an artist exclusively for a film soundtrack or collections that combine multiple releases, such as LPs and EPs together on one or more compact discs. These are generally aimed at existing fans of the artist and have little mainstream appeal, though postmortem compilations of unreleased materials from recently deceased artists have significant popularity. Reqluce (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to wait until the release, have one song recorded on a studio in 200? not make this album a studio album, there's not tracklist, so assume that is "studio" for Breaking News is original research. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your comment. Do you agree that it is a compilation album, or a studio album?Reqluce (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compilation. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compilation album, for the reasons listed above. The true question is for Farewell My Summer Love. For this LP, the situation is very different. SJ (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * However, the Estate and SONY are treating this as a new album and NOT a compilation. Can't we just have "studio/compilation album" to stop this constant editing? It seems that the promotion for the album is being made as the new Michael Jackson album, not a compilation album like "This Is It". If we can't agree with this, can't we just write "posthumous album of unreleased songs"? 92.30.18.33 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Some reports have take this album as compilation, but actually, these reports are before the track listing published, an album with all new materials cannot be regarded as a compliation, but a studio album. The better way is to wait, to find what are the track listing of the album. We all know that some early reports cannot be 100% right. And if this album's materials are all new songs, it is a "studio album". I strongly suggest to use "studio/compilation album" to stop this editing. Parabola1999 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we still take time to end the war, then just delete the word of "studio" and "complitation" in this article, and take it as "album". Parabola1999 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are various types of compilation, not only greatest hits compilation. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_album it was also posted in this topic by Reqluce. Also Looking Back to Yesterday contains only new material (except "Love's Gone Bad" and "I Was Made to Love Her", but it seen as a compilation for the reasons written in that link. SJ (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

i believe it is a compilation album --74.233.173.33 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a studio album. All the songs are going to be new. Chelo61 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Michael from his grave recorded all songs, unless you have a source that say that Jackson (almost finished) recording all song IN a recording studio, it can be changed. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If it was just another compilation album, then Sony would have said something like "New Michael Jackson album that includes his greatest hits with a new song". Chelo61 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But as was mentioned above, a compilation album does not necessarily have to be a greatest hits. I think the question is, was this album an actual concept that Jackson was working on at the time of his death, or is it just a vault-raiding exercise? If it was put together from various different and unrelated sessions with several different producers since 2001 (which seems to be the case) then "compilation" seems to me to be the perfect description.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are new tracks, but was previously recorded. We can consider it an B-side, rare tracks release. I believe this is MORE a Compliation album THAN a studio album. Silvergoat (talk∙ contrib) 08:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a COMPILATION. Chloe61's claim that it is a studio album just because "all tracks are going to be new" is both shallow and lame. Like Pawnkingthree pointed out, this album is far more of a 'vault-raiding exercise'. There was working title, no concept, no mention of Jackson working on a single body of upcoming work, despite the claims that he had been recording privately with various producers. This is not like Guns N' Roses's Chinese Democracy which took a mind-numbing 13 years to produce. All tracks they had been recording were also "going to be new" at the time of its release, but as you can see, press coverage of its inception, recording process and release was evident throughout its recording phase. That studio album was a Concept album, which this one is not.188.223.120.131 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sony Music is going to release more albums after this one, so for them to release any of these as studio albums is quite unrealistic in the sense that when an artist is no longer living, these albums, or posthumous compilations, as they become known as, even with completely new tracks, are considered as such in that the artist must be living at the time of the album's core make-up from creation through end. Should an artist die while in progress of making a studio album-to-be, but knowing the relatively set date of release, as in the sense of near-completing the album, the album is then considered a studio album. If newly created tracks never-before released are pulled together, as by a record label, to create an album after that artist has been deceased for some time, then the album is considered to be a compilation. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: all of The Notorious B.I.G.'s posthumous albums are considered studio albums, with the exception of a greatest hits one, which is obviously a compilation. Yves (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read these articles? I just did, and the infoboxes should immediately be changed to match that of those articles (misleading). Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eye Legacy by the late Lisa Lopes is clearly classified as a COMPILATION. She's dead, the album was incomplete at the time of her passing even though the work on the album was well documented.188.223.120.131 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I Care 4 U by the late Aaliyah is also classified as a COMPILATION, but like this article suffers from the double label 'studio album/compilation album'.188.223.120.131 (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Other articles that confirm that this new album is a compilation.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/08/new-michael-jackson-songs
 * http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/83374/new-michael-jackson-track-posted-to-his-website
 * http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45607/
 * http://www.sodahead.com/entertainment/what-do-you-think-of-this-unreleased-michael-jackson-song/question-1323297/

SJ (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So does this mean you guys are going to call every single NEW Michael Jackson studio albums of NEW MATERIAL a compilation album instead of a STUDIO ALBUM and trick people to think all of his NEW STUDIO ALBUMS are just new compilation albums? Chelo61 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly think this kind of thing should go farther above just this article. I suggest maybe trying to maybe get a sense of getting a posthumous album template. I'm not sure if that's allowed, but it would solve a lot of problems with not just this article, but many. Regardless, this is no way shape or form a studio album by Michael Jackson. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  06:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Chelo61, it was explained above because it's a compilation and not a studio album. I understand that many fans are excited for the release of an album with new songs after 9 years of waiting, but we would be realists. This album contains out-takes from various recording sessions. It's like Farewell My Summer Love and Looking Back to Yesterday. SJ (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the war end? I don't think so. I believe it is a studio album, but I prefer to use the accurate words: "posthumous album of unreleased tracks". Please do not make the change until there is a result of this war. Parabola1999 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a studio album. If Sony Music and Epic Records are treating it like a NEW STUDIO ALBUM, then that's what it is. A new single is being released from it, and it is being promoted as the new Michael Jackson album, not a compilation of unreleased songs. To my understanding, this was an album that Jackson was secretly working on before died, and although many of the songs are unfinished, it was going to be his eleventh studio album had he not passed away. So because it's a posthumous album, we're going to call it a compilation? That makes no sense to me. This is Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. End of story. Live Light (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Sony and Epic present this album as a new album, not a new studio album. Look at www.michaeljackson.com Now, look these links:
 * http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1EFF3C5F0C738EDDA80994DB404482
 * http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/michael-jackson/news/42175-michael-jackson-announces-new-album
 * Number Ones and King of Pop are two compilation best of/greatest hits, but they were called simply album from some reliable sources, because an album can be studio, compilation and live. In the Michael page and in this page, i also posted some reliable sources that claim this album as a compilation of unreleased tracks. SJ (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a compilation album. They aren't putting the songs the way they were. They are WORKING on the songs and producing them just like they would in a STUDIO ALBUM. New studio albums are usually refer to as just new albums because everything on the album is NEW. New compilation albums are usually refer to as new albums of greatest hits. Chelo61 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Chelo61, i'm very tired to explain the same things (and i also posted the sources that confirms my affirmations!!). SJ (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Though note that 'Studio' is put first for this article, whilst it second for Farewell My Summer Love and Looking Back to Yesterday, which are, like mentioned, also albums of newly released material, but not recorded for the album.92.235.128.38 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 92.235.128.38 Theoretically, would be written only compilation in all three those pages, but until the end of this discussion, would be better not do other edits. SJ (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible compromise: we could write something to the effect of: "While technically a compilation of previously unreleased songs, Michael is treated as and generally considered to be Jackson's unofficial eleventh studio album." It's not a lie, and that way, it can be included in MJ's discography while still making it clear that it is simultaneously a compilation and a studio album. How does that sound? 63.248.11.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC).


 * It's not a good compromise because there will be another edit war in the discography page, where we would post this album in the compilation section, where is posted also Farewell My Summer Love. SJ (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a STUDIO ALBUM. Michael Jackson had been working on new studio albums for the past years. This album was going to be release sooner or later. Chelo61 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And again which is your source? You claim x, y or z, but you never provid a source. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Chelo, if this album was a studio album, Will.i.am wouldn't be against it. I think that is even more obvious that is a compilation of unreleased tracks. There are also the sources (someone i posted in the main page weeks ago) that claims that this album is a compilation. SJ (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Will.i.am is only going against it because Michael Jackson is dead and he thinks Sony is only releasing his NEW STUDIO ALBUM just to make money off of it. Here are some sources about Michael Jackson working on new studio albums. Chelo61 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/05/02/exclusive-michael-jackson-recorded-a-new-album-in-2007
 * http://gracemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/exclusive-michael-jackson-recorded-a-new-album-in-2007/
 * http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=66337
 * http://www.hecklerspray.com/william-tries-to-talk-up-michael-jacksons-comeback-album/20076394.php (This one is mocking Michael Jackson but it does confirm Michael Jackson working on several new different projects)
 * http://www.vegasdeluxe.com/blogs/luxe-life/2009/mar/16/michael-jackson-begins-concert-rehearsals-ne-yo-wi/
 * http://music2nite.blogspot.com/2008/10/michael-jackson-2009-world-tour-new.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/26/michael-jackson-unreleased-album
 * http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/2164285/michael_jacksons_new_albums_possible.html?cat=33
 * http://michaeljacksonbeat.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-scoop-on-michael-jacksons-new.html
 * http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/2022280/michael_jacksons_new_album_details.html?cat=33
 * http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/246884/michael_jacksons_new_album_will_be.html?cat=33
 * Unfortunatly all (except the guardian) are unreliables, some of them are blogs. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But they confirm Michael Jackson working on a NEW STUDIO ALBUM. The album, Michael, is a NEW STUDIO ALBUM. It isn't like Number Ones or King of Pop.
 * Sure, and I can create a blog, post that MICHAEL is an EP, and we can change it for EP, get reliable sources. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * furtermore they say that he was working on a studio album, but no that Michael is that studio album. All songs here are unfinished songs, if he would released a new album all songs would be finished. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * An EP only has 4 or 5 songs. All the songs on Michael WERE on unfinished but now they are finished. Michael Jackson's NEW STUDIO ALBUM wasn't named until early November. Chelo61 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An EP can have 39 songs and it's lenght is less than 30 minutes (or call it mini-album), the point is that neither source state that Michael is the studio album in which Michael was working. BTW say NEW STUDIO ALBUM in all caps, many times won't make it a studio album. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 04:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Name ONE EP that has 39 songs. A compilation album has songs that were previously released. They never said that Michael was the new studio album that Michael Jackson was working on because the album was wasn't named when they reported it. Chelo61 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's why Michael is not the studio album you are making a WP:SYNTHESIS. All songs were unfinished, but that never state that those songs were intended to released on MJ next studio album, the duet with Akon may be a work intended for Akon's next album instead, but Epic pulled the song. Our concept of compilation is: A compilation album is an album featuring tracks from one or more performers, often culled from a variety of sources (such as studio albums ... [in this case unreleased songs].) The tracks are usually collected according to a common characteristic [in this case] subject matter. When the tracks are all essentially by the same recording artist, a compilation album is often referred to as a retrospective album. Also as it say above postmortem compilations of unreleased materials from recently deceased artists. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This studio album is songs only by Michael Jackson, not various artists. Chelo61 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you really read my comment? Did you noticed that Looking Back to Yesterday is also a stuido album with only songs by Michael, and it is not a "studio-only" album? I would recommend you to read AND UNDERSTAND comments before make others  comments.  Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I understood your comments. Looking Back to Yesterday has songs by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5. Michael Jackson has been working on new studio albums for the past years. Just because he died and the albums released by him for the past 9 years has been compilation albums does not make Michael a compilation album. Chelo61 (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And Farewell My Summer Love? It contains only Michael's tracks and is considered compilation of unreleased tracks. However, Looking Back To Yesterday is accredited only to Michael, also if there are songs with the Jackson Five, so, it is considered in the solo discography. SJ (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So all upcoming albums (released under his name) will be automatically "studios" because he was working on them. And since we do not now which songs were really intended to be his 11th album, we call them studios. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not ALL of his upcoming albums will be studio albums. Sony said that they will release studio albums of new material and also new compilation albums. Michael is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Sony said that will be released 10 albums in 7 years. However, a compilation album is not only greatest hits or best of. An example is Farewell My Summer Love and Michael is like that album. It's a compilation of unreleased tracks. SJ (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Farewell My Summer Love has recordings by Michael Jackson when he was a kid and the album was released when he was an adult. Sony said that those 10 albums that they will release in 7 years includes studio albums of new material and compilation albums of released material. For example, Michael is a new studio album of new material which is going to be release December. They might release compilation albums with new songs so people can buy them. They might also release live albums. Chelo61 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Look these three links
 * 1) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nQ8-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=6kkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1780,2940440&dq=michael+jackson+farewell+my+summer+love&hl=en
 * 2) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-h8fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=facEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1607,8557695&dq=michael+jackson+farewell+my+summer+love&hl=en
 * 3) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yb_ghov9uEMC&pg=PA12&dq=michael+jackson+farewell+my+summer+love&hl=en&ei=AojmTIW0HMShOrWk6KAK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=michael%20jackson%20farewell%20my%20summer%20love&f=false

It is exactly like Michael. It is shown that is a compilation of unreleased tracks and also the newspapers (like the sources that i posted in this page and in the main page) claim that Michael is a compilation album. No one reliable source says STUDIO album. Someone says compilation and someone says simply album (and i shown with sources that also greatest hits are called simply album sometimes because the definition of album is generic. An album can be studio, live, compilation, etc...). SJ (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A studio album can have tracks that were recorded 3, 5 or even 10 years earlier or tracks that were meant for a previous album but didn't made the final cut. New studio albums are usually referred as simply new albums. Most people think Michael is just another compilation album because all of Michael Jakcson's albums has been compilation albums since 2001 to now and also because the album's name being simply Michael and the cover looks more suitable for a greatest hits compilation album. Some people even count HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I as just another compilation album with 15 bonus tracks instead of a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an album for to be a studio album must contains at least over 50% of material of its session (or at least over 50% of out-takes re-worked in studio by the artist for the session of the new album). At the moment, we know that Michael hasn't got a track that Michael would include in his final studio album. They are all out-takes from various sessions. We know exactly that three songs are from Cascio session, at least one from Invincible and "Hold My Hand" was initially planed for the Akon new album. There aren't informations for the other songs. For the rest that you written, i already answered above with sources that confirm my affirmations. SJ (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hold My Hand" was meant to be on BOTH Akon's album and Michael Jackson's album. And all of the songs have been re-worked for this new studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, all the songs have been re-worked by some producers selected by Sony, not by Michael (or by producers selected by him). It's like Farewell My Summer Love, a group of producers selected by Motown re-worked some out-takes recorded between 1972 and 1974 for that 1984's album. It's not a studio album. Jackson didn't choice those tracks for his last studio album and selected Bruce Swedien as engineer, that there isn't in Michael. SJ (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We all knew that Michael Jackson was going to release a new studio album sooner or later. When he died, the album's release was postponed but then Sony announced that they will release a new album in 2010. When we tried to add this album in his studio album discography, it was taken out because there was no "reliable sources that the album was going to have new material". Then when the song "Breaking News" came out and the title was revealed we added this album as a studio album because we knew that the album is going to have new material. But then the album was taken out again because there was no "reliable sources that the album was going to have new material" (again). And now we have the final track listing which confirms this album is fill of new material and not old songs but people still can't believe that this album is a studio album. Well after nine years of waiting, Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album is going to be release on December 14, 2010. This Is It! Chelo61 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael is not the album that would be released in November 2009. That album contained several songs produced by Will.i.am and Akon and in this album, there aren't those songs. In this album there are all out-takes (except "Hold My Hand") re-worked by some producers selected by Sony. SJ (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will.i.am won't release the songs he worked on with Michael Jackson because he believes people just want to make money off of Michael Jackson and Akon only released "Hold My Hand" because that's the only song he wants to release and he doesn't want to release any other songs he worked on with Michael Jackson and Ne-Yo also doesn't want to release the songs he worked on with Michael Jackson so Sony had to pick other songs to put on Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. "Another Day" (which is now reworked as "(I Can't Make It) Another Day") is on the new studio album because a snippet got leaked earlier this year and many fans wanted to hear the full song. Chelo61 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Sony picked the songs, not Michael Jackson. So....can be the Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album if there isn't the original material that originally would be included? It's a compilation of unreleased songs that Michael wouldn't include in the album, except "Hold My Hand". Yes, "Another Day" was re-worked, but wasn't choice by Jackson in the original tracklist. SJ (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Earlier this year, in the summer, it was reported that Sony would release a new studio album by Michael Jackson containing 10-12 tracks including collaborations with Will.i.am, Akon and Ne-Yo. Unfortunately Will.i.am and Ne-Yo didn't gave Sony the tracks and Akon only gave Sony one track of the several tracks Akon and Michael Jackson were working together. Sony had NO CHOICE BUT to include other tracks that Michael Jackson was working on since Will.i.am, Akon and Ne-Yo wouldn't release the tracks that they collaborated with Michael Jackson plus "Another Day" has gotten popular with the fans especially since it is a collaboration between Michael Jackson and Lenny Kravitz so thats one reason why Sony included "Another Day" on Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album, Michael. A studio album can go through several changes before it gets release. An example would be Lovesexy by Prince. Prince was originally going to release it as The Black Album in 1987 as the follow up for Sign o' the Times but then he changed his mind about the album so he released the album as Lovesexy in 1988 and changed the track listing with all the songs being different except "When 2 R In Love" which is the only song that is the same between The Black Album and Lovesexy. Chelo61 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

These changes were made by Sony when Michael Jackson has died, not by MJ before during his life. Also for these reasons, Michael can't be considered a studio album, but a compilation of unreleased tracks. SJ (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another article that confirms my affirmation. Please, read all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/22/akon-michael-jackson SJ (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sony WERE going to release the new studio album as Michael Jackson had planned BUT Will.i.am, Akon, and Ne-Yo wouldn't give them the songs so they HAD to put other new songs that Michael Jackson was working on. Chelo61 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, get a source with the original tracklisting of the cancelled, due to his death, studio album and do not make your synthesis and give your "facts". Tb hotch Ta lk C. 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't. The track listing was kept private. Here's a source that proves that the album was going to have the collaborations with Will.i.am, Akon and Ne-Yo. Chelo61 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2010/08/new-michael-jackson-album-due-out-in-november/


 * So how exactly you know that this is HIS eleventh studio album, just because Sony say it? And how about those sources (I exactly don't know how many are) calling it a compilation. (BTW not add this time 18 bullet. Try to avoid to expand too much the indentation). Tb hotch Ta lk C. 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Chelo, the source that you posted claims that the new album is a compilation. However, Sony says only "album" and not "studio album" and i have demonstrated with sources that also the greatest hits are called simply album sometimes. Also in the Wikipedia pages, the greatest hits are included in the albums discography and not in the greatest hits discography. Album is a generic definition that may indicate a studio album, a live album, a greatest hits, etc... Is it needed to continue this discussion? SJ (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it's needed to continue this discussion because Michael is being counted as a compilation album even though it's a studio album. By the way, new studio albums are usually referred as just new albums. Unlike compilation albums that are referred to as a new album of greatest hits, this studio album is being referred to as a new album of new material. Chelo61 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Only you call this album a studio album and i'm tired to repet the same things, there are also the sources above that confirm my affirmations. I'm tired also to look the Michael page without a definition 'cause this discussion. It's clear and confirmed that is a compilation. SJ (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who knows that Michael is a studio album. This not a compilation album. All of the songs are new. It can't be counted as a "compilation album of unreleased tracks", you might as well call every single studio album a "compilation album of unreleased tracks". Chelo61 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I already explained above the difference between a studio album and a compilation of unreleased tracks. However, i wanna see your reliable sources that call this album "Studio album". I posted many articles that call this album "compilation". Indeeded, i've found others
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/michael-jackson-album-pits-sony-music-jackson-clan/story?id=12063542&page=2
 * http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/21/1534400/smart-list-nicki-is-on-her-own.html

If you don't post reliable sources that call Michael, studio album, the discussion finish here. The page can't be stop for you. SJ (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already explained that new studio albums are usually refer to as just new albums. I'll use Michael Jackson's OFFICIAL website as a source.
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/much-anticipated-new-album-king-pop-michael-be-released-december-14
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/watch-exclusive-teaser-%E2%80%9Cbreaking-news%E2%80%9D-michael-jackson%E2%80%99s-new-album-michael
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/new-michael-jackson-song-breaking-news
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/michael-single-announcement-and-tracklisting

I'll also use other websites as sources.
 * http://idolator.com/5677931/new-michael-jackson-album-breaking-news-december
 * http://jnelj.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/music-news-michael-jacksons-album-michael-to-be-released-in-december/
 * http://www.goodnewsweekly.ca/2010/11/michael-jacksons-breaking-news-set-for.html
 * http://clizbeats.com/michael-jacksons-new-studio-album-michael-coming-soon114102/

Most people think this album is a compilation because ALL of Michael Jackson's album have been compilation albums since 2001 but now his eleventh studio album will be release December 14, 2010. This album isn't like Michael Jackson compilation albums. Chelo61 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Sony, apart for being a WP:SPS, will say "studio" regardless it is not a studio album (and I bet even they called it compilation you'd be arguing the same comments above). Most reliables sources state that it is a compilation. I don't really know if those 4 source are reliables or not. BTW I opened only this link and nowhere it says studio album. Happy Thanksgiving Tb hotch Ta lk C. 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Open ALL of the links. The ONLY LINK YOU OPENED said new album, like I said before, "new studio albums are usually refer to as just new albums". Like I said before, "most people think this album is a compilation because ALL of Michael Jackson's album have been compilation albums since 2001". Chelo61 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But between new studio albums are usually refer to as just new albums exist a "usually" and within most people think this album is a compilation there is a "most people believe" and both need a source that support your claims. Happy Thanksgiving Tb hotch Ta lk C. 06:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not true. "New album" is refered to all categories of the albums: studio, live, compilation, etc. I demonstrated above and i will demonstrate again for the last time.
 * http://newsblaze.com/story/2007030411051700001.mwir/topstory.html
 * http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=win-vip-tickets-to-see-george-michael-at-hampden--&method=full&objectid=18866697&siteid=66633-name_page.html
 * http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fun/competitions/article441219.ece
 * http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E11FB3E590C778CDDA90994DF494D81
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XfYaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iEcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5728,6377477&dq=santana+viva+santana+new+album&hl=en
 * http://www.topnews.in/light/fans-choose-tracks-jacko%2526%2523039%3B%2526%2523039%3Bs-new-album-214458

I posted all big reliable sources (except the last, maybe) and call these greatest hits albums, new albums. The sources that you reported that call Michael eleventh studio album are all unreliable because they are blogs and the blogs aren't reliable for Wikipedia. You can look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Maybe the only sources reliable are Good News Weekly and Cliz Beats, but i'm non sure. However, those sources aren't big and reliable as the sources that i posted. Happy Thanksgiving. SJ (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think your sources are reliable. We already know the track listing for Michael and it is not a compilation album. It isn't like Number Ones and King of Pop or any other compilation albums. Chelo61 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Los Angeles Times, Daily Record, ABC, Guardian... aren't reliable source??? Are you crazy? They are reliable sources also for Wikipedia. Please, accept the facts, Michael is not a studio album, but a compilation of unreleased tracks.

I have not posted those sources about those compilations for to say that Michael is a greatest hits, but for to say (again and last time) that if is written new album, it is not refered only at the studio albums. Now that i demonstrated (again) that i'm right 100%, it's time to edit this page. When you have got big reliable sources that call Michael studio album, we can re-open this discussion. Until that time, the type for the album is compilation. SJ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cry_of_Love Now look at all the other releases by Jimi Hendrix after this album in the "studio album" section. These are all listed as studio albums, despite being released after his death, with the most recent one being of this year. Ergo, this can also be considered a studio album, moreso than a compilation album. Further evidence that this is a studio album is that the songs were remixed and had tweaking done to them in the studio to bring them up to standards. Typically, compilation albums just have rough demos on them as unreleased material. 92.30.176.6 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedia pages are corrected. However, i posted reliable sources that call Michael compilation album. SJ (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael is not a compilation album. None of the music in the studio album has beened released (officially, not counting leaks). Chelo61 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Chelo stop edit warring at the mainpage and keep it here, you are able to add the bypass of studio album, BUT NO remove the compilation many sources call this compilation, so, unless you want to be reported at ANI/AN3 for disruptive editing, and re-request page protection, do not touch the article for remove the word "compilation". Happy Thanksgiving Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read this BEFORE I made the edit, so sorry. Chelo61 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Self reverting always is an option. Happy Thanksgiving Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is an administrator going to take a final vote on this and close this long drawn drama already?188.223.120.131 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will. Michael is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is an administrator going to take a final vote..." Sorry Chelo, you are not an admin. Happy Thanksgiving Tb hotch Ta lk C. 03:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a vote on here of some kind, or just have it as both studio and compilation album, even though I think it's more appropriate as studio album given that most, if not all other posthumous album releases with completely new material are called studio albums. Or maybe just "album". 92.30.18.145 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we can't vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion However, read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_album for to know why it is called compilation (i posted many reliable sources that call it compilation) and not studio album. This album is like Farewell My Summer Love and Looking Back to Yesterday. SJ (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know that. While it is like Farewell My Summer Love, there are many people, myself included that see this as a studio album of some kind, considering that these songs have been brought back into the studio for various mixing. Also, there is promotion involved for this album, such as music videos and singles. How about, as a compromise, we have it as "Posthumous Album" or just "album"? It seems we won't get to a compromise regarding "studio" or "compilation", so how about we bring another category in that covers it completely and cannot be disputed? Therefore, everyone should be happy. EDIT: I have made an image of what the page would look like if it said "Posthumous album" and linked to List of works published posthumously: http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6176/michaeln.png Is this acceptable for the page? 92.30.18.145 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Posthumous albums" are also the various greatest hits that will (or were) released. So, this definition could create confusion. Same thing for "album", that is a generic definition for studio album, live album, compilation album, etc... For Farewell My Summer Love, it's like Michael because those songs weren't produced for the album. Motown picked 9 tracks from its archive for the album, and some its producers, mixed the tracks with '80s sound. SJ (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I say it should remain a compilation album. As the post before me says, the songs weren't produced for this album. Ending-start (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we need to just end this and KEEP BOTH SIDES HAPPY BY CALLING IT A STUDIO/COMPILATION ALBUM!!!! THERE IS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING BOTH SIDES SO WHY DON'T WE JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT???!!! People think this is what should be done according to http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/1003034 —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Because reliable third party sources call it a compilation album. It is by definition and nature... a collection of previously unreleased recordings but there is no evidence to suggest that these recordings were ever intended to be released on the same album hence it cannot be a studio album. Compilations are groupings of varying and differing recordings put together in one collection. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  03:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No matter what Wikipedia says, i believe this is a studio album and it's going on my studio album shelf at home. Like people always told me, Wikipedia can't always be trusted and this is just one of those cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsop21 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In one sense you're right wikipedia sometimes can't be trusted. But this is an example of where it can be trusted. We've done the research and laid down the arguments for why our position on this matter is correct. You have no reliable sources to say why your point of view is correct, just your own opinion. By saying that wikipedia is wrong here you're also saying that Google Books, MTV, Michaeljackson.com, Akon and all the other sources saying this is a collection/compilation are all incorrect too.... --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

People, come on. We all know this album is a studio album and yes calling it a compilation album here just makes Wikipedia stays true to its stereotypical unreable encyclopedia (one of the reasons why colleges won't even let you do research here since Wikipedia can't always be trusted). If it was a compilation album then it would be like Number Ones with just one new song but every song here is new just like a studio album. Michael Jackson has been working on new studio albums for the past years. The promotion for this album is not like King of Pop or the soundtrack This Is It. Calling it a "compilation album of unreleased material" doesn't make sense. The album will be released in December 14, 2010 so the material will be released and it will be just a "compilation album of material". What do you call a live album, a "compilation album of live material"? No, its just called a live album. Calling Michael a compilation album is misleading. When people look at the page, they'll probably think "Oh, its just another compilation album" but its actually a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources, always that the problem for your affirmations. You would post reliable sources that confirm your affirmations. SJ (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, if I put sources your just going to say they're "unreliable" even though they are reliable. Chelo61 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You should post sources like New York Times, Daily Mirror, etc... not blogs or sources like Clizbeats. SJ (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't have time to look for a source that saids "Michael is a new studio album even though we are sure that most people will use their common sense and figure out that is a studio album, we'll just going to call it a new album since it is already implied that the album is a studio album and not a compilation album like all of the others that have been released since 2001 like Greatest Hits: HIStory, Volume I, Number Ones, The Ultimate Collection, The Essential Michael Jackson, Visionary: The Video Singles, King of Pop, The Collection, This Is It, etc." Chelo61 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source from Billboard. It calls the album an album of ORIGINAL MATERIAL. Just like how Off the Wall and Thriller are albums of ORIGINAL MATERIAL, Michael is also an album of ORIGINAL MATERIAL.
 * http://www.billboard.com/news/michael-jackson-s-new-album-out-dec-14-1004125471.story#/news/michael-jackson-s-new-album-out-dec-14-1004125471.story


 * WP:SYNTHESIS Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 07:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You SEE what I mean! Every SINGLE time I put a source, you ALWAYS have something to say against it. Chelo61 (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't act as a victim please, we can survive without you drama. As I said on your talkpage time ago, just because Billboard called it "an album of ORIGINAL MATERIAL" does not make it automatically an studio album. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But you guys always attack me. And if what you say is true, then that means we can't automatically call the album a "compilation album" just because another website called it a "compilation album" even though this album is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User Chelo61 claims that "We all know this album is a studio album". This is not true. It is an assumption on the part of the user. User Chelo61 also claims that he/she "don't have time to look for a source that saids for a source that saids "Michael is a new studio album even though we are sure that most people will use their common sense and figure out that is a studio album". This is not true. This proves that the user cannot be bothered to find a reliable 3rd party source, and assumes everyone else will believe his/her point of view without sources. User Chelo61 then posts one single source which calls the album "ORIGINAL MATERIAL", equating that to mean "studio album" to support their view. This is another assumption, and when the source is rejected on this clear reasoning, user Chelo61 then claims he/she is a victim. User Chelo61 is adament that "even though this album is a studio album", without any supporting reliable information, and insists on calling the album a "studio album" even though he/she believes Wikipedia is a "stereotypical unreable(sic) encyclopedia" (and obviously cannot spell), yet is hell bent on inserting unverifiable 3rd party sources to support what is clearly an untrue assertion.46.64.21.150 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems the war can end, since almost of music reviews take it as a compilation. Parabola1999 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC) I need more study on this interesting war. Please allow me to withdraw my too early "conclusion". Parabola1999 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still the outstanding issue that this article appears to be out of sync with the rest of the community. Milk and Honey (album) and Menlove Ave., posthumous releases by John Lennon, are both listed as studio albums as are 2Pac's R U Still Down? (Remember Me) and Still I Rise (album), also posthumous releases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to take each recording/album's circumstances into account. There is too much evidence here to say otherwise. Practically every review says... "This collection of unreleased material" or "a compilation of unreleased material". --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion about the war wheter this new album is a studio album or a compilation. First I'd like to point that some people here think this album is like Farewell My Summer Love - album. But Farewell My Summer Love is marked as a "other release" while Michael -album is "compilation". And about this war, I have just read two reviews where they say this is a studio album. And I think that these are reliable sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8189328/Michael-Jackson-from-beyond-the-grave.html ("Next Monday sees the release of Michael, his first new studio album in nine years...") http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/arts/music/12jackson.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 ("The album has just 10 songs and 42 minutes of music, a half-hour shorter than his previous CD-filling studio albums...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devane90 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are reliable sources, but they are only two. For Farewell My Summer Love do you refer to the template (in other pages is written only compilation)? Because in this case we would leave in Other releses only Thriller 25 and to move the other albums in compilation. SJ (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that two sources are enough, but how many are enough? I have read many reviews and this two said that this is a studio album and others called this only a album, not a single one said that this is a compilation. But I know that this is only my oppinion. And about the Farewell My Summer Love I only wonder why it is left in Other releases and Michael - album not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devane90 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimi Hendrix's Valleys of Neptune which was also released this year is listed as a "studio album". Ditto for The Notorious B.I.G's Born Again (The Notorious B.I.G. album) and Duets: The Final Chapter.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, there has just been confirmation from Billboard that Michael Jackson was putting these songs together for an album. A lot of you say that this is a compilation album because Michael Jackson didn't pick these for this album- that is false. Billboard just stated that Michael Jackson was working on these songs for this album right before he passed away. If you don't believe me, check out the website: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/features-michael-jackson-s-michael-track-by-track-1004133939.story I guess if you say this is unreliable or not enough sources, then we can't believe Billboard when working on this site. We use Billboard only once when citing when a song charted and whatnot. Why can't we believe them now? Because of this, Michael should be considered a studio album. Michael was working on these for this album! These songs would be released like this if MJ died or not. Studio album! ~Allsop21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsop21 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

All the sources that we have got are in contrast between them. But it's also true that the sources that call Michael compilation are more numerous than sources that call it studio album. SJ (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * SJ: I don't think there's any effective way to make such a termination. If I do a Google News search, I get the following:
 * "Michael Jackson" "studio album" - 60 hits
 * "Michael Jackson" "compilation album" - 7 hits.
 * But I don't trust these numbers because these phrases may not be referring to this particular album in the article text. Unless someone else has a good idea, I don't think there's a good way to make this determination one way or the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone just change this back to "Compilation Album" and ask for immediate full protection? While I think that "Posthumous Album" should be a legitimate template, I'm kinda sick of the constant changes. That being said, "Blood on the Dance Floor" is labeled as a "Remix Album/Studio Album", so why can't this one be "Compilation/Studio Album"? To satisfy both camps. 92.25.242.107 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Studio vs Compilation: A Compromise Proposal
Some editors favor calling this a studio album and others a compilation album. I can see merits to both side's arguments. However, I happened to have noticed that Farewell My Summer Love is listed as both: "Compilation album / Studio album". How about we do the same thing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It was listed Compilation/Studio because Chelo modified it without a source. I reverted that modifie. SJ (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I looked at a version from a year ago and it was listed as "Compilation album / Studio album". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was written studio because was written that originally, it was a studio album that wasn't release for the success of "Dancing Machine". This affirmation was without source and was removed. Indeed, i posted the sources that confirm that Farewell My Summer Love is not a studio album, but is a compilation of unreleased tracks of the Motown archives recorded between '72 and '73 and mixed in the '80s for the release of the LP. SJ (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "Farewell My Summer Love" and this album are two different things. I can see how "Farewell" is a compilation album, but this would be deemed a posthumous studio album so I think it should be referred as that even if some of the tracks are remixed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is correct that Farewell My Summer Love and Michael are two different things. The promotion for Michael is the promotion they give for studio albums NOT greatest hits/box set/compilation albums. Michael has singles being release, music videos being recorded, promotion. Chelo61 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Barts1a, you put on the information about the singles and music video. Doesn't anybody where in Wikipedia use common sense and read? Well since nobody wants to use common sense and read and when anybody else edit a page here they are always right, but for some reason when I edit a page here people accuse me of always being wrong, here are some sources:
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/first-official-single-hold-my-hand-michael-available-streaming-now
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/new-michael-jackson-song-much-too-soon-makes-debut-exclusively-itunes-ping
 * http://www.billboard.com/news/new-michael-jackson-song-breaking-at-radio-1004125931.story#/news/new-michael-jackson-song-breaking-at-radio-1004125931.story
 * http://www.billboard.com/column/viralvideos/michael-jackson-breaking-news-teaser-video-1004125617.story
 * http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/news/casting-call-%E2%80%9Chold-my-hand%E2%80%9D-music-video

Chelo61 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good reason for to call Michael studio album. The label and/or the artist decides the promotion of the album. For example, many greatest hits albums have got a great promotion with singles and videos, like The Immaculate Collection by Madonna and Cross Road by Bon Jovi. Same thing with compilation of unreleased tracks, like Tracks 2 by Vasco Rossi. However, also from Farewell My Summer Love were released singles (also if without videos), that became hits in UK. SJ (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Still Michael Jackson was working on new studio albums. Michael has new songs unlike most greatest hits/box set/compilation albums (some have a few new songs as bonus tracks so people will have a reason to buy them). Unlike Number Ones or The Ultimate Collection, every song on Michael is new. Chelo61 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to say with ; how do you KNOW that EVERY song is new? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that every song was recorded for this album? This album is a compilation of unreleased tracks that weren't finished until that Sony choosen some producers for to finish it. These songs weren't part of the MJ's last studio album, except "Hold My Hand" and "Best of Joy". Furthermore, there aren't Will.i.am and Akon songs. It can't be the MJ's eleventh studio album. Ah, there is also "The Way You Love Me" from Ultimate Collection, a track previously released. SJ (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Barts1a: Use common sense and read and tell me any OTHER Michael Jackson album that has those exact same songs like "Hold My Hand", "Breaking News", "Much Too Soon" (Have you even heard them?) and all of the other new songs on Michael.
 * @ Simone Jackson: They're on the album. Not EVERY song makes it to an album. How do you know the information about "Hold My Hand" and "Best of Joy"? There is an Akon song on the studio album and Will.i.am is acting over protected of the songs he and Michael Jackson recorded since Michael Jackson's new studio album is being released after he died and Will.i.am thinks Sony is just releasing the new studio album just to make money. I admit that it wasn't a good move for them to put "(I Like) The Way You Love Me" on the Michael studio album since the demo version, "The Way You Love Me" was already released on The Ultimate Collection box set (They should've put another song like "A Place with No Name" or another song that Akon and Michael Jackson worked on together) but still "The Way You Love Me" is different then "(I Like) The Way You Love Me" (Why change the name if the songs are the same?). Some studio albums do have songs that were previously released on another album like Yours Faithfully by Rebbie Jackson. Chelo61 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is the same of the few weeks ago although was demonstrated the difference between studio albums and compilation of unreleased tracks. I think that you don't accept that there won't a new MJ's studio album (at least until now) because he is dead. So, you want call every album with unheard songs, studio album, because you want fill that void that MJ left. SJ (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I accept that Michael Jackson is dead. I know that any new studio album won't be the same without him. But just because he's dead that doesn't mean that EVERY single new album released by him will be a compilation album (I think that they will release more compilation albums, like they might release a compilation album called Greatest Hits: HIStory, Volume II.). But for Michael that album is not a compilation album. It is a studio album. A "compilation of unreleased tracks" does not make sense. You might as well call every single studio album a "compilation of unreleased tracks". What will you call Michael after it gets released (because that tracks won't be unreleased anymore), a "compilation of tracks"? Chelo61 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A studio album is an album made up on songs which were recorded with the intention of appearing alongside each other. A compilation album is a collection of records that were never recorded to appear together. They are a collection of unreleased songs from different eras in MJ's life... hardly a studio album but more compilation of random recordings. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Random recordings? Kind of how in Thriller there are "random recordings", for example on track 4 "Thriller" it talks about monsters, then on track 5 "Beat It" it talks about not fighting, then track 6 "Billie Jean" it talks about a girl who claims that Michael Jackson is the father of her son. Its not like in Michael they had a lottery and just randomly picked the songs. Chelo61 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the creation of the album and the studio process not the themes of the songs. The themes of the songs have nothing to do with the type of record this is. Studio albums imply that there was a thought and creative process behind creating the songs which appear on the final tracklist. A compilation, by nature, is a collection of recordings that we done at different times but brought together under a common theme. Michael is a collection of unreleased recordings brought together as his first posthumous record. Other than that we can never say that the records where recorded or intended to be together or that if MJ was alive, that these records would even end up being released. Equally we can't even say that any of these records were even recorded together. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because they were recorded at different times does not mean it is a compilation album. Is not like it takes one day to record a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a compilation. Stop making this more complicated than it is. It was recorded in a studio, its a STUDIO ALBUM. Since it was released after his death it's a POSTHUMOUS STUDIO ALBUM. There are plenty of artists with posthumous releases. This is not some "special circumstance" like you make it out to be:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Redding#Discography
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix#Discography
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Discography
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena#Discography
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notorious_B.I.G.#Discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.78.245 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Studio vs Compilation - False claim of consensus
I'm removing the false claim of consensus for compilation in the hidden comments of the article. The ongoing discussion of the issue proof that no consensus exists for either side of this issue on this article. But what's more, I've checked several other articles about posthumous albums: All of these are listed as studio albums, not compilation. I have no strong opinion either way, but we should be consistent. If the consensus of the community as a whole is that posthumous albums such as these are considered studio albums, then we should abide by that community consensus. If you disagree with the community consensus, fine. Then convince the community that they are wrong and we can change all these other albums to compilation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimi Hendrix's Valleys of Neptune
 * The Notorious B.I.G.'s Born Again (The Notorious B.I.G. album)
 * John Lennon's Milk and Honey (album) and Menlove Ave.
 * 2Pac's Still I Rise (album) and Still I Rise (album)
 * I believe each album should be judge by its relative merits and in this case the evidence from reported citations strongly support Michael being a compilation album. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Milk and Honey is an interesting example as there are some parallels with Michael. Lennon had mentioned "Milk and Honey" in interviews as a title for his next album, so there was some sort of concept there, but the album that emerged was a mixture of his own songs recorded at the beginning of the sessions for his previous album Double Fantasy, and unrelated songs recorded by Yoko Ono some three years after his death, so whether it was still the original concept they had is questionable. Describing Menlove Avenue as a studio album is a joke; it's a collection of outtakes from two previously released and completely separate albums, Rock 'n' Roll and Walls and Bridges - that one is definitely a compilation.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The real MJ's album was untitled and there were Will.i.am, Akon and Ne-Yo as collaborators. In this album, there isn't nothing of it, except Hold My Hand. SJ (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other posthumous albums which are listed as compilations:

All of these are listed as compilation albums, not studio. There is no consistency, and the community as a whole does not consider these albums to be studio albums, and therefore needs no convincing. There is a different infobox and category for LIVE album and REMIX album. I suggest that in light of the number of posthumous albums out there, a new category should be created for POSTHUMOUS albums.46.64.21.150 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa Lopez's Eye Legacy
 * Frank Zappa's Have I Offended Someone?
 * Selena's Dreaming of You (album)
 * Mick Ronson's Just Like This
 * 46: Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. There's also the possibility of listing it as both studio and compilation.  I'll post a message at our Music WikiProject so we can get more opinions.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted a message at WP:WikiProject Music. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To list it in Compilation/Studio don't solve the problem of the template, the albums discography page and the MJ biography page. The idea of create a new category called posthumous is good, but a posthumous album can be also a greatest hits album, not only a studio album or a compilation album of unreleased tracks. SJ (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea to make a new info box called POSTHUMOUS i think is the best way for Wikipedia as a whole to consolidate this albums. The community should look at this in bigger terms. We do not want to have to address each and every album to determine if is a COMP or STUD album. I suggest we see if WikiProject Albums thinks this would solve the problem.Moxy (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moxy: Sounds like a good idea to post at WikiProject Albums. Can you go ahead and do that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going to bring up that maybe there could be a posthumous template until I read that it had already been suggested. With that said, I will agree that it appears to be a good move to have an infobox template for posthumously released albums.. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the problem remains how to difference the albums of unreleased tracks and greatest hits albums with the definition "posthumous". SJ (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be STUDIO album. Michael Jackson had a strong desire that these songs be released, and he left behind blueprints and mapped out the details of how the album should be released as. Because he died and he never got the chance to release it the album, his producers are helping him do it. Even if he WAS alive, this album would still have been released, so it should be studio. The album isn't a compilation album, and all the songs were completed by unnamed producers in the studio after Jackson died. It is also worth nothing that all tracks are previously unreleased. That's just my say, but I really do think it should be a studio album. Sinexcite (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that Jackson 'had a strong desire that these songs be released'. In fact will.i.am as well as Joe Jackson have been quoted by 3rd party verifiable and reliable sources that Jackson did NOT wish these songs to be released. There is also no proof that he 'left behind blueprints and mapped out the details of how the album should be released as'. The claim that " if he WAS alive, this album would still have been released, so it should be studio" is based on the assumption that 1) the finishing touches, mixing, production, arrangement would be exactly as he wanted it 2) the tracklising would be exactly as the alleged 'blueprints and mapped out details' as claimed. As you have conceeded, "all the songs were completed by unnamed producers in the studio after Jackson died" - the extent of which has not been revealed (on indeed might never well be). While all the tracks are previously unreleased (with the exception of (I Like)The Way That You Love Me previously released in demo format), this is not grounds to call it a full studio album, but as one 3rd party verifiable source states, is ORIGINAL MATERIAL.46.64.21.150 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 46, and the sources that call Michael compilation album increase.
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1337281/Its-Bad-good-A-track-track-review-new-Michael-Jackson-album.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/10/michael-jackson-producer-albums
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/68404/240505
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/reviews/2010-12-08-michael_N.htm
 * http://ca.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idCATRE6B869X20101209 (quoted Rolling Stone)

SJ (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * SJ: And how many sources did you find that call it a studio album? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing, the only sources that i know that call Michael studio album are: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8189328/Michael-Jackson-from-beyond-the-grave.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/arts/music/12jackson.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1 SJ (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the creation of a 'Posthumous albums' infobox because at the end of the day this is something that will be forever argued and instead ALL posthumous albums should be moved to the new format. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The confusion lies with the confusing of 3 factors. 1) Jackson's mortality: To call it a studio album would be to assert that that the album was the final completed product approved by Jackson, which it is not. 2) The equation that just because it is previously unreleased material, and therefore ORIGINAL MATERIAL as one source accurately descibes it, that it automatically becomes the aforementioned finished album in point 1). 3) Inconsistency in posthumous albums by other artists on Wikipedia, leading to mutual comparisons. "All the songs coming out now were around when he was alive, so why didn’t he put them out then?” says Will.i.am. “He was a perfectionist, and this might be a Michael Jackson album, but it’s NOT Michael Jackson’s album.”" -will.i.am as quoted in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8189328/Michael-Jackson-from-beyond-the-grave.html While the Jackson estate, in its press release has called Michael "the album that Michael set out to make", the fact that studio producers were heavily involved coupled with the Jackson's absence is enough to highlight the truth in will.i.am's statement. The article also points out that "The album closes with two tracks left over from the Eighties. If they hadn’t surfaced for 20 years, there was little chance of them featuring on an album made by Jackson while he was around to call the shots" which also casts doubt that Jackson would have approved the final tracklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.21.150 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Two producers who were working on new Jackson tracks before the singer's death – the Black Eyed Peas's will.i.am and RedOne (Lady Gaga) – have questioned the credibility of this release. Their work does not figure."
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/12/michael-jackson-album-review-kitty-empire

"This is not like a finished product that you can compare anything to. It's more of an album that you can hold on to to commemorate and appreciate his legacy."
 * http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5isnb5eOkTvixZArPNb7fhqTb5LPQ?docId=N0072821291975541579A

SJ (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a reply to 46.64.21.150: There is proof that michael jackson had left behind blueprints and mapped out the details of how the album should be released as. If you listen to I like the way you love me, you can hear him talk in the answering machine at the start, where he tells the producer the drum and how the song goes etc; the producers listened to that message on the phone and made the song with his guidance. The only difference is that Michael did not give the album the final OK for the release, but the album stil would have been released even without hiim around, and it IS all original material, so I don't see how it is a compilation. Sinexcite (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH You are assuming that:


 * 1. Jackson is speaking into an answering machine, it could have been part of the demo which was used for the bridge of the song, or deleted stanza, and not the start as it is made to appear.
 * 2. Jackson is speaking to the producer. He could have been making notes for his own ephemeral use, which often happens with demos and studio sessions. Either way, demo sections rarely make it to the final cut, which casts doubt on the assumption that this would have been the final version Jackson had intended to release, if it was to be released at all.
 * 3. 'The producers listened to that message on the "phone" and made the song with his guidance'. There is no proof of this simply because Jackson is no long alive to confirm this, and if you have read any of the reviews currently on the article's page by 3rd party verifiable sources, would have come to understand that with posthumous works, the best any producer can do is approximate.
 * 4. 'The album would have been released even without him around'. Yes, this makes it a Michael Jackson album, but it is NOT Michael Jackson'S album, which is the key difference that seperates it from being a studio album and a compilation
 * 5. Original material does NOT equal studio album, as I clearly pointed out on this talk page. Original material is not the final mixed, arranged, sequenced, produced work of the artist, simply because the artist is no longer around to complete it.

Therefore, unless written proof, released demos etc come forth via 3rd party verifiable sources, this album should remain as COMPILATION.46.64.21.150 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sony can also say that this is the album that Michael was preparing (like happened here in Italy), but we all remember what was the real album that Michael was preparing. And in that album there were for sure songs by Will.i.am, Akon and Ne-Yo.
 * http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-played-with-locals-as-icon-recorded-album-1793430.html
 * http://allafrica.com/stories/200906280003.html
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5656918/Michael-Jackson-the-unreleased-album.html
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-07-08-unreleased-jackson-music_N.htm
 * http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2009/06/30/20090630jackson-album.html

SJ (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Jackson had had never met 50 Cent who appears on "Monster". http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1653524/20101203/50_cent.jhtml While there is written proof that Jackson did indeed want the rapper to appear on it http://www.rwdmag.com/2010/12/teddy-riley-confirms-50-cent-collaboration-was-michael-jacksons-idea/, the 2 never met, and he recorded his portion of the track AFTER Jackson's death. This means Jackson did NOT have the chance to approve/improve the final version of the song which appears on the album. It is as much anyone's guess if the track would indeed have appeared on the final tracklisting at all. ORIGINAL MATERIAL and PREVIOUSLY-UNRELEASED MATERIAL is exactly the same thing. It does NOT make it the final finished album that Jackson would have created as HIS STUDIO ALBUM.46.64.21.150 (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This does make it Michael Jackson's studio album because he sang on the tracks. Most artists like Justin Bieber, they only sing the song, stripped down. It's mainly the producers job to pick which songs, to mix the songs up, add instruments, etc. But when Mj made his albums, he was always the producer, because he wanted the final say over everything. Having 50 cent appear as a guest artist in one of the tracks still does make this album his studio album. Sinexcite (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sinexcite, your comment is both naive, immature and unsound. The lame comparison between Bieber and Jackson aside, you literally contradict your own statement. You claim that "when [Jackson] his albums, he was always the producer, because he wanted the final say over everything", yet you fail to realise the glaring fact that Jackson did 'NOT' have 'the final say over everything' on THIS album. You also clearly fail to see the RATIONALE that just becuase Jackson's vocals APPEAR on the album, does NOT make it THE FINAL FINISHED STUDIO ALBUM WHICH HE HAD COMPLETED BEFORE HIS DEATH. THAT would have been Jackson's STUDIO album. THIS is a COMPILATION album by producers. Look at Loyal to the Game which features TuPac's VOCALS, also manipulated by procducers, in this case Eminem. It also contains a deceased artist's vocals. By your weak reasoning, would you say that THAT was the FINISHED STUDIO ALBUM which TuPac would have released EXACTLY as it was? Please read my COMPILED list of reasons why this album should be a COMPILATION which clearly marks out the confusion between the use of the word 'studio' (place) and 'studio' (type) album.218.186.8.239 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism?
It appears that this article has been protected because of "excessive vandalism". I'm a bit confused. I've been watching that article all day, and I don't recall any vandalism, certainly not excessive. There were a couple minor content disputes over some non-English music charts but nothing that qualifies as vandalism as far as I can tell. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia: the addition of obsenities, non-sense or blanking of the article. Which edits were vandalism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the "vandalism" refers to the constant editing of the album type, which is pretty ridiculous. If it wasn't protected, I'd suggest making it a "Studio/Compilation album" to appease both sides of the dispute, like a few other albums in the "Posthumous albums" category. 92.30.212.190 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, these "constant" edits are less numerous than before. SJ (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Normal content disputes are not the same thing as vandalism. Also, locking the page doesn't do much good anyway.  The most prolific edit warriors are those with accounts, not IPs.  If no one can provide any diffs of actual vandalism, I'm going to request that the page be unprotected.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Placing of Michael
Should Michael be placed in the "Other albums" category on Michael Jackson albums discography (certifications and sales)? I noticed it's listed in the compilation section, but I thought we agreed to call it an "other" on Michael's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsop21 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't decide. Some editors think it should be "compilation", others think it should be "studio", and some have suggested a new category named "posthumous".  I think "other" is simply a temporary compromise until one of these ideas gains consensus.  Your input is welcome.  What do you think?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section "Other albums" in that page is for remix albums, EPs, Soundtracks, etc... This album is not nothing of all these. I edited the Michael page changing in "Other" because we haven't got a consensus for the type of the album. SJ (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2010

I am also divided. On one hand, Billboard and others call this a studio album, but then some say it's a compilation. Unlike Farewell My Summer Love, Michael Jackson did have a part in this until he passed away. I'm confused on what to do. I do not agree with someone changing the title of Michael to a compilation. I agree that "other" should be used until we reach a REAL consensus. At home, I will be placing this album on my studio album shelf, but I agree we need to reach a consensus on this site. Allsop21 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Every other artist on wikipedia has posthumous albums with new material list as Studio Albums. This release isnt any different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Redding#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notorious_B.I.G.#Discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.78.245 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I say we should eventually move it to a section called Posthumous albums. But for now, other albums is fine. Maybe once a second one is released it should be discussed. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. MaJic  (comments go here) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)