Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 15

Child molestation charges pages deleted!
why? this is Wikipedia not a fan site. why were those pages deleted? Sai 2020 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Put em back, that's vandalism, that is :O (The Elfoid (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC))


 * No it isn't. They were deleted for a good reason. I asked the admin who deleted it and here's what he says. Sai 2020  10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rapists
Can I put him under this category? Motherfucking faggot is guilty.

VinTheMetalhed (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Metalhead, but American Jury says that he was not guilty. Wikipedia is not the place to rant. Please get out or get blocked. Thank you
 * Sai 2020 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah also homophobia isn`t tolerated on wikipedia or society in general, you might feel more at home on conservapedia, get lost. Realist2 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cursing's also frowned on.

I'm upset you call yourself a metalhead in your name, since I call myself one too. Don't go around Wikipedia proclaiming yourself as a member of an all-accepting culture then cast someone aside! (The Elfoid (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Lol he calls himself Metalhad not Metalhead, lol it cant spell, typical bigot, too stupid to understand or tolerate difference, before long we will be ride of conservatism for good, they lack the IQ to reproduce for a start. Ha what a chuckle. Realist2 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I misspelled it when I created it and didn't feel like re-registering. I'm far from homophobic, I have a gay cousin and I tolerate all people. However, MJ is a bizzare and perverted sick freak in my opinion and he only got away because he's rich.

VinTheMetalhed (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you shut your mouth Sai 2020 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ha ha ha ha ha omg im weting myself you say your not homophobic and you use the word faggot, its the same as saying in not racist and saying N*gger! ha ha ha typical conservative stupid and diluded, stick you right wing views and spend your time on conservapedia, you not welcome here you nazi. Realist2 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why bother giving this guy your energy? the question to him should be "do you know from personal experience?" if not, then go away. Marnifrances 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOW QUALITY PHOTO
The photo of Mr.Jackson on top of the page has LOW QUALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

we all know that. I'm trying to resize it but doesnt seem to work.. but the white house was better in my opinion Sai 2020  06:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i cant seem to get the good quality version of teh same one to save in jpeg, Also in my opinion he hasn't changed that mutch at all. I would rather have the white house picture as the main picture and that low quality one in the article for now - Gaogier

no way its rediculose to have the whitehouse picture in the article twice!!!Realist2 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New Picture
I went through alot to get it! - Gaogier
 * Struggleing to size it

It's good, but I don't know how much credibility "my uncle's friend" holds (The Elfoid (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes i have all 37 shots of him taken by my uncles friend, could that help? Gaogier (talk)

Great! I've never felt happier before. the more pics we have the better. so bring them all on. but name your uncle's friend and make sure he's ready to license it into free domain. Sai 2020 01:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do but most of them are of the back of his head, need them? 81.102.229.250 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

not really.. get ones which show his face Sai 2020  18:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So we got ride of the whitehouse as the main picture brilliant ive been trying that for months and we no longer have a mugshot!!!! Happy days!!!! In fairness I dont think we need many more pictures my only concern left is the gap between pictures. There is the bad era pic of 1988 and then the main picture which i guess is somewhere around 2002-2004? There is about a 15 year period with no picture of his appaerance. Put blankly we need a picture of either the dangerous or HIStory era. Realist2 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ummm what exactly is wrong with the white house pic? Sai 2020  06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The present picture got enlarged for the infobox...possibly too much. Scale it down a little, it looks a bit pixelated for me.

To be honest in the Bad era he looked a little different, but Dangerous and HIStory were the periods where he was changing most.(The Elfoid (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

Whats wrong with the whitehouse picture is that its in the article again later on!!! Realist2 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

why is that pic not there in the article.. never mind abt being it the main pic.. atleast put it somewhere in the article depending on when it was taken Sai 2020 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

it is in the main article, its the main picture and the picture for the thriller era. Realist2 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New Picture for Thriller and Dangerous/History Era
We need a new picture for the Thriller Era, this is because it is the same as the main picture and as no1 seems to want to remove the main picture the Thriller era picture must be changed.

We need a new picture for the Dangerous/History era for the reasons i said above earlier. Realist2 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Collection
Michael Jackson has (or had) copyright ownership of a large catalogue of other singers/groups work. I feel that it would be appropriate to summarise some of the most important material in his collection, in this article (unless it is in another wikipedia article, in which case should be linked from this article).

217.35.75.188 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He still owns a lot of other peoples songs because he still has a large stake in the ATV catalog. The media have got hold of this idea to call it the "beatles catalog" when infact it contains thousands of songs not just the beatles. If people want me to include some of the songs i can, there are some named in J.R.Taraborrelli`s book. Let me no. Realist2 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an article on Sony / ATV and a website www.sonyatv.com. Michael's first purchase was the Sly and the Family Stone Catalogue and under ATV he currently owns over 500,000 songs. Have a look at the website- J. Randy's book won't give you a good cross section of what he actually owns. Marnifrances 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Invincible reviews
I have removed the following bit of opinion from the Invincible section. Do not revert it unless you can find a reference to cite (and not a reference from 10 years prior to the release of the album). Of those that were negative many focussed on the singers eccentric image rather than the music

This doesn't belong on wikipedia, save it for your fanpage. DiggyG (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the book was updated and republished in 2004. It should be the 2004 issue so I will have to alter that citation. Thanx for pointing that out. Realist2 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added the new book to the further reading section with its new isbn code. thanx for pointing this out. Realist2 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know details, haven't read them. But like it or not, Invincible was pretty badly reviewed really. And we need to accept that. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

It wasnt badly recieved, it was compared to his other work and judged on that marker... a verh high marker. The reviews said it was better than most of the stuff around at the time but fell short of what was expected of him, reviews from All Music Review and Rolling Stone were good and even NME was nice. Then the reviews that actually were bad didnt even talk about the music. Elfoid I would love to get into your mind and find out what you actually think of Jackson because you give off mixed signals. I have my suspitions you are still deluded in believing PYT is better than Stranger in Moscow. Realist2 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic gave it 3/5, so did Rolling Stone and NME. All 3 make it clear it's better than what he'd done recently (HIStory and Blood on the Dance Floor) but a big let down all the same.

Personally I think Dangerous is his best work by far. I think he hit his creative peak then, and after that was still at his best musically, but lyrically depression/celebrity-attitude/eccentricity got in the way. After that I'm into Bad. My favourite song not on either of those is Beat It. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh at least you think Dangerous was his best we agree on something then. As a whole product Dangerous is his best but when it comes to my top 5 songs most of them come off HIStory(Vol 2). Anyway you cant rely on reviews anyway. NME gave HIStory 1/10 !!! They are being stupid. Not even impartial. Realist2 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NME is notorious for it's being a crowd follower. It's reviews are important because they are hugely influential, and it IS somewhat respected since the writers are qualified professionals. But it's not a high ranking magazine. Classic Rock is probably the most impartial thing out there. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

HIStory sales figures
Under topic HIStory, it is claimed: "In June 1995, Jackson released HIStory: Past, Present And Future - Book I,[76] which went on to sell 18 million copies (36 million units) worldwide,[29] making it the greatest selling multiple-disc album of all time." I think this should be removed as incorrect. Counter-example: Wikipedia and RIAA has this to say of Pink Floyd's double album The Wall: "by 1999 The Wall had shipped 23 million copies through the United States alone, making it their best-selling album there." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wall. 23 million copies in USA certainly is more than 18 million copies worldwide. However, I didn't want to make this change by myself just in case I've understood something wrong. RealLeo 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your mistake is quite understandable, basically because it is a double album its sales are counted twice. It says for the wall 11.5 million (23 million units) however it hasnt sold very well outside America. Is WORLDWIDE are something like. 15 million (30 milllion units). HIStory by michael Jackson sold 18 million (36 million units). HIStory outsold the wall. Realist2 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I had this argument before Realist2. In the USA, album length decides units. If a double album is under a certain length, it is classified by the RIAA as a single album. This is true of The Wall. In the USA, 23 million units were sold. That's 46 million CDs, because THEY COUNT EACH DOUBLE ALBUM SALE AS A SINGLE UNIT.

Meanwhile HIStory has sold 36 million copies globally. Because each sale of HIStory qualifies as 2 sales units, compared to the single sale unit of The Wall.

Different countries have different sales-unit threshholds. Wikipedia is international and multinational. The Wall sold less well in terms of RIAA Units, but has actually sold more copies.

In short: The Wall: 23 million album sales in the USA = 23 million RIAA units = 46 million CDs HIStory: 18 million album sales in the world = 36 million RIAA units = 36 million CDs

Globally, sales of The Wall are 30 million. That's 60 million CDs.

So there's more copies of The Wall in the world. There's 30 million, compared to 18 million copies of HIStory. There's also more CDs - 60 million The Wall CDs compared to 36 million of HIStory.

The Wall has sold less in terms of RIAA units, but why should we rely on America's system for international sales? Short answer: We don't.

Globally, I can't find sources reliably stating the 30 million units/60 million CDs figure. But I can find plenty saying 23 million units/copies compared to HIStory's 18 million copies and 36 million units.

I hope that clears that up. Last time I checked this out Realist2, I was less sure of things. I have now carefully researched things.

(The Elfoid (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh, and one more thing: Sources stating HIStory is the best selling multi-disc album of all time are NOTHING when sales figures contradict this.(The Elfoid (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Thats your interpretation, people see what they want in something, your the only person on wiki who uses this calculation system. If your idea was true The wall would be the second top grossing aalbum of all time after thriller. That my friend it is definately not. Realist2 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Along with HIStory, it's one of only two multi-disc albums in the top 16 selling albums of all time. At present, it is listed in the right section for it's sales levels on the list of best selling albums.

And actually, Wikipedia and the RIAA state that if a CD is under 100 minutes, it counts as one unit per sale. So it's official. If we measure things by RIAA unit systems, then the 30 million RIAA units of The Wall sold make sales 30 million CDs. The RIAA presently list The Wall as 23 million units within the US ALONE...it's sold more copies, as well as having more CDs going. The only thing HIStory has over it is a higher unit level.

And if you check the best selling albums page, my last point on this got The Wall firmly lodged in the correct place. Someone moved it, I just changed it.

The second best selling CD of all time is Back in Black, 42 million copies. That's not really relevant though.

(The Elfoid (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

I have edits it a little bit so take a look, I dont think this is unreasonable and should make both sides happy. Realist2 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources almost certainly look at the number of units sold. Also, someone saying it sold better means nothing when there are no sources providing a sales figure for HIStory that is higher than The Wall. Personally I think we should say it is often listed as the best selling multi-disc album ever, but all available sales figures list it as second best selling after The Wall. We simply cannot call it the best selling without mentioning the issues regarding The Wall. Or we could say it is best selling according to the RIAA units system often employed, but raw sales figures are different. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

I think the alteration is reasonable, you wouldn`t get anything off most of the other editors lol. Realist2 (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no sales figures that backup the claim that more copies of HIStory have been sold than The Wall. At all. Wikipedia is based on facts. 18.5 million copies of HIStory have are sold. Officially recognised fact. The Wall has sold 30 million copies. Officially recognised fact.

These facts are recognised on various incredibly reliable sources, biographies of Michael Jackson and Pink Floyd, and Wikipedia itself. Now, unless you alter The Wall's page deleting the sales figure under the belief it is 'false', you are wrong.

HIStory was a greater commercial success because it cost more to buy.

You are using RIAA-specified unit systems to claim one album has sold better than another on an international scale. Unless Wikipedia works for the RIAA, which it does not, there is no reason to do that.

We should state "The album has sold 18.5 million copies. The only multi-disc album to have sold more is The Wall, at 30 million copies". Every single word in that is true. Unit systems are decided on by various representatives for the recording industries of various countries; if we are to remain neutral in these things we cannot adopt a unit based approach.

If we don't do that, you're telling me that 18.5 is higher than 30.

(The Elfoid (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh I hate this topic soooo much, look there are reliable claims for both its really ok as it is Jesus you try to compromise on something and they they want more off you. Realist2 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A sales figure is more reliable than a claim that does not cite statistics to back it up. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Thiller was not a #1 single?
I just noticed that Thriller was not listed under the #1 US singles under the discography section. I couldnt find any info on the actual single, but seeing as how the Thriller album was at #1 for almost nine months and was proclaimed the best selling album of all time by the Guinness Book of Records... I would assume that the song hit #1 at some point.

--Sublime5891 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

no it didnt go to number 1 saddly however when it was released as a single it sent the album back to number 1. Realist2 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 New Album
This section is a complete mess the info on new release is all over the shop mixed up left right and centre between, the award ceremonies , the james brown funeral and the photo shoots. Can we sort it out, maybe we should take all the info about the new music out, now that this new thriller edition is out no1 really no`s about the new album dates keep getting changed. I say we remove all the stuff on the new album because no1 honestly no`s anymore. Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes, it makes a little more sense now. Realist2 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller 25
I think that Thriller 25, the February 2008 release of a new version of Thriller (not a special edition, not just one or two unreleased songs), should have a page of its own, for the following reasons:


 * Notability - Thriller is not any old successful album. It is THE GREATEST SELLING ALBUM OF ALL TIME. And this is not just a 'special edition' version with remastered tracks, a few unreleased tracks and an interview. This is a 25th ANNIVERSARY release, and that's gotta count for something. Don't use the same old argument of 'it's not notable enough' for it's own page or 'other album re-releases' don't have a separate page. Of course they don't - they're 'special editions' or whatever. We don't have separate pages for the special editions of each of MJs albums. But this is different, and I think that per the above reasons we must realize that.


 * Collaborations - Thriller 25 has got some really notable collaborations with other highly successful contemporary pop artists. These include Kanye West, Akon, Fergie and will.i.am. This further adds support to the above idea that this product, Thriller 25, has enough notability APART FROM ITS CONNECTION WITH THRILLER that it deserves a page of its own. These collaborations are part of that notability which does not rely on the original Thriller album, and justify Thriller 25 having its own page.

I think that for these reasons, no one in their right mind can dismiss Thriller 25 as "just a special edition" or "just a re-release of Thriller". It is MUCH MUCH MORE and I have outlined why above. This is no special edition. This is a product which has enough importance by itself, as opposed to having importance solely in relation to the original Thriller, through COLLABORATIONS with HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL POP MUSIC ARTISTS. And that's gotta count for something.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed lets begin. Realist2 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Child molestation accusations 1993
We need to make something to replace the lack of a page. I agree it needed deleting - what was there before was a shambles, filled with POV. Very messy and if anything was to be done, it needed starting from scratch. Once work on Thriller 25's done, anyone up for making that? We can do it now, before the 2008 promotions really kick in...it'll be a busy year and much harder to get done not long from now. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Yes remind people of the bad stuff just as he`s trying to kick start his career again no supprise there elfoid. A few hours ago you were saying that there was no need for a Thriller 25 page because there wouldn`t be much to talk about and now your planning new articles in advance because you believe there will be so much to talk about in 2008, you changed your tune quickly lol. Realist2 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well in 2008 he'll almost certainly make a lot of public appearances. And I might not think there's much to say on Thriller 25, but there will be a lot to say if he tours, does a new album, or hell...the new single will produce a stir on it's own and probably chart at number one.

I don't know why, I just seem to dig controversy. I love reading about stuff where no one's sure of the story, or it's a bit confusing. Big events where I get to decide what I think happened, because no one can be totally sure. And hey...I'm suggesting making an article talking about what happened. It might even HELP Jackson dude! Right now, what if someone says "What happened with MJ in 1993 when he was arrested?", someone might say "Oh, there was some story that he had sex with kids. I don't really know what happened actually"...that person could check Wikipedia where it would say he was not charged!

I do genuinely hope MJ's career takes off, so that he continues releasing albums. I have a feeling if he doesn't get a hit on his hands with the new album, he'll give up, and try and focus on the Jackson 5 reunion to make him some money. And I really, really prefer his own solo work. I just...like controversy. Yes, I know, I'm weird. But someone has to write about this stuff, better me than someone who loves or hates him. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

If you really want to do it, please let me help. I don't agree it needs a page (I am also thinking about the accuser here) I know a lot about it- I still have nearly every news report from Aussie TV from when the allegations started in August 1993, to when they were settled in early 1994. I have a LOT of resources and articles. I have 2 books (and a whole bunch of articles) against and also pro-Jackson articles from that era. Let me know what I can do on my user page. The 93 stuff (I hate to say) is kinda a speciality of mine.Marnifrances (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can help no1 can be barried in any way, impartiality is the key here, I have seen some of your work in this area and it seems well researched. We will begin on it shortly, it seems that I (and you if you wish) will write it while Elfoid will edit it to maintain nutrality which was the main problem with the original (it was anti Jackson). Realist2 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The original was even worse than anti-Jackson, it couldn't decide what it was! One moment it made it clear he's a criminal, the next it sounded insane he was ever accused. It was the subject of too many opinionated editors on both sides.

I think it needs a page simply because the details cannot be covered in brief and to be honest, it had more of an effect on his career than the release of plenty of his lower-charting singles. Hell, even his last single, "One More Chance" was probably less important than this trial in his career. Like it or not, his popularity in America collapsed as a result. His album sales improved elsewhere, but Jackson specifically decided to avoid touring the USA for HIStory as a result of his lowered popularity. It just seems mad to me to attempt to discuss important details of MJ's personal life that influenced his career and ignore this. It halted promotion of Dangerous too - the USA wasn't the only place Jackson had intended to tour in support of that album when he was arrested. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Ok, no problem. If you write it and show me your drafts I can add anything that is needed. also, if you have any questions on anything, let me know and I am sure I can find the answers for you. Marnifrances (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller section needs fixing
I don't have control over editing the page, so to someone who does, you might want to replace the n-word typed in several times under the Thriller section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpuliva (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes its sorted thankyou. Unfortunately the right wing fanatics still exist. Realist2 (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HIStory sales
Uh, realist, reply to me dude. You dropped out of the debate higher up.

A sales quote from recent years can be counted on as a recent sales figure, if it comes from the right place. A writer may be misinformed, even if it unlikely. Officially recognised sales are more reliable since they come direct from somewhere. A writer has read that somewhere and interpreted it. That's why the sales figures are more reliable than press quotes (The Elfoid (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

oh i thought i made my stance clear im sorry. I think it should stay as it is, i dont see a problem with it to be honest. Realist2 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are 30 million copies of The Wall out there and 18.5 million copies of HIStory. It is an in-escapable fact.

We can put in something like "many sources claim it is the second best selling, but that sales figures dispute this" and go into a lot of detail but that's probably too much work.

Using RIAA specified units of measurement to gauge international sales figures when in fact most countries don't use the same system is just a tool of Jackson's powerful marketing team to make him seem even more successful and important. The sales figures have had a major POV slapped on them. Someone at the RIAA decided that double albums of 81-99 minutes in length count as single albums. That's POV. Not yours, but someone's all the same.

This goes against WP:POV and cannot be allowed. If you want a compromise, call it the best selling double album by a solo artist.

(The Elfoid (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

will.i.am or Will.I.Am?
which is correct? the article has both the versions.. which ought to be removed? Sai 2020 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Its lower case w. I changed them all to lower case on the Thriller 25 article but never got around to doing it here. Ill get it sorted, if I leave any out please change it. To clarify it should be will.i.am. Realist2 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Songs about the press
We should make an article on Jackson's songs attacking the paparazzi. I don't think any other singer has so many songs attacking them. Obviously they deserve his venom; he's treated like crap for the most part and obsessively stalked by reporters and photographers alike. I think it would be worth looking at combining articles about these songs, possibly into the MJ page or a new page. We could look at how his attitude has changed from song to song, if it has. I always felt the way "Privacy" uses a guitar solo shows how Jackson felt no longer able to express his rage through words alone. A guitar solo talks from the soul. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

It should be added to the themes and genre section as it literally is a theme of his songs, i think it goes deeper than just the paparazzi, michael jacksons music is about paranoia. Also in the themes and genre section Invincible needs a mention. Realist2 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than Invincible, we should just say Bad had some negative themes, Dangerous was more negative, then it exploded post-1993 trial. The guy has got more and more miserable sounding and critics have strongly reacted against it. My guess is that he'll be very upbeat on the new album in response to these complaints. Plus he's said just about every bad thing possible now anyway. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

No my point was that generally speaking invincinble needs a paragraph discussing what it is about. Wall, Thriller, bad, Dangerous and HIStory all have a paragraph. Invincible needs 1 as well. After that if want to go into tabloid backlash fair enough but first invincible needs its own paragraph. Realist2 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. What would be better would be to talk about general trends and work it all together. To be honest there was a natural progression from Off The Wall to Thriller to Bad, and certainly from HIStory to Blood on the Dance Floor to Invincible. The trial in 93 influenced his attitude a lot so linking Dangerous to HISTory is hard, and it also seemed a change in direction from Bad (possibly because it was not nearly as popular as Thriller even if it was still a hit)...all the same a progressive write-up would be good. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

GOOD IMAGE
the Nov 2007 ebony cover is a great choice to be on the Michael Jackson page. WHY DON'T YOU USE IT AS THE TOP IMAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree, this would be good as the main image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.14.50 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Far too much make-up. It's very, very stylised. It does not give an accurate enough representation of what he looks like; it shows how he can be dressed up. Sometimes that's good. But he rarely looks like that, since he's rarely on the cover of an Ebony photoshoot. I love how you guys are saying "He looks so great in that picture, why can't it be the main one?". It's because he looks unusually good. Everyone knows photoshoots like this have airbrushing etc. done to them to make people look better. By asking why a photo where he looks amazing isn't the main one, you answer your own question; it's clearly not a 'normal' look for him. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

No no.. it's the cover of a magazine how can you put it as the main picture? if someone edits it like the whitehouse one then sure we can use it.. haha Elfoid then we ought go shooting all the celebs in their living room and put all those photos over here.. ofcourse celebs have makeups all the time and it's impossible to find them without makeup and 'normal' Sai 2020 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Make-up wasn't my main point, though it can be an issue. A photoshoot for a magazine is far more likely to use airbrushing etc. since it is in a studio environment. Photos of people out in public tend not to have as much post-development work done to them since it's a less controlled environment and they'd contrast with others in the shot.

I'm pretty sure magazine covers are not allowed to be cropped on Wikipedia anyway but I might be wrong. (The Elfoid (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

The Elfoid i dont know what's your problem with Mr.jackson's photos. he usualy seems good even in paparazi photos and then you go on and on about the other things. what you reasoned just made me laugh. if you don't mind you are so funny and obsessive dude. however i think this photo is a good choice to be the main image. it is his present look and the quality is good enough. and if there be problem with the photo being the cover of magazine someone can edit it.

trust me it is such an exellent choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum no i aggree with elfoid on this 1 and I was the person who uploaded it. Its too recent which im not in favour of. It needs to be a mid career image from the dangerous era. Realist2 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree that this image be the main one. i think there is nothing wrong with this image as a recent high quality image to be the lead image. by the way thank you Realist2 for uploading it. it is a very good choice to be on the page. the page with it, is much better than without it also i'm so glad that the mugshot is gone.

thank you again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who keeps going on about the mugshot reeks of POV. Please stop it, it makes it really hard to respect your views.

Look at pictures of Michael throughout his life. This Ebony cover looks really, really stylised. You can tell it's had work done to it - the photo is just not quite natural and his skin is not either.

Rather than us have a lengthy debate, lets just keep it as it is and wait. There is gonna be loads of promotion from now on apparently. A single next month, Thriller 25 the month after, Jackson 5 work, possibly a tour, hopefully the new album. There will be photos we can use. And if it's the big comeback everyone predicts, we can claim it's a fair image to use. At present the main image is used because Jackson's more remembered for 80s music videos than anything else (except the 2005 trial, which is possibly more firmly rooted in people's memories since it was more recent...but that was a far less visual event). Cuz lets be honest, nothing Jackson did from 97-2003 was powerfully recognised and since then he's not done much other than deal with his trial. If he suddenly gets back into the limelight, then an updated main photo is far more appropriate. And it saves us a big debate

(The Elfoid (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

we don't agree with you elfloid. by the way we are looking forward what he wants to bring on table.


 * "We" suggests a majority, not so. My name is not elfloid. If I could understand the rest of your sentence I'd attempt to respond to it. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

a happier new year
there is no longer a mugshot on page.thank you.wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.14.50 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

it was removed long ago Sai 2020 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality
I added the following commentary the other day about Michael Jackson, because many people question his sexuality. Many say that he is gay, and so I added the following snippet to clarify:

"After the two molestation trials of Jackson, many people have alleged that he is homosexual or bisexual. The allegations that he is a homosexual have come from several different sources, including former employees of Neverland Ranch. Although Jackson has had sexual relationships with women, Jackson has allegedly had several sexual relationships with male children. If those allegations proved true, Jackson would be considered by definition, a homosexual pedophile. Many have also attributed his feminine characteristics, high-pitched voice, and allegations and assumptions of excessive plastic surgery as further evidence for these claims. However, since there is no definitive proof of his molestation, and under American law he has been found innocent of the charges, the allegations that Jackson is a homosexual remain unproven."

It was subsequently removed. Does anyone know what the problem is with including this. Aside from the sentence about his feminine characteristics, these are all based on established facts and opinions that exist. I left in the end that the allegations of homosexuality are unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs)


 * As I explained to you on your talk page: you cannot add this content to the article. It is uncited material, your own personal opinion and full of weasel words. Please do not use Wikipedia articles to promote your own opinions of Michael Jackson or any other figure. Thanks, Gwernol 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Auto Archiving Bot
Is it helpful? Sai 2020 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Would your remove it now please. I no how to archive properly now and its making archive 14 too big. Realist2 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i can reduce the maximum size of an archive.. it's 150k right now. Sai 2020 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes set it to 65 k please. Realist2 (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done :) Sai 2020  07:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson--a convert to islam?
I heard Michael Jackson recently converted to Islam while in Bahrain. Is this true? Kim 12/17/07

who no`s ? who care`s ? he has the right to any religion and it shouldn`t be made a deal of .Realist2 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's stories that Jackson has become Islamic every few years. People keep deciding he's done it, there's no evidence. It should get a mention I guess, since he was always a Christian to my knowledge. But only if we get the evidence, and no big deal should be made out of it.(The Elfoid (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

a year or so ago i heard a song abt Allah reportedly sung by Michael Jackson.. the voice did sound similar but it could have been a clever imitation.. i have no idea but as there is no proof it shouldn't be mentioned in the article Sai 2020  05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

not Michael. It's an artist called Zain Bhikha http://www.zainbhikha.com/ and he has the song for download on his site. Michael's not muslim, he recently said in an interview he gives thanks to "Jehovah" (Ebony Magazine) Marnifrances (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. that's the track i heard.. my god the voice is so similar to Michael's Sai 2020  03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really... LOL. Sorry Marnifrances (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's frightening how alike they are, it really is. Obviously different songs are done in different styles and it's impossible to tell if this guy can sound like Jackson singing other styles, but I would definitely say this is something people could mistake for Jackson. Possibly worth mentioning somewhere as something commonly mistaken for Michael Jackson to avoid confusion; I would call it an easy mistake. Musically and stylistically it is not "a Michael Jackson song" but it could easily be Jackson singing. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I pretty much proved it's not Jackson, so it's not Jackson singing. lol. No need to mention it anywhere. Marnifrances (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A note on that article about MJ's face in bandages
'''This is the tabloid stuff we hate but why is he bandaged up?, I hope if he has had plastic surgery... (which i highly doubt) ...that he has not messed his face up.''' Below is taken from the article, picture included on article its self. What do you belive has happened? Source http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/12/18/2007-12-18_bandaged_michael_jackson_in_buy_spree.html

Gaogier (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not doctored since there's about 8 images of him and it is very, very clear who it is. So lets not debate that. More importantly...who cares? It's not that noteworthy all the same. The rumour is his kid punched him in the face and he burst his lip...that's not news. Kids do that stuff to everyone.

That said, Realist2 don't delete things from the talk page needlessly. That's vandalism that is :) (The Elfoid (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

elfoid your retarded if you believe the whole punch in the mouth part. Think about it sensibly? Who told the tabloids that Michael Jackson was punched by his son? Thats right no1 did, michael jackson didn`t tell the tabloids that, the son didn`t tell the tabloids that. the PR didn`t tell them that. They made it up. No reliable source told them that. Realist2 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It can't be verified or proven, all I meant was it's an example of how something like that could be true and pretty ordinary (rather than some silly exaggeration about new surgery).

These stories do slip out though - no one in showbusiness can be trusted and everyone sells their friend's stories to the press. That's why music gets leaked long before it comes out etc. - people who can't be trusted get told stuff.

Tabloids don't make stuff up about celebrities usually (they can be sued; remember when Jackson sued someone for calling him a nasal cripple?) but it tends to be twisted and exaggerated beyond belief.

Chances are he just fell over or something though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Michael will probibly tell someone on his next interview? Gaogier (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think his PR people have some kind of rule that no one can talk to Jackson about most controversial topics, so it might not come up unless it's something pretty ordinary. That's why no one's talked about his surgery/skin much in a long time when it's all a lot of the public really care about (the kind who read gossip columns at least...a worryingly large number). It won't come up. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

I doubt if Michael has any PR people Sai 2020 05:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well he doesn't issue his own press announcements, PR people do that (well, Bain - who handles management and PR). Every celebrity has an army of marketing people at their disposal. We don't have much to suggest this for him specifically, but it'd be odd if he didn't. Very odd. He needs people to answer questions that he hasn't time for, to give red listed topics for interviews, to help decide who he has interviews with and when, to issue press releases...Michael Jackson has become like The Rolling Stones - he is bigger than himself and can't handle all his jobs himself. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Still.. Michael is not stupid to come in the public wearing bandages on his face when there are untrue allegations about his face and plastic surgeries Sai 2020 09:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks they can get away with telling people publicly that children share their bed AFTER a child molestation scandal about 2-3 years previously is clearly not an expert. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh come on.. would you do that? Sai 2020 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of semi protection
I would like to know who was resonsible for removing the semi protection the other day while i was away. Whoever did it should be appauled with their actions. Please address this as ithttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscript cannot be aloud to happen again. Realist2 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the logs and tell me who removed it - no-one. It got removed when the article was deleted to make way for a merge.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

well whatever "admin" managed to forget about it should be demoted .Realist2 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I'm sorry, but we spent ages last night trying to get the article restored, it took ages because there were too many revisions to manually restore, and now you come here and suggest one of us should be demoted? Are you joking? I've protected it again now, but you should really consider your words before you speak.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do im the main contriputer on this article so I "come here" a lot. Every time I leave this page for literally a day it turns to mayhem. Oh Yours Realist2 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, you don't own anything here.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be the most hostile admin I have come across. Realist2 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're just arguing over things you don't understand, then to top it off, asking for one of us to be demoted when we worked hard last night to get the article restored.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm the hell down, everyone. The article was messed up, it's back to normal now, chill. 71.187.76.33 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax. Everyone makes mistakes. Now lets get on with our lives. Clearly the administration is doing what they can, that's no crime. Realist2's protective over a page he's contributed a lot to - we all are, so his anger's understandable. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

A couple of changes which got reverted
I tried to slash (no pun intended) a couple of sections of the article, but the changes were reverted: i.e., I took out the middle paragraph of the intro and most of what struck me as an overlong section about MJ's work with the guitarist Slash. Jackson has used Slash to good effect on several songs, including his last big hit "Black or White", but this occasional partnership has hardly been a major focus of either performer's careers. And even though they have been working together a long time, they have really only collaborated on two all-new albums (the second of which was a major flop) and Slash only appears on a few tracks on those albums. He has never toured with Jackson, although he has made some cameo appearances on stage and TV.

As for the intro, the middle section was full of questionable (and badly written) assertions, and even though each assertion was properly footnoted, none of them added much to the article. (The Slash section also has plenty of footnotes, some of them attached to stuff which doesn't need to be in the article.) Did Michael actually "establish "high-profile album releases and sales as a new trend for record companies to generate profits"?  (There were many high profile albums before Thriller.  In fact, the Beatles put out The White Album and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band back when the Jackson 5 were still unknown.  And, in some ways Thriller marks the beginning of the end for the album qua album, since it was basically just a collection of really great singles packaged in a colorful sleeve, without a whole lot of cohesion between the singles.)  Did he actually lead MTV out of obscurity?  Are the Guiness World Records people really the definitive authority on who is the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time"?  Did his dance moves really "redefine mainstream dance and entertainment"? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its worth you contributing to this page, no offence (not that I think you will be offended) but you no nothing about the guys career clearly. Black Or White was not his last major hit, please dont make me laugh. He worked on 3 albums Dangerous, HIStory and Invincibe non of which were "Major flops". Clearly you either dont no enough about his achievements or you simply have anti Jackson sentiment to make statments like that.Realist2 (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing Jackson did after "Black or White" was quite as big globally, singles wise, and I agree that the thing on high profile album releases and sales is a fair point. I'll probably cut that out later myself - the way an album was put together has not changed much. But a lot of these things you sound a bit mad on. Best do some research Timothy since you don't seem to know your stuff.

Realist, stop assuming everyone who doesn't want to sing Jackson's praises has an anti-Jackson sentiment! Wikipedia editors tend to touch articles just to contribute to the encyclopaedia as a whole and all have their own point of view. You'll scare off anyone but the most dedicated Jackson fans (and me, but I'm weird :P)! (The Elfoid (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Globally you are not alone, and earthsong have outsold Black or white.Realist2 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I terribly care or have any actual information about the subject at hand, but y'know, Realist, if you were to provide some kinds of references for these claims -- actual sales figures, that is -- you'd probably end up arguing a lot less. Just a thought. (Conversely, if you cannot do so, it'd be interesting to know how you can make that claim.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of sales figures are "known" on Jackson fansites and have circulated so long no one recalls the source. Most are reliable, but can't be proven to be. (The Elfoid (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

I have already shown elfoid a well used sourc that clearly shows that the single sales off the HIStory album outsell those of the dangerous or bad album and is a huge feat considering only 5 singles were relesed from HIStory. Songs like earthsong and you are not alone were massive outside the US. Unfortunately this place has an america biased viewpoint of his career. Realist2 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson's American decline (lack of touring for Dangerous + HIStory, child molestation accusations, market saturation, some songs not being released in single form there) was outmatched by his growth abroad, yes. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Slash Section
Having Michael call Slash for a couple guitar solos on his albums does not mean that he's had the 'only long term musical partner outside of The Jacksons' with Slash, nor does it vindicate having an entire section dedicated to Slash. It makes it sound like Slash had an in depth role in the making of Michael Jackson's albums on par to what he did with his bands, Guns N' Roses and Velvet Revolver, when that is just simply not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.200.177 (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As was mentioned before, it was more than a couple of solos. He wrote the intro section to Black or White. He performed three particularly long guitar solos and became the only guest performer to work with Jackson on multiple albums (in 1991, 1995 and 2001 - a decade!). He appeared on stage with him and at awards show numerous times during the Dangerous and HIStory eras, as well as twice in 2001 at the anniversary shows. He was in a music video with Jackson where his role on stage was equally powerful. (The Elfoid (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

He was a guest artist in every way of the term 'guest'. In the grand scheme of Michael Jackson's musical achievements and what have you, Slash is of little importance...by saying he is the only long term musical partner is his solo career is ridiculous and a slap in the face of say someone like Quincy Jones who produced Michael Jackson's early records and probably helped shaped his sound and musical style. Quincy Jones got rid of the weaker songs on Thriller and replaced them with new stronger ones, so that every song on that album was good and that the album was good from beginning to end. Compare that to what Slash did for Michael Jackson's career. So Slash soloed for a few performances, perhaps most visibly on his 30th anniversary thing on CBS and on MTV in '95, the fact is that Michael Jackson won't be remembered for that awards show or that song with the Slash bit in it. Mentioning Slash in this wiki article is pertinent in some way, but not by giving Slash more credit than he deserves. A mention of Slash's work in Michael Jackson's music deserves like three sentences of simple fact stating, not elevation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.200.177 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Numerous people helped Jackson record his music throughout his career, yes. Repeatedly he used the same songwriters, producers, but Slash is one of the few who's sounds are available ON RECORD alongside Jackson's in his songs as a MUSICIAN.

He's also probably the most famous guest artist to perform with Jackson short of Eddie Van Halen and Paul McCartney (actually probably bigger than EVH given Guns N' Roses sold 70 million albums with Slash and was only recording from 87-93 and released 5 albums wheras Van Halen have sold 80 million in the period 78-98 and spread accross 11 albums) and the only one to perform multiple times.

Infact, has anyone except Slash performed music on three of his studio albums in a row? I might be wrong but I believe he's unique in that also.

For a pop singer to have a long term connection to producers/songwriters/engineers etc. is not uncommon - half of them don't do much of the work at all, and it's common in most musical circumstances. For instant Iron Maiden had the same producer for about 8 albums or something, but if someone guest performed on 5 of their albums in a row it would be a lot more notable.

"The fact is that Michael Jackson won't be remembered for that awards show or that song with the Slash bit in it."

Did you see how high the viewing figures were? A lot of people tuned in. The cost and demand for tickets was also insane.

"Mentioning Slash in this wiki article is pertinent in some way, but not by giving Slash more credit than he deserves. A mention of Slash's work in Michael Jackson's music deserves like three sentences of simple fact stating, not elevation"

Performing on four songs accross three studio albums in a row, appearing live at one major TV appearance, two major special one off concerts (the last Jackson performed as of December 2007), numerous appearances at awards shows and several one-off appearances on tour? That's quite a few appearances. The Korea show was shown on Korean TV live and millions tuned it too. Slash did more than just a little...(The Elfoid (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Your comparing Michael Jackson to Iron Maiden when talking about producers completely misses the mark. Iron Maiden are a metal band, when they record an album a lot of the songs are already written/arranged. All that's left for the producer to do is make any final tweaks they think may be needed and shape how the song actually sounds on the record. On the other side of the scale is Michael Jackson, a pop artist. A pop artists relationship with his producer is a lot more productive. The producer writes the majority of the music, and arrangements. The producer hires additional musicians without which the record can not be made. The artist often writes lyrics and vocal melodies (sometimes not even that, but MJ did this). Other than that, all the artist has to do is actually record their vocals (and any instrumentation they add themselves if they play an instrument). In short, Quincy Jones shaped the entire sound of the Thriller album. Which pretty much shaped what Michael's music would sound like for the rest of his career. He was a true driving force between MJ's success, whereas Slash was a hired hand who came in when he was needed to. Writing some solos and making a few appearances at big events does not constitute as a musical partnership. It would be like saying Dave Navarro has a musical partnership with Christina Aguilera for doing the exact same thing. It's called being a session musician. I think if anyone has a "long-standing" musical partnership with MJ that isn't Quincy Jones it'd be the people who played in his band for one entire massive world tour. Not the guy who accepted an invitation to play with him a few times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.72.87 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen is regarded by many as being an innovator to guitar, whereas, anyway you cut it, Slash is not. He's a great, emotive, player, whose style was drawn from Joe Perry, Brian May, Jimmy Page and other blues players, but he's not particularly innovative. And perhaps most importantly, EVH played on Thriller, which is the massive album of MJ's career. You remember him most for that album, for Billie Jean, Thriller and Beat It. That solo is iconic. Can you say the same for Slash's work with MJ? Yes, it's quality, but it does not have the same impact as Eddie's did. They looped his riff on Black or White. MJ did the Superbowl which is the largest televised sporting event in the world. He gets more exposure than that than for that show that he had Slash join him in New York, Berlin or Korea where a couple million people saw him. Slash may have done a few sessions for Michael, but his impact in Michael's career has not been all that important. Slash's collaboration with Lenny Kravitz where they actually wrote together created the song Always on the Run where they actually wrote the song together and Slash gets credit for it. Slash gets no writing credit for Give Into Me, Black or White, Privacy, or D.S. Furthermore, when Slash gets the invite to do a solo, he's given a nearly completed track with vocals, instrumentation already on where all he does is add a solo to it, so it's not like he actually wrote the music. He just took what was already there and added his mark on it, under the direction of the producer and artist who ultimately have the control to say 'yes' or 'no'.


 * Who plays better is POV. Slash sold a lot more albums (Guns N' Roses made the best selling debut album ever, and between 87-93 released enough albums to shift over 70 million units. It took EVH a lot longer to do that. EVH has not had a solo career. But yeah...it's all kind of POV. And if the solo's iconic or not isn't an issue. The IMPACT of Slash's work with MJ was less, but the quantity was far higher. Slash's combined viewing figures for a total of at least 7 gigs that I know about, both birthday concerts, the 1995 MTV awards and several other prolific award shows are almost certainly higher than the Superbowl overall. "Black or White" Slash only did the intro (the stuff the kid listens to), not the riff, but Give In To Me about a third of the song is made up of Slash's solo. Slash was given the honour of PLAYING EVH's solo in 2001. Writing a guitar solo as long as the ones he had to write on those songs counts as songwriting in most people's books...just like a song without lyrics but vocal melodies still needs the "writing" of lyrics.


 * The reason it's there is more because of the unusualness of it. How frequently they worked together, how many years it was spread out, how different and unusual the collaboration was (Van Halen went pop, Guns N' Roses are as far from pop as you can get; fame was thrown on them), and the fact that it was unique in Jackson's career he ate peanut butter.(The Elfoid (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC))