Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 17

Quick suggestion
Seems to me that this phrase "often cited as one of the greatest life performances of all time." in the Style and Performance section should read "greatest live performances". I'm not able to edit it myself so I thought I'd post this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.101.219 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Night Goblin (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a fan site (RESOLVED)
The article contains much useful information, but its makeup and contents are very apologetic. The first thing the general public think of when they hear the name Michael Jackson is not the music, but the controversy surrounding his physical appearance and his private life. Almost all we get on this are quotes by Michael Jackson himself, which I do not think many people outside the fan circles will find particularly convincing. More extensive and more balanced sections are needed on these issues, whereas the albums section could do with some abridging.--84.190.49.142 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hush dude, your one of those people who merge his face with monkeys in photoshop and think its funny, Hold On, or try and make dodgy pictures of his nose dropping off when he's having serious problems with lupus, Hold On, or making lies up about him bleaching his skin, Hold On, i have heard enough from your kind  Gao  gier  Talk! 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, excuse me. the poster has the right and the question has every reason to be asked, this page positively skirts around any of the more controversial issues that Jackson fans might choose to stick their heads in the sand about. I posted valid reasons before as to why many of the sources here are completely unreliable and there was scant disscusion from Jackson fans regarding it. For example, used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. ,, , or most information from dedicated fan sites such as  and. ,. Is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?

All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attempts at encyclopedic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references. Quite frankly, I have had enough from your kind too. Whilst we're at the childish "I will assume you to be, so I feel better" game I'd wager you're the kind of person to tastelessly release pidgeons into the air upon the announcement of Jackson's innocence following 'child molestation charges', ugh. This page is nigh on worthless than anything other than a fan site. (EDIT: Most of the sources have been changed since this was written I believe, so some of this is redundant.) OoohOoohAaah (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FIXED. I have removed all statements with questionable, or sources classed as unreliable.  Before the rabid fans start accusing me of being a "hater" etc, I suggest they read WP:RS.  Funky Monkey   (talk)   00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here looking for some information and I still thinks it reads like a fan site. Not just the sources but even the beginning  with references to "MJ" (I have never seen that as a common nickname outside of fan sites) and headlines where information needs to be condensed as much as possible. For example, the MJ reference does not use "MJ" anywhere in the article.  I am not a "Hater" but I do use SP:NPOV and I don't feel this article meets that criteria.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, i totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.27.129 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the article has been rated as good so I doubt any changes need to be made. I'm not saying you guys are "haters" like other fans but I do wonder why you want to fix something that is not broken. 68.219.25.140 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All the sources that remain are legitimate, all fan stuff has been resolved. Realist2 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jacko"
Dear Realist2, what I have been trying to say is that the article only has "Wacko Jacko"; a demeaning epithet. It does not have "Jacko" (without the "Wacko") anywhere in the body. I thought that was clear in at least my 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) edit. Understanding that now, could you please provide answers to my last three questions or wait for a while to let me see someone else's opinion?--Thecurran (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the jacko part next to the wacko jacko part, as long as its not in the lead you can add "F**king W*an*ker" for all i care. so long as its legitimately sourced. Just not in the lead. Realist2 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical Appearance (RESOLVED)
The last mentions in this section are of his '93 oprah interview relative to his '88 book; should there be any mention that his appearance and skin colour have continued to deteriorte in the fifteen years since then? TheHYPO (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

His skin colour hasnt changed since 1993, its as white now as it was then. Infact ive seen pictures where he looks darker now than he did in 1993. Maybe thats lighting. Additionally its open to a large amount of pov editing, its a matter of taste and opinion. For example, I think his plastic surgery did get worse since 1993, i think his apperance reached a low point around 2001-2003. However i believe he looks a lot better now in 2008 than he did 6 or 7 years ago. Realist2 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fans protesting image (RESOLVED)
Why was it removed? and Realist2 I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try my best. Σαι ( Talk ) 04:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I know your busy but please do try, its more important now than ever. Realist2 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok but why was the image removed? Σαι ( Talk ) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, readd it if you like. It should be in wiki commons. Realist2 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Current picture (RESOLVED)
Why is there no picture of MJ now, in all the pictures on the article they are outdated and he is still black. I don't know if any of you all major editors of this article have an issue with the fact he is no longer black but using an outdated picture is just wrong and in my personal opinion highly miss-leading. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the pictures in this article are outdated. Michael Jackson is an African-American and any change in his pigmentation will not change that fact. All pictures in the article represent accurate depictions as to what Jackson looked like in that specific time period the section is discussing. For instance, the image of Michael with his sister Janet Jackson shows his lightest complexion. In addition to the fact that any image of a living person must be public domain which is not readily available. The statements you've made are considerably ignorant. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you in LUCK! I found a resent image and it is public domain Image:Michael-jackson-mugshot.jpg, i will be replacing the main picture with this more up-to-date image. And by the way, color of your skin (black, white, blue, or orange) should not be relevant to your ancestry. If you are of African decent and your albino (pale white) what color is you skin color???? WHITE. If MJ went from having a "medium-brown color for the entire duration of his youth, but starting in 1982 his skin gradually became paler." and is now white, then HE IS WHITE. If i, a white person, turned black it doesn't mean i became African American, i just became black.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit as the picture in question has been considered for deletion per copyright concerns. As for your other comments BLACK and WHITE refer specifically to ethnic backgrounds. I am an African-American but my skin color is brown, not black. Similarly Michael Jackson is not white in any sense of the word- I'm sure if you compared his complexion to that of a blank sheet of paper or snow, there would be a considerable difference in color, as would any person of European descent. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so know Black is an ethnicity, i thought it was "used to define... human beings with darker skin color" (like the article says) and African American American was the proper title of an ancestry (reconized by the United States). DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!!! Last time i checked Black is referring to the color of your skin not your ethnicity. And lets pop in a quote from "White people" - "....characterized by light pigmentation of the skin". HMMMMM, what is Mj's skin Pigment...... WHITE. I am not saying he changed from African American to Caucasian, but i am saying he changed from black to white. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. As you pointed out earlier, an african american who was born alino or who suffer from vitiligo is still categorized as BLACK, referencing their ancestry-not WHITE, which is used to categorize people of European decent. In all my life I have never heard of a non-European person who is albino or who suffers from Vitiligo refer to themselves or referred to by other people as WHITE, because it is culturally defined as someone who descends from Europe. MJ Has lightskin yes, so does my mother and brother who were born with naturally light skin, but they would never refer to themselves as White based on their skin tone. Its not a double standard, its a fact. I've never heard of ANY case of skin pigmentation where a person of European descent gets dark to the point to where they would be considered black. And even if there were such a case, they would still not be defined as black because that is not their ancestry. So its not a double standard, its a universal concept. MJ's skin tone did change, no one is disputing that, but you cannot say he went from BLACK to WHITE because those words automatically denote ethnicity. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally it could never be used as the lead picture anyway. Its a mugshot, my should a mugshot of a person found not guilty be used as the lead picture. It would never happen to a white guy. It goes against NPOV by suggesting he was somehow guilty. As already noted, there is a picture of him from 1995. He was as light then as he is now, i dont see the issue. Realist2 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares your not getting the mugshot as a lead picture for a bunch of other resonses. Bore someone else. Realist2 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again another DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!!! Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton are sporting their mugshots, and i assume Larry King is too. I will find another CURRENT picture of MJ so you don't feel offended (god forbid we show MIchael Jackson in a current picture and try to hide the fact that he turned white by showing a picture from 1984). But i will relocate his mug shot down to his arrest section, so you don't feel that there is some sort of double standard.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (written prior to: (Realist2) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) - comment)
 * And i am going to add the picture to his arrest section. Just like all the other people who were arrested (blacks and Whites) --Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What ever, the picture has a place yes, but thats not here, it should go to People v. Jackson. Realist2 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, People V. Jackson goes into great detail on this article so it should be placed on this article as well. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming the image does not survive its deletion debate on Commons, because its copyright status is disputed, it would have to be reuploaded as a fair-use image. In that case it would fail NFCC here, but be arguably OK on People v. Jackson. But even a free image has to satisfy IMAGE. That is a matter for consensus, and if a consensus already exists, it should be respected until it is changed by debate. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Im also slightly concerned about a possible conflict of interest with this editer. He has made some, lets say, "interesting", edits on the African American article. Realist2 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have say i am concerned with your conflicts of interest. Sorry, wikipedia is a place of neutral and un-bias articles. I reworded a statement to be in a more neutral manor, this is not a place for highly opinionated statements as such. And BTW, i have been looking on flickr for images that will be 100% allowed on wiki, i'm sorry to tell you another thing you don't want to her but a new picture is coming, and i will argue over it if you like. Wikipedia's whole concept is an UP-TO-DATE Encyclopedia, sorry but using an image of a person from 1984 is NOT up-to-date, especially when there are plenty out there that are MUCH MORE recent. I can tolerate your "black Pride" but i am not going to let it jeopardize the whole concept and operation of wikipedia. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing in this argument has anything to do with "Black Pride" we've all been trying to follow wikipedia guidelines to the best of our ability. As I said before, the original image was the only one available as public domain and therefore was the only image appropriate to use. The new image is a perfect up-to-date image of MJ but I still have concerns it may violate wikipedia policy because it is from a photo shoot, not a press release. And btw having one "out-of-date" image in a single article would not in anyway jeopardize the whole concept and operation of wikipedia. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your mad if you think you can convince us that his mugshot should be the main picture of this article, it wont last 5 minutes. Oh and im not black, im latino. Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read what i said above, i am looking on Fickr to get a different image. Which i did. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, its great. Realist2 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as we can use magazine shoots as lead pictures its fine. I know we cant use magazine covers. Realist2 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like to say that I'm liking the new photo. It's up-to-date, high quality and it's clearly MJ. It's also just simply a nice pic. Try to keep it if you can.86.146.233.103 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bet you would like that but its ulikely to stay, notice how its a picture from a magazine and is off centre. Realist2 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not acceptable and the article wont be able to pass FA with it. Realist2 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will find another image but i selected that one cause he looked the best in that one. But don't get all angry like you did with the mug shot when the new picture isn't as glamorous as i am assuming you will hope it to be.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If a lead picture portrays a living person in an unnessary bad light it wont be used. Realist2 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair-use image of a living person is not allowed in an infobox, per policy. It must be a free image. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu thankyou, i learn something new every day. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I added another picture. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i see, im going to look into getting it removed, as it was taken at his trial we know he was hospitalised twice, had a doctor in court to support him and had lost 2 stone in weight. It completely distorts what he looks like now in 2008. Realist2 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK NO. That is a neutral picture. He is in a car, not in the court room. If you remove that picture I WILL report it as vandalism. I have been bending over backwards to get an image that you approve of. Every-time you shoot it down with something that could possibly be argued but not this. Sorry your gonna have to deal with it. And BTW, don't give me that crap about not what he looks like in 2008, the old picture was from 1984 and he was still black!. I think you just have an issue with his current skin tone. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno, please be careful about what you say. Let's not accuse people about their motives when we don't know for sure.  If there were no copyright issues, that picture was good-but-not-great (forgetting about his alleged health and whatnot at the time, he was scowling, which is less than ideal for the main picture on a BLP).  Realist2 didn't remove it, so there was no reason to start with the vandalism-report threats.  Let's not get bent out of shape prematurely, okay?? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That current image was taken from virginmedia.com and uploaded to Flickr, claiming own copyright. This is illegal in itself. It was then uploaded to Commons, claiming CC-by-SA and copyright-free from that Flickr site. This is a breach of Commons policy. It was then linked here, again claiming free of copyright by virtue of being on Flickr. All these are lies, and the next time the user who uploaded this stolen image does any such thing, an indefinite block will be in order. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If i can download it as they do offer on their site then it would be the definition of CC-BY-SA. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any copyright release whatsoever at the virginmedia site, in fact my lawyer's training tells me that if they are providing it as "wallpaper" they are providing it for personal use of the downloader only, not for redistribution and certainly not with a wider copyright licence than they grant to that downloader. Thin ice here, very thin ice, and you'd be better off on some solid ground. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no right to be rude and threaten me. It one thing to tell me i uploaded an image with the wrong copy right label but to threaten me after i claimed a mistake will not be excepted. I put on the description to delete the image and i re-uploaded it as fair use image on wikipedia so don't give me all those "your sliding on thin ice" crap.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually ive never had an issue with his skin tone, i for one am capable of looking beyond such issue's, also if you look at my user page you will see that i favour the music he did when he had light skin. I liked Jackson's appearance in the 90's. However this picture isnt good at all, i find it quite troubling actually that a picture could ever be used of ANY person when they were at the time in a terrible state of health. As i asked the opinion of admins on every occasion i cant quite see where i went wrong.Realist2 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the "copyrighted" image in a dramatically shrunk version as a fair use image.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not being rude or threatening, i remember you threatening me with a report? You have just reinstated the fair - use picture. Its not allowed, it must be free. You were told this but you continue. Please, i advise you to revert your own edit, you are being disruptive and are possibly in violation of the 3RR. Realist2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, a fair use image is a copyrighted image that by law can be used without infringing the copyright law when used in a specail context. This image i uploaded is a FAIR USE IMAGE, it has been dramatically shrunk down and is allowed on wikipedia. This is not the previous image that i thought was "CC-BY-SA" (Image:Michael jackson-1024x768 wallpaper size.jpg), this is a shrunk down version of that and is know a fair use image and has a different name (Image:Michael jackson in a car.jpg). --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A rule is a rule ok, i would double check with the admin before reinstating if i were you. Realist2 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rodhullandemu tell me that it can't be in the info-box but that image has been relocated to the content of the page. So i will continue to find a new image. And btw, Rodhullandemu or anyone, could you please source where it says fair-use images can not be on an info-box. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC. The very first piece of policy. It's basic. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once more. A fair use image of a living person cannot be used in an infobox as it is a breach of policy since it could be replaced by a copyright-free image. The image that was there before IS a free image and is usable. From now one, anyone replacing with non-free images IS blocked until they show that they understand image policy, but I have better things to do. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411, you are not allowed that picture in the lead info box, and you cannot add it to the lead text either. This is getting absurd. Realist2 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I placed the image in the physical app. section. Now amuse me some more with another reason why this image won't be allowed to be on here. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is OK, but the caption was a breach of WP:NPOV. We do not tell the readers what they see when they can see it for themselves. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to remove it, not the picture but the text. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also im a little confused. You keep saying in a car but he isnt in a car. There is a guy behind him holding an umbrella. Realist2 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought he was in a car, guess not. Might want to request that to be changed. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A dont know how you reached that conclusion to be honest, it seems rather an odd assumption to make. Realist2 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IDK, i thought he was in the car. But i'm wrong so be sure to contact an admin. to get that fixed. And about the sickness thing you put, i know he was sick but you are not certain that if that image was taken was before, during, or after his sickness so you can not claim that. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He started becoming ill in 2003 when he was first arrested, he suffered for 2.5 years until June 2005. Realist2 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And it wasnt until the following year that he had recovered. Realist2 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

'Bad' Photo (RESOLVED)
There is a photo of MJ in a red 'Beat It' jacket and the picture description states it is MJ performing 'Bad' during the Bad Tour. The photo is clearly a few years after the Bad era. - Kaneite

Yeah its from the HISory tour and we already have a decent picture for that era. I removed it. I think we need something for the Dangerous era and then we have enough. Realist2 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think we do with one from his younger Jackson 5 days. 81.111.222.148 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We did have one but it was deleted for copyright issues. Realist2 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrections
"Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s" is not factually correct. It might arguably have have been so for a period of time, but that hasn't been the case for quite a number of years now.

Similary regarding, "often referred to as The King of Pop".

Most pop afficionados during the last en or more years would, if they knew of him, regard him as part of pop's history, rather the (current) king, or a still-dominant presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.229 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To your first point, if you carry on reading down the lead it does say very clearly that album sales has been in decline since the mid 1990's. Secondly, so is elvis a part of music history and he's still called the king of rock an roll. Until either are outsold or either are officially de-crowned by some other artist they retain their statues. On and a crappy Thriller reissue has almost sold 2 million copies already with zero promo. It might make your cry but a new studio album by Jackson if handled correctly will easily outsell his last stusio album. Lol its as if that trial saved his career not finished it. Bye. Realist2 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical current album is not evidence that he is still a major current pop artist. The fact is, it's been 7 years since he released an album. The "King of Pop" moniker was appropriate in the 1980's, but not so much presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.121.89 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like the king of rock and roll moniker isnt appropriate for elvis who hasnt released an album in decades right? Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

will.i.am (RESOLVED)
Maybe I missed something or maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying. The Will.i.am article has the "W" capitalized in the title of the article and in both places where the article talk about him. Shouldn't we be consist with the subject's article when we talk about him in other articles such as this one? Jons63 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

His page used to be lower case, it must have been altered. However if you go to his page again and look at his official website link its lower case. Lol I think no1 really nows. As every other letter in the name is lower case (even after a full stop) it makes sense that its all lower case. Certainly on the thriller album article we have written it as lower case. Realist2 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in proper case (Will.i.am) in the official website that the i.am clothing site links to. Since, these contain his own writing, I assume they are authoritative. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

HIStory
History is spelled wrong in the menu... thought you should know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.151 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Its ment to be like that. Realist2 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It it intended to be spelled that way, however it does violate Wikipedia MOS for song names. Normal capitalization is required. Any objections?   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its fine as it is, if it comes up as an issue at its future FA review then it can be altered at that point. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest we should go with the spirit of 1.2 of this guideline and leave it as is. For one thing, readers will ask themselves "Why isn't it spelled as the original is?", and we should not mismanage their expectations. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the album page itself is formatted in that way. So it would be kinda wierd to have it differently in different places. Besides HIStory has a meaning. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be fine by us - but there is no reason not to change it. It is compelled by MOS:Album Capitalization.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Compelled. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not compelled, MOS is a guideline and open to exceptions. Besides, WP:IAR exists to cover circumstances such as this. If, on the other hand, you think you can achieve consensus otherwise.... -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read the Titles and Section Headings guideline you referenced above -- good point. I wish this guideline applied to trademarks as well!  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, this time it is resolved. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sentences and portions seem outta place... (RESOLVED)
I'm having a difficult time wondering why Michael's success has to be mentioned as "something a black artist had never experienced" and "Michael was rarely referred to as a "black artist", which is controversial within itself. Also the paragraph that starts off the "Bad" section should be given its own own section within Michael's personal life page. Sorry that I didn't voice out on this after editing it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its true, who gives a damn if its controversial, lifes a bitch, black artists were treated like crap before MJ changed the rules, so...., as for the intro to the bad section, it used to come at the end of the Thriller section but as the Thriller section was so big i moved it. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But then again, you have to say had it not been for Berry Gordy's Motown Records label and its roster of artists, especially concerning The Supremes in the sixties and Diana Ross in the seventies, and for artists like Dionne Warwick, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye (even if his audience was still mostly predominantly black by the end of his career) and Isaac Hayes were the first black artists to sell well regardless of race and/or genres. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they sold well, but their sales were hampered significantly because of their race, its just a fact, no matter how unpleasant. What Jackson did was completely different, he ended the racial profiling, people forgot he was black because it didnt matter. Unfortunately for those other artists it was still a major issue. Remember one thing, those artists you mentioned, they could perform at the casinos for rich white folk but couldnt actually spend their money along side them. Go figure so to speak. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True. As unfortunate as that is, you are 100% right about that. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Life is a bitch, but we have michael jackson to thank for changing things, because of him black people can not only perform for white folk at casinos but also spend their money there, still that the past, things have changed, but we should always be greatful for what he did. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some copy editing suggestions (RESOLVED)
Having being asked to cast a fresh eye over the article, here's some stuff from the lead that struck me as problematic but which I thought needed fixing/considering by others rather than just me changing it:
 * "along with a distinctive style and vocals" Not sure what's meant here. Guessing something like "distinctive musical sound and vocal style"? Also, I'd split this into two sentences after "moonwalk" unless the specific aim is to suggest influence on both dance styles and musical styles.
 * Cheers, clarified
 * Using the Hot 100 era to qualify number ones does come across as a sneaky way of overtaking Elvis Presley, who has more number ones in the so-called rock era. Not a major issue, but does suggest a slight lack of balance.
 * Lol, completely legitimate, billboard, and many other sources say it when they praise jackson.
 * Thriller needs to be mentioned prior to the Guinness Awards reference (as it stands, there's more lead content about the reissue, which I'm not entirely convinced needs to go in the lead at all, than the original album).
 * But really, talking about the videos, influence etc, really that IS all about Thriller, it just doesnt say it.
 * The whole sentence beginning "This making" should go, in line with the "show, don't tell" approach for Wikipedia. The figures are there for the reader to see; surrounding them with peacock terms isn't best practice.
 * DONE
 * "Slept in his bed or bedroom" sounds awkward, sentence could be rewritten.
 * How, i think its important to be very precise with such an issue, i cant thing of anything
 * "Countries such as Bahrain" isn't good writing; ideally we'd name more countries, or else say "a number of countries, including Bahrain".
 * DONE

Will keep working through as I get time. Gusworld (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said with Presley, not a major issue (and the claim is properly specific). Sure, the videos/influence section is about Thriller, but it remains far and away the best-known achievement of Jackson's career, so I think it needs more prominence in the lead. For the awkward sentence, I think "revealed that children had slept in his bedroom" covers it adequately. If you really think both are needed, something like "children had slept in his bed or on the floor in his bedroom" would be better (no idea if the floor detail is correct, but I'm presuming the distinction was drawn somehow along those lines). Gusworld (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE

Copy editing and further thoughts
I've just made a large number of edits to the text. These are so numerous that I haven't justified them individually (most relate to expression and structure), but I'm happy to discuss the reasoning behind any of them on here. I've also added some more 'main' article sublinks throughout the text, and I put in a mention of Jackson's three most noteworthy albums in the lead, where they definitely needed mentioning. There's also a smattering of fact tags for specific information that lacks a source.
 * So you dont want american bias yet you put off the wall above dangerous in the lead. Blatant american bias. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in Off the Wall because it's one of the three Jones-produced albums, not as a deliberate snub to Dangerous. I'd actually make the case for mentioning more of Jackson's albums in the lead, probably including Dangerous and HIStory.Gusworld (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Put all 5 albums in lead.


 * The biggest change I made was to the description of the Billie Jean performance in the Influence section, which was way too long for an encylopedia article. I trimmed this quite heavily but kept all the cited descriptions.
 * Feel free to trim it, i just would like to see the difference, im insupport of cutting that down, there is more to his dancing that that one show. We can add so much more.

Some general observations on stuff I haven't touched yet but think need work: * Some of the finances material would make more sense in the chronological section (especially since 2007 is conspicuous by its absence). The stuff on the loans in particular is still hard to follow (I may have another go at tidying this up). * I appreciate that the general style used here has been to spell out all numbers, but I think that using numbers is more stylistically appropriate for chart positions, ages over ten and extremely high numbers (such as sales figures). I haven't made those changes for the most part but I'd very strongly advise them; "This album reached #39' is much easier to read than "This album reached number thirty-nine". That goes double with figures like $5 million, which I have changed. There's some debate in the Manual of Style over this, but there's no support for always spelling out numbers in every case as far as I can see.
 * The structure of the article does go a bit haywire after the chronologically organised career section. In particular, the themes and genres section seems to lean towards OR and POV material a lot and needs editing (I didn't do much here).
 * Have a go, generally i think it needs expanding anyway, it doesnt even talk about blood or invincible.
 * Agree, the latter part of the finances it bad, i say delete the end part (events of 2005 onward) and completely rewrite that paragraph.
 * Infact im pulling it off the article now, im bringing it to the talk page (below) for us to work on.
 * Ive you want to change to numbers go ahead
 * Happy to do that, but we need an explicit statement of principle -- will write one and add below.Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some material seems a bit arbitrary. For instance, we have discussion of the non-collaboration with Prince, but nothing about the similar experience with Madonna on 'In The Closet'. (Quite possibly that means the Prince material should go too, but it gives the impression of a random approach.) Why do we care what Mariah Carey thought about the fight with Sony? (Yes, she was married to TM, but I don't think her views are particularly relevant here.) Why do we need to know what song was performed at the Guinness presentation?  Why so much detail on the Naomi Campbell Superbowl ad?
 * The in the closet stuff is only really known about by those like you and me, the prince thing was bigger and more people have heard of it
 * Would need evidence for the claim the Prince thing is more widespread. More to the point, why aren't collaborations which did result in released records (such as Paul McCartney and Diana Ross) not mentioned? Those would be unquestionably better known but don't rate a mention here at all. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You try finding the in the closet thing in "The magic and the madness", its not there, yet Prince gets 2 pages. Infact its not in Jacksons book but is in madonnas one. -- Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

* The VH1 and Rolling Stone accolades for Off The Wall seem unneeded, especially in an overview article. The general conclusion on the albums Wikiproject is that rankings such as '500 best albums' ever are best avoided, and the Grammy and other awards make it clear that this is a highly-regarded album. * There's a bad case of recentism in the Thriller 25 material, which has far more detail on chart performance and contents than any release discussed in the article. I also think that there's a bit too much detail on the re-release in the lead (to put this in perspective, there's more Thriller 25 in the lead than on Bad or Dangerous, both markedly more successful albums). Is "For All Time" a new song or a newly released recording from the Thriller era? And a better source is needed for the claim that the new album will be released soon. **There is a link to the brits incident, its not major outside the UK.\ * The section on James Browns' funeral seems overlong relative to its relevance, as does the information on Jackson's visit to Africa. Not saying they shouldn't be there in some form, but there's excess detail right now. * The Wikipedia article on remix albums is highly suspect and not a good source for the claim that BIOTDF is the best-selling remix album of all time. * There's no time frame ascribed to the beginning of the 'Wacko Jacko' nickname.
 * Dont think thats a issue really.
 * Well, I don't agree, but there are bigger problems to resolve certainly. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The presentation of chart data is both US-centric and a little biased. When Jackson's albums are topping the US chart, this is delineated in some detail; when that stops happening, suddenly we get chart figures from other countries. The presentation should be balanced in each case (which probably means both adding figures for other countries and perhaps compressing some of the US material). Same problem with some of the Grammy detail: why does the History section name a category the album was nominated for but not the category it actually won?
 * Because it had like 5 nominations and won 1. It does say what it one, video of the year.
 * Sure, but in the current format the nomination for Album of the Year comes first, which isn't neutral (it comes across as noting the most prestigious award first even though it wasn't won). I'd say that noting it had 5 nominations and what it won would be better than highlighting a single category. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorted, cut it down quite a bit.
 * No disputing Jackson has played percussion and other instruments, but I don't think anything other than vocalist belongs in his infobox -- Jackson isn't famous for being a multi-instrumentalist in the way that (say) Steve Wonder is.
 * Disagree, people are really supprised to find out he does play instruments, he gets a bit of a hard time as people think he cant.
 * The point of an encyclopedia article isn't to surprise people with unexpected facts. It's to provide an accurate and relevant summary of a given topic. Jackson's fame is primarily as a singer, a dancer and (I guess) a composer. But I'll leave it for now and look into what the general policy for that infobox is. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Topics that don't get mentioned or only get mentioned fleetingly which I would expect to find more thoroughly treated in a Jackson article: Diana Ross, his relationship with his family post-Victory, the stage invasion by Jarvis Cocker at the Brits, Living With Michael Jackson. The latter pops up in the intro but isn't mentioned in the material on the 2003 trial; while this needs to be handled carefully and with respect for BLP policy, omitting it in the body clearly isn't justified.
 * Well firstly, I don't agree (it was a big deal at the time in Australia, for example) and secondly, just because it only happened in the UK isn't sole grounds for excluding it, especially given Jackson's success in that market at the time. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about africa, the brown incident is significant as it was his return to america after his trial.
 * Well, the text doesn't say that at all, so it's an odd argument for keeping the material. And it could still be expressed more concisely. Gusworld (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will remove
 * DONE
 * The reference names aren't consistently formatted; some have quotation marks, some don't. (I'd argue using them all the time is better.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusworld (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry i cant understand, can you rephrase what you are saying there, cheers.
 * Well, I see that Realist2 has decided to revert my edits on the grounds that they make the article "completely fractured". Clearly I wouldn't agree with that -- I'd like some specific examples of what's been fractured given the amount of work -- and having been asked to copy-edit the article I'm a tad concerned that every change I made (most of which were to improve expression, which is the major problem with this article raised at FAC) has been rejected rather speedily.
 * In any event, I'll just note that the issues I've raised above would definitely need to be addressed before the article would reach FA, regardless of whatever happens to the copy edits I made. Gusworld (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The FA review is fine with the content, only 3 people oppose the FA and thats purely on copy edit not stucture. The article is nearly there and doesnt need the overhaul you have suggested. 6 people support and 3 oppose. Those who oppose are not raising the issue of content. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how I'd read the FA review comments -- but even if you take that view, reverting the changes I made (which almost all concerned expression and structure) is not advancing the cause of clearer copy very much. And some of the comments above are about copy rather than structure. Gusworld (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The review has six support (myself included) with three opposes. None of the content concerns remain with them, all they want is a good copy edit and to then call them back. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather do the copy edit, see if they change their minds, which they has expressed a willingness to do, if they request more well we can take it from there. No one however is calling for a structural overhaul anymore. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but as you've no doubt seen, now I've added myself to the 'oppose' list -- the issues I raised in my edit and above definitely need to be addressed. But even leaving that aside, we both agree the copy edit is still needed. Given that you weren't happy with accepting any of the changes as a group, looks like we might need to discuss them one by one. Gusworld (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Im quite upset that you would use the FA as a tool against me, rather hurtful. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was one of the opposers on primarily copyedit grounds. I am not that familiar with MJ's career beyond the scandals, so it is difficult for me to identify issues with comprehensiveness. If someone familiar with the topic expresses those concerns, then his/her opinion should be respected and the concerns addressed. Also, everyone is encouraged to participate at FAC.  It is not a "tool against you", it is a way to make sure that an article meets the FA standards.  Gusworld feels that the article does not meet those standards and gave you an opportunity here to address his concerns.  After you expressed a complete disintrest in considering those concerns, he had a responsibility to state in the public forum that he felt the article was not ready. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ive removed the nomination, the article is clearly substandard. I will renominate when things are resolved. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack (and remember the WP:OWN policy); you suggested I get involved with the FA process, and that's what I've done. I wasn't thrilled to see several hours of editing work rejected summarily in half an hour either, but I'd rather continue to work through the issues I detect in the article with you (point by point if need be) rather than just give up because I'm annoyed. The article deals well with a complex and controversial topic, but it still has problems that need to be addressed to get to FA quality. Gusworld (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, ill get it done dont worry. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to slow down, take it slowely. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Finances - poor quality segment (RESOLVED)
Ive taken this part off the article, its terrible, too bad to be on the rest of article right now. We need to work on it here before readding. -- Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'''In 2005, Sony negotiated with a loans company on behalf of Jackson as his $200 million in loans were due in December 2005 so were secured on the music catalogue he purchased in 1985. Jackson failed to pay and Bank of America sold them to Fortress Investments, a company dealing in distressed loans. However, Jackson has not as yet sold any of the remainder of his stake. The possible purchase by Sony of twenty-five percent of Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a conditional option; it is assumed Jackson will try to avoid having to sell part of the catalog of songs, including material by other artists such as Bob Dylan and Destiny's Child. As another part of the deal Jackson was given a new $300 million loan, and a lower interest rate on the old loan to match the original Bank of America rate. When the loan was sold to Fortress Investments they increased the interest rate to twenty percent. An advisor to Jackson, however, did publicly announce he had "restructured his finances with the assistance of Sony." '''

'''Jackson owes a five million interest payment to Fortress Trust, the publicly traded hedge fund that bought his two hundred and seventy million dollar loan from Bank of America in April 2005. The loan has been refinanced to $325 milion by Fortress. The payment was due on October 31, 2007. Soon after this payment, Jackson's spokesperson announced on March 16, 2006 that Jackson was closing his house at Neverland and had laid off some of the employees but added that reports of the closing of the entire ranch were inaccurate. Rumours of possible bankruptcy have been around for a decade but have not materialised. '''

I'd propose something like this (uses the same sources but covers the material more succintly and in chronological order):


 * Reports of financial problems for Jackson become more prominent in 2006 after the closure of the main house on the Neverland Ranch as a cost-cutting measure One prominent financial issue for Jackson concerned a $270 million loan secured against the music publishing catalog he originally purchased in 1985. Jackson had merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division in 1995 but retained half-ownership. After delayed repayments on the loan, a refinancing package in 2005 shifted the loans from Bank of America to debt specialists Fortress Investments. A new package proposed by Sony in April 2006 would have seen Jackson lent an additional $300 million and reduced the interest rate payable on the loan, while giving Sony the future option to buy half of Jackson's stake in the publishing company. Jackson agreed to a Sony-backed refinancing deal, although full details were not made public.

Gusworld (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, i dont unerstand his money issues, when it comes to these loans, so im happy with that. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A related possibility would be to mention the sale of the half-share to Sony in 1995 earlier in the finance section (there's already a sentence about the original purchase there), which would make this section a bit less dense and make his business history with publishing clearer. That is, put the sentence "Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division in 1995 but retained half-ownership" with the same reference straight after the original mention of the purchase. Then use the rest of the rewritten para minus that sentence at the end. Gusworld (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would be better. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1987 photo of Michael during "Bad" era
I don't understand how that picture gets allowed to stay up there. That picture seems a little private or from a fan who had it posted when he was doing the tour. I vote for it to be out of the page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, its free use, on wiki commons. Do yu have a better alternative? Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I actually don't understand why that certain picture is being put there, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article lacks pictures as it is, removing another that is completely free seems unwise. Like i said, if you can offer something better go right ahead. But there is no reason to remove the picture. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also the only picture in the article that actually shows Jackson's face (the main govt-sourced photo is a good iconic image but doesn't do that). Unless fans start offering pics up to Wiki commons, this is probably as good as it will get. Gusworld (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True. Seems most like where it is too, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, we are in no position right now to be removing pictures, particulary those we have every legal right to host. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical appearance - poor segment (Stale - reinstated)
I have removed this segmant of the physical appearance section, its unsourced, although its hardly controversial, it could be written better, possibly expanded. I really think we need pictures to show his flamboyant cloths, particularly his military jackets of the 90's.

'''Jackson's outfits have been central components of his image. In the early 1980s he wore a sequined white glove, the jackets in the "Thriller" and "Beat it" music videos, white socks (with short pants to emphasize them) and other sparkling jackets. In the late 1980s to late 1990s Jackson shifted to wearing fedoras, military jackets, shin pads, sunglasses and plasters on his fingers (or occasionally a pair of black sparkling gloves). He continued to wear white socks with short pants. In the 2000s Jackson rarely appears in flamboyant costumes, occasionally wearing shin pads, but usually a red shirt, black full-length pants and sunglasses. Over time his hair went from short and curly to long and curly and then to long and straight.'''

-- Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictures would definitely help. I also think that the clothing descriptions would be better within the context of the main chronology rather than separate, since those images are associated closely with performances at the time (particularly in the case of Motown 25 and the gloves/socks/fedora combo). Having the stuff about facial/skin appearance works well (and keeps it from distracting the main narrative), but the outfits are part of Jackson's performance history rather than personal history. Gusworld (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Infact, if we get picture, i dont think words are needed at all for his costumes. We need to get pictures with fair use rationals. Something I cant do. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been suggested to will readd to article. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Five days is not terribly long to await comment on a problematic section. I agree that while uncontroversial, this section could use improvement and possibly some references, so will need copy editing at some stage before the article goes up for FA again. Gusworld (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)