Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 27

Note 10
Note 10 in the article lists "Campbell (1995), pp. 14–16", but the References has two books by Lisa Campbell, so it is unclear which one the note refers to. Can someone familiar with the works please clarify this? &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 10 would refer to the book published in 1995 by Campbell. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be The King of Pop's Darkest Hour ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson family home address in Gary. VH1, also easily found on web and book biographies
The family lived on 2300 Jackson St. near Roosevelt Park which Michael often reflected upon his inability to play with neighbor hood children because of his father's incessant desire for the boys to practice.

Please review for edit/discussion. Joplinplayer (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)joplinplayer


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a fanbase. No-one needs to know where he lives; its of no use to anyone. And his childhood issues are addressed later anyway. -- Flash flash  ;  16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Death a Hoax?
Los Angeles, California – Several well-placed sourced have indicated that Michael Jackson is alive. Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources close to the pop icon confirmed that Mr. Jackson did suffer what they called a “respiratory and cardiac emergency” on June 25, which prompted a 911 call. Upon his arrival at the hospital, Mr. Jackson’s condition was initially classified as critical, but later downgraded to guarded. During this time, the sources confirmed, there was a media blackout regarding Mr. Jackson’s condition. Meanwhile, rumors that the singer had died began to swirl, reaching a fever pitch worldwide within hours. Sales of Mr. Jackson’s music catalogue immediately skyrocketed, resulting in income to Mr. Jackson that even he had never before experienced in his storied career. The sources confirm that Mr. Jackson’s debts are well in excess the $500 million previously reported, and may in fact be in excess of $1 billion. At the same time, the anticipated net revenue from Mr. Jackson’s planned comeback concerts in London barely exceeded the enormous expenses associated with producing the comeback spectacle. Mr. Jackson’s financial team had concluded that his comeback tour, even if a popular success, would fail to retire his debt, leaving him still deeply in the red. The unprecedented income generated by his reported passing, however, far surpassed the best-case goal of his anticipated comeback tour or any other planned projects. As a result, Mr. Jackson has remained hospitalized and in seclusion. Rumors that Mr. Jackson’s death had been fabricated began to emerge in recent days when there had been no reports of anyone who had actually seen his body. Sources say that Mr. Jackson is planning to emerge in the coming days and announce a confusion of identity with an unidentified body transported to the hospital at approximately the same time that he was admitted. (European News Consortium). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.193.103 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense on stilts without a reliable source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nonsense, period. Anyone who believes it needs to be medicated. WillOakland (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It would make for interesting reading if included as a theory on MJ's death. We should always seek to encourage different points of view and creativity. Besides "everybody knows" MJ is actually living with Elvis in the West Indies. Ijustcan&#39;tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, here is one clue to how the hoax was staged: Why and how Dimitrie Draghiescu died in Jackson's place 85.227.196.162 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly clears up the reliable source issues... Wperdue (talk)wperdue
 * Seriously?! Come on people. Zazaban (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You missed my sarcasm. Obviously a blog intimating that Michael Jackson might have been a vampire is obviously not reliable. Wperdue (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Forget it. Like Kennedy, conspiracy theories will abound. Without reliable sources, it ain't gonna happen here. Bollocks on stilts, otherwise. Rodhull andemu  00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia has an article about the rumours about Elvis living (Elvis_Presley_phenomenon). The King of Pop died like The King: heart attack, mysterious circumstances, questioned autopsy, rumours about death being a hoax and he (Michael) was nearly buried at Neverland, his version of Graceland. With all these similarities the rumours about Jacksons death are here to stay and if it is possible to mention them in relation to The King it should also be possible to mention them in relation to The King of Pop. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that "Elvis is alive somewhere" is a popular urban legend. However, at the moment there is not enough sourcing to say the same about Michael Jackson, and this could be seen as tasteless.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ELVIS IS DEAD!!?? Ijustcan&#39;tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed.elvis is alive or dead.same can be said for mjMjfan1 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ATV Songs
Verifiable statements and opinions by Jackson and McCartney - or their appointed representatives at the time (eg lawyers) are encyclopedic. The opinions of a biographer of Jackson - on the topic of what McCartney could or could not afford are strictly the opinion of a solitary non-participant and do not belong in an encyclopedic article. The fact that such text may have been in the article for a period of time - without its inappropriateness for inclusion having been identified - is no reason to retain the text once it has been flagged and removed. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

McCartney claimed he and Yoko were ready to buy back the Beatles catalog, and MJ bought it out from under them without their prior knowledge. McCartney hasn't spoken to Jackson since that period, and this was the reason he had not. I read the various interviews with him myself at the time. Of course that isn't stated here. This MJ bio appears to make him a saint who did nothing wrong, and that any negative looking accusations that are even included here were all practically automatic lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We did have Paul's criticism in the article, but a rational sourced response to that criticism was removed continuously, so it became a neutrality issue. — Please comment  R  2  15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So then McCartney's account is left out, while this bio makes it appear he had no interest until after MJ, which makes no sense and which Macca's account is completely contrary. Once again, MJ does nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pan syndrome
Does this really need to be in the see also section, seems trivial. — Please comment  R  2  02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic is a strange little paradox. The syndrome is something that Jackson has been labeled with by the press and is based on the popular understanding of him that has developed in his later years. The notion of "peter-pan syndrome" has no basis in real psychologoy and is a pop-culture term. The catch is that within conversation and media coverage i've never heard people use the term to describe anything other than Jackson. So while his link to the "sydrome" may be trivial he is essential to its public understanding. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:SEEALSO section is for stuff that isn't already integrated into the article, but which plausibly could fit into it. As for plausibility, the connections between Jackson and Peter Pan are endless (e.g.,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ad infinitum), with the most (in)famous association coming from Jackson himself. Portillo (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware the grounds for "see also" were that of plausible peripheral connection. If that is the case than I would support the continued inclusion of the "see also". And while I may dislike the use of such a pseudo-phychology term, there is no doubting it has substantial verifiability within the press as it relates to Jackson. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is the best place to bring this, but this came up the other day. Psychologist J.Michael Bailey (who specialises in paraphilias) has written about MJ on 'Scientific Blogging':- &
 * When I read Portillo's comment I had a bit of déjà vu, which might have something to do with this. Anyway, as for "real psychology", the broader concept of puer aeternus comes up in depth psychology, which isn't mainstream academic psychology but isn't exactly "pop psychology" either. Moreover, mainstream psychologists are cited in the Jackson-Pan sources, and serious studies of everything from anorexia nervosa to gallbladder surgery have used the term. Add to all of this Jackson's own declaration, "I am Peter Pan", and you've probably got a decent case for mentioning the syndrome. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: "trivial (peter pan syndrome)" I dont agree that section is trivial at all. I think that many don't understand Michaels view of life and that section is very important to the type of person that he became because of his childhood, his life, and the person that he became. We all tend to have one opinion in common, that Michael never really grew up. That he remained a child in his heart and not only that but strangely to some, he remained a child in all that he did. Its also a very likely factor in his success. The ability to see fun, and look at things in a child like way contributed to his innovations, ideas, and just out there entertainment actions that made him the King of Pop and one of the BEST entertainers that ever lived.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the PETER PAN SYNDROME:

Peter Pan syndrome Sister project Look up Peter Pan syndrome in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Peter Pan syndrome is a pop-psychology term used to describe an adult who is socially immature. The term has been used informally by both laypeople and some psychology professionals in popular psychology since the 1983 publication of The Peter Pan Syndrome: Men Who Have Never Grown Up, by Dr. Dan Kiley. (Kiley also wrote a companion book, The Wendy Dilemma, published in 1984.)

Peter Pan syndrome is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder.

Musician Michael Jackson may have had Peter Pan Syndrome. [14][15][16] In a 2003 interview, Jackson told interviewer Martin Bashir, "I am Peter Pan". Bashir then said, "No, you're Michael Jackson". Jackson then stated, "I'm Peter Pan in my heart". Jackson named his former home "Neverland Ranch". Neverland is the fantasy island in the story of Peter Pan, where children never have to grow up.

Rest in Peace Michael. 63.229.82.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Spelling Issues
Several words in the article, including the word 'honour/honor' are spelt in both British and American English. Should one type be chosen for the article? Mackay64 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find any English spellings, change them to American please :) — Please comment  R  2  14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:ENGVAR. Although it does not matter which version of English spelling an article uses, Michael Jackson is considered to be in American English.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think British English would be more appropriate in a scholarly text. Gives an article a more intellectual feel. Ijustcan&#39;tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Children
Should there be articles on his children, or has it been decided in a past discussion that there shouldn't be? 24.238.83.118 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be strongly opposed to creating pages for any of them, as they have done nothing to earn notability outside of being Jackson's children. These aritcles would also very likely be a nightmare to enfore the standards of biographies of living persons as vandalism and tabloids would be likely be prone to these children. Furthermore on moralistic gorunds I feel we should respect their privacy to a degree and not place anymore of a spotlight on these children than has already been done. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Notability is not inherited and the children are not notable for anything other than being MJ's children. In fact it is tempting to request that pages for the children be protected against creation. – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would most definately second this request. Until one of them does of their own to attract notability (not likely for preteens) these pages should be prevented. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I DONT agree at all. Perhaps there shouldn't be articles as there is nothing to say of them until they decide to let us know them (if they do). However they should be mentioned and talked about in his biography here. Michael had children and any BIOGRAPHY or attempt at one mentions spouses, family members and children sired. Those were his children and a huge part of his life, also the reason why he was out of sight for sometime, devoting himself to his kids. I think that we should Definately have a mention of the children Michael the first (Prince), Paris, and Michael II (blanket) Nicknames in or out thats the question. Ages should be included too. Its only that for some reason (maybe that today was michaels funeral (July 07, 2009) it seems that this article is locked for Editing. Ill be honest and say that I think jealousy or something is the only reason not to list his kids names. It seems only natural to do so. Look at any wikipedia page on an artist and you will see the names of their children. 63.229.82.34 (talk)
 * No one is disputing whether his children should be mentioned in this article. Indeed, due mention is made of their births, Jackons custody of them, and one of the few pictures in this article features them. What is under discussion is whether they warrant their own articles. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't find any sources
This information should be added but I can't find any sources on the internet any to cite these facts. Can anyone help and add them to the article?:
 * In 1992, Michael Jackson performed in a concert against racism in Austin, Texas. The show raised $8000 for charity.
 * Although not commercially well known, he co-produced two short horror films "In Dead Moonlight (1995)" and "Werewolves Of Canada (1998)" with Quincy Jones.--122.57.81.126 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Realist is reverting my efforts to tighten the lead. Can you say, please, what is legally or factually inaccurate? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is not "child molestation" it is "child sexual abuse". Secondly, there is no way of measuring "badly" damaged his image, the album he released after the 1993 allegations broke numerous records. Thirdly, the Bad video did not have a cultural influence. The article body clearly shows the "Black or White" and "Scream" were the most monumental of his career after the Thriller era videos. The lead is being change regularly with no discussion, his 90's music is being scrubbed off the lead that the expense of American 80's nostalgia. We work on consensus, that's how everything worked prior to the death, and it worked. Now people only use the talk page to bicker as to whether he is a Muslim. Very sad. — Please comment  R  2  14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. What is the difference between child molestation and child sexual abuse? He was charged with seven counts of child molestation.


 * 2. You have again removed the date of his death from the lead, which I can't even begin to imagine the reason for.


 * 3. Why do you say the Bad video had no cultural influence? Don't you remember the impact it had? And why not just add the ones you do think were more influential, rather than reverting the entire copy edit? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The technical term is child sexual abuse, there was no penetration. The cultural influence of Bad really isn't discussed in the body, at least not to the degree that it's noteworthy to the lead. On the other hand, Black/White was watched by 500 million people when released and Scream broke so many records. — Please comment  R  2  15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are the dates on the death and funeral needed at the bottom? The date of the death is given in the very first line and the info box. Why does the memorial date need mentioning? We don't mention the date he releases records or was acquitted. It's recentism. — Please comment  R  2  15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The dates are needed at the end for the sake of the flow of the writing, and because they are major issues.


 * Please produce a source showing that the "technical" term is child sexual abuse, and what does penetration have to do with it? He was charged with child molestation. And it doesn't matter whether Bad is discussed in the body.


 * Look, Realist, I understand the need to want to "own" FAs, and other articles you've worked on a lot. I understand it, and I respect it, and a little bit of "ownership" is needed with FAs and articles that attract a lot of attention, otherwise they go to hell in a handbasket. But that completely justified sense of protectiveness can't extend to protecting Michael Jackson the person, or to changing legal terms, or misinterpreting policies, or trying to force this article, which is a biography of the person to focus mostly on his music. The article is too long, too wordy, too music-oriented, and I think too protective of him. Issues are swept under the carpet, moved to other articles, explained in a way that makes the chronology unclear. I think you do have to let other people edit it a little for flow. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If this were a newspaper, it will never go to bed. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made your opinion on the article clear, but this is how it passed FA. The article isn't too ong, although it has expanded a bit since the FA review, slowly we'll get it back. But during the review as Sandy Georgia noted. People were asking for more and more information, at some point she just had to close it. His primary notability is his music and his personal life is sufficiently covered here. We have numerous articles dedicated to his personal life, more than any other public figure I imagine. Also note that child molestation redirects to child sexual abuse. — Please comment  R  2  15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He was charged with child molestation, and that is the term we should use. As for the focus, this is a biography. There are articles on all the albums, singles, and videos. This article should focus on his life, and of course the music is a part of that, but it is only a part. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The types of child sexual assault section from that article explains the differences between the terms. I don't see any reason not to call it child molestation. Why not be specific with which type of abuse was alleged? --Onorem♠Dil 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work. — Please comment  R  2  16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A question about "lack of evidence"
In the lede, it references the fact that the 1994 charges were dropped for "lack of evidence" without also pointing out that the reason there was no evidence is that Jackson settled with the family out of court, and subsequently Jordan Chandler quit cooperating with the police. If it's going to be noted that the charges were dropped for "lack of evidence" in the lede, should the settlement not also be noted in the lede? In my view, as it currently stands, having one in the lede but not the other unbalances the article in that it prejudices it in favor of "he must have been innocent" which is different than being found "not guilty." Just my $0.02, as I didn't want to insert a mention of the settlement into the lede without discussion. Unitanode 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed that twice. Realist reverted once, but as things stand now, it just says no charges were brought. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Jackson settled a CIVIL case out of court. The state closed the CRIMINAL case due to lack of evidence. The state could still have prosecuted without the boy on the stand, although it wouldn't have helped their case. — Please comment  R  2  15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The witness withdrew because of the settlement. There was therefore no case that could go forward. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the state was still investigating the case after the out of court settlement, hoping to bring criminal proceedings. A victim does not need to appear in court, especially when they have already made statements to police and social services. — Please comment  R  2  15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is technically true, but Jordan Chandler (as is noted in the article body) quit cooperating at all with the police after the multimillion dollar settlement. That's why the charges were dropped, and if if "lack of evidence" is going to be cited in the lede, the settlement needs to be as well. I loved Jackson as much as anyone back in the 80s, but there's no need to sugarcoat what he was accused of, and how he dealt with it, is there? I don't know whether he was guilty or not. It doesn't matter whether he was guilty or not. What matters is making sure this article isn't biased one way or the other. Unitanode  16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The challenge here is to write in a comprehensive and disinterested way about this man's complex life, staying true to the better sources, neither praising nor denigrating unduly, and with no sugarcoating of any kind, but also not with unjustified emphasis on the negative. It is quite a challenge. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The state could still have prosecuted without Chandler had they wished, they obviously did not believe they could secure a conviction without the accuser appearing in court however. Regardless, I think the civil stuff could be mentioned, but the personal paragraph is getting very large now. It might be worth removing the marriages stuff to make room for this. — Please comment  R  2  16:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just have a quick comment here. In the article "Was Michael Jackson Framed?", written by Mary A. Fisher, and published in GQ Magazine in October of 1994, it is stated that Jackson was a victim of extortion by Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler's father. Do you think this should be included in this biography?Tintin719 (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Struggled to receive coverage on MTV because he was African American.
According to an article in the Jet (magazine) that statement is controversial and not a fact, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_110/ai_n16807343/. According to MTV the relative (though not complete) lack of black artists on MTV was caused by MTV concentrating mostly on rock music, a genre in which black artists are underrepresented. Someone with editing privileges should change it. See also related comments at the talk page of Billie Jean and Thriller. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it to Thriller for you, I'll add it here to. — Please comment  R  2  16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that does not solve the factual inaccuracy. That MJ "struggled to receive coverage on MTV because he was African American" is an accussation and should be presented as such and not as a fact. And it should be said why MTV denies these accussations, that is, because they concentrated on rock music in their early years, a genre that is predominantly "white". According to MTV they also did not bow to the pressure of CBS. Actually, in fact the statement are not even official MTV statements, but statements by Les Garland and Buzz Brindle who were working for MTV back then but not these days and were interviewd by the JET magazine as private persons who formerly worked for MTV. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks. — Please comment  R  2  17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested link to 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey
Michael Jackson's 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey was notable for the length and detail of personal revelations which Michael shared with Oprah, many of which he had never previously made public. We should include a link to the full text, which is available at http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/interviews/oprahinterview.html.

hi I noticed that it says that the interview with Martin Bashir was from the year 1993, but it is from 2003 " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352524/ " --Binga83 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed under Death and Memorial Service Section
Currently reads "The Reverend Al Sharptonwon a standing ovation ..." Can someone who can edit please add a space between Sharpton and replace "won" with "received"? Thanks PRONIZ (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

spelling mistake
"During the two years between the charges and the trial, Jackson reportedly became dependent on pethidine (Demerol), and lost a lot of weight."
 * Done. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time, be bold. ;)  The left orium  21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

suggested edit
Change "at aged 50" to "at age 50" within first section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todayishere (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline
Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight loss
Several of the Jackson articles say that the shape of his face changed because of weight loss, though I can't imagine anyone's face changing to that extent because they lose weight. The claim is always sourced to Taraborrelli, pp. 138–144. This is a large page range for a claim about weight loss. Could the person who added that material tell us what Tarborrelli says exactly, with a page number? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead reverts
I have been reverted two times, one for a 'mess' reason, the second one with no reason given except to ask here (sounds rude to me). So, I ask: why the revert? My point is Elvis Presley is given the cultural icon title just after the first sentence. MJ is greater than The King, so why can't we put at minimum the same definition just after the first sentence here for MJ? For excerpt, elvis is refered as A cultural icon, he is commonly known simply as Elvis and is also sometimes referred to as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King". So, the Sometimes referred to as "The King of Pop", he is a cultural icon and a noted humanitarian doesn't sound messy, stupid, unsourced, nor false to me like an affirmation, here, in that article. Besides, I agree the lead is quite long. But that's another point. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 13:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit
under the heading -Music videos and choreography "Martin scoucese who directed the film bad later, said of the singer and dancer that it was 'like watching quicksilver in motion.'

'I was in awe of his absolute mastery of movement on the one hand, and of the music on the other. Every step he took was absolutely precise and fluid at the same time"

Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1486109.php/Shocked_world_pays_tribute_to_King_of_Pop_#ixzz0KgQUpoQR&C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomoal99 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this article now LOCKED? There is no way to edit? Please help.
I find the begining of this article a bit bias. I think the wording should be changed and that there should be mention that this artist was cleared of all charges, and pronounced innocent by a trial by jury.

The one thing not mentioned that is clearly important is the fact that Michael is and was the most famous man/star in the world and that there was MUCH speculation about the fact that there were significant signs that the people pursuing Jackson under those charges later proven to be false dropped charges once Michael agreed to settle by giving them the money amount that they wanted. I do believe that is important to add since accusing someone of a crime until they settle on an amount of money to be paid to you is a CRIME in itself.


 * "now we know that we know nothing, now that our bright and shining star can slip away from our fingertips like a softly blowing summer wind... in the instant we learned that michael is gone we know nothing..each of us is achingly alone, piercingly alone. Only when we confess our confusion can we remember what he meant to us...." exerpt of Maya Angelou's poem to Michael during his funeral July 07, 2009.:: 63.229.82.34 (talk)

I don't necessarily think that the article is biased, however, I do think that items that were brought up in court should be noted here, such as the mother of the 2nd accuser being previously charged with welfare fraud, which may or may not challenge her credibility. This information is included on encyclopedia.com and should also be listed on Wikipedia. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead again
I've once again tried a copy edit of the lead for flow. Here is the new version. Here is the old one. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On a quick glance, I must say, I kind of like it, I'll read it a few more times to see if it clicks. — Please comment  R  2  16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the KoP title has got to be moved further down (at least out of the first line), people will scream that it's a NPOV violation. — Please comment  R  2  16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the comments I noticed was that people wanted that in the first sentence, which is why I added it. Anyway, it's not an NPOV violation. It's true that he was called that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm not sure it sets the right tone, but right now, I can't be bothered with such minor issues. — Please comment  R  2  17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have very minor issues with it here and there, but overall I like it. I'll just make a few more cosmetic changes to ensure the prose flows smoothly.UberCryxic (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Album
There is missing a album in the album list (Blood on the dance floor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.214.202 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however we only list studio albums, Blood is not one. — Please comment  R  2  17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Children of Michael Jackson
Consensus on this page does not effect that article; it's determined by the AfD. Because people here didn't want them to have an article is now a moot point, so there's no reason not to link to it. Let the closing admin deal with it, as with all AfDs. Michael Jackson doesn't get special rules, we should follow our longstanding global consensus on how to deal with articles at AfD, not follow some small minority here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove the external links
Maybe we should remove the external links? Quite a few seem to be clogging up, most of them tell us nothing more than what the article does, and it might give us back 1000 bytes to write something useful on Jackson. — Please comment  R  2  20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Persecution by the media
I suggest that we include a page where we write about the relation between Michael Jackson and the media. This has been a very constant topic in his music: have a look at Scream, Tabloid Junkie, the video for "leave me alone", the song Privacy. After Jackson's death there were various magazines that talked about the relation between bad media coverage and his drug disease. Much of the seemingly "eccentric" behavior can be explained by the fact that Michael Jackson had not private life. He himself explains the creation of Neverland and the fact that it has a cinema and a theme park with he being persecuted by media and not able to enjoy a trip to public cinema or theme parks. Debbie Rowe mentions that one reason for divorcing was that she could not stand any more having this life being surrounded by media and not being even allowed to go to the grocery store. --Elaste2000 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had started work on such an article prior to the death, though it would have been a little more neutral than "persecution". :) Now that he has died, the media might reflect on their behavior. — Please comment  R  2  20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So shouldn't we start writing such an article ... we can also call it Michael Jackson's Relationship with Tabloids or something more neutral. I just can't include the link in the main article because I have no editorial rights. Where do you have this article that you have worked upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaste2000 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment I've just been collecting references, but everything MJ related is too unstable at the moment. It will be a month or so before I create it. — Please comment  R  2  21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how things work here, as I only registered today - but I have some newspaper- and magazine-articles that talk about this, Jackson is mentioning his relationship with the media in this documentary "take two: the footage you were never meant to see" and then there are a bunch of interviews that he gave also. This could be related to a list of the scandals that were brought up and are questionable. In his early biography Jackson also mentions the problems with the media. And related to this material seem to be some reactions. Which references have you collected?--Elaste2000 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Wiki Honor
Someone should quickly add the fact in the summary of the King of Pop's page, that on 7 July 2009, during his memorial service Michael Jackson had been dubbed The Greatest Entertainer of All Time.

22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.144.80 (talk)

By whom? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Berry Gordy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Memorial
Hi there, Pls do include the name of Judith Hill (African-Japanese) as the lead singer during the finale song of the memorial. Many people are combing on the net for her unknown identity but after some searching, we found out her name through other posts but not wikipedia. Please assist to include. Thanks a lot.

Claricecmw (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable references that it was 'Judith Hill'? -- Flash flash  ;  16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why someone added to Michael Jackson's Bio that his funeral was intially being reported as the largest in the world. I believe there are many who's funerals were much larger, most recently, Pope John Paul II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gootie01 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lupus and vitiligo
On Good Morning America, Michael's dermatologist stated that Michael had lupus and was being treated for that auto-immune disease for quite a long time. Michael was hypersensitive to sunlight and had to shield himself from the sun's UV rays, which explains the need for the eyeglasses, masks, and umbrella he often carried. The lupus also left terrible scarring on his skin, which he received painful treatments to handle.

The vitiligo that Michael had was particularly severe and posed a major problem for him. It covered all of his body and it was easier to bleach the skin than to try to cover all the whiteness with dark makeup, which would have run anytime he perspired. The Dermatologist said that Michael thought he should look like a work of art and that would explain all the plastic surgery, some of which was required because of the lupus scarring too. Michael was misunderstood and much maligned because he kept his sickness private. Outwardly, he appeared odd, but in fact, he was doing what he had to do to keep from exacerbating his disease. Unfortunately, his dancing probably exacerbated the lupus, since strenuous exercise has to be avoided. Also, his reliance on pain killers and sleep aids obviated all the other precautions he took to avoid exacerbating the lupus. He was a physically ill man and the media's portrayal of him only made him sicker. To read about his lupus go to http://stateandlake.net/ado/2009/06/29/did-michael-jackson-have-discoid-or-systemic-lupus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.223.240 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

-- this article already mentions his changing appearance, health problems, and vitiligo, so I don't really know what you're getting at. As for the Lupus, I myself have never read about it, but if you can provide a verifiable source, then by all means, do so. But, there is no legitimate verifiable source that he bleached his skin, unless you include speculative comments made by individual reporters, or tabloid articles. Michael stated in an Oprah Winfry interview (see the link in the section below) that he did not bleach his skin, but that he did use make-up. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical style and performance
Should we move the musical style and performance section to its own article? That would shave this article down to 101 kb. We could summarize the style/performance article here, summary-style. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, then it would fail FA. He is primarily a musician. That info was specifically added to the articles during the review, per requests. I do agree that we need to expand the info on the documentary/trial, something I lobbied for in the past, but got no feedback. — Please comment  R  2  17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it might fail FA now, anyway. There's not enough about material that is now widely known and pivotal, and it really ought to be added, but length is a serious problem. Which other sections could you stand to see moved or shortened? Seems to me that the style section is an obvious candidate, because it needs to be dealt with in depth, but it's a separate article in its own right, length-wise, as it stands. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section has expanded a little bit since the death. I can revert it back to the state it was in prior to his death if you like, and see how much space we get back? — Please comment  R  2  17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't much shorter then. Which other sections could you stand to see moved or shortened, if not this one?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no section can be removed, they are all needed. I'll revert it back to the length it was at pre death, give me a chance, we can always but it back, at least it will be a start. — Please comment  R  2  18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried it and it gives us back 1.2 K, it's certainly helpful anyway. — Please comment  R  2  18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help. We need to get this below 100 kb, even with the material that needs to be added, so ideally below 90 kb. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The legacy section seems repetitive, almost like a second lead. Is there anything in there that's not in the rest of the article somewhere? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply not going to happen, no-one at the review wanted anything like that, everyone was calling for more information, not less.


 * I can do it the other way around, remove info from other parts of the article, since their already mentioned in the legacy section (we do need a legacy section). — Please comment  R  2  18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be so long. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's length is still acceptable, at least amongst the FA system. Threatening to wipe 35 K off the article is absurd. It simply can't happen. You need to be reasonable. — Please comment  R  2  18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Michael Jackson already has enough splinter articles as it is. Analysis of his artistry is central to his biography and is more than appropriate for the main article. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again to Slim, are you still open to reverting this section back to it's pre-death state. It will give us back 1.2 K... It's better than nothing. Let me know. — Please comment  R  2  19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not Slim, but having looked it over (both versions), I think this is the most tenable solution, at least for now. I can't fathom how 35KB could possibly be trimmed from this article without it seeming gutted in the extreme. Unitanode  15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Businessman
Realist, you said there was consensus to add to the first sentence that he was a businessman. Can you show me where? He is not notable as a businessman, so I'd be strongly in favor of removing that. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was first disputed here, or there about. Consensus was that he is a businessman. — Please comment  R  2  18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can't see consensus there. People seem to be arguing against it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I would argue against inclusion of that word in the article, I only see one user (CoM) making a strong argument against it at the discussion linked above, and several arguing for it. My main beef with it would be that being a "businessman" is in no way why he's notable. Why should it be included, when really, no one comes to this article wondering "I'd really like to know more about that businessman, Michael Jackson"? How does including it aid and assist the readers of the article? Information about his business dealings can be included without referring to him as something which seems much more appropriate to an article on Warren Buffett than Michael Jackson? Unitanode  18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only CoM argued against it. We later had a request for comment on the issue, but it doesn't seem to be in the archive, are they sent elsewhere? — Please comment  R  2  18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several people arguing against it in the link you posted above. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm trying to find the RfC, more people commented, it just doesn't seem to be in the archive. Still more people agreed to it in that link, and numerous sources were presented in favor, no1 presented evidence against. — Please comment  R  2  18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs to go because it looks silly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but sources say otherwise. — Please comment  R  2  18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me a good source who describes him in the first sentence of their article or book as a businessman. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to do any such thing. Multiple sources describe him as a businessman. I'm under no such strict burden. — Please comment  R  2  19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources such as? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some are in archive link. — Please comment  R  2  19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC here, followed by arguments raised again by CoM here and finally here. Consensus still weighs in favor of keeping it as an accurate term. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that Bookkeeper. — Please comment  R  2  16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Today I have read on the Internet that MJ was able to earn 42% percent of the wholesale price of his CDs as much as noone else. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead
We seem to have some disputes regarding the content in the lead. By and large, I prefer the version that this article had when it became featured. I am willing to cooperate on shortening the length, but I would urge against sweeping changes that dilute the article's encyclopedic significance. Under any changes, I think the following conditions should apply:


 * "King of Pop" should always appear in the first paragraph.
 * Three paragraphs minimum, but I'm ok with four, given the importance of the subject.
 * No undue weight to controveries, which people aren't paying that much attention to now.UberCryxic (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore the copy edit, because it improved the writing, though I'll bear in mind your points. There is currently not enough focus on the personal issues; UNDUE doesn't begin to come into it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The personal issues already get an entire paragraph in the lead. When we start going off about a "controversial" life right in the first paragraph, that's undue weight.UberCryxic (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't UNDUE weight. People always misuse that part of NPOV to keep out material they don't like, and it's really not on. Even President Omaba said yesterday those aspects can't be overlooked. There isn't a newspaper in the world that hasn't discussed them extensively. Entire books are written about them.


 * I'm going to withdraw from this article for a few hours, because what's been happening here is making me angry, and I don't want to talk out of turn. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well look, I don't want to make anyone mad, so I apologize for any trouble I may have caused. I'm sure we can come to some sort of understanding here; we're both experienced editors. Let me explain my reasoning more carefully. I guess I had several problems with some of the versions that you made, but the biggest was this little tidbit: "[begin first sentence]...popular music and dance, along with his highly publicized personal life, made him a central—and sometimes controversial—part of popular culture for four decades." This part was apparently modified by someone. The latest version did not mention "controversial," which is an improvement. Certain aspects of his life were controversial, of course, but not enough to deserve mention in the first paragraph, which I think should be exclusively reserved for his achievements. The controversies get plenty of attention later on in the lead and throughout the article. To accuse me of trying to keep out material I "don't like" is somewhat misguided because I never suggested we delete the information surrounding his personal life. I'm asking that we put his life in context. In the grand scheme of things, he was an entertainer first, and that's what should go first in the article.UberCryxic (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You reverted a much-needed copy edit of the lead because you didn't like the word "controversial"? And someone else added that, not me. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also want to mention another very important fact. We've had fights over variations of this theme for years on this article. Wikipedia has global perspective recommendations to ensure that articles aren't slanted towards a certain viewpoint. If that standard applies anywhere, it apples to MJ, who was popular all over the world. Outside of the Anglophone world, MJ's personal controversies got either very little attention or they did not overshadow his musical career (like an overwhelming majority of people in China thought he was innocent in a poll conducted during the 2005 trial). So I could also argue against undue weight based on Wikipedia's global perspective. The typical person in China, Japan, or France does not think about MJ in the same way that the typical person in the US does, and I don't see why the viewpoint of the latter should override the opinions of people that lived in places where MJ was very popular (sold out concerts, huge sales, etc).UberCryxic (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the English-language WP and we rely on English-language sources. We go by what they say, by and large, simply because we don't know how others are slanting things. The point about this article is that it isn't well-written, either technically or in terms of the impression it gives. A Martian who landed and read this would not leave with the flavor of the man. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What matters here is that the English Wikipedia has certain standards that we should follow. Relying mostly, not exclusively, on Anglophone sources is done out of convenience, but that convenience cannot sabotage the onerous burden that we editors have: to present a version of this article, and of every other article in the encyclopedia, that anyone around the world who reads English can understand rather simply.UberCryxic (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Uber on this, that is one reason why I have tried to keep 80's nostalgia out of the lead and reinforce his important 90's international career. The same applies to the personal life stuff. Unfortunately (for Wikipedia, not because I dislike Americans), 50 % of editors to Wikipedia are American, there will be a lot of US bias, we can only do so much to stop systemic (unintentional) cultural bias. — Please comment  R  2  19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a very strong POV regarding this article, and it shows. It shouldn't show. That is the point. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My only point of view is that the article must have an international perspective, and guess what, it works. The article was incredibly stable prior to the death. Now, stop throwing around accusations and insults, try to work with us, instead of dividing. I said two minutes ago that the trial details need expanding, those did receive a lot of coverage worldwide. —  Please comment  R  2  19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that that's your only POV. You want to focus almost exclusively on the music. You want to downgrade discussions about his health and drug use. You want to ignore completely some of the personal issues. You want to summarize and quickly pass over two of the most important aspects of his life, namely that he was accused of child molestation, and not only accused, but taken to court. The music wasn't his life, and the music didn't kill him.


 * You know nothing about my editing history, it was me who added 4 bloody paragraphs on the 1993 allegations, it was me who argued for an expansion of 2005 trial, it was me who set up an entire article for his health and appearance, it was me who set up an entire article for the 1993 allegations after an Uber fan got it deleted and wiped from history. It was me that had to please the demands of 10 FA reviews, asking for more and more details on both personal and musical issues. Don't ever accuse me of this rubbish again. I think your suggestion of removing 35 K on his music is terrible, but I'm not accusing you of bias against Jackson, despite your fascination with his personal life, so show some equal respect please. — Please comment  R  2  20:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue anymore. The point is that you must let other people edit, and that the article mus reflect what the reliable sources say. People reading it should not be able to guess the POVs of the individual editors. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cooler heads can prevail here. I'm sort of ok with the last version, minus the "highly publicized personal life" stuff, which can go in the second or the third paragraph. Again, I want to emphasize that the accusation of wanting to focus on the music too much does not bear resemblance to the content of the article, as his personal life and controveries get a whole paragraph in the lead. I can't speak for Realist, but all I'm saying is that the first paragraph should focus exclusively on his achievements. The personal information can follow right afterwards. I don't see this suggestion as something shocking or unbelievable. It seems pretty straightforward to me....UberCryxic (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue either, I could look for a PoV in your edits too, but I don't want to, I trust that you have good intentions. Some will argue that you are whitewashing his music achievements and spreading details about his personal life all over Wiki (Lol, I've been accused of that in the past). Suggesting that we remove 35 K worth of musical material isn't helping you, but not once have I accused you of bias against Jackson. Like I said, I've written loads on Jackson's personal life and have written things most fans would rather ignore. — Please comment  R  2  20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't thing there is undue weight yet either, but the personal paragraph is starting to look bulky. I don't think it matters where "King of Pop" is mentioned, so long as it is. 4 paragraphs is very acceptable for an article of this length, per WP:LEAD. — Please comment  R  2  18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "King of Pop" is a title that establishes notability, and is, in fact, perhaps the most notable characteristic about MJ (ie. that he was a great entertainer). It needs to appear very early on in the article. Refer to Elvis.UberCryxic (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was one of the few remaining global superstars. He was known all over the world, even in the poorest countries. The current lead does not reflect that. I prefer this version: Maybe "King of Pop" (or "King of Pop, Rock, and Soul", as he was originally called by Liz Taylor) should be added. Tajik (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman, whose unique contributions to music and dance, along with his highly publicized personal life, made him a central part of popular culture for four decades. One of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, his achievements included multiple Guinness World Records&mdash;including the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time"&mdash;13 Grammy Awards, 13 number one singles, and the sale of over 750 million records worldwide.


 * I agree that we could add King of Pop higher up, and I think we should remove businessman. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the lead prior to Jackson's death as it was well written (barring minor copy-editing) and comprehensive. I find SlimVirgin's arguments to be illogical at best. A simple overview of WP:LEAD, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE proves that point. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What point does a simple overview of LEAD, BLP, and UNDUE prove, Bookkeeper? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD: When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable(Jackson was a successful entertainer for 25 years prior to molestation charges): new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient.


 * WP:BLP: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.


 * WP:UNDUE:Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all (While there may have been a number of views who focused on the molestation charges/odd behavior or even endorsed them as true, he was in fact acquitted and there are infinitely more sources who's coverage focuses on his career and social impact).  The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  04:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slim Virgin and Tajik, the "King of Pop" reference should be in the lead. This is a common and widely accepted term to describe Michael Jackson. I don't see how that is POV pushing. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest child's name
According to his birth certificate, Jackson's older son is named Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. Where is the evidence that "after divorce name changed to Prince Michael Jackson" as stated in the article? WWGB (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Prince" is his nickname; and you are right, his legal name is Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. ; there is no evidence of this change to my knowledge; probably either a small case of vandalism, or an editor's personal confusion attributed to this mistake...

--From Wikipedia: naming Convention, nickname section:

"The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time." Although this isn't a page on Prince Jackson, a similar principle should be followed... For further information see Naming conventions. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Singer Songwriter
Hello, it's been awhile since I've edited a talk page, and for some reason, I can't seem to remember how to edit the table of contents and add a new section, so hopefully editing the first one correctly will do nearly the same thing. Maybe someone can either respond here or on my talk page. Even linking me to the wiki editing pages will work.

Regardless, when I went to Michael Jackson's page awhile back (even before he died) and saw that he was listed as a performer and artist I was shocked. I always thought that he wrote at least some of his music (he did). Typically artists who write at least some, if not most, of their music are listed as singer-songwriters. It separates them from performers such as Britney Spears, for example, who primarily perform music written for them by others.

Michael Jackson DID perform music written for him by others, but if you look at his albums (such as Bad (album)) you will see that he wrote and composed every song on it, except for Just Good Friends and Man in the Mirror. As a side note, I find it funny the only song that wasn't a single was Just Good Friends. =P Coincidence?

Regardless, it may seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world to distinguish Jackson as an artist, who not only performed, but WROTE music as well. Simply adding "songwriter" in the description at the top will do.

Thank you. - Lanlost (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to above poster for posting my comments under theirs. I do not know how to post properly on this type of Wiki page, but since my query pertains to "singer/songwriter" category, I'm leaving my comments here. See sub-section: Themes and genres under Section: Musical Style and Performance. "She's Out Of My Life" is used as an example for Michael Jackson's songwriting ability. However, although Jackson was a songwriter, he did not write that particular song. I caught this because I know the song well. It was written by Tom Bahler. Check Wiki's own entries for verification: She's out of My Life ["out" should be capitalized in title for anyone who knows how to change it] and here: Tom Bahler. Song written by Tom Bahler. Copyright 1979 (BMI) International Copyright.

Cheers.

^ To the above poster. You should, after you type a comment like that, sign it. Just use four tildes (~) in a row. ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces in between. It will automatically do the following: - Lanlost (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to you too.


 * To my mind it should be included that he also was a composer and songwriter - once he wrote most of his songs by himself, but he also wrote for others and for instance composed to songs for the Simpons that were performed by others.--Elaste2000 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How much were the O2 tickets
It says in the article, "Randy Phillips, president and chief executive of AEG Live stated that the first 10 dates alone would earn the singer approximately £50 million.[153]"

The O2 arena has a capacity of 23,000 people so that would mean that Jackson would have made £217 from each and every ticket holder. I appreciate that there might have been merchandising sales and so on, but it still seems a little over the top. Should all quotes be included in the article just because they have been said, or should hype be excluded on the grounds that anyone can claim anything if there is no attempt to distinguish it from the plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The media has reported the tickets cost $85 each and sales of 1 million tickets

(50 performances with 23,000 attending) making 85,000,000. 69.121.221.97 (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates
OK, I know one way we can probably cut 6000-8,000 bytes off the article. Remove all the templates referencing and do it manually. — Please comment  R  2  16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would make the article easier to read in edit mode, which would improve the writing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm open to doing that, but I think we should wait until the article traffic slows down. — Please comment  R  2  17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it's the templates that are slowing the loading time down. I'm using a powerful computer, and I can get other long articles to load easily, yet with this one I can hardly get into it. I'm going to start the process of at least removing the doubled-up refs in the article. I'm seeing some to about.com, for example, which shouldn't be there, and others that are repeated several times throughout a paragraph, even though it's always the same ref. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to duplicate references repeatedly because people kept adding fact tags, even when 1 ref could have been used for a single paragraph. — Please comment  R  2  17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very annoying when that happens. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could add a few hidden messages, like, "the following paragraph is covered by all the citations displayed at the end". — Please comment  R  2  18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That might work. Perhaps one at the beginning of each section. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really think this could help reduce the size of the article quite considerably. It might not be the 35 K you were hoping for, but I think we could easily cut 8 K by restructuring the references. — Please comment  R  2  18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep on working on it, bit by bit, whenever there's a lull in the editing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, take your time, I'm sorry things got heated yesterday. — Please comment  R  2  19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've removed the templates down to 1990, along with some of the cruft (not much), and it's already making the page easier to load. We're down to 119 kb. I'll keep on doing it as and when I can face it. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reinserted a few things, nothing major, but generally, I support the work you have done over the last 18 hours. — Please comment  R  2  17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael's hat
Okay I know this is a miniscule thing, and may be a matter of contention, but I thought that Michael's hat of preference [i.e signature hat] as mentioned in the lede was actually a fedora and not a trilby. In Smooth Criminal, the hat is actually a fedora as explained in this website: www.men-access.com/michael-jacksons-signature-hat-fedora. That same website also mentions that the hat he wears in Billy Jean is a fedora. The primary difference between the two hats, is that a fedora has a wider brim, and the brim is usually thicker than that of a trilby. User:Wolfpeaceful|Wolfpeaceful]] (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, the color of the hat is irrelevant, he wore hats of different colors... not all of his hats were black, not even the fedora's.Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a fedora. — Please comment  R  2  19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to fedora... if you wish to revert, please discuss why the revert back is necessary. And I'd also advise you to read the website mentioned above prior to making the revert. Thanks, Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with fedora, and I know they weren't always black, but they were mostly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- I don't really agree with the change back to mentioning the color "black", because it creates a false implication that his fedoras were always black; but I'll leave it alone (for now at least) rather than risk violating the three revert rule. A suggested rewording is my advice if you wish to mention the color such as adding ",usually black," or ",mostly black," to be more accurate. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The trademark hat was black. See here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--Slim Virgin... please refer me to a written source; rather than a video performance of Billy Jean... using youtube videos as sources are a bit taboo... read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive170#Videos_Used_As_A_Reliable_Source thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

Michael WAS a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog
I have news that Michael Jackson WAS a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, and the proof is right here: The Truth: Michael Jackson's Sonic 3 Soundtrack--Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- I don't see a problem with mentioning this, in the appropiate section of course... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But then I think that you should also find out something about other things that he liked, for instance the Simpons, Startrek and so on. Some evidence is in his 1988 auto-biography, then his personal interviews and the private home videos that he gave to fox. In which section this would fit? --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he have any children?
The article states that Deborah Rowe and an anonymous donor had two children, Michael Joseph and Paris. But this means these children aren't the children of Michael Jackson at all. They have no visible negroid traits either, so they couldn't possibly be his children. I suppose the surrogate mother son is the only actual child Michael Jackson had? (provided Jackson really fathered that child). These issues should be made more clear in the article. Nashassum (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does clearly state that he fathered a child. Regarding his third child: "The mother's identity was never released by Jackson, but he has said the child was the result of artificial insemination from a surrogate mother and his own sperm cells." Further, the anonymous donor referred to in the Deborah Rowe situation does not exclude Jackson. If you have reliable sources either way, I would suggest editing the section and including that information. Wperdue (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * It would be odd to refer to the father as an "anonymous donor" if the father was Jackson, I take this to mean that Jackson was not the father (why else use an anonymous donor). Also, as these children are clearly white with no visible black ancestry, Jackson is by definition excluded as a possible father. Nashassum (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The birth certificate states him as the Father so that makes him the Father, End of story case closed. Also some people that are Bi-racial can inherit more of the white traits than the Black ones just look at Mariah Carey. --70.129.164.68 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)--

Jennifer Holliday
I am adding a reference to a song that Michael Jackson composed and wrote and then arranged for Jennifer Holliday (who later became one of the stars of the Dreamgirls movie) that is apparently not very well known because the record album on which she sang it was never converted into CD form, and has largely been lost from public view. It's a beautiful song, but was never digitized and so it's very rare. Stanford1993guy (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Certification of Vital Record
I have the certification of Vital Record´s Michael Jackson (death) in pdf image, and would like to know, if i upload it here, what kind of Non-free use rationale and license would be necessary to use.

Thanks and best regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion
Hi, you should not deny that Michael Jackson converted to Islam.
 * When did he say that then? — Please comment  R  2  14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He said it when he spend several years of his life in the rich state of Bahrain. Everyone knows this. When you ll see his burial, you will also accept, after that you can add this information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.192.74 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in Islam, the burial is supposed to happen on the same day as the death. As you can see, he was buried several days after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

'''Resources for Michael Jackson converting to Islam were provided to Michael Jackson's wiki, these resources were from so many different organizations from US, Australia, UK, etc.. '''
 * Of all the disputed claims about MJ, this is far and away the most circular. The WP:CONSENSUS is not to mention this because it can be traced back to a single story in The Sun, which was denied by Jackson's spokesman. See the talk page archive and FAQ. And let's see what happens at the funeral.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting slightly nuts frankly. Just prior to his death he categorically denied he was Muslim, that's the end of the matter, move along. — Please comment  R  2  18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should make a better FAQ. Talk to Magibon 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Everybody knows" will never fly here. "Everybody knows" that Jackson bleached his skin. "Everybody knows" that he was a child molester. "Everybody knows" that he was an alien from Pluto, etc. WillOakland (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to view this from neutral perspective, first of we do not know his religious status, lets face it these reports show that he probably was a Muslim, if you view the details of the article in The Sun it describes it carefully of how the ceremony took place, how would one be able to make up such stories including having noted the other people present there ie. Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens, and we cannot use this lawyer's denial as a back up to say he that he wasn't, really he probably didn't even hear of the reports or may be covering the story, if you review the whole situation there could be high possibilities he died a Muslim, these sources can be used to back this up. I think the reason why we are forced to think twice about this is because there has been no media attention to the reports, plus no public announcement, though if we were him would we really have to publicly announce this? religion is a personal matter, these could have been exposed in interviews however none took place after the event. Somehow I think these reports can be mentioned in the article, in order to meet the neutrality, visiting users coming over and looking for the story and find its not there would think Wikipedia is taking on the other side than in the middle, where is this neutrality? ...It's not there. Dimario (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop this now, anything started by The Sun is not coming within two miles of this article, particularly when the subject has called these rumours bullocks. Take the agenda elsewhere. — Please comment  R  2  23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should I stop this? I believe then I do have a point. My viewpoint is 'he maybe was a Muslim?' - thats neutral, whereas most of pepz here have the view of 'he wasn't a Muslim!' - not neutral. Im not going to add anything, just reminding some users to have a wider perspective to these reports other than being one-sided. Dimario (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sun exists to sell newspapers to people of limited intelligence who are quite prepared to be pay for any old nonsense, e.g. "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster". We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I suggest a review of our policy on reliable sources would be advisable. Just because "someone" says it does NOT make it true. Rodhull  andemu  00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not necessary mean all reports created by this newspaper are bullshit, you have to view what type of subject the newspaper is on about politics, gossip etc. In this case MJs religion must have been taken seriously before being published. Dimario (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sun never took anything else in his life seriously before writing crap about him. — Please comment  R  2  00:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Policies: Category:Converts to Islam: Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in their article to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up. There are no sources which have any level of certainty of his religious beliefs. As noted on the talk page discussions, all major publications which commented on the alleged conversion gave almost exact quotes from The Sun, or specified in their articles that the Sun was their only source of information. Also BLP: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. BLP: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. If Jackson chose not to discuss his religious beliefs, then it is considered a matter of privacy, and it is not wikipedia's responsibility to present any uncertainty. Finally: BLP: In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. If at some point, someone in Jackson camp disclose official confirmation of Jackson's spiritual beliefs, it will be perfectly legitimate to add that information. However, until then, it remain speculation and is not a matter which is critical to understanding his biography since it is something he chose not to reveal or discuss. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really disagree that Jackson joins in Muslim. He didn't even said that. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 10:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone watched Larry King's interview with Jermaine Jackson on CNN? he asks him will it be a religious ceremony, however Jermaine didn't really say he converted to Islam, he says they were raised as Jehovah's Witness and says they embraced a different religion while traveling, really confusing, what's your opinion? watch here: (from 4:15) Dimario (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, while Michael's reported conversion is not listed on this page due to the dubious sourcing of the claims, he is displayed very prominantly (with his picture at the top of the page) on the list of converts to Islam page. I would alter this myself, but am relatively new to wikipedia and feel that I lack the background to properly rationalize this action, as there is about dozen citations attached to the claim. Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it, with detailed explanation on that articles talk page. —  Σ xplicit  02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs
He was a muslim, and he was buried as a muslim, IT'S OFFIACL. So, it must be highlighted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the same way that Freddie Starr officially includes hamsters in his diet.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If he was a muslim, shouldn't the body have been buried as soon as it was released by the ME and without all this idolatry? – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, your reaction is really strange, are you a racist or something? Check TV, he was buried as a muslim on the closed service for the dead before memorial in Steples Center. I repeat - it's official. He is a muslim whether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This would require a reliable source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This claim was denied by Jackson's lawyer. Hopefully this discussion is settled? —  Σ xplicit  02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, on Michael Jackson funerals Euronews repoter claimed that MJ was buried as a muslim. I will try to find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.34.37 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit the funeral or the memorial didnt even look Muslim, the body was entered to the stage with a hallelujah song with images of a church at the background and ended with a prayer by a Pastor quoting 'father' or 'jesus christ', this must be done by the wishes of his family, if the burial was done in a Muslim way ie. with the janazah then it can be considered, a reliable source would be required then. Dimario (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WillOakland is obviously a major MJ fan. Not very objective at all. Besides "everybody knows" MJ wasn't muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.246 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys this guy seems suspicious since Michael Jackson has not been buried and a simple search on Google will tell you that, Unless you provide a Reliable source the conversion did not happen. Case closed.--Nothingbutgrains (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Death should be specified
Michael Jackson's death should have been specified in '2006–09: Final years', it should state that he died of cardiac arrest(yet to be disputed people!!), the time and date and so forth. I know EVERYBODY in the whole wide world knew he died but this is an encyclopedia and all facts need to be specified. For example you PUT 'the earth is round' in an encyclopedia. Brush me up if i'm a little sketchy, this is my first contribution on a talk page. 08:34 10 July (UTC) --60.240.32.151 (talk)


 * I also think that it should be mentioned. I think that we should also mention where he lived after Neverland had been closed. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call Elaste2000 --60.240.32.151 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Medical experts have pointed out that everybody dies once their heart stops beating, so the phrase "Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest" is misleading. The autopsy report declined to give an exact cause of death pending further investigation on brain tissue samples.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well one can say that he died after suffering cardiac arrest because of an unknown cause, I highly doubt that the specific results of the second autopsy will be released to the general public. --60.240.32.151 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There will be speculation regardless of what the autopsy findings say, but Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources say.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Intresting you say that, I recently heard from someone say that they found Wikipedia untrustworthy because someone had reported the false death of a celebrity (who I can't remember). It could be a vandal though.--60.240.32.151 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Book Dancing the Dream
In 1993 Michael Jackson published his second book, "Dancing the Dream". it is a collection of poems and short stories and reflections. --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is true..!! :-)   but in 1992, July.  Thanks!!  Lightwarrior2 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

who might include, can you please leave Dancing the Dream as a link? because, I would like to edit the edit the page afterwards. --Elaste2000 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions
First: What's the deal with the picture changing every few days? your all complaining about the picture, but if we think about this logically we should look at other pages, most other pages i have seen try to show the latest picture of the star, if it were me i would like to see a picture of him making the announcement at the o2, because to tell you the truth i think its unfair that Michael keeps getting remembered for what he looked like in the 80's, i think he would've wanted a picture from the o2 announcement.

Second: Sony (Epic) has confirmed Michael has 2 albums ready for release, a Pop one and a classical one, i think we should make pages for these, only because they HAVE been confirmed (although the release date is still unknown) --Larry 141094 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A) Some editors wanted the picture to be more recent, because the original one with him at the White House was from 1984, when he still had pigment in his skin. He has changed since then, so editors wanted the article to have a more recent picture of his. However, some of those picture have had copyright issues, so they were removed and replaced.
 * B) A separate page right now? Do we even know the names of the albums? TechOutsider (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit
Change "at aged 50" to "at age 49" -   Michael Jackson was 49 years and 10 or so months when he died... - or can't the world do math anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.delange (talk • contribs)
 * Jackson was born in August 1958 and died in June 2009 — doing the math, he was indeed 50 years old, not 49 &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 07:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1991 Entertainment Weekly detail about the phrase "King of Pop"
I just incorporated a 1991 Entertainment Weekly reference (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,316363,00.html) into King of Pop (album) and List of honorific titles in popular music which might be worth using in this article. Here's it is in citation form:

For this article, it would be worth accompanying that quote with a source about Elizabeth Taylor's use of the phrase in 1989, though I wasn't able to find such a source online. In the current article, you'll see two references following this statement:
 * Jackson's success resulted in his being dubbed the "King of Pop", a nickname conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul".

but the only online one of those two doesn't mention Taylor at all. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, this citation does have an impact on one of the answers in Talk:Michael Jackson/FAQ. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Given that he effectively gave himself the title "King of Pop," the first paragraph should be rewritten; it suggests that people just spontaneously started calling him "King of Pop." Trivialist (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By: jag:Elizabeth Taylor is the one true friend, confidante and inspiration to Michael Jackson who notably presented him with the name "King Of Pop". Michael Jackson will forever be the King Of Pop and is the King Of Pop to all who loved him. His incredible journey in his life and ours will be remembered with great actions. Michael Jackson was a special gift given to his family and to the world for all to see in our lifetime, to enjoy, for a short while but will forever live on in our hearts. He was an incredible loving and gentle soul with extraordinary talent and as deemed true, will be a legend in our lifetime and an icon forever. To Elvis Presley and James Brown and others who inspired Michael, we thank you. He was all of you in one body. The King Of Kings has greeted the King Of Pop with open and loving arms. May you rest in peace Michael Jackson and thank you. You are now at a place where you are protected and safe and are out of harms way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.94.113 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree that the article should be changed as it doesn’t mention that the title “King Of Pop” is self-proclaimed. 80.235.130.249 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He is called the King of Pop just like Elvis is called the King of Rock and Roll. It is the PUBLIC that gives these titles. Even if you do want to say Michael first said it, you don't know who said it to him or before him that was not in the limelight. The term STUCK. If he was NOT the king of pop Id like to know why the whole World agrees that he is. Please refer to the funeral of Michael that occured today to see a whole wide section of people come and say that he was and is still the king of pop. I cant even think of a reason why this was even discussed. Michael Jackson not the King of Pop? Do you have a competitor? Please don't waste time with this. 63.229.82.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

He self proclaimed at beginning: that is the truth and your statement is true. In fact, he originated the idea. He said one day (heard this on TV, I just recall it, no sources sorry, a commentator said it) : "Why can't I have my own title like Elvis does?" So, he wanted one also. But now, who proclaimed Elvis? Is there an authority entitled to give this type of "honor title"? WHAT-EVER, now! Almost the entire world is now proclaiming he is "the true King Of Pop(, Rock & Soul)" especially those who love him and they are numerous. If he wasn't entitled, the medias and public would have him deprived of that title, and he would have to go back on this. But this wasn't the case. So, accept the title or deprive the King's title (do you remember? : Elvis Presley's one). — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no record of Michael himself saying he wants a title like the King of Pop. These type of titles are often created by an artists PR or music label. No one in the media dubbed Elvis The King, I presume that was a nickname from his gang of friends the Memphis Mafia, which he PR and manager then used to promote Elvis. Because by the time Elvis was known as The King in the early 1970's his career wasn't exactly at it's height and he was rediculed by the media just as Michael Jackson was in the 2000's. It's more than likely Michael and his PR came up with the King of Pop title, and got Elisabeth Taylor to introduce Michael as the King of Rock, Pop and Soul at the 1989 Soul Train Awards. But even if the King of Pop title was created by Michael, that would also make Elvis "The Self Proclaimed King", and Madonna "The Self Proclaimed Queen of Pop". Madonna also wasn't dubbed by the media or public as the Queen of Pop, that came from her PR and music label when she released her Ray of Light album in the late 1990's.

During the Bad Tour, many people in the media and public said Michael was the greatest live artist of all time. I actually saw articles using terms like "the Emperor Conquers Rome" etc discribing Michael Jackson's amazing performances during the 1988 European leg of the Bad Tour. Self Proclaimed or not, Michael deserves the title King of Pop and his talent, innovation, influence, commercial succcess and cultural importance that no other artist over the last 30yrs has matched makes him the King of Pop, and no other artist before or since dominated in so many areas like Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Folks, remember this talk page is not a forum. — Please comment  R  2  19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-instrumentalist
Album credits for Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, and Invincible all credit Jackson with playing either guitar, drums, percussion, vocals, or some combination. Jackson may not have been known specifically for playing instruments, but it is evident he played them in the studio, and especially as an arranger, would require some level of expertise. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but he's certainly not a multi-intrumentalist in the sense of a Prince or a McCartney. In Moonwalk he even makes the distinction himself when describing meeting McCartney - "Paul, who could play every instrument in the studio, and me, a kid, who couldn't." I belive it's stretching it to decribe him as a multi-intrumentalist.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A multi-instrumentalist is described as someone who plays a number of different instruments. Jackson clearly plays multiple instruments and should be classified as such. —  Σ xplicit  06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree, it is what he is primarily known as which is important, which is singing. None of his instrumental contributions to his recordings are that significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence at all that MJ played any musical instruments? I've never even seen a picture, never saw him play one live, and MJ having that on his album info alone doesn't convince me, given his track record of fact vs fiction. I would bet against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for MJ's arranging/producing, wasn't that what Quincy Jones did on most of those albums? Quincy Jones played a huge part in the making of Thriller and others, and therefore obviously their success. It doesn't appear he's given much credit. It appears it was all MJ, which of course is simply not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackson is given numerous credits for composition and instruments in the album booklets. — Please comment  R  2  15:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I know he is, but Milli Vanilli were given credit for their vocals too. Is there any actual concrete evidence at all of MJ playing any musical instrument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.63.67 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much more concrete evidence you need? I remember him playing the piano in a pepsi commercial once :) — Please comment  R  2  15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL I would need more than that. I've never seen him playing an instrument, never seen one picture of him playing an instrument, and never heard any musicians et involved with him ever mention him playing an instrument. Anybody can put that in album liner notes, but the fact is there is nothing that supports it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.15.158 (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do tend to agree with you that album liner notes may not be that reliable a source as the artist can say what he likes - is there any independent corroboration, eg in a biography, of his instrumental ability?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one photo - in 1993 Harry Benson photographed the Neverland Ranch and there is a photo of Michael Jackson playing the piano. He had a piano at Neverland where he also composed part of his songs. I've looked for the photo on the internet but I cannot find it. ButI have the printed photo at home. Evidence for this photo series is on Harry Benson's homepage. He also plays the piano in a youtube video, a commercial for pepsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaste2000 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On Michael's last two studio albums, HIStory and Invincible Michael Jackson's involvement in playing instruments on his albums increased a great deal. Michael played guitar, piano, keyboard and drums on various songs. On the remix album Blood On The Dance Floor (HIstory In The Mix), Michael played guitar (Slash also played guitar)and drums on Morphine. On the Off The Wall album Michael played percussion Don't Stop Till You Get Enough and Working Day & Night.

On a 1992 Michael Jackson, Rolling Stone cover story Dangerous co-producer Teddy Riley said that Michael was a great guitar play. It's been a well known fact for many years that the instruments Michael is most farmliar with are drums and keyboard. Michael Jackson may not be a multi-instrumentalist in the way Prince and Paul McCartney are, but he is a multi-intrumentalist.

Quincy Jones often gets too much credit at the expense of Michael's. Michael Jackson was always directly involved in the direction of the songs he wrote and composed of his Quincy Jones produced albums Off The Wall, Thriler and Bad. Michael co-produced all of the songs he wrote and Michael soley did the music and vocal arrangements for all of the songs he wrote. Quincy Jones's job on the albums was choosing the team of musicans and songwriters, and selecting songs written by other song writers. No doubt about it, Quincy Jones played a huge part in making Michael's albums especially Off The Wall anbd Thriller, but these were Michael Jackson albums, he hired Quincy Jones and at the end of the day it was Michael's choice what songs would be on the album. Their is an urban myth that Quincy Jones put all the songs on Off The Wall and Thriller and Michael just came in and sang. That's not true, and it was Michael who wrote, composed and arranged Don't Stop Till You Get Enough, Working Day & Night, Wanna Be Startin Somethin, The Girl Is Mine, Beat It and Billie Jean, oh and co-wrote Get On The Floor not Quincy Jones. Michael Jackson has produced, written, composed and arranged a number of songs solo from Heartbreak Hotel (aka This Place Hotel) in 1980, to They Don't Care About Us, Stranger In Moscow and Morphine etc. Michael Jackson knows how to create songs in a music studio, he's not just a singer and dancer, but a songwriter and a musican and equal par. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer's statement rejecting Michael's conversion to Islam
Michael Jackson DID, in fact, convert to Islam in DECEMBER, 2008. This is substantiated by his brother and numerous news reports easily accessed online. THE FOLLOWING IS PROPAGANDA, AS USUAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.74.137 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC) This is a sourced valid piece of information from the NYDailyNews that I put in yesterday and it was removed by Realist2. Please dont remove sourced information: Now if you want to add something else from another reliable source, fine but dont remove sourced information like that.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Are you saying MJ WASN'T MUSLIM!!?? Ijustcan&#39;tthinkofauniqueusername (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In November 2008, Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan refuted a British press report that Jackson had become a Muslim telling reporters, "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue."
 * There has been a long consensus on this article that the Muslim rubbish isn't going into the article. The article is large, and we don't have space to document occasions where Jackson's lawyer has had to refute tabloid bull shit. We would need an article dedicated to that alone. YOU need to get consensus to include this. — Please comment  R  2  18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I saw it now. Fine, lets keep it out for now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See the previous discussions, scroll up. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of this before, maybe he was or wasn't, I don't know. I do know that even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong, then it's very difficult to convince those who pick up that ref that the ref was in fact wrong.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson had the most watched funeral
It's true Michael Jackson's death was not the most watched on tv(that was Princess Diana's) but combined with the internet viewings of his funeral he had over 50 million. Diana had 33 million in total. YVNP (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does a memorial in which the deceased isn't laid to rest qualify as a funeral? I'm not sure. Funnyhat (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a funeral. (92.12.167.13 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

La Toya Jackson: Michael "was murdered"
Any thoughts about these reports from today's newspapers? Someone is bound to add this to the article at some stage. Is this notable, or just another piece of speculation?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably more relevant to the Death of Michael Jackson until further notice. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it would involve mentioning living people, I would rather stay well clear of that. La Toya's words could have serious consequences for the people who worked with Jackson. — Please comment  R  2  19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Connection to Freddie Mercury
In the 1980's Michael Jackson and Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury became friends. They recorded 3 songs together. Victory, State of Shock(later recorded by Mick jagger) and There Must Be More To Life Than This. All our demo's and have never been officially released. There Must Be More To Life Than This was leaked on youtube in 2006.(a very early demo featuring the Freddie Mercry and Michael jackson duet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.63.94 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Newer image
Change the picture back. Idiots. Who put that shit picture up? The former one ruled. / Thanks. Fixed now.

The picture from 1984 is appropriate. It is mid-career, between the Jackson 5 era and his solo years, and most importantly, it is the peak of his career, by all accoutns. Thriller was his most successful album, and the most successful album of all times. His official encounter with Ronald Reagan marks a climax that he never reached again, an official recognition of his contribution to American culture, and internationally. None of his subsequent albums sold as much nor received as much critical acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just after adding an image from 1990. If you guys prefer the older one, just change it back. Pyrrhus16 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's excellent. Nice work!  The Le ft ori um  19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a better updated image, don't think it needs a revert, good work! Just a question thou where was the image retrieved from then if there is no link available? Dimario (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked on a Michael Jackson fan board. I knew there were a few White House pictures from 1990, so they were able to supply me with them. Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has the picture changed again just then or been reverted back to the old one ? I'm confused StephenBHedges (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I put back the 1984 image for two reasons: a) the 1990 image has a distracting background, b) the 1984 image shows MJ at the height of his fame.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I further cropped the image (minimized 'distracting background'), can i just say this image is better because of the skin colour difference, an image of Jackson needed to be updated, and that is the best we have and should be kept. Dimario (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we not go even more modern and have the picture of him in front of the This Is It sign (as published in many papers) ? If not then the 1990 picture is better as it is more up to date. StephenBHedges (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That image is non-free, and cannot be used. Gage (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A request to everyone: Please don't change the image in the infobox without posting a link to it on the talk page first.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this newer image, feels more appropriate. Wikipedia should not dictate that the Michael Jackson of the Thriller era is the Michael Jackson look, Jackson himself clearly moved on from that look. And while we don't have to put an image of him from his latest days, that 1990 image is a good compromise. I came to look at the article earlier and the 1984 image didn't feel quite right, that's too long ago. 76.208.178.143 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the 1990 image is fine. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree to the 1990 image, much better &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also ok with the new image, although the other one was pretty good too. I just want to point out that the 1990 image can't be attacked on the basis that MJ reached his height during the Thriller era, simply because that's not true, at least globally. Yes, he reached his height with Thriller in the US, but globally, the height of his popularity -- as measured through record sales, concert sales, and other income -- was right around this period, 1989 to 1990. In 1989, he made $125 million, the first time ever that an entertainer of any kind had made more than $100 million in a single year. The Bad World Tour was selling out concerts all over the globe. Long story short: one reason why the 1990 image is appropriate is precisely because it does show MJ at the height of his global career.UberCryxic (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a very visible picture of Michael from the Thriller years in the article. There's a small picture of him receiving an award from Reagan and a video of the Billie Jean/Motown performance, but I don't see a good picture that depicts his career in the early 80's, which was a pivotal time.

A clear picture of him in the early 80's would give the article more context in regards to his changes in appearance. As it stands now, most of the pictures depict him in the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps there is somewhere else where an 80's picture can be placed. Thanks. joe_bob_attacks (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ...I disagree with above statement.. this article is not about body dysmorphic disorder, we do not need to focus on his change in appearance but who the person WAS.

I think that the Thriller era image is more appropriate. Being that this is an encyclopedia I think that the more recognizable/iconinc image of a subject should be used when available. In my opinion the Thriller era picture shows Jackson at the point when he was most important to the public, and probably in the fashion that the public will choose to remember him. It doesnt make sense in my opinion to use an image from an arbitrary time period like 1990. If the goal is to depict the subject in a more contemporary fashion wouldnt a 2009 image be more appropriate?

(Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

re: I totally disagree with that. Images of artists are always as modern and current as possible. add photos of artists in different images and representations later on in the article! add we are the world it must been hard for michael jordon and magic and kobe ,chris tucker cause they are best friends
 * Your argument is not convincing. Read what I wrote above.UberCryxic (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, He was still considered quite a phenomenon with the release of Bad (1987) and Dangerous (1991). I would hardly call that time period "arbitrary". The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Let me just say it again: worldwide, by almost any standard you pick, MJ was at the height of his career circa 1990, years after Thriller. To satisfy Wikipedia's global perspective, this image should take precedence over those from any other of his musical eras (if the argument is that we need to put an image that reflects the height of his popularity).UberCryxic (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not read this information (hasty, I know) and much of it is new to me. While I still advocate using the most iconic image, I was approaching the idea from my personal expiriences as an American. Considering the information you cite, I must concede your point and agree that the new image is more appropriate. - Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If a 2009 image were available, then yes, but this is the closest image to his appearance over the last two decades of his life. And though that may not be the most important thing, even using the Thriller era images would cause someone else to advocate, like it has in the past, the image we have now. So either way, no one will be happy. Gage (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What does anyone think about using this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valerious/3680727042/ ? Is it simply not preferred because it's fair use and we already have free images from 1990? &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 07:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This image has a CC 2.0 license. However, caution is needed with Flickr images, because the copyright tagging is entirely at the discretion of the uploader. It is not uncommon to come across what look like press photos of celebrities on Flickr, yet they still have CC tags. Let's stick with the current photo for the time being.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Picture in the infobox is not a PD photo, unless there is a source found. Where did you find the image? If it is on the Getty database, it is copyrighted. If this photo was taken in George Bush's presidency, do a picture search on his presidential website. But, this picture is copyrighted unless you prove that this photo was taken on behalf of the White House. I am bringing this issue to light, because we have had an issue with JFK and JFK Jr.'s infamous hiding underneath the desk picture. The photo wasn't taken on behalf of the White House, but by a private photographer. RE: Second image on Flickr -- that image is copyrighted, because 1.) the account has been uploading copyrighted images 2.) the image would be substantially bigger.  miranda   16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Michael Jackson was at the height of his career in 1990+ or in the 1980's is a non-issue. Michael Jackson's Thriller years were a pivotal point in time for him, the music world, and music videos in general. The current pictures in the article are 90's-centric. There should be a clear picture of him from his Thriller years included in the article. As I mentioned earlier this would give a context for his changes in appearance. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't mind either way. I think both images are fine. I only wanted to make sure that the 1990 image was not being dismissed on a false basis.UberCryxic (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the 1990 image, more better.--٩(●̮̮̃●̃)۶٩(•̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(͡๏̯ ͡๏)۶٩(-̮̮̃•̃)۶٩(×̯×)۶ 04:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorribal (talk • contribs)

Why was the image changed again? The 90's image is the best image. If you want a Thriller picture on there so badly then put the 80s presidential picture somewhere in the article and stop screwing with a perfectly fine picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.243.189 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1990 image ran into WP:NFCC issues. For the time being, we have only the 1984 and 1988 images guaranteed as Public Domain. The infobox cannot use a copyrighted image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the current 80's presidential photo is appropriate. Hopefully this photo will not be changed.  The previous article did not have a clear 80's photo.  Even if the infobox photo is changed again, the article should contain at least one clear 80's photo for context.  --Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an 80's photo in the article... and it's from the same time. There's no need for two photos from the same time in the article. The 1990s photo is much better and more recent, he was also at the height of his popularity in the 90s photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.239.80 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The 80's picture of him is not very visible. The current pictures in the article are 90's- centric.  There should be a clear picture of Jackson from his Thriller years.  The image reverts are getting ridiculous.  The image has changed several times just w/in the past 5 minutes.  At this point, someone should chose one and go with it.  Changing the image to suit everyone's personal whim is not working.  --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That '90s White House photo is fine and of course, more up to date. The 1984 White House one had been so long and it wasn't very clear. BUT I think there should be a Thriller era photo in the article and also if possible a photo of him from his Jackson 5 years (late '60s or early '70s) BECAUSE Michael's change in appearance was a big part of his life and I think it's pretty essential to include it thoroughly here in Wikipeda. If someone agrees with me and is willing to help, that would be cool. The biggest problem is finding a photo, which can be used here, right? --- alexjean1991 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current 80's presidential picture is appropriate. Currently the article has several 90's pictures--so the 90's pics are covered.


 * However, I agree with the previous poster, perhaps there should be a picture from the 60's/70's, with regard to his time with the Jackson 5 (or Jacksons depending on the timeline). I also agree that there should be a more recent photo.  However, I think the 80's presidential picture in the infobox is most appropriate.  This is an iconic picture and it was an important time in American pop culture.  Since there is only one other very small (and not very visible) picture from the 80's, it's important to have at least one good picture depicting the Thriller years. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway to put a lock on the picture to prevent people from changing it? It's currently a black and white image of him I'm assuming from the 90s that obviously looks copyrighted to a true source. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has the option to do so, rather than just protect the article. Troyoda1990 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

More recent photo please?
What's with the 1984 small little photo? Can't anyone post up a more recent photo, like 2009 or 2008. I mean, this is MJ we're talking about, who has changed more than anyone else in the period from 84 to even 94. So it's not realistic in such a case to put up a photo that resembled him barely 25 years later.
 * Please see previous discussion here. Rodhull  andemu  15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its an unfortunate situation when noone has a recent photo that is eligible for use here. Portillo (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not certain if there is policy or consensus on this, but I question the need for the most recent image being used for deceased individuals. It seems to me that once an individual dies the most current image of that person isnt anymore valid than images from other points during life, as they all equally describe someone who used to live. I would always favor images from the most iconic/recognizable point in that persons life because it correlates most closely for what they did to earn the notability for an article in the first place. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a recent photo is better since it shows what the person looked like at the time of his death. Portillo (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to use a mid-career photo for a deceased person. 1984 was also the peak of his career. As for Marlon Brando, he is best remembered as he looked in his youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatedaccount1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the English Wikipedia's policy on including a higher quality image in the article under a fair use rationale (if it happens to be copyrighted (which is likely))? — Adriaan (T★C) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wiki would allow it. — Please comment  R  2  20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on Susan Boyle has a nice drawing of her. We can follow this example to get a better image of Mr Jackson. The current one is low quality both technically and stylishly. I believe for such an important article more energy should be spent on the main illustration. — Adriaan (T★C) 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson ancestry
can the article add at bottom link to michael jackson ancestors which were from arkansas and alabama (prince screws) see Michael Jackson ancestor Prince Screws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Prince Screws 1828-, Russell Co, Ala ancestor of Michael Joseph Jackson 1959-2009; source:

Future Recordings.
Could the following information be added to the article under the 2009 (present) section?

Amanda Ghost, president of Epic Records (Jackson's record label), has confirmed that new music from the ill-fated star will be released but it will not be a rushed process. Ghost recognises that there is an 'appetite' for the Jackson recordings to be released but also stated that the label "wants to be respectful to his memory, as well as making sure the music is fantastic so that it does not damage his legacy". She revealed that the star had for several years before his death, been working on new material with Ne-Yo, Akon and will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas. It was previously revealed that Jackson had worked with the latter producer to complete a new dance album. will.i.am stated in an interview that he "would not leak the material" from his work with the late Michael Jackson.


 * References

I tried to add it myself but apparently im not an experienced/long enough established editor... (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC))


 * The first reference is a Wordpress blog. Unless the author is an established expert in whatever he posted about, then no that blog cannot be accepted as a source. Nevertheless, I found a more reliable source from the BBC, right here. Thank you for sharing the information. TechOutsider (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i put the ref tag so it would display the citations for my contribution, only the second two sources are relevant. the first is what someone else tried to post earlier in the article. can the above aforementioned information be re-added to the article? someone else has removed it again even though it is well sourced, without discussion. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Voice type is wrong...
Michael Jackson is not a countertenor. He is a high tenor as stated by his vocal coach and numerous music publications (rolling stone) for example. Countertenors are not really applicable to popular music or to someone like Jackson who sings in modal voice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.228.4 (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a consensus a while back not to list Jackson's voice type, since it is one of those areas that leads to circular editing. Without a consensus, this is probably best left out of the infobox.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: if a consensus regarding his voice type cannot be reached it would be better to omit it from the infobox. Archived discussion pages contain much discussion but little consensus on his voice type. Quotes describing his voice can be included in the "vocal style" section. I would reiterate that the term "falsetto" (currently included in the infobox, will probably be changed again by the time anyone reads this) describes a vocal technique not a classification of voice type. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is disagreement on his voice type by knowledgeable people quoted in reliable sources, then we can mention them both (or all): "There is disagreement about Jackson's voice type, with A, B and C calling him a countertenor[1][2][3] and X and Y calling him a high tenor[4][5]." Exploding Boy (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
The ethnicity needs to be entered in as African American or Black, because many people may classify him as White seeing his skin color but in fact we do know he is Black originally born from African American parents, and his religious beliefs can be as just Former Jehovah's Witness, because that is the position of Wikipedia, his religious beliefs are unknown, we do know he was part of it but disassociated himself from it, and have not agreed to his conversion to Islam so by entering it like this is appropriate and suitable. Dimario (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox is not the best place for discussing Michael Jackson's religion or ethnicity. The infobox is not a passport or driving license, so it should stick to the basics.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think his ethnicity merits inclusion in the Infobox, since it has been such a heated aspect of his public life. I agree with Ian, however, in that "former Jehovah's Witness" is not merited for inclusion in the Infobox; there are other religions/belief systems he may have also been associated with. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Labelling a person by race, creed or colour is always controversial. Some people dislike the terms "black" and "African American", and the consensus has been to avoid these terms wherever possible.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken; on re-thought I suppose I am indifferent to its inclusion. I wouldn't think there'd be a problem using the "African-American" label, but I understand how it may be controversial. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 11:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How can he not be african american? Portillo (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He was born as a African American and died as an African American. What is the controversy here, people having different opinions of his race? Dimario (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on including the ethnicity in the box, although I would think it would be fairly obvious which one goes in there if one is going in at all. On the religion aspect, I vote quite strongly for nothing to go in there at all. Saying 'former' is inappropriate since we don't know how official him leaving any religion is, and it follows that it would therefore be misleading to write in any religion since there is an apparent lack of clarity as to what his faith was at the time of his death (or how official that may have been). I'm not sure the particular type of funeral service would be enough to clarify things either, since that would be the choice of the family, and not automatically reflective of Michael's own personal beliefs. Sky83 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely, I definitely agree that we should not list religion in the Infobox at all for the reasons you've detailed. As for listing ethnicity I am still indifferent. Terms like "African-American" and "black" are controversial because it's a sensitive subject; besides, which one of those would we use, and why? It's a discussion we could avoid by simply omitting ethnicity altogether... but alas, I digress. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the ethnicity point, entirely. When I wrote the thing about it being obvious what to put, I was more referring to the few crazies that might come out to try to say he wasn't black/African American because of his later appearance. If the ethnicity was to go in, consensus would have to be reached, because like you say, it can be controversial which term to use. Even with the slight chance that consensus could be reached on the issue, there are sure to be people who arrive at the article, don't read the talk page (or even a hidden note), and change the term to the one they want, for whatever reason. It seems to me that you are completely correct, that the only real way to avoid offending or annoying anyone over the specific term used is to avoid using anything there. I don't really find that it adds much to the article to have it there, and considering the amount of edit warring it might cause, is it really worth the fuss? I don't feel that it is. A more neutral and descriptive way of addressing the ethnicity and appearance of Michael Jackson is contained in the text of the article, and in a seperate article entirely. Sky83 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let's get a few things straight here. Race and ethnicity are two different concepts, meaning that "black" is not an ethnicity. If your research really went back in time to search for it, MJ's ethnicity would derive from a particular African culture. In that sense, he's African-American, of course. Ethnically speaking, there should be no controversy. The concept of race, however, is totally ridiculous and meaningless, being one of the foundational tenets of racism as a comprehensive (and flawed) ideology about human experiences. I don't wish to discuss that here, however, but I wanted to point out that this issue becomes more tricky when you decide (foolishly and arbitrarily, as racism does) that identity is attached to a skin color. My solution to the problem? Let's not mention anything about race or ethnicity in the infobox. The lead already says that he was an African-American entertainer. I think we're fine just with that.UberCryxic (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Something has happened to make the image size increase, and it's not responding to a change in the parameters. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone altered the template. Some of the recent edits to the lead and infobox have been tiresome, since they have placed personal wishes over attempts at building consensus. It would be a pity to have full protection again, but PLEASE do not make substantial changes to the lead or infobox without discussing them here first. This is leading to time-wasting and circular editing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it, Ian. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing in the lead
Could I ask people not to fiddle around with the writing in the lead, unless you know what you're doing and the change is definitely an improvement? What's happening is one person moves a comma. The next person sees that moved comma, and thinks the paragraph no longer flows, so they move some part of it. A third person sees that moved part, and realizes that it's caused a grammatical error, and has to make a further change. And so on until we have a dog's breakfast. The way it is written at present is grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. The facts are correct. The flow is good. So&mdash;please&mdash;don't change it unless you're sure your change makes it better! SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah but the writing in the lead is currently foolish hyperbole.


 * I'm a great fan of MJ but to call him "the greatest entertainer who ever lived" is unilluminating and lame. Am tempted to contribute but am certain there is a small cabal of literary experts that would quickly revert.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My only issue was that the article started with a paragraph, rather than saying Michael Jackson is an entertainer FULL STOP. But it seems to be better now, with a full stop after the greatest entertainer part. Portillo (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok now. I like this version.UberCryxic (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Slim here, as it seems every day recently we've had to watch the lead degrade into gramtical nonsense. I think we should all be super careful on minor edits within, and should probably bring anything bigger to discussion. On that note I would like to alter Jackson's debut date with the Jackson 5 in the lead permanently from 1968 to 1964. At the moment the 1968 date is in contradiction to the article's prose and infobox. I should note that although in 1964 the group was called "the jackson brothers" I think for simplicity's sake they should be reffered to as the Jackson 5 since it is the same group and explaining the name change is too cumbersome and trivial for the lead. I have changed this year several times in the past but it seems the lead keeps getting messed arond with and ultimately reverted. Solid State Survivor (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that the phrase "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" in the lead section reads like classic WP:PEACOCK and should be removed. Jackson's reputation is sufficient not to need this sort of hype in the lead. Please let's lose this with no edit warring.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is abit biased.--60.240.32.151 (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the truth! Whether he was or not, who knows, but he is widely regarded as such; see the billion people who dropped what they were doing to watch his memorial. Guys, please stop this crazy literal-mindedness. Do we want a well-written lead? If yes, we have one. It's not going to be improved by people saying, "Trademark black fedora? Hang on, I think he once wore a purple one," or "widely regarded as the greatest entertainer? We need to hold a poll before we can say that," or "dubbed the King of Pop? Well, sometimes dubbed it, or dubbed it by fans, or dubbed it since 1982, or dubbed it by Wikipedians." Please! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--why you bring our discussion about the hat here is beyond me. This is the only thing in the lead, I have changed and I mentioned that above, there really was no need to continue the discussion here... everything else I have let other editors work on... as for the color of the hat, I'd rather not mention any color at all, rather than stating any specific color; unless there was a written source that stated otherwise... As for "dubbed the King of Pop" and "widely regarded as the greatest entainer of all time", I could personally care less, whether those sentiments were included or not. However, it does violate the... i.e. "widely regarded " and "dubbed by the King of Pop " nature, "how many is "widely"?... and so on. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on the subject... it only matters that we follow Wikipedia's guidelines, unless there is sufficient cause to do otherwise...Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, NPOV, V, and NOR matter. But the writing matters too. You can be as meticulously neutral as you like ("widely regarded as the greatest entertainer by Mr and Mrs Smith, 70 Parson's Lane, Hertford"), but if the writing is bad, people won't want to read it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--... being meticuously neutral is what wikipedia wants you to do... "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." But I understand that these are guidelines and not strict rules, and I personally, have no plans on changing anything else in lede at this time so I bid adeiu... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to show me the FAs you've worked on, where you've managed to combine excellent writing with meticulous, even anal, pursuit of the content policies, without going too far in any direction, I'll be happy to take a look. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--I will do no such thing... I was only quoting from Wikipedia's own policies... I was only reiterating what was previously written... Besides, I don't see how the status of FA, makes following Wikipedia's guidelines any less important, but whatever, you're purely arguing with me, for the sake of argument, now, so I don't care... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Imagine it's the year 4000. Archeologists have just dug up a solid-bronze, gold-plated casket, entombed in concrete. Inside, they find some bones, and a bit of material that looks as though it was once part of a white glove. They can see by the casket alone that this was someone very important. So they turn to the ancient archives of Wikipedia, July 2009, the last dump to be partly saved just before the October 2009 nuclear world war. All that remains of the biography is the lead.


 * We want to write a lead now that causes them to say in future, "Ah, now we understand." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's not the year 4000. Peacocking is one of the most common causes of complaints in the lead section, which is why the WP:PEACOCK guideline exists. The phrase "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is a stock piece of peacocking and could be rolled out to describe any number of entertainers. It is more like showbiz hype that WP:NPOV writing, which is why it should be toned down.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PEACOCK is a guideline, so we're allowed to ignore it. We could each of us pull up a dozen mainstream sources who say he is widely regarded as etc. NPOV writing doesn't have to be boring; in fact, FA writing should definitely not be boring. If you have a better phrase to describe him in the first sentence, where the writing flows well, please suggest it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived" is not peacocking. Peacocking would be something to the effect of...."Michael Jackson is widely regarded as one of the most spectacular, illustrious, legendary, and promethean figures of human history"....that's peacocking. To say that MJ is regarded as one of the greatest entertainers ever is to establish the notability of the subject. In other words, why is this article important? Why is the subject important? That first sentence is the answer to these questions, and it's a very good answer. There's no problem here.UberCryxic (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Peacocking doesn't have to be excessive or overdone to still be peackocking. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "In other words, why is this article important? Why is the subject important? That first sentence is the answer to these questions, and it's a very good answer."


 * That's exactly right. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we all know that Wikipedia is not in direct competition with Encyclopedia Britannica. However, it did seem interesting to see how Britannica handled the lead of its Michael Jackson article after some of the endless arguments here. Britannica's MJ article is here and says "American singer, songwriter, and dancer who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s. Reared in Gary, Ind., in one of the most acclaimed musical families of the rock era, Michael Jackson was the youngest and most talented of five brothers whom his father, Joseph, shaped into a dazzling group of child stars known as the Jackson 5." The word "dazzling" would probably set off a WP:NPOV debate immediately here at Wiki, but otherwise no great arguments. Britannica does not describe Jackson as a businessman, or make any reference to his race or religion in the lead.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--The article is important because Michael Jackson is an entertainer, plain and simple... Robbin Williams is important because he is a comedian... Michangelo is important because he is a painter and sculptor... Jesus Christ is important because he is a religious figure... by these sorts of arguments we should add things like "Robbin Williams is widely regarded as funny"; "Michaelangelo is widely regarded as artistic", "Jesus Christ is widely regarded as a spiritual being" to those articles rather than letting the articles detail these things. Saying "Michalangelo painted the Sistine Chapel" is much better than "Michalegenlo was widely regarded as artistic." Saying "Michael Jackson produce X# of hits" is much better than saying "Michael Jackson was widely regarded as a great singer." Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to thank SlimVirgin for the year 4000 comment. It was so funny :) As much as I agree with the "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of mod times" description, it can't really be countenanced in an encylopedia can it? C'mon! I've refrained from adding such a moniker to Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis, Jr., Judy Garland, Al Jolson, Bing Crosby, Liberace and Charlie Chaplin, all of whom had the insolence to die before Web 2.0 Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I want the greatest entertainer thing taken out too. I think that this article should start like any other article, which is such and such is/was a such and such. Then you can add all the pov you want, like "Regarded as one the best..." Portillo (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to use the "greatest entertainer" phrase in the lead. It seems that some users will not be happy until the lead is overloaded with fancruft, and this is becoming tiresome due to the constant edit warring.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the first sentence that I support is not fancruft. Like I explained above, it's an appropriate description of the subject's importance. Anyway, the last thing I want is an edit war. If we can't make any progress through discussion, and we likely won't given our entrenched positions, I'd be open to a straw poll to see on which side people fall with this issue. Let that be the deciding factor, otherwise that sentence will just keep on changing and it'll be a mess.UberCryxic (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at The Beatles. They are described in the lead as "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music". This is OK for Wikipedia writing style. The word "greatest" is not used, which is the right decision.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you brought up the Beatles, they are being shortchanged, given the obvious: they are the most commercially successful band (and musical act period) in history. This is an example of something being wrong with another article, not this one. I would have no problem describing the Beatles in the same terms as MJ. Just because someone did not do a good job with that article does not mean you have to take it out on this one.UberCryxic (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is encyclopedic in the section dealing with the aftermath of his death - that in that immediate post-death period, there were statements made to this effect by some admirers. And also that there some prominent naysayers who felt that this was hyperbole. Both accompanied by sources. So this could be added in that place.  But such an assertion is not an encyclopedic fact to place in the lede (correct spelling). There is no consensus for that. And a straw poll - which is unscientific at the best of times - is not the way to resolve this.  This needs Wikipedians with no great interest in the topic who can apply cool logic and Wiki precedent rather than heated opinion. Davidpatrick (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Straw polls have been used before for this article, with successful results in resolving conflicts. I'm not pushing the idea ardently; I just want to make sure it's something we consider. It's an option we could take. Naysayers do not get undue weight; there are far more people who consider MJ the greatest, or one of the greatest, than there are those who do not. The opinions of Berry Gordy and President Obama are not equal to those of Nancy Grace and Geraldo Rivera. It's unfair of you to suggest that this is an equal fight, considering one of the most famous and beloved human beings of all time just passed away.UberCryxic (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Elvis Presley is another article that has managed to avoid fancruft and peacocking in the lead. From a commercial point of view, Michael Jackson's biggest success was "Thriller", which is the best selling album of all time. Assessments of relative artistic merit (greatest entertainer etc) are unencyclopedic. Please let's not spend all day arguing about this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone flatly said that he was the "greatest entertainer," then obviously it would not be an encyclopedic statement. We're just making a correct sociological observation: he's widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of modern times. I don't prefer to argue either, but I would like some conclusion to this whole affair involving a strong consensus from established users. What I definitely do not prefer is a version of this article dictated by you, and that kind of approach can only lead to more frustration among all interested parties.UberCryxic (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tried to reflect WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. Several users in this section have said that they find the "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of modern times" phrase clunky and unnecessary, and I go along with that. Agree that finding a consensus is a priority, as the article is being held up over this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Several users have also expressed opinions to the contrary, ergo....we need a way of quantifying those opinions.UberCryxic (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles lead is different because it doesnt just say the greatest band of all time. It says commercially and critically successful; which can be sourced. Portillo (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! 07/07/09
These facts are from the OK! magazine dated 7th July, 2009: with Dangerous coming a close second. First solo artist to generate 4 top ten hits on the Billboard charts from one album with Off The Wall and the first to reach seven with Thriller. Only artist to generate five American singles from a single album with Bad. Also holds the record for most Grammy's won in one year, taking home 8 in 1984. I know most of this is already in the article, just thought I would state some interesting facts. Thanks, -- Flash flash  ;  12:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He died 10:26 PM UK Time.
 * The Jackson 4 signed to Motown in 1968.
 * He has the rights to 251 Beatles songs
 * Siblings: Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, La Toya, Marlon, Brandon (died at birth), Randy & Janet.
 * The street the Jackson family lived on as children has been renamed Jackson Boulevard.
 * Over 750 million albums sold worldwide and over 48 million copies of Thriller shifted, making it the biggest selling album of all time,
 * Jonelle Procope, president of the Apollo Theater Foundation (Apollo Theater is in Harlem, New York) said: "Michael first performed with his brothers here when he was only nine, winning Amatuer Night in 1969".

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the "750 million albums sold" claim is legitimate. Please fix this. This article gives the genesis of that rumor: 75.57.142.16 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Flash, I am concerned with the factual accuracy of the information you presented. It is the Jackson 5, not the Jackson 4, for starters. And, Wikipedia avoids trivia, see WP:Trivia. And does a street named after Jackson hold any biographical importance to his life? Is it essential to a biography of his life? TechOutsider (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Taraborelli
I see that there's a lot of references to J. Randy Taraborelli's book in the article. How reliable that guy is? He always struck me as a tabloid journalist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.244.98 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the issues that has been raised after MJ's death is the use of J. Randy Taraborrelli for a fair number of the citations. This has been discussed before at . Taraborrelli is a recognized expert on Jackson and met him on a number of occasions. Agree that from an academic purist's viewpoint, some more varied citations would be desirable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it as a source, but we rely on it too much, in my view. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the heavy reliance on Taraborelli's book. I don't have the book myself and am wondering if he provided much documentation as to his sources and if any one has checked on them?1publiceye (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you notice any factual errors or violations of WP:NPOV when Taraborelli is cited? Or are you simply concerned about the source in general. I think the source was extensively used because the book provided a solid foundation for the layout of the article; all the editor(s) had to do was simply read it, gain an understanding of Jackson's life, and summarize the book, going into detail with each subsection which correspond to a notable period in Jackson's life. I am willing to bet Taraborelli divided up Jackson's life into the exact same periods this article uses, however I don't have the book either. TechOutsider (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft
I'd like to go through the article and start removing some of the more obvious fancruft. The article is far too oriented to the minutiae of his music: where it hit the charts, when, what position, how it differed from country to country, week to week. I doubt Jackson himself paid much attention to this degree of detail. For example, in the final years section, we have the financial problems and the loss of Neverland, and the rest is devoted to what position which release was at in which country. No mention that he had become a drug addict whose life was in danger; no mention of attempted interventions by family and friends to save him. But we do have:

"The 25th anniversary of Thriller was marked by the release of Thriller 25, which added the previously unreleased song 'For All Time' and re-mixes of several songs by younger artists influenced by Jackson. The Thriller 25 package also included a DVD. Two remixes were released as singles to moderate success: 'The Girl Is Mine 2008' and 'Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008'. Thriller 25 sold well as a re-issue, peaking at number one in eight countries and Europe. It reached number three in the UK and top 10 on over 30 national charts.[126][127][128] It was ineligible for the Billboard 200 chart as a re-release, but entered atop the Pop Catalog chart, where it stayed for 11 weeks and had the best sales on that chart since December 1996.[129][130][131] In 12 weeks Thriller 25 sold over three million copies worldwide.[132] Thriller 25 was the best-selling catalog album of 2008.[131] As of the date of Jackson's death, the album had sold 774,000 copies in the US.[133]"

We can't add the biographical material until we remove some of the fancruft, because the article is already too long, so something has to give. I'm posting this here to gain consensus, because I don't want to do the work only to be reverted. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's cruft, more WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE. I reinstated some of the material you removed because it was overkill, but generally support the cut. — Please comment  R  2  19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. My intention is to go in and remove some more. Basically, any details about chart positions that could be in the articles about the albums themselves should be there, not here, unless it's something truly very unusual. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the pieces you want to remove first, I'm not happy about everything you have been trying to remove, although I've supported the general direction your taking. — Please comment  R  2  19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not practical to discuss each detail in advance, as I'll mostly only know what's appropriate to remove when I'm doing the copy edit. The principle would be that the article is about the man, not the music, and therefore the music should only be discussed in detail when it impacted on his life. A great deal of it did, so there should indeed be mention of it. But we have separate articles on all the albums and important singles and videos, and what-have-you. We therefore can't repeat those details here. Whether Thriller was no. 74 in the charts in Botswana had no impact on Jackson's life, so that degree of detail just doesn't belong here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems misguided to try and separate the man from the music. The fundamental reason why MJ is famous is because of the music, so obviously the latter needs lots of attention, generally speaking. My position is that notable (perhaps record-breaking) chart rankings should be included. Exactly what counts as "notable" is something that will feature a great deal of discussion, I'm sure.UberCryxic (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well most of the chart info that remains is specific to the US, UK or general worldwide sales. These are important, they are mentioned on every other music bio. So again, please discuss before you remove, everyone else is discussing. We've worked peacefully this past few days at trimming the access details. We can continue to do this slowly, step by step, instead of angryly shouting at each other, like we were a few days ago. — Please comment  R  2  19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These albums have their own articles. The details belong there, not here. We need to free up the space so we can write about his life, which is what this article is about. It's a biography, not a musicography. Also, large sections of it are almost unreadable, more like a list with no connecting narrative:


 * "In 2006, he signed a deal with Sony. Then he moved out of Neverland. Then he got addicted to drugs. Then, Thriller climbed to the top of the Billboard 7000 charts in the U.S., though not as a re-release, but as a pre-re-post-release, and in Poland it was number 10 in the first week of the year, falling to number 11 the next week, but slated to be number five the week after."


 * Et cetera. :)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please specify pieces you would like to see removed, it is not hard and we have no time limit. I'll be back later, we can continue this discussion then, but let's keep it as a discussion. We are actually making peaceful progress, so let's stick at it. — Please comment  R  2  20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I can't be specific, until I'm actually doing the copy edit. That's like asking me to say in advance, "I want to remove this comma, and this semi-colon." In brief, I want to remove everything of the ilk: "Thriller hit no. 1 here, no. 3 there, and was slated to do this or that in Iceland." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, if Thriller did it, it's fine. Just kidding, but the original point I made above remains: notable chart, sales, and concert records in huge music markets should be mentioned.UberCryxic (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this article contain too many details about his music?
Perhaps others could weigh in: "Are there too many details about his music in this article? Do we need more about his life?" SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Baring in mind we want to add more info on the 2003 documentary and the 2005 trial I think not. The huge 1993 section is purely about the accusations and Winfrey interview (so 100% personal), there is an entire section for the 1994 marriage. The "final years" section is 3/4's personal life. The early life section has a bit about his childhood years. The bad era info (1986-1990) is at least 40% personal. The 1991–93: Dangerous and Super Bowl XXVII is 100% music. The section on the second marriage/third child is about 50% personal. The Thriller era info is 75% music, maybe more. If we take prose, the personal life info is clearly beginning to outstrip the music. Since your plan is to remove music and add more personal, this could get terribly unbalanced. The personal info will actually take priority, which it most certainly should not. — Please comment  R  2  20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is showing some signs of being too detailed about the music. The biographical details should be the most prominent part of this article, since the albums, singles and videos all have separate articles. Since these can go into more detail than Michael Jackson, the article should concentrate on Jackson the person rather than the music.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this reasoning, per my comments above. One major reason (read: only reason) why we care about famous people is because of what they do in life. MJ would not have this kind of article on Wikipedia if Thriller weren't the best-selling record of all time, if he hadn't broken concert records all over the world, etc. These details need to feature prominently in the article. His personal life also needs to be covered, of course, but not at the expense of what he is known for primarily: his music, his dancing abilities, and his skill as an entertainer.UberCryxic (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say about Thriller is true, and some of the other albums. But there is no much detail about the albums and chart positions in various countries, that there's no space left for his life and the other aspects of his entertaining (e.g. the dancing, which was arguably more important than the music, or at least as important). Even ignoring that, it's incredibly hard to read some of the album-cruft. It means we have no flowing narrative. We have sections like, "In 2006, Thriller reached no 3 in China. His third child was born. Thriller reached no. 4 in Kenya. Then he became addicted to drugs." There's no writing, no story. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not fully agree with Slim about reducing the amount of music in the article. It seems to me that any article on a given topic must touch on the core aspects of that topic and provide them with weight proportional to their notability. I think if we were to par down musical information it may make a more streamlined biography, however as an encyclopedia article the page would suffer in failing to adequately and evenly explain what is notable about the topic. However I do very much agree with Slim that a good deal of the musical information disrupts the flow of narrative. I dont think this is inherent in it being musical information, but rather that much of it seems to be of a statistical nature. A good deal of what is written about his music catalogs record sales, concert attendees and award nominations - while I think some of this is of great importance additional insights could be made that would greatly strengthen the article as a biography. For instance when discussing "Off the Wall" instead of detailing each individual award that it was nominated for and won, we could discuss Michael's intent in this work to create distance from prior Jacksons material, and note its importance in his progression as a songwriter. Another prime example can be found in the way that HIStory is approached; rather than showing the release and performance of each single we could note how the albums darker themes reflect Jackson's tribulations in the proceeding years. It is clear that Jackson broke countless records and won as many awards, however when this makes up such a large portion of what is written here it deprives from the rich narrative of his progression as an artist. There should be more of an emphasis on drawing this second narrative out in this main article as much of it seems to exist in subarticles on the individual works. To restate my opinion we should not attempt to divorce "Michael Jackson - the man" from "Michael Jackson - the musician" since the two are so intertwined and the narrative of each can so strongly reinforce the other. Solid State Survivor (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Image
I think the current image of Michael Jackson should be replaced really by the 1988 image, there are number of reasons to why this should be as I have pointed in previous discussions, first the current image does not show the full face of Michael Jackson because he's wearing glasses, whereas the 88 image is a close-up without glasses also it has a lighter skin tone, really its not about having an image which shows the impact of his fame but an image which is updated to show how the person looks, and I cannot understand why Michael Jackson's image cannot be updated when we have a more recent image to the current 84 image, plus the image is repeated or cropped from the image in the 1984-85 section, and is a low resolution image. Dimario (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, we are trying to avoid daily debates over this. It does come down to the 1984 or 1988 images due to WP:NFCC, but which one is best for the infobox is one of those areas capable of filling up the talk page. For what it's worth, my vote goes to the 1984 image, but there will be disagreements on this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a shame that one of most photographed people in the world doesnt have at least one recent photo that we can use here. Portillo (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the reason to why the 1984 image should be used instead of the 1988 image? Dimario (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no overall reason, but a look at the page history shows that the 1984 image has proved the most popular. Until MJ's death, this was the preferred infobox image. Also, there is another photo from the 1988 set in 1986–87: Appearance, tabloids, Bad, autobiography, and films.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thats not a reasonable reason, so its up there because its the most popular? it shouldn't really be decided on that note but on how the image looks and its update'ness'. Even if it was the worst image of him but the most popular will it still be up there, I know its like a democratic type of thing but seriously the image needs to be updated, and the 1988 image is the best we have and should be used. Dimario (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about the age of the person: would you put a 100 years old MJ picture into the infobox if he were to live that long?? But it's about representation, the image which is showing in a blink of an eye and to most of us: what and who is MJ! Notability criterias apply here. The 1988 image you propose is not a well known one and does not represent under these criterias and in the best way: MJ. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 13:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, the 1984 image has proved popular because it shows Michael Jackson in showbiz attire with his trademark white glove. The most important factor in the choice of infobox image is not to set off a constant carousel of edits, with each user choosing the 1984 or 1988 image depending on which one they prefer. This is why a consensus is needed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this issue endlessly over the years, and I don't expect that discussion to abate. My opinions here are clear: I'm fine with the current image.UberCryxic (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the primary goal of the lead photo should be to clearly identify the subject, and the 1984 one certainly does that. Jackson is depicted in an outfit he frequently wore when on stage.  The 1988 one is a little unusual in that you almost never saw him wearing a baseball cap.  Let's stick with the 1984 one. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to share a tidbit with you
I want you to know that yesterday, Jackson fans gathered at the O2 Arena in London to pay tribute in lieu of what would have been a "This Is It" comeback tour. Story--Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't that just the cat's B.O.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.153.229 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most related to the Death of Michael Jackson article. TechOutsider (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What the inside of Neverland Ranch looks like
I've discovered what the inside of Neverland Ranch looks like now. Here's the link. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would most likely belong to the Neverland Ranch article. Do those photos have much to do with a biography of this life? TechOutsider (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. TechOutsider (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson joined BOSTON?!?
This is obviously BS. Please delete it from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.155.10 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Real Estate
Michael Jackson owned three residences, his childhood home located in Garry, Indiana. This home was actually re-purchased by Michael Jackson as a result of a banktupcy of Joseph and Kathrine Jackson in (?) for $25,000. Second, the Havenherst home (address needed) purchased in 1971 and where Kathrine Jackson, mother and children (names) currently live and refered as "The family Compound". And this third property, Neverland Valley Ranch (formerly the Sycamore Valley Ranch)[1] is a developed property in Santa Barbara County, California, purchased in 1988.

Of course, sources and photos are needed but I thought this would be an interesting project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.172.36 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo
The article states that Jackson had vitiligo, but the only source cited for this claim is statements made by Jackson himself in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993. The only reliable source I could find to verify Jackson's claim was a story from 1993 in the NY Times Doctor Says Michael Jackson Has a Skin Disease which quotes a Beverly Hills dermatologist named Dr. Arnold Klein who claimed that Jackson did indeed have vitiligo. However, the problem is that many sources about Jackson's health have later proven to be unreliable. The NY Times has another article Jackson's Health a Subject of Confusion which quotes a Jackson biographer named J. Randy Taraborrelli as saying: “Just when you think you have information, someone comes and recants the diagnosis,” said Mr. Taraborrelli, author of “Michael Jackson: The Magic and The Madness,” written in 1991 and updated in 2005. “All of the stories of the different medical issues become such a blur. It just got to a point where I stopped trying to verify.” I think it would be a good idea for any claims made about Jackson's health be regarded with skeptisim and qualified with language that indicates who is making the claim. --Mktyscn (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic here... People made up other crap about Jackson, therefore Jackson himself can't be believed? Besides, there are photographs of Jackson as the condition progresses that very clearly show the patches of light skin, and there's the videotaped statement of his makeup artist. WillOakland (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that you're not suggesting that Jackson never lied to the press. But besides that, the point I am trying to make is that statements about Jackson having vitiligo need to be backed up by an expert (i.e. a doctor) who examined Jackson and is therefore qualified to determine that Jackson had vitiligo. Pictures and statements from other people are not reliable because there are many skin conditions that can cause skin tone irregularities. Mktyscn (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What I'm suggesting (saying) is that the tendency of other people to lie about Jackson's skin or anything else does not make him unreliable on the matter, nor the people who knew him personally. WillOakland (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Michael Jackson's vitiligo, Dr. Deepak Chopra also confirmed that he did in fact have the disease in a recent interview on CNN. The transcript for that interview is available here. In addition to the account of his makeup artist, there are various pictures indicating that Michael Jackson likely had the disease.

Michael Jackson himself addressed the rumor in his 1993 interview with Oprah. The transcript is available here and the video is available on youtube. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely in violation of Wikipedia that it be stated as fact that Michael Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo. That is taking a side. We are relying on Michael's own report and upon statements by two controversial doctors, both of whom were friendly with Jackson. It should be stated as such. In the context of his entire history (we see that he altered his nose and lips and straightened his hair to look white), Occums's razor suggests he bleached his skin. We should state that the vitiligo story is controversial or challenged by others or that Michael has stated he had vitiligo. We should not allow wikipedia to state that he had vitiligo. If that turns out to be disproven, then wikipedia hasn't just made an error. Stating something as true when one is unsure is as much a lie as stating something as true when one knows it to be false. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 2:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that stating a medical condition is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. This type of strick standard would not likely be applied to anyone else.  Although I am aware of skin bleaching, I am unaware of a procedure in which one could lighten their skin so extremely.  If there is such a procedure or any evidence that Michael Jackson had such a procedure done, where is the citation?  Where is the citation that indicates a valid challenge to his vitiligo?  Besides tabloid gossip and conjecture, there is no evidence to contradict the medical condition of vitiligo.


 * With regard to Dr. Deepak Chopra, I don't believe that he is considered a "controversial doctor." From all appearances, he seems to be a respected medical doctor, who has been continually interviewed in the media during the past week.  If there is controversy surrounding Dr. Chopra, please give the citation.


 * I am in no way POV pushing; I am simply stating that the most likely scenario has some form of citation. With regard to his plastic surgery, that is another matter, which I don't believe is related to the vitiligo. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The photographs, the medical records, the strip search of his body in 1993. Without a doubt this man has vitiligo, it's the very reason he was strip searched in 1993. The article already mentions the tabloid rumours, but they carry little weight. — Please comment  R  2  19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem to state as fact that Jackson had vitiligo if a truly reliable source can be found to back it up. The problem is that sources about Jackson's health are anything but reliable. That's why Jackson's health has been the subject of controversy, speculation, and rumor for so long. Hopefully, some of this will change as details about his autopsy become public. In the mean time, statements about Jackson's health should be attributed to whoever is making the claim and let readers decide if it's believable. Mktyscn (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have given no reason why Jackson and people who knew him directly would not be truly reliable sources. Other people lying about other things is not a reason. WillOakland (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you actually tried reading more than just the first sentence of my responses you would already know the reason. Vitiligo is a medical condition, and therefore only a doctor can credibly claim Jackson had it. The article should cite a reliable source that identifies the doctor -- simple as that. If you knew anything about citing sources properly, you would understand this. Mktyscn (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a citation to a doctor talking about the condition, then argue vaguely that his own dermatologist is unreliable. WillOakland (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you're attributing someone else's comment to me. As of right now the only source cited is the Oprah interview, and if you've ever watched it, you would know that Jackson didn't use the word vitiligo to identify his skin disorder. The NY Times article I referred to in my original comment (which quotes Dr. Klein) is a much better source than the Oprah interview. Stop assuming that I'm attacking Jackson just because I think the article should refer to a different source. Jackson's word is not Gospel. Mktyscn (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW... if Michael Jackson himself, those that knew him well, highly famous media journalists and interviewers, and the Jackson family are not good enough Sources who is? You want his doctor to tell you personally? You don't feel that his seeing that man on a more than regular basis backs his comments? The Jackson family is highly secretive because of the abuse of their information once they do let people in. So what do you want before it can be added to this article? Do you want god to tell you personally? I think those sources are highly credible and if the article were not about Michael we would not be at odds at all about this. They are definately credible. 63.229.82.34 (talk)

There are several videos on youtube were you can see that he had vitiligo, especially in the music video "They don't care about us". Especially in the rebuttal documentary "Take Two: The Footage you were never meant to see" you can here the person that did his make-up admits that he had vitiligo from the early 80s on. There is no form of skin bleeching! How will you bleech the skin? The person is more supposed to die because of the bleech then have its skin clearer. This was all gossip and people believed it because they don't know enough people with vitiligo and these that have vitiligo normally don't have the money to put make-up on it. But MJ had spots on his body till the end of his life - why won't he bleech all of his skin if he did so instead of leaving some spots? --Elaste2000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TSEKXXIvI
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGcJFCmnCg&feature=related


 * CNN has an article about vitiligo here. I'd like to put it in the external links section of either this article or the vitiligo article, but I'm not sure where (or if) it's appropriate. Since many people don't believe Jackson's own statements regarding the disease, I think this CNN article could be useful. --JHP (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, probably better for the vitiligo article, there are some concerns about the loading time of this article so we should be restrictive. — Please comment  R  2  22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about the famous Chellist Jacqueline du Pré which has the following entry "Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, In 1971 du Pré’s playing began an irreversible decline as she started to lose sensitivity in her fingers and other parts of her body. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in October 1973.", This article does not quote a source for the diagnosis nor does anyone question it. Why is this different for Michael Jackson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.235.50 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right. The MJ article also openly accepts "claims" such as his birth and his co-writing credit of "We Are the World".  Maybe he was actually teleported from another planet:  is there any video of the birth?  Maybe Lionel Richie didn't realise the misprint in the song-writing credit:  did anyone see MJ write this?
 * As others have already said, in the absence of strong proof against, there is no reason to treat the fact of vitiligo as anything else. The only choice to be made is whether to also mention tabloid "controversy" or uninformed "dispute" about it.
 * —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
 * This is just fan ranting. Both his birth date and "We Are the World" song-writing credits already have proper source citations. His skin disorders do not. If du Pré's MS does not have a source citation, then it needs one as well. If Jackson's skin disorders are controversial and du Pré's MS isn't, then maybe it's because du Pré didn't hide her MS behind loads of makeup, surgical masks, and possibly also skin bleaching. Also, Jackson is not an expert on health issues and therefore his word on such things should not be treated as Gospel. Mktyscn (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't multiple persons close to Michael Jackson verified that he had Vitiligo? These include at least two medical doctors. If these are not good enough evidences, what evidences you are looking for? Do you want to personally take a look at Michael Jackson's body? It doesn't take a Michael Jackson fan to know that a person's dermatologist has a say on his/her skin condition, and didn't MJ's dermatologist say years ago and recently on TV that he had Vitiligo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is incorrect that vitiligo usually starts at birth. Per emedicine the average age of onset is 20 years. Also, there is a mountain of evidence that Jackson bleached his skin because of vitiligo, so the doubts expressed in the article are overly defamatory and should be de-emphasized.Brmull (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If a person's skin is bleached gradually over time, the person's changes could appear to some people as if it were vitiligo. Vitiligo, itself, does not follow any pattern that is similar to what we've witnessed during the life of Michael Jackson. Jackson claims there is no such thing as skin bleaching, but then goes on to claim that he smoothed out his skin color to be even by skin bleaching. In other words, when asked if he bleached his skin, he says there is no such thing. When asked how he became totally white, he states that his skin was bleached to match the white spots caused by the vitiligo. He could not have gone from totally brown to a totally pale skin color by vitiligo. There is no other such medical case on record. Did vitiligo cause his lips to thin, his nose to become smaller, and his hair to straighten. Did vitiligo cause his children to be born completely white. I think very highly of Michael Jackson's music and ability as a singer and performer, but that is not going to bias my thinking in favor of believing everything he said. There is one reason why he had white skin, thin lips, straight hair, and white children...he had body dysmorphic disorder. You would like to think he had five reasons, I suppose, one for each change (skin, hair, lips, and nose) and for his children being white. Let us be logical. He did not have any children either. Go listen to his beautiful music. I do. But don't be swayed as a fan to defend everything he said. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue I had was that the statements about him having vitiligo relied entirely on the Oprah interview as a source, and while it was the first time that Jackson stated publicly that he had a skin disease, he only gave a vague description of it and never actually said what his condition was. It was Dr. Klein who said that he had diagnosed Jackson with vitiligo. That's why I had suggested the NY Times story on Klein's public statement was a better source to back it up. Dr. Klein had also diagnosed Jackson with lupus (specifically discoid lupus) which can also do strange things to the skin. ABC News did a story on Jackson's lupus a few days ago which would make a good source for the article. Was Lupus the Reason for Michael Jackson's Glove?. Apparently, it's not uncommon for someone with vitiligo to have other skin disorders. As for Jackson having lots of plastic surgery and white children... that's not really relevant to this discussion. Mktyscn (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards to whether Michael credibly had vitiligo, anyone who doubts that vitiligo can cause pigment loss over the majority of ones body really does not yet have complete information about vitiligo. While it generally starts in small patches, it can and often does rapidly spread. Once a person has lost the pigment on more than 50% of their body they are not good candidates for repigmentation therapies and complete depigmentation with Benoquin/Monobenzone (which is entirely different than "bleaching creams") becomes the only way to even out the skin tone. The following links show individuals with the same type of pigment loss as Michael Jackson: http://i.abcnews.com/Health/Story?id=4535420&page=2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDDmKAeth0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6b7kHGsSg Only complete pigment loss results in the kind of ghostly pallor that Michael had in his later years. "Bleaching" creams do not permanently affect skin color and do not give that same result. Depigmentation, however, is permanent and leaves the individual extremely susceptible to sunlight, because, as the name implies, there is no remaining pigment. Lupus also renders one highly susceptible to burning with any sun exposure. In the '93 Oprah interview he does not say that he used "bleach" to even out his skin tone, but that he used MAKE UP. According to his makeup artist, Karen Faye, when his skin was still predominantly brown he used brown make up, but once the disease spread past a certain point that was no longer practical and he had to go with the light tone. There are plenty of pictures available that document this, as well as videos. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7F3calBvRY Another sticking point, we do not "know" that Michael altered his appearance in order "to look white." That is speculation. You can note that his appearance changed and how it changed, but only he knows his reasons and that cannot be determined from afar. If you take the time to look at photos of other individuals with complete facial depigmentation as a result of vitiligo, you can't help but be taken aback by how dramatically that alone changes their appearance, even without any other change. Yes, MJ's hairstyle was straight in the last decade or so, but so is Beyonce's, Queen Latifah's, and countless others. Whether he "thinned" his lips is also questionable. Did Mick Jagger "thin" his once very luscious lips? Did Steven Tyler? Thinning lips is a factor of aging. (For a photo comparison go to this link: <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30488708&l=bb89155d1c&id=1481725593>) Do we forget that he was 50 years old? Let's stick with facts and forget the pop psychology.1publiceye (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted scene of making of Captain EO, Michael without makeup: min 4.37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzLqg7EDTPk&feature=related &hearts; ManInTheMirror (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo
The article claims Jackson had vitiligo but a report in Vanity Fair by Maureen Orth contradicts this saying:

'''The affidavit also provides many details about Michael Jackson's skin condition and confirms what Gutierrez says the maid Blanca Francia told him. According to the affidavit, "Jackson told Ms. Francia that he bleaches his skin because he does not like being black and he feels that blacks are not liked as much as people of other races." Others told me that Jackson had special names for blacks, including "spabooks." According to the affidavit, Jackson used a powerful bleaching cream, Benoquin.''' Postits (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Benoquin is used to treat the effects of vitiligo, by removing the pigment from the blotches, in order to even out skin tone. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

UV Therapy is also a very impressive therapy for the treatment of vitiligo.


 * Maureen Orth, lol. Orth is about as credible as a wet piece of spaghetti. She's the woman that reported that MJ had ritually sacrificed 42 cows in order to curse Steven Spielberg. Apparently because the film director didn't let MJ play Peter Pan in a film. She also said that Jackson bathed in sheeps' blood. Here's the links if you want to have a good laugh: <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think the cow story is not credible? There are people who believe in such things. Postits (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exclusive: Photos of Michael Jackson Show Signs of Vitiligo and Needle Punctures from ABC News. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Skin bleaching could also produce unevenness as some patches of skin respond better than others so I don't think that photo proves he had vitiligo. Also, we know Jackson liked to feed images to the media in a very calculating way (i.e. oxygen chambre) & with all you can do with makeup, I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions from that photo. Postits (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those "exclusive pictures" are from December 2002 when MJ missed court dates due to a nasty spider bite during a case where he was accused of backing out on a pair of millennium concert performances. Now they are circulating everywhere-- often alleged as postmortem photos-- as evidence that he was a heroin user. Please avoid citing such sensationalist articles.1publiceye (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2003–05: Second child sexual abuse allegations
The statement concerning Liz Taylor's assertion to Larry King is misleading, because it gives the impression that Liz claimed to have been present when the accuser in the 2003-05 case was in MJ's bed, when she was actually referring to his nephews. Here is the excerpt from the cited transcript of that interview:

KING: But didn't you think, Elizabeth, Dame Elizabeth, I'm sorry, that it would look strange to people to have someone who is in his 40s spending a night with children? I mean, just on the face of it.

TAYLOR: All right. I'll answer that, because I've been there, when his nephews were there, and we all were in the bed, watching television. There was nothing abnormal about it. There was no touchy-feely going on. We laughed like children, and we watched a lot of Walt Disney. There was nothing odd about it.

Ambiguity makes the article less credible so I suggest that the statement be corrected. 1publiceye (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New infobox
I noticed that the infobox has recently been changed from a musician template to a person template. I realize that some of the things addressed in the people infobox are important and cannot be mentioned in the musician infobox, but let's not forget that Michael was primarily most notable for his music and mention of his musical genres and record labels are vital for any musician's article. I realize that he was much, much more than just a musician but music should still take priority in this article.

I wonder, is there anyway to possibly merge the musician and person template? For example, if someone was known mostly for being an Olympic athlete for most of their life and suddenly became president of a country, would there be any way of showing both the athletics template and the political template? Could the two (musician + person) possibly be merged together through a {{misc = column? GreekStar12 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The template has varied in the past. Template:Infobox Person is used at the moment, because it permits the addition of some fields that are not available in Template:Infobox Musical artist, eg children. Without editing the template itself, it may not be possible to have all of the desired fields. Please avoid changing the template without WP:CONSENSUS.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  {{sup|(talk to me)}} 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

what about the family?
many othe wiki pages on other languages talk about his family and it's important talk about that because they make mistakes because nobody talk about that, in español say that jackson has a stepsister (hermanastra) but he has a half-sister (media hermana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the information backed by a reliable reference? I have never heard of this before. TechOutsider (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion of children
There are multiple reliable sources that designate the religion of MJ's first two children. Which is clearly encyclopedic. And may have a bearing on the way custody is settled. This is important information. Its validity is not remotely at issue. If you wish to delete sourced, verified information - then please develop a consensus for deleting it rather than simply deleting it. Wikipedia is not about deleting important facts that are verified, sourced and not in dispute. Davidpatrick (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute the reliability of the sources, as I clarified in your talk page. If those sources actually qualify as reliable, Wikipedia is in trouble. As they are growing up with Katherine, MJ's kids will likely become Jehovah's Witnesses.UberCryxic (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1) There are multiple sources. I will be happy to add them. 2) "Showbiz411" is the name of the column. If you look you will discover the following. A) The column is part of the respected industry daily paper the Hollywood Reporter. B) The column is written by Roger Friedman who has been consistently to the forefront on reporting about MJ for many years. Featured very frequently since MJ's death on CNN, NBC Today Show etc etc. 3) The text does not speculate on what religion the children will embrace or take up. It states factually that under Jewish law the children are Jewish. And that Debbie Rowe has been quoted as saying they are "half-Jewish". The text takes no POV. Just reports the verifiable facts.  Davidpatrick (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unclear what religion if any Jackson's children were brought up as and/or if they follow any religion's spiritual practice. In the United States, your religion is whatever religion you identify yourself with.  If they don't identify themselves as Jewish, and if they are not members of a Jewish religious community, then they are not Jewish (except perhaps in an ethnic sense of the word "Jewish.") The information about their being Jewish "under Jewish law" seems unencyclopedic, especially given that their Jewishness stems from Debbie Rowe being a convert.  It is unclear if all Jewish groups would even recognize her conversion.  And it is a well-cited fact that she played little if any role in their upbringing after her divorce.  Even if they are Jewish under Jewish law, there is no Jewish court where someone (whoever that might be) could sue their guardian to force them to be practicing Jews, and there is no Jewish law enforcement agency which could enforce the settlement.  This info might be OK in the children's own entry, but this doesn't belong in the main article.   Jackson was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness and practiced that faith sporadically as an adult-- which doesn't make his kids Jehovah's Witnesses.   Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The text makes no claim about what the children follow. It states hard fact. Jewish law is absolute on the topic. Under Jewish law they are considered Jewish. They are free to ignore that. The text simply states how Jewish law defines them.  And also how their own mother defines them. Which is important.  The fact that the Jehovah's Witness faith may define their religion in a different way is not at issue.  The importance of this - as the Hollywood Reporter story makes clear is the conflict between what Rowe believes their religion to be and the interest in MJ by the Nation of Islam.  That the mother of two of MJ's children asserts that her children are half-Jewish and that the Jewish faith itself is unequivocal that the two children are 100% Jewish - and these assertions are in reliable media - is not content that should be deleted.  By all means add in that there is no information about the faith in which they are being raised. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate: if Roger Friedman is considered a reliable source, Wikipedia is more than in trouble....it's screwed. The only consistent thing about Friedman's reporting on MJ is how wrong -- so horribly wrong -- he has been. Friedman is little more than a tabloid reporter, and he does not deserve the citation that you want to give him. That aside, it is completely irrelevant what Jewish law says about these kids. It is also very irrelevant what Debbie Rowe says. She is a mother by biological relation, but she's not actually a mother in the sense of a social role. She has never interacted with these kids, and what she says regarding their religious status can be easily neglected.UberCryxic (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Uber here, both on the irrelevance of Rowe and of Jewish Law to the content of this article. I also agree about the complete lack of reliability with regards to Roger Friedman. Unitanode  03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There actually are Jewish religious courts, but they have no standing outside the communities which operates them. Debbie Rowe possibly could get one of those courts to issue a ruling but that ruling would be unenforceable. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This opens up a can of WP:BLP worms. Unless the children themselves declare their religions (which is unlikely for minors) it should be left out of the article. This is definitely not an area where daily edit wars are desirable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the BLP point. I also think that talking about the legalities of the religion of the children as viewed from the perspective and status of the mother, in a section related to the family life of MJ, does not help the flow of the narrative at all. It is rather convoluted, artificial, pointless, speculative, out of place and distracting. My 0.02$ worth anyway. Dr.K. logos 06:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:VERIFY and is a violation of WP:BLP, and a huge WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  06:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it didn't fail these, it is still out of place in that section. Dr.K. logos 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Prince Michael Jackson I has a well-publicized bar mitzvah when he is old enough, then we could conclude he and his sister were Jewish. That event would however belong in the article about Jackson's children, not this one. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Dr.K. logos 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Marie
Perhaps we should have a photo of Lisa Marie Presley in the mid 90's instead of the current one since that was when she was married to MJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.186.47 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the only free picture we have of Lisa Marie on Wikipedia. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Religion
Does anyone have any info on what religion Jackson practiced? I know he grew up a Jehova's witness but wanted some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.96.136 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he convert to Islam last year? This type of information should be added to the main page.
 * Please see #1 of the FAQs at the top of this page. Rodhull  andemu  14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Hi, everyone.

I submitted a sock investigation request on Alexanderfriend, who has been edit-warring at Black or White. I saw from his edit history that it appeared he had been engaging in a lot of similar conduct over here as well. If anyone has any information to add to this investigation, please chime in at Sockpuppet investigations/Alexanderfriend. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale image added
I have added a non-free use rationale image to the article to illustrate Michael Jackson, I believe it meets the criteria for rationale use because there are no recent images of Michael Jackson and he is one of the well known music artists which has its purpose. Dimario (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already has 5 non-free files. There is consensus for using the 1984 image in the infobox; read above. Non-free images are only used if there is no non-free alternative. The image will have to go I'm afraid. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have to agree here. The 1984 image has established a consensus for the time being, and should not be changed without a discussion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There reason why I have added this image is because Wikipedia does not have any updated images of the guy, all these images are based during the 1980s which does make sense to have non-free use rationale image. Plus the article only has 2 non-free images. There is no free alternative for a recent image. Dimario (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. The "we must have the most recent image" argument is not overwhelming. The consensus is to use the 1984 image, due to WP:NFCC. Please, no more edit warring on this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ian and Pyrrhus. The current image is fine.UberCryxic (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A Place With No Name
Hello my friends!!

Important to add this... (?!?) What do you think..?!

A Place With No Name (Unreleased 2009)

Best regards Lightwarrior2 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

King of Pop in the lead section
First, King of Pop should never appear in bold because it A) was not his birth-name and B) was not a legal alias or official stage name per Manual_of_Style_(biographies). Even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom does not have her title in bold. Secondly it should not appear in the first sentence, as it is meant to convey notability. Jackson was notable as a singer and performer, and was given the title as a result of that notability. He was not notable for simply being the King of Pop, as an actual career would have to preceed that. That is why this article has always given mention to it in the third or fourth sentence of the first paragraph. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. In fact, I'm not a big fan of the new lead at all. I prefer the old version better. The awards should be near the bottom, with his career as the first thing mentioned. That way, the reader understands why he is so recognized, instead of reading about it in the next paragraph. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 09:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with restoring the original chronological order of his biographical summary to the lead. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no opposition, later on, we can add this slightly tweaked version of the old lead. I don't want to charge right in with it just now, if people are going to complain and/or edit war over it. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 10:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the opening paragraph above suggested above is not ideal. It contains a list of Jackson's albums, which is not really necessary at this stage. It is better to stick to the current description of him as "one of the most commercially successful artists of all time". This helps to establish his significance per WP:LEAD.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "recording artist, entertainer and businessman" do the job of asserting notability. My other concern is that the current version is too wordy and goes into too much detail. Two examples:
 * "He was accused in 1993 of child sexual abuse, and though no charges were brought, his health suffered when he started using painkillers to cope with the stress" - We don't need all this detail.
 * "He married twice, first in 1994 and again in 1996, and brought up three children, one of them born to a surrogate mother, actions that triggered more speculation about his life." - Too much detail. We don't need the exact years, or who gave birth to his children in the lead. "Jackson married twice and fathered three children, all of which caused further controversy" was more sufficient.


 * The previous lead is one that we know works; it reached FA with it, as did the similarly constructed Janet Jackson article. Right now, I don't think that lead would pass a FAR. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 10:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. The lead is meant to give a general overview of the individual, not go into detail: that is what the article is for. Pyrrhus16's version may not be completely ideal, but its much better than what we have now. The description: Referred to as the "King of Pop" in subsequent years, five of his solo studio albums have become some of the world's best-selling records: Off the Wall (1979), Thriller (1982), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995). could probably be moved to the second paragraph, towards the end. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  11:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that part does look better where you have placed it. :) <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates
Could whoever restored these to the lead please not do that? There are so many in this article that the page is getting hard to load. We should be reducing the number of them, not increasing them, and there's especially no reason to change a well-formed reference to a template. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy? Innocence in 1993 charges
If this is a reliable source, I feel it should be included. I would've just done it, but I'd rather get some of your opinions first. http://woodenspears.com/michael-jackson-never-touched-me/ Hiphopchamp (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That story has been reported to be false, The kid would automatically lose his Millions if he came out and said he lied. Case closed.--Nothingbutgrains (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He wouldn't automatically lose the settlement, Jackson's estate would have to sue to get the cash back. – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were true it would have been more widely reported. Snopes says it's false http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chandler.asp and I'm inclined to agree. I would like to say that I appreciate your mentioning it here and seeking opinions: too many editors want to jump in with both feet citing dubious sources. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the accuser's description of MJ's genitalia, "not a definitive match" seems a gross understatement. If Taraborelli's (pp 534-540) account is accurate, the accuser described MJ as being circumcised, when in fact he was "intact." Seems a rather important inaccuracy in the testimony.1publiceye (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It's not always easy to tell that someone is intact. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the difference is unmistakable.1publiceye (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it isn't, at least not in every case. Much depends on the individual's penis and foreskin, state of arousal, colouring, etc, not to mention the viewer's relative experience with intact penises, lighting, angle of viewing....  In the US, where up to 80% of males are circumcised, it's possible the accuser, a 13 year-old boy (who probably hadn't seen too many adult penises in his life, particularly erect ones), had simply never seen an intact penis.  This isn't a commentary on Jackson's guilt or innocence, I'm only pointing out that this fact alone doesn't conclusively prove he didn't molest that child.   Exploding Boy (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is illogical. If the boy had never seen a foreskin before, it would have been all the more remarkable to him (not less so), and whether he knew what to call it or not, that bit of skin would have made it into his description.  Particularly given the amount of alleged intimate contact with the alleged abuser's genitalia that were claimed.  Also, I am not positive the boy is Jewish, but Chandler is a common Jewish name and I have seen some mention of that being the case.  If it is, then it would be much less likely that he wouldn't know-- at least theoretically-- what circumcision is and what it looks like.  Be that as it may, I find it odd that this discrepancy with fact was so rarely reported, when the press so freely printed descriptions of vitiligo patches on MJ's buttocks.  Is it because this detail was in MJ's favor?  At the very least the discrepancy should be mentioned as it is in the main article: "Included in the inconsistencies was an inaccurate claim of circumcision."  The addition of that small sentence allows readers to draw their own conclusions.  1publiceye (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't illogical. It's a simple fact that not every intact penis, particularly when erect, has is identifiably so.  Maybe he had a naturally extremely short foreskin; maybe it was pulled back due to erection and the kid, being circumcised himself, wasn't aware that foreskins can retract to that degree; maybe the kid just didn't get a good look at it; we simply don't know.  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are giving Jordan Chandler way too much benefit of doubt. I don't think he was really that uneducated about circumcision. Even if he really knew little about it, his legal team should know better. He could have simply said that MJ's penis looks like it has been circumcised. If he's that positive about it, we got to assume that he really knew enough to tell. After all, Jordan Chandler claimed that his intimate relationship with MJ lasted for months. He should have plenty of chances to take a good look at it and touch it, both in erection or not. Also, if MJ's penis can be missed for circumcised after months of observation by Jordan Chandler, I think the police would've noticed that and mentioned it in the report. After all, the police only looked at MJ for 25 minutes, and they weren't allowed to touch him. Police weren't interested in Chandler's knowledge about circumcision, but accuracy of his description. So, if MJ really looked like have been circumcised, this to some degree should be considered a match by the police.
 * I agree that there is a lot that we will never be able to know for sure and that in the world it may very rarely occur that a man is born with a very short foreskin. However, that could not have been the case with Mr. Jackson, because by all accounts his foreskin was average and immediately obvious to the half dozen or so men present during his strip search. As to recognizing a foreskin being more difficult during an erection, the accuser in this case claimed to have seen MJ's genitalia in BOTH flaccid and aroused states.  I am a health care provider with a great deal of experience counseling and educating families and children about circumcision and, as such, I think it is extremely unlikely that a child would have missed noticing an average foreskin-- had he actually seen the member in question with the level of frequency and intimacy that were alleged.  But I am not interested in going back and forth on this nor am I trying to convince anyone of Mr. Jackson's innocence.  My only interest is that the information presented in the article on Mr. Jackson be accurate and COMPLETE.  The inaccurate claim of circumcision is a very important detail.  It casts serious doubt as to the validity of the testimony and should be presented to the public.1publiceye (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead Picture
The front picture or whaterver it's called. STOP CHANGING IT! can't you people just stick to one picture like elvis's article? Thankyou--60.240.32.151 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for mentioning this. Now that the initial media furore over MJ's death has faded, let's see if we can get through an entire week without arguments over the infobox image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We still need a more recent picture! Portillo (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (I'm 60.240.32.151, I just registered) Thankyou ianmacm! we should probaly reach a consensus or something (I'm still new). Explain the need for a newer picture Portillo please!! --TUSWCB (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead picture of this article changes almost as much as Jackson's face has over the years. I hope that WP:Consensus is formed soon, if not already, about the "best" lead image to use in this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive never heard of the idea that the picture must be of the person while at the peak of his career. For years now people know Michael as white skinned and long haired, not dark skinned, curly hair and with a glove on his hand. A recent picture would give the reader an idea of what the person looked like around his death. The current photo would be perfect for later in the article. Portillo (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a collage?
 * Reasonable argument Portillo but we have to reach a consensus, perhaps we shall see it to 1 or 2 weeks, tops. If someone attemps to change the picture during these weeks perhaps we should vote to stick to one picture?--TUSWCB (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's appearance
This article is on Snopes today. It is a genuine magazine article from 1985, showing a projection of what he might look like in 2000, and how things actually turned out. An interesting historical curiosity, possibly suitable for Michael Jackson's health and appearance.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do not mind, I will copy and paste this section there for discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is is just from that one source? --TUSWCB (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead once more
When I last checked, this version of the lead had consensus, and we agreed to reduce the citation templates to make the page easier to load.

Yet the old lead is back again, with even more templates. Where was consensus changed? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Bookkeeperoftheoccult is engaged in wholesale reverts, which have removed copy edits too. BK, I'd appreciate it if you would restore them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can look two sections up for the recent discussion on the lead. I'm fine with removing the citation templates from the lead section, but obviously not with the version you linked to above. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, if you won't let this article be edited, I'm going to take it to FA review. As it stands, it's not FA standard. The lead that you want is poorly written. The article as a whole is not well written, including very basic issues such as repeating his name constantly, as though the reader might forget who the article is about. It is far too oriented toward his music, though it's meant to be a biography. I don't want to take it to FAR. I'm not a big fan of the FAR process, and I've never done it before, but I feel this is one case where it's needed, particularly because a small group of you refuse to allow others to make changes.


 * BK, would you please restore the copy edits that had nothing to do with the lead? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Lets take it to FAR. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is everyone else agreed to this, that we take it to FAR? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No absolutely not. I've restored Slim's version as that's the one we agreed to earlier.UberCryxic (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

← And a few sections above, there are several users against the current version. I wouldn't call that consensus. —  Σ  xplicit 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs to the two versions would be helpful. The one noted above talking about his "trademark" glove and fedora I don't like. These were trademarks from just one period in his career. He had a long career as part of a boy band. He had the moonwalk. He had the leather jackets and 80s fashions. So it seems to focused for the opening paragraph. I rather like the opening paragraphs as they stand now (although I haven't looked into the citation issue).
 * I do have one issue though. I notice that the opening paragraphs describe him starting to use pain killers from stress related to child abuse allegation, but my understanding is that he became addicted to pain killers after he suffered serious burns in the Pepsi advertisement incident. I think this needs to be clarified. I know I've heard it said that he was never the same after that and that he had a painful and extended hospital stay. The video is pretty nasty (can it be linked?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Version one and two. Personally, I find myself agreeing with Bookkeeper with points that were raised above, various issues which you've brought up. I believe you're correct about the painkillers issue and I'm sure the video can be Googled. Not sure if it's appropriate to link it. —  Σ  xplicit 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've posted the four versions below: UberCryxic's (UC's), Bookkeeper's (BK's), mine (SV's), and the old one. I'm happy to see either my own or UC's used. BK's and the old version have a number of problems: they fail to introduce the subject immediately and to tell us why we should care about him: "X was an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he made his debut in 1964 ..." We still don't know why we should be reading this article. The chronology is wrong throughout the rest of the lead. The child abuse allegations, which all his friends and family say either caused or contributed to his drug addiction, which everyone agrees caused or contributed to his death, should flow into the death, as a matter of both chronology and logic. Instead it ends with how many records he sold and that he made lots of donations. Then suddenly he dies, unconnected to the rest of his life, it seems. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a copycat schema of Elvis presley lead. :) — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 14:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between "my" version and "Slim's" version is the wording on the first and second sentences. Many editors (among others, users like Ian and Portillo), agreed that "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainer of modern times" seemed like peacocking, so we agreed to replace it with another phrase ("one of the most commercially successful artists of all time") that was both verifiable and did justice to MJ's musical legacy.UberCryxic (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2009

And also, for the record, I'm fine with either the current version or with SV's version.UberCryxic (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 'trademark black fedora' sentence is only a part of his career and shouldnt be used in the intro. Portillo (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too with that. I added the mobile's version to point out the two first sentences are very important to define the subject. And I'm fine with this current version. The question is basic: does this definition reflect the best Michael Jackson? I would say yes. I would perhaps add a reference to pop music but MJ is a cross-gender artist (Hard, Rock and Soul too). — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Side by side

 * Since Jackson's death, the lead section has been suffering from a bad case of too many chefs in the kitchen. Substantial and frequent changes to the wording of the lead are not desirable in a Featured Article, so this situation should be resolved as soon as possible. Consensus must be reached, or the article could go to FA review and lose its FA status.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stability is desired in a featured article, no doubt, but we have rather extraordinary circumstances here that invalidate the normal rules. If all this wrangling is just about the lead, I don't see that as problematic at all. We'll hammer out an agreement and this article will be stable once more, at least in a few months. Unless we're at this position the same time next year, FA review is not necessary.UberCryxic (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the "old version" best, but with the death and memorial part mentioned at the very end. Scrap that; it's BK's very I like, but with the detail about when he was married and who mothered his children trimmed back to what was in the "old version". <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't begin the lead with "The seventh child ..." in the second sentence. It's not reflecting the best points in the two first sentences: please, look at the mobile's version as I said earlier. This is low details adding nothing more to his fame and should be removed: " The seventh child of the Jackson family, he made his debut in 1964 as a member of The Jackson 5, beginning a solo career in 1971. ". I would suggest this as well in the lead: "Notable philanthropist, donating millions of dollars to the 39 charities he supported, and raising more through his own Heal the World Foundation, he gained posthumously a Save the World Awards for its social and humanitarian engagements ." But maybe this is too much of a panegyrical lead? Im thinking of shrinking the entire lead to stick to notable facts: "Beginning at the age of 5 as a member of The Jackson 5, he went later on a solo career as the first African-American entertainer, iconic figure with his white glove, to amass a strong crossover with videos such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean" and Thriller—widely credited with transforming the music video from a promotional tool into an art form.... Other aspects of his personal life, including his changing appearances and behavior, generated significant controversy that damaged his public image. ... " etc. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 11:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you put "One of the most commercially..." before "The seventh child...", it would work well. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed :-), but he... "was an American recording artist and entertainer". Period. Businessman is incongruous as a notable fact (I'd love to put humanitarian as well, but we can't). The "awards and records" bloc should go to the end, preceded by MJ death statements ; these rewards are less notable than the Thriller revolution, I know it's not fair: he just now after death about to get a recognition for his humanitarian valors. And IMHO the whole lead is quite long (almost 4kb), still plenty of time-date stamps and has too much low details (MTV by ex.). It should be synthesized as I explained earlier. The lead must give you envy to read the article's body, not being the article itself. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * comment: I took King of Pop out of bold font for reasons listed earlier. As a simple compliance of MOS:BIO it should not appear in bold. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm generally pretty happy with the opening paragraphs. I like that the businessman bit is gone from the first sentence. I think his investments are fine to deal with in the opening paragraphs, but on an equal basis with his status as a musician and entertainer. I also think the Pepsi commercial fire needs to be mentioned. It's relevant to his commercial and advertising success and it's also been reported on as a key point when he first became addicted to pain killers and has been discussed in reliable sources as a critical juncture in his career. Finally, there has been this effort not to "peacock", but my understanding is that we're trying to avoid hype, but in this case accurately reflecting his achievments and significance requires that we be absolutely clear that this is a massively successful performer who is certainly one of the biggest and most popular of all times. It's not enough to just say he's a performer and musician. King of pop helps, but let's be clear about who this person was and their notability and significance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Copycating Elvis lead, in two words: "A cultural icon, he is sometimes referred to as The King of Pop." ;) BTW, why recording artist and why not simply: musician? — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 07:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He was a singer, songwriter, instrumentalist, and record producer: "recording artist" pretty much covers everything. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A separate Motown era section
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I was wondering why there isn't a separate section for Jackson's significant Motown years, or at least his Motown solo years. By quickly glancing at the article, one might assume his solo career started in 1975 and not in 1971 which is when it really started. A 1969-1975 section would let readers know the start of when he 'made it big' or at least a 1971-1975 section again showing when he went solo. Vpuliva (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jordie Chandler
Surely the introduction should mention his $25 million payout to Jordie Chandler not to bring charges in Jnauary 1994. (92.12.70.192 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
 * It's mentioned in the appropriate section. And the prosecution could still have brought charges against Jackson, as it was a civil suit that was settled. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 17:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They should have. But certainly that massive payout did more damage to his image than the allegations alone, so it definitely belongs in the intro. (92.12.70.192 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC))


 * First of all, the terms of the settlement were not disclosed publicly, so we can't report any specific numbers in the lead. Secondly, the appropriate information is already included in the introduction. The incident is mentioned as a prominent part of his personal life. Nothing more to do here.UberCryxic (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the lead paragraphs
There are three problems I would like to raise in relation to the lead paragraph discussing Jackson's personal life:

1. The assertion that Jackson began using painkillers in response to the stress caused by allegations against him is not encyclopedic information. I do not believe there is genuine reliable information about this. Even if there are citable sources claiming this, it should not be forgotten that this does not make the information accurate. It must not be forgotten that an infinite amount of tabloid and sensationalistic claims have been made about Jackson's life, and extreme care must be taken in deciding which pieces of so-called information are in fact worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, in this specific case the information is clearly not established, as there are others who claim that he began using painkillers in response to the burn he suffered during filming the Pepsi commercial. ''The truth about Jackson's drug use is simply not reliably known. Given this disagreement, and the likelihood that none of the writers actually knows the truth of these very intimate and secret details of Jackson's life, it would be far wiser to delete this speculation.''

2. The statement that Jackson's changing appearance resulted in him looking "almost androgynous" is poor writing and unnecessary. What does "almost androgynous" mean? Does it mean not androgynous but not as masculine as he used to be, or is it a coded way of saying he looks androgynous? The judgment about what counts as a masculine or feminine face is very subjective. Does it simply mean he wore makeup, in which case there are of course many many male performers who fall into the same category, without this being "controversial"? It seems to me that this phrase may be a way of making implications about Jackson's sexuality which can't be stated directly without contravening encyclopedic standards. I also do not see the significance or controversy involved in appearing "almost androgynous," and therefore do not believe this should be included in this paragraph. Jackson's appearance changed: this is clear. It is also clear that these changes were of great interest to tabloid publications, which sold many copies on the basis of sensational coverage of Jackson's idiosyncrasies, real or fabricated. What is not clear is whether this tabloid interest amounts to genuine "controversy". In such circumstances, it is not helpful to introduce ambiguous, subjective, poorly-worded and leading phrases such as "almost androgynous." And I might add that I for one simply do not believe that Jackson's motive in changing his appearance was to appear androgynous. I believe there are other, more likely motives. The judgment, then, that the result was that he came to appear "almost androgynous" is not only of doubtful significance, but in fact constitutes a doubtful judgment. It should be removed.

3. The assertion that Jackson's health suffered due to the 2005 trial is unsubstantiated. There is no reliable information at this stage about Jackson's health between 2005 and his death. Numerous claims have been made, but many of these are contradictory, with some claiming he seemed fit and healthy prior to his demise. The lead paragraphs should not contain speculative assertions about very private matters, the sources for which could only be tabloids, gossip, rumor, etc. Encyclopedic standards demand caution and conservatism in relation to matters such as this.

I have made these changes to the article. BCST2001 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another part i dont really understand is "and others, such as "Black or White" and "Scream", ensuring his popularity well into the 1990s." What is this supposed to mean? That this is the only reason he was popular in the 90's? Portillo (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan Page
I am really quite neutral when it comes to Jackson; perhaps leaning towards his defence, but it seems to me that this page is so blatantly pro-Jackson that it comes across more or less as a fan page. It lingers over any positive aspect (personal life, finding increasingly obscure positive statistics in his falling record sales), and carefully either avoids controversy, or presents only positive testiominials or information regarding them. And why does it matter that Evan Chandler was a dentist? Is that supposed to imply he was only after cash? == Braka (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All in all, this article is fairly neutral. We report from reliable sources and we cover all aspects of his life, from his music to his personal issues.UberCryxic (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who looks over this article as an example but has not edited it, I can say that I personally find it to be quite neutral. To someone who does not know a significant amount of info about MJ, it may seem that this is much cleaner than the things that you hear on TV, media ect. The truth is that the media tries to make all Jackson related issues more extreme then they are; talking about his drastic change in appearance by ie showing the cutest picture of him as a child and then showing pictures of his appearance at its worst (by using unflattering photos) in order for them to make a point. If it seems too positive to you maybe its because MJ was a good person who generally did not ever really do anything as weird as the media claimed. And as far as the record sales go, the media tries to make Jackson appear as a failure after Thriller when really some of his lower selling albums such as HIStory sold around as much as some of the Beatles' highest selling albums. In reference to Invincible, for most artists a bomb is either a fairly low charting album/uncertified album, or maybe a gold/platinum record for some multi-plat selling artists; in MJ's case, a "failure" is debuting at number 1 and having the album sell 10 mil. even with 90% of the album's promotion being cut. That's why in the case of Jackson a few more "positive" details have to be included because the media is so warped and overexaggerates everything about him. This article is actually very good considering it is very easy to write/speak sensationally about Michael, whether it is positive or negative. GreekStar12 (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Taraborrelli as sole source for claims (e.g. drug use allegations)
Many of the more sensational claims made in the Jackson article are attributed to a single source, Randy Taroborrelli. Taraborrelli is little better, if at all, as a source than tabloid newspapers. To use him as a single source in order to make otherwise unsupported claims is non-encyclopedic, especially where those claims involve negative personal information. E.g., there is an entire paragraph about Jackson's purported drug use which states as fact information which is only referenced to Taraborrelli's book. The truth is there is no established reliable information about this issue. Upon my removal of the offending paragraph, it was re-inserted by another editor, with the comment that the information was also reported worldwide. But I beg to differ: there is no reliable information that can be sourced about this issue. Until such time as reliable sources can be found, including such material is both non-encyclopedic and violates Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLP. I repeat: Taraborrelli is not a credible source, and to use him, or sources deriving from him, without other verifying evidence, is indefensible. BCST2001 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is always proper to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material if a proper source cannot be found. However, I don't see a problem with stating that Jackson allegedly abused drugs at times during his life now that he is dead, especially since many news sources reported that police removed drugs as evidence from his home after his death. Also, WP:BLP only applies to living people; the only thing that it says about dead people is that other WP policies still apply. Mktyscn (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't given any evidence to support your claim that Taraborelli is unreliable. And WP:BLP does not cover the recently dead, rightly or not.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not called "Biographies of Living People" for nothing. BLP has no application to Michael Jackson himself whatsoever now that he is dead. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of Grammys Won?
It is stated in the main article that he has won 13 grammys. then in the "awards won by michael jackson" it says he has won 19. but when you count them it's actually 17. this is very confusing. can you make the accurate changes please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TechOutsider (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yeah it still hasn't been fixed lol. how many has he won, 13,17 or 19 lol. i think it's 17 can you change it? haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He has won 13 Grammys. TechOutsider (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What does he not get credited for the 4 for we are the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he actually won 17 Grammys, not 13. He won another Grammy with the Jackson 5 and out of these 17 that he won as a solo artist he shares one with Quincy for best producer. It really should say 17. "We Are the World" won for 1.Best short form video, 2.Best pop performance by duo/group 3.song of the year, 4.record of the year. He was a part of the video (song), he was one of the performers of the song, and he wrote it, accounting for the last 2 awards, thus he should be credited. Also, Dangerous, I believe, won a Grammy for best engineered album, going to Swieden, however, it should still be mentioned somewhere in the article.

PS: shouldn't his number of #1 hits in the US be 14, not 13. Even though he was a featured artist on "say say say" it still was a #1 hit for him and not mentioning it is misleading. GreekStar12 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, i had always thought that aswell. but turns out he is credited for say, say, say but is not credited for we are the world as USA for Africa are. this used to always puzzle me until i look on the "artists who have reached number one in the us" and found that USA for Africa were credited for we are the world. and yeah on that matter of the grammys since he has won 17 can the person who owns this page please change it as it says 13 and has done for a while, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if We Are the World is counted extraofficially because it is credited as USA for Africa, he was still a part of it and it counts overall. Two of the Grammy awards at least for that song (best song, record/year) should be counted as he did write the song at least. GreekStar12 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

he is credited for the grammys (so the guy that owns this page wants to hurry up and change 13 to 17 lol) for we are the world just not the number one as it is registered and credited as USA for Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) <!- - Template:UnsignedIP -->

he got 13--Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

he's won 17, if you go look at awards received. it says he has won 19, but one was for the jackson 5 and won was for two guys for best engineered album for dangerous. so he's won 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson father of his three children?
I think there should be something about Debbie Rowe claiming that Michael is not the biological father of at least the two elder children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.25.36 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to WP:BLP issues, the article has a policy of not including claims that lack reliable sourcing. There are also so many claims and counterclaims about Michael Jackson that it would be impractical to include them all.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, WP:BLP deals with biographies of living persons, it should not apply here. That said, I'm not condoning the inclusion of rubbish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.2.53 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The living persons in this instance would be the children themselves and not Michael, so BLP applies even moreso as they are non-notable minors. Solid State Survivor (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

death investigation
I find it odd that the page does not contain any information on the investigation into Jackson's death. More and more, it appears like there is a criminal element to his demise. I think some mention of this should be included. http://snarkfood.com/drug-overdose-suspected-in-michael-jackson-death-feds-raid-office-of-dr-conrad-murray/

L. A. Vess 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleEditorGirl (talk • contribs)


 * The details of the death are covered in Death of Michael Jackson. Due to WP:V and WP:BLP, the article cannot report speculative claims in parts of the media as true.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Children's Names
Michael Josphe Jackson Jr. (Prince),12 Paris Michael Catherine Jackson,11 Prince Michael Jackson (Blanket,9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.210.153 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

eh think you got that wring eh? prick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Omer Bhatti
I'm not a MJ expert, but I read this report about this Bhatti person and I certainly have never heard of this before. But I was surprised to see nothing here about it. Maybe someone with more expertise can look into it.75.79.58.156 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that Omer Bhatti is Michael Jackson's secret love child was all over the media yesterday. This is another example of a story which on closer inspection turns out to be speculative and based on an unverified claim. As ever. WP:BLP prevents Wikipedia articles from becoming clogged up with this type of non-story story.


 * There is a counterclaim in today's Daily Star, which says "Michael Jackson did not set eyes on the boy who claims to be his secret son until a chance meeting in a holiday hotel".. Only a DNA test would resolve this issue, and the article cannot use tabloid hearsay as a reliable source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

750 million sales?
The claim of sales of over 750 million records sold in the lead is questionable and a reliable source citation exists to question it. I added this article to the main text and that was rejected: fair enough. I then added a footnote saying that the 750 million figure was contested and giving this citation. That seemed to me a reasonable compromise, leaving the main text unaltered but noting the controversy. This change was also rejected. I feel it is inappropriate to ignore a reliable source citation specifically on the topic of how many records Jackson sold, particularly while the current Wikipedia article offers no citations to support the 750 million figure and any it does find will probably be passing references to a number rather than specifically about how many records he's sold. WP:V, WP:RS and other policy is not being followed at present. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations for the claim are in the "Legacy" section. And to be clear, "750 million" is for records (albums + singles), not purely for album sales, as the source you linked to specifies towards the end of the article. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought this up when the article stated 750 million albums which was patently false. After having a good look into it there are several okay sources (such as Sony) for a 750 million figure for total sales throughout his life (ie as a solo artist, with the family, duets etc) of albums, singles, videos, DVDs and so on combined. On that basis as Wikipedia is about what can be cited not necessarily the truth it can stand. However it should be noted that all detailed breakdowns and investigations into his actual sales produce much lower figures and the sources for the 750 million figures have a self interest to exagerate the figures. --LiamE (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

His actual figure is 300 million, not 750 million. (92.13.30.89 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Media reports widely cite this figure. Ontologically speaking, MJ almost certainly did not sell 750 million records. His likely tally is anywhere from 300 to 400 million records (now approaching the latter quickly). Likewise, acts like Elvis or the Beatles did not sell the 1 billion records they are often given credit for selling. That's the way it works here: Wikipedia covers what reputable sources report, not pretensions to truth. As a realist, I don't like this standard, but it is the standard and all of us must respect it. The 750 million figure should stay as it is now.UberCryxic (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS would put more weight on a WSJ article than on a claim from Sony, who have a clear conflict of interest and don't obviously meet WP:RS criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The number is originally not from Sony, but from MJ's press team. Sony just picked it up later, and if I know record companies, it will almost certainly inflate MJ's numbers again in the next few years to put him ahead of Elvis and the Beatles by miles. You can't disqualify the claim based on where it originated anyway. For the purposes of this article, what matters is that the claim is widely cited and used by the media.UberCryxic (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if it puts your mind at ease -while 750m is an astronomical number- if you think about it makes sense, despite the fact that the record labels obviously do inflate sales. In most cases it's usually to the nearest 10m, but in this case it might be to the nearest 100. The thing is that Elvis never sold any huge 8 figure albums during his life, while the beatles have a couple in the 20-30 million range, the rest for their sales are ambiguous. Whether you agree with the MJ sales or not, at least his label has individually pointed out sales of albums so that the numbers do add up. Artists who have been dead for over 20 years and artist present before the 80s often have the most inflation because record sales were not closely tracked and sales can be inflated for posthumous numbers, but during Michael's performing period sales were tracked quite closely. I've heard both the 300M sales and the 750M sales from quite a few years prior. I have to say that I believe the 300 number closer represents MJ's album only sales and not his total records. If you add the sales of his 6 studio albums, which are known, along with a couple of his more successful compilations, they reach about 300M. Let's not forget that "Billie Jean", "Thriller", "Black or White" all sold quite a few million copies as well, while the singles from HIStory alone have sold a reported 12 million copies worldwide. That's not even counting his Video releases, with Thriller and Moonwalker being the most successful videos in history, not to mention a further 60 albums with unknown sales. Chances are that at minimum his record sales must exceed the 500M mark. You may think the individual album sales are inflated, but as long as they are present, the overall sales are reliable. GreekStar12 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we all agree to read the WSJ article linked above before we comment any more in this section? It clearly lays out the huge problems regarding these figures. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the article actually. Frankly, it's just a curiosity as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For the umpteenth time, media reports widely cite the 750 million number, and so we should stick to it. Verifiability, not truth.UberCryxic (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading the WSJ article, I agree that there is a sourcing issue here. The 750 million figure has become the standard one used by the media, but this does not necessarily mean that it is the most accurate. There is an element of an estimate in record sales, and the WSJ article comes up with some pertinent criticisms.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I clarify a point of policy? 'Verifiability not truth' means that being true is not sufficient for something to be in Wikipedia. However, it does not mean that truth is not necessary. As, say, debate around the Sam Blacketer affair makes clear (e.g. Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy), if something is widely reported but known to be not true, then Wikipedia practice is clear that it should not be reported as true. As such, I think UberCryxic's position above is not consistent with policy. If we agree, as we appear to, that the 750M figure is not true, then it should not be in the article. WP:RS would encourage us to look at a WSJ article on the topic and give it due weight as compared to passing mentions to 750M in articles from sources without the same reputations for fact-checking. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To get round this, the lead could say "an estimated 750 million records", which on closer inspection is what it is.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Estimated" definitely seems like a good word to use. However, "estimated" does not get around the problem of such an extreme divergence between the 750M figure in some places, and an approx. 200M figure in the WSJ article (and elsewhere). Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:VERIFY does not mean "If the mainstream media says it, then it must be true". Sometimes the media can get lazy and repeat figures like this endlessly without checking them. The WSJ has done some good by looking at the background to the 750 million figure, and it might be a good idea to use this as a citation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way forward on this? There seems to be consensus that a figure of 750 million sales is (a) not true, but (b) widely reported. There is consensus that the WSJ is a reliable source. Areas where there may not be consensus (and, in particular, I'd be interested in hearing back from UberCryxic) are how Wikipedia policy (WP:V and so on) should be applied to something that is widely reported but probably not true, and how WP:RS can be used to rank the competing sources (WSJ with a lower figure; other sources with a higher figure). It seems to me that the above discussion supports some recognition of the lower figure, so, being bold, for the time being, I am going to restore the footnote to the text in the lead. (This act is not meant to curtail ongoing discussion here, and can be reverted if anyone still feels strongly.) If anyone else has other proposals for what to do, please say so! Any further reliable source citations on this topic would also be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are all in agreement that the number is ontologically false. We are also all in agreement to include a word like "reported" or "estimated" before the number itself. I also have no problem with including the WSJ article as a footnote. I'm pretty satisfied with the lead currently. My bottom line is the following: the 750 million figure should stay, but how we actually present it to the public is an issue that can be debated.UberCryxic (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to use the term "reported to be" when mentioning the 750 million figure. The verification of world wide sales for recording artists is not a can of worms that needs to be opened here but there should be some nod to the fact the the figure, though widely reported, is as questionable as other such reported figures for leading artists. --LiamE (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recording Artist?
Before editing, I will ask here, because this article, that is very good, has so many edits.

I find the word “recording artist” not very good for Michael Jackson, and since it is the first Information, we get in the first passage about him, I would give this matter some thought: Was he not a MUSICIAN in the first place? A person, who composed, played and sang music? A “recording artist” he was in the second place, and this is, I find, a very technical matter: Wikipedia says, AND THAT IS IN THE ARTICLE MUSICIAN: “A recording artist creates recorded music, such as CDs and MP3 files“. And also, BECAUSE Recording artist redirects Musician I strongly suggest to delete Recording artist in the first passage of the article Michael Jackson and replace it with Musician:

"Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009), also known as the "King of Pop", was an American musician and one of the most commercially successful entertainers of all time. He started a solo career in 1971, having made his debut in 1964 as a member of The Jackson 5. His unique contributions to music and dance, along with a highly publicized personal life, made him a prominent figure in global popular culture for four decades." --Bufi (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, MJ is in first place a musician, before being a great seller of record albums. I made a few modifications along with the info: he is a superstar, too. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Children
Hasn't anyone noticed that none of his kids are biologically Michael's. I mean, its simple biology - they're white. All the plastic surgery in the world can't change one's DNA Hxseek (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see "Jackson father of his three children?" section above. WP:BLP applies here: we should not include unsubstantiated speculation about these minors. The fact that they appear white is not conclusive evidence. I once knew a guy of mixed ethnic background who had blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin, and also a wide nose and thick lips like a black guy. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that appearance is not conclusive and that only DNA tests will prove or disprove paternity, and one might question whether it really matters, but the childern's appearance defies simple biological deduction . Hxseek (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Song
The final song which was made by Michael Jackson is "Islam in my veins", this should be listed see here it is the voice of Michael Jackson:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.185.82 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a curiosity. There are numerous links to this video in a Google search, but no reliable sourcing about where it came from. It does sound like Jackson's voice, but more information is needed here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the person singing here is Irfan Makki, not Michael Jackson, and the song's title is "Waiting for the Call". There is a YouTube video explaining this at . It is a very good soundalike performance. It will be interesting to see how many times this new "fact" about Jackson's conversion to Islam turns up at Wikipedia.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's skin color
In the 1980s, Michael Jackson's skin was black, right? This means that he changed his skin color sometime in the 1990s, right? In which year exactly was his skin completely white for the first time? Please let me know ASAP. BulsaraAndDeacon (talk)
 * His face began appearing pale in around 1986/1987. This was due to heavy make-up being worn to camouflage his vitiligo. The rest of his body may have been depigmented shortly after, as his hands (and no doubt the rest of his body) were still dark in 1987: as seen at the beginning of this clip. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 13:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This can be a confusing topic, as he began to appear slightly lighter in the years right after Thriller, while it was heavily noted during the Bad era, where he still appeared black. Around 1990, he appeared even lighter, while following the release of the first couple of dangerous singles in 1991, Jackson appeared to be white due to a change in make-up to hide blotches from vitiligo. However, even well into the 2000s when Jackson was seen without his make up, he appeared to be the same shade he was prior to using pancake make up in the Dangerous era, thus this would probably debunk some media's theories of skin bleaching, as he was still black. I also noticed in People Magazine's tribute issue that there is a close up of MJ from his Motown solo years in the early 70s where tiny scratches of white skin appear on his hands. I am not an expert at all, but I would think that if one were black and had been scratched, the scratches would have to be very deep to appear white, which they were not. Thus, it would be nearly impossible to find out when the illness actually began to progress as this could date back to his early childhood. GreekStar12 (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to purchase Elephant Man's bones
Based on this 1987 CBC radio clip and the research contained herein, I decided to make a brief edit to the Michael Jackson article. Here are the changes I made, which I submit now for a hopeful consensus: Original sentence: Later, it was reported that he had offered $1 million for the bones of Joseph Merrick, the "Elephant Man." New sentence: In 1987, he offered the London Hospital Medical College $1 million for the bones of Joseph Merrick, the "Elephant Man," but the offer was not accepted. Footnote: ''CBC Digital Archives Website. Michael Jackson bids for the elephant man, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 29, 2009'' Schmidtmandaddy (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He and his representatives denied the story, so I have reverted back. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic source provided in the footnote includes an audio interview with David Edwards, chief administrator at the London Hospital Medical College, who explicitly verifies that an offer was made. This strikes me as a more credible source than a PR agent. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to state that the hospital made one claim and Jackson's agents denied it. Would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.92 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I listened to that interview. There's a lot of "supposedly" and "what I heard was," but no claim of firsthand knowledge, like talking to Jackson over the phone or seeing him visit. Jackson denied that he made an offer, but Taroborelli (who sometimes guesses) claims that his publicists circulated the story. WillOakland (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Shit
Have to say, the article is in a terrible condition, it's embarrassing. — Please comment  R  2  16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi R2, good to see you un-retired. Since you did a lot of the work to take the article to FA in July 2008, you would be the ideal person to fix any problems. I can't claim to be an expert on Michael Jackson, and can only remove obvious nonsense.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm still retired, wouldn't touch the article with a 24 foot pole. — Please comment  R  2  17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See comment at User talk:Realist2. Things still need time to settle down, maybe a few months.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Save the World Awards reverts
Regarding this:
 * non-notable: I persist in saying World Awards foundation is ten years old and has established notability to give this sort of awards. Why can't it be treated the same as Guinness establishment or any other valid/recognized corporation? About recentism, will you put this awards only in ten years? This is non-sense.
 * it certainly shouldn't be placed in the second intro. paragraph Why not? There are a lot of prices/awards mentions in the lead ... Or the whole awards should be put in a dedicated section and not into the lead. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As he has won so many awards, I think it's best if it is added to List of awards received by Michael Jackson. We only need the major music awards (Grammys, WMAs) mentioned here. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At least, we should mention in the lead he has been awarded for numerous humanitarian awards. He is not only a notable philanthropist but a humanitarian. I suggest: "He was also a notable philanthropist and humanitarian who donated millions of dollars to a record 39 charities, plus what he raised by way of his own Heal the World Foundation." BTW why not mentioning he is also a superstar? It describes pretty much the phenomena around MJ's fame. The lead should mention it, IMHO. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Superstar" is a vague term and while it may apply to him, I have never heard it being used to refer to Jackson. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh!? American superstar Michael Jackson was born in Gary... — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the problem is that the word "superstar" doesn't apply to MJ. Clearly it does, and plenty of people have described him as a superstar. It seems like the word is actually too small for him -- as in, MJ is well beyond a superstar (icon, legend, etc), whatever that word means.UberCryxic (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At least, we should try to render and depict its fame if this aforementioned citation is true and sourced. Why not using the same term as Elvis Presley article: cultural icon? His look is so unique (I mean in 80s) that people are looking for whatever is linked to it (: see andy warhol's painting which is going to be sold to millions). I would add that Michael kept a deep love relation with its fans and whoever was in contact with him ( did he ever trial someone? ). I know nothing of any other relation like that with any other superstar. Among many declarations from closest relatives, we find this "Michael Jackson was an exceptional Human Being. He was gifted, deeply compassionate and brought joy to the lives of so many. He loved his family dearly, and above all, his beautiful children." and "Michael touched the heart of many in the world"-something like that. His "human-being" nature should be mentioned in a way or another, imho. And next to all rewards-prices he got as a big megastar. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks
This article is an FA but it does not mention Jackson's famous trademarks: his white glove, his black fedora, and his very unique clothing. That HAS to be added to article. In fact, I did add them, but someone has removed them again. Tajik (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

MJJ Music
Here's an element of Jackson's business dealings that has been neglected, MJJ Music. Was it merely a vanity label under epic, or was it a lot more than that? Sony/ATV has earned GA approval, so maybe this can use some work since its along the lines of his involvement with the business side of music. Imperatore (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a major label; it only accommodated a few independent artists. Most of the time it was the music of the Jackson family released through MJJ Music. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 11:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it classifies as a vanity label. In any case, the article needs some attention seeing that it was only created in this month. Also Pyrrhus16, are you one of the editors behind Sony/ATV's GA approval?? Imperatore (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, MJJ Music should be redirected to Michael Jackson, as there is no indepth outside coverage of it. Most of the results at Google News mention it in passing.
 * Yes, I brought Sony/ATV to GA status. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't feel its right to pass up an MJ label as not notable no matter how insignificant it may appear to be to outside coverage. I was also asking because I'm very impressed by the commendable work done on Sony/ATV; many congrats. I have tried to work on the foundation of Sony Music but its still a very undeveloped article- I was wondering could somehow sony music, epic records and mjj music receive some attention from active MJ project editors, even thought they aren't as directly relevant? Imperatore (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) Getting Sony Music to GA looks like it would be a big project. If you were to find some books on Sony, I think you'd be able to make it a decent sized article. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 12:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo seriously out of date
As I've pointed out before it's ridiculous how out of date the photo on the article is, and a more up to date one should be used even if it's fair use or whatever because that one just doesn't really illustrate the person properly

This has now appeared in the New York Times as a particular example of Wikipedia's poor handling of photos, so maybe it's time to take notice at last?

Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos, New York Times, July 19, 2009 --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fame - we are in the New York Times! The infobox image has been discussed a zillion times, and as the NYT article points out, Wikipedia is limited to copyright free photos unless a fair use rationale can be found. The regular editors of this page do not make the rules, and are bound by WP:NFCC.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a generous donator will abandon some image rights to the Commons project for this article? We can always dream ... they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright this is a free project and the copyright word doesn't chime very well with it, trials happens. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There has to be at least one fan out there that has taken a non copyrighted picture of him! Hopefully someone can donate one. Portillo (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found that a bit surprising at first. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonic The Hedgehog 3
I ran into some really interesting stuff that proves Michael Jackson had influence in some of the game's music, you can see the links at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbVM-l2Oku4 and at http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=392&title=Sega%20Legends:%20Michael%20Jackson%20&%20Sonic%203  And he he also mentioned that he was a big fan of Sonic. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me put this interesting note of information about him on his article, since he was a Sonic fan, i think he would of appericated it. but thats just me. What do you think?--Dr. Pizza (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are reliable sources. Also, I think that information would count as trivia, which is not really accepted in good quality articles. If we were to include that information, we would also have to add stuff about him being a fan of KFC, etc. Basically, the Sonic stuff isn't really important to his life story as a whole. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A sega fan site...And worst of all, Youtube... Need we say anymore? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's mention of this already on the Sonic page. I haven't clicked those links and can't be bothered looking into it now but from what I recall there's some music in the Sonic games that uses melodies that later featured in songs by Jackson, 'Strangers in Moscow' for one is supposed to be strikingly similar to one song that earlier featured in Sonic. Maybe looking into that particular song and you'll find something more substantial. --Breshkovsky (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MJ's grammy awards
how many grammy awards ???! 19? 13? 17? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanid (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. I can't claim to be an expert here, but some of the arguments come back to what counts as an individual Grammy.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

INCREASE IN SALES SINCE DEATH.
PLEASE INDICATE RECENT SALES FIGURES !!!!!!!!! MORE THAN 750 MILLION!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.4.194 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Custody Issues
There was a great deal of worldwide speculation in the media today (30th June, 2009) that suggested Mrs. Jackson Snr. suddenly aborted her custody battle because it has been revealed that no-one paid MJ's insurance premiums, consequently they stand to inherit around $3 million instead of $30 million - so the biological mother will have to pay for everything herself - now she doesnt want custody either - could the suggestion that now they stand to inherit nothing, no one in the Jackson family wants the expense of rearing them possibly be true?
 * We ignore speculation, because it is not encyclopedic. Neither do we take bits and pieces from different sources and draw conclusions. Unless and until this issue is resolved, it does not belong here. We rely on reliable third-party sources here, as opposed to media brou-ha-ha. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journal that needs to keep up with every minor development in a news story, however current or popular. We should be able to afford the time to get things right. Rodhull  andemu  00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead (again)
Without wishing to set off fresh arguments about the lead, the phrase "a record 39 charities" has found its way back in again. Is this sourced and notable?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s wording is a little Un-Encyclopedic (Maybe a tad fan written). From what I can see, all such material should be treated as Original Research and non-NPOV as such…But then that’s just my opinion, take no heed!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The obvious question is "Who decided that this is a record, and is it a WP:RS?" Without an answer, this should be edited. There is also a peacocking tone here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone really wants this information included I think they have to be specific about exactly what the record is (I doubt if giving to 39 different charities is a record in itself, and if it were how could it be verified?) and provide a reliable source. As it stands at the time I'm writing this, the information is impossibly vague: not only does it fail to impart useful information to the reader, it doesn't give other editors who might want to research the matter much to go on. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe why philantropist and humanitarian were abandoned in the lead, so I reverted: you could get some insights here for the 39 charities, this or Usa For Africa statement on MJ death and there. The truth is: Michael was (very/too much) generous but didn't want everyone to be aware of his numerous gifts, especially to critically ill children. Please, ask some fan forums for more url pointers. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! If someone wants to reinstate the "record 39 charities" bit in the lead section I would advise referencing that first link. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no links to be provided in the lead but the sourced developments must be in the core article. That's the way to do it. Ok, I'll try to add the info. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think Im done. It misses some sources but here's the result. Feel free to edit/rewrite/reword if some infos are bad written, lack some sources, etc. I'd like for myself to finish this article by putting a quote on his "human being" nature. Liz Taylor's allegory on Jackson is maybe too much on the spiritual side (but wonderful for fans). Enjoy. Some infos are redundant between sections (Dangerous Tour...), I know this could be a problem for others. Maybe to be fixed in moving down the extra infos? — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's aliases
I suggest we add his aliases. They have received significant media coverage. Nashassum (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

He used names like Omar Arnold, Paul Farance, Bryan Singleton, Jack London, Michael Amir Williams Muhammad, Jimmy Nicholas, Blanca Nicholas, Roselyn Muhammad, Faheem Muhammad, Frank Tyson, Fernand Diaz, Peter Madonie, Josephine Baker, Kai Chase and Prince Jackson. Nashassum (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If they belong anywhere, it is at death of Michael Jackson. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they are better at the health and appearance article. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

trademark
The article does not mention Jackson's white glove, his black hat and his jacket with the ribon around one sleeve. I think the information should be added. Tajik (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the glove was mentioned in past versions of the article, but is not there at the moment. The single white glove on the right hand seems to have been a Jackson trademark during the eighties era (see the 1984 infobox picture), but is not found in later photos. This probably should be in the article at some point.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a new section on his style of dress over the years, including the iconic single glove? He seems to have had considerable influence on fashions, and the very strong association between the wearing of a single glove and Michael Jackson has made it a popular feature of parodies and homages. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No original research. See WP:OR. If you can find reliable sources talking about his dress style and influence, that would be excellent material to add. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the New York Times a reliable source? See A Sequined Glove That Mesmerized the World. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant media coverage is another requirement. A single story will not justify. Sorry I did not mention this the first time. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet, it does not need any media coverage to at least mention his legendary white glove or his black hat in the article. Only a very very very few people in the world would not recognize Michael Jackson on this, this or this picture. Don't you agree?! Tajik (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the NYT article is a good source. Here are a few more articles which might be suitable: http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-me-jackson-style26-2009jun26,0,2997599.story http://www.mensflair.com/celebrity-styles/michael-jackson-fashion.php http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2009/07/02/jackson8217s_fashion_influence_from_thrilling_to_bad/ http://www.drapersonline.com/news/michael-jackson-tribute-to-a-style-icon/5003940.article Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It could also be mentioned somewhere that MJ was to be buried wearing a single white glove, as it was his trademark style. The image with the caption "Queues for a Michael Jackson concert in West Berlin in June 1988" in the Legacy and Influence section could perhaps be replaced with the image of a single white glove on MJ's hand, as it is something which has had a profound influence on imitators and tribute acts to him. Dokerz (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that his trademark should be mentioned in the article. So, any suggestions? Tajik (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also go in Michael Jackson's health and appearance. Jackson were obsessed with his fashion look and his image all the time, he manufactured himself from toe to head. He were always looking on other's fashion, look and clothes: remember how he got its first circus jacket just before he met Ronald Reagan ... from a staffer, an elevator operator ; he was mesmerized at it. At his Neverland Ranch, there were many paintings or representations of himself on the wall... — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 20:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson referred to blacks as "spabooks"
Some of this information ought to be included in the article:

"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Embattled pop star Michael Jackson wears a prosthetic nose and once paid $150,000 for a "voodoo curse" to kill director Steven Spielberg despite being deep in debt, Vanity Fair magazine reported on Monday.

Vanity Fair, in an article for its March 11 edition, also reports that Jackson bleaches his skin white because he does not like being black. The 44-year-old singer sometimes refers to black people as "spabooks," the magazine said" www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/856313/posts -- Nashassum (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Spabook apparently is kids' language for spook. Nashassum (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What a shame that now he's dead, every chancer is jumping on the fucking bollocks bandwagon, just to sell their tawdry product to an undiscriminating audience. Are you really happy riding that bandwagon? I'm not. Rodhull  andemu  00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought...
Shouldn't the info box contain the stuff like 'years active' and instruments, etc. as in other musician pages? 86.173.52.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing it doesn't include is instruments. No template fits all for Jackson. The particular template in use right now is for people, not musicians specifically. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Aliases for drug use
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/30/michael-jackson-aliases-revealed

Michael Jackson had several aliases he had for obtaining prescription drugs. How/where should this be mentioned? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the health and appearance article, so I posted the alias info there and redirected the alias names there. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret Kid and Question
Alot of people are saying that someone named Omar Bhatti is Michael's secret love child. And I wanted to if I were to take a picture off of my TV screen, could I post it here --Mpurplegirl (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have nothing better to do, I guess. It's probably going to get removed considering it's irrelevant non-sense, but go for it.UberCryxic (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No claim about Jackson's children will go in the article without reliable sourcing, which in practice would be a DNA test.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an interview with Omer Bhatti in today's Sunday Mirror. In it he denies that Michael Jackson is his father. This story started life in The Sun. Enough said.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DNA not necessary. Joe Jackson confirms Omer Bhatti as Jackson's child. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNu3QGprTlw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Jackson and YouTube are unreliable sources. Omer has denied it. Wait for DNA confirmation. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How can a video in which Joe Jackson spoke be unreliable? Do you mean the video could be computer generated? As to Omer's denial, I will explain why it is this that's not reliable. First of all, the story says that Omer told a friend. So supposedly, this unnamed friend of Omer, let out the story. This kind of stories can't be considered reliable. Even if this is true, it is not stated that this was an interview. It can very well be a casual talk, in which people may not tell the truth, especially about very personal issues, and especially if the "friend" is not a close one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.228.8 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Joe Jackson is a reliable source. He's Jackson's father. DNA confirmation unnecessary considering that NONE of Jackson's other children have any biological relationship to him. Family confirmation = child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not a reliable source. He is a man who had very little contact with Jackson toward the end of his life, and a person Jackson resented. Prince Michael, Paris and Blanket are named as his children in the article. That is because Jackson is on their birth certificate. Whether he is their biological father or not is irrelevant for now; he is legally their father. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You realize that Michael Jackson's alleged dislike of his father, and infrequency of contact are not logical or rational or relevant arguments regarding the parentage of a child born in 1984? Joe is indeed a reliable source regarding his own grandchildren. Stop changing the edit just because you personally disagree with it for seemingly irrational reasons. This discussion is beginning to parallel those held between reasonable people and "birthers". I doubt very much that you're going to get a birth certificate.Slagathor (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Omer has denied this. We don't report controversial claims, unless it can be backed up by a very reliable source. In this case, a birth certificate or DNA result is needed. Just because Joseph is Jackson's father, doesn't make him a reliable source concerning all matters relating to him. I might be the dad of Rowan Atkinson, and claim he fathered Jackie Chan. It doesn't make it true. We will wait for the appropriate confirmation. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 14:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent Nevertheless, the onus is on you to provide a reliable source, and one that satisfies policy. I don't see that yet, and consensus is currently against you. Please see thread below. Rodhull andemu  14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At this stage, making a statement about that on MJ article is trivial compares to his career and people should wait at least few days in order to see if it is only a mini buzz and to have at least enough info for one interesting short sentence to say about it. But Omer Batthi deserves it's own page (i have seen page about people less famous than him) at least to avoid the redirection on MJ one. Couposanto (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
This isn't mentioned on the article? Michael Jackson referred to Jews as 'leeches', Michael Jackson, anti-Semite. Apparently, in the song 'They Don't Care About Us' he sang "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, Kike me" but he changed it after people complained... then he changed it back for the video. AWT (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of this leads to a sourcing issue. Michael Jackson fell out with Uri Geller over these alleged comments, although he had been best man at Geller's wedding in 2001. Other comments on this issue welcomed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and they published this story. Postits (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This article touches on a similar theme. Postits (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From a Wikipedia point of view, there are WP:REDFLAG issues in this type of situation. The BBC website uses the phrase "alleged comments" due to the unusual way that they were obtained. The most interesting aspect of this story (for me anyway) is that Jackson and Geller fell out over it. Although Geller has been interviewed on television recently about his "friend", it seems that they had no contact since 2006. Most of the photos of them together are from the early 2000s.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the BBC uses the phrase "alleged comments" then the article should also used the phrase "alleged comments" when discussing this. The BBC is an extremely high quality source so that should be our template. Postits (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael said to Diane Sawyer that the director of that video and many of his friends are Jewish. Like Steven Spielberg and John Landis.He was not an anti-Semitic. Therefore after listen to the entire song "they don't care about us", one can see that he is describing himself as the victim being judged. He is saying don't judge him, "don't Jew me, sue me, kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me". He is speaking of himself as a victim. The source is, a youtube.com video recording of him explaining from 3:28-4:06 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BInVI5ozRu4. Even if he was an anti-semetic, how would that be relevent to what he meant to the world and what his life was about, that would only spread hate. Javanette (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong love to Jewish people and Israel but I have to laugh off comments that Michael Jackson was anti-semitic, sorry. To call the "They don't care about us" lyrics anti-semitic is just a ridiculous overreaction in my opinion. In the context it's absolutely NOT anti-Semitic. It's another example of trying to find ANY reason to bash this guy.

He had that Rabbi as a friend, he was friends with Steven Spielberg, he took a Jewish woman as the mother of his kids... And also watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOhnK9fw7jU 92.249.240.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Conversion to Islam and Nation of Islam
Nothing in the article is said of Jackson converting to Islam, nor of his association with the Nation of Islam. Manjor newspapers report this: Michael Jackson's aide 'quit due to Nation of Islam', Michael Jackson 'converts to Islam and changes name to Mikaeel', Michael Jackson: was he influenced by the Nation of Islam? AWT (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See talk page FAQ and archive. There is no reliable evidence that Jackson converted to Islam, and nothing at his memorial service suggested this either.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackson's lawyer also denied this claim. —  Σ  xplicit 06:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides that: there is a significant difference between Islam and the Nation of Islam which is not accepted as "Muslim" by any orthodox or traditional Muslim group. Tajik (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He used Nation of Islam body guards at his trial and Louis Farrakhan claims Michael asked for Farrakhan's counsel one week before his death. I think this should be included in the article because there are over a billion muslims in the world, many of whome would be quite happy to hear Michael was makeing moves towards Islam. He spent most of his final years in the Arab world. Postits (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also this source saying he became a Muslim Postits (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Wikipedia is not about "making Muslims happy" (or any other group or religious movement). So far, I have not seen any reliable source supporting this rumor. b) YouTube is not a valid source (there only a few exceptions). c) More important than adding all of these rumors to the article, someone should at least mention his trademarks (i.e. the white glove or his black hat) in the article! It's a shame that this FA does not even mention his legendary white glove that was just about to be sold for more than $15000 (of course, this has changed since his death). Tajik (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To repeat the longstanding consensus, no claim about MJ converting to Islam is suitable for the article, because it is tabloid froth. I would like to see the article mention the white glove somewhere, and would welcome suggestions on the best place. It is mainly a feature from the 80s era, so perhaps it could go there.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As for his trademarks: I think that a new paragraph should be added to the "Musical style and performance" section, dealing with his clothing, trademarks and appearance. In that section, his glove, his hat, his crotch-grabbing etc. should be mentioned. Tajik (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If a concensus cannot be reached about MJ's religious beliefs then his religion should not be mentioned and the section should not be included. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Why is there so much opposition to mentioning he might have turned Muslim? Is there something wrong with being Muslim? Postits (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. The problem is that if every half-baked tabloid story about MJ over the years was listed in the article, it would be twice as long and half as good.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to stick to factual sources. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a member of any religion but wikipedia is an encylopedia and it is important that it sticks to the facts. We can neither confirm nor deny whether he was a Muslim or not. Therefore the best option is to remove all sections of the article that reference his religion and stick to his musicallity which we can prove and verify. Furthermore in-linbe with what has been said above the stories from the tabloids have been conflicting and no official source (e.g. respect public figure or member of immediate family) has confirmed or denied the rumour. Even having this conversation is a little disrespectful to MJ's memory. We should remember his legacy for his music because at the end of the day i think his religion was seperate to his music. When he was alive he never made a huge deal out of it, so now he's died we should make a huge deal out of it. This wikipedia page should educate the younger generation on his legacy. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Check out WikiIslam it disagrees about his conversion, it starts from the start of the conversion story to all the way to his funeral, it concludes by saying there is not enough evidence or reliable evidence to suggest that he had converted to Islam. It even states that Yusuf Islam or David Wharnsbey never met up with Michael Jackson.  Dimario (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Sun article it stated that the British singer Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was there at the conversion ceremony, however in his own website he has stated this: Contrary to persistent press rumours, I was not at any kind of conversion ceremony for Michael Jackson. Nor, I believe, was Dawud Wharnsby or any of the others mentioned in connection with the story. Granted, I was in Los Angeles at the time these rumours first appeared – but I was busy filming a video for a new song, Boots & Sand. More info can be found on that WikiIslam page. Dimario (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Randy Jackson Jr (one of Michael's nephews) also denied on his Facebook that his uncle was a Muslim. 92.249.240.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Fake Nose
I think the whole fake nose thing is irrelevant and doesn't belong. Even if there are links to it, it is stupid. But we should debate it before we remove it. Toonami (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It doesn't belong here, because within the context of a 40+ year career, it fails WP:UNDUE, even if the sources are reliable. I suggest that the editor seeking to include it argue, per WP:BURDEN, at Death of Michael Jackson, where it might belong. But not here. Rodhull  andemu  22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I thought it just sounded plain stupid. Anyway again, thanks. Toonami (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's bizarre how that story continues to spread after Arnold Klein said on-camera that Jackson did not have a detachable nose, and that he was working to rebuild his nose with filler injections. I think it should be obvious that doctors do not inject fillers into artificial noses. WillOakland (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has received significant (and I mean really significant) media coverage and should be included. If an average John Doe had received as much media coverage as Michael's nose has received alone, he would have biographies in dozens of Wikipedia languages. Nashassum (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The story stems from tabloid sources. It will not be included here. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not for you alone to decide. Nashassum (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's established Wikipedia policies and guidelines that make the assertion that tabloid nonsense won't be included in biographies. <b style="color:black">Pyrrhus</b><b style="color:#FF0000">16</b> 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And who says it's "tabloid nonsense"? There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss Jackson's nose. Nashassum (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that Jackson had nose jobs is mentioned here and in the separate physical appearance article. The claim that he had a prosthetic nose has been specifically denied by his doctor and will not be included. This is not a place to promote every false claim about Jackson that someone makes up. WillOakland (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The fake nose was mentioned in a reputable publication which does bother to check facts: Rolling Stone (magazine). This is a more reliable source than many others used as cites for this article. But we may as well omit it. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many reputable publications recycle tabloid materials. They do "check facts" and make sure that the tabloid really has the story, but that's about it. An example will be when CNN cited TMZ as saying that MJ and Debbie Rowe aren't the biological parents.

A Jehova's Witness?
I have read that Michael Jackson had been raised as a Jehova's Witness and at the time of "Thriller" distanced himself from that religious group. Unfortunately I don't have any sources to support this.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The details are not clear, but apparently he couldn't get along with the JWs because of some of the material he was putting out. This was mentioned and cited in the article last time I checked. 207.171.180.101 (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This interview with John Landis is interesting: . In it he says "A bigger difficulty emerged after the video's star-studded theatrical première ("Marlon Brando was there, Elizabeth Taylor, Diana Ross, Cher - I'd never seen anything like it"), when members of the Jehovah's Witnesses church, of which Jackson was a member, started to kick up a fuss. Landis recalls: "Michael was told, 'This is evil. It endorses Satanism. You can't release it.' So I had to negotiate this bullshit statement and put it on the beginning of the video." The disclaimer ("Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that this film in no way endorses a belief in the occult - Michael Jackson") probably had the opposite effect to the one intended. "It was such a bizarre opening, but it actually had a positive influence because it created so much talk, so much controversy. And, by the way, Michael didn't write it; I did."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not enough J5 in summary
I realize that this is an article about Michael Jackson and not the Jackson 5, but Michael's contributions while he was a member of the Jackson 5 shouldn't be discounted. Michael's first 4 singles with the Jackson 5 all went to #1 and is a very notable achievement. Yet this is not mentioned in the lede at all. In fact, Jackson's involvement with the Jackson 5 doesn't even amount to a single sentence in the lede. The only mention is the sentence fragment "having made his debut in 1964 as a member of The Jackson 5". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

supposbly sitting
people have mentioned seeing him around the san francisco area but this might not be true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdork (talk • contribs) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we add Obee to micheals artical Look i think that if there is a rumor at least we should put it on the artical, and if its proven fake we will say its fake. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a very important pice of information so i say yes. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous previous bizarre rumours about Michael Jackson, and consensus has always been to wait for official confirmation from a reliable source, which have not materialised. Let's put it like this: if anyone were to try to start an article Rumours about Michael Jackson, it would fall at the first hurdle due to lack of reliable sources, let alone the now less-relevant policy on biographies. That's the long answer. The short answer is "No". The more forceful, but less short answer, is "absolutely not". Rodhull  andemu  01:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is still directly relevant to Omer Bhatti, who has denied this claim (see FAQ). When all is said and done, there is no more evidence in this area than hearsay, as so often in the past with stories about Michael Jackson.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A British tabloid said that some unnamed friend of Omer's said that Omer denied it. I doubt if such a claim can be stated as a fact. If yes, we also can't say that MJ had vitiligo, we need to accept that Jordan Chandler had admitted that he lied, Debbie Rowe isn't the biological mother of the children, MJ's dermatologist is the father, MJ had a fake nose, etc. Joe Jackson's words isn't the only evidence that Omer may be a son of MJ. Many people already noticed the resemblance between Omer and MJ. This resemblance cannot simply be dismissed by saying that there are many unrelated people who look alike, since MJ and Omer are not unrelated, or just got related because they look alike. MJ befriended Omer at a time when he's only 12, and he only later grew up to look like him.

Taraborrelli book
I know there have been several questions about the reliability of the journalist/book, this should help lower concerns and should probably be added to the FAQ. — Please comment  R  2  02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had my doubts that the book said precisely what the article claimed about the hyperbaric chamber and elephant man rumors. But I've checked now and it does say exactly that, so I've restored the previous wording of that paragraph.


 * Taraborelli guesses sometimes. For example, he's the source of the speculation that Rebbie Jackson is going to raise the children, which I've removed a few times from the Rebbie article. But with regard to the tabloid rumors, it looks like he wasn't guessing. WillOakland (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He might guess/speculate in interviews, when he's asked questions on the spot. I would never use him or anyone as a source in that respect. You would also be surprised how often the media manipulate what people have said about Jackson/the death saga. Numerous people have had their comments misquoted, exaggerated, taken out of context or simply fabricated over the past 6 weeks. Anyway, I just checked taraborelli's website and an updated edition of the book is on it's way. It should be used as a source, instead of the vile that has found it's way onto our bookshelves this month. — Please comment  R  2  17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Record sales
Jackson sold around 300 million records worldwide, not the 750 million claimed by his representatives. The 750 million figure is demonstrably wrong and should not be mentioned in the introduction. (RobMacLachlan (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC))


 * This has been discussed before on the talk page. The 750 million figure needs to be qualified with this Wall Street Journal article as a citation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone replying to an article on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/x-15033-Memphis-Celebrity-Examiner~y2009m7d14-Michael-Jackson-750-million-album-sales-figure-is-greatly-inflated provided a plausible explanation for discrepancies in sales estimates: The statement that Michael Jackson had sold 200 million albums includes only his solo albums. As we all know, Michael Jackson was also the most famous member of the groups called 'The Jackson 5' and 'The Jacksons' who were also very successful and if you include those sales onto the figure of 200million you achieve a figure easily in excess of 300 million.

I think the quoted figure of 750million albums is a misquote. It was actually reported that Jackson has "sales of 750 million units", which would includes sales of singles and videos too, not to mention 'Jackson 5' and 'Jacksons' albums. Using sales of all singles, DVDs, VHS etc from chart records from around the world, it is possible to get very close to the stated 750million UNITS. Not albums, but UNITS. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This should really go in the FAQs - it's discussed about once a week and it's getting tedious.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but non-regular editors hardly ever read the FAQs. It would be better for the article to link to the WSJ story that looks at some aspects of the 750 million figure.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MJ was an author and screenwriter
Considering the fact the he wrote two books, should'nt Michael be listed as a author too???? (LonerXL (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
 * No. Not every single thing that Jackson ever did in his life can be listed as an occupation. Unit  Anode  22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, he's not noted as an author compared to anything else he did. Rodhull  andemu  22:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well he was WAS MORE TALENTED THAN THE WORLD WILL EVER KNOW. Okay, well how about being listed as screenwriter? He did write the Moonwalker, Ghost, and Captain EO movies. Can we at least list him as that?(LonerXL (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Again, in comparison to his other work, I doubt that there are reliable sources that single him out in that role. You have to remember that as an all-round entertainer, he might well have come up with the basic ideas and left the details to others, albeit retaining some creative input- but unless that input has been described, in detail, and as being somehow notable, I doubt it's worth mentioning. Rodhull  andemu  00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)