Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 29

Michael Jackson's Bad should be listed in Filmography
Michael Jackson's short film Bad should be in his filmography because it is long enough to be a short film and shows him acting for a length of time during it. TheBlueGangsta (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Third child sexual abuse is missing
Third child sexual abuse is missing or there were 2 case? --Your daughter so attractive (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what this means, please expand. The Chandler and Arvizo allegations are the only ones to have received substantial media coverage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson album sales outdated
Its a recorded fact that Michael Jackson had upwards of over 750 million albums before he died. He was the biggest selling artist in the word in the last year. I'm curious as to why it is still maximum 750 million albums sold in his bio. As the critics say, this is partly why Wikipedia cant be totally trusted with the facts.

Also why isn't their a link that says who he received the most successful artist of all time honor from.

Just wonderingThecriticexpress (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * MJ's record sales have traditionally produced a wide range of figures, many of them estimates. There have been bitter edit wars in the past over the "correct" figure. If you have a source for MJ's record sales, please suggest it here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't speaking about finding a single source of MJ record sales even though sony at the press release of This is it Film in august of last year they said that MJ had indeed sold 750 million estimated while alive.I Doubt you will ever find that for any artist (eg)The beatles or Elvis certified numbers of what the claim to be (1 billion)by any ource such as their labels or official recording industry record tracking organisation (eg) RIAA or IFPI, news papers dont count cause they dont track sales . So yes it estimates. But if it was ESTIMATED that Mj had sold 750 million alive. Even you guys and many valid news organisations had his maximum estimated sales figure 750 when he was alive. It doesnt take a genius to figure well the guy had sold over 30 million albums certified since death making him the highest selling artist of the last year in the world that his estimated figure would rise from 750 to 780 or so edit war or not, its just common sense even when you're estimating, but i guess common sense isnt common anymore not the biggest fan of MJ by any means Just a critic debunking nonsense. No offence but wikipedia gets things wrong a lot. thats why educational and lots of news organisation wont accept your refernces, excuse my grammar that can be forgiven, false information can't.Thecriticexpress (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Thecriticexpress (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * His career continued well into the era of digital downloads: hence all recent numbers for albums sold are now quite meaningless, since CDs etc, are now a small part of the music business. Even before the digital era, the published numbers were both imprecise and inaccurate. About all we can ever know for sure is that his recordings were very big sellers from 1970 or so until his death--- and that they continue to be big sellers after his death. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats sounds like an excuse,the digital downloads sold by Jackson was not part of the 30 million physical CDs sold. You cant say its meaningless (eg) Having 750 million dollars then having an extra 30 million isnt meaningless, if it was those millionaires would give it to us or the government wouldn't tax an individual so having certified sales added to estimates isn't meaningless it part of an artist body of work. Sorry man the web shouldnt use you guys as fact checkers cause you miss the mark.Thecriticexpress (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying we should have no sales numbers at all. I just was trying to say we should recognize that they don't really mean much, and we shouldn't overemphasize them.  And, the only reason to have them at all is to demonstrate that he was one of the biggest selling artists of his era.  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability, not truth. Unless you can provide a source for MJ's record sales (which you have not done so far), there is nothing here that can improve the article. Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is only as good as the reliable sources that it quotes. MJ's record sales are a famously controversial area, and there have been many figures quoted in the media.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey i don't have a problem with verifiability, not truth, I agree with you as i stated above, as a matter of fact according to verifiability, which on wikipedia states that readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

'All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.'

'This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.'

'VERIFIABILITY is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.'

In the same verifiability, not truth aticle on wikipedia you guys used the New york times as reliable source, so ill go so far as to use them to make my point.

Now here just one of many articles published by reliable sources in the case the New york times showing verifiability that MJ has sold $750 by death:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html

Now again using verifiability here's another articles published by the New york times again which according to Wikipedia is a reliable source showing that he has sold over 30 million since death. scroll down to ninth paragraph for evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/media/22jackson.html

so using Wikipedia own guidelines of verifiability, not truth it is proven by the same organisation New york times which wikipedia says to use as a reliable source that MJ albums sales are outdated. I understand that his sales figure has always been controversial but as both you User_talk:ianmacm and wikipedia stated that the sales figures are only as good as the reliable sources that it quotes, as shown above wikipedia's own reliable source (New york times) says over 780 million maximum. User_talk:ianmacm you said to me in your reply that unless I can provide a source for MJ's record sales (which i didn't do at that point), there is nothing here that can improve the article. I have not only given you a source, i have so far as providing the same reliable source outlined in Wikipedia's verifiability, not truth article. Tell me is that evidence enough?. Your call BroThecriticexpress (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A look through the talk page archive shows that we have been through all of this before, almost ad infinitum in fact. This Wall Street Journal article looks at the reasoning behind the widely quoted 750 million figure, and questions how it was arrived at. For artists like Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and The Beatles, record sales figures will always be estimates. I'm not arguing with the mathematics of 750+30=780, but the current wording in the lead is "the estimated sale of over 750 million records worldwide" which does not substantially mislead the reader. Comments from other users welcome.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point about wall street Journal article makes no sense. Thats just one of many sources that had rated his sales anywhere from 200 million - 750. No one is disputing that, what we are disputing is the maximum sales estimates reported by credible sources not the minimum sales estimates which is the bases of the wall street journal article. Under your verifiability, not truth policy it says that all credible sources can be used which means anything from the wall street journal (minimum sales estimates) up to the new york times (maximum sales estimates) has to be included. Thats why on wikipedia's List of best selling artists their are Minimum estimates and maximum estimates for all acts including Elvis and Beatles as well, So come on now, what you're saying is just a silly excuse. Just admit you're wrong, i used the info you wanted me to provide to prove that, I did everything you asked and more to prove my point,Just admit you're wrong a real man does that, ill respect you that way. The only other reason i can see to deny the facts proved by your own standards is based on you and other editors being BIAS towards jackson because you dismiss the facts that present right in front of you. Also 750 and 780 can indeed be misleading the reader, its a big difference. If you dont update an individuals sales estimates they call sell over 2 billion albums and wikipedia will still have it at 750, look at it this way, if you know you have $780 in the bank but the bank says 750 would you settle for it, i think not. So your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever and you know it, thats why you need others imput. I really dont care if its 200 or 750 or 1.3 billion albums jackson sold, like i said not the biggest MJ fan and i dont really care for wikipedia, im just all about the facts regardless of who it is, when i came across his bio i realised that number made no sense thats why i added this subject to the talk page. I offer my critique because wikipedia information more times than not is incorrect. As evident from this discussion, also from these articles and many more articles like them online. Wikipedia is only convinient ,its not trustworthy, if this continues it will decline to a convinient source of information to a joke because it will have zero credibility.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/poll_25_have_found_mistakes_on_wikipedia

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ http://educationfrontlines.net/newspaper/0090.htm http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki

Thecriticexpress (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of bashing Wikipedia and me, could you suggest a form of wording for the record sales that you would like to see in the article? Please bear in mind that the current wording in the lead has been designed to create a WP:CONSENSUS and prevent circular editing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just put the wording as such, " estimated sale of over 780 million records worldwide " as shown by reliable sources. I dont disagree with the WP:CONSENSUS in that case provide both New york times url links that was shown here as evidence here as further evidence and if anyone has any querries about that then they can refer to the talk page, but as it stands the current figure for his estimated sales is incorrect, it is not in accordance with the verifiability, not truth policy.Thecriticexpress (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, would anyone object to this?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So far no one isn't, yet it remains like i said wikipedia is convinient not trustworthy thats partly because of BIAS editors. anyone who is fairminded and look at the facts would see that my points are justified. Hey man im a critic i critercize anyone and anything i see thats not being upfront about a valid point when verifiability is availble. Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Which child was Michael in the Jackson family?
Can any one please tell me which child was Michael Jackson in his Family? I was going through the article and have found that it is mentioned that he was 7th child in his family in the introduction part/paragraph (4th line from the top). However in the same article when I read in the other paragraph "Early life and The Jackson 5 (1958–1975)" it states that he was the 8th of 10 children. Which one is true..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.92.118.225 (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are. There was a child that didn't survive - he died a few hours after birth. Depends if you include him or not. We should choose one or the other though - the article should be consistent.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Taric25 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo
In the introduction the article reads Referred to as the King of Pop, Jackson is recognized as the most successful and of the greatest entertainers of all time, as well as one of the most influential. Shouldn't it read Referred to as the King of Pop, Jackson is recognized as the most successful and one of the greatest entertainers of all time, as well as one of the most influential? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.61.101 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Taric25 (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Some things I noticed
The amount of 1993 settlement is wrong. The correct is 15,331,250 out of which 5 millions were Feldman's share. The other rumor about Klein's assistant is untrue. After it was exposed that they were paid by extra tv for the story and Klein has 1 million dept in America's Bank, Pfeifer cancelled himself in a video blaming Klein saying it was a misunderstanding and people took things out of context. Michael Jackson's biographer Randy Taraborelli openly called them liars in his facebook page and predicted that they will cancel each other out. He also ridiculed them and their story by posting his dog's image with the quotation "I was MJ's secret dog and now that extra tv paid me and Michael can't answer back I can say whatever I want". Taraborelli clearly states Jackson's heterosexuality. MJ's bodyguards were furious about the lie saying they will call in the show to challenge the lie and set the record straight. The show never hapenned because Debbie Rowe who was also furious about the lies (like Jackson's friends fans and family who reacted loud and clear trashing the rumor) alerted the MJ estate lawyer Howard Weitzman and he stopped the airing. Klein since Jackson's death has been all over media selling fictional stories, even trying to sell his car on e-bay by avertising that MJ had once sat in it. Michael Jackson has clearly stated his heterosexuality (which was always present in his lifesyle, song writing, videoclips, interviews, dating, noticable flirting behavior to his female fans and was also accidentally proven in 2005 trial-only heterosexual numerous adult magazines and pics with his DNA and fingerprints and 2 ripped of pages with information on how to find female G spot- and his secretly recorded tapes from 90's and 00's) numerous times all over his life completly trashing any contrary rumor along with every other tabloid lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.92.133 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

2 solo albums missing
Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix, 1997 and Thriller 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.92.133 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Studio albums only. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1993-1994 abuse allegations
I tried to shorten the part about the 1993-1994 sex abuse allegations. The previous editors went into unnecessary detail in an attempt to impugn the accusers' integrity. They had some details about Jackson's penis, etc. which might be appropriate for an article specifically about the sex abuse allegations--- but which doesn't really belong in the main bio. The fact about the insurance settlement having been made against Jackson's will, by the way, comes from a memo Jackson's lawyers filed a decade after the fact during the second round of accusations in 2004-2005. The prosecution wanted to use the settlement as proof of a pattern of conduct, and Jackson (understandably enough) wanted that piece of evidence to be excluded. So Jackson formally claimed that he did not actually consent to the 1994 settlement. But it is unclear how sincere that claim was. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the memo a second or third time, I see that the lawyers are making a technical argument, and don't actually come out and say whether or not Jackson opposed the settlement. What they did say that was it wasn't Jackson's money which was used to pay off the Chandlers and it wasn't his decision to settle out of court rather than go to trial. The contract between Jackson and his insurers, just like any other insurance policy, basically gave his insurance company (or companies) full control over the settlement decisions.  Legally, Jackson was forbidden to interfere with the process (unless of course, he opted to cancel his insurance policies and break his contracts with his various insurance companies, but that would have gotten him into even more trouble than he was already in.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're in danger of being unable to see the wood for the trees here; this is an encyclopedia article, not an in-depth coverage of Jackson's life, trials and tribulations. Although we should try to give enough information, we don't need to provide all information. That is the province of more detailed works, and the whole reason why we rely upon other sources to give us an overview rather than a treatise. With the best will in the world, we are not here to be the definitive source for all thing Jackson, or anything else. Rodhull  andemu  01:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to put this on the Discussion of Discussion page and not here, but that page does not exist. I was just trying to justify why I was changing the wording of a minor point which might get reverted by another contributor at some point.  The way it was before implied that Jackson was prevented from clearing his name by his insurance company's arbitrary decision, when in fact the insurers merely made a pragmatic business decision which Jackson had no direct control over anyway. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fashion
What happened to the fashion section? Why has it been removed and for what reason? I think it should be brought back. I think his influence on fashion is notable and should not be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.79.109 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the history, and in the absence of a link to discussions about this, it would be helpful if you could indicate why this section should be restored with sources. I'm in two minds until you can cite the history. Rodhull  andemu  01:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead is not comprehensive at all.
The lead is not comprehensive at all.It should include 1.Michael Jackson has 5 albums on the list of the biggest selling albums of alltime,which makes him the artist with the most best sellnig albums worldwide.2.The album History is the biggest selling double album and multiple disk album of alltime,The album Dangerous is the bigget selling New jack swing album of alltime.3.The remix album blood on the dancefloor is the biggest selling remix album of alltime worldwide.4.According to the rock and roll hall of fame,he is the most awarded entertainer of alltime,the bigget selling artist ever and the worlds most famous man.4.The Thriller music video has been voted the greatest music video of alltime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1992kop (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More neutral please. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous complaints in the past about too much WP:PEACOCK and fancruft in the lead. No-one is going to dispute that Michael Jackson was one of the top pop artists of all time, and the lead should not go into too much detail. This edit also has issues, since it says in an HTML note "Please, don't remove it". HTML notes should prevent obvious vandalism, not tell other editors what to do. Is the Guinness accolade notable enough for the lead? Discussion, please.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is far too long and needs to be trimmed a lot. (FranklinJessop (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

FranklinJessop nothing needs to be trimmed, the man is recognized by the Guinness World Records as the most successful for a reason. His achievements as with any other music act needs to be recognized. If anything more of his major achievements that transformed the music industry needs to be included not trimmed.Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:LEAD. As a Featured Article, Michael Jackson is allowed a longer than usual lead, but it is still limited to four paragraphs. Fancrufty lists of record sales, awards etc have led to criticism in the past, and the lead is already adequate in this area.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jackson was just a singer, it's ridiculous that he has a larger introduction than Napoleon. (FranklinJessop (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * That is an other stuff exists argument. MJ's more enthusiastic fans have a history of wanting to peacock the lead, but there is no need to do this. The lead is not comprehensive, as its purpose is to summarize. Details should be in the main body of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jacksons Grammy awards
Acoording to the Wikipedia page for list of awards received by Michael Jackson,he has received 17 competitive Grammy awards and two special Grammy awards,not 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.207.253 (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New information from reliable sources confirms that Jackson estimated sales are over 800 million to date
Earlier this week i had shown that Michael Jackson had sold over estimated 750 million albums while alive, and over 30 million estimated albums since death using reliable sources as in accordance with the verifiability, not truth policy. The same policy used as evidence to show Elvis estimated sales at over 1 billion as well as the Beatles estimated sales at over a billion as well and other acts sales figure.

Here was the reliable sources for MJ album sales before death and album sales after death with combined brought the total to over 780 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/media/22jackson.html

Now according to Wikipedia List of best-selling music artists digital downloads are also added to an artists tally, here is the policy which is also available for viewing Wikipedia on the List of best-selling music artists page.

List of best-selling music artists - The world's best-selling music artists lists artists with claims of 50 million or more record sales in multiple third-party reliable sources. The sales figures within the provided sources include sales of albums, singles, compilation-albums, music videos as well as downloads of singles and full-length albums. Within record-sales brackets, artists are listed in alphabetical order, rather than by number of records sold.

According to multiple reliable sources in accordance with the verifiability, not truth policy Michael Jackson has sold over 30 million physical albums and 26.5 million digital sales units worldwide since death, reliable sources links are below. This brings the total to over 800 million records sold.

http://www.billboard.com/news#/news/how-michael-jackson-made-1-billion-since-1004099450.story?page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10967191

The real figure is much lower than that. He had sold around 300 million records at the time of his death. (FranklinJessop (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

michael jackson is a great singer but is very very very crazy

FranklinJessop maybe you don't understand the way the estimated sales work. According to the verifiability, not truth policy an artists estimated sales (in this case MJ) from the lowest "300 million" to the highest "750 million" have to be included as long as it mentioned by reliable sources. As you can see on the List of best-selling music artists page his number varies from the smallest estimate to the largest estimate as is with every other artis included in the list, (eg)Elvis Presley smallest estimated sales are 600 million, the largest is 1 billion, look it up. What is being discussed is that the largest sales estimate for MJ is outdated. Within the last year Jackson has sold over 60 million combined records of singles and albums, both physical and downloaded, the reliable sources listed above confirms that. This is in accordance with the verifiability, not truth and the List of best-selling music artists policies.

According to Wikipedia List of best-selling music artists digital downloads are also added to an artists tally, here is the policy which is also available for viewing Wikipedia on the List of best-selling music artists page.

List of best-selling music artists - The world's best-selling music artists lists artists with claims of 50 million or more record sales in multiple third-party reliable sources. The sales figures within the provided sources include sales of albums, singles, compilation-albums, music videos as well as downloads of singles and full-length albums. Within record-sales brackets, artists are listed in alphabetical order, rather than by number of records sold.

Thats why the numbers after his death has to be added to his highest sales estimate so its no longer 750 for his largest estimated, his estimated record sales as confirmed by the reliable sources listed above pushes the overall number to over 800 million.Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The real figure is around 400 million. (FranklinJessop (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

you just missed everything i outlined. Please read the verifiability, not truth Policy. Thecriticexpress (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are inflated for most entertainers. Jackson has really sold around 400 million records worldwide, the 800 million figure is a joke. (FranklinJessop (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

FranklinJessop Again and again you have been basing your disagreements on personal opinions not on policy guidelines. Again Please read the verifiability, not truth Policy, it applies to every artist listed on the List of best-selling music artists. Thecriticexpress (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No artist has sold 800 million records, or 750 million, or anywhere near that. Jackson's real sales figures are somewhere in the region of 400 million. (FranklinJessop (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Most Successful Entertainer sentence
There are many people (much more than just the Guinness Book) - for example, Berry Gordy - who recognize Jackson as the most successful entertainer of all time.

The previous version with a link to the Guinness records site, but without explicit mention by whom or what authority because the accolade has some generality.Facial (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bing Crosby was the most successful entertainer of all time actually. (FranklinJessop (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

FranklinJessop please provide source and achievements to back up claim. Im not the biggest fan of Wikipedia for certain reasons but it works on an individual being able to WP:VERIFY their talking point by providing content from reliable sources, not personal opinions. Again when it comes to the facts all evidence points towards Jackson being the most successful, if you disagree please provide evidence, not opinions.Thecriticexpress (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling Jackson the most successful entertainer is just a matter of opinion. Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley were both more successful and influential. (FranklinJessop (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC))


 * WP:VERIFY exists mainly to prevent factual errors from creeping into articles. "Most successful", "greatest" etc. are not really within the range of WP:VERIFY because they can be is cited and countercited in so many different ways.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats only partially true because calling someone the "most successful" is also within the guidelines of the WP:VERIFY policy because of the reliable source validation rule regardless if the information cited or viceversa as long as its reliable, it can be viewed both ways so the latter holds more relevance otherwise all artists for (eg) Nirvana, Beatles, Elvis, Hendrix those artists all have distinguished terms associated with their articles (eg) Elvis has a term in his article which says "best selling solo artist" that information can be cited or countercited depending on your source. Articles will never get properly written if everything was scrutinized that way. Also the WP:LEAD states that the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article which would include the reliable information from sources cited or otherwise in addition the WP:NPOV serves as a validation to the WP:LEAD rule.Thecriticexpress (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to be going round in circles on this in several threads simultaneously. Please try and form a WP:CONSENSUS with other users about specific improvements to this article, rather than debating style, tone and policy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in terms of the WP:CONSENSUS which is why we are here on this pages to begin with. In fairness every achieved artist has distinguished terms and labels labeled upon them for their body of work, as long is the info is derived from a reliable source within the guidelines and policies of WP:PG then it is valid.Thecriticexpress (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article
Excellent and appropriate choice for FA, Huge kudos to the editors who've made this article nothing less than superb. Alex J Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoud be amidst, not admist in 4th para of intro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.178 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose
"more than 39 charities" is definitely not brilliant prose. ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.  Pyrrhus  16 00:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Incompetency of Jackson's personal physician
Now that some time has passed since Jackson's death, and the talk page of this article isn't being railroaded or outright quashed by witless thugs who are hellbent on deleting talk page additions, I do think some mention should be made about Jackson's physician's incompetencies. He didn't administer a precordial thump. He had Jackson lying on the bed during CPR. The LAPD was investigating wrongful death. I wasn't able to find any of those things listed in the article Shiggity (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you'd be prepared to speculate prior to a pending trial, and possibly let some clever defence lawyer use our page to gain leverage in that trial? No. No. No. All this will be examined in that trial, and it is not up to us to pre-empt it. Rodhull  andemu  02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro acclaim
It is important in the intro to cite the source of the statements about MJ's being "the most successful artist" etc. The descriptions are suggestive of some vague broad acclaim, when in fact they are specific to Guinness World Records' citations.842U (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) michael was a noob in his starting days but as he grew up he became a newb i mean newest entertaining western boy.I think u all understood what i m saying

Bing Crosby was the most successful entertainer of all time. (FranklinJessop (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

FranklinJessop please provide source and achievements to back up claim. Im not the biggest fan of Wikipedia for certain reasons but it works on an individual being able to WP:VERIFY their talking point by providing content from reliable sources, not personal opinions. Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The words "success" and "successful" get used a lot in this and other Michael Jackson articles. This is a little ironic because in many ways he was a failure as a human being.  His achievements were many, but he led a profoundly unhappy-- and rather short-- life.  He was a great performer and a fascinating person, but he was hardly the most influential or most talented performer of all time.  He wasn't even the most influential performer in his own family: his first wife's father Elvis Presley was more influential, although Jackson did sell more records.  The "most successful entertainer of all time" accolade is sourced from the Guinness Book of World Records; I am not sure why we are all required to accept the Guinness Book's editorial board as be the definitive authorities on success, but the claim is a permanent part of this article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been responsible for a few of the "success" claims: I was the one who first described Bad as a "a substantial success." I guess that is as good a way as any of saying in a few words that it was a good album which sold well.  But here are a few other more questionable uses of "success":
 * The Thriller video was named "has been named the most successful music video ever by the Guinness World Records"; the Guinness Book people may be indeed the definitive authorities on success, but why did they name it the most successful?
 * "His success resulted in his being dubbed the 'King of Pop'"; are we sure his over-the-top personality and costumes didn't have something to do with the nickname? (Even if his success led to him being dubbed with that nickname, the nickname wouldn't have stuck if it didn't fit him.)
 * His poetry book "was a commercial success"; I hear it also sold a lot of copies.
 * "'Earth Song' was the third single released from HIStory, and topped the UK singles chart for six weeks over Christmas 1995; it sold a million copies, making it Jackson's most successful single in the UK"; did this relatively little-known song top the British singles chart for more weeks than any other MJ single, or did it sell the most copies... or what? (A million doesn't sound like that many singles by Jackson's standards, by the way.)
 * The History World Tour "became Jackson's most successful in terms of audience figures"; yes indeed, it didn't just sell the most tickets, it was also the most successful in terms of audience figures! Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Timothy, I think you will find that "Earth Song" is one of Jackson's most well known songs in Europe, not everything revolves around American chart history. I believe it did both, top sales and top weeks in the UK, but it would be good to clarify indeed. — R  2  21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Horrigan i love these discussions, im not the biggest MJ fan or wikipedia fan for that matter, i started looking at his bio as its almost the first anniversary since his passing and saw some things that were inaccurate that why im here to begin with. I agree with you with him being the most successful of all time remaining in the article, its a crowning achievement of his for all his successess in the music industry regardless of how some persons personal feelings are towards him. The achievement is in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy.

Now lets just have a discussion it has nothing to do with MJ article, this is just for discussion sake. You said Elvis is more influential and talented than Michael. I would strongly disagree with you. My favorite artist is Frank Sinatra but i give credit where its due and i know for a fact that their has never been a human being in music period who has been more talented or influential than Michael Jackson, so i want you to explain if you have the chance why you disagree with me, looking forward to discussing.Thecriticexpress (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley is also more successful, influential and talented than Jackson. (FranklinJessop (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

FranklinJessop I was basically looking to have this discussion with Timothy Horrigan as he tends to look at things from a neutral point of view, however i want you to point to the reason why you think Elvis was more talented, influential or successful and ill break down each one of those catogaries to show you why i think Mj was more influential, successful, talented than any other act. Looking forward to discussing.Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Elvis actually had a decent voice, influenced far more acts like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, and sold more records. (FranklinJessop (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Please bear in mind that talk pages of articles are not a forum. We could spend all day arguing about who was the most talented/successful/influential out of Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley or the Beatles without substantial article improvement occurring.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"First" crossover...
In the lead of the article it says "In the early 1980s, Jackson became... the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV." I question this material. I don't see it later in the article—at least searching for crossover using find does not find the word appearing again the article. I want to see a source that says this or it removed. Take, for example, Herbie Hancock, whose song Rockit was absolutely huge and I think was pre-Jackson's breakthrough on MTV. Anyway, I want to see the proof!--162.84.158.192 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You really think that the claim that Jackson was a crossover artist is contentious? One might also suggest that claiming the sun is very bright is similarly contentious... Parrot of Doom 11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote again. I think it's clear as day and your post means you completely misconstrued what I said. No one is contesting that he was a crossover artist. I fail to see how it is possible for you to take that from my post. Read it again. Hint: it says "the first..." The verifiability policy is 100% in my corner on

this.--162.84.158.192 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP here, s/he is saying a source is needed that indicates Jackson was the first, which is a valid argument. I added a fact tag, no idea how it slipped through an FAC. C T J F 8 3  pride 23:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected At least change in the lead "...the first African-American entertainer..." to "... one of the first African-American entertainer s ..." Without sources saying this, proclaiming him to the be the first is both unverified and original research. As I said, I did not see this later in the article with a source, in fact I did not even see the word crossover appearing anywhere outside the lead using my computer's "find" command.--162.84.158.192 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I put in a tag, as it is unsourced.  C T J F 8 3  pride 23:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Traffic stats
36th most viewed page on Wikipedia, over 48,600 views yesterday alone. Great stuff. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

todays article picture
i've seen on the main page Jackson's photo is one from the late 80's and dare i say not at his best.

is there anyway to correspond and have this changed?

On that subject, an old debate, but do we have any news on more free licensed images of jackson in his prime?

ToonIsALoon (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

13 million fans on facebook, more than any other person living or dead. Is it worth a mention?
This might be worth mentioning, I don't know. Certainly it would show how the younger generation still relate to Jackson. He does have considerable more fans on facebook than Lady Gaga and Obama. A thought anyway. — R  2  09:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is another of those "Is notable or peacock?" issues. The source given is CBS News, so it passes one of the tests. On the whole, social media sites fail WP:SPS, and on balance this may not be notable enough for the article. It is Jackson's career and record sales that are the defining features of his notability.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

earnings
In the article it says, MJ has earned about 500 million dollar in his lifetime. But that can't be possible, considering he signed a 890 million dollar record deal for 5 albums with Sony.--AndroidOfNotreDame (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Victory Tour glove sells for $190K
http://new.music.yahoo.com/michael-jackson/news/jacksons-84-victory-tour-glove-sells-for-190k--61990814 Why is this relevant? I think it would have showed that it was'nt just the music,dance,videos, that made michael special but it was also his sense of style. Do you remember in the 80's when thriller came out and after ever video, or performance, or even award ceremony that would be the new fashion trend? What about how many Mj look alikes have seen dancing all over the world before and after his death wearing what he wore down to the socks? We have artist like usher, justin timberlake, chris brown, beyonce, ciara, and many artist who mimick in their own way what he wore while they make remakes of his songs like beat it, or smooth criminal. Or even those who just pay tribute to his style of dance and style of outfits in videos just to do it. I've even comedians (Jaime Foxx) like dress like him in honor. Point is, I think the fashion section was a good and notable section. MJ was more then just a music Icon but a fashion one too. Just ask the creator of ED hardy, or even the magazines/sites like cosmopolitan, stylist, bvonstyle, glamour, or even bet,mtv, and so many others who paid tribute to his style. Just type up michael jackson fashion and see. I'm just saying I think we need to bring it back. It had sources to back it up. Look at the the history. If we cant bring it back fully we should a least bring it back in some form maybe mixed with vocal style and call it vocal style and fashion. Opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&oldid=360416681#Fashion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.79.109 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, saw this in the news, but like many MJ stories it has an element of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. With the article currently at 172 kilobytes long, it is hard to add anything new unless it is very notable. Not sure if this qualifies, other thoughts welcome here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PHILANTHROPIST?!?!?!
MJ was definitely not a philanthropist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.180.182 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fail. Heal the World Foundation --BadMuroZ (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, fail indeed. Also, his WILL states that 20% of his fortune in life and death goes to charities. Since his death his estate has generated $1 billions according to numerous sources that pass WP:RS, so do the maths on how many millions have gone to charity because of this man. — R  2  19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A philanthropist in death, if not in life. 129.176.151.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

Michael jackson was indeed a philanthropist while alive so much so that in the year 2000 the Guinness World Records (Millenium issue) listed Jackson under Most Charities Supported By A Pop Star, with a staggering 39 international organizations including the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Those are only the known ones however, as Jackson was also prone to giving away impulsively and anonymously.

Jackson had been known to hand over the proceeds from concerts to local charities and hospitals as he did with the History tour in Bombay, or donate personal items for auction to organisations like UNESCO. It’s been estimated he may have given up to $500 million to charity in his lifetime.Thecriticexpress (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.226.147.109, 30 June 2010
It has substantial value to state that the 1993 "case was settled" [on his insurance company's request and initiative]

Reference documentary: Michael Jackson - Gone Too Soon

83.226.147.109 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This information is already in the article, a few sentences further down;


 * On January 1, 1994, Jackson's insurance carrier settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million, after which time the Chandlers stopped co-operating with the criminal investigation. The out-of-court settlement's documentation specifically stated Jackson admitted no wrongdoing and no liability; the Chandlers and their family lawyer Larry Feldman signed it without contest.


 * It is also covered in more detail, in 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson.  Chzz  ► 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Blood on the dance floor
the album blood on the dance floor is not included in his discography. why is that? it may be a remix album, but it still included 4 new songs, so shouldn't it be included anyway?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.83.2.72 (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix... -> It included 5 new songs. Actually Blood on the Dance Floor is only remix-album whose Michael produced. I think it should be in his discography because it is Studio/remix-album. --BadMuroZ (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of Chlidren
Hi, there is an error on this page. The first paragraph states that Michael was the 7th Jackson child, but in the early life section, it states that he is the 8th child. Just thought you might like to know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.99.107 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before: Marlon had a twin brother, Brandon, who died at birth.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
The talk page archive has shown a long standing preference for the 1984 White House image as the infobox image. It shows Michael Jackson at the height of his fame with his trademark white glove. The argument that a more recent image is better is less relevant now that he is dead. Thoughts on this, please.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In sentiment of the comments above, and because the current image is hideous. The best free image is indeed from Wikicommons. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original image. Longstanding consensus prefers the photo from the White House, and needs a new consensus to swap it. — ξ xplicit  21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Acts
He didnt just have the jackson five to help him. He had Akon, Fergie, Stevie Wonders, Paul McCartney, and Janet Jackson. I thought you just might want to know. But please write them down. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.206.76 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Associated acts" is not meant for one-off or occasional collaborations, so whereas the Jackson Five would be OK here, the others are inappropriate. Rodhull  andemu  17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

sales
on the page michael jackson it staes that he has sold over 800 million although on the page best selling music artist it states he has sold 750 million, could you change it so they match —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.248.254 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop Singer Michael Jackson's 12 - Year - Old Daughter
The Name Of Pop Singer Michael Jackson's 12 - Year - Old Daughter Is Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, Her Two Middle Names Are In Honor Of Her Late Father And Her Paternal Grandmother,Please Go Back And Fix It,Thank You.67.162.29.162 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Captain EO
Some mention should be made that the Captain EO attraction, which had been removed from all of the Disney parks, is now running again under a special limited-time engagement. Joepet (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

earnings
In the article it says, MJ has earned about 500 million dollar in his lifetime. But that can't be possible, considering he signed a 890 million dollar record deal for 5 albums with Sony.--AndroidOfNotreDame (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not answered. I guess we should take that bit out of the article? --AndroidOfNotreDame (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo
"On October 28, 2006, a documentary film about the rehearsals entitled Michael Jackson's This Is It was released." Can someone please correct this to "2009"? 213.106.66.185 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tb hotch Ta lk C.  20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammys and #1s
OK I posted about this on the awards page, and since the lead says to discuss b4 altering, i am mentioning it here as well:

On the grammy records article beyonce knowles is featured as one of the artists with the most grammys won in a lifetime with 16 (3 w Destiny's Child and 13 solo), counting every single grammy she has won, solo or in a group, however for michael only his solo earnings are used, that's not fair. Obviously that is very misleading and knowles has not received more awards than jackson, but based on these articles that is the conclusion and it is a publication mistake.

If groups are counted into lifetime totals, then obviously usa for africa and jackson 5 should be included in jackson's lifetime total, at least on the grammy page and for his biography. In either case, Jackson was the songwriter of "We Are the World" which won for Song of the Year, so even without his performance contributions to the J5 and USAfA his wins total to 14 NOT 13.

Jackson' lifetime Grammy total is 18 (which is what should be placed on the Grammy Award records article, placing him 7th for most lifetime awards overall and 3rd for a male artist.) It should also be mentioned on his bio (explaining that five were within group appearances). They total to 13 awards as a solo artist, 4 as part of USA for Africa (although 1 should DEFINITELY be counted into his regular awards as it is for his songwriting contribution) and 1 with the Jackson 5, with an addition three works honored in the hall of fame, while 3 additional awards have been given to Jackson works, although not directly to Jackson, which can be mentioned in his awards article but really has no place here. Also, let's not forget that he has 4 #1s with the J5, 1 for we are the world (even if he was part of a supergroup it is still a number one in which he appears). I think to reduce controversy on this it should say s/t like "has won 18 Grammys (including the lifetime, legend award, 1 as the j5 and 3 as usafa) so it is a true representation of everything. I don't think there is anything particularly controversial in wording it like that

A list of Jackson works that have earned Grammys by album. Off the Wall Thriller E.T. the Extra Terrestrial USA for Africa Bad Dangerous HIStory Honorary awards Living Legend Award Also GreekStar12 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Best Male R&B Vocal ("Don't Stop Till You Get Enough")
 * Album of the Year (Thriller)
 * Record of the Year ("Beat It")
 * Producer of the Year, Non-Classical (Thriller, shared with Quincy Jones)
 * Best Male Pop Vocal ("Thriller")
 * Best Male Rock Vocal ("Beat It")
 * Best Male R&B Vocal ("Billie Jean")
 * Best R&B Song ("Billie Jean")
 * Best-Engineered Album, Non-Classical (To Bruce Swedien)
 * Best Recording for Children (Shared with Quincy Jones)
 * Song of the Year (as songwriter with Lionel Richie)
 * Record of the Year (as USA for Africa)
 * Best Short-Form Music Video (as USA for Africa)
 * Best Pop Vocal by a Group or Duo (as USA for Africa)
 * Best-Engineered Album, Non Classical (To Bruce Swedien)
 * Best Short-Form Music Video ("Leave Me Alone")
 * Best Engineered Album, Non Classical (To Bruce Swedien)
 * Best Short-Form Music Video ("Scream")
 * Lifetime Achievement Award
 * As well as hall of fame for "I Want You Back", Off the Wall, and Thriller
 * Award for "I Want You Back" with the Jackson 5
 * OK first i take it you have a source for all this...before you change the article??? Because you sound like your taking a guess sayin g"(although 1 should DEFINITELY be counted into his regular awards as it is for his songwriting contribution) ".. Moxy (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbers of records sold
There seems to be a dispute going on about how many records Michael Jackson sold. I would just like to say that no one knows how many records Jackson sold. The available numbers are all imprecise and some of them are exaggerated and/or wrong. And in recent years, thanks to digital downloads and other innovations, we have the whole issue of not even knowing what is or is not a "record." All we know for sure is that he has been one of the worldwide top sellers since the early 1970s and has probably sold more records than anyone else. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto the above. As we have seen here many times before, source warring over how many records MJ sold is futile.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the estimates of his record sales before he died and using estimates from reliable sources of his record sales since he died this subject was dicussed and settled, here is the link from the archive.Thecriticexpress (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_29#New_information_from_reliable_sources_confirms_that_Jackson_estimated_sales_are_over_800_million_to_date

King of Pop - Boldface Font
To make the opening paragraph's format of the article consistent with the article on James Brown, I have put the name "King of Pop" in bold face.Facial (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you, as the editing note clearly says, "please discuss on the talk page before making any change." We do not have to make this article consistent with the James Brown one, either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies - contrary to the original post, my edit was done after I posted the message. You should explain your rationale for inconsistent formatting between the MJ and James Brown articles. After all, Wikipedia is one encyclopedia. Facial (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read your reasoning for the boldface undo. The burden lies, then, in undoing the boldface on the James Brown article.Facial (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can explain the James Brown has not gone under a GA or FA review like the MJ article has ...if the James Brown article does it would have to follow Manual of Style (biographies) that discourages bold text for anything but Pseudonyms, stage names and common names... So Honorific or Academic names/titles are not to be in blod. We should fix the James Brown to match the majority of articles Moxy (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Siblings
It is listed here that Michael is the 8th born of 10 children in the Jackson family .. this is incorrect .. he was the 7th born of 9 children... (one reason why Michael has been seen wearing the "7" on his armband) ... There was Rebbie, Jackie, Latoya, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Michael, Randy and Janet. I can't edit this information because I am a new user and this article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applehead7 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial question: the answer is that Marlon had a twin brother, Brandon, who died at birth.Michael is the 8th of 10 Jackson siblings over all, but only the 7th of the 9 who survived childbirth. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that very fact is mentioned in the first paragraph of the "early life" section!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Record Sales
The claim he sold 800 million records is NOT sourced. Even if it was, it's still a lie 92.9.164.204 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced, here is the information. It has been, discussed and agreed upon. Don't make changes to the lead paragraphs with having a dicussion among members, personal opinions does not matter as outlined in the [WP:NPOV] policy.Thecriticexpress (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_29#New_information_from_reliable_sources_confirms_that_Jackson_estimated_sales_are_over_800_million_to_date

Michael's Extraordinary Vocal Range
Okay. His vocal coach said in the 80s' he could in full voice go from E2-B5. But, in the ninties he got to B1-B5. And, In smooth Criminal he hits a falsetto C6. I say, add this to his infobox as

Vocal Range: B1-C6 AttilaBrady (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Original research? Tb hotch Ta lk C.  23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, Not Original Research here  it says " Michael Jackson?s natural vocal range, before he breaks off into falsetto, goes from two E's below middle C, to two B's above middle C [E2-B5], or 44 notes."

here it says "Michael's vocal tick occurring on the in breath before phrasing a lyric is indicative of deep emotion. His voice, a clear tenor, vocal timbre: Spinto, Countertenor, Baritone. Highest note: B5; Lowest note : E2 Vocal range: 3.6+ octaves-- E2-B5; 44 notes by the middle of 1980s according to Seth Riggs, vocal consultant. In the 1990s, Riggs said the range expanded to 4 octaves. Here  It shows the C6 on Smooth Criminal. I was not sure about that so I took it to my friend who is a singer and he confirmed it being a C6. AttilaBrady (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Four octaves gives Michael Jackson a range that few can match." A also heard this And at 5:00-5;01  he hits what sounds like a Unison of an F2 and an F1 so maybe his range is F1-C6. AttilaBrady (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Captain EO's return
I noticed that the sentence, "The attraction would later return to all four venues after Jackson's death in 2010." was unsourced so I added the following source. Since this is a WP:FA, I'll leave it to someone else to fill out the cite template as I'm not sure which fields are required. I also note that the source that I found does not specifically state anything about "all four venues". I tried to find a source that mentioned this, but was unable. Perhaps someone has a better source, or the text should be tweaked to better fit the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ...with Reflinks.Moxy (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
 * Main tool page: toolserver.org
 * Per the above discussion, I changed "all four venues" to "Disneyland" so now the text and the source are in sync. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request
PLEASE WRITE IN THE INTRO, after "Jackson is recognised as the most successful entertainer of all time", write "and the most popular solo artist in the history of music". Then put one of those small numbers next to it where at the bottom people can click on this link: http://www.hollyscoop.com/music/michael-jackson/michael-jackson-most-downloaded-artist-of-all-time_2301.aspx which proves it. You may also wish to state that he is the most downloaded artist of all time and use that same link.

I recommend removing "Guinness World Records" in the first paragraph and just putting one of those small numbers.

State that:

1) Michael Jackson is referred to as the King of the Music Video, too. 2) He is the most successful African-American recording artist in the history of music. 3) He holds more records and achievements than any other recording artist in the history of music. 4) He has raised more for charity than any other person in the history of show business.

Please add more images - the current ones are very bad! Keep the first main image as the main image, but also add the following:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/media/multimedia/2009/06/25/media/MichaelJacksonYoung_t_w300_h600.jpg http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/84843405.jpg http://live.drjays.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/michael_jackson.jpg http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/b/7/e/5/Michael_Jackson_performing_f47e.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SkTuEnRa4HI/AAAAAAAACr4/pfyvOKh5XAc/s400/michael-jackson_performing.jpg http://passitonsv.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/smooth-criminal.jpg http://www.cine-electric.ie/img_library/news/thriller.jpg http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/07/michael_jackson_and_quincy_jones_at_the_grammys_in_1116397641.JPG http://ladjevic.com/dusan/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/48669857-michael_jackson_news.jpg - TO REPLACE THE CURRENT "THE WAY YOU MAKE ME FEEL" PICTURE!!! http://www.epiphanyedu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/MJ.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bYcSLHBKSLI/SkT32HHKZAI/AAAAAAAAARI/4M3MhBehrlg/s400/z+jackson.jpg http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/images/stories/mjandpaul.jpg http://www.michael-jackson-lovers.com/images/Michael-Jackson-Diana.jpg http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ncassley/2006/04/19/aa_billiejean_live5.jpg

And please update the video of the moonwalk to the one he did in Bucharest, because he hated the original Motown 25 moonwalk...

Please remove the image showing how the "Smooth Criminal" lean is performed, it ruins the legacy and illusion...

Finally, please ensure clips of all the following hits are on his page.

Billie Jean Bad Smooth Criminal Thriller Black Or White Beat It Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' Don't Stop Til' You Get Enough The Way You Make Me Feel Rock With You You Are Not Alone Man In The Mirror Earth Song Human Nature Heal The World Dirty Diana I Just Can't Stop Loving You.


 * Several issues here. The source at http://www.hollyscoop.com/music/michael-jackson/michael-jackson-most-downloaded-artist-of-all-time_2301.aspx is not really reliable. Also, there have been numerous heated disputes about the WP:LEAD in the past, with critics saying that it has too many WP:PEACOCK phrases. Images and music clips are governed by WP:NFCC, and need to be kept minimal. The "Smooth Criminal" lean equipment is not a big secret, and is notable because Jackson patented it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is ok the way it is currently, there is no need to recycle the same information. Only new peices of information based on his musical achievements or about the controversies that ensued within his personal life should be added to the lead.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The above (from 'PLEASE WRITE...' to the 'please endure {song-clips} are on his page') is a recycled edit-request that previously appeared in May 2010 from Nickfryett. Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Number one global music icon.
I am nominating this information to be added to one of the lead paragraphs of Michael Jackson Wikipedia page. It is one of his most notable achievement and should therefore be included as outlined by WP:LEAD policy. The information also in agreement Wikipedia's three core content policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCES, WP:VERIFY, the information im submitting is similar to info added to lead paragraphs of numerous artists articles (eg) The Beatles.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/28/icon.music.vote/#fbid=pIRdkpLErlX&wom=false

July 2010 for the first time ever on a worldwide scale premiere news organization CNN, in conjunction with premiere global music publication Songlines (magazine) shortlisted the top 20 globally renowned musicians from the past 50 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/24/music.icon.gallery/index.html?iref=allsearch

The worldwide public was invited to vote for their favorite artists, the top five in "icon's" were released on August 25th, 2010. Michael Jackson was voted as the top global icon followed by The Beatles, Leslie Cheung, Elvis Presley, and Bob Marley.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/24/music.icon.gallery/index.html?iref=allsearch

Thecriticexpress (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with you adding it, but you would have to write, "In a recent poll by CNN, fans voted Michael Jackson the top rated musician," something like that. Otherwise, you do not have my approval. If you don't place that then the quote is misleading, because it is opinionated, not factual.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk   01:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok will go ahead and do so.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This being a heavy traffic article, I suggest you wait till we have more votes and a possible consensus.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk   01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is noteworthy enough for the lead, elsewhere though would be fine. — R  2  10:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * CNN or not, fan voted polls are not very notable. They tend to be skewed towards celebrities whose fans can be bothered to vote. In the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons poll in 2002, it emerged that David Beckham was greater than Charles Dickens.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ianmacm. SJ (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying Ianmacm but the difference in this global icon poll was that the individuals chosen were all major music heavyweights who influence and redefined the music industry one way or another that's why they are icons not stars. If there was a Britney Spears to chose from then your argument would have a lot more credibility because she isn't a global music icon, she is a star, any of these artists compiled by CNN and Songlines (magazine) could have attained the number one position and it would have been widely accepted because they all deserved to be on that list because they are all major icons. Secondly the poll was a global poll, you mentioned the David Beckham poll 100 Greatest Britons, the difference between that poll and this poll was that the Beckham poll 100 Greatest Britons was a national poll (England) this poll was a global poll no one artist had an advantage over another.

In the David Beckham poll he had a lot of english fans for support if the poll was worldwide the outcome could have very well been very different because others in that poll who had fans in other countries could have voted.

In the global icon poll only the top five was revealed with Jackson being number one but the original list from which the top five was chosen was 20 music icons from all over the world (eg)Latin iconic singer Celia Cruz or pakistani icon Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan also African icon Miriam Makeba etc. If the poll was focused to either of these artists countries or regions the way if was for the Beckham poll then Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (eg) could have easily won if it was a Pakistani poll or Celia Cruz most likely if it was a Latin poll. It was a global poll all artists had a fair opportunity to attain the number one spot.

In this global icon poll everyone had an equal chance to vote because it was for the entire planet not just restricted to a single country so one particular artist didn't have an advantage over another like the way it may have necessarily been in the David Beckham national poll.

Many democratically elected leaders elected to lead nations are based on the popular vote should they be thrown out of office?. The artists who was entered in this poll were all credible major artists who deserved to be there, it was a global poll everyone around the world was invited to vote, no one artist had an advantage over another because it wasn't restricted to a certain country or region. The article passed all of wikipedia core content policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCES, WP:VERIFY. Im not the biggest Jackson fan and Ive said it before but i focus on his articles a lot because he gets unfair almost biased treatment compared to others on this site, if a man achieved greatness give it to him, there is a reason why he was voted number one by the global audience, if a major achievement voted on by the general world population and can't be included then what can? the people hold the ultimate power.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a huge lover of fan voted polls, and also feel that MJ's reputation is secure enough without them. The CNN poll is interesting, but it tells us little that we do not know already. The current wording in the lead also seems rather promotional for CNN and Songlines (magazine), which should be taken into consideration. Overall, I agree with R  2, this is OK somewhere in the article, but undue weight for inclusion in the WP:LEAD.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a poll that allows people to vote only one time, like happened to "Artist of the Decade" poll launched by American Music Awards. SJ (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

SJ (talk) you stated that in this global icon poll that you could vote more than once could you please provide the evidence from a reliable source WP:SOURCES to support your statement otherwise this is meaningless speculation which would be in violation of the WP:NOR policy.


 * It's not needed a source. You can determinate it with your votes. http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/icon/vote/#fbid=JgbphsjqUEV&wom=false SJ (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

SJ talk im not denying that it wasn't an open vote, its because it was an open vote that members of the general public was allowed to vote in the first place, ive stated that the vote was a public vote by individuals all around the world if you look at my responses you will see this.

The point in contention that you brought up which i disagreed with with was when you said that individuals were allowed to vote more than once, thats the point of disagreement not wether or not it was an open poll, thats the reason i asked you to provide a reliable source stating that individuals were allowed to vote more than once or even if their are cases from reliable sources saying that they did, there is no evidence supporting such a claims, thats why i also said if you have such evidence from a reliable source stating this then present it, otherwise you are basing this opinions as opposed to facts which violates the WP:NOR, WP:SOURCES policies.

also SJ talk its not our jobs to question whether or not someone achieved what is given to them fairly or even if they deserved it or whether or not. Here's a couple examples, They say Elvis and the Beatles over 1 billion records each, many research has shown this to be not the case, they said Michael Jackson thriller album sold over 110 million copies research has shown its between 50-70 million copies yet we let these peices of information get into the lead of their bio's on wikipedia, thats only because we are not here to judge whether or not they really achieved or if they even deserved what was given to them, our job is to make sure that what was said about them and their achievements was written by a reliable source and that it was verified, thats why the "verifiability, not truth" aka WP:SOURCES policy exists, also as long as what was written was not based on our own research hence the WP:NOR policy and finally as long as the information that was included in the article was not biased in any way hence the WP:NPOV there should not be a problem including it.

Technically we should not even be discussing the information in the manner which we are doing now because the information submitted does not run afoul of any of these three policies. Our discussions have to be based around the three policies not whether we think people voted once or twice on the global icon competition or if Elvis sold a billion rcords etc as long as information submitted passes the three policies outlined by wikipedia and the information has to be included and depending on how important the information is it will be placed within the appropriate section of that artists article. If we were to hold this standard for every article written we would never finish an article, thats why the three policies exists to simplyfy things. We bring our personal analysis into these discussions way to often, all information submitted should only be judged around the three content policies, the info submitted passes all of them there it has to be included per wikipedia own rules.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thecriticexpress, a poll where a person can vote multiple times, not would be included in the lead. Source or not source, when you vote on that site, it accpets the vote multiple times with a thanks. It's a survey as another and with limited choice (in this case, 20 artists). You removed the poll of Artist of the '80s from the lead (launched by AMAs, that allow vote only one time after a registration) and not this, that's clearly a common poll without security measures to ensure one only vote. Furthermore, the AMAs are more important than CNN in music. SJ (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

SJ again you miss the point that im making and i mean this in the least offensive term its nothing personal. You said "poll where a person can vote multiple times, not would be included in the lead." Heres my question to you, Where in wikipedia's Policies is this mentioned? could you please let me know, otherwise thats based on your opinion which would violate wikipedia's WP:NOR policy, also as opposed to what you said a reliable source does matter it has to you can't pick and chose when to use reliable sources, that's not what Wikipedia made that policy for. Secondly this was done by the CNN and partnering with the experts at songlines magazines. CNN is a recognized world news leader they dont just work with any company when determining something who should be entered in the global icon poll [[Songlines (magazine)] is a highly respected world music magazine, they chose the biggest icons from different regions of the world using experts without the non-Anglo Saxon representation in the list of artists.These are music experts, Just like the experts at Time magazine or Billboard who choses one artist over another are you gonna question their decisions?

http://www.songlines.co.uk/world-music-news/category/songlines-magazine/

In terms of there being 20 world artists included they were more than 20 artists originally, these experts "shortlisted 20 globally renowned musicians from the past 50 years"

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/28/icon.music.vote/#fbid=x209qzYJo5_&wom=true

They would never ever be a list created by any music organisation on earth where everyone would be happy when rollingstone created their list of greatest artist they were critercized, same went for billboard, the same for Time magazine when they created the the 20th century's 100 most influential people. http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/index_2000_time100.html

They got alot of critism for not including an icon like Elvis PresleyThe critism is even noted here on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100:_The_Most_Important_People_of_the_Century#Criticisms

should that peice of billboard information be removed from the beatles lead because of the criti sm? you tell me, this is what i mean when i mention double standards for certain articles.

Also just so you know this global icon list however did include Elvis Presley.

The larger point being however no matter what organisations music or not there will always be critisms that someone favorite artist or whoever have you is left out, there's no way around that.

SJ how do you know this poll didn't have security what evidence do you have to support this, show me the reliable source. There are polls that would let you vote, where you think that you are voting more than once even without registering but the truth is you have already been tagged via your IP adress from the first time you voted. Here a couple examples. How do you this was not the case, can you tell me?

HttpContext.Current.Request.UserHostAddress;

or

HttpContext.Current.Request.ServerVariables["REMOTE_ADDR"];

You mentioned that i removed the "poll of Artist of the '80s from the lead" in the past i did not do this out of security concerns, i did it because i was concerned that when you said MJ received the Artist of the Century but not the poll of Artist of the 80's,  that as one sentence implied that MJ received the award that night with that asterisk attached to it which was not the case, therefore i could have easily be seen as misleading. thats why i removed the latter part.

SJ here's the bottom line even if all you said was facts which they are not you could not remove the global icon from the lead without and i stress without violating Wikipedia's content policies because eveything you mention does not disqualify the information from the lead because it qualifies under the WP:NOR, WP:NPV, WP:VERIFY core content policies.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with SJ, because fan voted polls often have lax security which allows people to vote more than once. This means that they are not comparable to a true democratic vote. In the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons poll, there were suggestions of multiple votes being cast for Isambard Kingdom Brunel to achieve the number 2 slot. In any case, I agree with the other users that the current wording gives too much prominence to this poll, leading to WP:RECENTISM and undue weight issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ianmacm let me put it this way because im not sure you are getting to the point im making, so lets just say everything you just mentioned is true im not saying that what you said is factually true at all but just for discussion lets just say it is so i can prove my point from another angle. Tell me this and i would like for you to specifically tell me where in any of wikipedia's core content guidelines it says one person voting once or that same individual for that matter voting 1 million times to influence an outcome of a poll, tell me where in wikipedia core content policies that the outcome is not allowed as long (1)readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors ((eg)You,SJ and myself) think it is true hence the verifiability, not truth aka WP:VERIFY, (2) what was nominated for inclusion in the article was not based on original research hence the Wikipedia does not publish original research policy WP:ORIGINAL and finally that (3) what was stated was neutral that the editor who included the information on wikipedia did not do so with any bias, that he just reflected what was written by the reliable source hence the Neutral point of view (NPOV)policy. Tell me how an a peice of information that passed all three of these core policies policies cant be included without going against the policies i just outlined?

ianmacm what you mentioned above was also mostly a reflection of what SJ stated you can see my response to her also. The policies of wikipedia are basically set up similarly to the way the judicial system is for (eg) in the judicial system you can feel that somebody is guilty matter of fact you may even know it but without evidence you can't legally improson the individual, in terms of what we are disscussing musically the evidence would be showing that the information nominated broke the three content policies of wikipedia if you cant show that then like the person suspected in the murder case has to be freed, the information submitted for inclusion has to be included. The three content policies of wikipedia are like laws they have nothing to do with our personal opinions of information submitted they are there to include the information as long as the information passess all three content policies, hopefully that makes it clearer for you to understand.

Also you mentioned WP:RECENTISM of the info submitted WP:RECENTISM does not apply to that peice of information because it was a voting poll it wasnt an opinion. It wasn't lets say a journalist at New York Times saying why MJ is the number one global icon, or Gordy Berry calling Jackson the greatest ever those can be reviewed years from now to see if factual or not. This was a poll that was done instantly where hundreds of thousands participated it was not based on opinion its based on facts.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ianmacm (talk to me) i usually agree with the majority of what you say but in cases like these i have to differ for example you stated that you are not a fan of fan voted polls, there are a lot of things here on Wikipedia which are included in articles that im not a fan of myself(eg)I don't believe that we should be using newspapers here on wikipedia as a reliable sources when determining who has the best selling album, greatest amounts of records sold etc I believe that should come directly from the IFPI or individual countries recording associations (eg) RIAA, our personal opinions doesn't matter, what matters are the policies of Wikipedia, there is not policy of Wikipedia that's states that public polls are not to be included nor is their a policy that states that using reliable sources that are not record tracking organizations should not be included for albums sales, our discussions for having pieces of information included in articles on Wikipedia have to be based on whether or not they violate Wikipedia's content policies, not what we personally think should or should not be included that would violate the WP:NPOV policy which basically states ''Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. ''

The information i nominated does not violate any Wikipedia content policies as a matter of fact it compliments them.

you also stated that the The CNN poll is interesting, but it tells us little that we do not know already it isn't about what we know its about what we can proof our opinions does not matter outside of the content policies. It is important enough to be included in the article lead, the lead WP:LEAD states that ''The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.''

Him being voted as the number one global icon is certainly a very important aspect of the article if not the most important part of it.

you also stated that the The current wording in the lead also seems rather promotional for CNN  i don't see any information to support that because any organization (eg)Billboard who called the Beatles the no 1 all-time top-selling Hot 100 artists or Guinness world records who called MJ the most successful entertainer, the same thing goes for any organization who awards any entertainer so that can't be viewed as promotional because the same standard has to be set for every artist article included in Wikipedia who an organization bestows an honor upon. The reasons ive given shows why the article belongs in the lead. The info does not violate any policy of Wikipedia's and its notable enough to be included in the lead. Otherwise the same standard set for this article has to be set for every other article on the site. As a critic i criticize different standards set for different artists and articles these double standards are partly what gives Wikipedia a bad name when being looked at as a legit source of information.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would be except able to me (outside of the lead of course) if following the guidelines set forth by Manual of Style (words to watch).Moxy (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We have started to go round in circles on this somewhat, which is rarely a good sign. I have never said not to include the poll, but did question whether it was WP:LEAD material (along with other users). The "global music icon" tag is the sort of puffery that Wikipedia articles should avoid.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know i get it i never said that it would not be included in the article. I was just proving my point that it belongs in the lead it meets all of the requirements to be in the lead. It passess all the core content policies, the lead article of wikipedia states this: The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

Him being voted as the number one icon in the world is certainly a crowning achievement it is an important aspects of the subject of the article  it is equally as important as the award he received from Guinness World Records for most for being the most successful entertainment of all time.

This achievement wasn't like another Grammy win or something of that nature it was a major accomplishment that's why it belongs in the lead. This was achieved on a global stage not a national one, we have included in the lead of (eg) The beatles achievements receive from billboard was done in America not worldwide, yet we can't have an achievement of this man which is just as important and done worldwide yet we are hesitating to include it in the lead, can't you guys see the hypocrisy of that. It's borderline bias.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * unless there is more info then just what is in the lead there is no need for it in the lead. lead is for summarizing the article..we do not mention this again . so y would we add it/ Plus we cant add every little poll to the lead. Moxy (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How is being named the number one music icon in the world carried out by two of the world's premiere news and music organization a little poll? How many polls on this subject has been done worldwide by legitimate sources, so no its not a little poll. besides what other info would be needed all the info is there already, all the sources are included in the discussion all you have to do is refer to them. Yes the lead is to summarize the article but as i said its also to important aspects of the subject of the article  which this does. You cant have it both ways on certain artists articles like i stated thats just being biased. thats why there are many individuals and organizations out there who don't use us for this very reason.

http://collazoprojects.com/2008/10/18/how-to-research-an-article-or-why-wikipedia-isnt-a-legit-source/

http://prettyimportant.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/why-i-dont-use-wikipedia-tourettes-guy/

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/instant_mentor/weir22

Thecriticexpress (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Such hyperbole opinion polls do not belong in lede. Recentism (among many things) make such a poll skewed. Remove.Michael Jones jnr (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well as you see Thecriticexpress most do not agree with your interpretations of WP:lead and the weight you believe the poll holds. As for other articles well we are talking about this FA one. So you willing to do something else? perhaps in the section on Legacy and influence or Honors and awards.Moxy (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Moxy I am not the biggest Jackson fan, it really doesn't matter to me, Im more of a Sinatra fan.

The point i was making was not really even about Jackson if you look at what ive been saying my bigger point was this we as editors have to follow the and discuss what information should be included or excluded in and from an artists article using the policies of wikipedia. It's evident that that is not always the case, this discussion right now is one of the examples, The info nominated passes the three core policies it is an important peice of information no matter how you look at it which qualifies for the lead yet we are deciding to move the info to another section. In terms of recentism it was a poll done by reliable sources not an opinion done by reliable sources so recentism does not applyin this case because 10, 20, 100 years from now the poll result will still be the same whereas an opinion written may change over time thats why recentism does not apply, facts never change, opinions do.

Also in terms of recentism the information which we are currently discussing for nomination within the lead would apply for that, just a couple more more person (meaning you and Michael Jones Jnr) have agreed that it should be moved to another section the info we are discussing has only been up here for a few days, we should let more individuals give their opinions instead of just us five so that the information nominated does not fall victim to recentism, give it two weeks from today then whatever the outcome we comply by it, let a few more individuals have their say. What do you say about that?

like ive stated above my real concern is that too many times we don't hold discussion within the three policy guidelines of wikipedia WP:NOR, WP:NPV, WP:VERIFY also the WP: LEAD when discussing information for inclusion and that the info if submitted is included in the appropriate section of the article depending on its importance. The chances of us giving our own opinion subconsciously or not increases when we don't do this, the same goes for original research etc if you look at SJ discussion for example you'll see some of this. I really don't care about the individual whose article we are discussing all that i really care about is that we the editors follow the policies outlined by the founders of wikipedia.

Thecriticexpress (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts
I think Slash should add to there. He made some collaboration with Michael Jackson.

Live performances
 * MTV Video Music Awards (1991)
 * Dangerous World Tour
 * London, United Kingdom (1992)
 * Tokio, Japan (1992)
 * Oviedo, Spain (1992)
 * MTV Video Music Awards (1995)
 * Michael Jackson & Friends Tour
 * Seoul, Korea (1999)
 * Munich, Germany (1999)
 * Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Special
 * New York, United States (2001)
 * New York, United States (2001)

Songs
 * Black or White (Dangerous - 1991)
 * Give In to Me (Dangerous - 1991)
 * D.S. (HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I - 1995)
 * Morphine (Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix - 1997)
 * Privacy (Invincible - 2001)

Music videos 88.112.159.24 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Give In to Me (1992)
 * Slash is not credited in the album booklet as appearing on "Privacy". Also, associated acts shouldn't really extend beyond The Jackson 5. — R  2  09:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Slash didn't collab' with Michael on Black or White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaneRyles (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Special guitar performance by Slash -> Black or White.--88.112.152.83 (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

rehaan and michael jackson
these two were prefably right for each other when a boy called rehaan ali khan who lives in america clofornia they were both going on a walk when the media said that this was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsuby (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Induction to the Dance Hall of Fame
Hi! I suggest that in the lead text (just after mentioning Jackson's induction twice to the rock 'n roll hall of fame) the following new scentance is added: '''"He was also inducted into the Dance Hall of Fame as the first (and currently only) dancer from the world of pop and rock 'n' roll". (please see:''' http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Photos-Michael-Jackson-induction-ceremony-617034.php ) Br, Henri (Hmustone (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)) editsemiprotected
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: you're an autoconfirmed user, you can edit semiprotected articles, if you wish, without having to submit an edit request.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that! :) (Hmustone (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

Misunderstanding
In the section about posthumous works it is stated that there is 10 scheduled albums. That is incorrect. Instead it should say ten PROJECTS. The projects include a DVD-box set and concert DVD's. They can hardly be called albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmbjerg (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restore the Records and achievements of Michael jackson section
Someone has removed the section from Michael jackson's bio namely"The records and achievements of Michael jackson". They did this claiming that the info in this section is already included in the body of the main bio but this is untrue because they records and achievements deal with extra information deemed to much for the main bio etc polls, grammy awards, number one chart positions around the world. why would they remove this? Please restore208.97.104.114 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking
The Discography section that links to his album discography should be changed from the current one to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_(peak_chart_positions) or the album discography page should be changed into this one  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.252.240 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Missdrell83, 9 October 2010
Please change "The eighth child of the Jackson family" to "The seventh child of the Jackson family" as Randy is the youngest son, older than only Janet who is the baby. Therefore, Michael cannot be the eight child, Randy would be, as there are only 9 Jackson children.

Missdrell83 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done:Please find a Source.-- Talk tome (Intelati) 05:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Vitiligo diagnosis
Under the article Appearnance, Bad, Tabloids, ect, I noticed an error in the time frame in which Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo. Official reports say he was diagnosed with both vitiligo and lupus in 1984 by his dermatologist Arnold Klein, who remained Michael's dermatologist for the rest of the King of Pop's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheincredible (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

His middle name according to his passport, driving license, FBI files and court documents is Joe not Joseph. It's a common mistake. His trial lawyers made that mistake too and they corrected it in the next documents in 2005.

I also wanted to leave 2 comments in People vs Michael Jackson section but it was not possible so I will leave it here: The Grand Jury transcripts and the trial transcripts reveal 2 felonies by Tom Sneddon. The one is that he tried to plant fingerprints in a magazine and he was caught by Mesereau during Star Arvizo's cross examination. The magazine was publishes months after the Arvizo's were out of Neverland and the Grand Jury transcripts reveal that Sneddon gave the magazine to Star during the Grand Jury testimony without earing gloves. A member of the Grand Jury noticed that and it's in the records. The second refers to the phone records and it was revealed by Sneddon's own witness-a police officer who refused to lie under oath. Sneddon asked from Judge Melville to exlude them but Tom Mesereau said that since the jury already heard about that they should stay in. Melville agreed and now Sneddon can be indicted on 2 felonies against Jackson based on the evidence.

The motion to set aside the indictment reveals malicious prosecution and tampering witnesses tactics http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/062904motsetaside.pdf23:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)109.242.83.31 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.83.31 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

more information
1)In addition to May 1994 Showbiz tonight transcript mentioning the interview of 1994 Grand Jury member there is also this:

“The 1993 case crumbled when the accuser’s family accepted a multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlement from Mr. Jackson in a simultaneous civil suit. In recent interviews with the News-Press, members of that grand jury in Santa Barbara said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. Coupled with an accuser who would no longer testify, Mr. Sneddon never filed charges. ”

The article is from Santa Barbara News Press dated March 20 2004 under the title:THE JACKSON CASE: 1993 witnesses to testify again at grand jury

2) In 60 minutes interview Jackson complained about 2 things. a)The handcuffs that hurt him, which was proven by the audio released and b) mistreatment inside the police station not during the car ride. So police didn't prove anything actually, because they never released videotapes for that. They didn't provide any evidence to the contrary.

3) In the trial transcripts e-mails obtained during defense's investigation demonstarte that Bashir manipulated and lied to Jackson about the cause of the documentary. It's in Bashir's cross examination. He was suppose to promote Jackson's idea for international children's day and he would arrange a meeting with Kofi Anan. He also said he would interview Elizabeth Taylor. Of course, nothing of those things happened. Aphrodite Jones who had full access by judge Melville in the evidence of the trial and spent months reviewing them taking notes and photographs said in a radio interview that it was Martin Bashir’s idea to have Gavin lay his head on Michael’s shoulder and hold Michael’s hand during the filming, while Michael talked about sharing his bedroom with children. This is at 19minute http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6513980 and at 23.30miin. She also discussed the same topic in another interview http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7851714 Bashir has tricked other people as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2976419.stm    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-170441/Fergie-Bashir-tricked-Diana.html and his pollitically incorect behavior continues http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/01/martin-bashir-apologizes_n_116374.html  After Jackson's death he was very talkative in contrast to his deposition http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9xy95_martin-bashir-apologize-and-tell-th_news  Also Sean “Diddy” Combs  said he regrets being interviewed by Bashir and was unethically treated too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-5B4VY3_c  and another one  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUiUyVqOuJI&feature=player_embedded

4) Larry Feldman while pressuring Jackson for settlement (using tabloids as well) tried to avoid anything Jackson could use as excupaltory evidence. In early January 1994 he asked for the photos (which did not match the description and that's why Jackson was not arrested and charged) to be barred from the civil trial. He even tried to ask for a second search. Since the first one didn't result the way he wanted since they didn't match, he was asking to see the photos and then to have a second search. But the media never picked up on that huge revelation of the desperate move.

5) Bianca Fransia recnted her story during her cross examination blaming tabloids and their big payments as well as Dimond's manipulation. see transcripts

6) the rest of the employers gag recanted their storied blaming tabloids as well.

7) Jason Fransia questioned by police denied anything inapropriate ever happened and police interrogation shows that police officers manipulated and lied to him. Forensic Psychology has 5 rules that police has to follow in such cases otherwise the witness will not considered credible. They police officers made all of them. see the trial transcripts.

8) the alleged molestation dateS in Grand Jury were supposedly before Living with MJ "documentary". When Sneddon in an found the rebuttal he shifted them 15 days later adding the conspiracy theory. Since he found exonorating evidence he should have close the investigation. Instead he set up the case which is criminal behavior. The alleged dates were never set in the trial and the jury in their interviewd said the timeline was a big problem and didn't add up (as well as many things). Apart from the Children's services department, Sneddon's own department had conducted a research clearing Jackson. see Grand Jury and trial transcripts. Sneddon also violated client-attorney privacy by illegally entering Miller's office. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040720_spilbor.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118679,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107349,00.html    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117478,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114041,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112707,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110125,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110526,00.html  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109820,00.html   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/michael-jackson-attorney-fbi-files-vindication/story?id=9407615

A Year Before 2005 Trial FBI Found Nothing on Michael Jackson’s Computers By: Roger Friedman Wednesday December 23, 2009 The FBI files on Michael Jackson show a concerted effort by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office to convict the pop star for child molestation in 2003-2005. The DA even brought in the FBI for assistance. But the Bureau’s examination of all the computers seized from Neverland found nothing in April 2004 — ten months before Jackson’s trial. They went through a bunch of computers seized at the ranch, and ran “keyword searches” through them, looking for kiddie pornography. They came up with 18 pages of nothing. Michael’s defense attorney Thomas Mesereau expressed surprise to me about the FBI files yesterday. “I never saw them,” he said. “Shouldn’t they have shared them with me?” It didn’t matter. Mesereau’s masterful handling of the case got Michael acquitted of all charges in his 2005 child molestation/conspiracy case. But why did the DA go ahead with the case at all if the FBI turned up nothing? Mesereau told me: “They heard all these stories, they read stories in the tabloids, there was the 1993 case. They had to proceed. Plus DA Tom Sneddon had gotten legislation passed since the first case making it impossible not to go ahead. And he did it because of Michael.” Jackson was innocent of those charges. Whatever else happened to Michael Jackson in life, he was set up by Janet Arvizo to take a fall. Luckily, several people stepped in to save Michael. Two of those people were Frank (Tyson) Cascio and his friend Vinnie Amen. They were working for Michael in the winter of 2003. Jackson put them in charge of catering to the Arvizo family right after Martin Bashir’s “Living with Michael Jackson” aired on ABC. All hell broke loose because Michael bragged about Gavin Arvizo “sharing” his bed. Gavin and his brother were featured on the program. Chaos ensued. District Attorney Tom Sneddon, Michael’s nemesis from the 1993 case, determined to destroy Jackson at that point. He sought out Janet Arvizo, not realizing she was a welfare cheat, a pathological liar, and a big cup o’crazy. On the witness stand, Mrs, Arvizo told Jackson’s defense attorney, Tom Mesereau, she believed Michael was going to steal her children in a big hot air balloon, and fly away. After that, no testimony mattered. We in the Santa Maria courtroom knew Michael would moonwalk home, free as a bird. And deservedly so. Earlier that year, I wrote in my old column that when Frank and Vinnie brought Janet home to her L.A. apartment from Neverland, Sneddon’s card was under her door. She called the number. He invented her. Then he involved the FBI. The results are in the newly released files. Manpower was revved up, resources were used. And it was all for nothing. Regardless of Michael’s naive comments about children, or anything that might have happened years earlier, he was innocent. He was guilty, like Chris Tucker and a bunch of other people, of being conned by the Arvizos. In truth, the Jackson-Sneddon feud had been fueled by Michael. After the 1993-94 Jordy Chandler case, Michael fanned the flames by tautning Sneddon in song. It was a mistake. Sneddon was a no-nonsense guy. He didn’t wear designer suits. He reminded those of us in the court room of an old gym teacher. He wasn’t “hip.” And you could tell, he didn’t like the hip crowd one bit. In the FBI files, you can see how Sneddon, using Court TV’s willing Diane Dimond, ginned up the anti-Michael cause. He even sent ADA Ronald Zonen — listed in the FBI files incorrectly as Richard — to New York to persuade Jordy Chandler to testify. Chandler declined, and threatened to fight a subpoena legally. The word was that he left the U.S. for the duration of the trial. Sneddon et al had little luck getting anyone else from the so-called conspiracy to kidnap the Arvizos onto the stand. And Vinnie, I can tell you now, let me publish dozens and dozens of receipts he’d kept while babysitting the Arvizos. Eventually it all came out during the trial: rather than being kidnapped, the Arvizos were treated to movies, clothes, hotel stays, and spa treatments. Sneddon, of course, knew this. He just pretended that it never happened. Janet Arvizo received a full body waxing, courtesy of Michael Jackson. The FBI was taken to the cleaners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.83.31 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

more details about the trial
Ray Chandler after the public lynching of Jackson to promote his "book". Ray Chandler claimed that the book was based on ‘authentic’ documents legal documents signed by Rothman. Geraldine Hughes publicly questioned the authenticity with evidence because she was Rothman's secretary and she was the one that was writing them. A week later, on September 19, 2004 Michael Jackson’s defense team subpoenaed Ray Chandler as a “custodian of documents” on the basis of which the book was written with the idea to examine them in court. The subpoena was called “Duces Tecum” which means that the subpoena requests “the evidence (documents) be brought with the person”. Ray Chandler made every desperate move available not to go to court. All the filed motions from both sides can be found gathered in one page here http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ray-chandlers-subpoena-scared-to-death/. The prosecution didn't even bother to spend time on him. They already knew there was nothing years ago verified in their joint statement with LAPD on September 21, 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.40.135 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chicmama, 26 October 2010
To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting an edit request because I feel that I have some minor suggestions that would make the current Michael Jackson page on Wikipedia a bit more comprehensive and accurate. The first edit request that I have is that the current Genre section on Michael Jackson also include New Jack Swing, Soul, Funk, and Disco because Jackson's music encompassed these genres as well. I do not feel that the current listing of the genre of pop, R&B, rock, and dance properly and fully encompass all the genres of music Mr. Michael Jackson covered. The second and last edit request that I have is that the end of the opening introduction paragraphs for Michael Jackson (by this, I mean the section before the "Life and Career" section) also list Mr. Jackson's recent accomplishment of ranking in at #1 for Forbes'2010 list of top earning dead celebrities with gross earning of $275 Million Dollars (I think it's also important to note that in 2010, Jackson according to Forbes.com had a better year, in terms of earnings, than the two most-profitable living musical acts -- U2 and AC/DC -- combined and also collected higher earnings than the total combined earnings of the 12 other dead celebs on the list). According to Forbes.com, Jackson also earned more than the 2009 combined earnings of musicians Lady Gaga, Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Madonna.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Chicmama (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: -Atmoz (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dirratt, 27 October 2010
Hi, I would like to request that the including of Unproven allegations made by a medical assistant be removed from Michael jackson's page. There is no reason for this to be included as Mj is not here to defend himself against such allegations. I feel that who ever place this on his page should have also included the other bogus allegations of people claiming to be his wife or his love child. Therefore it should be removed. Thank You for your time. Cited as (58): Recent claims by a male dermatology assistant that he and Jackson were sexually involved have notably drawn fury from those close to Jackson.

Dirratt (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Jason Pfeiffer claims are old news and are not discussed directly in the article as they amount to little more than poorly sourced rumour mongering. However, because they have been widely reported and specifically denied by MJ's father, they are mentioned briefly in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.55.47.81, 1 November 2010
The section 'Death of Michael Jackson' contains a grammatical error. It starts with the sentence "Michael Jackson was passed out in his bed..." That should be changed to "Michael Jackson passed out in his bed".

Swfwtwlf0909 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tb hotch Ta lk C.  04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim about 800 million records
The figure of 800 million lied within the section of Honors and Awards, there are ten sources (which I left them all in place) that were attached to the figure and none of the sources did support the 800 million in record sales. I have removed the claim both from the section of Honors and Awards and the lead.--Harout72 (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.235.156.223, 4 November 2010
Please add information to the posthumous section about Michael Jackson's Vision, the Cirque du Soleil event Michael Jackson The Immortal World Tour, and MICHAEL, his new album coming out December 14th.

Thank you!

96.235.156.223 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excepting for MIchael, you have a source for all the other information?. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The album has been added, Michael (album), but it is not yet mentioned in this article, or his template or discography, i believe.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ "MICHAEL" Its is now in Michael Jackson section and is now linked.Moxy (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uh-oh. another issue: i have found 2 separate articles on this album, one at Michael (album), another at Michael (Michael Jackson album). I guess we need to propose a merge, which im not very skilled at. anyone want to do this, like, right away, before either one gets too large?(update: thanks for the merge templates going up so quickly)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the other requests... i have found this on his site and this on Cirque du Soleil this on the Box set and this on all 3.......Moxy (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All good references, all should be included here. i note that the article on Cirque du Soleil already mentions it briefly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

musicians
could we not make a section about all the musicians who played with this singer? There were many great ones, could have a section here listing some of the important ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonk (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This would risk leading to WP:LISTCRUFT, and at 183 kilobytes the article is already at a hard to manage WP:SIZE. Articles about the albums such as Thriller list the key personnel involved, including the session musicians who played on the album, eg Eddie Van Halen and Steve Lukather on Beat It.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Native American singers
I've added a minor Categories link to Native_American_singers.

My source is http://kingmichaelj.webs.com/jacksonfamilyhistory.htm

lesliedbruce (talk) 03:38:00, 04 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. DNA wise, the majority of his DNA is African, sub Saharan. Going by this stupid logic, All people should say they are African. It seems people only want to try and reach and take a piece of African American accomplishments only when they get famous. I don't see any Native Americans claiming anything one who is not famous. The Man is African American, and has said so. Any admixture are mixed ancestry is insignificant. People seriously need a class in biology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.80.179 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
The section about child abuse charges explains that the "case was settled out of court." Using the word "case" implies that there was a criminal case and should be clarified that it was a "civil" case that was settled out of court. Further clarification would specify that there were no criminal charges filed. Source information would be Wikipedia's own description of the 2003 child molestation accusations, sub category, under the Michael Jackson Wikipedia headline.65.182.248.166 (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson record sales
In order to give this article some integrity, it is not helpful to exxagerate statistics to boost the reputation or image of an artist of michaels' stature. If one examines websites, including this one, before his death, one will see that his total sales were quoted as being between 250 and 300 million, a considerable achievement by any measure. Now, all of a sudden, after his death, his sales are now claimed to have magically risen to '750 million', which is patently exxagerated and absurd. No msuch claim was ever made, ever, before his death. That figure should be removed from this article. There is enough media hype and exxageration already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacko's comeback is no thriller
November 16, 2006

Reclusive pop superstar Michael Jackson made a musical comeback of sorts yesterday, singing the chorus line of his charity single We Are The World before the sound cut out as he struggled for the high notes.

The 48-year-old, performing live for the first time since he was acquitted of child molestation charges in June, 2005, had been expected to sing his seminal hit Thriller.

But to the huge disappointment of screaming fans, that was performed instead by young US star Chris Brown.

Jackson looked uncomfortable at times as he was surrounded by excited young members of a gospel chorus on stage with him.

That did not stop supporters desperate to see their idol cheer his every move, especially when he threw his black sequin jacket into the crowd.

The failure by the deposed King of Pop to demonstrate his voice and confidence were back to anywhere near their best was likely to raise further doubts about his ability to resurrect a career that has been on hold for years.

"I love you!" he shouted, before the World Music Awards 2006 ceremony he headlined wound up.

Earlier in the evening, Jackson was given the Diamond Award honouring artists who sell more than 100 million records.

Introducing Jackson, U.S. singer Beyonce said: "Tonight we are celebrating 25 years of Thriller," referring to his seminal album. "If it wasn't for Michael Jackson I would never have ever performed. I love you, we all love you."

Jackson, who has been a virtual recluse for the last 17 months, thanked fans and his family, singling out his three children who have been with him during his stopover in London.

"I am greatly humbled by this award," said Jackson, who wore his jet black hair long and straight. "It was my dream that Thriller would be the biggest-selling album ever ... and God has answered my prayers," he added.

Jackson's lifetime record sales tally is believed to be around 750 million, making him the most successful entertainer of all time.

Whether Wednesday's performance helps him on the road to professional recovery remains to be seen.

"I would say there's very little chance of him coming back from where he is," said Gareth Grundy, deputy editor of the Q music magazine, speaking before the show.

"I think people will always be fascinated by the freak show, and that's what's going on," he said. "I would categorise him as a celebrity as opposed to an artist."

Celebrities Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan were also at the Earls Court venue, where they were joined by hundreds of reporters eager to catch Jackson in action.

He has said he planned to move to Europe in a bid to resurrect his musical career and indicated he will release a new album in 2007.

Reuters

http://www.smh.com.au/news/music/jackos-comeback-is-no-thriller/2006/11/16/1163266684614.html --88.112.155.206 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Album sales of Michael Jackson in 2009 (and parts of 2010)
In 2009 Michael Jackson sold:

ALBUMS:

USA: 9,820,000

International: 23,850,000

TOTAL Worldwide: 33,370,000

DIGITAL DOWNLOADS/SINGLES:

USA: 12,600,000

International: 26,450,000

TOTAL Worldwide: 39,050,000

Now for 2010: (as of November 17th)

ALBUMS:

USA: 1,880,000

International: 4,050,000

TOTAL Worldwide: 5,930,000

DIGITAL DOWNLOADS/SINGLES:

USA: 1,150,000

International: 3,000,000

TOTAL WORLDWIDE: 4,150,000

Source: Sony Music USA

Should these be updated onto what has already seen put forth on his Wikipedia entry?

--Bartallen2 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provided the source/link were this info was acquired from? We would need to verify this with a references before adding the info.Moxy (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson record sales
No one correctly cites the various sources of evidence and accusations of pedophilia. Does Wikipedia support child molesters now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.172.204 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific, as  in pointing out  the  statements you believe need  references. As for the second question you asked pls see Wikipedia:Block policy on child protection issues and  Child protection and if you have any further concerns in this regards  you may make suggestions at Child protection proposals.Moxy (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's achievements
Wasn't Michael Jackson inducted into the Songwriters' Hall of Fame in 2002 as well? Please add this in, thank you. Starsafterlight (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Song not listed on discography
I remember growing-up in Chicago in the 60's when the Jackson 5 first came on the scene. They had made a hit single that apparently was only locally distributed. Micheal was the lead vocals.He was only 9 years old. The name of the hit 45 rmp song was "I'm a Big Boy Now." It was so sweet and I knew whoever this kid was would someday become very famous. Does anyone else remember this song?74.229.102.208 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - we actually have an article on it (a Good Article, in fact). As it's a Jackson 5 release, it's listed in their discography.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Blood on the dance floor
Add Blood on the dance floor in Discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.25.238 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "discography" section is designed for "studio albums" only to avoid the addition all albums of the artist. BOTDF is a remix album. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, half of it are remixes. The other half are regular studio recordings. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That not make it automatically a studio album, and was sold as "remix album" Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it muslim?
Was that muslim or not? --93.106.135.97 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jacksons sales figures
Whats wrong with his worldwide sales figure According to the most reliable souces like CNN,BBC,CBS,INDEPENDENT,MTV,SONY BMG,FOX,New york times, Los Angelos time,Michael Jackson had sold over 750 million records many years before his death.He has sold over 50 million records [35 million + albums and 15 million +singles and videos /also milllions of digital albums].His posthumous album of new material Michael[album]  entered the global albums chart at no 1  has sold over 3 million units in only 7 seven days of its release world wide.Please change his sales figures to over 800 million records worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.154.4 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Released in 1979, [Off the Wall] was the first album to generate four U.S. top 10 hits"
Shouldn't that be the first solo album to generate four U.S. top 10 hits? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Off the Wall article says solo album, yes. So what was this non-solo album that had four Top 10 hits then?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This source specifies solo artist: "his great breakthrough came in 1979 with Off the Wall. He became the first solo artist to score four Top 10 hits from one album, including "She's Out of My Life" and "Rock with You." " Weird that this is the only source I can find online about this.  Maybe because this was so long ago before the Internet?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I find another source. The liner notes from The Ultimate Collection states, "Michael became the first solo artist to have four top 10 singles from a single LP", page 37.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pawnkingthree: Regarding your question about which non-solo album had 4 top 10 songs before Michael Jackson...I did some research and while I'm not sure if they were the first, Fleetwood Mac's 1977 album Rumours had 4 top 10 songs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine that several Beatles albums would meet that criteria as well. -- Jayron  32  03:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, in most cases Beatles singles were not included on their albums.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

POV
This article is RIDDLED with the most pandering, worshipful POV which I would dearly like removed. I also value my life, however, so I'd welcome others' help with this :) Hardylane (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We are more then willing to talk about the removal and/or addition of any content and/or to discuss the merits of the references associated with the content in question. Could you provide  examples of what your referring to so we can address them.Moxy (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to wade through the whole article just for quotes, but words like "memorable" "well-received", "unique" don't help. It just needs to be more factual. There also seems to be a huge number of "praise quotes" which don't really add to the article other than to increase the hero-worship aspect. There are 338 references on this article, many of them just relating press quotes. Comparing it to the John Lennon article, which seems more balanced.... this one seems to quite often tip into worship territory. Don't get me wrong. I'm a Jackson fan, but This is Wikipedia, not a tribute publication. I might go through it in the next few days and try to tidy it a bit. Hardylane (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any help with the improvement of the article is more then welcome.Moxy (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 4 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ✅--Cactus26 (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A9kqog44ttvjz
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A0dq5g4hptv8z
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A0dq5g4hptv8z
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7cu1z85ajyv6

table in discography section
so what if I want to add optional information to this section, what do people have against this?-- intraining  Jack In  05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before add 1Kb of information of that table again, the real question is, Does this article need a table on a discography section, when a simple list may resolve all? Remember this is an article not a list. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  06:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WPMAG says "Musicians that have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles", e.g. Michael_Jackson_Discography and "These articles should follow the guidelines given by WP:WikiProject_Discographies
 * WP:WikiProject_Discographies-> "style guidelines" leads to WP:DISCOGSTYLE which says a table of official releases should be in the discography article and more details about the format of the table. John_Lennon_discography is an example of a discography article with tables.
 * WP:WPMAG says the "discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work" and shows an example of a simple list of albums with years. For artists without separate discography pages, it says you may include more detail (e.g. record labels, etc.) and it may be advisable to use a table to organize the info. -Verapar (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BIGGEST SELLING ARTIST OF ALL TIME
Please put in the first paragraph, that, including the sales of Jackson 5 and The Jacksons records, Michael Jackson is the biggest selling recording artist of all time.

This page shows Jackson as selling 750 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

He has sold over 50 million records posthumously. Further to this, he has sold 5 million records of his first posthumous release, "Michael" worldwide, in its first week of release.

The official Wikipedia page of The Jackson 5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jackson_5#Legacy - states in the first sentence under "Legacy" that they have sold over 250 million records. This is referenced here - http://classic.motown.com/news.aspx?bid=108 - among NUMEROUS other places on the world wide web, that is a very reliable source being on Motown's OFFICIAL website.

This combines to well over one billion records, making Jackson the biggest selling recording artist of all time, which is already recognised by many of the world's leading websites worldwide.

Michael Jackson is the biggest selling artist in the history of music.

Please state the above in the first paragraph. This is VERY important because it is FACT and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.229.79 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the talk page archive. This is a minefield, because record sales are anything but easy to cite facts.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Footsytoesies, 8 January 2011
"Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, dancer, singer-songwriter, paedophile, and philanthropist. Referred to as the King of Pop, Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. His contribution to music, dance and fashion, along with a much-publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades. The eighth child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene along with his brothers as a member of The Jackson 5 in the mid-1960s, and began his solo career in 1971."

Please remove the word "paedophile." Mr. Jackson was proven innocent of this in a court of law. It is merely an opinion of someone who wrote or edited this article, not a fact. It is also highly disputed.

Footsytoesies (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed, this was vandalism, User talk:Jonesymango now indef blocked.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson multi-instrumentalist
Recently I restored the instruments in the infobox


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=405658720

after they were deleted by a user who had deleted them 9 times in 2010 & at least twice in 2009 and possibly other times:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justicejayant

The user has received a few warnings about removing content from this article:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justicejayant&diff=prev&oldid=327191084
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justicejayant&diff=prev&oldid=302372439
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justicejayant&diff=prev&oldid=266483746

And a related article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justicejayant&diff=next&oldid=266483746

- Verapar (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About Jackson as multi-instrumentalist: the musical instruments listed in his infobox are listed in the album liner notes. Using album liner notes as a source is consistent with other multi-instrumentalists on WP.

Also, clips of him beatboxing have been broadcast on numerous TV programs & documentaries; a compilation in this video:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5he8XQCBw

Some additional sources: Paddy Dunning, owner of internationally reknowned recording studio Grouse Lodge, spoke about Jackson's musicianship:


 * "Michael was an amazing guitarist, he was incredible on the drums, he stunned everyone when he got behind the piano, but most of all, you can't overstate his singing voice."


 * “What was amazing for me was discovering just how incredible Michael was at playing any instrument. He’d sit at the piano and play all the Beatles songs for us to all sing along to, or get on the drums, or play guitar. Michael was working with people like Rodney Jerkins, Will.i.am and other musicians, but the tracks he recorded were never finished.”


 * Account of Jackson playing the guitar during the filming of The Wiz

-Verapar (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.209.200.99, 15 January 2011
in the top lead paragraph there are 2 (August 29, 1958 - June 25, 2009) it should only be one

69.209.200.99 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tb hotch Talk and  C.  06:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Video game composers
Can the category 'video game composers' be added to the page? Michael Jackson helped write music for Sonic 3. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other genres

 * Gospel in Man in the Mirror (Bad), Earth Song (HIStory), Heal the World & Keep the Faith  (Dangerous), We are the World, Cry (Michael Jackson song) (Invincible)
 * New jack swing in Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) (Most successful new jack swing album of all time & his 2nd best selling album),, HIStory], [[Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix,

-->(Or just change pop rock to rock?)
 * soft rock in Man in the Mirror
 * hard rock in Dirty Diana, Beat It, Give in to Me
 * funk in Smooth Criminal, Beat it, Thriller, etc.

-Verapar (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:Musicial Artist 2 states that: "The genre or genres of music performed by the act." Not list ALL the genres in which the artist work or worked, just we have to list all genres in which he was worldwide reconized, those are pop, R&B, rock, soul and funk, no more. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So only two of my points above you debate then, rest accepted.
 * new jack swing is a cited genre in Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) and also "the most successful new jack swing album of all time". The new jack swing song Remember the Time is well known, iconic video.
 * Man in the Mirror also 'worldwide recognized' gospel song, many performances worldwide.
 * -Verapar (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Just because MITM is gospel, ALL THE CAREER OF JACKSON WAS BASED on gospel?, you are not understanding the use of this section. 05:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a very significant song in his career. and the gospel genre also featured on four other bestselling albums. And don't forget the iconic Earth Song, Heal the World and We are the World for four bestselling singles. I think we are trying to talk about the significance of the genre to the career as neither was his entire career based on every particular listed genre.
 * List of best-selling albums worldwide also lists "new jack swing" as a genre on his second best-selling album, Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)
 * -Verapar (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * R&B and electronica have been "very significant" genres in Madonna's career, Do you want to add it as well?. Please, PLEASE understand the reason of why infoboxes exist and their rules. They exist for give a short description of the subject, not to summarize all the content of the article, which BTW, nowhere in this article is stated that gospel and NJS were his genres. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 06:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read the rules and I don't make personal comments. I have given substantial evidence above that supports adding NJS & gospel genres to the article. You can add to Madonna's genres if you like. -Verapar (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence supported by any source and evidence is not the same as relevancy. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 06:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The info I provided above provides evidence of the relevance of the gospel & new jack swing genres to his music for people to look into. Note: My viewing of this talk page may be sporadic for a while, but I will try to have a look when I can. -Verapar (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium
Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium Award (Millennium Awards at 2000 World Music Award) must be mentionned in the intro. World Music Award stated officially Michael Jackson as the Best selling SOLO artist of all time video, that is BIG information especially the fact that this is the first time a statement like this one is made by an official organisation and not by a music company or official website. Waiting for changes. (Readerweb (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

Soul music & electronic music genres
Michael Jackson was a soul artist. Many of his songs including his early material were heavy soul material and he has been noted by many sources as a soul artist, including Liz Taylor when addressing him as the "true King of Pop, Rock, and Soul". That should be noted. As for electronic, that was not really Michael Jackson's main genre. Really, how many MJ songs were serious electronic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekeyboardman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OR, and removed electornic music, illogical. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackson's albums with soul music in the genre e.g. Music & Me, Forever,_Michael, Ben_(album), The_Original_Soul_of_Michael_Jackson, etc.
 * Some examples of his soul songs: Who's Lovin' You, Ain't_No_Sunshine, Music_and_Me_(Michael_Jackson_song), We're_Almost_There, Just_a_Little_Bit_of_You, One_Day_in_Your_Life_(Michael_Jackson_song), Ben_(song), etc.
 * Even some soul songs on Invincible album e.g. Butterflies_(Michael_Jackson_song), Speechless_(Michael_Jackson_song)
 * From Jackson_family: "The acclaim of The Jackson 5 led the group to become known as the "First Family of Soul" (after the Five Stairsteps)
 * From The Jacksons: Goin'_Places, The_Jacksons_(album), Triumph_(The_Jacksons_album), Victory_(The_Jacksons_album), 2300_Jackson_Street
 * Bad_(album) has synthpop in the genre, which is an electronic music genre, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synthpop; also heavy use of electronic music in Invincible_(Michael Jackson album) and Blood_on_the_Dance_Floor:_HIStory_in_the_Mix
 * -Verapar (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I recommend you again to read OR, especially the part of WP:SYNTHESIS: "Bad has synthpop influences, Bad was an album by Jackson, therefore Jackson's genre is synthpop, or in this case, electronica. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In some of the album articles, there are citations at the genres that can be re-used for this article. I showed some examples to explain why people had added the genres, so it's a matter of citation needed rather than just removing the genres outright. A kind of WP:common knowledge is being used here, that would seem to be why most music articles don't have citation for the genres.
 * Tricia Rose refers to his music genres at 3:45 and at 17:45 (link below) "the rich polyrhythmic call and response layering in his music" which is part of soul music. but I think it's better to look at the current citations first as referring to specific instances.
 * I provided some examples to show why I don't think Electronic music is "illogical" as you said.
 * -Verapar (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not requesting sources for soul, I am requesting sources for electronic music. Common knowledge and common sense are not reliable sources. Just because Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) lists electropop, we will not add electropop to Christina Aguilera's bio. Just because at least three albums of Madonna have R&B influences we are not adding R&B to her page. Just because Jackson is dead we are ables to make contentious changes without proper sources?. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 04:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave examples to say it's possible that sources can be found. You removed soul music from the genres so I gave examples. It is educational to show this. -Verapar (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Above you also removed soul music also citing WP:OR, and also WP:LEAD in the comments with regards to "first family of soul" being uncited. The cite was at the end of the the sentence, I've moved the cite next to the quote in the article.


 * The New York Times also noted heavy use of electronic music in the Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)
 * You said the synthpop genre from the Bad (album) is Electronica which "is a somewhat vague and broadly defined musical genre that covers a wide range of electronic or electronic-influenced music. The term usually relates to modern electronic music that is not necessarily designed for the dance-floor, but rather for home listening." Electronic music would be more accurate e.g. the following songs/albums have genres not listed under Electronica genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres):
 * Blood_on_the_Dance_Floor:_HIStory_in_the_Mix - industrial music, house music
 * Blood_on_the_Dance_Floor_(song): "pounding techno beat"
 * HIStory album:
 * Scream - Synthrock, redirects to Electronic rock; Tabloid_Junkie - electro
 * Excerpts of the two songs can be heard here HIStory, as well as: D.S. - Synthrock, Earth Song - heavy use of electronic music in background. And as stated, much electronic music in Invincible_(Michael Jackson album).
 * It's possible to use a citation that sums up the information, like the current note regarding whether King of Pop was self-titled. Again, as with soul music, these are examples showing the use of the genre is not contentious. That a genre is not within a person's personal knowledge or opinion of the artist does not mean that is it should not be added, as seen in the case of soul music. We are applying a WP:guideline. -Verapar (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Awkward Phrasing
"raising hundreds of millions of dollars for beneficial causes and supporting more than 39 charities." Wouldn't "more than 39 charities" be 40 charities? Either say "dozens of charities" and leave the number non-specific, or get the exact number of charities. This type of faux-fact finding runs rampant through Wikipedia and is extremely annoying.24.211.211.161 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium
Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium Award (Millennium Awards at 2000 World Music Award) must be mentionned in the intro. World Music Award stated officially Michael Jackson as the world's best-selling recording-artist of all timevideo. That is BIG information especially coming from an official organisation as the World Music Award and not by a music company or official website. Waiting for changes. (Readerweb (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC))
 * We can't use Youtube, it isn't a reliable source. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use it in some case see External links/Perennial websites and in the case if its the official World Music Award page (meaning its not a copyrighted upload) it could be used. That said this has come up many times before and it was decided that the lead is not the proper place to list all his achievements - the main ones are mentioned at  Michael Jackson and the rest at List of awards received by Michael Jackson. This does not mean we cant change it just would need others to agree to as per WP:CCC. Moxy (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For such a significant record, it should be straightforward to find a genuine reliable source. But yes, consensus needs to form for this factoid to be included in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is a reliable source : World Music Awards Millenium Awards. Reminder, this is big and huge information and needs to be shown on the intro. It's one of the most important and significant award. (Readerweb (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Why is it "big and huge" and one of his most significant awards?Beach drifter (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes, being the world's best-selling recording-artist of all time is big information for a singer, it must be mentionned on the lead part of this wikipedia article. All references are available (from wikipedia, websites and youtube videos) then now we should proceed. (Readerweb (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Its an award by non independant body. Nothing more. --LiamE (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, World Music Awards is an independant organisation that counts sales upon IFPI statistics. Anyway, the point is the Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium Award is a very important achievement for any singer, i'm asking for this award to appear on the lead part (Readerweb (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

WMAs says that counts sales upon IFPI statistics, but in the end, the results are different. An example is 2010 WMAs, Michael Jackson would have win in many categories (like best selling artist, best selling US artist, etc...), but he wasn't nominated in no one categorie, except best selling album. WMAs is not anymore a real award cerimony, now it's only a cerimony for to promote the artists. (SJ (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Michael Jackson's involvement in Video Games
Michael Jackson asked Sega Games in 1989 in Japan to create a video game about him and his music. The game Michael Jackson's Moonwalker was released for the Sega Genesis and Arcade in 1990. In the following years he also worked with Sega on the games Space Channel 5 part 1 and 2. He is also reported to have contributed to the music on Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetas4500 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Instrumentalist?
I'd simply like to know where there is anything whatsoever to verify MJ playing musical instruments like the guitar, drums, piano. Any video? Pictures? The liner notes on his albums don't cut it for me, as Jackson was clearly prone to embellishments regarding a number of things. I've never in my life even seen a picture of him playing any of those, much less actual live proof of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.249.70 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)



Guitar Picture 1 - http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/300/music11lq.jpg

Guitar Picture 2 - http://www.juliensauctions.com/auctions/2009/music-icons/michael-jackson-35.html

Guitar Picture 3 - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2641/3935738970_be5f9cc5c1.jpg

Guitar Picture 4 - http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac59/Mjfan1_MJ/kytara.gif

Guitar Picture 5 - http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165496_175151345851838_100000709217068_432318_6064155_n.jpg

Guitar Picture 6 - http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165790_175151519185154_100000709217068_432334_7109151_n.jpg

Piano Picture 1 - http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6671/photo61ag.jpg

Piano Picture 2 - http://bestofmichaeljackson.jclondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Photo-Early-Years-4-Micheal-Jackson.jpg

Piano Picture 3 - http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o36/EchelonAngel/Michael%20Jackson/003-2.jpg

Piano Picture 4 - http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/aboriginalgardenia/MJ%2090s/01_michael_jackson.jpg

Piano Picture 5 - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/goranx/09.jpg

Piano Picture 6 - http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3024/jetjuly311980usa1ts.jpg

Piano Picture 7 - http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9751/jetmarch311977usa0bz.jpg

Piano Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-6wIC5Q7g

Drums Picture 1 - http://i918.photobucket.com/albums/ad28/Brittanypwns/Young%20Micheal/mjdrums.jpg

Drums Picture 2 - http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4057/gallery13182409744nm.jpg --88.112.157.18 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good. Pictures of him holding a guitar, sitting at the piano and drums. I can hold a guitar or sit at the piano and make like I'm making a couple of chords too, but I can't play a lick. He actually isn't even listed as playing any instruments on his album credits here, and since so much of this guy was self-promotion and self-hype, I will ask, is there any live footage of him actually playing these instruments? He did a lot of concerts. There should be plenty of him doing something besides dancing if in fact he actually could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.13.86 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)



- Percussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Wall_%28album%29

- Percussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_%28The_Jacksons_album%29

- Drums - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_%28album%29

- Drums - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_%28album%29

- Guitar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_%28album%29

- Keyboards and synthesizers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I

- Guitars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I

- Drums and percussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I

- Percussion, Drums, Guitar - Morphine (Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix) --BadMuroZ (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi BadMuroZ.

The links you gave it's Wikipedia. The problem is that it's just your article. It's not a reliable source. For example, when i see you wrote  for album "off the wall", i think it's not precise: people could believe that Michael Jackson played on all the songs. But in reality he played on just 2 songs. Musicians or instrumentalists love so much their instrument that they play with it during all their gigs and for all their studio sessions.

Michael Jackson wasn't an authentic instrumentalist. It's not because he had played 3 notes of guitar on 1 song during his career that he was a guitarist. On youtube we can see Ringo Starr played piano. Must we write on Wikipedia that Ringo Starr was a pianist?

Instrumental participation of Michael Jackson

1 - ALBUM TRIUMPH: For this album, you wrote that Michael Jackson played percussion. Can you give me the title of the song who he played percussion?

2 - ALBUM OFF THE WALL

- Don't stop 'til you get enough : (Percussion)

- Working day and night : (Percussion)

3 - ALBUM THRILLER

- Beat it : (Drum case beater) (???)

4 - ALBUM BAD

- Bad : (Percussion-How Now Brown Cow)

- Speed Demon and Leave Me Alone : (Vocal synthesizer) (???)

5 -  ALBUM DANGEROUS : He played nothing

6 - ALBUM HISTORY : here on Wikipedia, i can read that Jackson was credited for playing instruments such as keyboard, synthesizer, guitar, drums and percussion on the single and album. Is it possible to obtain sources?

7 - ALBUM BLOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR

- Morphine : (Percussion, Drums, Guitar)

8 - ALBUM INVINCIBLE

- Cry : (Keyboard Programming by Michael Jackson and Brad Buxer) (Drum Programming by Michael Jackson and Brad Buxer)

- You Rock My World : ( All Musical Instruments Performed by Michael Jackson and Rodney Jerkins) (but he played what?)

For instant, i'm sure he played with musical instruments on 7 songs. And you? --Roujan (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jackson was simply not an instrumentalist, and it's a complete and total joke that all those instruments are listed on his Wiki bio as if he actually played any of them, with no actual live proof that he did. No way in hell anybody with an ego like his would not be on stage ripping it up on guitar and piano and the rest if he actually could play. It's a joke. More MJ and MJ fanatic hype with nothing to back it up, and it's shameful that Wiki puts the crap here with no actual proof, while with other articles I've been on they practically demand a notary public affidavit before they put something on there as a fact. It makes me sick and it's why I often take what I read at this site with a grain of salt. One of his "friends" was quoted as saying MJ could jam on those instruments. Wow! And MJ said he never had plastic surgery. Just more crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.53.46 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting question. I never saw him perform live, so I just know him from his recordings and dance videos. I think part of the problem is that for someone like Eddie Van Halen, he's doesn't do anything visually interesting besides play the guitar, so that's what any good filmmaker will show us. But for Michael Jackson, no filmmaker will want to show him playing a guitar when they can show him dancing! He may well have been doing much of his own guitar work on his recordings, and we wouldn't have a reliable way of knowing it. I suspect that, growing up in that musical family of his, that he learned to play several instruments, and probably became reasonably proficient in them, but I have no idea if he played them in his recordings. And for someone this famous, much of what you read about him is hype dreamed up by his publicists. It has never been a publicist's job to tell the truth. Having said all that, it's safe to say that, in his public performances, he was a vocalist and a great dancer. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know some of MJ's brothers could play guitar, because I've seen them on stage. Jackson was filmed a lot through the decades in concert, and there is no way he wouldn't have been filmed playing an instrument at some point, as well as filmed in the studio playing if he did or could. What you see above is all there even is as far as what's listed on his albums as him playing. Like the other guy said, Ringo Starr can be seen playing piano on YouTube, and that means actually seen playing the piano, not pictures of him sitting at it or the drums or "holding" a guitar like MJ. But Ringo's a drummer, not a pianist. Elvis Presley besides guitar and piano which he was seen playing countless times and recorded countless times playing, also arranged and produced many of his records, can also be seen sitting at the drums in studio shots, as well as sitting down with a bass, which he actually played on at least one song that's absolute recorded fact. He isn't listed at Wiki as an arranger/producer despite many sources, or having played drums despite as much proof as MJ playing drums, nor the bass which again is a documented fact that he played on at least one of his tracks. But MJ is listed as playing all of thoese instruments with virtually zero proof of it. "Hype" is the key word here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.242.172 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's position at Birth
Michael Jackson, technically is the seventh of nine children born the Joe and Katherine Jackson. Because Marlon's lost his twin at birth that would make Michael the seventh not the eighth. Strickland55 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you said "technically". Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.131.185.237
The young Michael Jackson owed his vocal technique in large part to Diana Ross. In October 1969, it was decided

[why?] due to extensive physical abuse at the hands of his father about which his mother could do little at the time

[by whom?] Producer Berry Gordy's daughter Hazel who saw Michael come to cut a record one day with a black eye and a busted lip.

that Jackson would live with Ross. Not only a mother figure to him, she was often observed in rehearsal as an accomplished performer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.185.237 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need a reliable source that supports that reason (physical abuse). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oliver North Trial
Does anyone think that a section on the Oliver North Trial should be added. Something like.

In 1985 the administration of President Ronald Reagan embarked on a plan to secure the release of American hostages by illegally selling arms to Iran. Funds from those sales were channeled to the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua who were attempting to overthrow that country's leftist government. When news of this deal broke in 1986, a Congressional hearing followed. Under promise of immunity, Oliver North, a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and member of President Reagan's National Security Council (NSC), provided an account of the U.S. government's role. North's emotional performance captured the public imagination but left doubts about his veracity. A grand jury later charged him with having lied to Congress, obstructed justice, and received kickbacks. the trial happended whilst Michael Jackson was still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey666 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because it's irrelevant. Rodhull  andemu  20:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twizzlervonbiscuit (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wishna
The article on this businessman states (without references) that he was instrumental in bringing Michael back from exile. If so, it should be added. seems there are youtube video news bits supporting this. I edited it down quite a bit, but it may still be overreaching. I dont have much experience adding material to really major articles, so ill leave it to others if they want to act on this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What comes to mind when you think of Michael Jackson?
Why is there no section -- or article, even -- discussing Michael's relationship with the media, and his eccentricity? He's dead now, BLP isn't an issue, and it's documented widely in journals, newspapers, books. For example, there's no mention of Terry George, or the paternity of the children, his "Wacko Jacko" public identity. I don't want to slate the man, but it's probably the biggest aspect of him after his music and it deserves some neutral coverage. Even if that coverage was reduced to summarising opinions, documentaries and their responses etc., in context: e.g. Bashir, Theroux, his sisters' comments, any coverage of the man once known as "the most eccentric person alive in the world".~ZytheTalk to me! 17:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of that is in Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, and Scream/Childhood discusses his deteriorating relationship with the media. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Curious sentence in opening
The article's opening has this curious sentence: "The music videos for his songs ... were credited with transforming the medium into an art form and a promotional tool" Huh? They weren't a promotional tool before Michael Jackson? I think it would be much more prudent to say "... credited with transforming the medium from a promotional tool into an art form" —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * good catch--Manboobies (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing some info
We have nothing on Jackson's plea at Clinton's inaugural gala for more research into HIV/AIDS as well as more funding for that research. see. Also we don't mention that Jackson got into the 2000 guinness book of records for most charities supported by an artist. And the paragraph about the benefit concerts in 1999 is lacking an actual paragraph for itself. There's also a complete lack of weight given to the millions he donated to charity in general. Did you know all the profits from the Dangerous tour went to charity? Did you know he airlifted tons of supplies to sarejevo as sole chairman of Heal the World Foundation? It's not given much weight in the article, it probably should be in the intro that he made the book of records in 2000 and all the money from the dangerous tour went to charity.--Manboobies (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article discusses his poor finances somewhat but doesn't mention the untold donations to charity. He would donate a whole tour to charity then take out a loan. Whilst connecting the two is original research, sticking them next to each other in sentences is not.--Manboobies (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.27.138.52, 8 April 2011
edit semi-protected

the word history is porrly written (like this: HIStory) (found in stactue image box) please fix this

70.27.138.52 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Is not "history" is HIStory. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Pop Singer Michael Jackson
The Name That Should Be Used In The Begining Of Michael Jackson's Wikipedia Page Is His Birth Name, Which Is Michael Joseph Jackson,That Is The Name He Has Always Gone By.Blooper2011 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting case. The ref cites a document on the page that uses "Joe," but the main FOIA FBI page says "Joseph." The SSDI also says Joseph.  So therefore, I've changed it back to Joseph. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What should we do here - his middle name is Joseph as indicated on all the  books he has written and published like Moomwalk -- so what do we do here -  should we change it back again? and remove the ref that is there - because all know that's driver's licence dont always use full  valid name -  i dont have my full middle name on my driver's licence...Moxy (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg I think this is the definitive statement as to what his middle name is. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow that's nice and definitive ..shall we fix it?Moxy (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question..... SJ (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok i think we got it right now...Its pretty clear that "Joe" is the short form he used, but not the proper name. Looking into this in the USA looks like only 4 documents have to have proper "fully" middle names - Birth certificate - Passport - marriage certificate and death certificate. According to what i found Americans can use short form middle names  on tax forums and drivers licences (this includes "Legal" stage names)....Moxy (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's real middle name is Joe? Joseph is fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.80.197 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information regarding Jacksons' skin disease
The time of Jacksons’ diagnoses of Vitiligo and Lupus,> his skin became blotchy. Once his skin was going through pigment differentiation,> Jackson wanted to make it all one colour. Therefore, from confirmation from the> autopsy, skin bleaching creams were used but solely for the purpose of covering> his blotchy skin due to his skin disease, rather than for outrageous rumors> about him having the desire to be Caucasian. Jackson has told the truth from his> interview with Oprah Winfrey in1993, where he openly admitted his skin diagnoses.> Sadly, people refused to believe him even having him publicly admit his disease> and still continued to not believe him until his death and his autopsy results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guirguc14 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that it's much easier and less intrusive to cover the white blotches with something darker than the other way around. If his skin was indeed blotchy, it was still his choice to go with the lighter skin than the darker skin.
 * Also, Oprah Winfrey could well have asked him why he didn't just cover up the lighter skin with darker makeup, but talk show hosts (even as powerful as Oprah) don't get superstar guests like Michael Jackson unless they agree to cooperate with his image makers. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Guirguc14, Michael Jackson's autopsy report confirmed he had vitiligo (undisputable) and he used bleaching agents hydroquinone and benoquin (having possession of some 20 or so tubes of each agent). Benoquin is an extremely powerful bleaching agent. This chemical can CAUSE vitiligo in individuals that DO NOT possess the disease and it can also TREAT the disease in individuals that have it naturally. By an individual using the cream with an absence of the disease, it can cause 'chemically induced vitiligo' as a side-effect. The chemical does not uniformly strip pigment from the skin and creates 'splotches'. Some people have a problem with accepting Michael's claim that it was a natural occurence rather than something self-inflicted. I am a fan of him, but I am not willing to accept such a claim given the other measures he has taken to change his appearance. He did have vitiligo, albeit it may have been a side effect of cosmetic treatment. Michael was right to say that people are ignorant of the disease, but I believe he caused the disease cosmetically in himself. By discussing it, he gave awareness of the disease. See all sides to the story, however, we will never know the truth. It is all guess-work now that he has gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyrabbit12 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead tweak
The start of the second paragraph of the lead states 'In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music.' In my view this should instead be changed to 'In the early 1980s, Jackson became the dominant figure in popular music.'. The latter is undoubtedly the case and is more than supported by the contents of the article. Why should there be equivocation?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Pop an "officially authorized" name, allowed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#alias
Some more info on "King of Pop" added back to the alias field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#alias "Also for the solo artist's legal name(s), or other officially authorized names that differ from their birth name." This extends beyond legal aliases e.g. Madonna_(entertainer) has the following in alias: Madonna Ciccone, Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone (confirmation name), Esther (Kabbalah name)

As may have been discussed before, "King of Pop" was officially authorized for use numerous times by Michael Jackson in his promotional material. There are many examples, for instance in the O2 announcement of the This Is It concerts "King of Pop" appears on the podium and the electronic banner at the top of the stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qs36fLnSds So it is not merely nick name as it was authorized by MJ for many official uses for concert tours, t.v. specials, etc.

-Verapar (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * * This change was also part of the edit that Moxy repeatedly and unfairly reverted due to their dispute over the birth name below in which they refuse to acknowledge the facts provided by reliable sources.


 * * See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&action=historysubmit&diff=425346301&oldid=425345048
 * * "only legal aliases are allowed" is a FALSE statement, see above.
 * * As well my addition of WP:Don%27t_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22 underneath the first comment in the infobox.
 * * I accidentally changed Jackson 5 in the "Associated Acts" to The Jacksons because I was trying to do a pop up Jackson 5/The Jacksons, then changed my mind. I'm fine with it either way.
 * -Verapar (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth name & currently known and accepted Identity_documents_in_the_United_States
The birth name was first corrected to Michael Joe Jackson in January 2011 citing his FBI file (which is a good reliable source on this issue) but the file was later moved to another url. The citation now been restored (until "Moxy" repreatedly removed it, along with the other changes I did that are unrelated to this issue) using the new urls. As noted in the citation (currently beside the birth name) we have from: http://foia2.fbi.gov/jackson_michael/62d-la-162715.PDF, (from: http://www.fbi.gov/foia/electronic-reading-room/michael-joseph-jackson)


 * p.8: "Michael Joe Jackson" is on his driver's license (the primary form of Identity_documents_in_the_United_States) & p.6: license application (which he signed and provided documents to prove his "true full name", see http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm ).
 * p:45 has the quote "Michael Jackson whose true name is Michael Joe Jackson"
 * "Michael Joe Jackson" also appears on many pages throughout his FBI file
 * And court documents prepared by prosecutors (and the 2005 verdict) must use the legal name shown on government issued i.d. Prosecutors had to check his legal name when he was arrested & Jackson had to surrender his passport in 2003. See talk page archives or other articles on Jackson citing the these documents for examples.

-Verapar (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus, his legal name "Michael Joe Jackson" is his birth name based on currently known and accepted Identity_documents_in_the_United_States.
 * Only a birth, death, Passport or marriage certificate are the main valid sources - and all 3 say  Michael Joseph Jackson (not sure about Passport never seen it). As for drivers license, social security card and court documents a short form of names can be used (as this is what i have done). In interviews with him they make sure they used his full name as at Ebony Dec 2007 - Ebony May 1984
 * And as side note he named 2 of his kids  with the same name .............Moxy (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken. See the article Identity_documents_in_the_United_States and the fbi file, which also clearly states is true name & also prosecution documents.  Those interviews are using his most commonly known name. Unless you have a birth certificate showing his name, his driver's license and the statement by the FBI supercede the death certificate. You did not read any of my points above.
 * Verapar (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again as stated above FBI files and a driver's license are able to use short forms for names . Pls see His  SIGNATURE on kids Birth certificate - kids birth certificate  - death certificate.Moxy (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the L.A. prosecutors are reliable sources as to his legal name (definitely more so than http://www.in.com. As stated, the L.A. prosecution had access to his license and passport, both clearly identified forms of i.d. the are have precedence over his death certificate as sources of his legal name. As stated, the FBI clearly stated: "Michael Jackson whose true name is Michael Joe Jackson" (NEVER did they say "short form"). His signature on the birth records of the kids is NOT a source of i.d. You are using questionable sources and your personal opinions about the FBI & driver's licenses.
 * Here is a sample prosecution document: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/042805minuteorder.pdf
 * Main website for the court documents: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/
 * -Verapar (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So a source by MJ himself is not a valid source?? Come on man!Moxy (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * MJ signed the license application on p.6 which where he wrote that his name was "Michael Joe Jackson" (as stated above) & provided the necessary documentation to prove it (see DMV links below).
 * moxy is 3/4 right! birth, marrige and death will have full proper names. Passports do not requier full names. Its abvious that Joe is short for Joseph as proven by the documants provided by moxy. Looks like MJ even writes hes name with Joseph on the birth of his kids. Would he do this if his name was just Joe?216.106.109.188 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * * The California Department of Motor vehicles http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm clearly says the name on his driver's license had to come from legal documents verifying "his birth date and legal presence" e.g. a birth certificate http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP. Otherwise you have to show legal documents showing that you legally changed your name if your true name is not the one on your BD/LP document http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#truename. There is no documentation to show that he legally changed his middle name from Joseph to Joe, the name confirmed by the BOTH the FBI and the L.A. prosecutors/police departments as his true name from his government i.d.
 * * moxy has provided NO documents that legally verify his birth name. All you and moxy have provided is your personal opinion that passports, driver's licenses, the FBI, LA prosecutors and police departments are unreliable sources of his legal name; despite all evidence to the contrary.
 * -Verapar (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok then can you explain y they use Joseph all over the place. Do you think all this documents are made up? Y in the hell would he sign his name Joseph? do you think he forgot his name was just Joe or is it more likely that Joe is short for Joseph. Do you  not think he would have made them correct this documents if his name was just Joe? So basically your saying all the references above  (that MJ looked at and subsequently  singed) are wrong? As for driver's license only a middle entail is required. I take it you are ware that his fathers name is Joseph as with his children. Moxy (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated, MJ clearly wrote "Joe" on his license application (and passport too), which must be reflected in his BD/LP documentation, and signed it. http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#truename clearly says "Your true full name appears on your BD/LP document.". The driver's license & passport are recognized forms of i.d. and it is clearly stated to applicants that you must use your legal name in these two documents. Your personal opinions & endless speculations are not reliable sources vs. the FBI, prosecutors, police, MJ himself, the DMV requirements and these primary forms of government i.d.
 * -Verapar (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So your saying you have no answer to y he singed his name Joseph or that the name is on  all this documents? There are a multutude  of books and documents that say Joseph - how can you simply dissmiss them all. What is more logical that he singed his right name or did it wrong. pls see  his LAST WILL Moxy (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated, Michael Joe Jackson is confirmed as his full true name in his driver's license (a primary form of government i.d.), is stated by the FBI as his "true name", verified by prosecutors, police, MJ himself (in his signed license application) and the DMV requirements for the name on the driver's license. A will is NOT an acceptable form of i.d. for the DMV.
 * Clearly many documents are NOT subject to rigorous checking & standards that are required for primary forms of government issued i.d. e.g. a Driver's license, passport, etc. which all require that you provide proof of your full true name before they are issued and cannot be used as government i.d. (see Identity_documents_in_the_United_States, http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP etc.)
 * You have stated false claims e.g. about the name requirements for passports & licenses, the equivalency of other documents to government issued i.d. (i.e. see, http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP, Identity_documents_in_the_United_States etc.) without any reliable sources and this is "illogical"; as is the refusal to have any acknowledgment of the sources above.
 * That an alternate name is commonly used does NOT make it a birth name, the birth name can only be legally confirmed by certain forms of i.d., which I have listed.
 * -Verapar (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * O well we will have to disagree - If you wish to change the article you will need consensus as this name has consensus currently (as per previous talk - that came about due to his  death certificate ) - I see that  there is more then enough evidence that the name in not simply Joe. His will - his death certificate - his signature on his children s birth certificates and so on.  You may seek more input from outside editors at Editor assistance - Requests for comment and Third opinion as it just basically  you and me talking about this with references. Moxy (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated, in addition to stating numerous unsupported claims as facts, you have not provided a single reference that shows the existence of a Identity_documents_in_the_United_States that legally confirms his birth name as using Joseph instead of Joe (and none of the documents to which you refer even make any explicit mention of a "true name" or "birth name". I have provided a number of references showing which i.d. documents can confirm the birth name and sources showing such i.d. explicitly confirming Michael Joe Jackson as his true name.
 * It is NOT WP policy to simply revert an edit "due to no consensus" without saying why. See WP:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"
 * -Verapar (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Michael Joseph Jackson was his name at birth, but later in life he insisted on distancing himself from his father and even his father's full given name, thus going by Joe. Aaron was Elvis Presley's middle name at birth, but he dropped an "a" from it when he was older, changing his to Aron. Paul McCartney's middle name is Paul, which is what he goes by, rather than his first name which is James. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an unsourced claim, you will have to provide legal documentation showing the legal name change or birth certificate. -Verapar (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, just give me your address so I can send it to you. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without Reliable sources for the legal name change document/birth certificate to support your claim it stands that the birth name is Michael Joe Jackson as explicitly confirmed as true name by the FBI and prosecutors via government issued i.d. http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP, Identity_documents_in_the_United_States
 * -Verapar (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The simply reason i dont by your argument about true name - is that  both my drivers license and passport have my middle name as Alex (but in fact its Alexander that appear on my birth certificate). For my will and my  marriage license i had to use "Alexander" i had no choice were i had the option  to use Alex for my drivers license and passport. Also what name change are you talking about? Do you believe that Michael Joseph Jackson was a stage name? even his self published book that you linked up today  use Michael Joseph Jackson Moxy (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment here, so I will. I won't comment further because I think this is a ridiculous detail to argue about. I think the reliance on court and police records may be misplaced. I do not know how the feds do things, but I can tell you about Missouri. Here the authorities do not care if they have someone locked up under the wrong name (even a completely wrong one). I know this because the state sought the death penalty against a prisoner for killing a guard and they charged him under a name that was different than the name he lived under later and (I think) different than the name he was born with. It may be a different story for someone that is not locked up pending trial (I'm guessing someone as rich as MJ bonded out). But this much is true, at least in Missouri: enough to identify someone is all that matters. First name, last name, SSN, birthdate, and last known address will usually be enough for the authorities to known who they need to track down if they fail to appear. That's all they really need your name for. People usually don't show up for court to fight charges filed against someone that has the same first name and last name, but a different middle name. I could check to see if the feds do things the same way, but it's really not worth anyone's time.
 * The sources you all have amassed disagree. Some of them say Joe. Others say Joseph. I don't see any that you've been discussing that are not reliable sources. So the name guideline says to name someone by their most commonly known name. That's done (Michael Jackson). Beyond that, I'm not sure. Do a majority of the sources point to one or the other? Or was he trying to disassociate himself from his father over time? I don't know and I don't really care. I don't think our policies or guidelines offer any clarity here. If you want someone to just settle this fight, I am happy to flip a coin.--Chaser (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes agree that this is trivial - however this is the basses behind conspiracy theorists that believe hes not dead - though i don't believe thats the reason for Verapar wishing to change the name in the article. As seem below all that has been posted here has been talked about for a long time by conspiracy theories and i am hoping we here at Wikipedia dont add fuel to this fire - I personal believe we have it right - as did a few other at the time this was originally changed with the refs that were provided above. Moxy (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Truth Isn't Waiting To Be Found. It's Waiting To Be BeLIEved.
 * Michael Jackson's full legal name ...&... the death certificate!!
 * ompelling evidence now available that Michael Jackson is not dead and the "death" is a gigantic media hoax. -
 * All what you want to know about Michael Jackson full legal name (almost full analysis)


 * Silly conspiracy theorists on the internet should not motivate our naming decisions here.--Chaser (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree 100 percent - We have documents from  all over saying different things. So lets not give to much weight to one kind of  document as the conspiracy theorists have done - As you say we should  look at what is mostly out there - The more scholarly  publications from what i see  have used Joseph over the years -  as with Don Michael Randel's The Harvard concise dictionary of music and musicians - Harvard University Press - page 331 - published 1999.Moxy (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly no such thing as "Wikipedia reliable sources", only biased tripe. Whether it's all the unsubstantiated claims about Jackson's "instrumentalist" abilities which are stated as fact on his front page with zilch to back them up, or a thousand other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.54.42 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tours
The first tour listed here is the Bad World Tour. I wonder if that is correct. He did some touring as a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the deceased MJ, Wikipedia should do alot to point toward the overwhelming evidence against both Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo and MJ's innocence. It's outstanding and I still don't think its clear to the public to this day.John Q12 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sycophantic in Tone
The tone of this article is fawning in places. This detracts from the quality of it. This is an important article about a man significant in 20th century popular culture history. If certain editors with an exceptional emotional bias towards having positive commentary on Jackson need to be bludgeoned into submission, the edits should be made to improve this article. Leonig Mig (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly think that the new wording in the lead (According to David Winters, Jackson also donated tens of millions of dollars to many children’s charities anonymously, and spent a lot of his time visiting seriously ill children tirelessly going from hospital to hospital meeting these children just to brighten up their lives. When Jackson finished the visits he would ask the hospital nurses and the doctors what was needed at the hospital in terms of equipment for the children and would then make anonymous donations to the hospital to purchase expensive equipment or whatever else was needed.) is WP:UNDUE, POV and has spoilt an otherwise very good article. In my view the prior sentence was sufficient detail on Jackson's charitable activities for the lead.  Rangoon11 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede is also too long: deleting or moving the sycophantic stuff would be an easy way of improving it. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Vocal Range
Hello, I miss some info about Jackson’s vocal range. There are a lot of websites claiming it to be between 3 and 4 octaves, and some impressive YouTube recordings, however, it would be nice to have some reliable information about this in the Wikipedia itself. Has anyone got a reliable source, and if so, can (s)he please add it to the article? (I’m not a regular Wikipedia contributor and can’t do it myself.) --Musubana (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem with Vocal range is it changes in time and that noone realy ever sits down to have this evaluated  properly. There are many many many different opinions and views on this.Moxy (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’re right; take a look at this video, for instance, it mixes vocals from his whole life… Many fan sites mention an interview with Jackson’s vocal coach Seth Riggs, where he also mentions Jackson’s (expanding) vocal range. But I’ve been unable to find it! Has anyone got a clue? Riggs would definitely be a reliable source. --Musubana (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, this is interesting, the Spanish wikipedia has a whole section about his voice: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Voz Apparently, they use this page as a source: http://www.michaeljackson.com/fi/blog/michaels-vocal-lessons How about copying the Spanish speakers? --Musubana (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

death
Please change the lines about Michael Jackson dying after "suffering" from cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest means the heart has stopped, so 100% of people "suffer" from cardiac arrest when they die. I'm not sure if the official cause of death is known, but it could be changed to something like, "after administration of several powerful drugs such as propofol, Michael Jackson suffered a cardiac arrest and died." 173.180.3.104 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Awards
Michael Jackson has won 18 Grammy Awards

See http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/michael-jackson-awards R&BEditsz (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Business career (1984–85)
The changes requested below have been made. Aleskr (talk), 17 November 2010

Please change: "However, McCartney later changed his mind and tried to persuade John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono to join him in a joint bid. Ono declined, and McCartney pulled out."

to: "Previously, McCartney was offered the ATV catalog for £20 million ($40 million USD) in 1981. He contacted Yoko Ono to make a joint purchase by splitting the cost equally at £10 million each, but Ono thought they could buy it for £5 million each. When they were unable to, he let the offer fall through, not wanting to pay the £20 million himself."

McCartney tried to make a joint purchase with Yoko Ono when he was OFFERED the catalog for £20 million in 1981, NOT when MJ was bidding for it in 1984. He never attempted to place a bid when the catalog was put up for sale in 1984. These two sources confirm the £20 million offer and failed attempt to make a joint purchase was prior to the 1984 open bidding:

http://www.pophistorydig.com/?tag=michael-jackson-john-branca (see section "Jackson Invests")

http://mjjinfo.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-mccartney-refused-to-buy-atv.html (Audio and transcript of McCartney talking being "OFFERED the songs to buy for £20 million pounds" and letting the offer fall through)

The specific year of the offer as 1981 was given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing#Acquisition in the sentence, "McCartney had previously attempted to purchase the catalog alongside John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono in 1981." with Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2004). The Magic and the Madness. Terra Alta, WV (2004) p335–338 as the reference

The above wikipedia (citing Taraborrelli) and pophistorydig.com articles both confirm that after Jackson was notified of the sale in September 1984, John Branca contacted McCartney's attorney who said McCartney would not bid because the catalog was too "pricey". There is no mention of McCartney changing his mind after that.

Aleskr (talk) 13:22 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seventh child
change that he was the 8th child he was the 7th — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-TEK777 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a frequent question. Marlon had a twin who died at birth, named Brandon. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

last album
please add the last album titled ( michael ) to his discography because it is an official release by sony and deserve to be added to his discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amen waleed (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So is Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix, but you'll note that that is not listed either. Only studio albums are included, not remix or compilation albums.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Legacy and influence
Under this topic, Mariah Carey,[315], is listed twice. I believe it would look a bit better if one of them were to be removed :) 83.252.73.180 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC) ...thank you for pointing this out.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pepsi commercial at the exact midpoint of his life
On January 27, 1984, Michael and other members of the Jacksons filmed a Pepsi Cola commercial. This was exactly the first day of the second half of his life. Michael lived a total of 18,564 days. On January 27, 1984 he had lived exactly half of those days - 9282 days. Willawatson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC).

Instruments that Jackson Played
Under instruments, this article lists "vocals, drums, piano, and guitar." This list should include a musician's main instruments. Jackson only provided vocals in concert and on all of his main albums (at least on the ones that I"m familiar with). Shouldn't this list be limited to "vocals" since Jackson was never a serious drummer, guitarist or pianist? Jpcohen (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I would favour limiting it to vocals only, and we have tried that in the past, but it's never long before someone comes along and insists on adding instruments based on the fact that he once strummed a bit of guitar on a B-side or something. As you say, the field should be for an artist's primary instrument, which in Jackson's case is vocals.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought. Thank you for verifying. I've changed the category to include "vocals" only. Jpcohen (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Faith of Michael later Mikail Jackson
Article misses out a very important aspects of star's life - his conversion to Islam and his new name 'Mikail'. Why should such an important section be skipped out? It is requested that this section should be added to provide wiki users with complete and correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.96.5 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You would have to be able to provide a solid source to back your claim before you add this. However, I've never read or heard anything about Jackson converting and changing his name in any mainstream publication.Jpcohen (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times in the talk page archive. It comes back to a story in the UK tabloid The Sun in November 2008, which was denied by the people involved. All of the subsequent coverage is a rehash of this story. The FAQ at the top of the talk page has more details.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this doesn't belong in the article. I've never heard of it, and it's apparently wrong since he never changed his name.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Forever Tribute Concert
Official site: http://home.michaelforevertribute.com/home.html

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Michael Jackson's mother and four of his siblings announced Monday a tribute concert for the late pop singer to be held in Wales in October, but the lineup for talent is still a secret.

Brothers Marlon, Tito and Jackie, sister La Toya and family matriarch Katherine Jackson attended the "Michael Forever The Tribute Concert" announcement at the Beverly Hills Hotel on Monday morning.

But the announcement exposed a major rift among members of the Jackson family, especially with Jackson brothers Jermaine and Randy, who did not attend the news conference. They objected to the show because it's scheduled to happen during the criminal trial of the doctor accused in Michael Jackson's death.

"We want to make clear that this does not reflect the position of the entire family," the two brothers said in a joint statement. "While we wholeheartedly support the spirit of a tribute that honors our brother, we find it impossible to support an event that is due to take place during the criminal trial surrounding Michael's death," they said.

While the head of the British company promoting the show, Global Events Live, hinted it could include a Jackson brothers reunion, the statement from Jermaine and Randy Jackson on Monday indicated that would not happen.

"In light of this, we feel it is inappropriate to be involved with such an ill-timed event and its promoter, Global Live," Randy and Jermaine Jackson said.

Their statement said the idea of the October concert was presented to the entire family in April "as an idea already in its advanced stages." The decision to go ahead with it "disrespects opinions and wishes expressed in the strongest terms" by some members of the Jackson family, they said.

La Toya Jackson said the "tribute will be something that's spectacular" and is "far, far, well overdue.'

The Jacksons' mother called it "a show fit for a king,"

"If my son were here today, he would feel the same way," Katherine Jackson said.

Executors for the late pop singer's estate were unaware of the planned tribute, estate spokesman Jim Bates told CNN.

"The estate has not been contacted and is not involved with Global Live Events in the UK tribute concert announced today," he said.

The show will "feature the world's most amazing music performers," according to the head of British promoter Global Live. The roster will be revealed online one act at a time over the next two weeks, starting Tuesday, Chris Hunt said. All profits from the show would go to several U.S. and British charities, including a cancer group created by the prince of Wales, Hunt said.

The October 8 show, in the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff, Wales, would be at least four hours long, Hunt said. The venue will seat up to 75,000 people, he said.

"I know my brother would be very, very proud to see all the artists that he admired and respected so much coming together for this event," Tito Jackson said.

Hunt presented the Jackson family with a $100,000 check that will go to a trust fund for Michael Jackson's three children, which they can access when they turn 21. The children, Katherine Jackson and unidentified charities are the sole beneficiaries of Jackson's wealthy estate.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/25/jackson.tribute.concert/ http://celebrity-gossip.net/michael-jackson/jackson-family-announces-michael-forever-tribute-concert-527959 http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/07/michael-jackson-tribute-concert-causes-family-feud/ http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Tribute-Concert-In-Wales-Michael-Forever-Show-Criticised-By-Randy-And-Jermaine/Article/201107416037620?f=rss

--BadMuroZ (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Early life section -- abuse research
The following entry is in Jackson's Early life section:

"In fact, Michael Jackson's deep dissatisfaction with his appearance, his nightmares and chronic sleep problems, his tendency to remain hyper-compliant especially with his father, and to remain child-like throughout his adult life are in many ways consistent with the effects of this chronic maltreatment he endured as a young child.[10] Also, U.S.-based research studies on impact of 'adverse childhood experiences' or ACEs (e.g. a child being abused, violence in the family, extreme stress of poverty, etc.) have shown that having a number of ACEs exponentially increases the risk of addiction (e.g. a male child with six ACEs has a 4,600%/46-fold increase in risk of addiction), mental illnesses, physical illnesses, and early death.[11]"

I can understand having that first line...if it mentions Jackson. But why is the second line (ACEs) there, when it is not about Jackson's life? I understand the need to explain how the whippings/beatings impacted Jackson, but I feel that we should stick to Jackson's feelings on that when it comes to his Early life section. Plenty of experts have stated their opinion on what kind of impact the whippings/beatings had on Jackson, but that doesn't mean it belongs in his Early life section. A section specifically about this can be created if it's felt to be needed. Or it can go in the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And if this has been discussed before, point me to the archived discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia request
Is a featured article so content should stay stable for the foreseeable future. Is also a high traffic article. I've spoken to a few people about it and most seem to agree that a female voice would be best suited but we ain't too bothered about that. Realist 2

Michael Jackson Singles: All In Your Name
so this single is by Barry Gibb. but why is it then listed as a single in Michael Jackson singles discography. as i listened to the song, michael only sang the chorus while gibb sang the rest of it. Now there are skeptical rumors that a music video will be released of them in the studio. is this true or not and if so i please urge that this be all turned into a page where people like me can understand and catch up on these new songs, and like i said, why is the song then not listed as its own page instead of being one of barry gibbs singles' but having no where to link too but back to his page Stevie Kay (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Finances/Net Worth As Of June 25, 2009
I would suggest an update and more accurate picture of Michael Jackson's financial picture at the time of his death. He is the most successful artist of all time, a man who left his children billions in assets and he should be given credit for that.

In 2005 Tom Mesereau got a prosecution financial expert to admit that Sony/ATV had been estimated by industry experts to be worth as much as $5 billion. It is also rarely mentioned that Jackson now his estate own another catalogue of music, Mijac publishing worth between $100- $200 million.

Attorney Londell Mcmillan worked with rapper Jay-Z and helped negotiate "the artist" Prince out of his deal with Warner Bros. Mcmillan also worked with Michael Jackson from 2007 on and became Katherine Jackson's lawyer after Michael died. He was a guest on The CBS Morning Show in July 2009. When asked how much he thought The Estate was worth he said, "In my estimation, a couple of billion dollars".

I also submit the following as proof that Jackson's net worth was much more than speculation about his debt. In July 2009 papers filed with the Estate court by executors John Branca and John McClain only one month after his death said "the Estate is solvent and worth more than $500 million." http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-24/entertainment/michael.jackson.estate_1_judge-mitchell-beckloff-special-administrators-debbie-rowe?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ by wiki legacy 8-12-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki legacy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC) http://newsflavor.com/entertainment/michael-jackson%E2%80%99s-estate-declared-solvent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki legacy (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) What Londell McMillan Says here is clear. The rest is the media giving their spin and trying to downplay the fact that the leading African American entertainment attorney proclaimed Michael Jackson a bilionaire. http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=5197299&videofeed=36 Wiki legacy 8-13-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki legacy (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Web filter bans this page
I have Norton Parental Control installed and it bans this wiki page saying it belongs in category "Sex Education/Advanced." Of course I've already submitted a query for the removal of this page from that category at Norton's official content evaluation website. In the meantime I suggest revising if the details about circumcision, the strip search, his intimate parts really need to be part of this article. In my opinion they do not belong closely to his biography, considering that there's even a separate Wiki article about the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Marczellm (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why it says hes dead because he didnt die! What gives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.123 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronoun Agreement Error
"Sony had been pressuring him to sell his share in their music catalog venture."

Their is incorrect. Sony is a singular entity; their is a plural pronoun. Their should be replaced with "its." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.127.185 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Slash
I really can't see why Slash has Michael Jackson on his banner under "Related artists". Can someone take a look at this? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're talking about but I do know that Slash and Michael were friends. Slash played guitar for him on Black or White and went with him on tour, I believe. Amozoness6 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Slash had also played on Give In To Me, D.S, Morphine and Privacy. He'd also performed live with Michael several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.131.215 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Jermaine claims he had an escape plan
I can't find this mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so I assume you don't want this information here. I know I saw the online article on some web site but I never got around to clicking on the link. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Escape plan for what?Moxy (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In case he was convicted. I keep forgetting to do a search for the article, but it seems like something that would belong, maybe as a brief item. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one version of the story. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Such information is indeed sensitive but I assume it has more to do with the recent nature of the revelation. For reference see that the link you gave was posted just a week ago, on the 10th.. If you're steadfast about having it included just edit the article yourself with the passing mention it deserves. Recall that it didn't come to fruition nor was Michael even aware of it.  Amozoness6 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best, thanks. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

News of Michael Jackson's doctor
Shouldn't this article mention how, on September 27 2011, there was news that Michael Jackson's doctor was in trouble after claims that he was responsible for Jackson taking an over-dose of sedatives? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As said Doctor is currently on trial, such information is either old or moot or risky to include until the trial is concluded. 23skidoo (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the point you make - they are well taken. I see the point that it might be best to wait until the trial is concluded before news of this goes into the article. The doctor's name is Dr Conrad Murray, I heard on Radio Four news today. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Final song performed
There is often interest shown in the final songs performed by artists. According to CNN's coverage of Dr. Murray's trial, "Earth Song" was the final song Jackson performed during the This is It rehearsals. I think it should be added (source: ) but I'll leave it here for now. BTW why is this discussion page locked? I didn't think that was allowed; at the very least a note should be added somewhere explaining why for the benefit of unregistered users. 23skidoo (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the history saying it is locked, but there were some inappropriate additions by IPs and vandalism by a registered user. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Include mention MJ as nickname/moniker
✅

Due to a dispute about a literal-minded interpretation of the guideline for disambiguation pages, can this page include an explicit mention of the initials "MJ" as a commonly used shorthand for refering to Jackson? I'm not sure about where to place this information in such a high-profile article like this. While I argue this is simple common sense and that WP:IAR should apply on the dab page, another editor disagrees and insists that there needs to be an explicit reference on this page in order to include Jackson on the MJ dab page. There are numerous references to "MJ" in the headline of blogs associated with quality news organizations, and also likely many to be found in actual news articles, though those need more careful parsing as "MJ" is less likely to appear in the headline. A few possible sources: "Dr. Conrad Murray’s guilty, but MJ’s not without blame", Florida Examiner; "MJ had ‘episode’ days before death?", Toronto Sun. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I propose resolving this issue by adding to the lead para thus, with my addition in bold here:


 * Does anyone have any objections? (Disclosure: I am the "other editor" mentioned above, who asserts that "MJ" should be mentioned explicitly on this page if Jackson is to be included on the MJ DAB page.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection from me (although personally I think IMDB is a crap resource for anything other of than film production credits). older ≠ wiser


 * The reason I used that particular source is that it is the only one I could find that actually states that Jackson was known as "MJ". All of the other references that have been mentioned (at Michael Jackson, Talk:Michael Jackson, Talk:MJ) use the term "MJ" but do not state that it is a common nickname. At best is inappropriate use of WP:Primary sources, at worst our counting the usages is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (See also: WP:GOOGLE.) Is there another ("better", more reliable) source that states that Jackson was known as or referred to as MJ? Mitch Ames (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, although my original opinion that shoehorning such an obvious statement is gratuitously unnecessary remains unchanged. older ≠ wiser 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The ref doesn't appear to display correction - it shows square brackets and the URL, and I can't figure out why. Can someone else see what's wrong and fix it? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why all the editing
Someone deletes Information on Michael for no apparent reason I will add information about songwriting and the musical instruments he played on records  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit you keep trying to make, I see a lot of changes to references. That's probably one of the major things that's causing people to object to your edit. I suggest breaking the edit into smaller chunks and discussing each of the changes (songwriting, instruments played) here; it's often easier to get consensus on smaller changes than on one massive edit. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that the issue of Jackson's "Instruments" Category has already been discussed multiple times in the past. Jackson wasn't a serious drummer, guitarist, or pianist, so "drums, guitar, and piano" should not be listed as his instruments. And "beatbox" is not an instrument.Jpcohen (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumors about Michael Jackson
can we create an article about «Rumors around Michael Jackson» in this wiki? Because i created an article in persian wiki and it very good article. please visit it. Shahroozporia (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not having any knowledge of the Persian language, I had to rely on a Google Translate version which can be seen here. There are some old friends here, and many of these claims have been discussed or are mentioned in the article. "Rumors" is generally a very unsuitable word to use in a Wikipedia article, because it inevitably implies a lack of verifiability and reliable sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit for funeral information vs. the doctor's trial
Can someone move the sentence: Jackson was entombed on September 3, 2009, at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.[237] to just after: Reverend Lucious Smith provided a closing prayer.[231] and consider moving the text starting with: On August 24, several news outlets quoted anonymous sources... and ending with: by prosecutors in Los Angeles.[236] to either a new paragraph or to the "Death of Michael Jackson" article? It doesn't really fit in here. I agree with the idea of keeping the information about the doctor's trial in Wikipedia, but not where it is. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.128.130 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Article could use contribution about involvement of Conrad Murray?
I don't have the time at the moment to do this but Dr. Conrad Murray's alleged involvement in the death of Michael Jackson is probably a relevant issue that should appear in this article. It doesn't have to be very long even and can link to People_of_the_State_of_California_v._Conrad_Robert_Murray. G90025 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it. I'll do it in a minute here as long as it's seen as useful to other community members.  G90025 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that there was a sufficient statement in the article already so all I did was add a link to the trial. G90025 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not forget about adding information regarding Dr. Conrad Murray at conclusion of his trial and the result thereof
m — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenGar (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

AKA
How could anybody forget Wacko Jacko??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-Scope90 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 November 2011


Under Death and Memorial section, I think a photo of statue of MJ should be included.

92.4.152.204 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This statue of Jackson at Fulham F.C. was unveiled in 2011, and it has to be said that not everyone was a fan. On a purely technical note, the image on Commons does not show Jackson's face clearly, which would be helpful.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael's Middle Name
Bidhdh: Micheal's middle name is Joe, not Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidhdh (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Michael Jackson's middle name, it appears you have changed it from Joe to Joseph. Please keep the middle name Joe, as it is his real middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apron Jim (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that claim? Because the current source cited states that his middle name is Joseph. From the death certificate supplied by the LA County Department of Health Services. Dave Dial (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael's middle name is Joe because in the documentary ALIVE! Is Michael Jackson Really Dead? states that the Death Certificate is forged, and that Michael's |Drivers Liscence says that Michael's Middle name is Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apron Jim (talk • contribs) 20:04, November 10, 2011
 * That is not a reliable source, and we do not reply on fringe conspiracy theories for cited sources. Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A driver's license is a primary source, so it's not something we can use here anyway (except as an illustration). Rklawton (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone can find the court papers online, one or more of the Jackson-related trials might state his full name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Court files are primary sources. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, primary sources would be fine. It doesn't mean the OP is correct, but its not like you must ignore all primary sources as though they don't exist.  Primary sources can be used to support basic facts; but cannot be used for analysis.  The fact of his name can be supported by a primary source document.  However, that does NOT mean that the OP is correct.  He's pretty clearly wrong based on the preponderance of evidence, when weighing all sources.  However, if you are going to argue against him, choose a different arguement than "we can never use primary sources".  That is not now, has never been, and likely will never be part of established Wikipedia practice.  -- Jayron  32  02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. We can use the facts from primary sources but not to synthesize our own analysis. In the case of a middle name, that wouldn't be a problem. Rklawton (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ::Yes, the problem with the drivers licence is that he gakked it off some internet site and we have no clue as to its (in)authenticity. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Like his father "Joe" seems to be a short form.....as seen in....
 * The reference in the article
 * File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg


 * Joseph is also used on his LAST WILL
 * Last Will and Testament


 * His fortune was all under the title  Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson
 * Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson aka Michael Jackson


 * Books he has written and published like Moomwalk use Joseph


 * In interviews with him over the years "Ebony" has used "Joseph"


 * Looks like he wrote  "Joseph" himself on his kids Birth certificates
 * MJ jr and Paris birth certificates


 * 3 of his children also have this middle name - I think this would be odd if his name is simply Joe.

.........Moxy (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ---

Only post mortem released documents say Joseph, every document prior his dead say JOE:
 * This is the 2005 trial case report where says Joe, so THERE ARE sources saying JOE.
 * http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/jacko/cajackson121803cmp.pdf
 * http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/031605minuteorder.pdf
 * There are also videos of the verdict saying JOE:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypb9quJKgWg
 * People vs Jackson case Court records saying JOE:
 * http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1113346&doc_no=B174685 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekindofsign (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * People vs Jackson case article calls him JOE.
 * His copyrights are JOE´s.
 * http://www.copyright.gov/records/
 * Billie Jean: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=jackson%20michael%20joe&Search_Code=NALL&CNT=25&PID=Tn676LL0cNle-_dtkgXlFwDx84nFi&SEQ=20111112124603&SID=5


 * Jermaine has published a book where says he doesn´t know where the Joseph rumor comes from and that his name is Joe as listed in his birth certificate.
 * "You Are Not Alone: Michael Through A Brother´s Eyes" (2011), Page 43.
 * http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Alone-Brothers/dp/1451651562
 * Page 43 screenshot: http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/972/joeq.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekindofsign (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I insist only post mortem documents says Joseph but we have 50 years of documents saying JOE.
 * Why Drivers License IS a reliable source:
 * If we cannot trust a driving license as a source how is it that the body identification was made through such a document?


 * Autopsy Report: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf
 * Page 1: "ID METHOD: CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE"
 * Page 3: Identification: "The body was positively identified by visual comparision to his California Drivers License on 6/25/09")


 * Why kids birth certificate together with the Will are not a good source:
 * One of them must be wrong as Blanket name in the will is Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II and in the BC is Prince Michael Jackson II.
 * Debbie Rowe´s name in Prince´s brith certificate is Deborah Jeanne Rowe, while in the Last Will it is Deborah Jean Rowe.

Sources supporting Joseph are not that reliable as you can see, plus death certificate has been leaked to the press. So please,if you´re not going to put it right, at least admit both can be right or a we don´t know... and put both of the names as both are EQUALY proven by sources or add a section about this, as for many people the Joe thing is very important. .........Somekindofsign (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to stop this. It's more than a bit strange that once the Apron Jim was blocked for abusing multiple accounts you started editing immediately after. In any case, this has been discussed many times on this Talk page, and I would direct you to the most current consensus I could find, here, stating that the most reliable sources all state his middle name is Joseph. The middle name on this article has been sourced as 'Joseph' since 2003, so you need to gain clear consensus for any change to the article. We are not going to go around and around the conspiracy Mulberry bush again and again. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * O well I see we have |the conspiracy people back - I though there was actually a new person asking for this info as if they did not know. Not a fan of the lies Quote "only post mortem documents says Joseph" really? Because out of the 8 references above 5 are from before his death. Next we will see edits indicating hes not dead at all LOL.Moxy (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don´t know what you are talking about Apron Jim, I just red the article and saw the discussion about Joseph/Joe and provided a reliable source saying Joe. Are you telling me that 2003´s court documents are not a reliable source? You can watch the sentence video in 2005. It clearly states Joe. I don´t know what is the thing that needs to stop. But I think there are some users here that are seizing the Thruth or claimming to posses it when the thing is not clear at all. (sorry, English is not my mother tongue and I don´t know if I expressed what I wanted to express right). But I guess you´re accusing me of something I just don´t know what´s about. I´ve always known Michael Jackson as Joe, that´s all, and I provided reliable sources anr reliable sources of why the sources provided here may also be wrong about Joseph. Or maybe his own brother doesn´t know his name, or court documents are wrong (any one some of them must be wrong wether it´s Joseph or Joe). Obviously I´m not in the side of the members that have the power here. What am I supposed to do know? Changing it again? Just giving it as lost? or hoping you change it?... I guess the result is going to be that wikipedia official version is that Joseph is right and if, as you say, many people have tried to change it to Joe without success and being name vandals... there´s no chance... no matter if there are arguments and relieable sources or not.

--Somekindofsign (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gently invite you to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson

And the legal sources provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#Police_and_courts Cheers! --Somekindofsign (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So your saying that hes signature and hes publications and hes estate are all wrong when they have Joseph. So your saying that  for the past 30 years hes been publishing things under the wrong name?  Further question do you believe that MJ is  still alive and that the name controversy is prof of this? You have said that only after his death do they use Joseph - pls see below here are just a few (I can find thousands more).




 * It appears that he used both "Joe" and "Joseph" as a middle name. The death certificate says "Joseph." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source of info on a DC is typically the next of kin, so one would assume they would know his correct name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Independent Articles For Prince and Paris Jackson?
Hi! I don't know if anyone else agrees with me but I think it is high time Michael Jackson's two eldest children, Prince Jackson who was born on February 13th 1997 who is now 14 and Paris Jackson who was born on April 3rd 1998 who is now 13 had their own Wikipedia articles. They are both old enough now and I think they both fit in well with the Wikipedia notability guidelines.

One of the guidelines about notable persons mentions that the person has to have information on them somewhere which directly refers to them and not be affiliated with anybody else. There are websites which mention both Prince and Paris as separate from Michael since his death because they both attend a regular school now and they continue their father's legacy of charity and helping disadvantaged children. None of the websites are official but some of them do give accurate biographical information on both Prince and Paris.

I know I might get the argument that just because they're Michael's kids doesn't make them notable or deserving of a Wikipedia article but I think they do deserve their own articles at this point because as I mentioned they are doing good things for charity at their young ages. Most kids aged 13 and 14 don't really care about that kind of thing whereas these children do and they understand the importance of giving back to society after their father gave the world so much.

Like I said I don't know if anyone else agrees with me about creating separate Wikipedia pages for Prince and Paris but if people do then maybe we can collabarate together on it and we can work out how we can stop redirecting Michael's kids to Michael Jackson's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimrav1988 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not really notable enough for a separate article. Other than being the children of a celebrity, they are not notable in their own right. There are also privacy issues, as children under 18 are usually unsuitable subjects for a full article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 01:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with ianmacm as per WP:Relationships do not confer notability we should also be mined full of WP:Privacy of personal information as there was a great effort to omit them from the public eye since birth (yet to no real avail).Moxy (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or "mindful", even. Until MJ's kids do anything notable other than being MJ's kids, they don't need separate pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose that's true. I guess as Prince, Paris and maybe even little Blanket get older and if they start becoming famous for various reasons in their own right then they could have a page but I guess you people do have a point there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.177.12 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jordan's father has his own article, and the only thing he did aside from have a famous son was get murdered. MJ's kids have been on world tv far more often than that. Rklawton (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If one of the kids is involved in something dramatic, then it could be a different story. Which of the kids is the one that MJ infamously held over the edge of a balcony? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was Prince. Rklawton (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To Rklawton: It was actually Michael's youngest child, Blanket that was shown from the balcony not Prince. Prince is the eldest child.

There's lots of young (and old) people less noteable than the 3 Jackson children who have their own articles. Paris in particular spoke at one of the most-watched TV broadcasts in history: that alone makes her noteable. Basket is noteable because he was the dangled baby in the baby-dangling incident. Prince is also a well-known person. Be that as it may, these noteability debates are paradoxical. Except in rare cases, no one cares— or even notices— if a truly obscure person has a Wikipedia article or not. Noteability debates arise only when the person is in fact well-known. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

To Timothy Horrigan: Firstly Michael didn't 'dangle' the baby. He was holding the child so people could see him. Secondly the child's name is Blanket not Basket. That doesn't make him notable. When I started the discussion here about whether Michael's children should have their own Wikipedia pages I was referring to the two older children: Prince and Paris who are 14 and 13. I wasn't referring to Blanket because he is still very young at the age of 9. Got no idea why people are mentioning Blanket now because I didn't actually say anything about him having a Wikipedia page.
 * Yes, Paris spoke at her father's funeral. Again, famous solely for being his child. So assuming you write such an article, what can you say other than, "so-and-so is MJ's child"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

To Baseball_Bugs: Well one could write that Paris and Prince help carry on their father's great legacy of giving charity and helping disadvantaged children and that they both aspire to be in the entertainment industry like Michael. Prince has said in interview that he would like to have a career in directing and producing films and Paris has said she wants to get into acting so there are things that could be written.
 * Maybe once they actually do, as opposed to "they would like to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But they've still received more media attention and made more public appearances than Michael Jordan's father. Rklawton (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's "Michael" album not in Discography ?
I have the Cirque Du Soleil book that comes with Michael's newest album Immortal and on the last page it says Discography and it has these albums in this order

Off The Wall Thriller Bad Dangerous HIStory Invincible Michael

So shouldn't it be added here ? I mean it has 10 brand new songs and according to the producers Michael was planning on releasing it before his death doesn't that make it a studio album ? Link to photo--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death
"Jackson died of acute propofol intoxication on June 25, 2009, after suffering from cardiac arrest"

1. To the layman, this kind of sounds like he died twice.

2. Is "Jackson died of acute propofol intoxication" definitely a known fact now?

86.176.208.173 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Vocal Range: Please Add
Hello, some time ago I proposed adding some information about Jackson’s vocal range, which, to my knowledge, has impressed a lot of listeners. As such, it ought to be notable. My proposal, however, was refuted, due to lack of reliable sources.

Now there is such a source. Let me quote from ”Man in the Music” (Joseph Vogel, Sterling Publishers 2011, ISBN 978-1-4027-7938-1), page 10:

❞ From a technical standpoint, Jackson’s broad range allowed him to move fluidly through nearly four octaves (this was something he worked very hard to achieve as an adult, though he rarely pushed his range to the limits). A natural tenor, his singing in the upper register was smooth and sublime, yet he could also be effective in his lower register, occasionally even dropping down to a baritone. Everyone who worked with him commented on his perfect pitch. ❞

Now, can someone please add some information about Jackson’s voice! After all, the man was a singer.

--Musubana (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Religon
What is his religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.125.135 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no definitive answers, but tabloids have called him a jehovas witness, muslim and Kabballah follower. But MJ himself never confirmed any of this Pass a Method   talk  16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson, a humanitarian, a great philanthropist
Michael Jackson was in many people’s opinion, first a philanthropist and humanitarian, then an artist! He used his art to promote awareness to causes that destroy our world on daily basis. Up to few months ago, when you'd come to visit Wikipedia, the sentence started with "was an American recording artist, entertainer, Philanthropist and businessman. Why is it that you suddenly took the word philanthropist out!? To many, the first summery of Wikipedia, is all they look at before they decide to read the rest of the article. In fact Michael's humanitarian work, has more than 100 references, you know that! So many personality on Wikipedia, have a section under their name, called: "philanthropy and charitable work". I do understand that it's impossible to put all of Michael's charitable work in one article, but you can at least add it, and refer to a link, and create a whole new link with his philanthropic work. That's the kind of stuff that inspires others and makes them remember what is the real goal in their lives. I personally love to know of other's charitable work. It gives me ideas and it inspires me. It also provides faith that there are people in the world who truly care and that we can be united.

Sshojaee (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2012

 * alias = Michael Joe Jackson, MJ, King Of Pop

Alex239 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has sold 1 billion records
According to estate, Michael Jackson has sold 1 billion records worldwide.

"Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved entertainers and profoundly influential artists of all-time. To date Jackson has sold an estimated 1 billion records worldwide, released 13 No.1 singles and became one of a handful of artists to be inducted twice into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

SOURCE The Estate of Michael Jackson
 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand--footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012-136740033.html --193.64.22.23 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Two issues with your proposition. First off, you see the source? The estate of Michael Jackson, most probably in the form of a record label etc. We can only use reliable third-party sources, not re-prints of information from his team. Also, his certifications only equal 156 million, not even close to the required amount for that inflated number.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they rounded up to the nearest billion. Would a source like Billboard have reliable information on record sales? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Billboard almost never reports worldwide sales. They only report US sales, tracked by Nielsen SoundScan. The second issue remains...-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   11:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, are there any independent sources for record sales globally, or at least non-US? Not just of Jackson, but of anyone? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out before, there appear to have been attempts in recent years to inflate Jackson's record sales. The source cited for the one billion figure is not neutral and reliable enough.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting read. I conclude two things: (1) The true figure appears to be unknowable; and (2) The approximate figure appears to be more in the neighborhood of 200 million, than anything close to a billion. The dilemma is that slippery term, "records". Does that mean albums or songs? Or something in between? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 billion records is outright laughable. 1000000000 (number) is a number that is not possible to reach.Moxy (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? The US Government spends that many dollars in a couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the age of digital downloads, online streaming and widespread piracy, record sales are almost meaningless anyway. There seems to have been some creative accounting to arrive at the oft-quoted figure of 750 million records, and the 1 billion figure looks like it has been plucked from the air by a record or PR company, which is not a reliable source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't put a number in the article without a reliable source that isn't promotional, but how do you figure that it's impossible? Jackson had been releasing records since he was a child and has 21 top selling singles, as well as numerous top selling 'albums'. So even if Jackson has about 10 million fans worldwide that bought all of his top selling singles(not even counting the dozens upon dozens that were not top selling), that 200 million sales right there. So I would say it's not impossible at all, and in fact the number may very well be close to a billion if you include everything he ever released(singles, albums, mp3 downloads, etc). Dave Dial (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All this has been talked about before (I cant seem to find the old talk)...But there was a news report about  it. Needless to say a billion 'record sales in way way off any real numbers we have. Moxy (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. There is a risk of circular sourcing on this issue (media cites Wikipedia, then Wikipedia cites media in a feedback loop). The higher figures are dubious and should not be given prominence in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I cant find the old talk .. may have been on Jimmy Wales talk page ..as I believe Jimbo commented on the article.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that's our Jimbo? It doesn't look like his writing style.  Of course, we can just ask him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, again I do agree that we can't put up numbers that aren't sourced. But the link you give isn't any better as far as numbers are concerned. They cite some guy in France that has a website. Dave Dial (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ 190.51.186.160 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe not Joseph
Michael Jackson's middle name was NOT Joseph. It was simply Joe. I know this for a fact because his brother states this in a biography he wrote about his brother called "You are not alone Michael" The press assumed his middle name was Joseph because that was his fathers name, but their father was often referred to as Joe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.75.52 (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pls see here and here.Moxy (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy of Michael Jackson
I've just prepared a family tree of Michael Jackson. It is not perfect yet, but I think it is sourced enough to be acceptable on Wikipedia.

I had prepared the same family tree for the French page and I just translated it into English.

The thing is Karl 334 told me it could be better on a new article with a link to this one because it makes the article too cluttered. I think it would do better on the Jackson family article with a new chapter about the Jacksons' ancestry. There is also another family tree on French article Famille Jackson about the members of the family, which I want to translate and integrate here.

I would like to know what you all think about that...

Keckel (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources are blogs and fan sites, so I'd find some more reliable sources. Also, in my opinion you may want to consider adding the family tree to the Jackson family article, which is about his family whereas this article is about Jackson the person. szyslak  ( t ) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, quite a few sourcing issues here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Instrumentation and Composition
There are some real problems with the addition not only is it mostly referenced to Wikipedia (even a Category) it has some other very bad refs in it  aswell (references below  12 to 26)
 * http://www.michael-jackson-trader.com
 * http://www.musicstop.org/michael-jackson

- All that said - if we can find some real refs I do like the section. What do others think? Moxy (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Although Michael Jackson preferred to use his voice to compose and dictate a riff or beat for songs for other instrumentalists by Beatboxing he could play several instruments and was an instrumentalist in his own right. Jackson began in the Jackson 5 as a bongo/drums player and tambourine and congas player. He is pictured in early Jackson 5 photos playing the bongos and drums. As an adult he is known to have learned to play the piano, the guitar, the Moog synthesizer, the Moog Taurus and the keyboard. He is created with the instrumentation for some of his songs, notably the guitar riff for "They Don't Really Care About Us", "Scream" and the guitar for his song "Money". He is credited for playing multiple instruments for songs on his "Invincible" Album and other of his albums from "Off The Wall" to the present. Jackson has also written, co-written, composed, produced or played instruments in songs for other artists including famous names such as Diana Ross, Johnny Mathis, Jennifer Holliday, Ralph Tresvant and The Notorious B.I.G.. − 		 − 	 Jackson's songs and ballads were often massive undertakings and the personnel listings of his songs and albums often list many people involved with the instrumentation and composition for his songs. For most songs Jackson did not perform most of the instrumentation himself, though he would usually be the main composer and arranger of his songs. He gave credit to other musicians, composers and producers who frequently appeared in his music, such as Quincy Jones, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, Rodney Jerkins, Rod Temperton, Slash, Dr. Freeze and Eddie van Halen.


 * Hey! I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me about the disagreement over the editing. When you pointed out that some of the sources were simply blogs I did realize my error (I compiled the paragraphs in only a couple of goes and forgot that I put in blogs instead of actual links a couple of times). I've been working diligently to replace them and some links that just source back to Wikipedia with independent references but it will take a little time due to the sheer amount of OR sites that are out there. Even though Michael Jackson was an instrumentalist in his own right, unfortunately the fact that he didn't publicize or boast about his instrumentalism and the fact that he often surrounded himself with a legion of other instrumentalists for personnel in much of his work makes finding sources that pinpoint what he did precisely in any given song difficult and painstaking. A lot of Mr. Jackson's works are very much basically orchestras. I am glad that you specified which sources are problematic. It helps me a great deal and it verified that you aren't simply someone deleting the edits out of issues with the subject in question. I've had bad experiences before on Wikipedia with editors like that who let personal vendettas guide their edits.


 * I'm glad you like the section by the way. :) Full Shunyata (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First let me say sorry for not doing this the first time i reverted the addition (or talking to you about it) - To be honest I was thinking  you were someone else (AGAIN SORRY!)  All that is here looks great - Can we find the info we need from the books link in the next sentence. See here for all the books that are online - note when in a  book on the right hand side you can search for text. PS I will also look over the booksMoxy (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's quite alright, friend. To be honest I am guilty of doing the same thing myself on other edits. That source looks like a great one to use! Thank you for finding it. Looks like a great addition to add to the citations to make the new section better and much cleaner. Hope to work with you again soon! Full Shunyata (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Profile Picture really needs to be date
It's definitely way outdated, he has sunglasses on, and it's an unclear view on his face. I think we should have a photo of Jackson from the 00's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.240.194 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

MJs 13 Number One Singles is not record as claimed.
It says in the article about Michael Jackson that (MJs) "13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career (more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era);".

Thats not correct. If you check the link in the article, it shows that Elvis Presley has 17.

The article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norww73 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC) It's not wrong, at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_hit_singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Presley has 17-18 #1 singles as of recent, therefore he holds the record. Not only that Wikipedia article supports it, but the article on Jackson's awards as well, please address this. -HCYS comment added 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC).


 * I checked Presley's discography, and I only see seven or eight number one singles during the Hot 100 era (the others were before the Hot 100 was established on August 4, 1958). The statement in this article is correct as written. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically correct, yes, but is it noteworthy? The fact remains that Presley has hit the top of the US singles chart more times than Jackson (and The Beatles more than either of them, incidentally).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Michaels Middle name is false
Michaels Middle name was Joe Not joseph. Stated by his own Brother in his book and his birth certificate

"From somewhere, and especially after Michael's death, a rumor began that his middle name was Joseph. Maybe this myth prefers the echo with our father's name because the crossover reads better about a father and a son who struggled to see eye to eye. 'Joe' was his middle name, as recorded on his birth certificate." - Jermaine Tombo671 (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed multiple times, check the archives. Most reliable sources say Joseph and there was consensus reached here to keep it at that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Descent?
I know Michael was African-American, but was he also Chinese> Here are some sources that say he was http://pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?p=46231724 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibG9dZTNHAo AttilaBrady (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The forum thread says "Michael even referred himself as Chinese, as according to Michael, his mother Katherine was of a quarter Chinese descent." The article Katherine Jackson does not mention this, and it would require more than a WP:SPS.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Excerpts
I propose changing the 3 titles in the listen template by adding "(excerpt)", e.g. to title2 = "Smooth Criminal (excerpt)". Consensus? --Elvey (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Newest album
Dear Wikipedia, I recently looked on Michael Jackson, my favorite artist, page and it was brought to my attention that his newest album Michael is not on the discography section after Invincible 2001. I would like to request that I edit the discography section only to add his latest album on there. After Invinsible 2001 it will say Michael 2010

Sincerely,

Matt Holbert

P.S. Here is a link that you have to the latest album

Michael_(album)

MAHLOVEINC (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ The discography section is only for studio albums as Michael Jackson discography exists. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia article on Paris Jackson
Is it possible for an article to be created for the middle child, Paris? She is starring in a movie based on a fantasy novel and has done television interviews related to the film. As of now, unlike her two brothers, she is now no longer just famous for being the offspring of another famous person.

I agree! How would one go about writing a Wikipedia article about Paris though? I mean I know how to write a Wikipedia article but how would we go about doing it so her article doesn't always get re-directed to Michael's own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.90.250 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012
In my opinion, there should be a alternate page where it talk's about Michael Jackson abusing, and touching... children.

Mreditorkid (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This ain't an edit request. If you really think there need to be separate article on his alledged abuse, then please discuss and gain consensus. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have at least two articles about sexual abuse allegations. Please see 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BAD has sold 45 million copies worldwide!
"Released in 1987, it is one of the greatest selling albums of all-time and sold over 45 million copies worldwide." by: taletela.com

Sources:
 * http://www.taletela.com/news/15380/michael-jackson-partners-up-with-pepsi-again-30-years-later
 * http://thatdame.com/headlines/pepsi-prepares-michael-jackson-bad-25th-anniversary-campaign/
 * http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/05/pepsi-teams-with-michael-jackson-for-25th-anniversary-of-bad/
 * http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/pepsi-plans-new-campaign-for-michael-jacksons-bad-25th-anniversary.php
 * http://theurbandaily.com/1921261/pepsi-plans-michael-jackson-bad-25th-anniversary-campaign/
 * http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/04/major-pepsi-michael-jackson-bad-2012/
 * http://360mediauk.com/blog/2012/05/02/pepsi-sign-post-humous-deal-with-michael-jackson-estate/

--77.86.202.210 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources: --BadMuroZ (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/entertainment-us-michaeljackson-bad-idUSBRE84K0Z120120521
 * http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/05/michael-jacksons-bad-25-include-new-music-and-new-concert-dvd
 * http://www.noise11.com/news/michael-jackson-25th-anniversary-bad-on-the-way-20120522
 * http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/206593--michael-jackson-s-bad-to-be-re-released-for-album-s-25th-anniversary
 * http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/5/prweb9523811.htm
 * http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/258982/showbiz/showbizabroad/michael-jackson-is-still-bad-25-years-after-album
 * http://www.musicrooms.net/pop/48666-michael-jackson-s-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release.html
 * http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/leisure/2012/05/22/jacko-returns-badder-than-ever/
 * http://www.entertainment-focus.com/news/michael-jackson-estate-to-release-bad-25
 * http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/showbiz-news/michael-jacksons-bad-gets-re-issue/
 * http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/news/Michael+Jackson-240177.html
 * http://www.mtv.no/news/michael-jackson-s-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release-33873/
 * http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/307048-michael-jacksons-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release/
 * http://www.list.co.uk/article/42340-michael-jacksons-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release/
 * http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Michael+Jackson+collection+shows+still+years+later/6657443/story.html
 * http://studiospy.co.uk/2012/05/22/michael-jackson-to-release-bad-25/
 * http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Leisure/Entertainment/Michael-Jacksons-Bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release-655590.xnf?FeedSourceID=123&FeedImageID=1208176&BodyFormat=1&
 * http://gulftoday.ae/portal/ffa49fb8-1268-4e55-b82e-b47165b74bfe.aspx
 * http://www.evous.fr/Michael-Jackson-Bad-25-album-CD,1176475.html
 * http://www.trinitycable.com/entertainment/index.php?display=story&article=BRE84K0Z1
 * http://m.citynews.ca/entertainment/206593/index.php

File:Michael Jackson Lisa Marie Presley Neverland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE ON THIS IMAGE = its from this website http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/ and has the following information = This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the tag on that flickr page, the image is all-rights-reserved, so using it would have to comply with the non-free content criteria. However, the flickr link that MJKingofMusic provided is to a different image, so we're back where we started, really: copyright status is unclear. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

BAD has sold 45 million copies worldwide!
"Released in 1987, it is one of the greatest selling albums of all-time and sold over 45 million copies worldwide." by: taletela.com

Sources:
 * http://www.taletela.com/news/15380/michael-jackson-partners-up-with-pepsi-again-30-years-later
 * http://thatdame.com/headlines/pepsi-prepares-michael-jackson-bad-25th-anniversary-campaign/
 * http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/05/pepsi-teams-with-michael-jackson-for-25th-anniversary-of-bad/
 * http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/pepsi-plans-new-campaign-for-michael-jacksons-bad-25th-anniversary.php
 * http://theurbandaily.com/1921261/pepsi-plans-michael-jackson-bad-25th-anniversary-campaign/
 * http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/04/major-pepsi-michael-jackson-bad-2012/
 * http://360mediauk.com/blog/2012/05/02/pepsi-sign-post-humous-deal-with-michael-jackson-estate/

--77.86.202.210 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources: --BadMuroZ (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/21/entertainment-us-michaeljackson-bad-idUSBRE84K0Z120120521
 * http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/05/michael-jacksons-bad-25-include-new-music-and-new-concert-dvd
 * http://www.noise11.com/news/michael-jackson-25th-anniversary-bad-on-the-way-20120522
 * http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/206593--michael-jackson-s-bad-to-be-re-released-for-album-s-25th-anniversary
 * http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/5/prweb9523811.htm
 * http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/258982/showbiz/showbizabroad/michael-jackson-is-still-bad-25-years-after-album
 * http://www.musicrooms.net/pop/48666-michael-jackson-s-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release.html
 * http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/leisure/2012/05/22/jacko-returns-badder-than-ever/
 * http://www.entertainment-focus.com/news/michael-jackson-estate-to-release-bad-25
 * http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/showbiz-news/michael-jacksons-bad-gets-re-issue/
 * http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/news/Michael+Jackson-240177.html
 * http://www.mtv.no/news/michael-jackson-s-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release-33873/
 * http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/307048-michael-jacksons-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release/
 * http://www.list.co.uk/article/42340-michael-jacksons-bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release/
 * http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Michael+Jackson+collection+shows+still+years+later/6657443/story.html
 * http://studiospy.co.uk/2012/05/22/michael-jackson-to-release-bad-25/
 * http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Leisure/Entertainment/Michael-Jacksons-Bad-to-get-25th-anniversary-release-655590.xnf?FeedSourceID=123&FeedImageID=1208176&BodyFormat=1&
 * http://gulftoday.ae/portal/ffa49fb8-1268-4e55-b82e-b47165b74bfe.aspx
 * http://www.evous.fr/Michael-Jackson-Bad-25-album-CD,1176475.html
 * http://www.trinitycable.com/entertainment/index.php?display=story&article=BRE84K0Z1
 * http://m.citynews.ca/entertainment/206593/index.php

File:Michael Jackson Lisa Marie Presley Neverland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE ON THIS IMAGE = its from this website http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/ and has the following information = This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the tag on that flickr page, the image is all-rights-reserved, so using it would have to comply with the non-free content criteria. However, the flickr link that MJKingofMusic provided is to a different image, so we're back where we started, really: copyright status is unclear. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson King of Pop 1988.jpg
There is an image of Michael in a blue shirt that talks about his vitiligo. i was hoping someone could help me with copyright stuff, i dont really know what to do. but the information that i have is as follows = the file is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/ and it says the following information - This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN

is this enough info to allow the image to stay on wiki.

thank you for your time and patience. god blessMJKingofMusic (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Flickr has that tagged as "All rights reserved", so we can't use it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

MJ's Signature
Could someone please put Michael's signature in the info box, i don't really know how to do it. His signature is pretty funky and cool.

Thanks, god bless MJKingofMusic (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

i've added his signature so everything is good. no need to do anything for this section. 92.26.113.184 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really a staple in the 90s
−		 −	I know this will probably be heresy but " Videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream" made him a staple on MTV in the 1990s. " I think this overstates Jackson's MTV impact during the 90's. He was touring during much of the 90's and his MTV impact was much less than during the 80's. I think it would be better to focus on the touring during the 90's and subsequent huge donations to charity. The Heal The World Foundation, environmental activism with Earth Song etc. The article needs a change of focus. Jackson was a touring artist in this decade, his output was much less, with Dangerous itself released at the beginning of the decade. Jackson's real impact on the 90s was as a continued cultural figure and touring artist.--Manboobies (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I placed this on the talk page last year, it was removed by an IP address and not reverted by any user. I will be watching the comment this time. This still needs to be sorted out!--Manboobies (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

MJ Instruments
Michael can play guitar, piano, bongos, drums, keyboard, synthesizer, percussion and can beatbox. there is evidence of him playing these instruments and beatboxing in many videos a d articles. i don't know why it keeps being removed. if anyone wants evidence please ask and if you have any questions don't hesitate.

thanks for your time and patience, god blessMJKingofMusic (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be a list of every instrument he ever touched. There are several discussions in the archives about this. This is the most recent I see, but I might have missed some. --Onorem♠Dil 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An author has stated that Michael was accomplished at both drums and piano. He has played percussion on many of his songs especially in his Off The Wall, History and Invincible albums. he also played bongos on his later jackson five works. look at the album credits of History it shows you he played keyboard and synthesizer. MJKingofMusic (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus on this issue was already reached in past discussions in the archives of the talk page, as Onorem has noted. Jackson was not noted for his ability to play any instrument, including piano, guitar or drums. This is why "vocals" is the only category listed under instruments. In order to change the consensus, you would have to reach a new consensus with other editors of this page.Jpcohen (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He was known to beatbox as he often did this for most of his songs. he would tape record what he heard in his mind and duplicate what instruments and sounds there were. Most musicians use a piano to reach and compare notes for songs, as did Michael. Therefore piano and beatbox should be put in.MJKingofMusic (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to provide a good quality source to prove that -- See WP:RS. YouTube is not an acceptable source. Pol430  talk to me 18:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

before i edited the instruments section: vocals, piano, guitar and beatbox were already present. i jusy added bongos, synthesizer, keyboard and percussion. so i suggest you just add in what was before, which was piano, guitar and beatbox. if you research from youtube and album/song credits Michael has been credited with all the instruments i have mentioned. His 1995 HIStory album is when he began being heavily involved in playing instruments on the tracks.92.26.113.184 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

there is also a new song being released this month i think to celebrate Bad 25. Its called Don't Be Messin' Around which features a solo piano by Michael Jackson. Shouldn't this count for something. also just because he is not known for it, does not mean that he wasn't amazing at it. for example many people don't know that michael jackson was an excellent drawer and he was planning to showcase his art in the 90's but due to his child molestation accusations it all fell apart. you can still see some images he has drawn on the net.92.26.113.184 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Early reports of a piano solo were exaggerated, the song has no "piano solo". --Manboobies (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

throughout the whole song, he is playing piano. The song released is just one of a few versions. the one ore more of the other versions has the solo piano on it. Can we please come to a conclusion to the instruments. I was listening to an interview with Michael and his brothers and Michael said he plays the drums on many of the demo songs. Just because he is not known for playing instruments, doesn't mean they shouldn't be put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * MJKingofMusic, the consensus on this issue (so far) has not fallen in your favor; and yet, you continue to change the "Instruments" section here to your preference as if it was. Other editors out there: am I misunderstood or is MJKingofMusic breaking the rules of Wikipedia etiquette concerning questionable edits?Jpcohen (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not been editing the MJ instruments for a few days. Who ever it is, it is not me. I have refrained from editing it.MJKingofMusic (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies.Jpcohen (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry my bad..it was me looking at what I thought was a stable version ...I think you fixed it. lots had to be  fix again. PS anyone  know how we got the odd ref format we are using?Moxy (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use images
I have removed the following fair use images from this article as they did not have rationale for use: They are still present in the articles they have rationale for (with the exception of the third, as noted above). --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Michaeljanetscream.jpg
 * File:Smooth criminal video.jpg
 * File:You Rock My World.png - Also tagged for speedy deletion as there is no rationale at all on the image's page.
 * File:Mjthriller.jpg
 * File:Remember the time 140x105.jpg
 * File:Michael Jackson Earth Song screenshot.JPG
 * Updated with two mroe. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Known As Section on MJ
Someone keeps putting in Michael Joe Jackson. That is not his nickname or real name. he was never known as that. He is often referred to as the king of pop, MJ, king of pop, rock and soul (title given to him by Elizabeth Taylor and was thereafter said by his fans). MJKingofMusic (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note: The section in the infobox is not for 'nicknames' it is for legal aliases only. There is a difference. I don't know where the name Michael Joe Jackson came from, perhaps someone else can shed some light on that question? Pol430  talk to me 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was first added with this edit . At the risk of stating the obvious, this is not an alias - its just his name with a slight shortening of the middle name. In my opinion we should leave it out.--  SabreBD  (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so to. i think we should remove the aliases as its causing a lot of editing, going back and forth with people. They just won't stop. If Michael Joe Jackson is going to be there, so should King of Pop, Rock & Soul. You can't have either, or. The names should fit in to what he was known for worldwide. Not just little name changes. MJKingofMusic (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That does not necessarily follow, removing one does not mean we have to add another, and please stop changing this while there is an unresolved discussion here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

what i am trying to say is that the title, king of pop, rock & soul should be added, if Michael Joe Jackson is present. Michael was given this title by Elizabeth Taylor in 1989, but Michael was never verbally called Michael Joe Jackson by his family or friends.MJKingofMusic (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth Taylor has absolutely nothing to do with it, and for the purposes of this particular template, alias is not the same as nickname. --Onorem♠Dil 05:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Onorem, I agree. For the purposes of the template, King of Pop should be removed, and MJ and Michael Joe Jackson may need to be removed. From the Infobox musical artist documentation: "For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name in the name parameter. Also for the solo artist's legal name(s), or other officially authorized names that differ from their birth name. This field is not for nicknames such as "The Godfather of Soul" (James Brown) or "Nippy" (Whitney Houston), which are not the artists' official names." That last sentence says, point blank, that Kind of Pop should not be in there. I'm inclined to remove all three and replace them with that quote inside a comment. —C.Fred (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support that.--  SabreBD  (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agreeMJKingofMusic (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Names have been removed as per our policy = Legal aliases only. This is not a value for nicknames.Moxy (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please show references to where Jackson was ever called Michael Joe Jackson. For the time being i am going to remove the aliases as no evidence is present to show he was ever known as that name.MJKingofMusic (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pls see here and here. Moxy (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson states in his book about his brother that his middle name on his birth certificate is Joe, not Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoohoo98 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous World Tour
There is not much about Jackson's Dangerous World Tour. I think there needs to be more said about it. At the time it was a record breaking concerts tour in terms of grossings. I'm not exactly sure but i think most or all of the money was donated to charity. Could someone help in giving more information to add about the dangerous world tour and any other valuable information on Jackson around this Dangerous era. Thanks. MJKingofMusic (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get you to propose any changes here before implementing them pls. We have had to do alot of cleanup for an FA article. FA articles may not be the best place to learn how wiki works - we have sourcing problems, Image problems etc... Pls contact me with any questions you may have.Moxy (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello MJKingofMusic - great idea - Jackson was a leading figure of touring during the 90s, this article focuses far too much on what was essentially a lesser album period and practically ignores the touring. There's no stand out info on the touring - Jackson promoted it amazingly hard - watching and looking at old promo information on the tour and Pepsi sponsorship of it is just amazing, like seeing a whole new Jackson. The intro could also do with another sentence on the impact of his touring philanthropy. Jackson didn't redefine his style that much after the start of the nineties, and the touring was a main factor - he was far too busy touring to do any major shifts musically - and so that's reflected in the music of the 90's itself- at the beginning with the radical overhaul in the sound in 91 which was heavily influenced by sister Janet's Rhythm Nation 1814 (which was in turn influenced by ideas Michael shared with Janet) & the Jackson's last album, and also by Jack Swing and the Minneapolis sound, and also a little of what Jackson himself had been working on, a stripped down hip hopped version of Bad's sound (audible in the demos for Dangerous), from there on the rest of the 90's is a development of the style and brings in influences from producers, but no major style changes until Invincible. --Manboobies (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012
I couldn't find any way to discuss, earlier there use to be discussion page as well. So I used this means to reach you. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Please go through link below and verify it. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam/Article1-353162.aspx

As for Hindustan Times, it is english daily published in India, it gives the reference of The Sun. The news appeared on front page in print edition of the newspaper as well.

I shall not be available for discussion. This is some information provided and request to verify it. If verified please update the contents of protected page. You can find many article on the same topic, I mentioned just one.

122.161.226.199 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is discussed in numerous places in the talk page archive, and is one of the FAQs in the talk page header. There is no good evidence that Michael Jackson converted to Islam, and all of the coverage can be traced back to a story in The Sun (United Kingdom).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Guiness Book of records" is a ridiculos source when we talk about sales figures!! They changed the best-selling artist very often without contrloing the numbers they mostly took from reocrd labels or management. They bealeved the billion-nonsense from the elvislabel and from the beatles too, although they named it honstly units and not real sales. now they take the 750 million statement from MJs Management, although independente sources say its far less. most independente sources say Beatles have the most and than MJ and then Elvis, but even the Bealtes have only arround 600 millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Signature is missing a star
I am a new user who is not yet allowed to edit semi-protected pages. I would just like to make a point of saying that the image of the signature is missing the star that he usually put at the end of his signature. please fix this is you get a chance. I could scan the signature at the beggining of "Moonwalk" and put it on wikimedia Commons if need be. I have the book.

 T ree C limber 1  07:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Lifetime Earnings Section Lacks Objectivity
"This value for Jackson's Sony/ATV Music Publishing catalog is highly false. The catalog owns and controls many different record companies and has rights to more than 500,000 songs, including songs by The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Eminem, Akon, Shakira, Bjork, Boyz II Men and Lady Gaga, among hundreds of others. The company is one of the largest music publishers in the world and is believed to generate up to $2.5 billion a year; The Beatles' hits alone bring in $30 million to $45 million a year. Jackson's other publishing firm, Mijac, which publishes songs written by Jackson himself and which used to be administered by competitor Warner/Chappell Music, is valued to be worth at least $450 million."

This text is written in a persuasive voice and phrases like "highly false" (aside from having no real meaning in the English language) lack objectivity.

38.98.226.188 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)stinkerbell

Attention - MJ fan needed
Hey guys, so if any of you are interested in expanding the Jackson 5 half of "I'll Be There" with me, it'd be awesome. I'm interested in doing Mariah Carey's half, but really have no info or idea of their background/version etc. If anyone if interested in doing a joint GA (I've done several on my own, and many joint), please come by my page :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

main picture
Hi. Something I don't quite understand and it would be better for somebody to just tell me why. Why is the main picture for MJ so outdated (all the way back to 1980?!) I thought the main picture should be relevant? Why aren't pictures from Jackson in, say, the 21st century used? (When they exist?) Please leave an answer. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Later pictures of Jackson should be used with sections of the article about his later life, but it is reasonable to use a picture of him from the peak of his popularity in the infobox—remember, that's the picture where we're trying to give people the visual cue of who he was. That's why the main image is from the Thriller era. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, but you talk about giving people the visual cue. how Jackson looked like in the later years is so different. Won't that be irrelevant and misleading? People will have a wrong idea as to how he looks like. I think a photo from bad would be better than thriller. (if i am not wrong, some pages about Michael on other language wikipedias use photos of Jackson in the history era) And why is it that other celebrity pages aren't like that? For other celebrity pages, its like regardless of when they were at the peak of fame, the latest free photo of them that can be found is used. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One example: Sean Connery's peak of popularity was during the Bond era (around 1970-1980). But look at the infobox pic (2008, when, yup, he's still quite popular, but he looks like he's dying, he looks so different, what visual cue then?). Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason that Marlon Brando's picture isn't of the much heavier and significantly older Brando, but instead of the younger and more memorable one, or why Elizabeth Taylor's photo is during her younger years; the standard for dead celebrities isn't quite the same as the standard for live ones. Compare any older person with their younger self, and you'll surely notice a number of differences between them. Because of Michael's multiple plastic surgeries he had a significantly more pronounced difference than either of them did at fifty, but by your logic, we would have to go through every dead celebrity's profiles and use the most recently available picture of them, which would be both tiring, pointless, and detrimental. SST1337 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the standard for dead celebrities isn't quite the same as the standard for live ones. Jacko wasn't dead when Wikipedia was founded, and when this page was created, he was not yet a dead celebrity, so the standard for dead celebrities could not be applied. Then why didn't they use the most relevant photo of Jacko when he was alive? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that the person had to be dead before Wikipedia was created to avoid having the most recent picture of them listed on their profile, merely that dead celebrities often don't have their most recent picture on their profile page. Elizabeth Taylor also wasn't dead before Wikipedia was created, and her picture both now and before her death did not feature her in her older, significantly different state. (Two different photos were used, however, between then and now.)


 * Additionally, the french Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson) uses a picture from 1985.SST1337 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * okay.... well, since French wikipedia uses that pic, why don't we? (In my opinion, he looks better in that one.) So, is it advisable to change the pic? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fichier:Michael Jackson avec des habits brillants.jpg looks as though it may have copyright issues, as there are multiple hits for it on http://www.tineye.com/ . "Ce fichier n'est pas catégorisé" (this file has no categories) and the September 12, 2012 upload date are a worry. The fact that someone has successfully uploaded an image to Commons does not necessarily mean that it is copyright free. All of the English language images of Michael Jackson on Commons have been carefully checked. If the French image really is Creative Commons licensed, I would be *very* surprised.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko "is a racist term"
In the past, many people have used false etymology to convince themselves that words like buck, picnic, crowbar and niggardly have racist origins. It would be interesting to know how Joseph Vogel came up with the extraordinary pearl of wisdom that "Wacko Jacko" is based on Jacco Macacco. Nobody else has ever said this. This looks like another urban legend based purely on the similarity in the words.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under Wikipedia guidelines, it is not our place to debate what a highly reliable source states. While you're free to call Vogel's information an "urban legend" on your own blog or on Facebook, and to say you disagree with the info he presents, unless you can provide reliably sourced information to support your view you have no grounds for removing this info from the article.


 * For the benefit of everyone else, here's the sentence about Wacko Jacko that I believe should be added to the section "Appearance, tabloids, Bad, films, autobiography and Neverland (1986–90)":


 * The phrase was first used by the British tabloid The Sun and appears to have been derived from the Cockney slang term "Jacco" or "Jacco Macacco," which is a reference to monkeys.


 * This information is from "How Michael Jackson Made Bad" by Joseph Vogel in The Atlantic. Ianmacm disagrees with the edit and keeps reverting it, saying it is "wildly speculative" and WP:SYNTH. However, it is neither of these. The Atlantic (formerly known as The Atlantic Monthly) is one of the most respected magazines in the world; the magazine also employs a number of fact checkers, so it is rare for the magazine to publish inaccurate information. In addition, Vogel is a highly respected scholar and author of five books, including the acclaimed Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, which is a highly researched book (in fact, probably one of the most researched, scholarly books on the life of Michael Jackson).


 * In my opinion this reliably referenced information should be in the article. Any thoughts from other editors?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I called BS on this because it bears all the hallmarks of false etymology. It is agreed that the British tabloid press invented the "Wacko Jacko" tag back in the 1980s, but Joseph Vogel's explanation of the phrase's origin looks home brewed and highly unconvincing. Nobody else has ever said this, and the etymology of phrases is a graveyard of fallacies and false assumptions. There are several online dictionaries of Cockney rhyming slang, and none of them has this explanation. It is an extraordinary rabbit to pull out of a hat without anything to back it up beyond Mr. Vogel's assertion derived from the similarity between the two words. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean no disrespect, but that is your opinion. Unfortunately, all that matters for this discussion is if the sentence above accurately represents what the referenced source says, and is the reference reliable. On both points the answer is yes. To me, your objections smack of original research. If you wish to write an article about how this is false etymology, please do so. Once The Atlantic publishes your article it will no longer be original research. But until then it is, and I believe we should go with the information which can be reliably referenced.
 * Since obviously we don't agree with each other, I say we let other editors chime in and see if a consensus can be reached.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph Vogel may well have succeeded in convincing himself that this is the origin of the phrase, but he would have a tougher job elsewhere. This is one of those rare occasions where I am not really interested in the sourcing, because this looks like Mr. Vogel's opinion and no-one else's.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this explanation a “significant view” per WP:NPOV? Given that the article you cite has been published less than a week ago and it is the first (and so far only) source to argue this is how that “nickname” was invented I don't think it is. What could be done (I'm not sure it should be done before other sources have discussed Mr Vogel's theory) is to include it with attribution. --Six words (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Six words is right. No-one else in the entire history of writing about Michael Jackson has suggested that this is the origin of the "Wacko Jacko" phrase, so unless Joseph Vogel knows something that all previous biographers and journalists do not, this information should be regarded with caution.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We could also contact Joseph Vogel and ask how this remarkable information has escaped all previous writers' attention.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Private correspondence isn't a reliable source (for Wikipedia use). But if you contact him anyway I'm interested in his explanation though. --Six words (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the recent Philip Roth saga here. As we should all know by now, writers are always a reliable source on their own work.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it wouldn't be a published source - we'd have your word that what you cite is Mr Vogel's reply, but who'd be able to verify it? --Six words (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph Vogel really should clarify this. To sum up: The British tabloid press invented the "Wacko Jacko" nickname in the 1980s, and Michael Jackson hated it. Agreed, this has been known for years. Fast forward to September 2012, and Joseph Vogel gives an explanation of the origin of the phrase "Wacko Jacko" that no previous journalist, biographer or Cockney rhyming slang dictionary has ever heard of. Either the man is a genius, or some further explanation of how the information was obtained is required.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dont see how the term is racists in anyway. Never heard of the ethnic group's or racial slur's  called "Wacko's" or "Jacko's"? That said the term is well published and is something our readers may wish to learn about. Actually surprised its not there already - never noticed it was omitted. Its well published in books, magazines, news (as seen bellow)...and the fact Micheal actually addressed the issues is very interesting  Ref =

The refs ....Moxy (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I last read the article (more than a year ago) that “nickname” was mentioned; if it has since been removed I totally agree that it should be reintroduced. Still, I don't think we should mention that new theory of its origin without at the very least attributing it to Mr Vogel. --Six words (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence with the theory on the word's origins would absolutely be attributed to Vogel and The Atlantic article. The problem is that one editor keeps reverting this info and reference. As this editor stated above, he/she is not "interested in the sourcing" simply because he "knows" it to be wrong, never mind that the editor can't produce any sourced info to support this opinion.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont see any point in mentioning any "origins theory" of the term. We just need to explain why its a term used for MJ.Moxy (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I last read the article (more than a year ago) that “nickname” was mentioned; if it has since been removed I totally agree that it should be reintroduced. Still, I don't think we should mention that new theory of its origin without at the very least attributing it to Mr Vogel. --Six words (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence with the theory on the word's origins would absolutely be attributed to Vogel and The Atlantic article. The problem is that one editor keeps reverting this info and reference. As this editor stated above, he/she is not "interested in the sourcing" simply because he "knows" it to be wrong, never mind that the editor can't produce any sourced info to support this opinion.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont see any point in mentioning any "origins theory" of the term. We just need to explain why its a term used for MJ.Moxy (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence with the theory on the word's origins would absolutely be attributed to Vogel and The Atlantic article. The problem is that one editor keeps reverting this info and reference. As this editor stated above, he/she is not "interested in the sourcing" simply because he "knows" it to be wrong, never mind that the editor can't produce any sourced info to support this opinion.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont see any point in mentioning any "origins theory" of the term. We just need to explain why its a term used for MJ.Moxy (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard such rubbish in my life before. This is an obvious fabrication by someone who does not even understand cockney rhyming slang. The whole point is that it must rhyme. Well known phrases and celebrity names are linked, but it such a way that you only speak the first word eg. “I am off for a Ruby” RUBY (Murray) = curry … “I am going up the apples” APPLES (and pears) = stairs … “I need a new whistle” WHISTLE (and flute) = suit … “My plates hurt” PLATES (of meat) = feet. … so this man is saying “He looks like a Jacko” (Macacco) = monkey. Utter nonsense and poppycock, a total fabrication that is not even worth dignifying by including it. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 23:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, pure, utter garbage. The British tabloids, particularly The Sun, have a long tradition of use of puns, play on words and rhyming phrases. The idea that inspiration for the not especially clever or original "Wacko Jacko" needed to be found in the name of an obscure fighting ape which I doubt anyone at The Sun had even heard of is really bizarre. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Rangoon11, I would doubt that the average Sun journalist or reader knows the phrase "Jacco Macacco", which is not a common UK English phrase. It looks like Joseph Vogel has gone down the time-honoured road of convincing himself that since the words "Jacko" and "Jacco Macacco" sound similar, they must be related. The Snopes website details several similar fallacies and links them to a desire to use etymology to score points about racism. Since Michael Jackson is a Featured Article, it should be wary of giving undue weight to a single source which has only appeared a few days ago.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 01:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Inner Michael puts forward this theory, confidently informing the reader that "To call Michael Jackson “Jacko” reveals that you are a racist. Period." What it fails to explain is why no British journalist in thirty years has ever suggested this as the origin of the phrase. This looks like a blog sourced canard which has been picked up and repeated because it tells someone what they want to hear.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL would be best if they  understood  the term "racist" before throwing  it around.Moxy (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL sums up this "theory". It seems to have been designed to appeal to Americans whose knowledge of Cockney slang is based on watching Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. It is worrying to think that if this amazing new factoid is allowed to go into a Featured Article, people will assume that it must be true and start quoting it elsewhere.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I put "Jacko Monkey" into Google images and, along with all of the toys known as Jacko Monkeys, this popped up.  "Jacko" and "monkey" appear to go along together to a certain extent in the British mind, and transferring that association to Michael Jackson in a racist manner would appear to be a natural if utterly distasteful consequence.  I think the evidence from the Atlantic should be included in the article. Qworty (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why "Jacko" and "monkey" produce search results is that Michael Jackson once had a pet chimp called Bubbles. This is reliably sourced and no great surprise. The worry is that no British journalist or Cockney slang dictionary in thirty years has suggested the origin of the "Wacko Jacko" phrase that Joseph Vogel seems to find so convincing, even though it comes across as bizarre and wrong to a British person.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Look at this again .  Do you mean to say that you honestly can't see immediately how racist this is?  On the front-page of a newspaper?  Wow, wow.  I'm American and you're British and it seems we really are divided by a common language.  Just where do you draw the racism line?  Everything short of a lynching?  I mean no disrespect to you.  I am sincerely curious.  Qworty (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The story comes from the Sunday Sport, which as the article explains is not a real newspaper and prints obviously spoof stories such as "World War 2 Bomber found on Moon". Part of the problem here is an American perspective on British tabloid newspaper culture. If "Wacko Jacko" was as offensive as some Americans think it is, it would have produced complaints to the Press Council or the Press Complaints Commission which would have been upheld. There do seem to be any cases of this kind. Some UK tabloid newspaper headlines caused huge controversies at the time (GOTCHA and "THE TRUTH" about the Hillsborough disaster both spring to mind) but the phrase "Wacko Jacko" is routine tabloid slang, disrespectful but not racist. The British tabloids have given Madonna the nickname "Madge" which she hates, and she asked "Is it cockney rhyming slang?" (no, it isn't). The UK sense of humour does not always travel well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Sport is a wholly separate newspaper, with separate ownership, and even more downmarket and trashy than The Sun (and its staff and readers are even less likely to have ever heard of Jacco Macacco) and it is therefore wholly irrelevant but no I actually can't see why that cover was racist. Jackson had a chimpanzee as a pet and this was well known (the animal even has a WP article). So what? Making comment about that or jokes about it is inherently racist? No it isn't. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just as well that Freddie Starr is not black, otherwise "FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER" could be added to the list of things for Americans to find offensive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Press Complaints Commission archive
It is worth having a look at what the archive of the Press Complaints Commission says about this issue. Section 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice says "The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability." The search feature on the site brings up no complaints for the words "Wacko" or Jacko", and only one complaint relating to Michael Jackson, when a complaint was rightly made about a Daily Mail article which described Jackson as a paedophile, even though he had never been convicted by a court. There are several possible reasons why there is no reference to "Jacco Macacco" or "Wacko Jacko" in the PCC archive: a) The theory about the origin of "Wacko Jacko" is so secret that no British person has ever heard of it, and only people in the USA have been blessed with this knowledge. b) People in the UK do know that the phrase is based on describing Michael Jackson as a monkey, but they are too racist to report it to the PCC. c) Some people have vivid imaginations.

At the moment, c) looks like the most plausible answer. Although the British tabloid press gets its fair share of criticism, this is what the Americans call a bum rap. Michael Jackson had millions of devoted fans in the UK, yet not one of them seems to to have complained about him being described as a monkey. Strange, don't you think?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A small point about nicknames
Nicknames are often derived from a person's surname; hence Wilkinson - Wilko, (or Wilko mark 2). Johnson - Johno, or Johnno. Jackson - Jacko (nb - this one is white …). The world is full of people of every hue who are known as "Jacko". pablo 10:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In this BBC Sport news story, rugby player Jonny Wilkinson is referred to as "Wilko". Nothing unusual in informal British English here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What Jackson found offensive seems to be the "Wacko" bit ... nobody likes being described as nuts, bonkers, mad etc. pablo 11:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like being called bonkers. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * :) I think most Jackson fans (and I am one) found the treatment of the British "gutter" press towards Jackson to be despicable though. That doesn't mean that the "Wacko Jacko" name had anything to do with race however. Bear in mind that the "gutter" press has treated all manner of white people in just as disgusting a manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's kinda true. Actually, its never racist unless you want to perceive it as racist. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And i guess we ALL are MJ fans. ;) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Livin' crazy that's the only way...Life ain't so bad at all if you live it off the wall" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jewish children
The link states that under JEWISH law his children were considered Jewish. However as Debbie Rowe was a convert and not ethnically Jewish, by any other law and reasoning, they were NOT Jewish (raised Christians, no Jewish heritage). So rather than remove the link, I propose adding that rather than saying: "He had two Jewish children", it be reverted to "He had two Jewish children (under Jewish law)" as the current statement is confusing and wrong. 60.224.160.192 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If this statement is wrong and confusing then write the correct statement in the article. --Jozoisis (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, just to comment. In Judaism, once a Jew, always a Jew. Conversion, religious beliefs etc, do not affect this in any way. Being Jewish isn't because you believe in it, its in your blood! Now, if they marry non-Jews, their children will not be Jewish (if the mother is gentile). For example, Paris' children will be Jewish no matter what.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Callmenathan is correct, and anon 60 is incorrect that the statement is "wrong". Michael Jackson's children are recognized by Judaism as Jewish, regardless of whether they are practicing Jews. For example, if any of the children decided to actively practice Judaism, they would not have to go through a conversion process as would gentiles. Cresix (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the Jewish reference refers to the children's biological father, believed to be Dr. Arnie klien. 70.24.76.155 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Klein may be the biological father, but Debbie Rowe is definitely the biological mother. And Rowe is Jewish, which by Jewish law is what makes the children Jewish. Cresix (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

INCONSISTENTCY BETWEEN MICHAEL JACKSON PAGE BEST SELLING ALBUMS (HIStory Past Present Future)
RECENTLY - the album History Past Present Future was taken out of the best selling album page (because no one looked for sales references to keep it there),,,,,,,,,,,how can the Michael Jackson page claim ....Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous,and  History as the best selling albums,  when History is not on the list,,,,,,,,,,,either 1. get references for that albums sales to put it back on the best selling album list,,,,,or 2. take it off this lisr,,,,--74.233.39.171 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop SHOUTING and adding so many superfluous punctuation marks. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. You need to be more clear and specfic about the edit you are requesting.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed verification of disassociation reason
The article says "In 1987, Jackson disassociated himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses, in response to their disapproval of the Thriller video" and the reference is "Ebony, Vol. 42, No. 11, September 1987, and Vol. 45, No. 12, October 1990". I checked this.


 * In the 1987 issue: on page 143 "Michael has also broken his affiliation with the Jehovah's Witnesses religious body" and page 149 "The deeply religious entertainer and his manager declined to discuss the reasons for his break with the religious order whose criticism of his Thriller video prompted him to take it off the market even though it was one of the hottest-selling videos at that time. The Witnesses didn't like him dancing with the dead."


 * In the 1990 issue: on page 66, in an article written by Michael Jackson's mother: "In 1987, he left the Jehovah's Witnesses. (paragraph break) There was strong opposition to his "Thriller" video on the part of some Witnesses. Perhaps the controversy figured into his decision to leave. (paragraph break) But I don't know that for a fact because I didn't talk to him about what he'd done."

So a more accurate reflection of these sources would be "In 1987, Jackson disassociated himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses. He had previously withdrawn the Thriller video in response to Witness criticism, and it is not known if this was a factor in his decision to leave." (Unless other reliable sources can be found.)

By the way, the ISSN of this publication is 0012-9011, it might be helpful to include that (isn't there a Wikipedia reference template that does it?)

86.6.29.50 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments needed at Michael Jackson's health and appearance article
Note: Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michael Jackson by Moxy (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Are any of you willing to weigh in on the Talk:Michael Jackson's health and appearance discussion?

Also, regarding this article (Michael Jackson), this citation-needed tag should be reverted; this information is already referenced lower in the article, and, per WP:LEAD, what is already referenced lower in the article does not have to be referenced in the lead of the article. 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012
To address the above "Failed verification of disassociation reason", could the sentence In 1987, Jackson disassociated himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses, in response to their disapproval of the Thriller video. be changed to In 1987, Jackson disassociated himself from Jehovah's Witnesses. He had previously withdrawn the Thriller video in response to Witness criticism, and it is not known if this was a factor in his decision to leave. and also the reference can be expanded to

86.6.29.50 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:. I have gone ahead and cited the ref correctly. The other change seems to be worded a little weird. I'm not exactly sure about that, so I'll put that one until you reword it a bit. After you reword it, change the answered= in the original request template above to no and I'll come take another look. Thanks for the ref improvement! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Article libels the alleged child abuse victim as a liar, violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP
The article states:

'''Later that year, on December 20, Jackson's home was raided by the police, and Jackson submitted to a 25-minute strip search. Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, notably claiming that his bleach-damaged penis was circumcised; the strip search revealed, to the contrary, that Jackson was actually uncircumcised, a fact confirmed in his autopsy. '''

This violates WP:NPOV because it gives WP:Undue Weight to the viewpoint that the little boy was a liar when he claimed sexual abuse, which violates WP:BLP and completely ignores all the evidence that he was telling the truth. It only tells the reader the little boy was wrong about Jackson being circumcised (a mistake even doctor's examining Jackson made) but ignore the far more unique details the boy got right, and also ignores the evidence of pedophilia found in Jackson's bedroom (books, photographs). It sounds more like a one sided account you would find on the most biased Michael Jackson fan pages or something his lawyer or publicist would write, not something you would expect from a neutral encyclopedia. In order for wikipedia to maintain it's credibility, we have to give a more objective account that reflects all reliable sources, not just the ones we agree with. I propose this section be revised as follows:

'In August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, discovered two books in his bedroom featuring nude photos of boys: Boys Will be Boys and The Boy, A Photographic Essay''. His bedroom also had a photograph of a young boy wearing bikini bottoms partially pulled down and a fully nude photograph believed in court documents to be of Jonathan Spence, who has been described as a "small angelic boy" who lived at the Jackson Havenhurst home during the 1980s, but has stated that he was never molested by Jackson. '''

'''On Dec 20, 1993, Jackson submitted to a 25-minute strip search. Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly described patchy-coloured skin of Jackson's buttocks, correctly described short pubic hair, and correctly described pink and brown markings on Jackson's testicles, however Jordan was wrong about Jackson being circumcised, though an erect penis can look circumcised, especially to a thirteen-year-old, and the doctor's examining Jackson during the strip search themselves had trouble telling if Jackson was circumcised '''

'''Jordan had reportedly drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson’s penis that were sealed in an envelope and postmarked on a postal meter before the strip search photographs were taken. Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s photographer, claimed to have seen the dark spot at the bottom of Jackson's penis, which was only visible when Jackson was asked to lift his penis (simulating an erection). In a declaration under penalty of perjury, District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon also confirmed that the strip search photographs "revealed a mark on the right side" of Jackson's penis "at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler" in his drawing of Jackson's erect penis.  Moneytruthy (talk)''' 02:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As you have mentioned, WP:WEIGHT is an issue, so I suggest condensing your version to about one-third to one-half of what you have written. Each of the sexual abuse cases has a separate article that is linked in Michael Jackson. No need for so much detail. Cresix (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a condensed version:

'''In August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, found books and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing, including a fully nude photo believed to be of Jonathan Spence, a boy who lived at the Jackson Havenhurst home during the 1980s, but has stated that he was never molested by Jackson. '''

'''In Dec 1993, Jackson was strip searched. Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-coloured buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles, but wrongly claimed Jackson was circumcised, though an erect penis can look circumcised and doctors at the strip search also struggled to tell if Jackson was or not. '''

'''Reportedly, Jordan had also previously drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson’s penis only visible when his penis was lifted (i.e. erection). This dark spot was corroborated by the sheriff’s photographer and the District Attorney in sworn affidavits. '''Moneytruthy (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to have this in the other articles - no need for speculations here. Why mention a photo that may or may not be somebody then say that the person was not molested. Next paragraph more guess work  -  "though an erect penis can look circumcised ". Then the third paragraph is details that can be seen in the other articles.  Moxy (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Boys usually deny being abused but it's still extremely notable that police believe it was MJ's well known friend Jonathan spence in the naked photo and that MJ had such photos. And it's not speculation that erect penis looks circumcised, it's a fact and it's sourced.  As for details being duplicated in other articles; this article is FULL of details found in other articles.  We can't just include the duplicated details that imply jordy is a liar and remove all the details that prove he was molested.  That's withholding information from our readers and makes the article extremely biased. Historyhorror (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence shows he was molested? So we should add this info because some believe kids lie about being molested? Search "jordan chandler molested" see what is out  there.Moxy (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well according to the citations, the  proof that he was molested is that he knew there was a dark spot on the bottom side of MJ's penis that was only visible during erection.  There's no way to guess about something like that.  And the sources also say Jackson kept books and photos in his bedroom featuring naked boys.  I'm sure the fan pages on the web don't find that convincing, but this is not a fan page, so we have to report both sides.  We can't just include the stuff that portrays the kid as a liar as you've been doing. Historyhorror (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So to be clear on your position - your concluding that seeing him nude - thus being able to describe his buttock etc. - means he was molested? Despite the so called victim denying he was molested. As for the books - yes a bit odd but again your making conclusions  that is not supported by references. That is that the books mean he molested the kid or that the photo is him.Moxy (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jordy Chandler never denied being molested. You're thinking of Jonathan Spence (believed to be the photographed naked boy). All we're saying is if the article mentions what Jordy got wrong (circumcision) it should also mention what he got right (dark spot on penis, coloring of buttocks and testicles, length of pubic hair etc).  Or are you saying we should keep the article biased and only report what Jordy got wrong? Historyhorror (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point - we should mention a few things he got right. But to guess that Micheal must of had a boner is speculation. Simply state the facts about what was reported by Chandler. No need to include the guess work of others on  how it was possible he saw these things. We can also mention the books  found - but need to mention them in there context (a few books from thousands some much more disturbing then images of just kids) - as for the photos - this should be mentioned -  but the connection with Jonathan is pure speculation.Moxy (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy. Given the inflammatory nature of this topic, stick very closely to the facts, with zero speculation beyond those facts. That's true of Wikipedia in general (per WP:SYN and WP:NPOV), but especially with this topic. And keep any new information to a minimum length, as there are entire articles on the Jackson legal cases. Cresix (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are there repeated citations to anti Michael Jackson fansites, like "MJfacts.info"? It would seem to me some people are attempting to promote their own websites.

Though two books were found featuring nude children, one was sent in by a fan, the other had been inscribed by Jackson about how he wanted that as a childhood for his own children.

And things like "badly bleached penis" - how was that even allowed? Doesn't that seem intentionally loaded?
 * There's one citation to MJfacts.info. Could you give us more details about "repeated citations to anti Michael Jackson fansites? Cresix (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The part about the 1993 is very one-sided (and clearly edited by MJ haters), putting a disproportionate emphasis on two books which were, by the way, seen by the jury in 2005 and by two grand juries in 1994 and were found not incriminating. The whole thing is also taken out of context - ie. the context of the fact that Jackson had a huge collection of art books and this was tiny part of that. It's also not mentioned (probably deliberately) that both books had an inscription in it: one indicating that it was a gift from a fan, the other indicating that Jackson did not see that book as erotica: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.”
 * Actually the jury in 2005 did find them incriminating. Members of the jury believed Jackson was a pedophile, they just were unconvinced he molested Arvizo.  Jackson may have had a huge art book collection, but these books were found in his bedroom, not in his huge library.  It doesn't matter if a fan gave him one.  He got zillions of gifts from fans.  Why was this in his bedroom, along with another naked boy book and photos of naked/near-naked boys. Very suspicious. And a lot of people found the inscription creepy.  And these were not ordinary art books.  They were absolutely disgusting as we learned in the trial.  Even Jackson defender Brett Barnes wouldn't defend them CoolKarenF (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The prosecution was given every advantage imaginable - ie. were allowed to introduce "prior bad acts" evidence and everything, yet the jury acquitted Jackson. That is the fact. Arguments like "a lot of people found..." are called Argumentum ad populum and it's a fallacy. I also find MJ antis by putting such a huge emphasis on these two books guilty of other fallacies in this argument, such as:
 * Cherry picking: (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
 * Why the over-emphasis of two books, while they are hardly willing to discuss any other aspect of the cases? Is it because when you view the big picture and put together all the facts of the cases, together they point to Jackson's innocence?
 * Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is. Just because one of the investigators (no doubt to boost their case) called these books "child erotica" they weren't necessarily so for Jackson himself. For others they are just art photography books about children playing. There is no way of definitely stating how Jackson viewed them, other than going by his own description. 188.143.22.226 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Another context to consider that there was NO child pornography ever found in Jackson's posession! The pornography found was legal, heterosexual pornography both in material and in digital form (ie. on computers). Like I said, I see attempt by Jackson haters to put disproportionate emphasis on two books and taking things out of context. I'm gonna quote from an LA Times article, dated August 27, 1993, right after the raids:

„Videotapes seized from homes belonging to Michael Jackson do not incriminate the entertainer, and the lack of physical evidence of alleged sexual molestation has left investigators “scrambling” to get statements from other potential victims, a high-ranking police source said Thursday. “There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence,” the source said. “The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.244.205 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The heterosexual magazines the police found was not found until years later AFTER Jackson knew the police could raid him anytime. The prosecution argument was  gay pedophiles often collect copious amounts of straight porn to lower the inhibition of the victims and to convince others they are straight.  There's a lot of research on this. CoolKarenF (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt Jackson knew there would be a raid, since when he learnt that there was a raid at Neverland he got so angry that he trashed his hotel room in Las Vegas. Again, you just speculate. Facts are: Jackson's Neverland ranch and other apartments were house searched both in 1993 and in 2005 and never was anything illegal found. That is the simple fact.
 * I also hope that you realize that a prosecution argument or theory isn't automatically true. Of course, they had to find an explanation for why was adult, heterosexual porn found instead of child porn, like they expected. But the prosecution argument was not convincing at all. The only child ever to claim that Jackson showed him porn was Gavin Arvizo. There was never such a thing claimed by Jordan or Jason Francia. Gavin himself knew about Jackson's porn, because he and his brother went into Jackson's bedroom while the star was not at home. Star admitted this on the stand:


 * 1 Q. You and your brother were caught in that
 * 2 room when Michael Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland,
 * 3 weren’t you.
 * 4 A. To sleep, yeah.
 * 5 Q. You and your brother used to go into that
 * 6 room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.
 * 7 A. Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we
 * 8 could sleep there while he was gone.


 * Whether or not it was truly Jackson who allowed them to sleep there is another question, especially because Star contradicted himself on this later on the stand when he said he got the master code from a security guard. The bottom line from our POV now is that this is how the Arvizos found Jackson's porn. No other child ever claimed that Jackson showed them pornography, so that prosecution argument about why Jackson had hetero porn instead of child porn is quite weak. Also all of the computers on Neverland were subject of forensic analysis and no illegal material or traces of visits to illegal websites were found on any of them. Despite of the fact that they cached material since 1998. So the argument that Jackson got them clean shortly before the search because he expected a search doesn't seem like a good argument. 188.143.22.226 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jackson would not be dumb enough to download child porn when he knew the police have been keeping an eye on him since 1993. Gavin was the only kid to claim Jackson showed him porn (and he knew where it was), but he was not the only one to claim Jackson showed naked pictures to kids.  Corey Feldman also claimed that when he was a young boy Jackson showed him a book full of naked people.  Now it was a textbook on sex diseases and not porn, but that's a legal distinction.  It still corroborates gavin's claim that Jackson showed naked pictures to kids. We also have a British boy who Jackson allegedly talked masturbation with on the phone and even Jackson defender frank cascio admits in his book that Jackson talked about sexual topics with him when he was young.  Also, if the hetero porn was not for showing kids, who was it for?  It's extremely unlikely Jackson was heterosexual given that the semen of multiple males of unknown age were found in his mattress and laundryCoolKarenF (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is always on those who accuse someone of something. Do you realize that now you are making excuses for why there was no child porn found in Jackson's possession? Fact is there wasn't and you have to deal with it. Wikipedia should not include speculations and opinions, just facts. What Corey Feldman said was that once Jackson had a book on his coffee table about veneral diseases and when he realized them Jackson explained it to him what it was. That was it. He also said he did not think anything of it at the time. Clearly there was nothing that Jackson did that made him feel uncomfortable about it. Corey also said that Jackson never molested him and never touched him in any inappropriate way. So why did he not he molest Corey if he was "grooming" him with that book? And I find it very doubtful that anyone could be "groomed" with a book with gross pictures about veneral diseases.
 * The boy on the phone was Terry George, someone who only came up with his story as an adult and after the Chandler allegations and instead of telling his allegations to authorities, sold his story to tabloids, which are known to pay for such stories. Not the epitome for credibility. There are other problems with his story too, but we are going off topic.
 * If you don't believe Jackson was heterosexual that's your right to believe, but the fact is that he kept heterosexual pornography (magazines dating from 1991 to September 2003, which indicates that he collected them regularly) and no boy, other than the Arvizos, claimed he showed such magazines to them. That's the bottom line. So according to the prosecution's theory he collected them since at least 1991 just to show them to boys, but he actually never showed them to any boy, apart from Arvizo in 2003. Isn't a very compelling theory. 188.143.22.226 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you say that you care about just the facts. Well saying he didn't have child porn is not a fact, it's an arbitrary legal opinion.  Here are the facts: he had books full of frontal nudity of young boys with their legs spread.  He had photographs of naked boys with little or no clothing.  He showed Corey Feldman a book full of naked people (some coffee table book!).  Core Feldman said that if a grown man had showed his 14 year old such a book, he would beat him. CoolKarenF (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The posession of child porn is a crime in itself. Had child porn been found in Jackson's possession he would have been charged with it. He never was. Not in 1993. Not in 2005. That's the fact. 84.236.125.244 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you claimed earlier that Jackson didn't have child porn because "Jackson would not be dumb enough to download child porn when he knew the police have been keeping an eye on him since 1993". So based on your theory we should imagine Jackson as a very cautious and disciplined pedophile who doesn't download child porn because authorities keep an eye on him (although he did download heterosexual legal porn, but of course not for himself, only to seduce boys with that according to your theory, even if the only boy ever to claim such a thing was Gavin in 2003). However this very cautious and disciplined pedophile suddenly gave up being cautious and disciplined in February 2003 and started molesting Gavin Arvizo, AFTER the Bashir documentary aired and as a result of that documentary Sneddon and the child protective services were on his heels and the whole world was watching. So Jackson did not molest Gavin for three years but he decides to start molesting him and showing him porn and everything when the whole world is watching because of the Bashir documentary. This is actually what the prosecution claimed! People need to realize that. And now you come up with a theory that he did not have child porn because since 1993 police kept an eye on him. But according to the prosecution's other theory, represented in the timeline of the Arvizo allegations, Jackson was a pedophile who liked to do illegal things specially when authorities were watching him... 84.236.125.244 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think to make much of the 1993 allegations part of the main Michael Jackson article be about those two books, based on which Jackson was never charged with anything, is clearly a case of red herring argument and false emphasis. These books were legal to possess and do not prove anything. You have to see this complex case as a whole to determine Jackson's guilt or innocence, so in my opinion those two books should not be discussed in the main MJ article, as it gives the false impression they were some kind of crux of the case and they were not. Jackson was not charged with anything based on them and several juries saw them and they did not indict or convict Jackson based on them. So to make them of utter importance is wrong. Same with the picture "believed to be Jonathan Spence". Was it ever established that it indeed was Spence? And by the way, Spence never claimed to be molested or improperly treated by Jackson. We don't know what it depicted exactly, whether it was an innocent "baby" picture of Spence or someone else, sent by a parent, for example (Jackson got pictures of children from all over the world all the time from fans, parents etc.). The prosecution did not even show that picture in court. Apparently it wasn't that important of an evidence after all. Yet Jackson antis act like it's the crux of the case, such important information that it needs to be featured in the main MJ article. It's clearly false emphasis. In the seperate 1993 article they can be mentioned, but only with the due context and full picture given (Jackson's large collection of art photography books, the inscriptions in these two books, no child porn found, Jackson's porn being legal, heterosexual etc.) 84.0.76.194 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the description. I see that now the claim is that Jordan Chandler correctly described everything bar the circumcision. This is based on the book of J. Randy Taraborelli who cannot be considered a credible source by any means. If we go by Sneddon's declaration (and Sneddon is not an unbiased source himself) there is no talk about any of these in that. There is no claim that "Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-coloured buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles". He only talks about ONE mark that is - by Sneddon's not unbiased estimation at least - "about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis". Consider the words "about", "relative" and also the fact that it's said that Jordan located that mark on Jackson's erect penis, while the photos were surely taken of an unerect one. Consider also the fact that Sneddon REALLY wanted it to be a match...

But let's consider some more facts, before we go along with the claim that Jordan accurately described Jackson's penis:

1) Jackson was not arrested after the strip search. 2) In 1994 during the grand jury hearings authorities were looking for information from Jackson's mother whether he altered the altered the appearance of his genitalia:

“Jackson's mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson's physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.”

Jim Newton - Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify (Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1994) http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-16/local/me-34715_1_grand-jury

3) The claim that it was a match started in 1995 (and then started to spread and referred to as fact by the media), after Sneddon made that claim in an interview he gave to Maureen Orth. Unfortunately Orth failed to ask him why didn't he arrest Jackson then.

4) To suggest that Jackson settled with his accuser because the accuser's description was correct is wrong. First, Jackson settled the civil case, you cannot settle a criminal one and that indeed was ongoing. Second, the boy's own lawyer was looking to get the photos barred from the civil proceedings!!

“Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a "multiple choice" request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.”

Boy's Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson's Body (Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1994) http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

Since the boy's own lawyer offered the option to get the photos barred from court, the photos were surely not Jackson's reason to settle the civil case.
 * the boy's lawyer just wanted to SEE the photos before allowing them in court. However once it was clear that the photos matched the drawing, the case was settled for roughly an astonishing $25 million (about $40 million in today's money).  No way the chandlers would have won a settlement that huge if the boy's drawing was wrong.  Jackson had learned his lesson that the photos when viewed with Jordy's drawing were incredibley incriminating, that's why in the 2005 case, Jackson's lawyer convinced the judge to hide this evidence from the juryCoolKarenF (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You do not need to interpret Feldman's words in any other way as how he said them: “Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a "multiple choice" request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.” This is clearly giving the option to Jackson to get the photos barred from evidence. In fact, it seems that's exactly what Feldman wanted since he could not seriously expect Jackson to subject himself to a second humiliating strip search. The reason for the settlement was rather that Jackson lost all four motions in regards to asking to stay the civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings are completed, despite of the fact that this would have been his constitutional right according to precedent cases:


 * "When both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved."
 * Cases cited: Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, cert, denied, 371 U.S. 955, 83 S.Ct. 502, 9 L.Ed. 2d 502 (5th Cir. 1962); Perez v. McQuire 36 F.R.D. 272 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Paul Harringan & Sons, Inc. v. Enterprise Animal Oil Co., Inc. 14 F.R.D. 333 (E.D. Pa. 1953).


 * This right was not granted for Jackson because of Jordan's age:
 * „Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson's favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson's attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant's constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman's trump card was, "a child's memory is developing," and their inability to, "remember like an adult." This law was designed to protect a small child's ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old."


 * Geraldine Hughes – Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (Hughes Publishing, January 2004)


 * This had the potentional to violate constitutional rights for a fair trial, since it would have made it possible for the prosecution in the criminal case to monitor the civil trial and then adjust their claims accordingly. That is exactly why in precedent cases it was established that it's the right of a defendant to stay the civil proceedings until after the criminal proceedings are completed.
 * Ray Chandler's book quotes a conversation that took place between Evan Chandler and their attorney, Larry Feldman and it proves that they were indeed playing this game of trying to push the criminal proceedings behind the civil:


 * „Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. "Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don't want your deposition, or June's deposition. They don't want to preserve anything. If they're gonna make a deal they don't want anything on the record about Jackson."
 * No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess."
 * "Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I'm going forward. We're going to push on. So far there ain't a button I've missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don't want them going first."
 * Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.
 * "You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
 * "Yeah."
 * "Jesus Christ!"
 * "Right! So we don't want that."


 * Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)


 * Let me remind everyone that only a criminal trial can result in jail time for a perpetrator, a civil trial is only about money. Yet the Chandlers tried to delay the criminal by any means and get the civil ahead... 188.143.22.226 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

5) As for the circumcision issue: "though doctors at the strip search also struggled to tell if Jackson was circumcised" - this claim again is based on Taraborelli's dramatized version of the event, which cannot be considered as credible. He clearly makes up conversations throughout his book for dramatic effect (and I think he even admitted to that).

The excuse for the fact that Jordan wrongly claimed Jackson was circumcised is that "an erect penis can look circumcised". However it isn't a very compelling explanation when we know the exact content of the Chandler's allegations. They did not claim a one-off molestation but a series of sexual contacts, including seeing each other naked in the bath and many masturbation sessions in front of each other. It's an impossibility that Jackson would be fully erect all the time. Additionally the book of the accuser's uncle, Ray Chandler makes this claim: ''“The problem was not Jordie's memory: he had seen Michael's genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.”''

Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

Since the Chandlers themselves claim that Jordan, by their story, saw Jackson's penis "from every possible angle" and "so many times", there is no way he could have missed the fact that Jackson was not circumcised. If their allegations had been true, that is. The more likely explanation is that he got it wrong because he never saw Jackson's penis.

6) Fact is the Chandlers knew about Jackson's vitiligo and they actually cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to changes. Quote from Ray Chandler's book. The conversation is between the boy's father, Evan Chandler and the boy's lawyer, Larry Feldman:

"Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he's got, vitiligo, that it's capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant.It can change very quickly with this disease." "Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything." "No, that's good for us!" Why?" '''"Because if he's right, he's right. And if he's wrong, we've got an explanation!" Ha! "Yeah, it's a no-loser for us." "That's very good." "Good? It's terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I'm sticking' with the law.'''"

Another quote from the same book:

„Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael's penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael's defense. And the poor beast was already swayback.

On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie's description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry's case was solid as a rock and he didn't need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.”

Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

7) We also know from the same book that the boy's father, Evan Chandler actually had knowledge at least of how Jackson's buttocks looked like:

"Evan rattled off a list of drugs to see if he could find out what Michael's doctor used. When he mentioned Demerol, Michael said that sounded familiar. Evan did not use Demerol in his practice, so he called Mark Torbiner for advice. The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan's office and bring it to his house. Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael's gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax."

Page 47 - Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

So it is not big deal if they assumed Jackson did have blotches on the lower part of his body. They knew of his vitiligo and Evan Chandler actually could see at least his buttocks while injecting him. 84.0.76.194 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, but the fact that the boy knew about the dark spot only visible when the strip search asked Jackson to lift his penis is strong evidence jordy saw him erect. And on top of that he knew about pink and brown marked testicles.  Most people don't know that bleach damage causes that specific pattern of discoloration on dark skinned testicles CoolKarenF (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again you are confusing facts with rumors. In Sneddon's motion there is no word about pink and brown marked testicles. He only talks about one mark on the right side of Jackson's penis. By the way, you point out an interesting question: if Jordan gave a detailed description of Jackson's genitalia, including testicles and everything, why none of that is mentioned in Sneddon's motion? Why does he harp on only one mark? Maybe the rest simply did not match? Not even "relatively" and "about"? 188.143.22.226 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the sources show jordy provided both a written description that was 75% accurate (only circumcision was wrong) and a drawing that was 100% accurate. So obviously sneddon wanted the jury to see the drawing that was 100% accurate rather than risk that if the jury saw the one mistake in the written description, it might create doubt.  The downside for sneddon of excluding the written description is he couldn't showoff how accurate jordy had been about buttocks, testicles and pubic hair. CoolKarenF (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is with those "sources" that many of them are just not credible. Plus I haven't seen any indication anywhere of what you say here being the case. What we know for a fact is: Jackson was not arrested after the strip search. Jordan's lawyer gave the option to get the photos barred from evidence at the civil trial. Jackson's mother was asked by authorities if "Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.”. Sneddon in his motion does not mention anything about any match about testicle descriptions or anything else apart from his claim that there was one mark on Jackson's penis that, by his own estimation, was "about" and "relatively" at the same place as where Jordan marked a spot on his drawing. How much his estimation was clouded by his bias against Jackson we do not know, but even if he was "relatively" right about this one mark the problem still remains: why aren't any other aspects of Jordan's description mentioned as a match by Sneddon, only one mark? And like the Chandlers themselves said in their book where vitiligo markings were is actually quite irrelevant, since they are subject to quick changes. And there was half a year between the alleged molestation and the strip search. Therefore the circumscion issue is actually a lot more relevant and Jordan got that one wrong. 188.143.22.226 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * so you're saying his bleach induced "vitiligo" mysteriously unleashed a dark spot in the same location you think Jordy lied about. Sounds pretty farfetched.  You could just as easily argue that Jackson got himself uncircumcised, and that was probably what the authorities were looking into. CoolKarenF (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is (and the Chandlers too mention this fact in their book) that vitiligo is subject to changes thus spots and marks appear and disappear all the time. So just because a mark is at a place in December, it doesn't mean it was there in May and vica versa. I'm not gonna repeat myself over and over again, just one more time: Sneddon's motion interestingly doesn't mention any other spot or mark or the testicles or anything matching, just one spot on the penis. Anyone can get one guess right (apparently even that only "about" and "relatively"), but I find it interesting how nothing else is mentioned in Sneddon's motion as being matching. As for "Jackson getting himself uncircumcised" - again, you are speculating. There is no indication anywhere ever that "Jackson got himself uncircumcised". And by the way you were wrong in your previous post about Sneddon not wanting to introduce the description only the drawing. The motion says: "evidence of his [Jordan's] statements and his drawing will be offered". It seems to me this stuff about the 75% and 100% is just something you made up. 188.143.22.226 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the changes - to many errors. I will go over the errors see what comes from were. Pls preview before saving.Moxy (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already reviewed everything. There are no citation errors.  I can tell you exactly where everything comes from, right down to the paragraph.  What is it that you think was cited in error?  Be specific. Moneytruthy (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted again because of errors - will look at it later today see whats up with the ref errors - hard to do with LDR system . Pls look at the ref section before saving in the future.Moxy (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * all ok now...dame that LDR references style - so hard to work with.Moxy (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)