Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 7

The bias in this article
What this article does is basically, gives a fairly detailed overview of his history spanning a few decades, then jumps to the discography, with no discussion of Michael Jackson as an entertainer, or dancer, or his impact or anything like that. It only focuses on two things: (1) what albums he's released, how much they've sold, what awards he's won and (2) his controversies. It's written like:

paragraph one: releases album 1, sells x million

paragraph two: does something controversial

paragraph three: releases album 2, sells x million

paragraph four: does something controversial etc.

Skinnyweed 13:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to say I agree with you, however this is always going to happen with Jackson. Not only that, anything relating to him as an entertainer or dancer etc could be considered bias aswell. However, I must agree that there should be more relating to Jackson's career as an entertainer rather than his discography and the controversies. If only we could go back to the 1980's and write this article. Then things would be different. : ehmjay 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Invincible
The article should mention that the 2001 album's poor sales were attributed to it being generally considered thoroughly mediocre music, as well as the fact that it was Jackson's first fully new album in a decade.


 * Anything, as long as it's sourced. Skinnyweed 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

picture of jackson in public domain
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_Jackson_1984.jpg - this is a public domain picture of jackson.--88.105.102.112 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here is stating rumours as truths:
People claim that:


 * 1. Jackson molested children (despite Jackson being aquitted)
 * 2. Jackson's children are not his (there is NO EVIDENCE of this; it is uncertain, not proven)
 * 3. Jackson is homosexual (one scrap of HARD EVIDENCE please???)
 * 4. Jackson has had more than three procedures (while this may be true, it is not confirmed; people cannot simply state as fact that Jackson has had more than three surgeries, unless there is EVIDENCE)

Please do not claim the above four points to be fact, because they are OPINION. If you do, the posts will be null and void. --138.130.216.79 10:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are all true. If you believe Jackson is innocent then you must be a pedophile yourself. His children are clearly not his, as Debbie Rowe has confirmed. You only have to look at the freak and watch him on stage to know he isn't straight, just like most others in showbusiness. Just look at this for evidence of his vast amounts of plastic surgery over the years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/2481467.stm


 * I believe Jackson is innocent. But I am a teenager with no social life, so I'm not a pedophile. The article cites allegations of abuse and does not state them as fact. For the other 3, I have not seen these in ther article. If you find an unsourced statement in the article, type at the end of the line to show that evidence is needed.

As for the misguided contributor who believes that the dance one preforms determines sexual orientation, no. Jackson may or may not be homosexual; one cannot judge that from a dance routine.-- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide record sales
The article should mention this more prominently. Jackson's page on the Internet Movie Database says he has sold 170 million albums, but that figure seems much too low.

new image
that new image is not michael jackson, it's really obvious it's a photoshopped picture of a teenaged female.--88.105.97.10 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That looks like an asian female that has been photoshopped. Why would jackson allow a close up photo like that? it's definately a fake. --Paaerduag 07:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to see the fake picture is now gone. I added a picture of Oprah and Jackson, seeming as that particular paragraph mentions Jackson's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show. --Paaerduag 10:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

history image


this is an image from a video in the history era, perhaps a better choice than the cd cover?--88.105.96.67 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

King Of Pop be fair
I'm curious why is there such a debate over the title King of pop for Michael Jackson and not even a close debate about Elvis being called the King Of Rock N Roll. It's been known that there are blacks who believe he shouldn't be called the King of Rock n roll and Little Richard should be. Elvis was given that title by fans, his record executes, and his Las Vegas show annoucer ( "The King has left The Building").Sony still calls Michael the King Of Pop on the new mjvisionary site, fans still definetly call Mj The King of Pop, and when Michael Is announced to performer he is referred to as the King Of Pop.The media that refers to MJ as Wacko Jacko is also the media that refers to Mj as Self-proclaimed King Of Pop. Doing that is just a way to get at Michael. So if there is going to be so much debate over Mj being called King of Pop, they should put something like white-proclaimed King of Rock n Roll for Elvis because there are those blacks who say Little Richard is not only the architect but the king of Rock n Roll. That would be a neutral pov because some people believe that he is not the King but there those who strongerly believe he is. Calling Elvis white-proclaimed is derrogatory statement as calling Mj Whacko Jacko.It would be fair for Mj To be called King of Pop because of his legacy and Elvis Presley King Of Rock n Roll for his legacy. I'm not a racist or have anything against Elvis I believe he deserves the title (I have his albums at Home) King of Rock n Roll. That's just an example of how this debate is unfair to Michael who is just as big or bigger then Elvis Presley.

Do not turn the debate over nicknames into a silly Jackson verses Presley arguement. The current consensus among editors is to leave the introduction free of nicknames and instead mention them further down the article. From what I can see its taken much debate to reach this decision, so please discuss it with the other editors before changing the article against the current consensus.--Knuckle 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said that it was Jackson vs. Presley. I just simply pointed how it was unfair that he could get a nickname and Mj could not. There have been many consensus among editors on this page who believe that it is ok to leave it but also add Wacko Jacko. I have been watching this page for a year now and I have seen the debates since archive 1 in the discussion. I know everybody didnt just say screw it and leave it out. The best thing to do is to let it be mentioned Knuckle that was also a consensus among editors for so many months.


 * First off, the name "King of Pop" was coined by Jackson's people before some awards show or other in the late 80s or 90s (I cannot remember which off the top of my head), hence the media designation of "self-proclaimed." Secondly, if you read back among the conversations that have gone on over the past months, the original notation (which contained both "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko" nicknames) enjoyed concensus. However, after much in the way of conversation, revert wars, negotiation, argument and gnashing of teeth, the general feeling was that if one of the nicknames would be present, then both should be. Finally, it was determined (based on the fact that there are no nicknames present in most other entries -- most notably President Bush -- and that the inclusion of nicknames in the opening 'graph was not encyclopedic) that neither name should be in the opening. Both nicknames are addressed later in the article. Bottom line, this is not a fan board. The WP entry is not going to satisfy every fanboy (and girl), and it shouldn't. That's not what WP is for.


 * That being said, if you can gain concensus from folks here, then have at it. However, unless you can provide a compelling arguement to change the opening to include the fan-driven (and/or press-driven) nickname, you can certainly count on opposition from many here (myself included). And for the record, if one nickname is present, IMO, both should be. Quite frankly, as they are addressed in the article, neither one are truly necessary in the opening. --Mhking 11:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And his music isn't rock. It's pop. Not rock. But Pop. --Crestville 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jackson's ownership of the Beatle songs (mentioned in the 1980's portion of the article), as I understand it, he bought the publishing rights to them, not the rights to the songs themselves. It's something a lot of people at the time didn't understand. It would be nice if someone could do some research on this and correct the article, or make it more specific. I think there's something about it at snopes. 69.210.42.103 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) jb

Upcoming trial and introduction
The article should mention that Jackson is facing a new trial for failing to settle his debts of $3.8 million with former associate F Marc Schaffel. Jury selection begins on 26th June and Jackson will testify through videotaped depositions. Also the introduction should be amended to say simply that his "controversial personal life" has been at the forefront of discussion for the past quarter of a century, not that his "successful music career" has as well. Jackson's real success ended after he paid Jordy Chandler $45 million in January 1994, and he hasn't releaseda successful new album since "Dangerous" at the end of 1991 - 15 years ago. (195.93.21.66 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Tokyo Pics
You want up to date picture of Michael Jackson at the start? I found these two photos from tokyo, which are now in the public domain. please do not delete them for no reason, as has already been done once. --Paaerduag 06:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof of MJ in Islam?
I have an MP3 file that I have uploaded. My father knows some people in the Middle East that got a hold of an MJ song praising Allah and saying a lot of Islamic terms

I upped it on megaupload, if you want me to e-mail it, just send an e-mail to me at FHA1223@comcast.net

here is the link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UAY6HPIG - FAH1223 11:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

for now, i am putting him under Muslim Americans, this appears to be enough proof


 * Not to start a flame war or anything...but there is no way this is Michael Jackson. I know Jackson's voice and this is not him. It sounds sligthly like him but I can guarentee you this is a fake or an impersonator! : ehmjay 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is his him, you can hear he developed an accent being in Arab countries for nearly a year. I was skeptical at first, but that is indeed him. FAH1223 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, this is NOT him. I don't know who your source is, but unless Michael Jackson HIMSELF handed this to you, then there is no way that this is him. I'm sorry. : ehmjay 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an update - a quick search on google turned up this site: [link to copyvio website removed]
 * in which one user states: "This song was performed by one of Yusef Islam's (formally known as Cat Stevins) backup artists. It sounds a like Michael Jackson but it's not im certain it's not because i saw it being performed in the Royal Albert hall 2 years ago in London. ( MJ may be a muslim) i duno but he certainly didn't perform this song." : ehmjay 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. if he saw them then aiight thats enough proof, thanks for findin it. FAH1223 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

jackson's look
He actually looks pretty good now. Like he did a while ago. Still weird, but at least he's out there, not hiding anymore. and it looks like he's got thousands of Japanese fans. Maybe they like him because he's different. but he actually looks alright now. It's like he's gone back in time. Not like the freak he was at the trial. he looks acceptable now. --138.130.217.51 01:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea Michaels appearance has gotton better so lets wait and hope for the music to have better look.


 * Well what do you expect when you are being accused of sexually molesting a child and the trial is showcased on TV all over the world and you have Court TV wrongly blasting Michael 24 hours a day like if he were a criminal, of course you're going to lose weight and look bad. After being found innocent for the millionth time (seriosly how many times are the courts going to allow parents to sue Michael in attempts to take money away from him), it is no surprise he regained his weight to a healthier level and looks better.  Dionyseus 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep dreaming children. There's no chance a 50-year-old artist who has been accused twice of sexually abusing children can make a comeback, especially since his last good songs were released 15 years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs).


 * All Jackson needs to do is go on tour again and shows will be sold out around the world. Doesn't matter what current opinions are, his fan base is large enough that this would happen. And quite frankly, If Madonna can make a comeback, so can Jackson.


 * She never really went anywhere though. Or had the controvercy Jackson has. I'm sure Jackson has enough fans to do a sell-out world wide tour, even if the new material turns out to be piss poor (which it inevitably will) but I'm not sure he will actually do it. When was the last time he did a tour? It was ages ago wasn't it? I think he's too frail - physically and emotionally - to pull it off. He's skint too isn't he? Good luck to him though, if he thinks he can.--Crestville 12:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's nice to know that the old adage of innocent until proven guilty has some validity. However one fact you DID manage to get correct was the date of his last tour. However I do not see how that has anything to do with anything. When was the last time The Who toured? Sure Jackson may not be able to pull in as many new fans as some other artists but that's like many artists. Then again, if people were more open minded and ignored his bizare private life (and please, no flaming here) and actually paid attention to his music (which I'm sorry, you may not like it, but 46 million people obviously liked it enough to make Thriller one of the highest selling albums of all time) they would realize the true talent that he has. As for him being too old and frail...I guess Mick Jagger and Bruce Springstein and Prince (do you want some more) must be as well...mind you they are still putting on shows. Seriously. Put your Jackson Hating bias aside and stop with your flamming. Just because someone likes his music doesn't make them have sick feelings towards little boys. Why anyone would even bother to waste their time to come here and post that is beyond me.

Why are you wasting your time with such a poor, ill-informed argument? This has nothing to do with "Jackson haters" (the new Ku Klux Klan if this talk page is anything to go by), but with plain facts and reasoned arguments - most all of which appear to have eluded. The Who toured recently (with Zak Starkey drumming), and are still sporadically appearing right now over the English festival season. They are planning another tour which will end at Glastonbury 2007. Thriller was 20 years ago, so that's got nothing to do with a comeback. A comeback depends on new material, which has been weak at best since the 90s. He can't rely on an album from 20 years ago. He's not Sgt. Pepper. And what is this about Jaggar and Springsteen? So what if they're still touring? What does that have to do with Jackson? You appear to have confused age with frailty. They areold, yes, but fit and robust. Jackson, in conrast, is younger but appears weak and sickley. He must also be stressed after these never-ending child-abuse charges and from what I have seen is therefore emotionally frail too. Age and frailty are not necessarily related. My friend is 25, and therefore, by your logic, should be able to sustain more physical strain than, say, Hulk Hogan who must be in his 50s by now (or thereabouts). However, my friend had muscular dystrophy and is therefore quite frail (see how this works?), and would almost certainly loose to the Hulkster in a fight. Let that be and end to this silly, silly argument.--Crestville 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the Who's tour - hence why I used them as a reference. It was meant to be sarcastic. But let us not forget, The Who is relying on all of their old material as well. As are The Stones. How is that any different from Jackson going on tour performing all the classics? As for Jackson appearing sickly and weak. All the footage that I have seen of Jackson recently he looks in great shape. I'm sure he is emotionally drained but that doesn't mean that he is unable to tour. All I'm saying is that if The Stones can still tour then so can Jackson. As for Jackson's new material being weak...that's a matter of opinion. I'll admit, Invincible was no Thriller, but then again, Confessions On A Dance Floor was no Like a Virgin. Doesn't mean its not as good - just different. Infact I would argue the songs that didn't make it onto Invincible that Jackson penned himself (mainly We've Had Enough) are some of the finest work of his to date. But once again, that's my opinion. Of course that means nothing because everyone is going to keep arguing until the cows come home. : ehmjay 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious...did you actually listen to Invincible? Also to call Jackson the most hated person in history is a pretty big stretch. I'm pretty sure that Hitler or Charles Manson might be higher than him. As for most of his fans hating him now...clearly you haven't seen any footage of Jackson lately. We've Had Enough is a brilliant song and anyone who cannot see that is blinded by their ignorance. As for Jackson making a comeback...he will never make one in America, or possibly even North America. However in the rest of the world where they still respect Jackson as an artist, I think it's fair to say he could make a pretty strong come back. As for Jackson being a homosexual...I'll just leave you alone with that one. : ehmjay 23:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make such odd generalisations. I'm fairly impartial and thought "We've Had Enough" was pedestrian pap, as has most of Jacko's output for some time. Also I'm not American and can reliably inform you Jackson is regarded as a joke in England. He has been for quite some time. We never really embraced him to begin with. We've got The Beatles (and the Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Oasis, The Rutles, David Bowie etc.) so we didn't really care for long.--Crestville 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Crestville, I guess you speak for all of UK, don't you? Apparently not:   Dionyseus 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do. I dunno who this "pretender" to the throne is. I think it might be a hoax. Only the freaks and the geeks are into hinm in a big way.--Crestville 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Crestville, didn't you say not to use generalizations. It's nice to know that every Big Jackson fan is a freak/geek. Funny, I never thought of Seth Green as a freak. Nor Beyoncee Knowls. Nor Chris Tucker, or Usher, or Marlon Brando, or Snoop Dog, or Nelly Furtado, or Quincy Jones...do you want me to go on? Next time, don't be such a hypocrit.


 * I'll do as I please thankyou very much. Please sign your comments or don't comment at all.--Crestville 13:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know Mystery poster, I'm getting rather tired of your unfounded defamatory claims. Perhaps next time you post on this site you should actually tell us you you are (four ~ is all we need) and actually back up one of your rediculous claims! 70.49.21.241 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to know who the poster is, just look on the history page, though I assume they - like you - are not a registered user and are therefore pretty anonymous too.--Crestville 13:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I had forgotten to sign in so my username didn't show up. As for your claims, they are rediculous. You have yet to back up a single one. And who is Cheyenne? Do you know of some person that the rest of the world does not? Grow up and stop flamming this page with your childish posts. This is supposed to be a professional place, not a place your you to post your slanderous comments. : ehmjay 15:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that I am this so-called "mystery" poster? Or have you just innocently omitted to distinguish between the two posts you are replying to? If the former is the case, I assure you a simple investigation into our respective IP adresses will prove you wrong. I agree, such mad, unsourced slander is distasteful and not something I would lower myself to (and I have always signed any controvercial posts with "Crestville"). Please do not make unfounded defamatory claims. This is supposed to be a professional place, not a place for you to post slanderous comments.--Crestville 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * crestville i was by no means implying you to be the mystery poster. I know that you always sign your comments with your name. it was just that your post was AFTER the one i was discussing. my bad for not making that clear. : ehmjay 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay sorry, I got confused, I thought you meant Cheynne was Jackson's daughter. This is what happens when you dont make your hate talk clear. Although just because he's dead may not make it legally slanderous it certainly makes it all the more disttasteful and offensive. Have you no respect for the dead. Not only that, you make it sound like bisexuality and homosexuality is a reason to hate someone. If that's the case then you need more help then Jackson. As for Brando being a pedophile, I didn't notice any mention of it in the Wiki article and didn't find anything online (though I'll admit I didn't look to hard). As for most overated actor in history...thats a matter of opinion. Personally I think that his roles in Godfather, On the Waterfront, Streetcar Named Desire, Apocolypse Now are all fantastic, even if he is a stubburn old man. And hell, he's one of the first actors to ever be resurected for a movie (view: Superman Returns). Anyways, try to have some respect for the dead...and bear in mind what this discussion was SUPPOSED to be about (I know that I varied from it too) regarding Jackson's look. : ehmjay 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you have to rave over him, just have a little respect for the dead. Not only that - perhaps you should take a look at the Children section yourself, there is not a single reference to pedophilia. And once again, you make homosexuality sound like a bad thing. It doesn't matter if Jackson's father and Jermaine hate gays. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn't give anyone the right to insult them, especially to the point that you are doing so. : ehmjay 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting that the children page didn't feature a single mention of child abuse until last night...after someone made the claim here...now I'm not being accusatory but I find this odd. Also I notice that it was a book written by his ex-wife. In fact, a quick search on google turned up no articles regarding Marlon Brando sexually abusing his children...I did find some about Brando's son Christian sexually abusing Deborah Brando. Perhaps the person who posted the sexual abuse claims got their facts mixed up. And once again Jackson was aquitted and thus must remain innocent until proven guilty. And for you to go around saying people who want to see the man on stage again as being abnormal is just plain rediculous. : ehmjay 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * because hes not gay...and he doesn't have aids...and you do realize that heterosexuals can get AIDS aswell right? And since when does jackson hate Elvis. Another one of your magic facts?: ehmjay 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, you really have to start giving reasons for your comments. Where on earth are you getting your facts? You know, this only makes you look as though you don't know what your talking about. Next time you want to make a statement (Wanting to destroy graceland, wanting to be knighted, manager of neverland, vincent price). Your death wishes are also appauling, and the fact that you turn a blind eye to everything that condraticts your beleifs. Not only that, I can't seem to understand where you stand on the issue of homosexuality. Seriously, if you want to actually add to the discussions on this page then go ahead but start citing your sources and stop spreading lies. Otherwise - go somewhere else. : ehmjay 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vitiligo
That claim should be removed from the article because it is so obviously a lie. His skin couldn't have turned white so quickly (from the "Thriller" video in 1983 to the "Bad" album just four years later), and it's funny how all his brothers and sisters and his parents are normal.

Unreleased Tracks: http://www.jacksonvillage.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=31


 * I don't see how you could even make this claim...if you actually look at the BAD era photos, he is still darker than he is now, while he may not be as dark as in the Thriller days there is still much more pigmentation. : ehmjay 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, if you're going to continue to bash Jackson, you could at least have the decensy to sign your responces. : ehmjay 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect the page!
You're stopping people from improving it, and the whole idea of semi-protection because of libel is bogus!





and replace thriller with that! --I&#39;ll bring the food 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are Jackson fans so demanding and impatient?--Crestville 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Crestville, if you don't like Michael, why have you been so interested about his talk page lately? Dionyseus 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's like when you have an ulcer on your inner lip and you can't help but poke it with your tounge even though it's unplesant.I like wikipedia and don't want to see it overrun by rabid blinkered fanboys.--Crestville 13:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)