This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is any info on the following link notable: [1]-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

probably not. :: ehmjay 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think so.-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that the Thriller era deserves to be expanded. It was the climax of Jackson's career. Surely it deserves as much attention as the 'scandalicous' issues pertaining to Jackson. I think that simply talking about HOW he revolutionized the music industry would be good, such as the moonwalk, video clips etc. Correct me if i'm wrong, but there has been apprehension to do this because some people think that there should be more about the scandals? I hope i'm not stepping into already battled grounds, but I really think that the Thriller section should be expanded. Trust me, it is from a neutral point of view that I make this suggestion, not out of any bias opinions. It only to balance the article, expanding 'thriller' would be a good initiative. -- Paaerduag 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think it would be difficult to expand the section, without introducing lots of POV and fan gush. The section seems to cover all the facts about the album. If the controversy section is larger, it is only because the facts are there to fill up that section. Jackson is more famous now for his controversies, than he ever was as a singer ^{citation needed}. --  Funky Monkey   (talk)  12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to expand it, but ´the problem it that it might be too POV sometimes, but I think it needs to be expanded. Thriller era should be an own section. And I don't agree that MJ is more famous now for his controveries that he ever was as a singer, that's a lie ^{citation needed}. Aeneiden-Rex 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the Thriller section in this article to the amount of information in the actual Thriller article, I have to agree that more needs to be put into the main article here. Thriller is afterall one of the biggest selling albums of all time (or biggest, depending on who you ask) and is considered by many to be one of the greatest albums of all time, 20 in Rolling Stone's top 500. This is all relevent information and considering that Jackson is a musical artist I feel that music should be the main focus of the article - not controversies (this is not to say the controversies do not belong, but that the music should be the key). As it stands in this section - the music is not the focus. :: ehmjay 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. This is a biographical article, therefore it is about the man, NOT the music. The music can be discussed in more detail on individual album and single pages. --  Funky Monkey   (talk)  18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All of Jackson's success in the 80s was due to his producer Quincy Jones. ^{citation needed} As soon as he got rid of him, his career declined massively ^{citation needed}. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 ( talk • contribs) .

I agree! I think Quincy Jones could have produced ANYONE and made them a star. 76.17.39.210 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To Funky Monkey: I think that the music has a lot to do with the person. The person is a singer. You don't normally see singer articles with no information about the music. That's just ludicrous. The music, the controversies. They are equally important, as they define the person. Most adults in the Western, and indeed entire, world have a career and a personal life. These should be documented in this article, the career being the music, and the personal life being the controversies. If there is too much scandal, nothing seems to be happening right now, as everything is well developed in the later years. However, if there is too much on the music, then the anti-jackson camp gets agitated and says that a plague of superfans has descended on wikipedia. People talk about change, but very little actually takes place, or more likely change does take place, but is instantly reverted by lookouts on either side of the debate. Right now, the article is unbalanced with less career and more scandals. It is like this configuration has been accepted as the 'norm' and from this we judge what comes in and goes out of the article. I say that 'success and controversy' is a very bland heading, which should definately be broken. AT LEAST 'Thriller Era' should be one heading. AT LEAST. -- Paaerduag 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As regards the above, see also biographies of living persons:

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Tyrenius 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Encyclopedia Britannica page on Michael Jackson. While this page does mention some of Jackson's personal life, most of the article is based around Jackson's music career - mainly because these are things that can be 100% verified, whereas most of his personal life could arguably not be. If Wikipedia is attempting to be as professional as possible - then shouldn't we somewhat follow in the footsteps of a professional encyclopedia? I understand that the beauty of Wikipedia is that everyone is able to contribute information and add information one might not usually find in other encyclopedias - but to say that a biography of a musician shouldn't focus on the music seems slightly rediculous to me. :: ehmjay 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just a request that the statement: "The People v. Jackson criminal case began in Santa Maria, California during the spring of 2005." be changed to state the specific month. I'm guessing this is referring to spring in California, but as I'm not from there it means very little to me (and probably many others). Thank you!

The introduction to the article claims the "Thriller" album sold 51 million copies. This is wrong. The actual figure is 47 million ^{citation needed}.

The Guiness Book of World Records site lists Thriller at selling 51 million copies. You can see for yourself here. One could argue that this number may be to low, but certainly not too high. :: ehmjay 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 47 million figure is confirmed, the 51 million figure is not. Only a few months ago the article had to be changed because it claimed 60 million, a complete overblown fabrication.

As I mentioned above, the 51 million figgure has been confirmed by Guiness which was the previous source thus it will remain as 51 million.

47 millions is an old number, and 60 millions is not an overblown number) ^{citation needed}. Aeneiden-Rex 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

: : 47 million maybe an old number is the "overblow hype MJ sales" department, but in the real world is has now really reached that figure in 2006. Yes The MJ hype machine now claims over 60 million, but that dosen't mean anything to people who don't look at this court jester of pop through rose tinted glasses and see him for what he really is - a very over-rated once upon a time time star who no longer sells well ^{citation needed}.

. Kojack 10:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"60m" is not "MJ-hype" machine states, but Jackson himself (in the video documentary "Private Home Movies" which fully applicable source, as well as "Living With Michael Jackson") as president of his own production company MJJ Productions. He recieves author and production fees from sales and as president he is legally responsible for those claims as tax authorities have the right to audit his records and seek tax-evasion charges personally against him (it is different from usual PR people who can "blah, blah" without any consequences -- just like in case of "billion-records" claims for Elvis or Beatles).

So information from Jackson is no any less "reliable" than information from record labels that used in Wiki for global sales of such artists like Madonna, Justin Timberlake, and so on. So if anyone wants to make profanation of Wikipedia's rules on this, then go to pages of the likes of Madonna and Timberlake and delete all sales information because nowhere those people entered Guinness book records for any album or single so the figures would be considered by some of you as "independent". And, by the way, the idea that Guinness is "reliable" and/or "independent" source is ridiculous, because many figures from there were just off the wall, like, say, claims of "billion records" sales for Elvis or Beatles that they published through years. They just use whatever unconfirmed information to put in the book so they could draw a bigger "wow-effect" and earn more publicity and money. Guinness book never had anything to do with reliability or independency.

And, finally, 60m figure for Thriller sales are very much reliable in the sense of reality and indirect sources confirmation. Thriller sells about 0.5 million a year only by SoundScan measures in the USA, and USA were 25-33% of Jackson's sales during last twenty years. Go figure, if 47m retail sales figure appeared in the Guinness in the middle of 1990s, and 51m figure appeared in 2000. Also, it should be taken into consideration that there is always a pair figures of sales for any high profile album: retail and wholesale. 60m was wholesale figure for 2003 year, when documentary "Private Home Movies" was aired. And the difference between retail and wholesale figure for such a big album can reach 3-5 million due to the widest spread of intermedia stock around the world. Retail figure has nothing to do with Sony Music Entertainment of Jackson himself since the company and artist receive their turnover and profits only from wholesales, and there was never return of Jackson's albums to the label, what not rarely happens to many newcomer acts who fail to get known enough so their albums/singles would be bought by listeners anytime later than the failed promotional attemt ends. So wholesale figure is 60m and retail figure is 55-57m. Since Guinness' retail figure 51m is outdated for years now, considering the rate of global sales of Thriller (basing on Soundscan reports for USA local market), claimed by Jackson 60m wholesales figure is perfectly realistic. And don't say you don't like wholesale figures, because else you will have to go to the page of Beatles and delete sales information for #1s album, which is from label and is wholesale figure. And I will look how well such "purification" will work there ;)) DenisRS 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a lot of good points! Personally I'm not much of a sticklyer for the number - 51 million or 60 million, its all close enough - however it would be nice to have an accurate number. Not only that your points regarding the other artists are very valid and I think should be taken into consideration when we make changes to the number. But let's face it - most people do not like to see anything possitive about Jackson these days. :: ehmjay 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"over-rated once upon a time time star who no longer sells well". that was funny, he no longer sells well, that's not true he stills sells very well) ^{citation needed}, not as well as before. Do you know how many records he has sold since the year 2000? There's no need the be hating. Aeneiden-Rex 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not hating, just dissagreeing with you and the other people who thinks MJ still sells like a shit hot act (typical MJ fans, they put everyone who says something they don't like and threatens to burst their bubble in the "haters" catagory). I know how many records he claims to have sold since 2000. I also know a more realistic figure. These sales may be number that would be considerd "selling well" for someone like Leif Garrett, but Jackson is selling nothing at all like he was at his height, and nothing at all like his fansites claim. 74.65.39.59 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson may not be selling as well as before, but as mentioned many times - this is not really an argument to say he isn't selling well. The re-release of his singles (in the Visionary Collection) have sold quite well and Thriller continues to sell extremely well. Also, please remember we cannot accept individual research, but rather have to take facts from reputable sources (Guiness, RIAA, etc.). Also, remember that tracking "overall sales" of an artist is no easy feat, infact it is practically impossible. Also - Jackson was a major sex symbol of the 80s. :: ehmjay 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (edited by :: ehmjay 02:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Until someone can give a reliable source (ie. Guiness, RIAA, etc) to show that Thriller has not sold 51 million copies - we must state that it has. :: ehmjay 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to butt in here. The article states 51m and this is referenced with a verifiable source. See WP:VERIFY for how this works. It doesn't mean it has sold 51m. It means a verifiable source has said that it sold 51m. Subtle difference. If another verifiable source is found that states a different figure, then it may be that the article has to include the fact that there are discrepancies. Tyrenius 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Raymone Bain official statement [2], Michael Jackson will be receiving the Diamond Award from World Music Award (15th of November, London) for having sold over 100 million albums but up to 750 million units.

Take a close look at the definition of 'comeback.' It can mean 'a return to popularity,' or a 'return by a celebrity to some previously successful activity.' Also do a Google search for "comeback failed" and you'll see that a comeback can either fail or be successful. Dionyseus 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Dionysus, you do make a very good point. I think it's inevitable we will get new matrial - whether or not he achieves the same status he once had (like many previous stars have done) will remian to be seen. And cheers to I'll bring the food, nice to know I'm not alone here! I'm having to deal with him over at the Brando page as well now! :: ehmjay 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The same guy? Why? -- I'll bring the food 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right...this I gotta see! :: ehmjay 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Read Gary Carey's "The Only Contender" (1976). Brando could have sued the author if any of the quotations attributed to him were wrong.

How does a book from 1976 contain Brando's thoughts on Jackson being a pedophile? Also - what happened to some of the comments here - someone has removed them... :: ehmjay 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No I have not, I don't really give a darn. Just so you know, next time you respond make it so it makes sence. No where did I not think Brando was gay, (although technically he's bi) I was refereing to the part where you said that Brando called jackson. :: ehmjay 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/26752004.htm

Yes, because Female First is such a reliable source, and a quote like that couldn't be taken out of context. :: ehmjay 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From which trial? And aren't you the one who claimed that Brando WAS a pedophile? :: ehmjay 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 trial for sexually abusing Gavin Avrizo. I said Brando's fans, I was never a fan of The Great Mumbler.

Sucking "Dean"'s cock? Which Dean? There's millions out there.-- I'll bring the food 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see what a photo of Marlon Brando engaging in phelatio has to do with Michael Jackson. :: ehmjay 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to ehmjay - please can you name someone who has been sucesfull in making a comeback that equaled their previous successes. Snowbound 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, when you get right down to it, I don't think any star truely does reach the same level of sucess they once had (Sure, the rolling stones are very sucessfull but not to the same degree the once were). However there are some artists who make a comeback and are extremely sucessful (not AS succesful perhaps ie the Rolling Stones) and those who don't really make much of comeback at all (now I cannot think of any specific examples off the top of my head and don't want to try to because I wouldn't want to be called a liar or something however clearly there are some artists who have tried to comeback and have not been sucessful. Also - it also depends on the types of artists we are talking about. Just musicians or do actors and such fit into that category aswell?). Hopefuly that clears up my comment from before - which I admit was not well written and should be clarified. :: ehmjay 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra in the mid-50's, for one. Guidedbyalan 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that why Presley was screwing Priscilla from the time she was 14? Anyway, his "comeback" was in 1968.

The Rolling Stones are still the top-earning live band in the world today, they are not as successful in record sales but there is no doubt they are as popular as ever. As for Jacko, as much as I like him as a musician, I would not like to see him tour. Personally, I would like to remember him for what he was in the 80s, a lot has happened since then and his image is not the same anymore and personally i dont like what he has become and I am against some of the things he has done and the way he chooses to lead his life. He also looked very ill when he went to court and I worry in his phsyical state if he could cope with a huge tour. The chances of a comeback on the scale of early 80s are practically impossible due to how popular he was then. Littlepaulscholes 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The drunk driving campaign isn't mentioned in the article but probably did happen. It needs padding out. Is there an official US site on it?-- I'll bring the food 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was personally thanked by then-President Ronald Reagan at a White House ceremony in 1985 for donating his Grammy-award winning song "Beat It" for use in Drunk Driving Prevention television and radio PSAs. Other celebrities have also helped to bring attention to the problem of drunk driving. PSAs created in conjunction with Recording Artists, Actors, and Athletes Against Drunk Driving (RADD) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) featured such talent as Aerosmith, Barry Bonds, Brian McKnight, Dennis Franz, Faith Hill, Jamie Lee Curtis, Shaquille O'Neil, Stevie Wonder, and Tim McGraw. -- [ [3]]-- I'll bring the food 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ceremony actually took place in 1984 and it was only a photo opportunity for the President in his re-election year.

All very well and good but it's not what the source says. I think you're probably right but this thing needs real sources.-- I'll bring the food 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is wrong. The ceremony was in May 1984, so Jackson was nearly 26 at the time (and very black). He also mentioned President Reagan in his address to the Oxford Union in 2001.

I doubt very much that THE AD COUNCIL is wrong...seeing as they are responsible for this stuff... :: ehmjay 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It was May 1984. Get used to it.

I figgured we should discuss this before I made a change, but I noticed someone removed Jackson from the "Cultural Icons of" 1970-1990 citing it as POV. I think it is safe to say that Jackson is a cultural icon from those decades - particularily the 80s. I think that if one would argue these then he should at least be in the 80s icon group. Either way, couldn't one argue that anything in those categories TECHNICALLY is POV so that the groups don't belong period, and since they do exist then you might as well classify people (I know that may not make sence but in my heda it does lol). Just wondering what others think. And please - discuss not make comments. :: ehmjay 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What's POV? And Jackson is an icon of the 70-90's, there's no doubt about that) ^{citation needed}. Aeneiden-Rex 09:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The category should be deleted, or each icon should be sourced by a reliable source as an Icon of that era.-- 88.105.98.172 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Icon of the 90s? That's stretching it...

I agree that if the categories are allowed to remain then anyone in it should be cited as why they are there. But what are you oging to cite? The fact that they appear in a book of "80s icons" or a rollingstone article or what. How should we handle this? :: ehmjay 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson was only an icon in the 1980s, after the early 90s his music became of secondary importance to his controversial personal life. ^{citation needed}

Please state whether or not you would like either both nicknames ("The King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko") or just "The King of Pop" to be present in the lead section.

The King of Pop; it's a phrase that many media personalities use, whereas one rarely hears the words "Wacko Jacko" (though it is often found in print).-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. This was last discussed only four weeks ago. There is no consensus to insert either of those terms into the lead. We can't go through this every four weeks. It's ridiculous. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the section heading "Visionary and Tokyo: 2006–Present" needs to be changed. Any thoughts?-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, having been around a number of musicians and other personalities's articles, I think that there should be a "Controversies" section-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section - no. It'll spoil the class timeline we've all spent so much time refining. BTW if it was you who put in all the proper citation text required for the footnotes i am EXTREMELY impressed. Leave the V&T bit until you think of something appropriate, but it does need updating.-- I'll bring the food 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The controversies actually have their own disambig page :I Michael Jackson controversies. Arniep 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of these are good reasons to not have a "Controversies" section; I also thought it might not be NPOV, but I was just wondering what people thought.-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And the citation's aren't completely done; there are two refs (32 and 38) that go to dead links-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely interested to see you have checked them properly. Good. Actually I'll give you a barn star for this at some point. 32 and 38 did work, the wankers at Guiness have changed their bloody site to make it crippled so you either buy the book or look it up via txt message. Of course I have a library near me and I will of course source the information at the nearest op, so don't worry too much. We'll do it via book.-- I'll bring the food 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked each individual site and made only one major mistake (I had to put some mirror sites in as well and remove possible copy vio links (those that go to Jetzi).-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the new image is necessary. Though it is recent it doesn't (a) have any importance (b) show MJ's face. These two factors make it a pointless picture.-- Ashadeofgrey 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually you can see part of his face including his lips and nose in the top one. In the lower one you can see his whole face. It is very hard to get an up to date free image of Jackson so we should be grateful for these (we can never show press photos as these are not allowed on WP). Arniep 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that other wikipedians will get involved. Both images aren't really good or useful.-- Ashadeofgrey 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing all recent images. IMO there are too many on the page and I don't think they really add anything to the article. Whether they stay or go, the linking to usernames in the captions needs to be deleted. I've never seen that done elsewhere and I don't see why we should do it here. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i've removed the user name. Looking at the pictures again, I strongly agree with removal. neither of the images show his face clearly enough and the second one is too far away to be useful in an article like this. I don't think being able to see his "lips and nose" warrants inclusion. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are not perfect but many free images aren't, however, we are encouraged to use free licensed images above fair use images so these should really stay and some of the copyrighted images should go. Arniep 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop putting personal or irrevelant pictures. Those pictures of Jimmy Safechuck and that one of Dempsey ought not to be here.

OK I removed them for legal reasons as they were taken on private property. Arniep 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that the pictures being "free" makes it a good reason to have them-- Ashadeofgrey 10:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current free pictures as of right now are appropriate and quite dashing to the article. It actually has a real FA quality to it at the moment which is fantastic.-- I'll bring the food 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, it does look ok. I guess I just needed to get used to them. (I still think we don't need them, though ;) but there's a lot of text and it makes it colorful :))-- Ashadeofgrey ( Talk) 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of little things -

• References - references should be correctly formatted (please see WP:CITE for various methods) into one style, and not left as wild links.

• • Example - This is how refs should be laid out -

<ref> [www.example.com Example title] ''Example.com''. URL Accessed [[September 16]], [[2006]].</ref>

• • • They should be after the full stop, and commas, like this -

.<ref> [..... 

,<ref> [..... 

• • • Not -

. <ref> [.....  

</ref>. 

</ref>, 

• • • Furthermore, multiple refs should be like this -

.<ref> [.....</ref><ref> 

,<ref> [.....</ref><ref> 

• • • Not -

. <ref> [.....</ref> <ref>  

</ref><ref>[.... 

</ref><ref>, 

• Fair use - all fair use image should have a Fair Use Rationale, see WP:FAIR for more information. To add a fair use rationale to an image, edit the page, and add {{ Pokefair}}, details of how to implement this template are on the talk page.

• The article seems good prose wise, but there's so many minor inaccuracies with this stuff that it needs a wee bit more work. Fix this up, and then re-apply. Happy editing, H ig hway ^Daytrippers 08:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

People on this page have claimed that the legitimacy of Jackson's children has been tested. What was the outcome of that test? last month, people said it would happen before september! what was the result? shouldn't the result be incorporated into the article. if the test has not yet happened, when is it going to happen? shouldn't that be in the article? -- Paaerduag 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read there was no such test taken because both parties (Jackson and Rowe) knew the legitimacy of the children. However they have been in a courtroom "battle" for custody. You can get some information here and here. However like I said - I have never heard any official word about these so called tests. I've only seen them mentioned by trolls on this wiki-talk page. Of course I could have just missed that newsflash. :: ehmjay 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was a DNA test. This is from Fox News:

"Jackson and Rowe have two children, Prince and Paris, while Jackson’s third child, a boy nicknamed Blanket, was acquired by Jackson when he used an anonymous surrogate. According to my sources, between the now defunct couple, Rowe is the only biological parent of Prince and Paris. This is how Michael Abrams, Jackson’s lawyer, described the situation in a letter on July 5, 2005, to Rowe's then-attorney Iris Finsilver: “As you know, one of our clients [Jackson] is the custodial parent of two children born by one your clients [Rowe].” He did not refer to Jackson as the children’s father. Four years earlier, Rowe characterized the reason she had the children in her testimony. “I did it for him to become a father.” A settlement now would be much different than the one that was drafted in July 2005. Rowe would likely get all the money Jackson has put in escrow since October 2003, when he cut her off from her alimony, and she will probably get a bonus as well. But the main thing Rowe gains here is the ability to see her children on a regular basis. The settlement comes at an opportune time in Jackson’s strange life for Rowe. Until May, he claimed the non-Hague country of Bahrain as his residence. Now that he is domiciled in Ireland, the settlement will actually be enforceable." ( 195.93.21.66 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

• The above comment refers to the Fox News article that can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215785,00.html - Ashadeofgrey 18:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that when citing the same source twice please follow these instructions (i have noticed that "the times" is cited 3 times in a row towards the end and that the official jackson site is used as a source 10 million times for the same page.-- I'll bring the food 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

<snip copy and paste> For instructions on citing a footnote more than once, please see WP:FOOT. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One should be particularly careful when deleting the first of multiple named references, because the footnote text will be deleted unless it is copied to the second (now first) ref tag.

This information is taken from WP:FOOT-- I'll bring the food 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If the text below belongs anywhere, it doesn't belong where I found it (the section dealing with Jackson's trial). I removed it and placed it here, maybe there is a place for it elsewhere (but to be honest it sounds a little silly to me).-- Pathlessdesert 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Jackson's personal troubles, he has also dealt with problems of others posing as him. Jackson has a wide range of performance and personal impersonators—ranging from worldly successful body doubles to performers. In the United States alone, the likes of E'Casanova and Edward Moss have played Jackson in films Back to the Future 2 and Scary Movie 3, respectively. Moss also covered the role of Jackson in the E! network's courtroom reenactments. Other impersonators like to keep Jackson's image clean, and impersonator Joby Rogers has turned down roles that defame Michael Jackson's image. The Connecticut impersonator (who is signed as the Michael Jackson) has said to have turned down roles playing Jackson in handcuffs or in other negative situations. According to his website, Rogers continues to portray a late-1980s Michael Jackson in a stage play, Ken Davenport's The Awesome 80's Prom, in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and formerly, Baltimore (local impersonator Matt Macis played Jackson there).

Maybe in a trivia section or something along those lines - but it certainly doesn't need to be in the trial section. However it is really well written and somewhat interesting infomation. :: ehmjay 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is taken from this site, which is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page for Michael Jackson:

"As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."

The statement nicely highlights the musical importance of Michael Jackson, and I believe it should be included in the opening paragraph of the lead (after the first sentence). Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you very much. UberCryxic 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is subjective opinion and not fact. Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. --  Funky Monkey   (talk)  23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is opinion, and like all opinions it is necessarily subjective, so no need for tautology. However, you also have an opinion regarding this matter, and I do not see why your opinion should hold more weight than that of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. UberCryxic 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I object in the strongest possible terms to this quote being inserted into an otherwise neutral introduction. The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the article and this quote heavily slants the article. It took months for us to negotiate the introduction. It is currently as NPOV as we could possibly get it. I believe that inserting such a slanted quote into the introduction would start another war as people attempt to balance the article to re-achieve a NPOV intro. Such a slanted opinion does not belong in the introduction. Again, strongest possible objection. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(most of this comes from Funky's talkpage) According to WP:V:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.

In fact, I am well within my bounds to include the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

And also from the same place: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. UberCryxic 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence, it does not matter that some here do not think that it is true or a fact. A reputable source gives it forward as an assertion, theory, or opinion (call it whatever you want), and as such I am well within Wikipedia regulations to include this material. Sarah and I were talking about placing it somewhere else besides the lead, something which I agree with. Any suggestions as to where? UberCryxic 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your statement that "it does not matter that some here do not think that it is true," for me personally, whether I think it is true or not is completely irrelevant. It is simply a matter of having an article which conforms to neutral point of view policy. I am not a Jackson fan or hater and am not interested in pushing one side or the other. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then per my suggestion in your talkpage, perhaps prefacing the comment with "According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" would make it more appropriate and NPOV. UberCryxic 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with including that information. Perhaps it should be added in the second paragraph, at the end after it mentions the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame provided that the clause comes from the R&RHoF. Michael Jackson truly is up there with the Beatles and Elvis. Also, I'd consider the R&RHoF a good source. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The addition will not be okay unless it's something in the form of:

Jackson's success lead to the Rock and Roll hall of fame asserting that "As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."

Personally i think it doesn't work as well with all the text but you'll need it to keep it in context.-- I'll bring the food 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me if it reads something like that. UberCryxic 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO I think that this information is relevent and should be included in the article, 'however' not in the opening paragraph for reasons that Sarah Ewart mentioned above. The article does not do a good enough job of looking at Jackson's career as a musician on the whole, thus I think the quote is relevent - however the first paragraph is not the place for it. As you said - this is an opinion but one of a rather respected source and is just as valid as having anything in the Elvis article refering to him as "the king of rock and roll". Perhaps we should discuss where it belongs? :: ehmjay 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All-right let's just do a quick vote here. If you support the inclusion of that statement in the article, write two things: either Support for Lead or Support for Body. The first means you agree to put it in the lead somewhere, while the second you agree to put it in the non-lead part of the article somewhere. Finally, Object if you do not want that statement to be placed anywhere within this article. Ok....

• Support for Lead Per above reasons. UberCryxic 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support for Lead provided it goes in the second paragraph. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you try to put it in the lead, you can expect "Wacko Jacko" to be going back in 5 minutes later. Neither should be in the lead. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a nickname at all, whereas Wacko Jacko is. By the policy that previous users have reached, Wacko Jacko will be promptly removed. UberCryxic 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous agreement was to remove both. Both used to be in the lead sentence. Both were removed. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not neutral enough for a lead. Sorry. And I won't be helping you write it now. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that does disappoint me. Anyway, as I understand it, the previous agreement was that no nicknames would be allowed. That means no things like "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko." This is none of that, and as such it is more than appropriate for inclusion. UberCryxic 20:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's not neutral enough for a lead."

If it is prefaced with "According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," then it satisfies NPOV. I thought we clarified this in our private discussions. What's with the change of mind (or heart) now? UberCryxic 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. I told you I wouldn't object to it going in the body and I don't. I have said from the start that it does not belong in the lead becuase it slants the article The lead needs to be neutral. Trying to put this in the lead is simply POV pushing. Taking "Accoring to..." in front of it doesn't make it any less POV. I could just easily get a quote and say "according to...Michael Jackson is frequently referred to as Wacko Jacko." Such things are slanted POV and do not belong in the lead. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so I understand before I make my reply, are you supporting for body then? Or are you waiting for further consultation? UberCryxic 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say I support it being in the body, however, I do not object if it is included in an appropriate place, such as the mention of the Hall of Fame, as we discussed the other day. If you put something like that in the lead, it's going to start up another edit war, which is something I'm really opposed to. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify because if you are, in principle, supporting for body, then I see no reason why we're arguing. Ideally I would like this to be included in the lead because it is very general information, but I'd be fine if it was included anywhere. UberCryxic 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I object for the same reason as funky monkey. It's simply not NPOV.-- Crestville 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Sarah, as I alluded to earlier, the lead and the article in general does a poor job of highlighting the importance of Michael Jackson from a musical perspective. In the lead of The Beatles article, you have statements like...

The Beatles were one of the best-selling popular musical acts of the 20th century.

The Beatles were an English music group from Liverpool who continue to be held in high esteem for their artistic achievements, their huge commercial success, their groundbreaking role in the history of popular music, and their contributions to popular culture.

For the lead in Elvis,

In a musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings, and record sales, and became one of the biggest selling artists in music history.[1]

The young Presley became an icon of modern American pop culture,

No equivalent statements exist for the MJ lead. The lead here does a very good job of highlighting his accomplishments (that is, listing off what he did), but it does a poor job at telling someone why Michael Jackson is important. Ok....he had the greatest selling album of all time; why is that important? Some of that has to be conveyed in the lead. I consider it POV pushing on your part to exclude the label "King of Pop," which is universally known and recognized, but I complied regardless. As long as it comes from a reputable source, there is no reason with highlighting the musical importance of Michael Jackson. UberCryxic 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then likewise, there should be no problem including negative views to balance out your POV. Can't you see why what you're trying to do is so contentious? I don't think you can compare MJ to the Beatles or Presley articles because, though they had controversies, they did not polarise people the way MJ has. We need a neutral intro or the edit wars will start up again. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They are being compared musically. There's a difference between that and your implication. How is it contentious to say that his fame is equivalent to that of Elvis Presley or The Beatles? I believe there was a study done a few years ago that found Michael Jackson was the most recognizable human on the planet. UberCryxic 05:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

<after edit conflict> No, you were just comparing the articles. Also, I didn't say I had a problem with you highlighting, through sourced comments, what many people consider the musical importance of Jackson. I just have a particular problem with you doing it in the lead. I said I don't object to it being in an appropriate part of the article. On an unrelated point, would you mind changing your preferences Special:Preferences so it stops marking all your edits as minor. It is very misleading having content changes etc marked as minor. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the basic fact that he is just as famous as Elvis or The Beatles is the closest one can reasonably come to undeniable. UberCryxic 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I make most of my edits as minor manually, simply because often I don't feel like explaining the change (after all, most editors simply check the different versions of the history anyway, so it's irrelevant). UberCryxic 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I SUPPORT BODY because I think that the quote is relevent, although not needed in the leading paragraph. However, UberCryxic does make a very good point that this article does not do a good enough job of highlighting Jackson's importance in the music industry. Once again, I must point people in the direction of Encyclopedia Britannica's Article on Jackson which does highlight Jackson's career as a musician very well. Also it is important to note that in their leading paragraph it does make claims such as "who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s.". If a professional encyclopedia can make such a bold statement in their leading paragraph - the statement we are discussing should not be so tough to put into the body of this article. But that's just my opinion. :: ehmjay 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Minor_edit. Minor edit means you're making trivial changes. To knowingly mark content changes as trivial is extraordinarily dishonest. Some people's watchists don't even display minor edits. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So far in this vote, we are divided between two people who want the statement in the lead, one person who wants it in the body, one person who, in principle, would not mind the statement in the body, and one person categorically rejecting. Should we give this more time or should I go ahead and put the statement somewhere in the body now? If the latter, any suggestions as to where?

Regarding the minor edits, you make a good point about the watchlists. That's really the only good reason for clarifications.

However, this, "Minor edit means you're making trivial changes. To knowingly mark content changes as trivial is extraordinarily dishonest.." is irrelevant because a responsible Wikipedia editor would check any and all changes, regardless if they were trivial or not. Think about it: even if a change has a description, editors normally check the history anyway. If I don't want to take the time, or more importantly if I don't have the time, to write a description for my change, then I won't. Check the history. UberCryxic 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that marking an edit as "minor" is not a sign of dishonesty or treachery. I just don't want to take the time of telling people about an edit that they can easily identify themselves, unless it's something really major. In those cases, I do write descriptions (check my history I have plenty of descriptive comments for edits) UberCryxic 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement has been inserted under the Bad section. UberCryxic 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the pictures. Initially, they were (wrongly) attributed to jmorelo, which is my nickname in Flickr. I changed that and, since I'm also a wikipedist, I put a link to my wikipage. Then they were both removed. I'm OK with removing whatever link (I just thought that was informative), but since the pictures (see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atalaya/169436395/ ) have a cc-by license, you do have to attribute them. Be it to jmerelo (my Flickr nick) to Jjmerelo (my wikipedia nick) or to JJ Merelo (my real name), they have to be attributed. Besides, I have seen in the stream of changes that somebody has already done so, but his changes have been reverted. So instead of doing it myself, I prefer to leave the position clear, before we start a change-and-revert war. JJMerelo 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they have to attributed per-article. The images are attributed to your Flickr link if you look at the image file descriptions.-- Ashadeofgrey ( talk •  contribs) 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen that. OK, then. JJMerelo 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to the sentence in the introduction says 60 million. I'm tired of all this changing, it started at 50 million and in the last few months its doubled, its ridiculous! The sentence should be changed back to 50 million, or at least the 60 million that are certainly more realistic! Alaka 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

io:Michael Jackson oc:Michael Jackson . Thank you 201.0.66.19 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So I just read this article on the BBC which discusses that Jackson's performance was cut short due to time restraints and the like. I think this should be added to the article...however I'm not the best at adding this sort of stuff (especially when it comes to citations). Anyone want to add some more info? :: ehmjay 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)