Talk:Michael Jackson

Hollywood Walk of Fame Picture

In the book "Michael Jackson: The King of Pop" (http://books.google.com/books?id=BVC9zltjf-EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI#PPP1,M1 pg 104)it claims that Michael Jackson's star on the Walk of Fame is registered as "Michael J. Jackson" because another radio broadcaster named Michael Jackson was already there, and you can't have the same name twice. The picture on the wikipedia page just says "Michael Jackson" so I think it might actually be the radio broadcaster's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.137.136 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism again

I have reverted some vandalism to the page- I don't know how to report vandalism. Can you take care of that Realist? Thanks. Marnifrances (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a warning, if he doesn't stop vandalizing wikipedia he will be blocked. — Realist² 11:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Worlds Most Famous Person/ Most reconised face

Here are some sites that claim that heading, realist 2 have a look through them maybe you will add some of these if you find them reliable.

http://famous--people.blogspot.com/

I will try adding more.

Oh, "blogspot" is a big giveaway, we don't regard blogs as reliable sources, to the extent that there is a bot that will reject additions of sites containing "blogspot" into articles; please feel free to find something more reliable. this page sets out broadly what is acceptable. --Rodhullandemu 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged anti-semitism recording text

In 2005, Jackson attracted attention from the Anti-Defamation League after it was discovered he had recently referred to Jews as "leeches" and their actions as "a conspiracy". [5] [6]

I'm removing this huge BLP issue until I or someone can correctly source Jackson's defense to these strong allegations. Since he disputes that this recording is legitimate etc. — Realist² 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It would also seem to be a little over-egging the pudding since both references appear to derive from the same source; a reliable third-party source without an axe to grind would be required to substantiate this. --Rodhullandemu 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is something that needs to be dealt with delicately, we cannot simply accuse one of the most recognized figures of anti-Semitic without really good sources. This essentially goes against the image and philosophy Jackson has promoted for decades. None of the sources can prove or state that it is 100% a genuine recording, with a figure like Jackson people are quick to believe anything. Tapes are manipulated quite easily anyway. This was a tape that someone leaked to the press, possibly an ex employ of Jackson, in return for money no doubt. We know all too well how low ex Jackson employes are prepared to go for a quick buck. This was also just after the trial, when he was at his weakest physically and emotionally, more than likely unprepared or uninterested in defending himself at that point. — Realist² 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect talk page?

Should this talk page be semi protected? It has been in the past. Looking at the history of the talk page vandalism far out ways and legitimate dialogue on the article content itself. Since the article is featured there technically isn't/shouldn't be much to discuss. Until something important happens in his life, say for example a new album or a new allegation, this article should stay rather stagnant. Thus would it be appropriate to semi protect the talk page until something of importance develops in his life that needs actual discussion? — Realist² 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Should the image right when someone clicks on the page really be from 1984? I mean, he's not dead or anything, he's still alive and making music, so naturally there must be a picture from at least 2000. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted to change it, really, I don't like the 1984 image and always wanted a dangerous era (1991-1993) image (it was the height of his international fame). However we can only use free images in the infobox (you probably know that already). The other free image we have is from 1988 but everyone hates that image. Then the only other free image we have is the statue, but the haters will strongly oppose that. This all said, if the tabloids are correct (not that I believe a word they say), Jackson will be releasing music and touring in the near future. We must wait and pray that we can get some images. — Realist² 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Known for his Awkward noises he is able to produce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.212.12 (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The vocal hiccup is mentioned in the article, as is "shamone". I haven't been able to find RELIABLE SOURCES for his beatboxing and talk/rapping yet. Recent album reviews of Jackson's work are shit, since they are dominated by a review of his personal life not the music in question. This has been a persistent problem since HIStory but I noticed instances of it as early as Dangerous (album). It might be better to get music reviews from non English sources instead. — Realist² 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't use the Oprah interview, The Diane Sawyer interview and their transcripts as reliable sources for beatboxing? He clearly demonstrates it in those 2 interviews. Marnifrances (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I could use the transcripts yes, but it would have to be the original transcripts, not those found on fan sites. Otherwise it's a copyright violation for a start. If we can find original transcripts those would defo be ok. — Realist² 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s examples like this that really underline how ridiculous the policy of using free media over fair use media is. Yeah, let’s take a crummy and wholly inappropriate free image just because it’s free. Jesus. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson O2 arena World Tour

Its rumored that Michael Jackson will have a World Tour being March 2009, including 10 shows at the O2 arena expected sell out all of them, here is the site that is selling the tickets. Just wanted to infrom you guys of this.--rafichamp (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/whatson/michael-jackson-tickets-article-7095.html

"Claims to be selling the tickets IF it happens". Policy here is that we wait for an official announcement from a reliable source rather than rely on rumours, but thanks for pointing it out. --Rodhullandemu 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It won't happen, not even if Jermaine says it will. Until we see MJ on that stage or that new studio album in a huge van on the way to the shop's it doesn't get mentioned. Why are us MJ fans so easily fooled? STOP listening the the press! They make up shit so that when it doesn't happen we feel let down. They make up stories so that when it doesn't happen they can make fun of MJ. When are people going to realize this. — Realist² 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, Michael Jackson has certainly lost a lot of fans in America, possibly all, but his international stardom still exists, I think he will do this, imagine the biggest selling pop star coming back.--rafichamp (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 has already sold 650,000+ copies in the US since February. Number Ones has been selling 5,000 copies consistently every week. 5,000 x 52 = 500,000+. He will easily close this year selling at least 1.6 million units in the US alone, all old material with barely any promotion. Don't listen to MTP (Media talking points) or FF (false facts), spread by the media. 2008 has been his best year for sales in quite some time. — Realist² 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is far from gone

Hey guys look whos in at number 1 on the billboards heres the link.--rafichamp (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=Top+Pop+Catalog

Hey hey and according to Billboard T25 has sold 688,000 copies in the US since it's February release, making it the best selling catalog album of 2008. 688,000 copies just off T25, wow! What are his complete sales in the US, including other albums, singles and DVDs? This is America! The country that apparently hates him! America only accounts for 25% of his market. His worldwide sales must be huge this year, he is one of the best selling artists of this year. Please, please, please help find more sources, I feel a strong revival. Thanx Rafichamp, nice to hear the good stories for once. — Realist² 13:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is nominated for "Worlds Best Pop Artsit", of the year at the WMA(World Music Awards) which is tomorrow, found it at mjjr.net, this is real so it shouldnt be too hard to find a source on google, ill leave that job up to realist 2.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys I found it, go to worldmusicawards.com and go to nominees 2008, scroll down and you will see Michael Jackson. As for who hes competitors, lol it looks like hes going to win, look at the artists your self, you will laugh.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also guys michael jacksons new album called king of pop(its a greatest hits album), is biggest selling album of the year(2008) in some country, just go to worldmusicawards.com and go to album sales.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson wins this WMA from a remix album, with-out a doubt hes releasing a new album in march 09 for sure.

If he wins the award for Worlds best selling pop artist 2008 I will add it. Nominations aren't important because he's one so many awards and been nominated for twice as many. — Realist² 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed addition - poorly written and concerns about WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and repeating same info

There is currently a dispute regarding the inclusion of this info in the Themes and genres sub section

The album also contained two rock songs like "Black or White", a rock song that uses a denatured but still invigorating Rolling Stones guitar riff and "Give In to Me", his second rock ballad, the kind of power ballad regularly dispensed by bands like Poison.

refs

Firstly it is poorly written. Secondly it's not written in a neutral manner. Thirdly some of it is mentioned elsewhere. Take a look at the audio clip of "Black or White" where some of this info is already mentioned. Fourthly there is clearly too much info on the Dangerous album already. As seen by the following;

Allmusic's Stephen Erlewine states that Dangerous presents Jackson as a stark paradoxal individual. He comments the album is more diverse than his previous Bad, as it appeals to an urban audience while also attracting the middle class with anthems like "Heal the World". The first half of the record is dedicated to new jack swing, including songs like "Jam" and "Remember the Time". The album is Jackson's first where social ills become a primary theme; "Why You Wanna Trip on Me", for example, protests against world hunger, AIDS, homelessness and drugs. Dangerous contains sexually charged efforts like "In the Closet", a love song about desire and denial, risk and repression, solitude and connection, privacy and revelation. The title track continues the theme of the predatory lover and compulsive desire. The second half includes introspective, pop-gospel anthems such as "Will You Be There", "Heal the World" and "Keep the Faith"; these songs show Jackson finally opening up about various personal struggles and worries. In the ballad "Gone Too Soon", Jackson gives tribute to his friend Ryan White and the plight of those with AIDS.

Can I remind editors that the article is pushing the upper guideline on word count and there is still lot's going on in MJ's life, the article will grow further and we can't go into every detail.

Please explain why this info is needed and how we can go about writing it correctly. If this is reinserted without discussion action can be taken. Third party comment would be helpful here. I have added a notice here to inform the editor in question. Further disruption needs to be dealt with, the editor has been warned before. — Realist² 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the full refs here but

• "a denatured but still invigorating Rolling Stones guitar riff" - would require sourcing, as would
• "the kind of power ballad regularly dispensed by bands like Poison" - which, absent a ref, looks dangerously like original research.

In any event, I'd say this granularity of detail doesn't belong in this article but more so in the articles about the tracks themselves; there is already a plethora of material to be considered, and this seems to me to be unnecessary. My 2p. worth. --Rodhullandemu 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

His Associated acts

His associated acts only lists The Jackson 5/Jacksons era. However he also had notable collaboration with R. Kelly (You Are Not Alone, Cry, and One More Chance), Lionel Richie (We are the world), Diana Ross (Ease on Down the Road), Slash (Black or White, Give in to Me, DS, Privacy), Janet Jackson (Scream), Stevie Wonder (Just Good Friends, I Can't Help It) and Paul McCartney (The Girl is Mine, Say Say Say, The Man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.226.98 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Associated act's does not mean that we list co-lab's. Just former groups. Cheers — Realist² 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson being Sued

Mj is being sued guys you can read further information on this; heres the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7733608.stm--rafichamp (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's being sued everyday, thus it lacks notability. If the plaintiff wins notability increases and it might be worth a mention. Again, Michael Jackson losing a lawsuit isn't a rarity, it happens every year. We are not here to document every legal affair. Sure that's obvious but just reminding everyone. — Realist² 11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text

I have removed the following text;

On 17 November 2008 is was reported that Jackson is being sued by Sheikh Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa for £4.7 millon at the High Court in London in a breach of contract case. Jackson stayed with Sheikh Abdulla, the second son of the King of Bahrain, in 2005 following the child abuse court case. Jackson may have to visit England to defend the case in person.

Jackson has been taken to court nearly one hundred times in his life. I agree this could become notable, but currently it's just another court case. It is not notable to Jackson's life at this stage, he eats a meal as often as he is accused of something. Until the court reaches a verdict and a possible settlement is reached there is nothing about this particular lawsuit that deserves a mention over the lawsuits he had in the 80's. Clear case of recentism at this stage. — Realist² 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure in the US being sued is an everyday occurance. In the High Court in London it is not. Being sued by a Crown Prince of a foreign country and a person who bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months is relevant. They recorded songs together and signed contracts. He paid the bills at Neverland. All of these points are notable. If it blows over in a couple of weeks then it should be removed. If, as I suspect theis is the next big scandal, then your actions are doing the article and the readers a dis-service. Please reinsert the text. simonthebold (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you believe the Prince's argument that he "bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months...songs together and signed contracts...paid the bills at Neverland" that's your right. It's usually accepted that their is a presumption of innocence in any decent country at least. We can wait the full 10 day duration of this short civil trial and find out what actually happens. And actually Michael Jackson has been in the High court several times before. It's really not a notable part of Jackson's history at this stage. If the court rules that he must repay a large sum of money it may be notable, but again, this will not be remembered in 4 years time and Jackson will forget about it before then. At this stage it's really irrelevant to Jackson's 50 year existence on planet earth. He's been through and seen a lot. — Realist² 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt has been made to reinsert the text, people, we are not a breaking news cite, read WP:RECENTISM, there are other venues for breaking news. We do not add text until it becomes notable, not because it could become notable. We are not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Please just wait the darn 9 days and see what develops. We are not a news site, this is not the venue to read about news. — Realist² 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it heartening for Jackson to see that his loyal fans are defending HIS honour so vigorously. BTW when did HE become deified? simonthebold (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS before you accuse me of personal attacks you should consider your own ethnic slur above.

What ethnic slur? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon123, your bad faith attack against me is completely unacceptable and highly offensive. Yes I like Michael Jackson, it's not a crime and lot's of people secretly do, I just admit it publicaly. However, I near single handily rewrote this article and turned it into an WP:FA article. My level of neutrality is not in question, I'm fully prepared to write all the shit about Jackson that feeds your desires. However everything written on this article, will appear in newspapers at some point. What we write is used by the press.

As for ethnic slur? That is such a ridiculous statement, I can't believe your even saying it. If you can't win a dispute using policy then be quiet, don't attack me personally. — Realist² 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If I said 'the US supreme court is a sham and breaches universal human rights because the US isn't a decent country', you might interpret that as an attack on your ethnic identity if you were a US citizen. I'm English and you attacked my ethnicity. Anyway I don't really care about that, I'm more affronted by your editing choices:

The points I raised were valid. I suspect you removed the comments about the court case, not because of any supposed breach of WP guidelines but because you are the self appointed guardian of this page and that you believe this gives you the right to determine editing policy. I suspect you do this because you are a devoted fan and no doubt this is in some way admirable. I fear the reality is that your choices are biased against any criticism of HIM. I note, for example, no mention of the widespread ridicule afforded to the large egotistical statues floated on the Thames to promote his world tour. No mention of the Jarvis Cocker incident at the Brits in 1996. Come to think of it the whole article is unremittingly positive; no section about criticism of the man even though there is a veritable industry in knocking him and exposing his eccentricities (I'm being generous here), countless books and documentaries etc. Perhaps balance and judgement come with age - who knows? All the same I think readers would like to know about the current court case where Jackson will have to appear (no doubt feigning some kind of illness as usual). I think you'll find the English courts a lot less tolerant of HIS theatrics and therefore the truth might even emerge this time. simonthebold (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS. don't swear, its a sign of immaturity.

Deleting comments that upset you, because its easier than dealing with the arguments is also immature. simonthebold (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm too tired to bicker about me being a racist pov pusher. In the mean while can you provide me with the writer of the daily mail piece so I can add it to the reference. — Realist² 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I never called you racist nor disclosed my race.

2. There is no author because I just made it up to make a point.

3. Although I made it up, the stautes were an object of ridicule, I remember it well.

4. I won't edit the article anymore, because I have a life and more important things to do ;-)

5. Sorry, if I offended you, but I really do think the article is too one-sided. You are well place to correct this - good luck. simonthebold (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You made it up to make a point!? This is a featured article! What on earth are you playing at? This is highly destructive. To sum up, you have made bad faith allegations against me, you have made BLP comments against Jackson on this talk page, you have breached NPOV multiple times, you have added deliberate mis-information to the article and acted in a WP:POINTY manner. Goodbye. Your lucky I'm not taking this to WP:ANI. — Realist² 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackson is to make an appearance in the High Court, according to this article, so it's possibly more noticeable than some of the other lawsuits. But it may be worth waiting until he actually shows up before adding it: As Realist 2 says, we're not a breaking news service.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Jackson has appeared in civil court, in person, many many times. He has appeared even in the London High Court in person at least twice before. I know the press are trying to drum this up into something exciting, but to Jackson it is just another lawsuit. Why does this specific one warrant attention over any other? Do we start documenting all these civil cases? Why is this case being isolated? Could it be recentism perhaps? Will this be important in the future? At this point it's impossible to tell. Probably not, only one civil case (out of court settlement actually) has sustained enough notability to be included in this biography (the 1993 settlement). This is such a none important issue in the long term and we all know it deep down. It's incomprehensible to suggest that every allegation (found to be true or not) should be included in this biography. If this case had happened in the 80's to 1990's, before the Wikipedia internet age, it would not be in the biography. No-one would remember it today.

At the very least we can wait the 9 days and just see what, if anything, warrants notability (Jackson appearing in person is not notable, it's the norm). Hopefully if he does go to the UK someone can snap a picture for our Wikipedia article :0 — Realist² 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not "Thriller 25" but "Off the Wall 30"

A respected fan site has published this. Obviously we can't use them yet as it's a fan site but they are notoriously accurate, infact Sony contacted them about the release of T25 before billboard. Please help lookout for third party sources on this so I/we can go ahead and make the article. — Realist² 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sony BMG confirmed to MJfrance that OTW30 was being released in Feb a few months ago. Also, Maximum Jackson got the news from Sony BMG AU. MJFC got it after that. We should expect an official press release soon. :) Marnifrances (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great news, a shame it couldn't have been released in 2008, he's had a cracking year sales wise already and it would have been nice to make it even more. — Realist² 12:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Conversion

Heard he converted to Islam. Is it just rumour or..?--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We wait for Mr Jackson to comment on any conversion. — Realist² 13:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[7] --SkyWalker (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story was disseminated by a notorious tabloid called the sun. Times of india are just repeating the suns story. Even if Jackson did wear a hat and sing a Muslim song to please and be respectful to his guest's, that does not mean he has converted religion. The conservative media did the same to Barrack Obama when he took part in a ceremony with his guests Tabloids have been talking this crap up for over a decade, move along folks. — Realist² 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Its sad that realist has taken the stance that converting to Islam is a bad thing that the conservative media does. In fact, this story has run in numerous papers across the world--109 on the last count. Until he says he hasn't, I believe it. --Zjhafeez (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)