Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 6

message: Apparently User: Asbjornsson (whom I think needs a nice 'ol BAN, by the way) has been stashing plenty of NPOV comments and links all over this page, with only a few going noticed. I removed about 3 instances of the following ref.:
"http://rockhall.com/hof/inductee.asp?id=1141 Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame: Biography] Info on Jackson in a timeline"
Add to that this load of, well, it goes with out saying... (added by you know who): "Have you ever seen or heard someone dancing and singing like Michael Jackson? Who can actually make a stage apparence like him? He is one of a kind. And he really has style. The Pop stars of today, with their intentionally distasteful way of dressing and monkeylike movements, are indeed not much in comparison."
Unless I somehow misinterpreted the edit history, I have no doubt that 'Asbjornsson' will continue doing this. Someone with the ability should prevent that user from editing this page again (if that is even possible, which it should be!). 03:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits need more review

message: "The article is woefully unbalanced, therefore not comprehensive, favoring an account of his commercial releases and his private life based on media sources, while almost completely failing to cover his basic artistic skills and talents as, primarily, a singer and dancer, and also actor, and his involvement in music production and choreography."
I agree. Somebody previously offered to make a section on his musical abilities which I agreed with, and which was rejected by other members. This is now appropriate.
== When America deals with racism and bias, then Michael Jackson, and countless other African-American stars, can finally find justice.  No doubt that Michael was silly to have kids relax on his bed with him, but it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that he is no mollester!   Double standards abound in America, thus a "tale of two countries" could be the topic instead of attacks on "MJ".  I'm not a big fan of his music, but on the human and humane level, I am angered by racist attacks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctorcreator (talk • contribs) .
"On this basis, the article needs considerable amount of additional material, sections such "Training, Style, Influences", comparisons or other measure of his abilities with professional peers, and so forth."
Agreed. Vice article - influences: Fred Astaire is a huge one for him. Training - Vegetarian, rigorous strict schedule, religious, says his melodies come from God. Style - Pop with rock (black or white), soul (rock with you), R&B (99% of Dangerous), Rap (2bad, Jam, track with wyclef on blood on the dance floor), dance (blood on the dance floor), gospel (heal the world, they don't care about us) , heavy metal (beat it) and industrial (morphine) influences.
"This imbalance also creates a bias towards MJ's (sensationalized) media image rather than a rounded treatment of all the relevant aspects,"
I completely agree. 210%.
"The lead is not neutral and not particularly readable"
I agree, but I note this is now practically fixed.
"The lead gives equal emphasis to MJ's entertainment career and his controversial personal life."
I actually believe that's unbiased.
"While this is perhaps warranted in the lead, freely mixing career and "media findings" without distinction is not IMO encylopedic."
Agreed, the article should not be like this all the way through, it should be more interesting than that.
""King of Pop" and "Wakco Jacko" are not equivalent terms. His marriages and children are included up front presumably only because of his notorious association with "children"."
Agreed, they are not equiv, but they are both warranted there, I feel his children are worthy of mentioning, he did after all dangle the youngest off of a balcony.
"there are too many citations, which is entirely distracting: ideally, the lead should be citation free, summarizing material developed (and cited if necessary) in the main text."
I agree here. Let's duplicate the material in the relevant part of the text and only have that cited.
"Business career is not covered A brief mention and a link to a three-paragraph article, Michael Jackson finances, do not adequately cover his business dealings. The Beatles catalog, his lavish spending, his sponsorship deals, are all of an MJ proportion equivalent to his "kiddy" stuff, yet they are given little mention."
I personally am currently writing a version of this article with information on the ATV buyout which is factually accurate, I will do this, anyone is free to add the lavish spending. Bashir documentary quotes on his spending between the shop owner and bashir would be good.
"*Periods of success, particularly Thriller area, not accurately presented This is a writing issue. I don't find the different stages of his career are well-explained. The stats are there, but there is no summary of the incredible wave of popularity around Thriller, the impact of the moonwalk, the cross-demographic appeal."
Agreed. Again, I have fixed this in my version of the article, this doesn't need doing by anyone else, I've got it covered and it will make it into the article at some point.
"The article skims over these areas, and relatively lavishes attention on his trials and publicized personal life."
Agreed! 
 
"MJ as dancer not covered His abilities as a dancer, which have been widely noted in many media, are not explained."
Yes. Needs a section on dancing, musical instruments, vocals (i'm working on this with the MMSS parts in songs where he sings certain notes (high, low, money).
 
"MJ behavioral theories are not mentioned There has been much published speculation about MJ's "behaviors". Considering the amount of coverage given his personal trials and tribulations, a summary of the analyses and speculation about his behavior deserves some mention."
I'm not sure a page on MJ's behaviour from some shrink who just reckons he's a paedo and is using their qualifications to push that theory is entirely a good idea.
"some of the sources are questionable. That every single source is online bothers me too."
Agreed, something needs to be from newspaper articles found in a library, and something needs to be from books with sourced ISBN numbers.
"Suggests (rightly or wrongly) a Google copy and paste job."
Interestingly, the article has a number of parts similar with the about.com article... I'm working on fiddling with that at some point.
"What about books, journals and (pre web) press coverage?"
Well said.--Manboobies 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly help with obtaining newspaper articles on Jackson from Factiva. And if you want to give me specific parameters for the question below on recessive/dominant characteristics for skin colour in biracial children, I can search one of the scientific/medical databases I have access to. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I can also give you some book excerpts. Just a quick search of his name in the database brings up a number of apparently relevant books about music and culture, including one about African-American culture identity that includes a discussion of his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley and the fact that he was accused of "molest[ing] a 14-year-old LA boy, whom he paid an undisclosed sum, rumored to be over $25 million." Let me know if you think some books and/or newspaper articles would help and I will make them available. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the FA page rejection (i feel this was a very helpful review and so I am discussing it here.  

message: "#1 Pop, #1 R&B" What is that? The global Pop charts? Or just the american one? (I think thats it) This is not America Wikipedia so it must be said. 亮HH 05:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: Made a new section from the special Berlin Controversey page.  It's pretty much a rough paste, though I also cleaned up some other sections and the part about Living with MJ.  Please clean up that section if you can.  Thanks! Avraham 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlin

message: The introduction to the article should be amended to make it clear that Michael is the biggest selling solo artist in history, as stated on hsi official website. This explains why he was given the title "The King of Pop" by his fans.—This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .
:Being the supposed biggest seller hardly "explains" the King of Pop moniker.  However, I do believe Elvis Presley is ESTIMATED to have sold more records than Jackson.  At the end of the day it can really only be an estimate. Chrisc21
:No, Michael has sold more because most young people have never heard of the obese drug addict, and all young balck people hate him for stealing black music. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .
:According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the top selling album of all time is Michael Jackson's Thriller . There is no official tracking mechanism for worldwide sales, so this figure cannot be verified. According to the RIAA , the top band is the Beatles and the top solo artist is Elvis Presley followed closely by Garth Brooks. However, in the top albums , Michael Jackson's Thriller takes second only to the Eagles. In the UK, Michael Jackson takes two slots in the top ten albums of all time with Bad and Thriller.  DavidBailey 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some are having a conversation about best-selling music artist, and have given a reference that shows sales of 60 million for the Thriller album, although it definitely is not an authoritative source. DavidBailey 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest selling solo artist

message: Can somebody please change the photo? 
There are some better photos of Michael Jackson and I simply can't bear to look at the one which is there at the moment.
:I think that's actually quite a good pic and you could do a lot worse!  Cheers, Ian Rose 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: The article claim's Thriller has sold 60 million worldwide.
The source for the claim though isnt reliable. It cites a fake IFPI list that circulated the internet earlier this year: the IFPI have never released such a list and the majority of the figures are inaccurate.
A better indication of the albums sales comes from the sleeve of The Ultimate Collection, and official box set released in 2004:
"As of September 2004, Thriller remains the biggest selling album of all time, with over 47million albums sold around the world!"
If you add Thriller's sales for 2004 and 2005, the album will be around the 49million mark now (it still sells about 1million a year w
CHINESE HISTORY RELATING TO MICHAEL JACKSON'S TRIAL IN 2005
*XIA (Prehistory - 1760BC)
*SHANG (1760 - 1110BC)
*ZHOU (1110 - 221BC)
*QIN (221 - 206BC)
*HAN (206BC - 220AD)
*THREE KINGDOMS: JIN, NORTH AND SOUTH DYNASTIES (220 - 581AD)
*SUI (581 - 618AD)
*TANG (618 - 907AD)
*FIVE DYNASTIES PERIOD (907 - 960AD)
*SONG (960 - 1279AD)
*YUAN (1279 - 1368AD)
*MING (1368 - 1644AD)
*QING (1644 - 1911AD)
*MODERN CHINA (1911 - PRESENT AD)
orldwide...).Rimmers 16:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that claim is highly disputable - ever heard of The Beatles? Elvis? But that doesn't matter - this isn't about who is the biggest selling - its about Thriller's sales and the inaccuracies within the article about the claim its sold 60million when it hasn't. Rimmers 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yawn. And if those figures are from that all time biggest selling list that was going around the internet recently, then they are false. The IFPI has never released such a list. ANYWAY: who cares - I'm talking about Thriller's sales, not all time biggest selling artist. Rimmers 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See info in Biggest selling solo artist section above. I have added references. DavidBailey 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that mjinf and mjjsource are NOT independent sites and are affiliated with Jackson, thus making them biased and unsuitable for a source for an encyclopedia.  The Guiness book of records states 51 million and is a verified and unbiased source, so that is the figure that is used here.  -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've decided to be bold and have removed all record sales figures reported by www.mjinf.co.uk. While some of these figures may be correct, the fact that MJINF doesn't report the source of its sales figures or estimates doesn't lend it much credibility. Until sales figures can be obtained from a record label or another reliable source I think leaving them out is the best option.--Knuckle 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller's global sales 

message: I think the headings need to change. Some of them sound clumsy. I also think there is too much info in the post-trial section. There's more text about stuff that happened in 6 months than stuff that happened over in decade. Just some thoughts. Street walker 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which headings? I also think the lack of detail in initial sections is a problem that should be fixed with more detail in them, rather than less in the latest news section.--Manboobies 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: Instead of writing Michael Jackson all the time, is it better to refer to him as Michael or Jackson? Street walker 12:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article it should be "Jackson". Michael is too personal for an encyclopedia. But here on the talk page it doesn't matter. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should we refer to him as? 

message: see:[]
The song was a blatent rip off of Jackson's first charity single combined with Earth song and Heal the world.--Manboobies 04:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen to the chorus of "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" and then listen to the chorus of "What More Can I Give". Notice the similiarities? Street walker 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than Earth Song and Heal The World being "world conscious" records - there's absolutely no similarity to What More Can I Give?  The concept is virtually identical to We Are The World. --Chrisc21 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No! there is, listen carefully, the verse in the intro is the same as part of Earth song. And Street Walker is right, I just can't stop loving you is in there too. It rips off songs from his earlier career. It's the most dervivative pap i've ever heard. And yet it's still great! --Manboobies 06:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah!  You're completely right.  They're all songs, consist of words and music, last about 4-5minutes - sheesh what a rip off!  Streetwalker!  Come on now. ----Chrisc21 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What more can I give?

message: As per Wikipedia guidelines, his nationality should be in the 1st para. Design 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: A while back there was a brief discussion - in the body of the article - of the quality of Michael Jackson's voice. It covered his technique (e.g. accurate staccato singing) and crucially listed examples of songs which show it to best effect. Does anyone know what happened to that section, what was in it, what were the songs? They were all quite obscure (i.e. not Thriller/Bad/Dangerous) I recall. Thanks. Stroika 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of his voice 

message: Could editors please keep the talk page for discussing how the article can be improved, not for discussing personal opinions about Jackson. The rule does not have to be interpreted rigedly: a certain leeway is allowed. But this have got completely out of hand, with obscenities, insults, and long off-topic posts. AnnH ♫ 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this. Let's keep the discussions on-topic, please. DavidBailey 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of the talk page

message: I belive that this article's introduction paragraph is too biased as it mentions 'Wacko Jacko' in the first line. Some have countered this much agreed with statement by saying that the paragraph is balance because it contains 'King of Pop', but there is a difference. King of Pop refers to Jackson's incredible musical talent (which the article does not mention to a great enough extent) whilst Wacko Jacko refers to Jackson's personal life. These are two very different aspects. The introduction, therefore, is saying basically that "Jackson is a good singer, but a freak at the same time". This statement is too biased, as it clearly outlines the article writer's opinion. The introduction should be absolutely neutral, not hinting at one opinion or another. I would like my vote to be added to the current poll asking whether Wacko Jacko should stay, and I say NO. --138.130.219.205 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God, why did you have to ... ;)  Monkeyman(talk) 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So now that there has been compromise on the section, those who wanted the names excised want to overrun everything. Just damn. At this rate, we may well have left the opening the way it was. --Mhking 13:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The nicknames were kept in the opening paragraph, but moved to the second sentence with a description of the origin (or common use) of the nicknames. Manboobies has ended his efforts to keep the page opening paragraph as it was through a never-ending voting process, and a compromise opening paragraph was submitted, discussed, and accepted according to Wikipedia's consensus process. Any additional efforts to alter the opening paragraph will be reverted as vandalism, unless a new consensus can be made. DavidBailey 10:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the edit to the opening paragraph. While I personally would agree with you and the language used, we must use the consensus discussion process to avoid another lengthy edit war. Please discuss changes here before making them. DavidBailey 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original poster. Although personally I think MJ is a cherry short of a fruit bowl there is absolutely no need to call him wacko in the first two sentences. The man has so many more notable qualities; eg: his guiness world records (3-4 of them if I recall) for being the best selling artist of all time is far more notable. Especially since the article goes into the whole wacko thing in detail further on. Unless there's serious objections I believe this should be changed immediately. - Glen TC (Stollery) 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the original poster makes a good point. 'Manboobies', as we should all be able to see, has succeeded in his attempt to keep the opening paragraph the same. The names are still there, and still just as irrelevant for an introduction as before. Common sense is no longer a part of the Michael Jackson page, because it has been wound in red tape so many times that no one dares touch anything for fear of banning and vindiction. The opening paragraph is also still biased, as the original poster has pointed out. I think that the red tape surrounding this controversial page should be cut, because at the moment the vote has only worked in favour of 'manboobies' who has kept the introduction almost identical to what it was before. Common sense must prevail. Nicknames have no place in the introduction. An introduction should be quick, clean and concise, and not be bogged down with nicknames, wordiness and otherwise irrelevant information that should be dealt with in the main body of the article. Currently, no one dares to change the introduction, which is a blatant contradiction to the wikipedia philosphy that anyone can edit anything. How can this article expect to grow and improve if so many restrictions are placed on what can and cannot be edited? we should allow the public to edit the introduction as they see fit. surely people who are vandals here at wikipedia won't bother reading this talk page or listening to a few silly rules preventing them from editing the michael jackson article's introduction. However, people here who really want to see the article improved are the ones being restrained by these rules, because they respect the wikipedia community and would not go against it. they are not allowed to improve the article's introduction, so the GOOD wikipedians are being blocked from improving a far from polished introduction, while the vandals can continue unhindered. this defeats the purpose of this whole vote, which was to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE. Now we can't because 'Manboobies', who orchestrated this little melodrama to keep the article as it was before - and no doubt also wanted rules to be imposed blocking the article being changed in the future, which have now been implemented - has won, and wikipedia as a community has lost. I say that the rules should be removed, because this article will suffer if editing and improving the introduction is restricted. --Paaerduag 07:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paaerdaug, no one is being kept from editing anything. The only requirement is that a consensus is reached before the opening paragraph is edited. Otherwise, your edit will be reverted. Manboobies wanted to keep the nicknames in the first sentence unexplained, that gave them legitimacy. At least with the current format, the terms, while noted, are not given legitimacy. If you wish to have a different opening paragraph. Create a new section and discuss it. If you get consensus (IE- most agree), then go ahead with your edit. I'm just trying to keep another edit war from happening, which benefits no one. DavidBailey 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: refers to Jackson's incredible musical talent (which the article does not mention to a great enough extent) - that's totally correct. Skinnyweed 13:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too biased 

message: ===New opening paragragh===
Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician and entertainer whose successful music career and controversial personal life have been at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century. 
If insistance further reference to his "behavior" must be made then I would add:
Jackson is most famous not only for his achievements as a musician, but for his seemingly eccentric behavior.
However personally I see no real need to add the second part as a reference to his "controversial personal life" has already been made in the first line, and obviously much further detail is expanded upon further on.
===Rationale===
As I have said there is no need to insult him in the opening paragraph when the nicknames are gone into in detail barely a paragraph or two later (yes I realise there was a King of Pop reference as well, but regardless the specific naming him as Whacko is uncalled in the opening couple of lines).
I would like to remind any objectors that WP:MOSBIO states:
===WP:MOSBIO Opening paragraph guidelines===
The opening paragraph should give:
#Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))
#Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)
#Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)
#What they did
#Why they are significant.
===In summation===
As such the reference to media nicknames in the opening lines is far too specific and I believe any user who is insisting that they remain is simply looking to discredit the subject. Finally, suggest anyone who has a problem with this to inspect the George W. Bush article, an article whose subject is more contraversial, has many more critics and has a notable "nickname", and whose opening paragraph reads:
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas.  He is currently in his second term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009.
Infact there is no reference to criticism nor "Dubya" until the eighth paragraph
I await your thoughts, - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? I think this is an ideal solutiuon, though from what I've read, everyone seems to be arguing the same point - the nicknames should go - but agressively and vindictively as if they are up against the world. Obviously the nicknames should be mentioned later in the article, because they are very significant. For Good God's sake can you just change it now and leave in at that? Thank you Stollery.--Crestville 10:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been out of pocket much of the week. I have no problem with the new opening paragraph, as long as neither name is included (I have been of the 'all or nothing' mindset -- either have both names or neither one). The descriptions within the bounds of the article are likewise satisfactory -- I'll have to find the original reference to his own PR people (or Jackson himself) creating the "King of Pop" name (I seem to remember an AP or Reuters article that explained that, but off the top of my head, I cannot recall exactly where/when I saw that). --Mhking 13:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can remember, the first person to use the term King of Pop was Liz Taylor at an award show when she presented Jackson. :: ehmjay 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just went and read the site, and it looks much better to me. Showing no bias and summing up Jackson quite well. :: ehmjay 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not appropriate that the opening few lines insult the subject of the article 

message: As such the reference to media nicknames in the opening lines is far too specific and I believe any user who is insisting that they remain is simply looking to discredit the subject. Finally, suggest anyone who has a problem with this to inspect the George W. Bush article, an article whose subject is more contraversial, has many more critics and has a notable "nickname", and whose opening paragraph reads:
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas.  He is currently in his second term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009.
Infact there is no reference to criticism nor "Dubya" until the eighth paragraph
I await your thoughts, - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? I think this is an ideal solutiuon, though from what I've read, everyone seems to be arguing the same point - the nicknames should go - but agressively and vindictively as if they are up against the world. Obviously the nicknames should be mentioned later in the article, because they are very significant. For Good God's sake can you just change it now and leave in at that? Thank you Stollery.--Crestville 10:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been out of pocket much of the week. I have no problem with the new opening paragraph, as long as neither name is included (I have been of the 'all or nothing' mindset -- either have both names or neither one). The descriptions within the bounds of the article are likewise satisfactory -- I'll have to find the original reference to his own PR people (or Jackson himself) creating the "King of Pop" name (I seem to remember an AP or Reuters article that explained that, but off the top of my head, I cannot recall exactly where/when I saw that). --Mhking 13:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can remember, the first person to use the term King of Pop was Liz Taylor at an award show when she presented Jackson. :: ehmjay 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In summation

message: This is already discussed in detail further in article - DO NOT REVERT THIS WAS CONSENSUS ON TALK PAGE discuss there BEFORE changing - changes without WILL BE CONSIDERED VANDALISM. - Glen TC (Stollery) 08:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went and read the site, and it looks much better to me. Showing no bias and summing up Jackson quite well. :: ehmjay 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DONE. Sentence removed from first paragraph

message: I can see no harm in putting this picture up to illustrate and interesting tale from Jackson's life. I feel that this article lacks good images of Jackson as is illustrated by the use of album covers portraying his image to "fill in the gaps". I would point out that featured music artiles tend not to use this approch. However, SixOneSix or whatever the name is, is persistant in removing this image claiming I "lack justification". How is this so? I'll revert their edit and then let the rest of you decide on here like civilised adults (!) and not petulent children who just revert edits without a proper explaination. And, with a bit of luck, this will turn into a big edit war, just like the nickname thing! Won't that be fun! (BTW, the nicknames should be moved)--Crestville 10:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Lets compromise. The picture is OK. The bit about the repeated kissing is not. It is placing interpretations on the picture based on what someone thinks TODAY, not what they thought in 1996, before Wikipedia began!! We should not try to rewrite history. Wallie 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably, yes. But to be honest I didn't actually write the caption, nor did I upload the image. I never really read the caption and if I had, I probably would have changed it. I continued to resotre it (as I've said above) becasue this page lacks proper images of Jackson, because it draws attention to one of the more interesting tales of his life and because I do not like to give in to vandals. Thanks for helping though.--Crestville 13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That is a very honest statement. I think you have very good qualities as a person, when you come out with a statement like this, especially given recent events.  Wallie 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson at the 1996 Brits 

message: Hi ! Can someone upload a personal, good and recent (less than 5 years) picture of Michael Jackson on Wikimedia Commons ? In France, we can't use "fair use" rule. It is very strict, so we can't upload a lot of picture. Our pictures must not violate any copyright. Thank you for your help, and sorry for my english. SpeedDemon74, from the french Wikipedia version.
:What a nice French person. (English CAPITAL "E". I know your game, son)--Crestville 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is never any need to be rude like that, ever. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not being rude. It's hard to be rude by calling someone else "nice". That's a bit wet.--Crestville 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's called sarcasm, and it's rude to extra-lingual people. --138.130.218.188 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wans't being sarcastic at all. He genuinely was nice. Frankly I think you should be slightly ashamed for assuming such.--Crestville 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need your help for the french version of Wikipedia ! 

message: Should not the article mention more about Jackson's financial problems, especially his $170 million debts?
::arguably, yes we should add those, however since it is something that there is no true hard facts on (most are projections, or rumours) and no one has access to his actual financial statements, it is my opinion that this shouldn't be placed in an encyclopedia article dedicated to facts about the person. :: ehmjay 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what would that be pray tell? - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debts 

message: Something is really messed up in this article's formatting. Quite a few sections appear to be duplicates, and differing from each other. --maru   (talk)  contribs 19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article formatting 

message: I'm assuming that 99.99%-100% of people here hate Jackson? I agree that he's a weird person and all that, but I've grown up hearing all of this. I've heard that he's a sicko, and used to be black. But when - believing this - i saw the video for 'Earth Song' I thought that maybe he isn't such a sicko after all. I mean, he does care about the planet, and it seems that the media and almost everyone in the world has conveniently forgotten about that. Is the world really such a mean place? I mean, it's kind of sad that everyone sees through two holes in a box, not looking at the wider picture. And I thought this was an age of equality for all, AND equality. but it seems that this world just LOVES to pick targets and keep on firing them missles, over and over again, until finally we all jump on the 'Let's criticise Jackson!' bandwagon. I know that people here will immediately turn on me for my opinion. In fact, i'm sure there will be smart comments about me being a superfan (which i am NOT) and other such ludicrous nonsense. This post has NOTHING to do with the article (in fact, i'm sure someone will pick on me for that as well, saying that this post is useless and should be removed). But i'm just wondering what others (that won't shun me) think. I mean, Saddam Hussein was a nasty man, but not even HE got this amount of negative media attention, and worldwide hatred. --138.130.218.188 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just of interest, the 2005 Michael Jackson molestation trial page now claims that Jackson molested "an elephant" among other things, and that the jurors thought that the prosecution's case "just wasn't enough" to convince them that the elephants were molested. all i can say is... RIGHTIO... --138.130.218.188 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HANDBAGS!--Crestville 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PUPPETS!--161.74.11.24 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yeah mate. If you can't engage in adult conversation without getting offensive and defensive why did you post your opinion in the first place? Come on now Jimmy Dean, lets all go home.--Crestville 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally speaking, Only off the Wall and Thriller were met with unanamous 5 star reviews. Just because someone opposes the Iraq was doesn't mean you have to like them. Look at George Galloway, or even Saddam Hussain (I can't imagine he approved). Yes, Jackson has his qualities, but I still don't lke him.--Crestville 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just incase my IP address has changed again, I am the original poster of my opinion. People here are once again falling into an old pit. Another war has emerged. Can't people here just talk about Jackson in a civilized way with comments that are FACTUALLY ACCURATE and without offensive one-liners left right and center? I thought it would a good opportunity to see other people opinions (which are mostly the 'OMG FREAK' opinion) and compare them with my own. After all, I am still slightly unsure in terms of Jackson. Crestville, you claim that to be truths the fact that he has illegitimate children, which has NOT been confirmed. You cannot simply make a judgement based on limited facts. For example, perhaps the reason why Michael Jackson's children are white is because both the wives are white, AND the fact that Jackson has vitiligo, which could have passed on to the children, eliminating the chance that they would be black. Also, you claim he is egotistical because he floated a statue of himself down a river. Where and when did this happen? Even if it did happen, surely an egotistical person would not go around donating MILLIONS of dollars to charity and singing about a changing world. in regard to his performance of 'earth song', you make it seem as though you really think that Jackson was posing as jesus during his performance at the 1996 brits. How is this so? Normally the person who is singing the song stands in the  middle of the stage and is the centre of attention. not much good singing in the back is it? and also, if you think that he wore white for some religious reason, how do you know that it wasn't just a "wardrobe error"? And being awarded 'artist of the millenium' doesn't make jackson egotistical. in fact, i'm assuming he didn't pick himself to win the award. normally other people pick the winner of an award, not a nominee. You say that jackson is manipulative, and manipulated the family of his accusers. How exactly did he do this? is there an PROOF? Perhaps the family is manipulating evidence to serve themselves and paint jackson as the typical child molester. I mean, just because he is erratic and loves children, people immediately assume that it is in a sexual way. At least the jury weighed the evidence fairly, despite outlandish claims of there being three superfans in the jury. such wild rumours only bog down the facts. and you say he is a danger to his children? How so? mentally, physically? this may well be true, but have you gone into jackson's home FIRST HAND and seen him take care of his children? he makes them wear masks so that they are not criticised and ridiculed as 'freaks' like he is. Then you went on to discuss Jackson, and even though you vehemently denied doing this, you inadvertently compared Jackson to Hitler (why else would you include the Hitler reference?). What you are saying is that killing 6 million people is comparable to vitiligo and plastic surgery, and UNPROVEN claims of child molestion, while trying to protect a few animals and not eating meat (why is being vegetarian a great thing? why add it in?) is comparable to donating MILLIONS of dollars to poor children and disadvantaged children around the world. I hope that you can respond to my comments in a calm and civilized way, crestville, and anyone else for that matter, who would like to participate in this civilized debate. --138.130.216.70 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Me the original poster again): I'm aware of that crestville, and sorry if i insulted you. but, correct me if i'm wrong, but I saw for a few brief seconds a while back this huge argument which erupted between you and an anonymous user of wikipedia. this user accused you of racism and you struck back by claiming that you would block him. at the time I thought it was a board clogging display that served no purpose other than to disrupt wikipedia's community. i am sorry that I made assumptions about you based on that little... incident. It was just hard to miss, being at the bottom of one of the most controversial articles on wikipedia. I totally agree with you that I should research my answers more, and I hope you do the same. I will come back in a day or so to rebut your case. --138.130.216.70 13:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Michael Jackson attacks, to the degree he gets, are unwarranted. Skinnyweed 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an opinion... 

message: I appreciate the wish to warn the casual editor about changing wording, particularly in the lead, without first discussing it.  But nevertheless I have recently removed two warnings   because they incorrectly describe change without consensus as "vandalism".  It can certainly be rather disruptive and perhaps some warning is merited; however the term "vandalism" on Wikipedia has a specific meaning and should not be used for disputed content.
None of this is intended to deny that defamatory content must be removed immediately and people who insert it should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious vandalism warnings

message: Is that a real picture of Michael Jackson? It looks like a painting? Can we find something, anything that looks more,... well,... encyclopedic? Wallie 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the photo from his police mug shot. --Mhking 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No it wasn't. I saw that picture years ago.--Crestville 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: Why hasn't this being mentioned in the article?It seems that aspect of Jacksons' talent is overlooked too often.Here we have the greatest dancer of alltime and it's not stated in his article.Let's see a change in that direction.
::while as a Jackson fan I would agree that he is one of the most talented dancers (especially considering he is untrained) I think this can be argued as a matter of opinion and probably shouldn't be mentioned in a factual encyclopedia article. While perhaps it should make mention of his popularization of the moonwalk and being considered one of the finest dancers in the pop music world, I think to classify him as the Greatest Dancer of All Time is a little much. Beside, I beleive Bob Fosse among others would hold that title.
::But I agree, someone should metion his incredible dancing talents. The man is a genious.:: ehmjay 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest dancer of alltime. 

message: The article mentions Jackson's oldest two children, but not the youngest one, aside from a brief mention of the time he dangled the baby over a balcony.  The article should mention the name of the baby (Blanket) if nothing else.  Ideally I'd like to see a biography of Jackson's family which includes the names of all 3 children and their birthdays. 68.38.127.139 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know the dates? If so I can work them into the article. The full names of the 3 kids would also be helpful. I was under the impression "Blanket" was a nickname.--Crestville 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the information I found: Feb 13 1997 is the birthday of Michael Joseph Jackson Jr., who Michael Jackson calls "Prince."  Apr 3 1998 is the birthday of Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.  Some unknown date in 2002 is the birthday of Prince Michael Jackson II, who Michael Jackson calls "Blanket."  These nicknames appear to be in place of their real names because I see Michael refer to the children by these names all the time, for example this CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/27/jackson.japan.reut/index.html   -Okonkwo 68.38.127.139 11:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe not  but they're still a big part of his life. He acts as a father to them--Crestville 12:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you trying to help or just prevent me from getting anything done?--Crestville 22:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive that "Blanket"'s real name is Prince Michael Jackson the Second nicknamed and more or less always refered to as Blanket. :: ehmjay 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe not marge, because this article is already vwry long, but perhaps we could incorporate the relevant information from that page onto this main article.--Crestville 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most good wiki's are long. he is a very interesting complicated person.--88.105.110.49 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not denying that, but where they get too long we break them down into smaller articles
linked to one bit main one. The relevent information should be mentioned though.--Crestville 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest baby  

message: I was surprised by the last sentence in the introduction which stated that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam. I clicked the reference link, but the site seemed at least temporarily unavailable. Also, I looked around on Google for anything suggesting that this statement was true, and found nothing but accusations about Nation of Islam trying to brainwash him into giving up his business to them (which really didn't explain if he was a muslim or not). Can anyone give a real and objective reference for this? Otherwise I suggest that sentence be removed from the article, and the topic of his religious affiliations be left until he actually makes a statement about them himself. Jonatan Crafoord 21:56, 29 May
:I didn't write it but I'm sure I've heard things to that effect (apart from the brainwashing, which I doubt is true). I would also explain why he's building a mosque on the grounds of his home in bahrain.--Crestville 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a google search and this was the first site I found. Nothing about brian washing on here!--Crestville 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see, so WorldNetDaily.com says that the New York Times says that he has converted to Islam? And proof of this is that he has travelled to Bahrain to relax? Jonatan Crafoord 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, no. That would be a differant link. Here's another --Crestville 22:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And here's another that also mentions the mosque on his land --Crestville 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "According to sources in Bahrain" it says in the first article, and the second article doesn't mention Jackson being a muslim, just that he has donated money as thanks for their hospitality. Has there been any statement from MJ's press people about the supposed conversion? I'm not saying all of this is rumors, but I'm just not saying it's not. If we're not sure that this is a fact I think it might be a good idea to either remove it or at least state that it hasn't been confirmed. Jonatan Crafoord 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently, it's located in Bahrain :-D Jonatan Crafoord 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, are you changing it? Jonatan Crafoord 22:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is locked and I'm a new user. Jonatan Crafoord 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'll try using "editprotected". Sorry I'm a newbie... Jonatan Crafoord 08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please tell me if I'm doing this all wrong. Jonatan Crafoord 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First off, I don't think it belongs in the introduction. I think it should be moved down to "The trial and aftermath: 2003 – 2006", after the first sentence where it says he relocated to Bahrain. I suggest a sentence like "There has also been rumors about Jackson converting to Islam.", sourced with the same article that is used as a source now. Either that, or remove it altogether. I actually favor removing it, because I've only seen that one very vague article stating it, and my (most subjective) experience of people converting to Islam is that they generally make a fuss about it. Jonatan Crafoord 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and while you're at it, under "Success and controversy: 1982-1992", inside the brackets in the second sentence, it should be "a black artist" not "an Black artist". Jonatan Crafoord 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It only speculation. No comfirmation has being made by Jackson that He's a muslim. It will be like me stating a a piece of info as a fact about you when I hear a speculation about it. It's totally irresponsible. Also, It definately dosen't belong to the introduction of the article. No doubt about it, no 2 ways about it. It must be moved to a more apprioprate section and stated as speculation rather than a fact. --161.74.11.24 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MJ and Islam