Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 13

message: CNN reports that Jackson died of heart attack today ... MatjazHegedic 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death? 

message: Why is Michael Jackson getting a co-writing credit on the Thriller song? In the Thriller album booklet, Rod is listed as the only composer of this song, so i'm gonna remove Michael's co-writing credit from that page, unless someone has a source for it. MatteusH 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson getting a Co-Writing Credit on the Thriller song...? 

message: why is wacko jacko not mentioned its a main stream term for him - Unsigned
I agree, and I think it is probably used in the press more than 'the King of Pop'. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be changed to:
Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958), commonly known as MJ as well as the "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko",...
(I can't sign in on the machine I am using right now) - WhizzBang 195.149.78.11 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the rest of the world thinks MJ isn't 'wacko' - that explains a lot. And what's up with all the anti-US bias, Realist?  Did you have a horrid experience at a McDonald's or something???  65.69.81.2 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other known names 

message: This article fails to mention the las vegas show that micheal jackson is reportedly planning, and the extravegant way in which this permanent show will be promoted.
That's because this is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mirror. We don't report on every little gossiping or dubious story.UberCryxic 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegas show 

message: Hey guys, earlier I wanted to change the phrasing to just "over 100 million." I simply want to do this to make the reading flow better. And if you think about it, what's 4 million next to 100 million? Not much. Imagine if the figure was 1 billion and 40 million. That 40 million is just as insignificant to the billion as the 4 million is to the 100 million. And it doesn't change the claim of the source in any way at all; sales above 104 million are also above 100 million. And the two numbers are close enough that saying "above 104 million" and "above 100 million" does not imply any profound ontological differences....not when you're dealing with Michael Jackson-like numbers anyway. I recently updated the figure in Bad to going from "over 30 million" to "32 million," using a citation I put in the Bad article as my jumping point. Here I think that extra 2 million is relevant (mainly, though not entirely, because it's mathematically more relevant to 30 million than 4 million is to 100 million). On top of that, 100 million is just a nice, round, and more than quasi-accurate figure that leaves a better taste in the mind of the reader than "104 million," which seems clumsy stylistically. Now, on the album discography page and the Thriller album page, the 104 million figure can and should stay because those figures should be as reliable, precise, or consistent as possible. But on the article for Jackson here, this proposal just makes sense to make the reading go smoothly.UberCryxic 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care much about this, but I do not see why 100 million flows better than 104 million, and I don't get the logic of having the correct figure on the Thriller page, but a different number here - you need a round number of course, but why not 104 million? Tvoz |talk 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with "104 million". I see nothing wrong with "over 100 million". But "over (or exceeding) 104 million" looks silly because it's trying to be precise and loose at the same time. And "100 million" flows better simply because it's two syllables less.--Shantavira 09:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when are we concerned about syllables?  That applies to reading aloud, not reading a page. Tvoz |talk 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, it's probably 104,395 million or some number like that. And I don't agree  that it's silly or overly precise - I knw what you're referring to - like when one says "over 72 people"  - but over 104 million is different to me.   My more important point is that there's no logic to including a colloquial rounded number here and a more precise rounded number there. But do what you want. Tvoz |talk
My logic, which is probably not all that great in this case, is that since this article is about Michael Jackson, and not Thriller specifically, we can take some shortcuts to make the reading easier. But in the article about Thriller, we'd want to be as accurate as possible.UberCryxic 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said I don't care either way,  but I have to say it is ridiculous to suggest that it is easier to read 100 million than 104 million.  It's a number. Most of us read silently.  I don't get what your "concerns" are, but do what you want. It really doesn't matter at all. Tvoz |talk 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good - then if you ever have a megahit record, hope you'll donate the royalties on the pesky 4 million over 100 million  to me.  Or the charity of your choice, of course. Tvoz |talk 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thriller and 100 million

message: 172.141.68.168 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  success of entire career 

message: :"Michael Joseph Jackson (29 August 1958), commonly known as MJ"
Could anyone involved in this article please tell me which book or reliable journal article informed us at Wikipedia that Jackson is commonly referred to as "MJ"?--Manboobies 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen the name used in any such context. Could it be that this information is incorrect?--Manboobies 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But if it is common, surely there is a source for it? Or some sort of way of verifying the statement is true? This is the first time I've heard "MJ" and I am quite the fan of Michael Jackson's Epic output.--Manboobies 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has the MJ symbol on the cover of his HIStory album, maybe on some of the later albums too, but the HIStory cover is probably the easiest place to find it. --VpvFin 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so it's a marketing strategy, and not a commonly used name? Perhaps the article should reflect this in the introduction?--Manboobies 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was hoping you wouldn't say Google was the source. In this case Google hits are being used to prove the veracity of the word "common" in the lead in conjunction with the alleged name "MJ". It is not allowable because there is no dictionary definition of "common" meaning over a million hits on google. The only way we can say something like that is if a reliable source says it. Checking Google and using it as proof of concept is in fact original research, unfortunately. I would suggest the material is removed. Please see Wikipedia policy on original research. --Manboobies 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I qualify, however the initials are used by CNN here Addhoc 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are nicknames mentioned in the lead of any featured articles? Really those are the only articles that should be used as reference points. The staunch requirements for "MJ" being included in the lead are quite clear. No unpublished material. Google hits are unpublished material, furthermore they are in fact generated by a computer, not a reliable, recognised publisher of peer reviewed information. If you are to posit MJ as a commonly used nickname, there must be a source explicitly stating this. Otherwise it will have to be reduced to just "also known as MJ" or some such, assuming the CNN source just posted is a reliable source, which I would posit is perhaps not the case. --Manboobies 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also known would be fine. I question the CNN source as it mentions Jackson only fleetingly.--Manboobies 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No because it's not commonly known. just "known".--Manboobies 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If the case is that MJ is not "commonly known" in a way at least in which we can use a source to verify it, given that I question its "grass is green" nature (not everybody knows the term MJ, including fans), it should be removed. If the sentence will not flow, than other words are available in a thesaurus.--Manboobies 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If global perspective is the issue here with the nicknames, then where is the source(s) that show which nickname is more common than the others worldwide? Even then though this is still pretty subjective. To keeps thing unbiased, there should be no nicknames in the intro, and instead mentioned in the bulk of the article in their relative context--58.169.52.101 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the anon above, if you look at the archives (I believe the 11th) you'll find a large amount of information detailing the prevalence of the current nicknames over others. I really don't want to get too much into it again because we've been over it before, but I'll just offer one piece of evidence. In Google News, "Wacko Jacko" Michael Jackson returns roughly 1,400 results whereas "King of Pop" Michael Jackson returns roughly 11,000 results. Again, not definitive, but a lot of these issues were dealt with before. The nicknames there now are fine because they are internationally famous.UberCryxic 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A request for input from the current editors of this article.

message: Can we change the main picture? The white house picture is already in the Thriller chapter so its a pointless idea to keep it. One of them has to go! I dont want to make changes myself because I dont feel its my place to do so but someone with sense should. I think a picture from the superbowl would be good? Any ideas? 172.202.219.226 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: I've put the article up for review:
Wikipedia:Good_article_review. It can be delisted if it doesn't meet standards. --Manboobies 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware (for the general audience, although Uber almost certainly knows):
*It did not pass the last GA review. It failed to recieve enough support either way. It was a defacto pass by total lack of consensus, as the editor who removed the article summarised in his close-of-discussion post.
* I and many others had no say in the previous GA review, and I consider the complete lack of wider feedback inappropriate (you and a couple of other regular editors doesn't cut it).
* This article does not represent our best. It needs to go from the list. You are delaying the inevitable. You had 6 WEEKS to improve the article while that GA review discussion went on and you argued incessantly with everyone and did nothing of the sort that would improve it.
*You are doing your best to insist that the GA review will not reach a consensus because you say it won't. I refuse on this one. This article will be removed from GA status. You refuse to allow me to improve it, reverting my edits.
*I am making requests for editors because I feel we need neutral opinion. You posted on each one of my requests for outside users that: "users should be aware that the above GA review is meaningless. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have no impact upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it." You basically told potential reviewers that their views would not matter and procedure means nothing. Where are you pulling this from? You know for a fact that if enough people say this article should be removed from GA status it will no matter what time span and you are trying to delay the inevitable.
*"It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push" Traditions mean nothing, this is wikipedia, and I choose to IGNORE ALL RULES on this one, which is policy. This isn't even a rule. Tradition is not policy. You are severely mistaken.--Manboobies 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: I know I have been ranting about the poor coverage of later era`s in his life but that is because i am right! I just read the History era and frankly it looks like crap. Scream was the the first song to debut in the top 5 in American and you are not alone was the first song to debut at number 1 in america this is not mentioned! also there`s all that rubbish about the 1996 brit awards but it seems everyone has forgotten that earthsong is his most successful uk single not bloody billie jean! this is not mentioned. if it isnt changed by someone with sense then i`ll do it. theres too much talk and not enough action on this comments page. unfortunately this article still paints a bad image of jackson both artistically and personally after 1985. this article isn`t the thriller album fan club site .172.202.219.226 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you Paaerduag? Because if you were I insist you go back to your ban and consider on your behaviour.--Manboobies 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you then? Because you've suddenly come in from nowhere. I don't have a problem if you've switched accounts, but I'd like to know who you were originally if you have.--Manboobies 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious worries about latter era`s 

message: This is a dispute about the suitability of Michael Jackson for GA status, and the qualiy (or lack thereof) of the article's lead paragraph, the lack of citations in the body; and the main contributors unwillingness to allow other editors to make changes.-21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted "During this period, the boys toured Indiana extensively, and after winning a major local talent show in 1966 with a rendition of The Temptations' "My Girl," led by Michael, they began playing professional gigs in Chicago, Illinois and across the mid-eastern U.S. Many of these gigs were in a string of black clubs and venues collectively known as the "chitlin' circuit," and the young kids sometimes had to open for strip teasers and other adult acts in order to earn money. The young Jackson had taken co-lead singing duties with brother Jermaine when the group's name changed from "The Jackson Brothers" to "The Jackson 5" in 1966." as per your concerns it shouldn't be without a source. If it's sourced I'd be happy to see it go back. Comments?--Manboobies 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's been a lot of debate without a lot of edits for some weeks now. GA/R is not a process by which we're asked to look over an article and bring it up to standards. The point is for us to find and list disqualifying flaws so that the custodians of the article can fix it. The sheer volume of replies on this talk page, user talk pages, and in the reviews shows there is FAR too much time being wasted talking about anything, everything, and nothing. Time that could be better served making improvements. I think Elvis said it best, "A little less conversation, a little more action, please." And by "action", let's mean "eidts". LaraLoveT/C 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Michael Jackson

message: ----
*Lead - The lead is too long. As I stated in the first review, although a long article justifies a long lead, the article itself is too long, therefore the length of the lead is not justified. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the article. It currently goes into MUCH TOO MUCH detail. There are also many articles that have stemmed from this one. Every heading in the first half of the article links to a main article for that subject. These sections need to be trimmed. WP:LENGTH states "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". In this case, it is divided, it's just not sufficiently trimmed.
**There is not consistent wikification in the lead either. For example, hip hop is wikified, but not pop or R&B. 
**I also think the article would benefit from citation in the body only. It's not a requirement that the lead include inline citations so long as the expanded information is cited in the body. It makes for a cleaner looking lead. Update to comment (May 31): Consider also that the last paragraph is completely unreferenced. Add continuity to the list of reasons I believe the article would benefit from no citation in the lead.
*1958–1979: Early life and career - Gary, Indiana need not be wikified twice in the same section, much less the same paragraph. It should also include United States (U.S.) in its first occurrence.
**"He was the second-youngest ... of ten children of Joseph and Katherine Jackson. ... Katherine, a Jehovah's Witness, raised the children in that faith, while their father Joe,..." - This should be reworded to something like "He was the second-youngest ... of ten children of Joseph (Joe) and Katherine Jackson. ... Katherine, a Jehovah's Witness, raised the children in that faith, while Joe,..." 
**"Jackson showed musical talent early on and joined his brothers when they formed a group in 1964." - This sentence, at the end of paragraph one, is out of place. Updated comment (May 31): It's not a good transition. It jumps from describing the family dynamic to 'he showed musical talent and joined the family group'. There should be something more before the last sentence. Introduce information of his siblings' talent—their group—before mentioning he joined it. 
**The second paragraph is entirely unreferenced which is unacceptable for what is stated in it.
**Correct grammar (I believe) for "The group eventually auditioned for and signed a contract with Motown Records in 1968." would be "The group eventually auditioned for, and signed a contract with, Motown Records in 1968." 
**"number-one" should be #1 when stating chart positions. Even written out, it would not be hyphenated.
**"...the first time ever a group had pulled off that feat." - That needs a reference. Needs space after ref.
**In instances such as '"The Jacksons,"' the comma should be outside of the quotations. This is per WP:MOS#Quotations which differs from standard English.
*1979–1982: Off the Wall era - "It reached #3 in the Billboard album charts, spending 48 consecutive weeks inside the Top 20." - Other articles such as this one reference chart claims.
**"Jackson felt the album should have made a much bigger impact and was determined to exceed expectations with his next release." - Really? How do you know?
**American Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, and Grammy Award and should be wikified.
**"More than twenty-five years after its release, Off the Wall remains one of the defining moments in Jackson's music career and began his domination as one of pop music's leading artists." - That doesn't read right to me. Updated comment (May 31): A defining moment isn't something that expires. Also, with this being all one sentence, it's also like you're saying "Off the Wall began his domination as one of pop music's leading artists, more than 25 years later." The prose is off here.
**"In 2003, the TV network VH1 named Off the Wall the thirty-sixth greatest album of all time. Rolling Stone ranked it #68 in their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. - I feel like statements such as these should have a reference.
*1982–1986: Thriller era - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial should be wikified. (Note that "the" is not capitalized.
**This whole section is insufficiently referenced. For example, "It became the best-selling album in music history with album sales exceeding 104 million copies." - That definitely needs a reference.
**"United States." at the end of paragraph two should be "U.S."
**Thriller should only be wikified in its first appearance in this section.
**In the third paragraph, first sentence, there should be a comma between "concert" and "Jackson".
**second-degree burns should be wikified.
**"Time magazine" should be wikified as "TIME magazine" yielding "TIME magazine".
**Grammy Awards doesn't need to be wikified more than once in this section, if at all. It is appropriate to wikify words multiple times in an article when the article is long, but only once in a section. However, I'm not sure Grammy Awards necessarily needs to be wikified more than once in the article. Either way, at least all but one needs to be de-wikified.
**""We Are the World" became one of the top five best-selling singles of all time, selling over 20 million copies worldwide." - Needs source.
**Considering there are three main articles associated with this section, I recommend a little trimming.
*1987–1990: Bad era - "According to Jones, Jackson wanted the title track to be a duet with Prince who later declined the duet." - I recommend changing the last "duet" to "collaboration".
**"Bad still holds the record for generating more #1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 charts than any other album." - Needs citation.
**"Jackson insisted ... to be available to him all at the same time throughout the tour." - I think this would be better if worded as "Jackson insisted ... to be available to him at all times throughout the tour."
**Shouldn't "long-term" be "long-time"?
*1995–2000: HIStory era and Blood on the Dance Floor - The second paragraph needs a reference.
**The third paragraph also needs a reference.
**"Cocker's actions were met with mixed reactions from the British press." - I think that should have some refs, but I'm not sure.
**"... it became the greatest selling remix album ever." - I know that needs a reference.
**"The title track reached number one in the UK." - Reference. (Note (May 31): I'm stopping here for the night.)
*Physical appearence - "Jackson's skin color was a medium-brown color for the entire duration of his youth, his skin had been becoming paler gradually since 1982, and had become a light brown color." - This needs to be reworded.
**Last sentence needs a reference. All quotes and claims should be sourced.
**"On The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1993, Jackson revealed that the change in his skin color was due to the disease vitiligo." - This was just mentioned in the last sentence of the first paragraph, minus mention of Oprah's show.
*The article as a whole lacks sufficient wikification.
*References are also not correctly formatted. 
**The bottom of the page for reference 3 states "How to cite this article: "Popular Music," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved."
**I only see a few references that credit an author. Reference 5, for example, was written by Bryan Robinson. The citation also lacks the date of the article, February 23, 2005.
**Many references also need to capitalize the work. Rolling Stone in reference 7, for example. These also need to be wikified.
**References 52-56 are the same reference. It should be named and appropriately formatted in the same way as references 2, 5, 6, 7, etc. so that a b c d e appear beside citation 52.
*That's just the first part of the article and references. It needs a lot of work for GA. More than I realized during the first review... or it's deteriorated since. Either way. I'll go through when I have some time a critique the article further. 
*I'll also look into some policies regarding referencing. As I stated in my above comments, I'm not totally sure on the necessity to source certain statements. However, as a reader, when I read such statements, I want to see references. There is an inconsistency in references as well. Some of a particular type of statement (award wins, chart positions, etc.) are references, while others aren't. Also, this article is a biography of a living person, so the standard for citation is much higher; that must be considered as well. 
*Note: Suggestions that have been struck-through are .
::Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted "During this period, the boys toured Indiana extensively, and after winning a major local talent show in 1966 with a rendition of The Temptations' "My Girl," led by Michael, they began playing professional gigs in Chicago, Illinois and across the mid-eastern U.S. Many of these gigs were in a string of black clubs and venues collectively known as the "chitlin' circuit," and the young kids sometimes had to open for strip teasers and other adult acts in order to earn money. The young Jackson had taken co-lead singing duties with brother Jermaine when the group's name changed from "The Jackson Brothers" to "The Jackson 5" in 1966." as per your concerns it shouldn't be without a source. If it's sourced I'd be happy to see it go back. Comments?--Manboobies 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's been a lot of debate without a lot of edits for some weeks now. GA/R is not a process by which we're asked to look over an article and bring it up to standards. The point is for us to find and list disqualifying flaws so that the custodians of the article can fix it. The sheer volume of replies on this talk page, user talk pages, and in the reviews shows there is FAR too much time being wasted talking about anything, everything, and nothing. Time that could be better served making improvements. I think Elvis said it best, "A little less conversation, a little more action, please." And by "action", let's mean "eidts". LaraLoveT/C 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from [[User:LaraLove|LaraLove]]

message: Is it just me or isn`t Jackson ment to be one of the greatest Humanitarians of our generation? You wouldn`t have believed it from this article. Maybe the Guiness Book Of world records is wrong or something? Silly meRealist2 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity Work 

message: Ok taking the advice of people above, I will begin modifying certain aspects of this article right now. I will create two sections here, "Improvements" and "Suggestions." Under "Improvements," I will list every little thing that I have changed in the article, always paying attention to, again, the suggestions made above. Under "Suggestions," I and other people can offer their own ideas on potentially controversial matters. This will be sort of like a notebook to keep track of what we're doing. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of your best edits. Very well sourced and more neutral.--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally.--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to put a section about Invicible's artistic merits actually. Something along the lines of "Invincible, which was named for a track about a female protagonist who evades others attempts to denegrate her... {CITATION}". y/n?--Manboobies 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: He also allowed those charities to fall into the ground and be completely relegated to oblivion. Perhaps the humanitarian work should be moved out into its own section from the timeline too?--Manboobies 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section already exists in fact, with little info. I propose "Jackson continued his charity work in 1985 by co-writing with Lionel Richie the hit song "We Are the World", and singing a featured solo on the charity single. The record helped to raise money and awareness for the famine in East Africa and was one of the first instances where Jackson was seen as a humanitarian. The song also won a Grammy Award for "Song of the Year".[22] "We Are the World" became one of the top five best-selling singles of all time, selling over 20 million copies worldwide." is added.--Manboobies 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements and suggestions

message: This article should include micheal's imfamous stuff and stuff like that {like child rape cases and all that, the imfamous micheal jackson of today.} none of that is listed here, just his career, and if it's just his career, then change the name to Micheal Jacksons Career. Micheal jackson's imfamous. and that, and everything that made him (and still making him) Imfamous should be in this article!
§→Nikro 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad rep 

message: The separation of Michael's personal life info from the main 'eras' section is going too far with this categorization thing which seems to have swept up the article recently. Introducing an 'influence' section was alright, as that didn't take from the main body, the chronological section, of the article. But taking out things deemed 'personal' and plonking them neatly under four different areas just doesn't flow well. It junts the reader in and out of various years, and just doesn't work. Before, the article was chronological, and a certain degree of chronology is good in a biographical article. Let me clear up one thing: the eras don't just mean what was related to the ALBUM of the era. The eras are simply a convenient way of splitting up Michael's life into nice sections. We don't need to FURTHER split the article up. I think that we should put personal stuff back into the main chronological bit, as people seem to have misinterpreted what the 'eras' are meant to be. His career and his personal life should go together. For example, the Oprah Interview, once aired, significantly increased sales of Dangerous. That link cannot be neatly established if the two 'bits' (for lack of a better word) are separated. I am trying to reach a new consensus to have the personal stuff put back into the main body, as right not the article seems to be a skeleton of subheadings. The eras are tiny, and any reader will be confused by the layout, which isn't chronological. So that's why I'm trying to reach a new consensus: To put the personal life information back into the chronological part of the article. --Paaerduag 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did dislike the lack of chronology but I must say I've grown quite used to it. Plus it will be otherwise buried to those with shorter attention spans. I believe it may give the article a chance at FA status. It is a good move on Uber's part - and I wouldn't say that unless I really thought it.--Manboobies 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of personal life from main 'eras' section 

message: Im not going to name anyone out your all probably aware about the whole review issue and who started it off. then I read comments that put jacksons charity work in a negative light and guess what its the same person. I feel there is a jackson hater on this page. it must be stopped at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 09:39, May 30, 2007
Can you make your concerns more specific? Be aware that the humanitarian efforts section is not yet complete.UberCryxic 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real music fans don't blindly follow their favourite artists. I'm addressing this at everyone. I don't have to agree with everything. I like Courtney Love, Michael Jackson, Metallica, Megadeth, and various zillion other bands, and I would openly criticise bad moves by any of them. A real fan doesn't tell their favourite artist what they want to hear, they tell them the truth. --Manboobies 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Editors of great concern 

message: Sorry all im trying to edit this michael jackson article but its semi locked. My user is more than 4 days old but still cant find a way to edit it. I can do it for unprotected articles so its not like I cant do those. Would someone help me out with some info. thanx a million172.202.219.226 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP ME HELP ME 

message: I have deleted the following paragraph recently added by Realist:
Following the success of the first single Jackson released Remember The Time the song was again successful worldwide particuarly in Europe and in stayed at #2 in the U.S chart for 5 weeks. The video for Remember The Time had a cameo appearence by Eddie Murpy and was well recieved by both the media and public alike. The third release from the album In The Closet and the video is thought of as his most sexually provocative performance and contained the lyrics "If its aching then you have to rub it", the video shows a cameo performance from super model Niamo Cambell. Jackson also penned the tune for the film Free Willy called Will You Be There it sold 500,000 copies in the U.S alone. In total the Dangerous album gave Jackson 7 hits in the U.K which include Black Or White, Remember The Time, In the Closet, Heal The World, Give In To Me and Will You Be There. 
I was worried about issues of length and citations...and I want this information to be incorporated within what's already there rather than just creating a whole new paragraph.UberCryxic 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This paragraph

message: I want to add a sentence review of the dangerous album in the dangerous era section. I want to say "the dangerous album has been considered stronger than bad and often compares favourably to earlier work  capturing Jackson at a near peak. my source is http:www.mp3.com/album/8256/summary.html so would someone get back to me on how to cite this as I never have and cant understand the wikipedia explanation. thanxRealist2 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson's Dangerous featured several major hits, Black or White, Remember the Time, In the Closet, Heal the World, Who Is It, Jam, and Will You Be There.[citation after each] 
Succinct and to the point. I'm not sure which were number ones and which weren't, so you could simply remove the ones that weren't and make the paragraph about number ones, and of course add citations. Not too hard, and doesn't take space. --Paaerduag 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  review of dangerous 

message: I thought I would make a comment about the suggestion that "about a third of michael jacksons sales are from the the US". I cant see how this is possible so was hoping uber could explain it to me, maybe im missing something from earlier career sales or something? These are my workings going from the RIAA on album figures
Off The Wall sold 20 mil worldwide with 7mil in US which is 35% 
Thriller sold 104 worldwide with 26 in US which is 25% 
Bad sold 32 worldwide with 8 in US which is 25% 
Dangerous sold 30 worldwide with 7 in US which is 23% 
HIStory sold 18 worldwide with 7 in US which is 39%
Blood sold 6 worldwide with 1 in US which is 17%
Invincible sold 8 worldwide with 3 in US which is 38%
Number ones sold 7 worldwide dont get me started on what it sold in the US it only charted #13 in America but ill be nice and say it sold 1 million which is 14%
Therefore from what we officially no he has sold 225 solo albums with 60 in America making 26% a quarter and not at all 33% or a third.
If my finds are correct which I believe them to be then why is this article 85% US based when only 26% of his albums were purchased there.?Realist2 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About a third? 

message: []Realist2 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  review 

message: I have just been on wikipedia looking up every single from dangerous and its chart position. This is what I have found
*Black or white top ten everywhere
*remember the time top ten in 9 countries
*in the closet top ten 5 countries
*give in to me top ten 5 countries
*heal the world top ten 4 countries
*who is it top ten 3 countries
*will you be there 2 countries
*jam 2 countries
At the moment the songs listed are Black/white, remember the time, in the closet, and will you be there.
As this was ment to be about international world wide appeal and looking at my findings from wikipedia I prepose the list be changed to Black/white, remember, closet, give in to me, and heal the world. remember this is about world appeal and we MUST avoid the temptation to avoid the songs not favourable in the US,UK. Let us discuss this moreRealist2 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of dangerous hits 

message: I'm very busy with other things at the moment and I cannot read all these comments when they are paragraph after paragraph. Can we please keep it to bullet points? 5 paragraphs on the entire article is reasonable, but I've seen thesis after thesis on one issue typed above. That's a lot of text. In fact, this talk page is harder to get through than the article itself! This article has improved quite a lot thanks to Uber (who apparently needs significant badgering) but is 5 paragraphs on chart positions at one posting at a time really the way to convince each other? I can't keep up with all the text. I've only been gone 10 days.--Manboobies 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length issues

message: Hey people, as some of you know, as a result of the support shown for the proposal, a Michael Jackson wikiproject will be created later this month. The wikiproject will be involved in improving all Michael Jackson-related articles. This is pretty cool and exciting because I think Jackson is either the first or one of the first individuals on Wikipedia who gets an entire wikiproject devoted to him or her. There may be others, but there are not that many. Normally wikiprojects are devoted to subjects like nations, literature, and so on, but Jackson's influence has been so far-reaching that the least contributors interested in him could do is open a project. 
Anyway, the main specific thing now is deciding the picture and the message that will go on the project tag that will grace the talk page of all related articles. I propose the following:
* Message: "This article is within the scope of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Michael Jackson and other related topics. Interested users can join the project and/or contribute to discussion." Something like that. We want something standard and quick. I've seen these types of messages before and they do the job nicely.
* Picture: I had a crazy idea for this....how about an image of his feet in a cobra stance (kind of like one of the covers for the Number Ones album)? Nothing says Michael Jackson better than that! Haha just kidding, but you get the point. I think that'd be cool though.
So discuss these things and let me know what you think. Try to not talk too much, per Manboobies, because this project is coming later this month and when that happens I'm arbitrarily putting up the message and the picture if no decision has been reached (we have to put up something, so this can't take too long).UberCryxic 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson wikiproject: a few things

message: I think Michael should be listed as pop, rock and soul.  Michael has been called the "king of pop, rock and soul," and his Myspace lists him as just that.  Obviously "r&b" and "soul" are often used interchangably, and while rock can be very specific and narrow, it can also be very broad.  Michael is often listed in "history of rock n' roll" type books and there's typically an entry for him in "so-and-so's guide to rock" (go to any bookstore and you'll see what I mean), and some have called him a rock star, such as an issue of TIME from 1970 or so ("Rock Stars Living With Their Parents) and a 1984 issue of PEOPLE ("Rock's Thriller").  Even under a more narrow definition of that word, the following songs would be considered "Rock":
* "Beat It"
* "P.Y.T." (in his book, he called the lyrics "rock n' roll" lyrics, and there is a fuzzy guitar bridge, actually I would argue it beefs up both the rock and r&b credibility, inasmuch as it has some things in common with '50s rock/r&b when they were considered the same thing).
* "State Of Shock"
* "Dirty Diana"
* "Smooth Criminal" (maybe not so much, but a metal group called Alien Ant Farm covered it)
* "Come Together" (a Beatles cover, thus giving him more of a "classic rock," rep, although I wouldn't put his duets with Paul McCartney on this list, as "The Girl Is Mine" is more of a cutsey Sinatra-type thing and "Say Say Say" might work, but is too synth-popish, perhaps)
* "Black Or White"
* "Give In To Me"
* "D.S."
* "Morphine"
There's more that almost made the list, but I think the point is clear: if you can include instruments that he rarely plays, you can call him a "rock" artist.  I could also have gone into how his look is very theatrical, he has (or in the late eighties and early nineties) had very long hair, and he's a man who wears a lot of make up.
A few things, anonymous. He wears makeup to cover up his vitiligo. Also, you missed "Privacy" off invincible, and if you're going to count Jackson 5 hits you missed things like "Torture". But yes, he can be considered quite safely a rock artist. I mean a lot of his rock songs have become classics. "Black or White" is up there with "Billie Jean". --Paaerduag 06:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: Please try to maintain an iota of etiquette when conversing on Wikipedia. Lately there have been way too many personal attacks. Personal attack statements give others grounds for immediate deletion, which is the action I have taken in the previous section, removing large segments of text coming from Daveyjones and Realist. I urge all involved parties to be more careful in the future. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice

message: Please discussed the proposed pictures in the section below, so as to avoid clutter. Thank you. 
===Proposed pictures from Realist2===
* History Promo 1
* History promo 2
* History promo 3
* History promo 4
* Superbowl 1993
* Dangerous era Live 1
* Stranger in moscow 1
* Scream 1
* Scream live 1
* MTV 1995
* Black or white 1
* Dangerous era live 2
* Dangerous pic 1
* Dangerous era live 3
* soul train live
* 90`s pepsi
* livin legend award
* Jam Vid
* dangerous era pic 2
* dangerous era live 4
* in the closet
Sorry these below are by realist I forgot to sign in.
* (if paaerduag could do the same as his shoe trick!!)
* scream promo pick with JJ
* Bad era Live
Realist2 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed pictures for the Michael Jackson Wikiproject

message: * History Promo 1
* History promo 2
* History promo 3
* History promo 4
* Superbowl 1993
* Dangerous era Live 1
* Stranger in moscow 1
* Scream 1
* Scream live 1
* MTV 1995
* Black or white 1
* Dangerous era live 2
* Dangerous pic 1
* Dangerous era live 3
* soul train live
* 90`s pepsi
* livin legend award
* Jam Vid
* dangerous era pic 2
* dangerous era live 4
* in the closet
Sorry these below are by realist I forgot to sign in.
* (if paaerduag could do the same as his shoe trick!!)
* scream promo pick with JJ
* Bad era Live
Realist2 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed pictures from [[User:Realist2|Realist2]]

message: I thought I would start off the discussion on the pictures I have added. I like sources 21,23,24,29,30,35 and 37.  Realist2 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on pictures 

message: Hey guys, I just finished creating the project and some associated templates/tags. You can all visit the project page here and you can also join under the "Participants" section if you are interested in getting involved. That's really the biggest thing for now: join the project. Second big thing: add the project tags to related articles (anything and everything having to do with Michael Jackson). This will help with advertising. Third big thing: add the user template to your userpages. It just basically says that you're a member of the Michael Jackson project. Directions for how to do that are given in the project page and you can always contact me for more information. Once we get the basics down, we'll get into more serious administrative and organizational matters, which I'll fully explain in due time. Be sure to check the project's talk page for news and updates. Finally, for the time being I've used the "Billie Jean" single cover as the main project picture. This is not final so don't worry if you don't like it. I personally like it, but if you don't, we can always discuss it further. I just used that because we needed something. Hopefully you all like this. Good luck and let's get to work!UberCryxic 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson Wikiproject up and running!

message: The following section of the article seems poorly organized to me:
:In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson said that the media was wrong in their comments about him being irresponsible with his children, "I love my children," he explained. "I was holding my son tight. Why would I throw a baby off the balcony? That's the dumbest, stupidest story I ever heard."[77]
:In February 2003, a controversial documentary titled Living with Michael Jackson aired in the UK (on the 3rd) and in the US (on the 6th). 
It mentions the documentary before the documentary is formally introduced in the next paragraph. Seems strange to read about something, then read about it again as if its the first time (if that makes sense). I think it would read better if we removed the first instance of "In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson", but then the source of the quote wouldn't be attributed in the article text (thought it still would be cited). Alternatively, we could introduce the documentary, and then mention Jackson's reply, but that might break up the continuity of the baby dangling incident paragraph. Anyway, any thoughts?-Andrew c 02:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove "In the documentary Living with Michael Jackson," from the beginning of the sentence instead—.--Manboobies 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living with Michael Jackson