Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Edits need more review

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)

From the FA page rejection (i feel this was a very helpful review and so I am discussing it here.

"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)

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)

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)

Charts

"#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)

Well, yes it is refering to the US TOP 100 (i.e Pop Charts), R&B Charts is just one of the categories. Actually, when an artist hits the Charts it is always concerning the US Charts and/or UK Charts. Due to history reasons, those 2 charts (UK ans US) were always the reference but since music industry and music associations increased wordlwidely, other country charts turned out to be a heavy rating such as Japan, Australia, France, Germany, Brazil, China, etc... Michael Jackson is the only artist to have sold worldwide in a lot of countries (poor, developing and rich countries). That's why it sounds a little weird that The Beatles, Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra (and many others still) have sold millions and millions worldwide : they have sold in America especially and in Europe (UK, France, Germany, Danemark) but since the 80's the world music industry changed substancially. It's not my opinion, it is the truth, the only pop artist who get through different countries and people by selling records and performing live concerts in those 5 continents is definately Michael Jackson. Readerweb 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Berlin

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)

Biggest selling solo artist

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 [1]. There is no official tracking mechanism for worldwide sales, so this figure cannot be verified. According to the RIAA [2], the top band is the Beatles and the top solo artist is Elvis Presley followed closely by Garth Brooks. However, in the top albums [3], 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. [4] DavidBailey 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Photo

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)

Thriller's global sales

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)

Michael is the biggest selling artist in history.

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)

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries in 2006, the Beatles are the biggest popular music act of all time, with 400 million albums sold (50 million more albums than their runner-up, Michael Jackson).

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)

I would put money on it having sold more than 47 million. I saw that figure quoted about 10 years ago by both 'Guinness' and "The Top 10 Of Everything" books - this being prior to the Special Editon re-release in 2001. I think it would be safe to assume Thriller has broken the 50 million barrier by now. Unfortunately I have not seen any definitive source on this. With the re-release, frequent chart appearances throughout the world, and the US re-certifications, someone could tally it all up I guess. To whomever said it "hasn't sold 60 million" - says who?? Chrisc21 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thriller sold more than 60 million many years ago. motowon albums are not major releases - oz

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

Thriller had sold well over 25 million copies by March 1984, so it has to have sold over 60 million as of 2006.

if you refer to www.mjinf.co.uk it clearly stats there that thriller has sold 60million copies, also one of michael's office sites www.mjjsource.com has it has sold 59million copies. BOBBY 7th june'06.

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)

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)

the thing about the guiness book of records is not all records are up to date, thriller has been said to have sold 51 million worldwide 3 years ago. yet in that time thriller has got 2x platium discs in the USA (from RIAA, 2million copies sold) and that is also assuming that thriller has not sold anymore copies worldwide, which is unlikely as it also seems to make an apperance in all the worlwide charts at some point throughout the year. BOBBY 9th June

Headings

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)

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)

"Which headings"? these ones...

1 The Beginning of Jackson's Career: 1969–1980

that one's fine --Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2 Chart Domination and Media Controversy: 1982–1992

I renamed that one to that because jackson quite obviously dominated the charts between those dates. I didn't think it needs changing --Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

3 'Healing the World', alleged Improprieties and Further Career: 1993–2002

I like it better than the one before that put this article into a dodgy tabloid zone. but yes it's still crap.--Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

4 Berlin: baby at the balcony causes controversy

agreed, it's dodgy and is inherent tabloid fodder of which this article already has too much.--Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

5 Trial and acquittal: 2003–2005

hmm. not sure about this one.--Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

6 Post-trial life and career: present

again, not sure what you'd change this too, this section needs a once over, perhaps without a strip down of content. a theme perhaps. --Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

7 New album: 2007

Street walker 07:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a section. We're on a timeline structure, not a album by album thing, I've put great effort into rewriting the thriller era one, i'm not changing it again.--Manboobies 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the written part of 2003 - 2006 ,oz

Error on "2006 sexual allegations"

These allegations were filed in 2004 and related to an alleged incident in 1984. The accuser Joseph Bartucci claimed supressed memories he managed to recover following the worldwide sweep of media exposure of the Arviso case.

This ridiculous civil case was dismissed by a judge in April 2006.

where does it say 2006?--Manboobies 08:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It says: "In 2006, allegations of sexual assault were leveled against Jackson by a man who claims Michael Jackson molested him, intoxicated him with drugs and alcohol, and forced him to undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended him against allegations of child molestation in 2005, said "the charges are ridiculous on their face. They will be vigorously defended."[60] Since this news came to light in early 2006, nothing further has happened regarding the supposed charges."

However, I've just realised this may be a completely different case? I'm losing track with all these extortion attempts. --Chrisc21 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

yes it is--Manboobies 06:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a completely vague summary of some random 2006 allegations and no mention of the Bartucci case though? --Chrisc21 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to some information on those 2006 allegations, could do with improving the complete vagueness of it all http://cbs2.com/entertainment/local_story_114210511.html

How should we refer to him as?

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)

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)

What more can I give?

see:[[5]] 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)

That said it's rather good--Manboobies 04:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How many people will have to die before we will take a stand How many children will have to cry, before we do all we can If sending your love is all you can give To help one live, mmm ^sounds like earth song, lyrically similar.

Just sending your prayers Is something you feel Helping one heal ^We are the world melody.

What have I got that I can give (What have I got that I can give, tell me) What have I got that I can give, yeah, oh To love and to teach you To hold and to need you What more can I give (what more can I give, yeah) ^flips between Man in the mirror and I just can't stop loving you.

What have I got that I can give (It's not a lot to give, just a little bit) What have I got that I can give (Everyone should be a part of it) To love and to teach you To hold and to need you What more can I give ^I just can't stop loving you.--Manboobies 06:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Nationality

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

Header dispute

I just want to take one last opportunity to jump in on this.

I don't believe that the issue at hand is the notability of the terms. Both are used in widespread context, both are notable. The problem is the way the sentence is currently phrased. It provides zero context, and implies legitimacy for a potentially illegitimate term.

The failing here is that at no point has there been a negotiation to find a way to include the terms in an encyclopedic and NPOV manner. For my own opinion: I think the terms have merit to be included in the first paragraph, but not in the off-hand namedropping manner that exists now.

The poll below is entirely flawed, as it only discusses including them or not, not how they're included. Arbitration won't solve that. Again, I think it would be acceptable to have both included, but the current version is grossly unfair to one point of view.

My suggestion: spend some time working on a version that people can live with. I think even those who dislike one of the terms would have less of an issue with it if it were provided in proper context. Adding one sentence to provide context would in no way damage the article. (And I readily submit that it would improve it.)

I'll again offer my edit, but I will accede and not personally add it to the article again:

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. Jackson has often been referred to in the media by the nicknames The King of Pop, particularly during the peak of his musical fame, and Wacko Jacko, a nickname given to him by the tabloid press as result of his seemingly eccentric behavior.

I do not have a vested interest in this debate, thus I will pull myself out of it. At the same time, I firmly believe that the issue has been caught in an Us vs Vandals problem at the expense of article content and true consensus. -- ChrisB 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If 4 pages of archived talks plus a vote show most of us want the names there then that is consensus. As you only stepped into this debate in order to continue to wage your war of attrition and hate against me, which began with your repeated troll like behaviours, repeated reversions and the deletion of the first article I created and it's subsequent merger into another article just so you could feel like you had some how achieved something, do you feel like you have? Because it's just an encyclopedia. While you're reading up on that "Polls are evil" which says we shouldn't try to summarise a subject in one sentence and then vote on it, not that we should use a poll to officially cement an already reached majority consensus you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiHate as well. Ciao.--Manboobies 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? The version I'm offering is less of a summary than the one that's there now. The version that's there now is far too simplistic, and that's the problem. I'm trying to add content and solve a dispute, not "summarize a subject in one sentence". Can anyone read the voting and say that there's consensus, and precisely what that consensus is? I don't see it. I see a handful of keeps, a handful of remove one or the other, and a handful of remove both. I don't see a majority position there, and, regardless, voting "consensus" requires something more than a simple majority.

And I feel like the three or four of you have gotten so caught up in the battle that you've neglected the dissenting opinions. You don't have to "appease" them, but you should at least keep them in mind.

Furthermore, if the so-called consensus is "keep both names in the lead" (as the poll suggests - the poll does not specify lead sentence or lead paragraph, and it's too late to make that specification), the edit I'm offering maintains that. It's still in the lead, but with appropriate context. I still insist that the people upset with the nicknames would be less inclined to vandalize if the nicknames weren't simply namedropped at the immediate beginning of the article.

Again, not my battle. If you want to try to make this about me, fine. But I don't think this problem will solve itself after I've pulled myself out of it. -- ChrisB 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Utilizing controversy to forstall changes to very-POV Michael Jackson intro paragraph

I have been watching the ridiculous nit-picking, haggling, arguing, and stalling going on regarding the inclusion of nicknames in Michael Jackson's opening paragraph. It is obvious that the tactics used by those who feel the current very POV and non-encyclopedic opening paragraph is what they want are using the debate to maintain the existing state of the opening paragraph.

What has been discussed ad nauseum is that there are four camps: one wishes to have one name remain, one wishes to have the other name remain, one wishes to remove both, and one wishes to keep both. The voting has been inconclusive as there is not an obvious overwhelming support one way or another. And yet, action must be taken. The current opening paragraph is obviously wrong.

I have proposed a compromise that keeps both nicknames in the opening paragraph, but removes them from the opening sentence and explains which groups use the nicknames so as to remove the slander component to the current paragraph. It uses actual phrases from the discussion from those who have been trying to resolve this rather silly feud. I think this is the best compromise that exists right now, even though I feel that neither nickname belongs in the opening paragraph and should be discussed, as it is, later in the article. I feel this should satisfy everyone's demands, except perhaps those who really are just trying to call names which is slanderous and against Wikipedia policy.

If someone has a valid, thoughtful reason why the following paragraph cannot replace the current one, I want to hear it. Otherwise, I think consensus has been reached, and this edit should be permitted by the revert watchdogs that are misusing this feature to further their ends.

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. He has at times been referred to by fans, promoters, and the popular media as The King of Pop, or so-called King of Pop, and by detractors and the tabloid media by the pejorative name, Wacko Jacko.

Thanks. DavidBailey 19:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, and before getting into the meat of your compromise, please explain to those present why the pejoratives should be removed from the opening sentence (as opposed to blanket changing without discussion, and giving an opportunity for those present to add their commentary) to begin with.

While the debate has gone on awhile, stepping in and making wholesale changes without discussion will do nothing but garner antagonism from those present, and turn into the same sort of revert war that has permeated the topic for months now.

Secondly (and more personally, in my own opinion), I think your compromise on one hand (moving the nicknames from the first sentence to the second) is good, content-wise, I find it to be overly wordy, especially considering that a further explanation is contained later in the article. I would propose the second sentence to read: "He has been referred to as King of Pop and Wacko Jacko."

Any further exposition should, IMO, be placed later in the article. --Mhking 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think David Baliey's suggestion is an ideal solution to a rediculous argument. This is an encyclopedia article, so it should be a bit wordy and it is important to stress who gave him those nicknames.

However, I feel the real problem here is you all seem too worried about how these bloody names will fit. There is so much to say about Jackson and yet the opening paragraph inexplicably focuses on some nicknames that he occasionally gets called. aren't there more important things to write about? Who gives a toss about his nicknames? Stop arguing about this, it's sad.--Crestville 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Crestville, I think the problem is that the opening paragraph, and those staunchly defending it, have become the loud drunken dealer at the Oriental in the movie Tombstone. All the reputable types are staying away because of it. Once we fix the opening, serious work can commence on the remainder of the article. The opening paragraph sets the tone. DavidBailey 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mhking, my reason is that this is an encyclopedia. There are standards when it comes to encyclopedias. One is that you don't use nicknames when introducing the reader to the subject. Those follow later in the article. To illustrate, here is the beginning of the Encyclopedia Brittanica article (and yes, I realize Wikipedia isn't EB):

"Michael Jackson: born August 29, 1958, Gary, Indiana, U.S. Michael Joseph Jackson American singer, songwriter, and dancer who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s. Reared in Gary, Indiana, in one of the most acclaimed musical families of the rock era, Michael Jackson was the youngest and most talented of five brothers whom his father, Joseph, shaped into a dazzling group of child stars known as the…"[6]

Now I don't have a subscription to EB, so I can't (and shouldn't anyway) give the remainder of the article. But it is likely that it examines both the highs and lows of Michael Jackson's career. Casually slinging around such emotional and non-objective names as "Wacko Jacko" (and "King of Pop") or other often used praising or derogatory nicknames in the opening paragraph would not be tolerated in Wikipedia on even Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler's entry. In fact, here is the entry for Osama Bin Laden:

Usāmah bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Lādin (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن; born 1957-03-10 [1]), most commonly known as Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden (أسامة بن لادن) is an Islamic fundamentalist, a primary founder of the al-Qaeda Islamic fundamentalist organization and a member of the immensely wealthy bin Laden family. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have allegedly carried out a number of attacks worldwide, including the September 11, 2001 attacks on The World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and the failed hijacking of United Airlines flight 93, which killed at least 2,986 people. In addition, they have been linked to the bombings at the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and U.S. Embassy Nairobi, Kenya, the USS Cole, the Bali nightclub bombings, the Madrid bombings, as well as bombings in the Jordanian capital of Amman and in Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

And here is Adolf Hitler:

Adolf Hitler (help·info) (1889-04-20 – 1945-04-30) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 and Führer (Leader) of Germany from 1934 until his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.

Now, if you think my rewrite is too wordy, I'm perfectly happy to use ChrisB's rewrite of the opening paragraph in Header dispute above. I think the point is, this is an encyclopedia, and we should write the articles as though they are worthy of being in an encyclopedia, not a copy of The Sun, the Daily Star, or The National Enquirer. And finally, Michael Jackson is a person, just like you and me, and frankly, I don't think any person deserves to be mocked or called names in a serious, deliberate, public forum such as Wikipedia. Thanks. DavidBailey 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really mocking though is it? not in this context. These are names which are used often, and are therefore encyclopedic and worthy of note. Just not in the first paragraph, because it looks unprofessional.--Crestville 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mocking when it's included in the opening paragraph, because it is being portrayed as who he is, rather than identifying them as nicknames that were given him by specific groups. I agree that they, and really all of his commonly used nicknames, should be discussed in the larger article. Any other comments? Any other objections to moving ahead with this edit? DavidBailey 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The nicknames are discussed in detail further down in the article, having them in the introduction is just that, an introduction. Its common place in wikipedia articles to have prominent nicknames in the introduction. Keep in mind that 'Wacko Jacko' is in the article for same reason as 'King of Pop' because its a common nickname used by a lot of people, it is not included simply as means to mock Jackson. I'm not entirely against removing the nicknames from the introduction, but I really don't see the point of it as both 'Wacko Jacko' and King of Pop' redirect to this article.--Count Chocula 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing them at this point. We're only discussing using my paragraph above or the one that ChrisB wrote in the section Header dispute. DavidBailey 01:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats not such a bad idea, though I think it be better to expand the nickname info in the body of the article rather than the introductory paragraph.--Count Chocula 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except for the fact that those nicknames are quite controversial (see 18-20 pages of discussion just since the beginning of the year), and therefore, they must be kept and must be explained. DavidBailey 12:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if there are no more disagreements on the topic, I'll perform the edit, using ChrisB's contributed introduction paragraph above, because it is very similar to mine, but is less wordy as Mhking has observed, and I believe reads better. Thanks Chris! DavidBailey 11:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that the paragraph you used was less wordy, though I'd suggest an additional set of eyes take a look to see if that second sentence can become less convoluted. But barring that, I have no problem with the compromise text. --Mhking 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I reckon the new wording is reasonable and doesn't subvert the earlier consensus, which I don't think specified keeping the nicknames in the first line, only the first paragraph. If it helps restore some stability to this article it will be worth it. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that ChrisB's was less wordy than mine. I guess not. Okay, then how about this one?

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. Jackson has often been referred to by fans and the popular media as The King of Pop and by detractors and the tabloid media by the pejorative Wacko Jacko.

Is that acceptable? DavidBailey 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The current version you put in seems fine to me, I don't think you need to tinker any more with it.--Count Chocula 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current version as long as most everyone else is. DavidBailey 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Change the Photo

And replace it with a picture of Michael in concert, circa the Dangerous Tour (1992). It really must be something to have three hundred thousand American teenagers in the audience. Fat Man Elvis with his elderly fans in Vegas looks so dated.

I agree, and please sign your comments. Four tildes in a row does the trick. DavidBailey 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- the main pic should be reflective of what he looks like today; placing a concert photo from nearly 15 years ago is fine within the body of the article, but it certainly would not be encyclopedic. --00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Presley's article shows a picture taken of him 7 years before his death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.2 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-09 16:26:00.

It is common for encyclopedias to use photographs of iconic figures at the peak of their popularity. DavidBailey 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why Michael's picture should be from 1982-1995, not 2006.

Because Jackson is a living person the most recent photo of him is used. Believe me, it could be a lot worse than this photo.--Count Chocula 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it could be worse, although that would tabloidish, but I disagree that all living figures in Wikipedia have current photographs. Some examples: Mr. T, Gary Coleman, Elton John, Gene Simmons, Elizabeth Taylor, George Michael for starters. In my opinion, current photographs should go in the part of the article about his current events, not at the top where a summary of his career is presented. I don't think anyone would argue that Michael Jackson is currently at the peak of his career. DavidBailey 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His peak ended in 1995.

I'm not sure any photograph from 2006 would look worse, because Michael has only appeared in public twice this year - once while visiting a friend in Berlin at the end of January, and then for the official record signing deal in April.

How does Michael look so much like Bjorn Andresen?

Quality of his voice

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)

Misuse of the talk page

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)

I would agree with this. Let's keep the discussions on-topic, please. DavidBailey 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Just thought you may like to know, under Berlin and Bashir: 2002 - 2003, there appears a double "also", reading "also also".

You may want that fixed...

Article too biased

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)

Oh God, why did you have to ... ;)

Monkeyman^(talk) 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, the evil nickname must be removed NOW. Nicknames should only be listed as "The King of Pop", "MJ", "The Gloved One", and "Jacko".

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)

If what I have read is true, the vote goes until the end of May. I am submitting my vote that Wacko Jacko SHOULD be removed. Is that a problem? I have not read about a compromise of any sort. --138.130.216.14 07:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Eccentric behavior isn't "seemingly" eccentric. The reported behavior is clearly eccentric. (It could, however, be "seemingly" erratic, which may be a better choice.) Regardless, went for NPOV by changing "seemingly" to "widely reported" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs) 2006-05-15 21:47:49.

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)

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. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is not appropriate that the opening few lines insult the subject of the article

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, - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say Michael Jackson is more controversial than President Bush. 195.93.21.2

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)

Firstly, let me admit right off the bat, I am a Michael Jackson fan thus my opinion may be biased. However, having said that I think it's rediculour to include nicknames in the opening paragraph of a person. Especially when the rules of wikipedia, as previously mentioned, state that that sort of information should not be included. While I do think that the nicknames should be included at some point in the article, they do not need to appear in the opening paragraph. While I understand some articles such as Elvis Presley or Alfred Hitchcock do contain nicknames, these are not only non-disputed nicknames, but they are also given to a person who has been long deceased and these monickers have become synonomous with these individuals. As both nicknames of Jackson are in dispute, and arguably both reflect bias, it seems they should be removed. Once again, I do not think they should be removed from the article entirely. However the opening paragraphy should not contain either of them. Let us not forget that an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the facts. I'm not trying to start an edit war, but to me it just seems logical that nicknames should be kept out of any general overview of a person, because they are just that. Nicknames. There is no one TRUE nickname, and thus they should be removed. But those are just my opinions. :: ehmjay 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)ehmjay

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)

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)ehmjay

DONE. Sentence removed from first paragraph

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. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 08:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)ehmjay

Jackson at the 1996 Brits

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)

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)

Everybody thought it at the time as well, because of the Jordy Chandler scandal in 1993-4.

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)

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)#

We need your help for the french version of Wikipedia !

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)

There is never any need to be rude like that, ever. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think it's called sarcasm, and it's rude to extra-lingual people. --138.130.218.188 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Debts

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)

The article should certainly try to keep to the facts, but the £170 million figure is something I have heard many times over the past three years, and from different sources of information.

- I'd like to fix something on this page plz (update: fixed, thx for unprotect)

what would that be pray tell? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 09:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

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)

Just an opinion...

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)

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)

HANDBAGS!--Crestville 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

PUPPETS!--161.74.11.24 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

The only solo album Jackson did which wasn't great was "Invincible". Otherwise, "Off the Wall", "Thriller", "Bad", "Dangerous" were excellent. Michael is a Democrat who opposes the Iraq war, so how can anybody dislike him?

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)

Watch "Michael Jackson: Live in Buccharest" (1992). He is simply the most talented man in the history of entertainment. The effect he had on people is simply amazing, second only to Christ. I fail to see how anybody could dislike Michael.

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)

Why are you whinging on about "facts" and complain about my "factual accuracy" when you clearly don't know what you are talking about? If there is a war here, it's in your head. Do you know anything about Jackson, or indeed the world around you?

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

You're clutching at straws here, and it's making you look silly. Vitiligo is not hereditory. The DNA information in Jacksons sperm would result in the children being mixed race. Clearly they are not which means it is quite credible the claim they are illegitimate.

Also, you claim he is egotistical because he floated a statue of himself down a river. Where and when did this happen?

In 1995 to promote the HIStory album. This is the image which appears on the front of the album. Also see the Scream video - the most expencive video ever. I think this would be fair enough, but the song is widely regarded as having been crap. If he had put more effort into the song, then an expencive video would have been justified, but I feel by this point he had become entangled in the image of Michael Jackson as an icon rather than a talent.

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.

Why wouldn't they? Robbie Williams donates millions to charity, Chris Evans donated a large part of his fortune to charity, and look at the egos on those two! And surely a very egotistical person is very likely to feel that one of their (weaker) songs could change the 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.

Have you seen the video!

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?

No it certianly isn't, but don't be flippant. However, when you suuround yourself with worshipping children and religious figures who bow down to you and kiss you (a description that was used by both Jesus in the New Testament and Joseph in the Old Testament) before rising up into a crusifixion pose in the air hile singimng a song about saving the world, you've got to expect peop;e to make that connection.

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"?

Clutching at straws again. Looking silly. One of the alltime biggest stars in musical history appearing at the premier musical awards in this country and they allow a "wardrobe error"? I think someone would have made mention of this in the controversy that followed.

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.

He WASN'T awarded the "artist of the millenium award" (I would have expected you to know this if you are going to enter an argument on Jackson, it's quite a famous stroy). Britney Spears famously stated, whilst introducing him at the MTV awards, "here's MY artist of the Millenium" - Jackson's big ego got in the way and he assumed he had won this imaginary award, came out and made a big speach aznd genreally made a fool of himself.

You say that jackson is manipulative, and manipulated the family of his accusers. How exactly did he do this? is there an PROOF?

Their testamonies, the fact that he settled out of court in the Jordan/Chandler affair (surely if he was innocent he would have fought such damaging allegations to the bitter end)

Perhaps the family is manipulating evidence to serve themselves and paint jackson as the typical child molester.

I agree, that's possible. but see above.

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.

I think everyone has their own opinion on that. I'm not bothering to waste time giving mine.

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?

Don't be flipant, of course I have not - I never claimed to. However, we have all seen the image of him and that window. Frankly, anyone else would have had their children taken away or at least been investigated. Fact of the matter is he IS erratic, and if we are to believe that he is as child like and Peter Pan-ish as he claims, is he really the right person to be rasing kids? He might be a really good Dad, I dunno, but given the Berlin incident and his gerneral behaviour, I doubt it.

he makes them wear masks so that they are not criticised and ridiculed as 'freaks' like he is.

They're not. In fact, they get more stick for wearing the masks. And being called "Blanket"

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've alredy explained this, so please don't be flippant - to point out that bad can outweigh good. Being a vegetarian shows that Hitler did care about some things. He cared about the welfare of animals. As the old saying goes - even the greatest villan is the hero of their own story. A monkey could see that I'm not comparing vitligo and plastic surgury (which I don't even feel are negative things which detract from Jacksons person, so I don't know why you included that) with Hitlers acts. A reasonably intellegent person could see that I wasn't comparing Jackson's erratic behaviour and various negative qualities with Genocide, Warfare, the Holocaust and the Blitz. I was using an rediculously exaggerated example to prove a point, the theory being that blowing up the point to such an absurd degree will make it clear for anyone to understand amnd highlight the inherant absurdaties in your own argument. IT's a technique similar to the one they use on South Park and Monty Phyton. Personally, while Hitler's bad points clearly outweigh the good, I'm undecided on Jackson.

I hope that you can respond to my comments in a calm and civilized way, crestville.

I have been calm and civilised mate. I think it may be the way you are choosing to read my responce which makes you think otherwise, but I assure you I am a hard man to wind up. It's hard to get angry when you're picking apart a very weak and poorly informed argument and having great fun doing so. You may feel I am some sort of puppet for reading newspapers, biographies, and personal accounts, taking the relevant information and forming my own opinion on a person, but at least I know what I'm talking about. You seem ignorant of many important factors in Jackson's life. Please research your next post. I will not reply unless I feel it is well informed, reasoned and will pose me with a challange.--Crestville 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(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)

ha ha, yeah, that was fun (I can't actually block him, but his behaviour mean that an admin probably would have). To be honest this is a bit of a waste of time - you'd have to have some pretty hard evidence to sway me and you don't seem to want to change your view of Jackson either. still, it is great fun.--Crestville 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Unwarranted? That is certainly a matter of opinion.

John Jay Smith

Could someone add information about his alias used on the Simpsons, John Jay Smith? ImmortalDragon 11:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I could, what do you want added?

Spurious vandalism warnings

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 [7] [8] 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)

Main Picture

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)

It's the photo from his police mug shot. --Mhking 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was taken in April 2006.

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

They have changed the main picture. What has he done to himself? Fair use policy states that we cannot use a copyrighted image when a free one is available. For now, the mugshot image of jackson must remain until another suitable free image can be found. See WP:FUC.--Knuckle 09:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Greatest dancer of alltime.

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)

He's not better than Fred Astaire.

I'm not a fan of Jackson's, but I respect what he's accomplished in his career. And yes, stating that he's the "best of all time" at anything would simply be stating an opinion and can't be included in the article. The same can be said about anything referring to him as a "genius". The article could include something saying that Jackson has been referred to as a genius by other artists and all that, providing you lists the artists and what they've said. Otherwise, it just sounds like a personal viewpoint. Odin's Beard 01:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Setting some wrongs right...

(Poster of Jackson opinion in Just an Opinion... heading)

There are some points about Jackson which I would like to make:

1. Jackson's colour: While it is a popular myth for people to belive that he bleached his skin, Jackson's doctor and nurce (Debbie Rowe) have confirmed that he has vitiligo which causes his melanin pigment causing his brown colour to be neutralized.

2. Jackon's Portrayal of 'Jesus': People love to criticise Jackson for portraying Jesus at the 1996 Brit Awards. However, does anyone bother to criticise others like him. What about Madonna recently, who 'crucified' herself whilst on tour? It seems that only Jackson is criticised. I call this double standards and unfairness.

3. Jackson's 'Egotistic' nature: Many people just love to launch put-down campaigns at Jackson. They claim that Jackson is an egotistic person who is devoted to himself only. I would like to disprove this. Two examples come to mind which are what people like to criticise Jackson about.

-1- Jackson floating a statue of himself down a river. While this may seem egotistic, the definition of the word is "A selfish, self-centered person", as stated at 'Dictionary.com'. How is Jackson being selfish when he floats a statue down a river? How is he being self-centered? Who is he disadvantaging in order to achieve personal gain when he floats his statue down the river? What I call egotistic is a lot different. Crestville, you claimed that Paul McCartney never did anything as egotistical as Jackson. Well, it so happens that according to Wikipedia,

"In the late 1990s, McCartney was involved in a feud with John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. Their dispute centered on the writing credits for a number of Beatles songs. He had wanted to change the credits from the traditional Lennon-McCartney to 'Paul McCartney and John Lennon' for songs McCartney had primarily composed. Ono was offended by this move, which she felt broke an agreement that the two had made, while Lennon was still alive, to credit songs as a team."

I consider this to be egotistical and selfish on McCartney's behalf. Once again, Jackson is being vindicted even though there are other examples out there of stars performing selfish acts. Even having your name on a billboard could be considered selfish if we as a society attacked everyone like we attack Jackson.

-2- Jackson and the 'Millenium Award' incident was another opportunity for the public to launch a campaign against Jackson. He thought he had won a Millenium Award. So what? As I said above, he isn't being selfish, he was simply mistaken. Who, may I ask, was he disadvantaging by thinking he had won an award? NO ONE.

Finally, while people like to delve into Jackson further and further, nitpicking at all his faults, they forget that he has donated millions of dollars to charity. That cannot be ignored. He has donated to charity a LOT MORE than most of you. And yet society once again goes into 'Attack Jacko' mode and start a smear campaign against him. I am sickened, NOT as a superfan, but as a bystander who thinks that such noble acts as donation of large sums of money to charity should NOT be ignored.

4. The Legitimacy of Jackson's children: It has been often wondered why Jackson's children are white. There is a simple answer for one of the three children. He has admitted that one of the children, 'Blanket', has a surrogate mother. As for the other two, the explanation is simple. The chidren both had a white mother, Debbie Rowe. Why shouldn't they be white? If there is a black and white couple, why cannot the children be white? It is scientifically possible, and a EXTREMELY LIKELY as Debbie Rowe acknowledges that the children are hers.

5. Jackson's Trial of Child Molestation: The jury found him innocent, and still people pick at the case even though it is a pointless venture. The majority of the jury found Jackson innocent, so in the eyes of the law he is. If people continue to label him a 'kiddie fidler', a 'pedo', or a child molester, their opinions are unfounded because the prosecutions evidence was insubstantial to convicting Jackson. So to everyone here who is branding him a child molester, you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. It is almost certain that Jackson is innocent, seeming that the jury found him to be so.

In conclusion, while society continues to attack Jackson left right and centre, they fail to see that he has his good points as well. People follow the crowd and blindly accuse Jackson. People may think that I am a superfan, but as I said in my earlier posts, I am not. I am merely a person who has weighed evidence and come to my conclusions. Crestville, I hope that you see the various issues my argument has raised, and consider them before discarding them altogether. --138.130.218.236 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you're just wrong. In particular you're view on his children (I have never EVER met, or even seen, an inerracial couple who have white children) and your definition of the word "egotism". As for Macca, he simply wanted a bit of recognition. True, everyone knows which songs are his, but he wanted it set in conrete. I think he is frustrated at the way people view Lennon in a better light to him just because he is dead. I supose that's fair enough. THIS was a mistaken act with good intentions. Floating a giant statue of yourself down a big river is egotism. And Maddonna has been absolutely torn to shreds for that stupid crusifixion thing. I cannot even be bothered to pick this one apart.--Crestville 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crestville, try 'dictionary.com'. but I am interested to know what YOUR definition is, AND back up where it came from. About the black/white couple, I know plenty of people who have white children. Just because you've never met anyone that fits the bill, doesn't mean they don't exist. And trust me, Madonna's little incursion will soon clear up. After all, not even SHE is as controversial as Jackson. With the statue, it is only your opinion that Jackson was egotistic when he floated it down a river. It is MY opinion that McCartney was egotistic when he demanded a change of writing credits. Don't you see, we are all entitled to our opinions. I'm just sharing mine, so you don't have to say "you're Just wrong" because i'm not. It is only in your opinion that I am. I think that you have to learn to respect other people's opinions if you want your own opinion to be respected. --Paaerduag 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

not only that, but Crestville, you mention that Jackson lies about things we know to be false, in particular the number of surgery's he's had. I was just curious as to how you know he's lying. Have you seen his medical records, or are you going by the doctors on ET that when you listen carefuly are called "Surgeons to stars like Jackson" not "Jackson's Surgeon". Not only that, I beleive you are refering to the quote on the Martin Bashir documentary which Jackson references his two surgery's. If I remember correctly, Jackson stated that he had had his nose done along with something else (I dont remember off hand what it was). However he never said how many times he had these done. He just said he had two surgical procedures...thus is that lying? And even if he is lying about his surgery, why is it any one's business? If you were to have surgery would you go around telling everyone? Sure, a nose job maybe, but other things probably not. Why would Jackson be any different. As for your argument of interracial couples not having white children, that is absolutely rediculous. Just do a little bit of research on the Wikipedia site. Biracial shows a photo of twins, one looking black the other white. Also, you mentioning he does not have vitiligo, once again, site your source. As for egotistical...a few more fact checks. Scream is no longer the most expensive video ever made, and even if it was who cares? Does that mean Peter Jackson is egotistical because of how much King Kong cost? As for floating a statue down the river, it was promotion for an album, as you said. Sure maybe a bit extreme but who's to say it wasn't the idea of the record company? Before you go around bashing people and stating your dislike for someone referencing so called facts, please for the sake of everyone back them up. That or just admit it's a biased opinion and that to take it as nothing more than that. :: ehmjay 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's sad when blind faith clouds judgment. I can't be arsed with this anymore. Nik nik.--Crestville 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, crestville. It's sad when people like YOU come onto wikipedia with one goal in mind: to state your own opinion and show total disregard for the opinions of others. You claim that my "blind faith clouds [my] judgement." How is this possible, crestville, taking into account the fact that I cite all of my sources and state clearly how I came to the conclusions I did? You are wrong this time, because by accusing me of blind faith when I have already said that I am not a Jackson 'superfan' and I clearly state my opinions, you are proving just how narrow-minded and egotistical YOU ARE. learn to accept other people's opinions instead of thinking of your own opinions as law. Please TRY to answer my post in a 'calm, civilized way', NOT by typing another irrelevant post branding people as being 'plain wrong' just because of their opinions, even though those opinions are clearly explained. --138.130.219.73 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tee hee hee, sorry mate, I got bored of picking apart your arguments about three days ago. I did warn you. As for opinions, you've proved mine! For the record, you don't have to be a "superfan" to use the sort of desperate reasoning you have shown throughout this whole debate, you have not shown sources and not really explianed your opinion. And that's just what it is, an opinion. Yet you're trying to shoot me down for having one! I admit, my opinion on Jackson is pretty steadfast, I make no bones about it. I would have been happy to agree to diagree. But how can you accuse me of not listening to other peoples opinions and thinking mine are law when you are doing exactly the same thing! Ha ha ha! And for goodness sake, don't accuse me of "come[ing] onto wikipedia with one goal in mind: to state [my] own opinion and show total disregard for the opinions of others." Now perhaps you feel the latter is true, fair enough, but to say that is my sole reason for being here on wikipedia is (to use one of Jacksons favorate quotes) ignorent. As it happens I've been here for two years contributing to articles and imporiving the site. This little discussion figures very, very minorly in my day to day activities on wikipedia. However, I have checked you out and it appears you're only contribution to this site has been - wait for it - to come onto this talk page and state your own opinion with a total disregard for the opinion of others! My goodness! The irony. There, I think that was pretty calm and civilized.

BTW ehmjay, I never said he didn't have viltigo. I'm sure he does. I might have said he bleaches his skin, but I think that is just to even out his skin so it's not blotchy, but what's wrong with that? You're making up your own argument here. And you accuse me of making up facts! Ah well, la-dee-da.--Crestville 12:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So Crestville, I have observed your tactics on wikipedia to date. you like to push people into a corner, dominating their opinions, YES their opinions, and forcing them to submit. I make a stand, however, because I refuse to allow people like you to operate uncontested upon this site. Show one instance where I state that my opinion is law? I challenge you to do that. Also, it seems that you have conceeded on one point. These are your exact words: "How can you accuse me of not listening to other peoples opinions and thinking mine are law when you are doing exactly the same thing!". I have not tampered in any way with your wording. There you go again, accusing accusing accusing. But that is beside the point. The point is, that you have blatantly stated, for ALL to see, that YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS! It is of little consequence whether you think I do the same, but you are likening yourself to me, who you think doesn't respect other people's opinions, and therefore do not respect other's opinions yourself. There is one recurring 'voice' that is heard on this article. Don't try to tell me that you spend minimal time on the Michael Jackson talk page. I'm saying for all to see that I spend time here to put my opinion forward and see the opinions of others who are willing to be open to new ideas, unlike you. You're comments are in dozens of subheadings (i have recorded your name in this page 55 times excluding my mentioning of it), and you are always pushing people around. Your problem is that you always accuse people of accusing you. please grow up. --Paaerduag 10:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, I have actually contributed to wikipedia, if you didn't read my talk page. I wrote the Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne article. get your facts right, crestville) --Paaerduag 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I am assuming that Paaerduag is the un-named user I’ve been talking to all along, sorry, you confused me by suddenly using a username (why didn't you just use it before?). If not, I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you replying telling me you wrote about some PC game? Get your facts right. This is the last time I'm going to do this, because we're wasting space on this talk page, so be warned, you‘re not getting a reply to this.

you like to push people into a corner, dominating their opinions, YES their opinions, and forcing them to submit.

Show me one other case on this article where I've done that? The only reason it happened to you is because, with all due respect, you're not very good at holding an argument. You can't seen to accept the fact that I dislike Jackson and so you've gone on the offensive (did you know your last couple of pasts haven’t even mentioned Jackson) taking personal shots at me to compensate for your feelings of inadequacy

I refuse to allow people like you to operate uncontested upon this site.

I would not want to operate uncontested. I enjoy a healthy debate

Show one instance where I state that my opinion is law? I challenge you to do that.

Show one where I do it, and I can find you a similar instance where you have done it.

There you go again, accusing accusing.

This from the (wo)man who accused me of thinking my own opinions are law, just because (s)he can't sway me from them, of coming on Wikipedia "with one goal in mind: to state [my] own opinion and show total disregard for the opinions of others" and other stuff.

YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS!

Actually, I have listened to your opinion, but thus far they have been very weak. For example, what am I supposed to make of this opinion: surely an egotistical person would not go around donating MILLIONS of dollars to charity and singing about a changing world. Fact of the matter is, plenty of them do. Or this little titbit: Jackson has vitiligo, which could have passed on to the children. No, it couldn't. It isn't hereditary. Or claiming Madonna didn't get any stick about the crucifixion this when she clearly has done.

What I was actually saying was that you have accused me of doing the same thing you have been doing. You seem to think that is ignoring each others opinions. I think we have been merely sticking to our own, as we have not been swayed by each others arguments. You were the one who threw accusations of ignorance in their and I merely wished to point out that if this is the way you feel, perhaps you should look at the way you have handled yourself in this debate.

There is one recurring 'voice' that is heard on this article.

There's way more than one. Let's not discount the fan boys, the cynics, the genuine contributors and yourself.

Don't try to tell me that you spend minimal time on the Michael Jackson talk page.

I come on here maybe twice a day to check on new posts. At the moment, mainly from you. That's nothing compared to other sites - check the ones that I actually care about on my page.

I'm saying for all to see that I spend time here to put my opinion forward and see the opinions of others who are willing to be open to new ideas, unlike you.

I can't see one instance where you have openly accepted a single new idea. You are beginning to look quite hypocritical. At least I have admitted none of your ideas have swayed me. I find them thoroughly unconvincing and I am not going to accept them just because it upsets you.

You're comments are in dozens of subheadings (I have recorded your name in this page 55 times excluding my mentioning of it).

I feature in three major debates, two minor ones, one complaint that I started about the removal of a picture and this. That's 7. So where did the dozens come from?

and you are always pushing people around.

Actually I checked and no, I wasn't. Those were arguments where you have to be a bit pushy to get your voice heard. The only one that's anything like that is this one, and I've explained that above.

Your problem is that you always accuse people of accusing you.

Show me evidence of that? Again, it happened once, in this article, when you accused me of something! Come on, try to hold it together

please grow up.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take such criticism from a (wo)man who has spent the last two or three posts whinging because I won't agree with their weak, ill argued opinion. Accept that opinions differ, and please, grow up. And, to end on a positive note, I disagree.--Crestville 12:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you don't get the pleasure of ending the debate last, I would like to say that you are guilty of all that you have convicted me of, so YOU are the hypocrit. I think that it's fair to say that this debate should end right here, right now, with NO MORE POSTS. --Paaerduag 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the childish one? Look at yourself, this is sad.--Crestville 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you just accuse him of being childish right after you attempted to insult him by calling him a "(wo)man?" ImmortalDragon 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find I did that because I was unsure whether the user was male or female. There is no suggestion of gender on the userpage and I did not wish to assume the user was male. That's not an insult, it's common practice.--Crestville 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You said you weren't going to respond and you did. So much for sticking with your word. And I'm a man in case you didn't realise. Now, I think this is wasting enough space, so I'm calling it quits (unless, of course, you wish to prolong this pointless vendetta) --138.130.219.73 11:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, why not. You've not stuck to your word ("NO MORE POSTS" I think it was). You're a child who can't understand why people might disagree with your weak, childish argument so you throw a little tantrum about it. Leave me alone. Bye now.--Crestville 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're just as childish as me, because if you weren't a child, you wouldn't repeatedly respond to these pointless posts, would you? I may be a hypocrite, but that means you're just as bad as me because you are a hypocrite also. Decide whether you want to be the better person in this little spat. I have no problem continuing this debate with such an ignorant person such as yourself. --138.130.217.137 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody seriously believe Jackson has vitiligo? His skin couldn't have turned white so quickly (from the "Thriller" video in 1983 to the "Bad" album just four years later), and it's funny how all his brothers and sisters are fine.

Youngest baby

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)Okonkwo

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)

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)

What's the point, when they're not even his children?

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)

Are you trying to help or just prevent me from getting anything done?--Crestville 22:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Michael_Jackson_marriages_and_children data is already on wiki. I would merge.--88.105.110.49 11:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Most good wiki's are long. he is a very interesting complicated person.--88.105.110.49 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

MJ and Islam

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)

Did a google search and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36207 this] was the first site I found. Nothing about brian washing on here!--Crestville 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ahh, no. That would be a differant link. Here's another [9]--Crestville 22:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And here's another that also mentions the mosque on his land [10]--Crestville 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Well yeah, if you don't think the sources are good enough. You'd have thought there would be a firm source somewhere.--Crestville 22:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorry, lost me there.--Crestville 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, only if you really don't want to do it yourself.--Crestville 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

No mate, spot on. I'll try to sort it out in a bit, but what would you suggest we change it to?--Crestville 09:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

lol, cheers. I'll see what I can do, but I think removing it would cause a big edit war. aybe leave it open to other people's opinions first. What does anyone else think?--Crestville 11:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Until Michael and his spokesmen confirm his conversion to Islam, none of us know the truth. The sentence should be removed because the "conversion" is all just speculation.

The source for Michael Jackson converting to Islam is not credible, Imagine if the tabloid unobjective nature of foxnews was amplified 100 times, that is world net daily. It would not even be appropriate to say that he allegedly converted to Islam, there is no evidence for this, the World net daily article quotes a FAKE source. --220.245.150.5

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)

This whole page is becoming a latest news page on the life of Michael Jackson. His religion doesn't need commenting on, its his private life and its not been publicly announced. Who cares? We don't discuss the speculation of religion for every other celebrity. While I'm here, does it really need stating he collected an award in Japan? I've highlight from references this of things we reallt don't need to know about Michael Jackson:

^ Jackson Juror Sues Over Book Deal 11/09/2005 14:30, Contact Music

^ Jackson jury enters second week BBC - Monday, 13 June, 2005, 16:11 GMT 17:11 UK

^ Gulf News 23 January 2006 - Archived

^ ABC News: Michael Jackson's Katrina Song Said Ready February 17, 2006 - ABC News

^ New Molestation Suit By TMZ.com staff (Jan 12)

^ Jackson's ex-wife's parental rights improperly terminated Thursday, February 16 - CNN (Seems to have AP sourcing)

^ Ninemsn - Jacko's ex-wife battles for kids custody Friday, February 17 - (A)AP

^ Post Chronicle - Back Off, Jacko! Deborah Rowe Spanks Michael Jackson Saturday, February 18 - Wire Reports

^ News Talk - Mesereau Will No Longer Represent Jackson Saturday, February 25 - Clear Channel News Network

^ Workers Barred From Neverland Thursday, March 9, 2006 - thesmokinggun.com

^ Demand of Payment of Wages Thursday, March 9, 2006 - thesmokinggun.com

^ Jackson closes Neverland house

^ Michael Jackson Bailout Said to Be Close 13/04/2006, Source: New York Times

^ Jackson strikes deal over loans 14/04/2006, Source: BBC

^ Jackson confirms new management deal Tuesday April 18, 01:29 p.m. by WENN

Also all links to neverland-valley are dead links, the site is down and has been down for over a month. Please remove and they can be re-added when site is back up and running.