Talk:Michael Jackson: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7

REVERT VANDALISM.

Latest version of the article removes all the info on "The song contained the lyrics "Jew me, sue me" and "kick me, kike me." After... " and replaces it with crap about how "successful" HISTory was. And why can't i edit this article yet? My username is 5 days old! ridiculous. Unprotect the page!--I'll bring the food 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be able to be edited by some, but if you take a look on this discussion page you'll see why it has to be protected. I can try and make some changes if you'd like on your behalf. Although I gotta ask, HIStory was fairly successful was it not? At least that's how I remember it.:: ehmjay 14:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The Dangerous album in 1991 was his last hugely successful release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) .

But isn't that a matter of opinion of what hugely sucessful is? I dont know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I can imagine that they aren't that small. Maybe not as big as previous albums but let us not forget, going platnum is still a major achievement (not sure if it did though. Like I said, I don't know the numbers) The tour certainly was huge, running for 3 years. :: ehmjay 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went back and read the section on HIStory (not the HIStory article, but the section under Jackson's page) and it doesn't appear to be wrong to me. What EXACTLY do you see as needing changes? Also, I just checked the HIStory page which states "Since its release in 1995, HIStory: Past, Present and Future - has sold 18 million copies worldwide, making it the biggest selling multiple-disc album of all-time. " Sounds successful to me. :: ehmjay 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

18 million sold worldwide does sound very successful to me as well. To IBTF, remember to always sign your posts. Dionyseus 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not compared to "Thriller"'s 47 million sales. Anyway, Michael Jackson hasn't even been on the list of biggest selling artists in the last few years.

Just because its not as many as Thrillers 47 million sales doesn't mean its not a sucess. If that we the case then every album for the past 20 years would not be a sucess seeing as NOTHING has come close to that number. Yes, it was not his MOST successful album but it was hardly a flop. As for the not being biggest selling artists...he hasn't released anything since Invincible (which did debut at number one) and actually has topped fairly high on the UK charts with the re-releases of his previous albums and singles. :: ehmjay 21:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Invincible" got poor reviews and only sold 6.5 million copies - and that was before the Berlin balcony incident, the Martin Bashir documentary and the trial for sexually abusing children. The chances of Jackson ever making a comeback are zilch.

First off, the Berlin incendent happened a year after Invincible was released, the documentary a year later and the trial 3 years later - so that's incorrect. Secondly, since when is 6.5 million copies a low number? Yes, its not 47 million, but I know a lot of musicians and bands who would LOVE to sell 6.5 million. :: ehmjay 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they would love to sell over 6 million albums, but they wouldn't love to spend $20 million recording it.

Yeah but since we're talking about the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" I would say 6.5 million is a VERY low number. If he ever manages to record an album of new material it will sell considerably less, due to all the controversy since "Invincible" was released. If a middle-aged man groping his genitals on stage in front of thousands of children isn't corrupt then I don't know what is. It's because of Jackson, Gary Glitter and Jonathan King that this world is so perverted. In any case he's too ill to move about and his voice is nowhere near as good as it was in the 80s. I don't understand why all these sad losers rave over Jackson because he never had a powerful voice like Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, Sir Tom Jones etc.

That's rediculous - 6.5 million albums is still quite an achievement. Also, im not sure many children go to Jackson concerts - from what I've seen they're mostly young adults and older people. He is not the least bit ill, infact he is in quite good health and his voice sounds find to me. As for his voice not being powerful - well he is able to hit notes some trained opera singers cannot (and that is a fact) so that seems like a pretty powerful voice. Elvis, Roy and Tom are all excellent singers as well but jackson is just as good. If you can't see hear that then you should get your hearing checked. :: ehmjay 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

6.5 million is pathetic compared with his heyday. In 1995, after 25 years in the business, Sir Elton John sold over 15 million copies of "The Lion King Soundtrack". I am glad you know Wacko Jacko personally, myself I thought he looked very ill during the trial and has lost a lot of weight. He mumbled his way through "We've Had Enough" and his music is so, well, Eighties. Elvis is forever. Jackson was a good dancer, never a singer. Thankfully most people now see how overrated and untalented he always was. No more teenagers will be flocking to see the reclusive pervert.

I think more people would agree that Jacksons songs are more timely then a lot of Elvis' songs - not that Elvis' songs are bad, but teenagers these days would recognize a Jackson track as being more of something of this time. I'm not sure how you can say he mumbled his way through We've Had Enough...although it begs the question...how did you hear it? It's not a single, its only on the Ultimate Collection. Do we have a closet jackson fan? And once again, yes not as good as his heyday but that is not an argument. Lion King sold well, but if you look at the Wiki article for Elton,"In 2004, however, he released a new album, Peachtree Road which, despite some favourable reviews, was his least commercially successful album in every country it was released in." so therefore not a great argument. Every artist can have a low selling album compared to a previous album of theirs but it doesn't mean that it was not sucessful. And btw - I dont want to be accused of hating Elton. I infact think that he is another one of the worlds greatest talents with Goodbye Yellow Brick Road being one of the finest albums of all time. BTW - where do you get your album sale stats? I'd be interetsed in finding some. :: ehmjay 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think more people would agree that Jacksons songs are more timely

Oooh, no! I don't want to be pedantic (!), but I must protest! I'm not a massive fan of either, but I am a teenager these days and all of my friends acknowlege that at least Elvis could sing without sounding silly. Jackson had a good, novel disco voice but, lest we forget, Disco is Dead Baby. Ajnd I've just remebered, Elvis actually managed a comeback a few years ago, despite the noticable disability of being dead. The Beatles also managed it in 1995. Both released new material. I'll be interested to see if Jackson, given the advantage of being alive, can manage a similar comeback.--Crestville 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as you mentioned this new material was hardly new - just unreleased or in the case of Evlis - remixed. I have no doubt that once Jackson passes away he will also have a "post mortem" comeback seeing as there are hundreds of unreleased tracks just waiting to come out. BTW...I agree Elvis is a legend, but if know for sure apart from the remixes (which hardly count) you would not hear Elvis on any dance floors - yet Jackson is played all the time. It aint disco music - its dance music. :: ehmjay 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been going to the wrong clubs--Crestville 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Clubs are not the be all and end all anyway (not that I hear many Jackson songs in clubs at any rate - no more than Presley, and NOT just remixes, I don't think "Burning Love" and "Way Down" hve been "remixed"). How many Cliff Richard, Elton John, Kenny Rogers, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd and Led Zepelin tracks do they play in clubs? Dosen't mean a lot of young people don't listen to their music and that these artists aren't legends today. The only reason Jackson is considerd more of this time is because he is still alive, whereas Elvis has been dead 29 years, not because he is a more respected artist to younger people TonyLeigh 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

Are you sure that Michael Jackson was born on August 29? Some sources such as IMBD have that he was born August 28. If he was born on August 29, why do most people say August 28 instead? Sandy June 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking around or posing a legitimate question: but yes. His birthday is Aug. 29th 1958. Also - just checked the IMDB - and it is listed as the 29th. :: ehmjay 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question. I was reading an article about Michael's childhood career and it said that he was born on August 28, 1958. I now know that that person was making a mistake. Sandy June 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just wasn't sure. But yes, his birthday is the 29th.

The affair

I think this article should mention the National Enquirer's article about his homosexuality and his affair with Liberace's lover, Scott Thorson. I think that this article should not only cover his marriages and relationships with females but also cover his secret affairs as well since we are talking about Michael Jackson and his dark sides. Sandy June 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for anything to be in the article, it must come from a reliable source. Because the National Enquirer is a tabloid, and hardly considered to be a reliable source, unless there was more evidence to show that the affair occured then it would more than likely not belong in the article. At least that's how things work to my knowledge (I'm still rather new to the editing process) :: ehmjay 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No acting career

I think the article should mention that Jac kson has never had an acting career, unlike Bing Crosby (4 Oscars), Frank Sinatra (2 Oscars), Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Sir Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey etc - yet more evidence of how the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" is overrated.

Jackson was in 2 Hollywood films, made numerous short films, has guest starred on The Simpsons...how is that less valid then any of the others you listed (appart from not winning any academy awards? Yet more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. :: ehmjay 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing yourself in two bad movies hardly constitutes an acting career. Bing Crosby will always be superior to Jackson in every way.

Yes, Bing Crosby was in more movies and is a better actor than Jackson, but Jackson is not a REAL actor. And for a singer he's actually not that bad of an actor. As for playing himself, he was not playing himself in The Wiz. And like I said before, when you get right down to it he has actually been in quite a number of films and shorts - which in my opinion constitutes an acting career. As for Crosby being superior...thats a matter of opinion. It's my opinion that as a man who sang romantic songs and jazz tunes Crosby probably was better. And as a pop star and dancer Jackson would beat Crosby single handedly. :: ehmjay 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus Bing is the biggest movie star in history after John Wayne and Clark Gable, and he had the biggest selling single for 55 years and was worth $700 million. Jackson's paltry ten years at the top don't even compare with Der Bingle's fifty-year career.

Bing was worth 700 million? that's funny, as he died in 1977... 700 million in his time would make him the Bill gates of his day.. so your claims about his alleged wealth and equally false record sales figures are balderdash.

Nope. Bing owned oil wells, baseball teams, hotels, working farms, golf courses etc. Maybe you should investigate just how successful and important he was.

I have and that may have bene his shares in the companys at their peak (taking into account inflation), but shares go up and down all the time and you never get their full value if you sell. Bing was not as "important" as you claim. He was an over-rated crap singer who sold a lot less than his fans boast (in short he was the Michael Jackson of his day).

You're right - it doesn't...you cannot compare two completely different entertainers when they have such a different career. If you were to draw a comparison between Jackson and say, Madonna then perhaps we could make some arguments here - but you're not. You're comparing Jackson to a person who's actual CAREER was more or less over by the time his was taking off. Oh and since your so into sordid histories and rumours regarding celebrities, you should know that Mr. Crosby also came under fire for abuse towards children - his own in fact. Of course I'm sure you'll mention these are just allegations...:: ehmjay 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course since Jackson was found not guilty of doing this it doesn't really matter. :: ehmjay 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort of like Marlon Brando? And where did you get 90% of the world's population. That figgure is WAY off. Oh and as I've mentioned many times before...citation? :: ehmjay 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tarita made it quite clear in the book that Brando, for all his financial problems and lawsuits, was still powerful enough to prevent her from telling the truth during his lifetime. In any case Bing wore a red cardigan, green trousers and a yellow fedora. While his friends Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra and John Wayne wore ties, Bing continued to wear a bow tie. The Old Groaner is clearly the hardest man here:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1165/Mptv/1165/0898-0032.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Crosby,%20Bing

You've proved nothing. You've only mentioned that this woman CLAIMS she was unable to make CLAIMS...and that Bing Crosby wore bowties - which hardly proves anything! :: ehmjay 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that Bing was a great hero because he entertained the troops in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, was a major celebrity supporter of the Republican Party, was the second richest man in Hollywood, and continues to outsell all other entertainers every Christmas. In 1960 he received a platinum record as First Citizen of the Record Industry for having sold 200 million discs, a number that doubled by 1980. Between 1915 and 1980 he was the only motion-picture star to rank as the number one box-office attraction five times (1944-48). Between 1934 and 1954 he scored in the top ten fifteen times. He appeared on approximately 4,000 radio broadcasts, nearly 3,400 of them his own programs, and single-handedly changed radio from a live-performance to a canned or recorded medium by presenting, in 1946, the first transcribed network show on ABC, thereby making that also-ran network a major force. In a great many of his films, he played lighthearted comedy and musical roles as a singer or songwriter. His usual casual approach belied the fact that Crosby was a fine dramatic actor, as witnessed by his portrayals in Little Boy Lost (1953), The Country Girl (1954), Man On Fire (1957), and his last major film Stagecoach (1966). He also starred in the television movie Doctor Cook's Garden and won much critical acclaim for his performance. His last television appearance was in "Bing Crosby's Merrie Olde Christmas" which was taped in England and shown in the United States on 30 November 1977, and in the United Kingdom on 24 December 1977. This final show has also been available on commercial video. Endorsed Republican candidate Wendell Willkie in the 1940 Presidential election, because he strongly believed President Franklin D. Roosevelt should only serve two terms of office. When Roosevelt was easily re-elected, Crosby vowed never to become publicly involved in partisan politics again. Bing is so clearly the greatest entertainer of all time that I don't see how anybody can even be compared with him, and certainly not Plastic Man with his scraggy neck and bleached skin.

Yes Bing entertained troops during the wars, kudos on that (although there weren't many major wars going on at the time of Jackson's career). Yes he outsells artists at Christmas time (Jackson is a jahova's witness and has never recorded a Christmas album apart from the Jackson 5 christmas album which until recently was hard to find). Crosby is an excellent entertainer - there is no doubt about it. I respect him. However I would not call him the greatest entertainer of all time. I would not call Jackson the greatest of all time. The fact is, no matter who says what its all a matter of opinion. However - Jackson has won numerous polls calling him "artist of the century", "musicial of the millenium" (something one would think would go to Beethoven or Mozart), "greatest artist of the 80s". The fact is you cannot compare to careers that have a 30-50 year difference. Yes Bings album have sold lots and are still selling. Thriller is still selling - the number keeps rising - much like Bing's. However Bing Crosby may be the greatest entertainer to you - but not to others. That is something that you have to expect. And not only that - you can't just post rude comments about other artists who you dislike. To go back to the topic at hand - Jackson's acting career is just as valid as Madonna's, or any number of musicians turned actors. Yes, not as big as others but it is still worth mentioning. Let's put this debate to rest. Crosby is a great entertainer. So was Jackson. :: ehmjay 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Crosby was a great singer and actor, Jackson was incredibly overrated. Btw, would that "Artist of the Millenium" award be the non-existant award given to him on his 44th birthday in August 2002, when he was really starting to lose his sanity?

No, it was a poll taken by some news shohw or a television show like Biography (I cant remember exacly who, it was a long time ago) in which he won. :: ehmjay 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found a few of them from the List Of Michael Jackson Awards wiki-page:

American Music Awards:

• Artist Of The Century Award (January 9th)

Bambi Awards (Berlin, Germany)

• Pop Artist of the Millennium

World Music Awards

• Best Selling Pop Male Artist of the Millennium

Those are just three that I could find quickly. There are more - that site is missing quite a few (BET Awards, RMAs) --:: ehmjay 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You know in 1995 it was announced that Bing Crosby had sold well over 1 billion records worldwide. He is without doubt the biggest selling artist in history. Nobody buys Jackson's crap anymore unless they want people to know that they like taking little boys from behind.

Actually, during the latest Visionaries releases each single that has been re-released has made it into the charts - the lowest being at #34 (at least if my memory serves me correctly) and the highest charting at #11 (all this info was obtained here). If you look at the wikipage Best Selling Artists of All Time you'll see Jackson appears alongside the Beatles and Elvis, at the page Best Selling Albums Worldwide Jackson holds the top spot, and also appears in the list at Best Selling Music Artists (and bear in mind on that page its listed alphabetically not by number of albums sold). So to say that Jackson hasn't sold many records or as many as Bing Crosby (and to say Crosby has sold over 1 Billion) AND that Jackson isn't still selling records...is incorrect. :: ehmjay 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite probably Crosby has sold over a billion records, it's just that we can only confirm 900 million sales. Remember that recording sales were not carefully measured in the 1930s. Crosby is so clearly the greatest that nobody except The Beatles can even compare with him.

Bing didn't sell 900 million. complete fabriction. Nowhere near. He sold (as of 2002) 160 million.

Is that supposed to be funny? "White Christmas" alone sold 50 million copies as a single, and 100 million in compilations. Bing's sales can be confirmed at over 500 million. Remember that from 1931 until 1950 he was literally the biggest star on the planet.

There has yet to be any evidence to show that Bing Crosby has sold over 500 million. :: ehmjay 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

here; here; here; here; and here. Reserch should be the very foundation of an argument. Otherwise you could end up looking a bit silly.--Crestville 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Im just curious - if this is the case then why does the guiness site list Crosby as the "Biggest Xmas Hit" and not as biggest selling artist - and Jackson as "Best Selling Album". Not only that, the Guiness page now confirms the 51 million sales of Thriller, and two of the articles you posted RE: Bing appear to be Independant research - something we aren't supposed to take into account. --:: ehmjay 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't rely on the Guinness site for all your information. They are actually wrong about the "Thriller" album's sales, which in fact add up to 47 million copies. I believe Jackson actually shares the "Best Selling Album" title with another artist. Crosby has the biggest single of all time, "White Christmas" which sold more than 50 million copies as a single and had to be re-recorded in 1947. 55 years after it first appeared the song was overtaken by Sir Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" as the fastest selling single, but that doesn't really count as people only bought it because it was a tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales. In the last five years sales of "Candle in the Wind" have declined dramatically, while Bing's Christmas albums continue to bring him ahead every year. Most sities agree that Bing is the second biggest selling artist in history with 900 million, after Elvis Presley's estimated 1.1 billion.

"Most sites" do NOT state Bing as the 2nd biggest selling act. Most sites don't even include him (his sales info is dodgy and based on a lot of record company say so and fan sites.. a bit like Jackson really). However, Bing has sold a lot, but nowhere near the 900 million claims (it's closer to 160-180 million as of today). He was huge a long time ago BUT the world population and record buying customers were MUCH lower back then and he is not selling today like one of the hottest acts. Elvis Presley and The Beatles, for example sell a lot more than Bing Crosby nowdays and have done for many decades and enjoyed their peaks when the popualtion and record buying public were much larger. Michael Jackson too has sold a lot more than Bing from the mid-1970s on. In order for Bing to have sold the claimed 900 million (that very few actually believe) then he would have had to have outsold MJ from "On The Wall" onwards and also outsold Paul McCartney's post-Beatles carrer since the 1970s. Complete nonsence. Furthermore "White Christmas" has not sold 50 million copies as a single, that was a claim rused out after "Candle in the Wind 97" by Elton John outsold it, but it is not true and I'm afraid "Candle in the wind '97" does count, you have a non-argument, we could easily argue that Christmas songs don't count as they are mere cash-in's on the worlds most commerical holiday. 74.65.39.59 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Crosby sold more than 200 million records worldwide in the 1930s alone, at a time when people had far less money to spend. It is an indisputable fact that at his peak Crosby was bigger than Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and The Beatles combined. With crooning going out of fashion in the 1960s it is difficult for young people today to appreciate just how major Crosby's influence and success was. Of course Bing's fan sites are very biased in his favor, but I would think that is inevitable with any iconic star, whether it's Crosby or Jackson or Presley. This conversation started about how Jackson never had an acting career unlike many over entertainers, and has now turned into an analysis of why he is so unbelievably overrated. Elvis fans always try to make out Bing had no competition until Sinatra arrived, yet the fact is Bing was holding off about a dozen big stars including Al Jolson. Besides The Beatles (who blew him off the map), Elvis had Englebert Humperdinck, Adam Faith, Bobby Darin, Matt Monro etc - pleasant enough pop stars but ahrdly big leaguers. If only Bing had continued to release albums regularly after he left Decca in 1955, then his supremacy would be unchallenged. You know from that time until 1974 he didn't perform live at all, except for his annual Christmas shows. I have just ordered the picture of Crosby, Sinatra, Hope and Wayne from the MPTV to go on the wall.

Please - reamin civil and do not attack other users because they disagree with you. :: ehmjay 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bing Crosby fan has to realise that people will dissagree, espically when he has no proof of his/her claims. I also find bemusing at how he/she claims Elvis only had minor league stars to compete with, what about Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Pat Boone, Cliff Richard and so on and so forth in the 1950s-early 60s alone (I.e BEFORE the beatles) and then, of course, Presley remained in the game throughout the 60s and 70s, continuing to sell and score hit's despite new stars coming up. Furthermore, Englebert Humperdinck claims to have sold more than 150 million records (presumably if this were true most of them were sold before 1977). Not that I believe it myself, but it's just as probable as these claims for Bing Crosby. 74.65.39.59 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LIES!

"No it wasn't. The Dangerous album in 1991 was his last hugely successful release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'll bring the food (talk • contribs) ."

I did not post that comment. This is a complete fabrication. Somebody please look through the talk page history and discipline the person that did this fabrication!--I'll bring the food 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Jackson&diff=61720653&oldid=61705437 --I'll bring the food 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one second, I think this was a misunderstanding on Dynesius' part. Because you were the one who started the topic he assumed you posted that comment however you did not. You noticed that Dynesius posted in his comment to be sure to sign your posts assuming that you had just forgotten. I have a feeling that the post was contributed by our mystery friend who never signs his posts. I will make the change. Once again a misunderstanding. However it reminds us: SIGN YOUR POSTS! :: ehmjay 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As Ehmjay explained it was an honest misunderstanding. I looked through the history and found out it was actually 195.93.21.66 who made the comment. Dionyseus 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I figgured that's what happened. Thanks for doing some cleaning up Dionyseus. :: ehmjay 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A 'Comeback' does not necessarily mean it will be successful

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

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

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

He's posting info regarding Brando being a pedophile.:: ehmjay 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A comeback is impossible for Jackson and Brando even admitted he was a pervert so there.

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

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

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

Um, I was talking about Brando admitting he was gay. Have you seen the picture of him sucking Dean's cock?

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

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

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

Actually it was in the official court papers. And it wasn't just reported by Female First, it was all over the Internet during the Jackson trial. Brando's fans at the imdb were proclaiming how it proved Brando wasn't as close to Jackson as people had assumed, and therefore couldn't have been a pedophile himself.

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

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

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

There were three famously gay Method actors in the 1950s - Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift and James Dean.

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

Drunk driving campaign

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

Michael Jackson was personally thanked by then-President Ronald Reagan at a White House ceremony in 1985 for donating his Grammy-award winning song "Beat It" for use in Drunk Driving Prevention television and radio PSAs. Other celebrities have also helped to bring attention to the problem of drunk driving. PSAs created in conjunction with Recording Artists, Actors, and Athletes Against Drunk Driving (RADD) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) featured such talent as Aerosmith, Barry Bonds, Brian McKnight, Dennis Franz, Faith Hill, Jamie Lee Curtis, Shaquille O'Neil, Stevie Wonder, and Tim McGraw. -- [[1]]--I'll bring the food 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It was May 1984. Get used to it.

Michael Jackson Page

Thank goodness this page is looking better then it did a few months back.Most editors are doing good job. I was just hoping there can be more about the Dangerous Era. I mean like the superbowls, videos, lifetime acheivement award at the Grammies, and concerts rather then just Black or White and Oprah

Iraq

The article should mention Jackson's support for the Iraq war. By 2003, when it had not been released, Jackson called Schaffel with more urgent messages saying he had a plan for the recording to be a charity project tied to the Iraq war. "It should be for America in Iraq," Jackson said in one message. "It's a perfect cause. It means more now than any other causes." It's hilarious how the isolated loser churned out "We've Had Enough" in 2004 to jump on the bandwagon while quietly supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If it can be proven (with cited sourced) it can be mentioned...otherwise it has no place here. Also POV comments do not belong. :: ehmjay 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all been released for the ongoing $4 million lawsuit against Jackson. How embarrassing, not only is he a closet ************** but he isn't liberal at all. What a disgrace to the black community. No wonder they hate him so much.

Some thoughts from a fan

Okay, I'm completely new to Wiki so go easy on me. First off, interesting debate here and much more civilised than any MJ message boards! But I do think there's a lot of insider MJ missing from this encyclopedia write-up. I wish more of the message board people would come here and help out. Here are a few notes for now:

This write-up is extremely unbalanced, not in terms of fact/opinion but in the weight that's given to the last 5 or 6 six years versus his earlier career. Obviously, writers have more fresh facts/data for this time period, but it's unfair to lump Thriller into a 10-year period and then give a special section to a 2-year period involving the Bashir video.

Here's how I'd divide this write-up to make it more encyclopedic. I'll give categories here with a few notes on things that might be changed/added:

"Early life and career: 1966 – 1981" Make end of title 1981 not 1980. You could even divide into "Early life and the Jackson 5: 1966 - 1975" and "The Jacksons and Going Solo: 1976 - 1981." Section needs some work. Where are all the details about the Jackson 5 and Jacksons? It's strange that we get a petty exchange between MJ and Gloria Allred (under "Berlin and Bashir"), but no real details or quotes here. Relationship between MJ and Berry Gordy (his second Dad), fact that MJ recorded so much and "missed out on his childhood" (common theme in later interviews), alleged abuse from father, blossoming dance talent, appearance in "Free to Be You And Me" video, robot dance move, Ed Sullivan appearance (!), more hits from Jacksons including "Shake Your Body (Down To The Ground)", emergence of MJ as songwriter on songs such as "Blues Away" (first solo writing credit, off The Jacksons) and "Heartbreak Hotel" (off Triumph) and "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and "Working Day and Night" (on Off the Wall). There's a lot to add here.

"The Thriller Era: 1982 - 1985" I'd make this a separate section. This is the era that defined his career and changed pop music! It's missing a lot of details; again, why do we get so many details from Bashir video and zero quotes from this era?! Motown 25 performance at the very least needs some beefing up. This was considered a revolution when it aired. Maybe add anecdote about Fred Astaire calling up MJ the next day and telling him he was a "hell of a mover." Maybe some quotes from MJ about the album, what he wanted to do with it? Maybe notes on impact of Thriller video (on other artists, commonly mimicked choreography, etc.), fact that he brought Emmanuelle Lewis and Brooke Shields to the Grammy Awards, fact that he started jogging with the military and wearing some crazy military garb. So much to add, so little of it here!

"More Success and Controversy: 1986 - 1992" This would be a new section, possibly with a different title. Maybe "Bad and Dangerous: 1986-1992"? Seems cumbersome to list the album titles, but that's really the best way to chart his career. This section needs a mention of the fact that the National Inquirer claims MJ *gave them* the pictures of the hyperbaric chamber and told them to print it with the word "Weird" in the headline, meaning MJ wanted some "weird" tabloid coverage and toyed with the tabloids for a bit, though it obviously got out of hand. I've seen this mentioned in several biographies and (I think) the show 60 minutes. No mention of film Moonwalker?! Also mention fact that Oprah interview was a major television event, over 50 million viewers, I believe. Dangerous album gets majorly shortchanged here. And "which was accompanied by a controversial music video featuring scenes of a sexual nature, violence and racism" is weak; the controversial part was the dance sequence at the *end* of the video, and there was no "racism" just some KKK graffiti on a window that he angrily smashes (though I don't believe that was in original version). Should also mention morphing technology used in video, which was groundbreaking at the time.

"First Allegations and Aftermath: 1993 - 2001" If later sections are going to be really specific, this needs to be a separate section. Really, the allegations defined this era; all his music is a reaction to it, both HIStory and Blood on the Dancefloor. Lots of angry, weird music. And what about all the crazy promotion for the HIStory album?! He floated a statue of himself down the Thames, for crying out loud, and the promo video is totally over the top propaganda (in a fabulous way, IMO). Also, re: "Jew me, sue me" lyrics, I don't think this is encyclopedic because it gives a one-sided version. MJ has said "I was using myself as the victim" and identifying with the persecution of Jews or something to that effect; in other words, he's saying "Jew me" (or, persecute me the way the Jews were persecuted), and then he says "sue me" because...it rhymes. It's breathtakingly naive, but this is what he claims. Worth noting. For Invincible, you might note the efforts to bring MJ back to his earlier Off the Wall sound on a few songs like "Butterflies." It's also noteworthy that he *finally* started singing songs about relationships again and stopped singing about 1993 allegations. This section is missing Madison Square Garden 30th Anniversary shows, on 9/7 and 9/10/01 (a wealth of freakshow details, also noteworthy for pairing him with Liza and producer David Gest, and MJ was later Best Man at their crazy wedding). Might also note that MJ fled NYC after 9/11, and Corey Feldman claims he didn't offer him a ride in his limo, causing a rift in their friendship (petty detail?).

Okay, I think rest of the sections can keep their titles, but the trial section needs beefing up! So many details worth adding there, including fact that E! re-enacted the trial scenes daily, tabloid coverage, snazzy Mr. Blackwell-approved outfits daily, pajama mishap, reports of physical/mental deterioation, anticipation of the verdict; really, in my mind, the frenzy over the trial is eerily almost as fervid as frenzy during Thriller era, like a counterbalance to his career. Not an encyclopedic theory, but worth noting for context.

That's all for now. Sorry to take up so much space. Feel free to comment, edit, delete, whichever. I'll be back to make some comments to the main text if people like my ideas. --Steverino 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Steverino, this article needs beefing up. Aeneiden-Rex 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think u should change the article the way u've written here, it's good.Aeneiden-Rex 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. In all truthfulness, Jackson's career and height of popularity was in the earlier years and those sections should be far larger than the sections regarding recent controversies. There needs to be some work done. But the problem is if Jackson fans make any changes trying to ballance the early years non-Jackson fans tend to call it POV. If the controversies are made larger the Jackson fans get upset and then wars start and nothing gets done. I feel that fact is more important than rumours and possibilities. I'm not saying the controversies do not belong - but this article needs more about Jackson's career not his private/social life - he is afterall an entertainer. :: ehmjay 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree a bit and think that it's acceptable to list the controversies in detail. It's part of his legacy, whether fans like it or not. I believe more than 50 million people watched the announcement of the trial verdict, which is about the number of people who have bought the Thriller album (and same number who watched Oprah interview!). So I think the career and the controversy should balance each other out similarly in this article. The only thing I have a problem with is the fact that huge chunks of career are done in a few paragraphs whereas the last few years are picked apart year by year. I'll go into the article and edit a bit if I have some time this weekend. 12.149.50.2 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree that the controversies are nescicary to the article, however as you said, I do not think that they should be the largest section or that is to say they should be balanced out. They are an important part of Jackson's life however so is the music. :: ehmjay 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Rowe isn't Michael Jackson

Can anyone explain why the link from the Michael Jackson section "Visionary and Tokyo: 2006 –" that says "Deborah Rowe" links right back to Michael Jackson? She does not have her own page, but still...

No "but still," she is otherwise non-notable.--88.105.103.134 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that because she does not have her own page it links back to Jackson. It should probably link to a section of the Jackson page that mentions her. :: ehmjay 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. There shouldn't be circular internal links in the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Millions

Jackson has sold over 215 million records (singles, albums, downloads) as a solo act.

It must be more than 215 millions if you count in singles, albums and downloads, as a solo act. It's up to 300 millionsAeneiden-Rex 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Actually it's only 170 million.

no way, that's not true. MJ has sold way more than 170 Aeneiden-Rex 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not 170 million, it's not above 300 million, it's 215 million.

where did you get that number from?Aeneiden-Rex 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing a study on the music industry, record sales and world-wide charts (both sales and airplay - including backlog sales too). Once I archive this research, I'll put it all up for all to see. I have been looking at all sales claims from all "sources" I can find, looking at reports from the industry (both labels and record shops across the board) and the charts. I am doing my own encyclopedia, a music one that will eventually be available in book form, it's going to take a number of years yet though to complete, so by the time I have finished I'm sure the figure will have grown a little.

As it stands, the wikipedia policy is not to accept independent research. :: ehmjay 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

170 million maybe an old number is the "overblow hype MJ sales" department, but in the real world he has now really reached that figure in 2006. Yes, the MJ hype machine still proclaims him as the biggest selling solo artist, but that dosen't mean anything to people who don't look at this court jester of pop through rose tinted glasses and see him for what he really is - a very over-rated once upon a time time star who no longer sells at all. He's not even the biggest selling pop artist - Sir Elton John has sold over 250 million records, and that figure is confirmed by the RCIA.

I don't think anyone has claimed he is the biggest selling artist. And he does continue to sell albums, one only has to look at the charts to see this is true. :: ehmjay 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked Wacko wasn't even on the charts.

If you look here or here to show that jackson is still in the charts. :: ehmjay 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MJ has not sold 170 millions as of 2006 as a solo-act, where do you get this number from? he's at least sold 215 million. MJ still sells very well, maybe not in america, but is that a wonder? You need to be more objective.Aeneiden-Rex 08:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson may get it the charts when he has something new out, but this quickly falls off. This is not "selling very well" for an artist of his stature and limited discography. It would be selling very well if it was someone like Mick Jagger, who can't even sell a solo record, but not for someone like Jackson. ehmjay please don't give us links to mickey mouse charts. 74.65.39.59 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just wait for his new album and you'll see how well that record will sell.Aeneiden-Rex 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It will probably sell as well as his most recent efforts, so it will hardly be a blockbuster success 74.65.39.59 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Invincible might not have been a blockbuster but it was still not a failure. Let's just wait and see, I don't count on MJ becoming as popular as before, in America, with his new album, but it will still sell very well, because he still MJ.Aeneiden-Rex 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jeffersons

I noticed that in the filmography Jackson is listed as appearing in The Jeffersons episode. However to my knowledge that is not his voice and therefore I don't think it should appear in his Filmography. Any thoughts? --:: ehmjay 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, remove it.--88.105.98.172 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct the introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving Some of This Page?

I was just wondering, this page is getting pretty long. Would it be possible to add some more of it to the archive so there is less scrolling required to get to the newest posts? Just a thought. :: ehmjay 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I archived as much of the older stuff as possible as well as the off-topic editor stuff. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! :: ehmjay 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Icons

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note RE: reverts

I noticed one user was against my reverts claiming that I and others were removing comments that I and others dislike/don't agree with to dictate what should and should not be discussed. This is not the case. I remove comments that are either unsourced, vandalism (calling Jackson a pedophile), adding POV nonsence (ie: At least Hitler and Charles Manson didn't record "Billie Jean".), and anything that doesn't really apply to the article or topic in discussion. This IS allowed. Not only that, the person who made these reverts decided to remove valid arguments by other people - which in turn is no better than what they claimed that I and others have done. :: ehmjay 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I said "at least Hitler and Manson didn't record Billie Jean" and it is not POV, it is a fact (unless you're telling me they also recorded it).

So it was you all along was it, funny I thought it was that anonymous user who was so anxious to prove Bing Crosby did not sell 500 million albums. Paul Martin was a terrible leader and Steven Harper rules forever!

I didn't touch any of your comments regarding Bing Crosby. The only comments I removed of yours were ones that were offensive, libelous, slanderous, POV, or nonsence. You can look at the history if you want to. :: ehmjay 01:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

: Then why didn't you remove his last comment you're replying too? "Steven Harper Rules Forever" is POV. I guess you don't take offense to it, so just over look it. 74.65.39.59 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

74.65.39.59 That last comment is personal harrassment and disruptive of wikipedia's proper function. If you do it again, you will be blocked. I suggest you concentrate on some research to source some worthwhile material for the article. Tyrenius 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So asking someone why they remove only selective comments is "harrasment" is it? Despite the fact you are threating to have me blocked because I dare raise a point, could you please then tell me how to make these comments in future without someone threating to block me because I was concerned that someone may only be taking POV comments off that they only dissagree with and leaving on the POV commments they only agree with. I'm hope you would agree if such conduct is taking place this is also "disruptive of wikipedia's proper function". 74.65.39.59 14:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The tone of your remarks is confrontational and provocative, and violates assume good faith, which is a cornerstone of wiki conduct. The best thing is to put your concerns to him in the way you have to me, i.e. in a more reasoned tone. Better still - fix it! Remove the POV comments that still remain. However, removal of comments from the talk page should be done with caution, and only if they are quite clearly counter-productive. There has to be a certain latitude. Unfortunately this talk page is all about people's personal opinions. It's all hot air, and no decent productive work. If any of the involved editors continue from now on to assert statements, facts and figures or whatever, without backing them up with verifiable sources, then I will consider that to be disruptive and will consider blocking.

Don't call Ehmjay "the Bing Crosby fan". It's provocation.

The thing is - pull together. Put wiki and a good article before your own egos. Be friends, and if you can't be friends, then at least be good co-workers.

Tyrenius 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not the Bing Crosby fan. I'm the Michael Jackson fan. :: ehmjay 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the joke. He was making fun of you.--Crestville 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quincy Jones

The article needs to mention Jones more prominently. The success of "Thriller" (47 million copies sold as of 2006) owed as much to Jones's producing as it did to Jackson's vocal and songwriting skills. Once he got rid of Jones, his career not surprisingly declined a lot. This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him.

While I agree that Jones should be mentioned as he did an excellent job of producing, you cannot argue that the loss of Jones is the reason jackson's career has declined. Dangerous is considered to be an exteremly fine album - and Jones did not produce it. :: ehmjay 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Dangerous" got better reviews that the "Bad" album overall, but it still contained some mediocre tracks. People always talk about how one could tell Presley was going to be a big star from the moment he recorded "That's All Right Mama", while Bing's "I've Got the Girl" failed to get his career moving. But the fact is that Presley had an experienced producer in Sam Phillips, and recording equipment was vastly improved. Bing had no such figure when he started, so he was at an immense disadvantage to both Presley and Jackson.

what's the matter with you? first of all 47 millions is wrong. Jacksons career declined after he got rid of Jones? Well maybe in America but there is a world outside of america you know. "This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him", ridiculous, this is only your opinion. Jones helped thrillers succes very much, but Jackson did write and co-produce the 3 biggest song of that album. Aeneiden-Rex 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thriller's sales as pf 2006 are 47 million, like it or not.

No it hasn't. That number is from the 90's.Aeneiden-Rex 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

According to MJ's hype machine. However, the diffrence is it has now really hit that figure. 74.65.39.59

Conduct on this page: this is a warning

I would like to remind all contributors to this article and this page to please maintain a good standard of civility, even if you disagree strongly with another editor.

Furthermore, this page is not a place to express personal opinions, especially derogatory ones and even more so as this is a biogaphy of a living person, where the bias is towards restraint. Some of the edits I have seen in the edit history are completely unacceptable, defamatory accusations, and must not recur.

This page is for discussion about material that can be used to improve the article. To that end, statements should be made with a view to following NPOV and be verifiable. These are non-negotiable policies, and persistent violation of them will be regarded as disruptive behaviour.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish, and if there is anything you want to bring to my attention, please provide diffs. (ask if you're unsure about how to do so).

Thank you and I urge you to strive for a good level of co-operation with fellow editors to increase the standard of this important article, which obviously generates a lot of passion.

Tyrenius 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification: this is a warning

It is particularly important when there is contention that all material is meticulously referenced. Please study the policy VERIFY on this and do not put forward anything that does not follow it. Likewise personal opinions should be kept out of the argument. Stick to a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The third non-negotiable policy is NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Continued violation of these policies can lead to being blocked.

Tyrenius 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New Image on Main Page

I noticed the image change on the main page - and im sure this has been discussed before - but personally I think that the image should be left as the most recent photo of Jackson. I understand the new image is free (and Im not sure what the wikipolicy is regarding this) but I think it makes sence to show Jackson as he currently looks. If not then at least the Japan photo should be at the end of the article at the section where it mentions his appearence. Also if the 1984 pic is left I feel the description at least needs to be better flushed out (Jackson in 1984 seems lackluster - perhaps include where the shot was taken?). Also - and this is just a matter of taste - is there a version without the crop of Jackson and the shadow? Like I said - that part is totally bias but I just think a full photo would look better. Any thoughts? :: ehmjay 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of information. PD should always be used in preference to Fair Use wherever possible. This is a strong requirement. Tyrenius 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case - I revoke my commment re: changing the images. However I do think the other image should be included at the bottom, and the description should be a little better. :: ehmjay 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Fair use and especially the talk page there. Tyrenius 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Arniep's edits to Michael Jackson page

this user has replaced the recent 2006 pic with me with a pic from 1984. while it is a decent pic, i have an issue with the fact that just days ago when i posted a pic from 1983 my edits were reversed and the reasons given dealt with a wiki standard of using the most current pics as primary photos.

now we have Arniep who keeps changing the pic to one from 22 years ago...and NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. if there's a wiki standard then everyone needs to be held to it right?

i just thought i'd give everyone a heads up and ask that you help enforce the "wiki policy" that was spoken of to me when i attempted to use a 1980s era pics as a primary photo...as Arniep is getting away with doing. Drmagic 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about Wikipedia:Image use policy here. Anyone insisting that we use "the most current" image because of policy is confused. There is no such policy. What is policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria), is that images under a freely-reusable license are used whenever possible. One can see a small selection of images with such licensing at commons:Michael Jackson. Uploading unfree images, or images without verifiable source and licensing information, is just creating more work, as freely-licensed images exist and unfree ones will be deleted. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)