Talk:Michael Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Michael Jackson has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 1, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed November 23, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 11, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed January 24, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 25, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article (musicians)

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Realist2 (talk • contribs • email) Gusworld (talk • contribs • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of the Michael Jackson WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Michael Jackson and associated groups or individuals. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: minor gaps or missing elements or references of a poor-fan site quality, needs small editing for clarity & balance of content contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. editing is still needed, including filling in some small gaps or policy errors. not weak on back story. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article Article meets criteria for GA status but does not meet A class, however has not been yet put up for GA nom, ergo B class.--I'll bring the food 08:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Update - Article currently is GA classed after a passed (2nd) nom for GA. Went smoothly with one first failure reccomending better footnotes (which were implemented) and better image tagging, which I did myself. Logical step would be to develop at GA status and then put up for a first FA nom, which will be... interesting, at least in terms of feedback...--I'll bring the food 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (edit) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: minor gaps or missing elements or references of a poor-fan site quality, needs small editing for clarity & balance of content contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. editing is still needed, including filling in some small gaps or policy errors. not weak on back story. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article Article meets criteria for GA status but does not meet A class, however has not been yet put up for GA nom, ergo B class.--I'll bring the food 08:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Update - Article currently is GA classed after a passed (2nd) nom for GA. Went smoothly with one first failure reccomending better footnotes (which were implemented) and better image tagging, which I did myself. Logical step would be to develop at GA status and then put up for a first FA nom, which will be... interesting, at least in terms of feedback...--I'll bring the food 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (edit) This article is part of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to rhythm and blues, soul music, and their related cultures. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.) GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora. This article is within the scope of the Janet Jackson WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana. Indiana Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) minor gaps or missing elements or references of a poor-fan site quality, needs small editing for clarity & balance of content contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. editing is still needed, including filling in some small gaps or policy errors. not weak on back story. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article Article meets criteria for GA status but does not meet A class, however has not been yet put up for GA nom, ergo B class.--I'll bring the food 08:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Update - Article currently is GA classed after a passed (2nd) nom for GA. Went smoothly with one first failure reccomending better footnotes (which were implemented) and better image tagging, which I did myself. Logical step would be to develop at GA status and then put up for a first FA nom, which will be... interesting, at least in terms of feedback...--I'll bring the food 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

edit

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Why isn't Michael Jackson's Muslim religion included in this article? A1: Jackson has not publicly spoken about his exact religion in a number of years and only speaks about spirituality in general terms. Jackson's publicist says that he is not a Muslim and never was. Unless Jackson clarifies his position on this it will not be included in the article. Q2: This article is over 95kb long, is this too long? A2: Efforts have already been made to keep article length to a minimum, a number of sections have been merged out to other articles but some sections have been brought in through consensus. At one stage the article was 125kb so improvements have been made. The article is sourced over 200 times which is the main reason for the articles size, but this is essential when dealing with a figure such as Jackson. Q3: Why isn't the "Jacko" nickname mentioned in the lead? A3: Past consensus goes against such inclusion. The name is a derogatory term used within US/UK/Australian tabloids only. The slogan is discussed in the relevant section of the article. Q4: Why are there no recent pictures of Jackson? A4: Wikipedia has strict rules regarding the use of pictures. Pictures must be "free" or have a sufficient "Fair Use Rational" for their inclusion in the article. Please note, you cannot simply take "Fair Use" pictures from other articles and bring them here. A new "Fair Use Rational" must be provided for every article a picture is used on. Alternatively you can take a picture of Jackson yourself and upload it. Q5: Why doesn't the article mention that the "King of Pop" nickname was made up by Jackson himself? A5: You would need proof that Jackson said "Hey guys, I'm the King of Pop" and it would have to be a source from a long time ago, when the name first started being used. If next week he says "Im the King of Pop" that doesnt mean he came up with the name. Its quite hard to prove he started it off, especially when all the sources for that come from unreliable tabloids. You would need a very good source for it, such as his own words.

Contents 1 Janet Jackson Wikiproject - UP & RUNNING!!! 2 A NEW MAIN PHOTO 3 VERY GOOD AND LETS MAKE IT BETTER_2 4 FAQ 5 Media/Tabloids section 6 NO MEAT, NO ALCOHOL 7 Criticism 8 Image 9 Prince and Michael Jackson's Black Music on the "Radio" 10 King of Pop should be identified as 'self-proclaimed' and not 'named'

[edit] Janet Jackson Wikiproject - UP & RUNNING!!!

If you are interested in the upcoming Janet Jackson Wikiproject please see the Janet Jackson talk page and place it on your watchlist. As the Janet article is part of the MJ project the visa versa will occur on the Janet Wikiproject. Thus the MJ article WILL be tagged inside the Janet Wikiproject as will all members of Janets family. This is a net gain for the MJ article and we have a vested interest in its success. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see all the enthusiasm, all further questions should now be delt with at the Project talk page here where we will discuss our first tasks. Put the project on your watchlist, add the badge to your user page by pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Janet Jackson/Userbox}} .Then add your name on the user project page here. Feel free to wish the JJ group your support, remember the MJ article will be a part of either WikiProject which will be very nice. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A NEW MAIN PHOTO

hi everybody. here is a good new pic of MJ from Christian Audigier 50th Birthday Party(2008)that we can use as a latest photo of him in replacement for article's old main photo.

Image:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/26/article-0-015E4F5900000578-231_468x649.jpg

this is the webpage, my suggested photo is the first photo of the article:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1021948/Reclusive-Michael-Jackson-parties-Britney-Fergie--refuses-sing.html

and another one:

Image:http://mjjpictures.free.fr/20062008/various/audigier/034.jpg

Unless you are the photographer and own the legal rights to these photos and agree to release them into public domain, we can't use them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

well...why don't you ask the photographer? please find a way like the way you've got the right of already present photos on the article. I've seen, we have always alot of problems about putting photos on MJpage even when very good photos are just available!!! but it doesn't seem so on the other wikipages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The existing photos are here because the copyright owner has licensed them appropriately (e.g. the main image) or because of public-domain status (e.g. the White House shot). Photos aren't simply "just available" -- and the fact that some other pages on Wikipedia violate copyright by stealing images from other sources is not a justification for doing so here, it's an argument for fixing the other pages.

Many contributors here have expressed frustration with Wikipedia's image policy, but it exists for good and sensible reasons, and we have to work within it. The pictures you've suggested are both owned by commercial picture agencies, who have no reason to give the copyright away -- their business depends on selling them, in fact, so I can see little value in pursuing that angle. Gusworld (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The pictures would be useful, but not as the main picture, the discoloration of his fingers could be used for the vitilgo part of the article. However we dont a right to use these pictures im afraid. Too bad. Until MJ comes offer to my end of the world I cant get a picture of him. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VERY GOOD AND LETS MAKE IT BETTER_2

as you wish....i didn't want to annoy you Realist2, you are overreacting.I dont know why you treat me like this. everyone lives a comment and discuss it here. and... it is not for a number of weeks. by the way i cant help it. i'd do whenever i can.(sorry i didn't wanna make a new topic i tought you'd be angry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

a source about finances topic:

".....I handed Michael the phone back and he said, 'Oh that's OK, I'll pay.' And I said, 'Mike, I can't spend your money...The record company had no money in it, Michael had no money in it;.... "

^ Michael Jackson's Monster Smash. Telegraph (2007-11-25). Retrieved on 2008-04-20 page 3

seems its reliable for you. excuse me...but all you've made on me and finding it in sources brought in the article makes me wonder if you've read the sources you've brought carefuly. I just try not to doubt your realistic views. I'll come up with more as soon as I can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i read it again and read my book, it appears that he offered to pay for it, then changed his mind. Instead he made the documentary and convinced MTV to pay for the documentary and thus the video. This actually makes him look even smarter. Thanx for sorting that out. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome. and i think we can find more about the points i mentioned. ( you see that i just took it out from sources of article itself). by the way most of them are very personal (marriage and health) and no one can realy know about it exactly and it takes time to reveal the proof (I cant trust anything about it). that's why i say lets mention both contradicting statements with no tabloidy thing, wish you would agree ...any help is appreciated.peace.User:diclo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of it came from tabloids rather from well researched, published books, however if you spot any other obvious mistakes let us know. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ

I have set up a FAQ for this talk page, the banner is close to the top. Its designed to gives editers answers to questions. Firstly it stops editers having to ask the same questions unnessarly, also saving talk page space and time replying. We often get questions about photos and having "Jacko" in the lead, im sure theres a few others. Feel free to add to it, make sure any policy comments are accurate. We might consider potential questions here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Q1 - Why no recent Photos
• A1 - Fair use and Free policies relating to photo's - Bad photos will be removed at FA reviews anyway

• Q2 - Why no "Jacko" in lead
• A3 - Archived consensus's not to, derogatory, only used in some countries and is discussed in relevant section of article.

• Q3 - Is Jackson A Muslim
• A3 - Dont be stupid Jackson has not said so in his own words

• Q4 - This article is 95,000 bytes, isn't that a little long?
• A4 - The Bob Dylan article is 140,000 bytes long and is a Featured article, as long as everything is note worthy it should be included.
  • Suggestions made by Realist²

OK, I went ahead and did that, if you can make/suggest improvements or additions please do. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media/Tabloids section

I was considering adding a section about how he is viewed and treated by the media. Clearly he deserves some of it but clearly a lot of it isnt his fault. I think we need to talk about what the media has done to his image and their obvious bias against him - such as not telling the truth about his vitiligo, saying he wouldnt employ people with AIDS, his successful lawsuits against the media and their behaviour at his trial.

Of course this is going to be a POV nightmare but its a dominant part of his life. I see it as MJ started it by making up wacky stories about himself and then the media started to make up (mostly) loads of rubbish.

I think this is going to be a challenge, particulary for me as i openly hate how he is treated, but its something that long needed to be addressed. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Michael's life has been very ridiculed over the years for no reason but it's important to point that out and do it in a way that both sides can agree on. Because not all of us are gonna agree about Michael Jackson, we're just not. Despite his overwhelming popularity and his legendary status, he is also one of the most polarizing figures in the last 50 years or so of popular culture so yeah we can bring attention to that part of his life and not seem like a fan-biased opinion but a more constructive one. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

what a great idea! thank you for bringin' it up. for an MJology page, it's realy needed cause they always play their role between MJ and people, positive or negative. someone who wants to know about MJ needs to even it out too.it challenges people's intelligence. nowhere in media they realy mention what they do to people because its media and when a kinda feeling like this comes, they cover it so fast, with a mass of earfillings to block MJ, what he does and peopl's intelligence.it needs to be mentioned separately as a new section and be discussed fairly.thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you reword your paragraph, im struggling to understand your point, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NO MEAT, NO ALCOHOL

it's better be mentioned in the article that he is a vegetarian and is against alcoholism. its stated by many sources.user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it mentions hes a vegetarian, we could add the alcohol thing too but im not sure thats as important. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MJ isnt a vegy anymore and he drinks alcohol too now. During his marriage to lisa marie and in 2003 he ate meat and drink alcohol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think eating or drinking something for several times or for a short period of time doesn't mean that someone's usual diet has changed.there are sources who has stated his usual diet after these times. user:yashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was eating meat and drinking alcohol in 2003 unless you can give a source that says hes gone back to his old ways we can only ashume that he still drinks and eats meat. By the way, your still not signing correctly, you need to make your comment, click the "Sign your Username" button then press save. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Wow. I know you guys are working very hard on this and all, but it reads just like "The magic and the madness", which is a terrible book to use as a reference for MJ. A lot of the stuff taraborelli has written has been proven false. The way it was laid out and written before was far better IMO. What's with the use of Roger Friedman? Why not use accurate references, like The Visual Documentary and Moonwalk? Marnifrances (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we dont have either, since when is Moonwalk considered reliable or up to date? He says he only had 2 nose jobs in that i believe, its not independant. Nothing from Magic has been "Proven" wrong, its just not always a book fans like to swallow, however its the only third party book on jackson that comes close to reliable. If there is anything in the book that has been proven incorrect in court etc please provide a source and we can adjust. The book is generally well respected however, just not so much by MJ fans such as ourselves. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you work really hard on this and I hate to critcise, but IMHO, MATM is a really bad book to use for MJ. a lot of is wrong, especially from 1991-onwards. A lot of it certainly hasn't been "proven" right either. An example is Mj's work on invincible. RT says MJ was lazy and didn't want to work on it and actual people who worked with Mj in the studio say Mj worked VERY hard. Another example is that MJ's camp refuted claims MJ was treated for dependency on drugs in rehab 2003, (although Mj admits he was on painkillers in 2003). RT even says that Jackson wrote YANA. lol. It's sourced mostly by tabloids or "inside sources", as you can see in the references sections. I am not just talking about plastic surgery. Moonwalk would be a better source for earlier eras- how can first hand statements not be reliable?. The Visual Documentary would be the best, most reliable and up to date source. That's just one person's opinion though. Aside from that, the legacy and impact, Thriller, and music sections are great. Are you guys going to include something about the upcoming album? :) Marnifrances (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its neutral, it presents the good and the bad, something 1st person sources by Jackson simply cant bring. I checked my version and that YANA thing must have been corrected. You say Magic isnt reliable from 1991 onward. Moonwalker isnt either since it hasnt been republished in ages lol. We needed something for the 90's onward and his book is considered good my the media. As for you saying things in the book havent been proven right, remember that books are checked somewhat when published. Big lies dont last long before a law suit. Your interpretation of the invincible incident is different to mine. I thought he was saying that MJ did work hard but after three years it got obviously frustrating. In fairness MJ didnt write much of it himself so even I can say that he didnt put his usual heart and soul into it. The book never says he went into rehab in 2003 just that he had a dependancy to Morphine and Demerol (both are painkillers like MJ said himself). We will do the new album yeah, hopefully if he does it. Im not going to add anything though until dates are confirmed, have you seen the article for his new album, its nothing more than tabloid rumour. Since T25 came out I guess that will push the new album back a little. Are you still in contact with Jacksons people? I dont suppose they could give us some pictures of MJ? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I wish you had the visual documentary though- it's neutral as well. This quote in the article says it comes from the book: "In January 2004 following his upcoming trial, Jackson was being treated for a "dependency" to morphine and Demerol.[140]" Again, this was debunked by Raymone. He was not treated according to R. Bain. The only source for this is RT's book. In any case, it's just an observation that parts of the article read just like MATM. Anyways, moving on- The new album isn't tabloid. There's a massive list of quotes- we have them all on our site with sources and videos if you wish to check it out. http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=111 No one can get in contact with Jackson's people. lol. R. Bain has not been responding to anyone- no one knows who to contact. Sorry I can't help you more. As soon as we get a contact, I guess fans will know. :)Marnifrances (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could remove "treated", i suppose that could suggest multiple things including rehabilitation. Ill remove the word treated to be on the safe side. Ill wait for now on the new album, the date keeps changing and I dont think its going to be out till 2009 since T25 is still selling well. If your allowed to use those pictures on the website im ashuming you have copy rights? We are in real need of some up to date pictures the are fair/free use. Is there anyway to help get some on here? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there has never ever been a confirmed date for the new album, but there is no doubt whatsoever it's in the works- even MJ said that he's in the studio "every day" in the Ebony interview. We don't own copyrights, no. We use images from fansites that have been previously paid for from Getty etc and are usually watermarked. I really don't understand the free use images policy on wiki- maybe you can explain it to me? Does it have to be personally owned or taken? Otherwise, there are loads of previously paid for images on MJJpictures.com. Marnifrances (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A free image is one which the original copyright holder (typically the person who took the photograph) has personally uploaded the image to wikipedia and has given legal permission for it to be used on this site. Fair use images are images which are not released by the copyright holder, but uploaded by someone else with a detailed rational on why it can be used on a free encyclopedia under fair use laws. However, Fair use is not allowed on living people. Wikipedia specifies all images of living person must be accompanied by release from the copyright holder or be public domain. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you can help us. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand this. What is public domain? I honestly cannot make sense of it all. If it's something on the internet, I don't understand why you can't just use one from an online newspaper article. We do not own copyrights to any Michael Jackson images. Like I said, they are all from fansites who purchase the images from editorial picture websites like Getty, Rex, etc. You'd have to go to them to purchase or ask for permission to use an image. Wenn may be able to help you. I have also asked fans who have taken pictures of Michael if they'd be willing to contribute, but no one has a recent, clear image that they'd like to share. :( Marnifrances (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for asking people, when i say recent i mean anything from the 90's onward lol, are newest picture is 20 years old like. If anyone is willing to donate anything that would be amazing, if not dont worry. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The main image is too long; would anybody mind if I crop it upto his bust (and maybe get rid of the hand on him too)? indopug (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the size too, maybe if we tried a few different crops and see what people are happy with. People are really sensitive about the whole pictures issue on this article. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed it for now. There was already one at Commons. indopug (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its much better. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince and Michael Jackson's Black Music on the "Radio"

I took out the following: "Thriller put black music on U.S. radio for the first time in years, paving the way for other acts, such as that of Prince."^[1]

It was reffed to a 1988 Washington Post column. I suppose by "U.S. radio" the poster meant mainstream pop radio, which at the time was racially polarized: there was plenty of black music on urban, disco and oldies stations in the 1980s. The Jacksons and Prince were not the only black voices on mainstream white pop radio at the time. Prince's popularity with both white and black fans predated Thriller, by the way: he had been a major star since about 1980 or so. There was a valid point being made, but it needs to made more accurately and with a more definitive reference. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, go look for sources then instead of disruptively removing material. Im busy at the moment. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a philosophical issue: what exactly is/was "U.S. radio"? The most popular stations in most urban markets at the time tended to play disco & R&B, which of course played mostly black artists. But those were considered non-mainstream stations. However, then as now, most stations played rather narrow variations of mainstream rock and roll. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Im not going to get into philosophy with you, however what you did was completely inappropriate and you've done it in the past too. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We might need to add some clarification of exactly how Thriller "paved the way" for Prince's success when Prince's breakthrough albums came out BEFORE Thriller. Controversy and 1999 were both monster hits which got heavy airplay. Prince's first three albums were also very successful. (The answer might be on part that Off the Wall was also heavily played on the radio and sold very well, but that answer doesn't really fit into the narrative of this section. Off the Wall simply was not as spectacular a success as Thriller. ) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince hit his commercial peak after Thriller in 1984. But we dont need to get into the history of music, take it to the pop music article or hisory of black music. This is the michael jackson article, we dont have the space to waffle on about dribble here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King of Pop should be identified as 'self-proclaimed' and not 'named'

i cant cite the exact source at the moment, but i am fairly certain that the label 'King Of Pop' was a self-proclaimed, and not given to to MJ by public or press as implied in the paragraph. I'm a fan of MJ, but i am also a big fan of nuance accuracy, and the current wording implies inaccurate acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisattva (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the source which is cited in the body of the article under the BAD era:

Well, he was suddenly called “The King of Pop.” Of course, the artist was none other than Michael Jackson, but now he had this official-sounding title tacked onto his name. Where did this royal title come from? Did the media name him that? Did he bestow it upon himself? How would Elvis feel about it? These were questions asked by many at that time. Regardless of its mysterious origins (most accounts said it was self-imposed, although Jackson claims it was taken from friend Elizabeth Taylor’s speech about him at an awards ceremony), the nickname stuck. The premiere of “Black or White” was broadcast simultaneously in 27 countries on November 14, 1991 with an estimated audience of 500 million people — the largest audience ever to view a music video. Michael Jackson was back, and the world took notice.

Michael Jackson talks with Access Hollywood about his return to studio

calling it self-imposed without verifiable information is original research. At least with this article, there is a explaination from Jackson as to where the title came from. If there is a source quoting Jackson calling himself the king of pop, the article can be changed accordingly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would need proof that MJ said "Hey guys I'm the King of Pop" and it would have to be a source from a long time ago, when the name first started being used. If next week he says "Im the King of Pop" that doesnt mean "HE" came up with the name. Its quite hard to prove he started it off, especially when all the sources for that come from unreliable tabloids. You would need a very good source for it - eg His own words. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)