Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

The Times used our article

The Times (long time MJ bashers) have used this article in a recent career overview of Jackson. It's almost done in the exact same wording and everything, although they has spun a few things to make them slightly more anti Jackson. See here. — Realist² 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Official statement

The Times made an article over-viewing Michael Jackson's career which they released on August 15, 2008 Seen here. It is quite clearly plagiarism of the Jackson article, take a look at the August 14, 2008 version of the article. That article took me a long time to get to featured states, it appears that they did not acknowledge me or more importantly Wikipedia in their publication. I might add that The Times's (long time Jackson bashers) version was not as neutral as mine. I'm unhappy with the way they presented the information on vitiligo, the label dispute of 2000-2002, the critical reception of the Invincible album and the commercial reception of Thriller 25 (they only mentioned the "moderate hit singles", but not the successful album itself). I apologize to offended readers and the article subject, I do not endorse the manner in which the publication cherry picked information from the article to meet their own ends. In some respects it is probably best that they did not name us as their source. I only hope that the publication will learn from it's mistake and continue to produce neutral material. — Realist² 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Biggest Selling Music Artist Alive?

I know I dont have proof yet, but isint Michael Jackson the biggest selling music artist that is "alive"; he might not be first in history, but isint he first in people who are alive?

If u you think differently please do fight back, if you think this is true please find some proof, this would be a great addition to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd need a lot of convincing that that title isn't held by Paul McCartney. Thriller may be the biggest selling album, but PMcC's career has been so much longer. – iridescent 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely your doing McCartneys solo career against MJ's solo career Irid? It's really irrelevant anyway, if we have sources fine, but otherwise it seems like original research. As both of them have had solo and group careers it all depends on how you want to calculate it. Besides, no one really knows how well the Beatles or the Jackson5 sold outside the US, there was no reliable data back then for worldwide info.— Realist² 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going by solo career, MJ undoubtedly is the biggest selling solo artist alive (in current sales ranks for solo artists he's third behind Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby); in "overall career with or without a band", he's second behind Paul McCartney, with Anni-Frid Lyngstad/Agnetha Fältskog closing in on him (Elton John, Madonna and Mick Jagger will also probably overtake him soon as their back catalogues are so much bigger). If you don't mind treading very close to WP:SYNTH, it could be patched together from List of best-selling music artists, which is sourced (albeit some of those sources look a bit dubious – and I'm highly suspicious of the lack of any Chinese musicians there given the buying-power of a billion-plus population).

I agree about the impossibility of reliable sourcing outside the US and Europe for sales, although it could probably be worked out from record label annual reports if anyone really wanted to put in the effort. – iridescent 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, last year at least, MJ's backcatalog outsold madonnas 2:1. The likelihood that Madonna well come close to MJ is not likely, she's still so far behind so won't catch up. It's interesting that MJ's has become one of the worlds biggest selling artists really off the back of 5 studio albums between 1979-1995. I would also say he's sold more albums worldwide than anyone else since Elvis sales are highly influenced by singles. Again, it's all theory at this point and we are all probably talking a load of B.S. :-) — Realist² 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just talking about the solo careers, im not looking at band sales, mostly because those sales are made as a band so it should not count as one artist's sales. As for Elivs, we dont even know his official record sales, so Michael Jackson is the biggest selling solo artist alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add that to the article until you've found a source. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You will be so lucky my friend, check his edit history, he add's unsourced inflated sales to Jackson on every article he touches. I have warned him. — Realist² 01:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seemed like a person who doesnt add sources, someone please tell me how you add sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Will reply at your talk page. — Realist² 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The following sources were added to the lead of the article to say that MJ was the biggest solo artist since elvis. The sources were [1][2][3]. Personally i don't think they pass WP:RS for a featured article like this, thoughts. — Realist² 07:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source by bbc.com saying that michael jackson is the most successful entertainer of all time and one of the biggest selling music artists.--rafichamp (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a copy of an old version of this article (I wrote it). If you look at the bottom it said courtesy of wikipedia. They are so much better than The Times — Realist² 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Jackson was raised a Jehovah's Witness'.

The placing of this statement may give the misleading impression that Michael's abusive father was a Jehovah's Witness. It appears after Joseph's employment details and before his reported vile behaviour towards his son.

I feel clarification of this point is further necessitated by the later sentence about Michael appearing in a Christmas recital when he was five.

May I suggest a straight replacement:

'Katherine became a Jehovah's Witness when Michael was seven years old and thereafter raised her children in the faith.' Norm Eagle (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Certain sources, such as Janet Jackson by Jane Cornwell: Carlton Books, 2002. ISBN 1842224646 quote Joseph as being a devout Jehovah's Witness as well. You need a source that specifically states Joseph's beliefs. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

According to my book he was Lutherian, but did take part on witness activities for a short while to make katherine happy. — Realist² 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in other faiths but to be considered a 'devout Jehovah's Witness' a person would have to be, at the very least, a baptised member of the congregation. I have yet to read anything confirming this basic qualification in respect to Jackson's father.

Just three additional words might better express the facts: 'Jackson was raised a Jehovah's Witness, his mother's faith.'

Alternatively, place the existing statement in fairer context. Norm Eagle (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Even if his father was a witness, he certainly didn't enforce it on his son. It was the mother who enforced the religion aspect. — Realist² 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Norm Eagle (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

finances

We should add a new section about his money, mostly because ive heard a lot of people reportedly calling him broke, I know that it is impossible for him to be broke, we need to add some of his business deals and etc he has made and estimates of the never-land ranch also him signing the biggest recording contract ever in 1992 with sony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the article, just read it. — Realist² 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nose falling & Sex change allegations

Where does those scenes from movies that Michael Jackson always lose his nose and did he really change his gender? i think those should be in there to satisfy curious minds... Pirateer011 (talk)

No, sorry this is a biography not a witch hunt. — Realist² (Speak) 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article glossed over these pointsMyportal (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What points, I don't even understand what the first guy is talking about. — Realist² 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The jokes regarding Michael Jackson's change in appearance are all mere satire that can be interpreted as factual or fictional at the viewer of this content's desire, however since none of these allegations have been proven they're merely rumors and thus not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Unless you are capable of justifying how Jackson's appearances in South Park and Scary Movie 3 (Media that usually features numerous pop icons just for the sake of referencing something modern) are actually important enough to be listed in this article. The details regarding his appearance and health are all listed if you actually read the article, in fact so much content has been added on the subject it was deemed necessary for this information. Everything is covered, as Realist stated this is a factual neutral article, not a witch hunt. UniversalBread (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Main pic of article

According to its date, the picture is 20 years old. Maybe a more recent picture can be provided99.226.179.220 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We haven't got a suitable newer one at the moment. The only newer one that is free it the 2008 photo, but that seems fine where it is and we would be accused of recentism. — Realist² 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to the 2008 picture. It looks much better IMO. Dalejenkins | 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, but we need consensus first. — Realist² 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Images are supposed to be as recent as possible. I support changing it to the 2008 pic. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As there was no opposition, I changed it. Dalejenkins | 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I favor that picture too. — Realist² 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This photo is terrible. It's unprofessional; just a holiday happy snap. I thought the old picture was him wearing one of his crazy suits at the White House. An encyclopaedia article should have a photo of him from the peak of his career. Why does it have to be recent? Are you going to get pictures of skeletons for dead people? Huey45 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of people who have passed away can use fair use images or public domain images from any point in their lives. Biographies of living people, however, require a public domain image that is as recent as possible. Though to be honest, I hate the current pic as well, we should use the main pic of him at the white house-glasses or not, its the best image available. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's use the statue, it has a much bigger statement. :-) — Realist² 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

*smacks Realist2 with a pillow* The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fair Use criteria ban pictures of living people because there's a presumption that anyone could take a free-use photo just by going to see him and bringing a camera along. Because MJ's differing appearance at different times is itself the subject of commentary, you could probably make a fair-use claim on photos of him at different times for which no free-use picture is available (although there's a powerful voice arguing against this position). – iridescent 23:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really pissed off that the 2008 picture was deleted. As for Irids idea, I can barely understand fair criteria so there is no way I could argue about the validity of changing policy or going into unknown territory because of the obvious unique position of Jackson's appearance. I would need assistance from a willing picture expert. Obviously we have the fair use picture of the scream video when Jackson was white in 1995. I think the best way to get around it would be to argue for more fair use music video clips that happen to show Jackson's changing appearance or pictures of live performances which happen to show different appearances. — Realist² 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Level of Fame

Can people look out for some sources regarding the extent/degree of Jackson's fame. There is a pool right now on tiscali and Jackson is currently in first position by some margin for the most famous person dead or alive. It would be nice to see if there is a reliable source that cites him as the worlds most famous human being. — Realist² 02:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard that some corperation had went out to do a survey to find the most famous person dead or alive in history, the first survey was in 1997, number 1 was michael jackson with 97.5% of the world knowing him. They toke the survey again in 2006, michael jackson came in at number one with 95.4% of the world knowing him. So with-out the doubt in this article someone should say that he is the most famous human being at this point. Rafichamp (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) 12:37, 15 August 2008

I've hears of polls where he's come in at 98% too. We need a source though, proof. At the moment we are using a source by the BBC that says he is "one of the worlds most famous men". It's still a bit of an understatement though. — Realist² 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As if Michael Jackson is the most famous person ever. I've heard about this thing before and I there was a top 10 list. Jesus Christ and Confucius were there, but I can't remember any others. There are so many extremely famous people that the single most famous person ever couldn't be accurately determined anyway (unless you surveyed almost everyone in the world, which is just ridiculous) Huey45 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Finances - Continued

I've found information via Forbes magazine that says and I quote; 'Jackson, too, could pay millions for his defense despite his heavy debts: The entertainer is a partner with Sony in a music publishing business, which owns more than 300,000 songs and generates as much as $75 million a year in income for him.'

So this suggests that Jackson earns $75 million in royalties alone - maybe best adding this to the page regarding finances, as everyone would rather be of the opinion that he's broke. Here's the link; http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/14/jackson-celebrity-trial-cx_da_0614topnews.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.209.207 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure will add it, it's a reliable source. — Realist² 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Finances section is quite neutral, it discusses his debts and still shows that he was racking in huge sums of money in 2005-2006. Then we have 2007 where he and sony got hold of even more songs to add to MJ's collection. Guys, every time we buy a song, no matter what song it is, I think MJ gets a little of the money. You might not think you've put money in MJ's account, but you probably wrong. — Realist² 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. It is strange though how Jackson hasn't appeared on any Forbes rich lists for quite some time. The majority of his money was probably raked in by around 1998, after which he quietened down his career. At least adding this information shows that he has a means to support his lavish lifestyle. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149929/

I've always thought it best we avoid talking about his finances. You need a degree in business studies to figure out whats going on, I doubt anyone really knows how much he's worth or not. His lavish spending alone couldn't have got him in this mess, (if you believe the he's skint). He earnt and still earns so much money even he couldn't spend it that quickly. Obviously he's lost a lot of money from his charity work, giving everything from the Dangerous world tour to charity, lol, I wounder if he regrets doing that now? I reckon he must have made some bad business moves or something. — Realist² 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted picture

Who supports holding a one minute silence for the deleted main picture. I do.

• Bye bye, will miss you. — Realist² 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Need updates on some of the conservatives estimates

Can people help find some updated sales figures for Off the Wall which we currently have at 15 million copies (it's closer to 20 million) and Bad which we have at 25 million (closer to 28 million). Cheers. — Realist² 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Man I have looked every where but all of them are biographys about Michael Jackson and they all list Off the Wall as 19million and 7million in the US, can someone please look for sales figures of Off The Wall.--rafichamp (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Realist 2 I have found a site that lists Off The Wall as 20million here is the link http://www.contactmusic.com/new/artist.nsf/artistnames/michael%20jackson could you check if this is good enough.--rafichamp (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of plagarism of old versions of the article there, don't trust it sorry. — Realist² 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if my statement is relevant, but I don't see how it's possible for Dangerous to have out-sold Bad. For starters, the single releases from Bad were more successful than those from Dangerous. The Bad Tour played to 1 million more fans than the Dangerous tour did. It was on the market 4 years longer and has sold 1.8 million copies more in the combined U.S & U.K markets. Anyway, I have found sources which claim that Off The Wall has sold 20 million; http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/era/off-the-wall/index.html and that Bad has sold 32 million; http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/era/bad/ - although I doubt the reliability of this as it's a fan site.--filthyralph (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Dangerous/Bad issue, Dangerous outsold Bad by some margin, he started to break into newer markets at that point, sales were lower in the US and UK, but worldwide it was much bigger. As for those sources, sorry they are no good, but keep looking folks, cheers. — Realist² 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The estimates in the all MJ articles were based on current information on sales and certifications from Sony, etc. It's going to be impossible to find info or accurately estimate those worldwide sales as the albums have not been re-certified in years. Marnifrances (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock song (DONE)

"Black or white" is also a rock song

--Alexanderfriend (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. We need to source things with reliable sources first. — Realist² 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It clearly has a rock guitar part in it...Marnifrances (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's clear to you might not be clear to reliable sources. — Realist² 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So you actually need an article that says the word "rock" for Black or White. I am sure i can find one. :)Marnifrances (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SONY actually says the song is hard rock-

Incorporating more elements of hip-hop (guests like Heavy D on "Jam") and hard rock (Slash on "Black Or White"), Michael once again updated his sound to appeal to current pop sensibilities while maintaining his incredible songwriting and socially conscious lyrics.

http://www.sonybmg.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=5044242000 Marnifrances (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look to include it maybe, but the article talks about the themes and genres of dangerous enough as it is, it should really go to the dangerous album article at this point. Not disputing the source, just saying we already have enough info on the albums style. — Realist² 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic's Stephen Erlewine states that Dangerous presents Jackson as a stark paradoxal individual.[149] He comments the album is more diverse than his previous Bad, as it appeals to an urban audience while also attracting the middle class with anthems like "Heal the World".[149] The first half of the record is dedicated to new jack swing, including songs like "Jam" and "Remember the Time".[150] The album is Jackson's first where social ills become a primary theme; "Why You Wanna Trip on Me", for example, protests against world hunger, AIDS, homelessness and drugs.[150] Dangerous contains sexually charged efforts like "In the Closet", a love song about desire and denial, risk and repression, solitude and connection, privacy and revelation.[150] The title track continues the theme of the predatory lover and compulsive desire.[150] The second half includes introspective, pop-gospel anthems such as "Will You Be There", "Heal the World" and "Keep the Faith"; these songs show Jackson finally opening up about various personal struggles and worries.[150] In the ballad "Gone Too Soon", Jackson gives tribute to his friend Ryan White and the plight of those with AIDS.[73] The album also contained one of his first power ballads, "Give In to Me".[150]

No more info on the dangerous album, we have enough. Take it to the album. — Realist² 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, change of heart. I know a good play to put it in the article, will do later. — Realist² 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the detail to the audio sample. — Realist² 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MGM Grand

I have updated the link to the old MGM Grand Casino in Vegas, as that was the one, not the current one, that Jackson met Lisa Marie Presley at in 1975. Bh02306069 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New comment on Finances

I suppose I'll make this an open question. Has anyone read 'Michael Jackson: The Magic & The Madness' by J. Randy Taraborelli? If so, there a deal he mentions in the book, regarding ATV. In 1993, amidst the original child abuse scandal, Jackson signed an agreement with EMI; $150 million to administer the songs from his ATV catalogue. Upon signing the contract, $70 million was deposited into Jackson's bank account. Although I've read other sources which put the agreement figure at $200 million. I thought this was worth mentioning as it isn't mentioned in his finances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthyralph (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know about that from the magic and the madness, I've considered adding it in the past. I will add it if I can understand the business details lol. Cheers. — Realist² 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Hehe, I know this is probably inappropriate but I must say, despite everything that has happened, good and bad. Michael Jackson truly deserves respect for the music and charity work he has done. As a fan it is truly disappointing to see the tabloid press talk about his plastic surgery over his many achievements on this special day. You would think on this one day they would give it a rest, but obviously not. Stay strong, don't let the crap get to you, your millions of fan's still respect you greatly. Happy Birthday Mr. Jackson. — Realist² 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK magazine have done a nice piece, hell they've even avoided tabloid spin and seem to admit he DID have a career after Thriller, shocking news — Realist² 14:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's truly disappointing magazines are using his birthday as incentive to conceive negative articles about him, but it's great he has numerous fans such as yourself supporting him. Those who can't appreciate his contributions to music simply don't deserve to witness the numerous successful albums and singles his career has spawned. Happy 50th Michael Jackson! UniversalBread (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael, say its not true?

Could it be? & Surely not. — Realist² 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mirror is a reliable source (Britain's 2nd largest selling paper), as is NME for music matters... – iridescent 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, looks like the 2008-present section needs an expansion... Still, if it is true, you go Mike! — Realist² 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Anderson they are not dating (shocking surprise), instead, Jackson and her discussed the possibility of her being in one of his new music videos! — Realist² 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 2008 awards

Michael Jackson is a nominee for best act ever in the 2008 EMA awards, http://ema.mtv.tv/vote/ go to that link to vote for Michael Jackson, also the Jackson 5 were honored in the BMA awards this week-end http://www.bmi.com/ go on that site the Jackson 5 are on the front page. If you know anymore awards that Michael Jackson has won or is a nominee in the year 2008 please add them and the source.--rafichamp (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless he wins it's not notable. — Realist² 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the Jackson 5 has been honored already in the BMA's so could you please add that to the Jackson 5 section of the main article?

It's not notable to this article. Take it to the Jackson 5 article. — Realist² 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Guiness World Records 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDt_fS63MVE watch this video and also read the video description to view all the awards he has won in the video and realist 2 please add those records to the main article and please dont erase what I have just wrote, its all in the video just watch it or you can just modify my writting I did on the main article.--rafichamp (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source and there is no need to list all of them. If you read the relevant section of the article it says he won these Records and lists the two most important. — Realist² 17:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest selling music artists

In the main article, cant we atleast say that he is one of the biggest selling music artists ever, like common.--rafichamp (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rafichamp, it's quite obvious, just read the article. There are numerous instances cited where he breaks multiple records. Please stop dragging this up every few days. — Realist² 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Business person in lead

I added that Jackson is a business person to the lead of the article. Now I know this will shock those who only read the tabloids, and it's certainly not in the media talking points when discussing Mr. Jackson. However, the article clearly establishes that Jackson is a businessperson. Since he hasn't released a studio album in 7 years or performed in 7 years, it could be argued that his business career has come to the forefront today. Objections? — Realist² 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he hasent sent out a album in 7 years now soon to be 8, (i hope not), but he still owns never-land, and the mortgage there is about 20million per month, so he has to be doing something to be bringing in those large amounts of money, so i agree with you and think that it should be put up.--rafichamp (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that I am finding that people arnt discussing about this article as much anymore, anyone think im wrong?--rafichamp (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever told you that Neverland costs 20 million a month to run is talking out of their bum my friend. The reason people aren't discussing the article much is because it's featured, it's one of wikipedias better pieces. There isn't much that needs discussing. — Realist² 22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

and of course, he still owns the Northern Songs catalogue, an investment that brings him a royalty stream- on that basis, I'd say he's a businessman too. --Rodhullandemu 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically Northern songs no longer exists. From the article, In 1995, Jackson merged his Northern Songs catalog with Sony's publishing division creating Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Jackson retained half-ownership of the company, earned $95 million upfront as well as the rights to even more songs.

Jackson owns a lot more than Northern Songs now, then you take into account his business deal in 2007 (see relevant section of article), it's quite clear his empire goes way beyond Northern Songs these days. — Realist² 22:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please post a link to see the top 100 most viewed wikipedia articles?--rafichamp (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in one of the recent talk page archives. This article is #90 I believe. Not bad foe the 2.5 million we have. — Realist² 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Link here --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual "Wikirage is staggeringly inaccurate" warning applies, unless you believe John Bull (locomotive), Democritus, Theatre of ancient Greece and Whitley Bay High School are really amongst our 100 top articles... – iridescent 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2005 trial info

Does anyone think we need to expand the info on the 2005 trial a little? — Realist² 23:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, it has nothing to do with 2005 trial but i didn't see the article "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary A. Fisher GQ magazine 1994 in the source list. wasn't it used as a source about 1993 child sexual abuse accusations? --X7000matrix (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of the article several times, although I thought it was published more recently than that. I haven't read it though. It seems very unlikely that there was a conspiracy. We know that when the boy said he was abused, he was under the influence of a powerful, potentially dangerous drug (given to him by his father). We also know about the tape recording the father made, which screamed of extortion. We also know the media were out to get Jackson. We also know (in hindsight) that the District attorney really didn't like Jackson. Still, these seem to be independence issue's not interlinked. Did all these forces come together to conspire against Jackson? Unlikely. The book would need to have some strong proof. — Realist² 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the article tells the story of 1993 allegations from the very beginning (Jackson's troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street,...)in a very smooth way. I suppose it was published recently too.--X7000matrix (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The info on his car breaking down etc is also in Tarabarelli's book "The Magic and the Madness". Though that specific point wouldn't really be relevant to the main Michael Jackson article. — Realist² 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I don't have access to Tarabarelli's book.--X7000matrix (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no don't be sorry, I'm just saying that I have indeed read about the Jackson/chandler meeting. The idea that MJ would ever be stuck alone in the middle of the motorway hilarious. Considering he was the most famous man alive by that point probably. — Realist² 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The full article is here: http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html and would be a far more reliable source to use for 1993 than the Taraborelli book- since his info is taken from the National Enquirer and other tabloid sources. :) Marnifrances (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That web link doesn't meet Wikipedias requirements of WP:RS. The Tababorelli book is absolutely fine, uber fans hate it and uber haters hate it, thus it's a neutral book. His coverage of the 1993 allegations tilts pro Jackson anyway. — Realist² 11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it doesn't- it's simply the article from GQ 1994 by Mary Fischer- it's an article, and I could easily look up the issue number etc for you. Tarraborelli's book even used this article. Tarraborelli's book is not neutral at all, but I won't push it further. All you need to do is look at his "sources" in the back of the book ;)Marnifrances (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AN INTERESTING POINT...

check it out everybody....

http://i38.tinypic.com/2nq6tr8.jpg

don't you think we better consider it?--X7000matrix (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to show that his appearance hasn't changed on a shocking level over the last 20 years. However it's safe to say that the extensive cosmetics surgery happened before 1988. The stuff that really changed his structure occurred between 1980-1986. — Realist² 19:36, 24 September 2008

yes, it is very interesting to show his appearance hasn't changed. media is talking about it like it is happening constantly (MJ nose-drop stuff, gossip, fake photos, tabloids). making news that at least be labeled by his name this way. it hurts his public image and of course is cheaper than talking about his efforts and style. you know, people will find it so ridiculous if they realise that all this stuff tabloids try to build up (and make it the first) on the way of the true MJ to public mind, actualy belongs to 20 years ago (20 YEARS AGO MAN!!!!:-0 tabloid's BIG MJ-to-cash secret).though it is also a personal case.

well, showing it can be a possitive point against this vandalism.:-) --X7000matrix (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The stuff that really changed his structure??? if we take a look at the Jacksons face structure we can find his face structure elements --apart from the nose and the chin-- in the others too. take a look. just like the contrast between what tabloids put in and the case that was previously mentioned. y'know...actualy, if this image wasn't here, bringing up the issue would rise controversy. it wouldn't be that easy to make it clear for every one that the tabloids are vandalizing irresponsiblely for so long. 20 years updating something that doesn't exist in anyway. as they run wild, voices for the truth face alot of difficulty.

it would be a highlight if we put this image on Mr.Jackson's article were it comes to tabloids and vandalism. peace :-)--X7000matrix (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

i agree with showing this pic. however, i think there should somehow be at least 2 or 3 more examples like this using different pictures. i kno the "haters" would probably claimed the example was photoshopped (as they did when MJ appeared on ebony in 12/07), so showing consistency in his looks could possibly quell them. MaJic (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Freedom

Should we put that Michael Jackson has recorded a song with Akon called "Hold My Hand", and it's scheduled to appear on akon's fourthcoming Album, "Freedom" due out in November 25th? If we do decide, it should be put in the "2008" events section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.169.90 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If and when it actually happens maybe. On this article we have a zero tolerance policy to "what might happen", because thus far every story about Jackson since his 2005 trial has fallen flat. We report what does actually happen, not what "will" or "might". With MJ there is just too much tabloid spin. Even if he does appear on someone else's album, I'm not sure it would meet any notability requirements, unless it became a full blown chart topping single with music video. — Realist² 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

Find a source that claims that Michael has sold 750 million copies worldwide, thats hard to believe. That means he has sold more then the beatles. The Beatles are the best-selling band in history as far as i've understood. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced in the relevant section of the article. — Realist² 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also please take a quick look at this. I can see a number of sources that meet our requirements on reliability that also cite 750 million. — Realist² 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Years active

This section of the info box was recently changed from 1967 (when the Jackson 5 signed to their first label) to 1966 (when they were still entering talent contests). Surely when they say "years active", they are talking in professional terms? Thus it should go back to 1967? Anyone know? — Realist² 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should change it. I'm the one that edited it. I kept hearing 1966 was the year they started their professional career but that was maybe when they started calling themselves The Jackson 5, but they were professional after 1967, so 1967 it is...for all of them, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers BT. — Realist² 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism again

I have reverted some vandalism to the page- I don't know how to report vandalism. Can you take care of that Realist? Thanks. Marnifrances (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a warning, if he doesn't stop vandalizing wikipedia he will be blocked. — Realist² 11:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Worlds Most Famous Person/ Most reconised face

Here are some sites that claim that heading, realist 2 have a look through them maybe you will add some of these if you find them reliable.

http://famous--people.blogspot.com/

I will try adding more.

Oh, "blogspot" is a big giveaway, we don't regard blogs as reliable sources, to the extent that there is a bot that will reject additions of sites containing "blogspot" into articles; please feel free to find something more reliable. this page sets out broadly what is acceptable. --Rodhullandemu 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged anti-semitism recording text

In 2005, Jackson attracted attention from the Anti-Defamation League after it was discovered he had recently referred to Jews as "leeches" and their actions as "a conspiracy". [4] [5]

I'm removing this huge BLP issue until I or someone can correctly source Jackson's defense to these strong allegations. Since he disputes that this recording is legitimate etc. — Realist² 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It would also seem to be a little over-egging the pudding since both references appear to derive from the same source; a reliable third-party source without an axe to grind would be required to substantiate this. --Rodhullandemu 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is something that needs to be dealt with delicately, we cannot simply accuse one of the most recognized figures of anti-Semitic without really good sources. This essentially goes against the image and philosophy Jackson has promoted for decades. None of the sources can prove or state that it is 100% a genuine recording, with a figure like Jackson people are quick to believe anything. Tapes are manipulated quite easily anyway. This was a tape that someone leaked to the press, possibly an ex employ of Jackson, in return for money no doubt. We know all too well how low ex Jackson employes are prepared to go for a quick buck. This was also just after the trial, when he was at his weakest physically and emotionally, more than likely unprepared or uninterested in defending himself at that point. — Realist² 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect talk page?

Should this talk page be semi protected? It has been in the past. Looking at the history of the talk page vandalism far out ways and legitimate dialogue on the article content itself. Since the article is featured there technically isn't/shouldn't be much to discuss. Until something important happens in his life, say for example a new album or a new allegation, this article should stay rather stagnant. Thus would it be appropriate to semi protect the talk page until something of importance develops in his life that needs actual discussion? — Realist² 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson O2 arena World Tour

Its rumored that Michael Jackson will have a World Tour being March 2009, including 10 shows at the O2 arena expected sell out all of them, here is the site that is selling the tickets. Just wanted to infrom you guys of this.--rafichamp (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/whatson/michael-jackson-tickets-article-7095.html

"Claims to be selling the tickets IF it happens". Policy here is that we wait for an official announcement from a reliable source rather than rely on rumours, but thanks for pointing it out. --Rodhullandemu 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It won't happen, not even if Jermaine says it will. Until we see MJ on that stage or that new studio album in a huge van on the way to the shop's it doesn't get mentioned. Why are us MJ fans so easily fooled? STOP listening the the press! They make up shit so that when it doesn't happen we feel let down. They make up stories so that when it doesn't happen they can make fun of MJ. When are people going to realize this. — Realist² 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, Michael Jackson has certainly lost a lot of fans in America, possibly all, but his international stardom still exists, I think he will do this, imagine the biggest selling pop star coming back.--rafichamp (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 has already sold 650,000+ copies in the US since February. Number Ones has been selling 5,000 copies consistently every week. 5,000 x 52 = 500,000+. He will easily close this year selling at least 1.6 million units in the US alone, all old material with barely any promotion. Don't listen to MTP (Media talking points) or FF (false facts), spread by the media. 2008 has been his best year for sales in quite some time. — Realist² 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is far from gone

Hey guys look whos in at number 1 on the billboards heres the link.--rafichamp (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=Top+Pop+Catalog

Hey hey and according to Billboard T25 has sold 688,000 copies in the US since it's February release, making it the best selling catalog album of 2008. 688,000 copies just off T25, wow! What are his complete sales in the US, including other albums, singles and DVDs? This is America! The country that apparently hates him! America only accounts for 25% of his market. His worldwide sales must be huge this year, he is one of the best selling artists of this year. Please, please, please help find more sources, I feel a strong revival. Thanx Rafichamp, nice to hear the good stories for once. — Realist² 13:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is nominated for "Worlds Best Pop Artsit", of the year at the WMA(World Music Awards) which is tomorrow, found it at mjjr.net, this is real so it shouldnt be too hard to find a source on google, ill leave that job up to realist 2.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys I found it, go to worldmusicawards.com and go to nominees 2008, scroll down and you will see Michael Jackson. As for who hes competitors, lol it looks like hes going to win, look at the artists your self, you will laugh.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also guys michael jacksons new album called king of pop(its a greatest hits album), is biggest selling album of the year(2008) in some country, just go to worldmusicawards.com and go to album sales.--rafichamp (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson wins this WMA from a remix album, with-out a doubt hes releasing a new album in march 09 for sure.

If he wins the award for Worlds best selling pop artist 2008 I will add it. Nominations aren't important because he's one so many awards and been nominated for twice as many. — Realist² 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed addition - poorly written and concerns about WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and repeating same info

There is currently a dispute regarding the inclusion of this info in the Themes and genres sub section

The album also contained two rock songs like "Black or White", a rock song that uses a denatured but still invigorating Rolling Stones guitar riff and "Give In to Me", his second rock ballad, the kind of power ballad regularly dispensed by bands like Poison.

refs

Firstly it is poorly written. Secondly it's not written in a neutral manner. Thirdly some of it is mentioned elsewhere. Take a look at the audio clip of "Black or White" where some of this info is already mentioned. Fourthly there is clearly too much info on the Dangerous album already. As seen by the following;

Allmusic's Stephen Erlewine states that Dangerous presents Jackson as a stark paradoxal individual. He comments the album is more diverse than his previous Bad, as it appeals to an urban audience while also attracting the middle class with anthems like "Heal the World". The first half of the record is dedicated to new jack swing, including songs like "Jam" and "Remember the Time". The album is Jackson's first where social ills become a primary theme; "Why You Wanna Trip on Me", for example, protests against world hunger, AIDS, homelessness and drugs. Dangerous contains sexually charged efforts like "In the Closet", a love song about desire and denial, risk and repression, solitude and connection, privacy and revelation. The title track continues the theme of the predatory lover and compulsive desire. The second half includes introspective, pop-gospel anthems such as "Will You Be There", "Heal the World" and "Keep the Faith"; these songs show Jackson finally opening up about various personal struggles and worries. In the ballad "Gone Too Soon", Jackson gives tribute to his friend Ryan White and the plight of those with AIDS.

Can I remind editors that the article is pushing the upper guideline on word count and there is still lot's going on in MJ's life, the article will grow further and we can't go into every detail.

Please explain why this info is needed and how we can go about writing it correctly. If this is reinserted without discussion action can be taken. Third party comment would be helpful here. I have added a notice here to inform the editor in question. Further disruption needs to be dealt with, the editor has been warned before. — Realist² 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the full refs here but

• "a denatured but still invigorating Rolling Stones guitar riff" - would require sourcing, as would
• "the kind of power ballad regularly dispensed by bands like Poison" - which, absent a ref, looks dangerously like original research.

In any event, I'd say this granularity of detail doesn't belong in this article but more so in the articles about the tracks themselves; there is already a plethora of material to be considered, and this seems to me to be unnecessary. My 2p. worth. --Rodhullandemu 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame Picture

In the book "Michael Jackson: The King of Pop" (http://books.google.com/books?id=BVC9zltjf-EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI#PPP1,M1 pg 104)it claims that Michael Jackson's star on the Walk of Fame is registered as "Michael J. Jackson" because another radio broadcaster named Michael Jackson was already there, and you can't have the same name twice. The picture on the wikipedia page just says "Michael Jackson" so I think it might actually be the radio broadcaster's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.137.136 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

Should the image right when someone clicks on the page really be from 1984? I mean, he's not dead or anything, he's still alive and making music, so naturally there must be a picture from at least 2000. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted to change it, really, I don't like the 1984 image and always wanted a dangerous era (1991-1993) image (it was the height of his international fame). However we can only use free images in the infobox (you probably know that already). The other free image we have is from 1988 but everyone hates that image. Then the only other free image we have is the statue, but the haters will strongly oppose that. This all said, if the tabloids are correct (not that I believe a word they say), Jackson will be releasing music and touring in the near future. We must wait and pray that we can get some images. — Realist² 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Known for his Awkward noises he is able to produce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.212.12 (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The vocal hiccup is mentioned in the article, as is "shamone". I haven't been able to find RELIABLE SOURCES for his beatboxing and talk/rapping yet. Recent album reviews of Jackson's work are shit, since they are dominated by a review of his personal life not the music in question. This has been a persistent problem since HIStory but I noticed instances of it as early as Dangerous (album). It might be better to get music reviews from non English sources instead. — Realist² 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't use the Oprah interview, The Diane Sawyer interview and their transcripts as reliable sources for beatboxing? He clearly demonstrates it in those 2 interviews. Marnifrances (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I could use the transcripts yes, but it would have to be the original transcripts, not those found on fan sites. Otherwise it's a copyright violation for a start. If we can find original transcripts those would defo be ok. — Realist² 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s examples like this that really underline how ridiculous the policy of using free media over fair use media is. Yeah, let’s take a crummy and wholly inappropriate free image just because it’s free. Jesus. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, i never understood this fair image business anyway. What exactly IS a free image? Could you at least use one from the plethora of MJ fan galleries out there? MaJic (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Free-use" means it's in the public domain, so anyone else can take the image and do whatever they want with it (change it, publish it commercially, put it on the cover of their forthcoming book "Michael Jackson: Why I Hate Him". You need permission of the copyright owner for this which is almost impposible to get; the 1984 one is valid because as a work of the US Government (it's an official photo of him meeting Reagan) it's owned by the public, not Jackson. – iridescent 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

His Associated acts

His associated acts only lists The Jackson 5/Jacksons era. However he also had notable collaboration with R. Kelly (You Are Not Alone, Cry, and One More Chance), Lionel Richie (We are the world), Diana Ross (Ease on Down the Road), Slash (Black or White, Give in to Me, DS, Privacy), Janet Jackson (Scream), Stevie Wonder (Just Good Friends, I Can't Help It) and Paul McCartney (The Girl is Mine, Say Say Say, The Man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.226.98 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Associated act's does not mean that we list co-lab's. Just former groups. Cheers — Realist² 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson being Sued

Mj is being sued guys you can read further information on this; heres the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7733608.stm--rafichamp (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's being sued everyday, thus it lacks notability. If the plaintiff wins notability increases and it might be worth a mention. Again, Michael Jackson losing a lawsuit isn't a rarity, it happens every year. We are not here to document every legal affair. Sure that's obvious but just reminding everyone. — Realist² 11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text

I have removed the following text;

On 17 November 2008 is was reported that Jackson is being sued by Sheikh Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa for £4.7 millon at the High Court in London in a breach of contract case. Jackson stayed with Sheikh Abdulla, the second son of the King of Bahrain, in 2005 following the child abuse court case. Jackson may have to visit England to defend the case in person.

Jackson has been taken to court nearly one hundred times in his life. I agree this could become notable, but currently it's just another court case. It is not notable to Jackson's life at this stage, he eats a meal as often as he is accused of something. Until the court reaches a verdict and a possible settlement is reached there is nothing about this particular lawsuit that deserves a mention over the lawsuits he had in the 80's. Clear case of recentism at this stage. — Realist² 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure in the US being sued is an everyday occurance. In the High Court in London it is not. Being sued by a Crown Prince of a foreign country and a person who bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months is relevant. They recorded songs together and signed contracts. He paid the bills at Neverland. All of these points are notable. If it blows over in a couple of weeks then it should be removed. If, as I suspect theis is the next big scandal, then your actions are doing the article and the readers a dis-service. Please reinsert the text. simonthebold (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you believe the Prince's argument that he "bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months...songs together and signed contracts...paid the bills at Neverland" that's your right. It's usually accepted that their is a presumption of innocence in any decent country at least. We can wait the full 10 day duration of this short civil trial and find out what actually happens. And actually Michael Jackson has been in the High court several times before. It's really not a notable part of Jackson's history at this stage. If the court rules that he must repay a large sum of money it may be notable, but again, this will not be remembered in 4 years time and Jackson will forget about it before then. At this stage it's really irrelevant to Jackson's 50 year existence on planet earth. He's been through and seen a lot. — Realist² 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt has been made to reinsert the text, people, we are not a breaking news cite, read WP:RECENTISM, there are other venues for breaking news. We do not add text until it becomes notable, not because it could become notable. We are not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Please just wait the darn 9 days and see what develops. We are not a news site, this is not the venue to read about news. — Realist² 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it heartening for Jackson to see that his loyal fans are defending HIS honour so vigorously. BTW when did HE become deified? simonthebold (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS before you accuse me of personal attacks you should consider your own ethnic slur above.

What ethnic slur? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon123, your bad faith attack against me is completely unacceptable and highly offensive. Yes I like Michael Jackson, it's not a crime and lot's of people secretly do, I just admit it publicaly. However, I near single handily rewrote this article and turned it into an WP:FA article. My level of neutrality is not in question, I'm fully prepared to write all the shit about Jackson that feeds your desires. However everything written on this article, will appear in newspapers at some point. What we write is used by the press.

As for ethnic slur? That is such a ridiculous statement, I can't believe your even saying it. If you can't win a dispute using policy then be quiet, don't attack me personally. — Realist² 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If I said 'the US supreme court is a sham and breaches universal human rights because the US isn't a decent country', you might interpret that as an attack on your ethnic identity if you were a US citizen. I'm English and you attacked my ethnicity. Anyway I don't really care about that, I'm more affronted by your editing choices:

The points I raised were valid. I suspect you removed the comments about the court case, not because of any supposed breach of WP guidelines but because you are the self appointed guardian of this page and that you believe this gives you the right to determine editing policy. I suspect you do this because you are a devoted fan and no doubt this is in some way admirable. I fear the reality is that your choices are biased against any criticism of HIM. I note, for example, no mention of the widespread ridicule afforded to the large egotistical statues floated on the Thames to promote his world tour. No mention of the Jarvis Cocker incident at the Brits in 1996. Come to think of it the whole article is unremittingly positive; no section about criticism of the man even though there is a veritable industry in knocking him and exposing his eccentricities (I'm being generous here), countless books and documentaries etc. Perhaps balance and judgement come with age - who knows? All the same I think readers would like to know about the current court case where Jackson will have to appear (no doubt feigning some kind of illness as usual). I think you'll find the English courts a lot less tolerant of HIS theatrics and therefore the truth might even emerge this time. simonthebold (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS. don't swear, its a sign of immaturity.

Deleting comments that upset you, because its easier than dealing with the arguments is also immature. simonthebold (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm too tired to bicker about me being a racist pov pusher. In the mean while can you provide me with the writer of the daily mail piece so I can add it to the reference. — Realist² 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I never called you racist nor disclosed my race.

2. There is no author because I just made it up to make a point.

3. Although I made it up, the stautes were an object of ridicule, I remember it well.

4. I won't edit the article anymore, because I have a life and more important things to do ;-)

5. Sorry, if I offended you, but I really do think the article is too one-sided. You are well place to correct this - good luck. simonthebold (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You made it up to make a point!? This is a featured article! What on earth are you playing at? This is highly destructive. To sum up, you have made bad faith allegations against me, you have made BLP comments against Jackson on this talk page, you have breached NPOV multiple times, you have added deliberate mis-information to the article and acted in a WP:POINTY manner. Goodbye. Your lucky I'm not taking this to WP:ANI. — Realist² 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackson is to make an appearance in the High Court, according to this article, so it's possibly more noticeable than some of the other lawsuits. But it may be worth waiting until he actually shows up before adding it: As Realist 2 says, we're not a breaking news service.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Jackson has appeared in civil court, in person, many many times. He has appeared even in the London High Court in person at least twice before. I know the press are trying to drum this up into something exciting, but to Jackson it is just another lawsuit. Why does this specific one warrant attention over any other? Do we start documenting all these civil cases? Why is this case being isolated? Could it be recentism perhaps? Will this be important in the future? At this point it's impossible to tell. Probably not, only one civil case (out of court settlement actually) has sustained enough notability to be included in this biography (the 1993 settlement). This is such a none important issue in the long term and we all know it deep down. It's incomprehensible to suggest that every allegation (found to be true or not) should be included in this biography. If this case had happened in the 80's to 1990's, before the Wikipedia internet age, it would not be in the biography. No-one would remember it today.

At the very least we can wait the 9 days and just see what, if anything, warrants notability (Jackson appearing in person is not notable, it's the norm). Hopefully if he does go to the UK someone can snap a picture for our Wikipedia article :0 — Realist² 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to UK television news stations the court case is off, the agreed an out of court settlement, kissed and made up apparently. End of the excitement, move on. — Realist² 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)