Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Need third party input (I'm probably too biased *Rolls eyes*)

Currently the 2000-2002 section has a huge paragraph dedicated to the reviews of Invincible. For consistency, NPOV and article size reasons, I'm slightly tempted to move it all to the Invincible (album). Basically, non of the other albums have review information, we don't have the space for it, so why do we have it for Invincible (possibly his least well received studio albums).

The alternative is that we add critical analysis of all his albums, but the article would be way too big then. I'm also painfully aware that we are reaching the up word limit, and Jackson still has a future career/person life that will need documenting. I also wanted to add more info on his 2003-2005 trial period (sometime in 2009) as it seems a little on the slim side (although everyone seemed happy with it at the FAC). Thoughts. — Realist2 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, if none of the other sections contain reviews, neither should this one. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and move it to the album article -- it makes more sense to have reviews there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it, I think more information on the sales of the album are important though reviews could be cut back on. I know that Invincible was one of Jackson's lower selling albums, but it's one of his most important for many reasons:
  • It was a comeback album (everyone knew Bad, Dangerous and HIStory were gonna be huge - there were big questions over whether Invincible could live up to their standard in a changing music world)
  • It was the first album in 6 years (most of the world doesn't know Blood ever came out, don't mention that, most people aren't fanboys like us)
  • The big "ITS THE RECORD LABEL'S FAULT NOT MINE!" debacle led to serious questions about the status of older music in the 2000s, and led to the question "Can Michael Jackson survive in the 21st century is he an old man now?". He's survived it and not gained the "old man" manacle that others have (Madonna springs to mind as one who suffered this, and Ozzy too, while others like Aerosmith and Velvet Revolver survived and dodged the "oldie" tag successfully) but at the time the press argued with each other about it a lot. It was a changing point in his career though, he became someone who chugged onwards rather than dazzled people - Invincible was the first MJ album that anyone could ever label "just another MJ album"
  • Decline in sales is important because it shows powers at work other than people thinking he's a kiddy fiddler - most people assume his profits dropped off in 93 or 03 and that's not entirely true as this album showed
  • The hit single no one expected that late in his career; it was Jackson's equivalent of "I Don't Want To Miss a Thing" (can you believe Aerosmith are an early 70s band that put that song out in the mid-90s?)

The idea was good but I feel too much has been moved. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I haven't moved anything...yet. I'm just talking about the album reviews, all the sales info will remain. The current details on the sales are sufficient, according to WP:UNDUE and SUMMARY STYLE. — Realist2 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important as a kind of analysis of "Michael Jackson in the early 00s" - it best displays his status as a pop icon really. Not what he was...but not out yet. Bad, Dangerous and even HIStory may have been far bigger but really each of those releases Jackson was still the same ol' "mega star" he had been for ages. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

OK, is there any other input on this, no-one has opposed the removal of music review content, The Elfoid brings up some interesting, unrelated points. — Realist2 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move completed. — Realist2 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Neverland Ranch photo

I'm gonna add a DATE to when the photo was taken since it was so long before the part of the article it's mentioned in (it's next to 2003-2007 and was taken in the late 80s and you can tell from how much the place has changed since then). But I must ask: should it not go EARLIER in the article anyway? I don't have time for a big argument over such a little thing, just throwing in an idea :) (The Elfoid (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually the image belongs to a Wikipedia editor, and he took it in 2008. No it doesn't need to be earlier because Neverland Ranch is discussed in that section. And positioning of images is really not that important anyway in this context. — Realist2 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eccentric?

The use of the words "eccentric" and "supposedly" in this edit run into issues with words to avoid and avoiding weasel words. Is Michael Jackson eccentric? If so, who says it? The use of words like claimed, supposedly and allegedly are best avoided in Wikipedia articles when they are used to make unsupported statements.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "eccentric" is inaccurate, I would rather remove the word eccentric and just keep it as "behavior", the reader can make up their own mind if they read the article in it's entirety. Taking a closer read at the article, this isn't about eccentricity, this is about an individual who is dealing with multiple mental health issues. In that respect, to labeling him "eccentric", as the press might, is rather distasteful. This goes well beyond being a bit of an odd ball. — Realist2 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Eccentricity (behavior) has its own article. Although the word is not insulting or abusive, it is often seen as having a negative meaning. Describing MJ as eccentric may be OK in a newspaper article, but it may not be WP:NPOV enough for a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no. As I've said to R2 elsewhere, when it comes to Jackson "eccentric" isn't entirely a case of outsiders-looking-in and "diagnosing" him; anyone around in the 80s will remember the non-stop drip-feed of "eccentric genius" stories churned out by Sony's PR. The word might not be suitable in this particular section, which deals with his later life, but the "manufactured public image which then turned round to bite him as it made the public believe he was capable of anything" narrative forms such an important part of Jackson's rise-fall-rise-fall-rise story that BLP considerations in his case become slightly skewed from the norm. And lord knows, it's certainly covered enough. (Yes, the deliberate creation of the "Whacko Jacko" persona is covered in the 1986–1990 section, but not the continuing effects of it in subsequent years.) – iridescent 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Realist - a word like "eccentric" conveys a negative connotation, and wikipedia is not the place to construe such connotations. I agree it should just be "behavior".--Paaerduag (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the word eccentric has been removed again, personally I never liked it, that word was far too simplistic and inaccurate in my opinion. Still I'm not sure there is consensus to remove it? — Realist2 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No new image?

I think the image should be changed to i dont know probably a... white person! by now! new people who do not know him coming to the article will think he is black, when he changed to white. the image should be regarded as out of date or wiki terms un reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.201 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox image shows Michael Jackson in 1984, and admittedly this is quite a long time ago. It is from Wikimedia Commons, so it has no copyright issues. The choice of infobox image has led to debate in the past, although there are some more recent images of MJ in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we refrain from using the terms black/white when referring to his skin condition. An African-American (or any ethnicity for that matter) who suffers from Vitiligo does not "become a white person" because their skin looses pigmentation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, the article even has photographic evidence of his vitiligo. You might not agree with his choice to cover up the rest of his skin, but others do the same and ethnicity is a lot more than the shade of skin. While we all agree a more recent free images is needed, we haven't found one as of yet. We have free images of him in 1988, but most people think their not suitable as the lead image. — Realist2 14:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Commons was not much use, I had a look around Flickr for Creative Commons images. This 2007 photo was the best that I could manage, but it is still not ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a very famous image, however it probably doesn't really belong to the flickr person. — Realist2 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to post an image of someone without their shades on? So people can see their face. 82.23.62.255 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
He wears sun glasses 95% of the time, he's more recognizable with glasses than without. — R2 20:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New Album

Im pretty sure all of you know the leaked song by mj, hold my hand, but since this song was leaked akon said that the song will be removed from his new album, thats pretty frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by all accounts there won't be a new studio album for a while, Jackson and Sony will be spend some time (and money) celebrating the anniversaries of Thriller and next Off the Wall. Besides, who wants to release a make or break studio album in the middle of a recession? — Realist2 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone who knows they have a hardcore of fans who'll buy it come-what-may, whilst their rivals are more dependent on the youth market, thus increasing their chance of a long stay at the #1 position and the credibility-boost that brings, despite potentially lower overall sales? We are talking about the man who released an album six weeks after 9/11… – iridescent 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael has to make this new album, the reason being is that, sony will see if mj releases this album and if it fails or succeeds a lot, there is no middle.--RafiCHAMP1 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He won't be releasing a new album under Sony, don't you realize how much Sony stand to gain if his finances do collapse? Anyway this is not the forum, move along folks. — Realist2 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thriller musical set for Broadway

This BBC news item says: Pop star Michael Jackson is to help develop a US stage musical based on the video to his hit song Thriller, it has been announced. Producer James Nederlander, whose company owns nine Broadway theatres, said the star would "participate in every aspect of the creative process".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll fall through at the last moment, haven't you learnt anything about Michael Jackson these last few months years lol ;). Let's just wait till it does happen. We will only have to delete it later. — Realist2 08:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't about to put this in the article. Although there is a Thriller show in London, any bets on the Broadway show becoming reality would be risky.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The current west end musical is called Thriller – Live, Jackson isn't involved. — Realist2 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If Michael Jackson himself is not in this show, then it will not be big. Plain and simple.--RafiCHAMP1 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mj himself wasn't and hasn't been in Thriller Live, a fan production, yet that has been a massive success. The Thriller broadway musical has been confirmed by Michael's spokesperson and Nederlander. Marnifrances (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed Broadway version is still at the development stage and could easily fall through. Due to WP:CRYSTAL, there would need to be a firm launch date before putting this in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, some reliable sources are saying it will take a year or so to develop, who knows what will happen in Jackson's live in the mean time, something could (probably will) delay it further or result in it's cancellation all together. Jackson has been involved with so many projects that never see the light of day. Until I see the production crew drive past my house, I won't believe it's happening lol. Update, according to the Daily Mail (trust them at your own peril), John Landis is trying to stop the production. Ain't gonna happen folks. — Realist2 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sony BMG

Ok so let me get this clear, Michael Jackson is not with Sony BMG anymore? Also will it stay that way?--RafiCHAMP1 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He still works with Sony when it comes to the distribution of his old music, he has no choice in that matter. But future music will not involve Sony, unless he starts a new contract with them. — Realist2 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Tour

I have read on many sites about a world tour in 30 cities in 09, something about doing it for his kids. Okay to add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameratsu (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, we have a zero tolerance policy with regard to things that "might happen". We wait for it to actually happen, we will only need to remove it later...trust me. — Realist2 05:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok but if a new world tour does happen, do we remove the 2008 section in the article, and start a 2009 section with the new world tour being included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia's policy is not to cover future events unless they are definitely on the calendar.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I said "if" it were to happen then how would we put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) We will probably expand the 2008 section making it 2008-present.--RafiCHAMP1 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would just be added below the recent info on Neverland Ranch. — R2 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thriller Broadway

This event was canceled, due to michael being sued over for some breach in a contract.--RafiCHAMP1 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear this from? --DHB-XYZ (talk) 22:59 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is what the New York Times says about the current state of play: [1]. John Landis "filed suit against Mr. Jackson, asking for unpaid profits from the video and a making-of documentary, Variety reported. The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, says that for the past four years Mr. Jackson and his company Optimum Productions have not paid Mr. Landis money he is owed from these projects or accounted for their profits." As ever, nothing is simple with MJ.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL good point.--RafiCHAMP1 04:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

I hate it when people undo harmless changes to pages. The phrase "He has been cited as one of the world's most famous men" is used at the beginning and the end of the article, the same exact phrase. I changed the first one to read something like "Because of his presence in popular culture and success in music for over 40 years, he has become a cultural icon." Just what in the hell is wrong with that? It's better than the same exact phrase opening up and ending the article. Why restate ourselves here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.246.99 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to restate what is in the bigger article. His level of fame is noteworthy enough to me mentioned in the lead. — R2 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I was doing... mentioning it in a way that isn't an exact carbon copy of what has already been stated in the article.

Muslim Convert

It has been widely publicised that since November 2008 Jackson converted to Islam. Common Google searches such as [2], [3], [4], [5] (there are more). I really think someones should add it to the section 2008, but I can regretfully say I can't exactly phrase it right without sounding too gossipy. Music isn't really my area of expertise so I thought we could discuss it here. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

you've neglected to read the first two sections of this article talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Jackson's camp denies it ever occurred, so it didn't. Please don't believe gossip spread by The Sun. — R2 11:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Every online news story about this is, on closer inspection, a rehash of the original story in The Sun on 21 November 2008 here. The headline was The way you Mecca me feel (geddit?) There is no reliable sourcing for this claim, which has been denied by Jackson's staff.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Shoot. Please forgive my ignorance. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't one of his brothers actually convert to Muslim and recommended it to Micheal? Which one was it again? --DHB-XYZ(talk) 13:43 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Jermaine Jackson is a Muslim. — R2 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson "has superbug"

The Sun for 12 February 2009 has as its lead story that MJ has an infection similar to MRSA.[6]. Other news outlets, such as the Telegraph here are picking up on the story, but are only repeating what The Sun claims. This leads to déjà vu with the conversion to Islam story, so please don't add this to the article unless there is reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to tell the 'The Sun' to **** off, oops, it slipped out. Seriously, do they have nothing better to do. First they (the general media) made up exaggerated claims about his finances (they were calling him "on the verge of bankruptcy" as far back as 1998, still hasn't happened a decade later). Now this health crap. It's lucky that a few people with common sense watchlist this article otherwise it would be a mess. — R2 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As a reminder to anyone with a "it's in the paper, it must be true" mentality, even the original story is reporting it as speculation and explicitly labelling it as such (hence the quote-marks in their headline); the pertinent paragraph is "US celebrity plastic surgeon Dr Anthony Youn, who has not treated Jacko but has viewed the shocking photos of the star, said: “It is possible that Mr Jackson has a staph infection or MRSA.". This is a BLP violation if reported as fact, and will be immediately reverted if added to the article and persistent offenders blocked. – iridescent 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Realist 2, I understand your point and am behind you %100, but I changed your "swear word" into stars***, and people will still get your point tho.--RafiCHAMP1 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to censor that guy? Grow up. This is how real people talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.73.15 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The surprise is that no-one has added this to the article so far. There were numerous attempts to add the "conversion to Islam" story, but it seems that having MRSA is not as interesting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well given The Sun's track record on all things Islam, clearly that story was intended to make him look bad, to tag him to a religion The Sun (and some of their readers) don't particularly like. The MRSA story, on the other had, is more sympathetic in Jackson's favor (the majority of people don't want to see him die of MRSA). Clearly religious 'controversy' is more interesting than sympathetic stories. I think it's good we are having this discussion, clearly more stories will follow, good to be one step ahead of the masses. — R2 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Residence

Isn't he living in Dubai now? -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, California, in a rented mansion. — R2 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Businessman

Following recent edits, I think we need to reach consensus on whether Jackson should be described as a businessman in the lead. Business has played a large part in his life; acquiring the rights to the Beatles songs, landing one of the biggest sponsorship deals in history, etc. The media may not report it too often, as it's positive, but it's still a major part of Jackson. Also a user felt that the word 'however', as seen here, indicated POV. Despite this, the article reached FA status with the word included. The latter isn't too pressing for me, but I feel that Jackson should still be described as a businessman in the lead. Thoughts? Pyrrhus16 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MJ is probably no more of a businessman than any other showbiz star. His acquisition of the rights to the Beatles' songs was his most important business deal, but it is debatable whether he is a businessman in the strictest sense of the word.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see what your saying. See also, this discussion. Pyrrhus16 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing in the intro and no clear section in the article discussing him being a businessman. He's very rich and owns stuff. I think that would be easy to source and could be added. But I think calling him a businessman is a bit strange to say the least, and misleading. The previous discussion also seems to indicate that they were trying to add the fact that he owns (or owned as the case may now be) lots of stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This section mentions his business dealings in depth. As does this one Pyrrhus16 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I read the entire section and all it says is he bought a bunch of song catalogs. "He was warned that he would face strong competition, excited, he skipped around the room saying, "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs Branca [his attorney]". He is not a businessman. He's a big success in the music business, would you like to put that in? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the vast majority of books characterize him as a business man, we could add much much more on it, but we are constrained by space and the specifics are rather confusing. — R2 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
So there's more on his "business" career than that he skipped around the room saying, "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs", but we don't have room for it? How much more? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Much more (the 1984 deal is the tip of the iceberg), more info is covered in the article, but more (complex) issues have been omitted. Jackson negotiated many of his contracts alone, and remember he cleverly got the best contract in the music industry, 37% royalty rate before Thriller came out. Most commentators agree that his business dealings were very successful, several sources describe him as a business genius (despite his spending habits). Currently Jackson receives royalties from thousands of songs that don't belong to him. As the article points out, in 2007 he acquired further interest in several hundred thousand compositions. As he gets older, and moves out of the limelight, maintaining his business affairs will be his major job. — R2 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Nothing you state indicates he is a businessman. The closest you come is saying he negotiated a high royalty rate. But certainly thats insufficient. He's an investor maybe in songs collections, and good negotiator (as one of the most succesful artists of all time which is a pretty helpful position to negotiate from) but he's not a businessman. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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.[93][40] - With just one example, he has half ownership of a lucrative company. He is business partners with Sony. — R2 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know what your definition of "businessman" is, ChildofMidnight. It appears to be rather narrow from what you've been saying so far.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's imagine Michael Jackson wasn't a singer, he would still be notable as a business person. Just because his music career overshadows his business career somewhat, he is still nonetheless a business man. Like I said, as time progresses, his business ventures with Sony and real estate (he just set up a joint company with the group that co-own's Neverland Ranch), with become his main occupation. — R2 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On at least 3 occasions ChildofMidnight has tried to alter the lead to imply that Jackson is not a businessman, despite no consensus to do so. Simply not on. — R2 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 1984 Beatles catalog was not the major component of his his business career. It was the 1995 merger that is the most important aspect (although one could not happen without the other). His business dealings, in music and real estate, are discussed extensively in the article. He currently commands something of a music empire, noted as recently as 2007. — R2 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this issue was started because of another, frankly bizarre dispute. — R2 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dyson, Michael Eric. The Michael Eric Dyson Reader.
Troy, Gil. Morning in America.
Dineen, Catherine. Michael Jackson: In His Own Words.
Jet.
Ebony.
Gale Research International. Contemporary Black Biography: Profiles from the International Black Community.

Case settled. — R2 12:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those cites DO NOT talk about him being a businessman. Most of them don't even use the term in relation to him, and the ones that do, use it in the sense that he has a shrewd business sense and the articles don't discuss him substantially as a businessman. Please provide a few citations that substantively deal with him as a businessman and use the term directly in relation to Jackson. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your on your own here, nothing seems to satisfy you. — R2 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Childofnight has has to be reverted a 4th time on his article (I just added a dubious tag to the businessman claim despite the strong evidence and consensus against his belief). Given this, and his odd behavior on other articles, I believe it is time to start a user conduct report. — R2 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


He blatantly is, per the sources provided above. More info can be provided if necessary, but there is no need. Despite the consensus above, the editor who set up this comment is causing some disruption by asking the FAC director to have the FA statues of this article re examined. — R2 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking a good look at the "sources" for this claim. If there were any good ones Realist would provide them, but there isn't much other than a few mentions of "shrewd business dealings". It's quite a stretch to extrapolate those into him being a businessman. I haven't found a single source that deals substantively with Micahel Jackson as a businessman alhtough he owns some stuff, but maybe someone else can find one? If correcting misleading, inaccurate and undueweight article content is disruption, I am guilty as charged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • By definition of the word "businessman", with the purchase, ownership and direction of a vast catalog of music rights as well as many reliable sources that referred to him as a businessman, including the then head of CBS Records referring to him as "a very smart businessman", I fail to see how he wouldn't be characterized as a businessman. He doesn't just "own some stuff", he invested his money into a very wise purchase and controlled that and his other business investments and dealings. I'd also throw into this that the editor challenged the description on this talk page, wherein she went on to characterize the status of this and other featured articles in this way: "Whoever is designating them as GA, if you are to believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass", as "crap", and then commented, in reference to this issue and another article by saying she "had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!) ... I can't do all the work myself after all." [7] I'd also interject that going against the consensus of editors on a page is not in keeping with the tenets of Wikipedia editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What a pile of shit. He aggressively acquired the Northern Songs catalogue, against McCartney's interest. Were it not his own personal decision, he was strongly advised to do so, on commercial grounds, and, FFS, his lawyers were paid enough for that. He may not be a "businessman" on his own account, but he certainly has enough clout around him to make smart business decisions- and the deciding factor is whether MJ has the final say-so; and, er, yup, he does. I've had a similar debate as to whether Jade Goody is a businesswoman; if she makes money from commercial eneterprisesm ,er, she is. Likewise, Jackson. End of. --Rodhullandemu 02:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously the music catalogue was acquired for their commercial potential, and regardless of whether Michael or his lawyers do the leg work, he's the one that benefits and he's the one who ultimately is in control of any business ventures that arise through the use of music in his catalogue. "Businessman" seems pretty accurate to me. Rossrs (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Question: Are we trying to determine if he is or is not a businessman? (a pretty straight-forward question) ... or... Are we trying to figure out if he is known for being a businessman? (a quite different question) Padillah (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure lol, but he seems to fit quite comfortably in both categories. — R2 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would answer he's not known for being a businessman. He's known for his music. No 8 year old has ever dressed up in a white suit and single glove and pretended to make business deals. He's known for his music. But, yes, he is a busniessman and I see no problem mentioning it in the lead. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Then my 2cents is "Yes, he's a businessman". He's not known for being a businessman, he's not famous for being a businessman, he didn't make his money by being a businessman... but yes, he's a businessman. And the impact of having that in the lead (as the single adjective that it currently is) would be negligible. Padillah (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, fair enough. Considering he hasn't toured or made music for almost 20 years, you have a point. Earnings are time-sensitive and I'm sure he's not done earning so it's libel to grow even more than you stated. Still, in all, MJ is more famous and more known for being an entertainer than a businessman. Padillah (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, he last toured in 1997 (last performed for money in 2001) and released multiple million albums in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003 and 2008. His last studio album being 2001. He is certainly still making quite a killing from his back catalog, but his publishing rights bring in $75 million a year according to Forbes. — R2 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me put it this way - Not a fan, don't carenot as interested as some. I just dropped by to respond to the RfC. Padillah (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I kind of gathered, no problem :) — R2 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a crappy way of putting that, sorry I hope I didn't offend. Thanks for the AGF. Padillah (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Offend, no way, seriously I've heard a lot worse said about my favorite singer :) — R2 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

"This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses."

Can anybody explain this? -- 200.100.16.83 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was a practicing Jehovah's Witness for a majority of his life. WikiProjects are associated with any article which has any relevance to the subject. In this case, a notable public figure who has practiced this particular religion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Health?

Michael Jackson is suffering from a lung degeneration and there are rumors that he is dying. Any other info on this?

Tabloid smut, don't believe it. Best. — R2 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This claim comes from the writer Ian Halperin [9] and, like other claims about MJ's health, it will not be added to the article without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson "planning to stage comeback in London"

OK folks, here's today's media speculation about MJ: [10]. Connoisseurs of these stories will note the use of phrases like "it has been reported", which mean "we don't actually know if this is true or not." WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS apply here once again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That O2 arena thing has been flouting around for over a year (shortly after Prince did his 21 dates), I honestly can't envision him making the 'comeback' in the US or UK anyway. He'll get a much easier ride in mainland Europe or Japan (as prior album sales prove). Thanks for bringing us up to date with the latest. — R2 11:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

How come there's no image of Jackson holding his baby over the balcony or Jackson in the present day?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we haven't got a public domain photograph of either. These are what there is to work with. – iridescent 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is mentioned in the FAQ, and get's asked regularly on the talk page. People should really read the archives. — R2 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a large archive for this talk page, I have added a search box.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) — R2 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

Ok for some reason, I remember we had the same picture that we have now, except the old one was bigger and more clear, this picture is kinda small and the pixels are bad, we need a new picture.--RafiCHAMP1 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this picture that billboard has, that photo of michael looks very good.--RafiCHAMP1 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it belongs to Billboard, not us. — R2 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So are we getting a new picture or or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and the issue that comes up every time is copyright. Due to WP:NFCC, the article is not in a position to use a copyrighted image in the infobox at the top of the page. Attempts at finding an up to date copyright free image of MJ have been unsuccessful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I promise to take pictures myself, if he does anything exciting. — R2 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What happend to that picture of michael we had when he was in the 2006 world music awards in black shades and cloths.--RafiCHAMP1 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because we didn't own it. — R2 11:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do you go about owning a picture of someone? You have to take it yourself!? That's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. — R2 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I no, rite? It's like you can't just have anything you want! 66.30.14.175 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Guys this is ridiculous. It's not about him "looking good" in the picture. The fact is, the image used is from some 20 plus years ago. There needs to be a recent photogragh of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.252.117 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have one. — R2 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Tour Confirmed

wow, this rumor was true (first timer), michael jackson and his friend go shopping together, then the friend that mj is with confirms a tour starting july, at the O2 arena, although michael didnt say it himself, so we still dont know for sure, but his friend said that there will be a press conference this thursday, so people stay alert.--RafiCHAMP1 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you will find the video of mj and his friend, also another video about his friend confirming the tour.--RafiCHAMP1 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

http://mjjr.net/news.php Cheers--RafiCHAMP1 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There are reports of this floating around [11] but still nothing definite.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Will this is certainly interesting, not only is that man a close friend of Jackson, but he's also a respected fashion designer (lying would only damage his image). However, until it comes from the horses mouth it's still a rumor. Mind you, I trust this guy more than the speculation in the media. — R2 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source – iridescent 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with waiting, to see what, if anything, emerges. The media have a history of hyping something up (remember the said he would perform "Thriller" at that award shoe in 2006) so that when it's not that exciting, it makes Jackson look bad/disappoints his fans. — R2 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's on the BBC's top 5 most read stories as well, FWIW. I notice they're carefully hedging their bets with assorted "possiblys" and "believeds". – iridescent 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Jackson has arrived in London. — R2 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"His series of London shows will earn him £5 million a night, making a total of more than £150 million"? I'm not sure even the most devoted fans would be turning up for a 300 night residency by the end. – iridescent 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5 x 30 = 150. 30 nights is reasonable, Prince did 21, those sold out. — R2 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point… My math skills obviously need tuning. In which case £5 million a night / 20,000 seats = £250 a ticket. (It'll actually be a bit less than this thanks to merchandising and album sales, but even so…) – iridescent 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been to the arena myself (to see Prince), they will be able to recoup their losses through merchandising, transportation, parking, food/drink, restaurant meals before/afterward, other shopping, rides etc. Many people return the next day to have a proper shop around the dome, since you can't do it all in one day. — R2 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's official website acknowledges there is a press conference. Lady's and gentleman, this might just be for real. — R2 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also if anyone is going to be there, could you maybe get a picture of michael? Thanks.(We really need one)--RafiCHAMP1 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't be at the press conference, but I'll pay to watch him live, hopefully get some pictures then. — R2 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox news, who usually play up the "OMG he's dying" crap, say he's fit and health. *Rolls eyes*. Looks like fox are red in the face. — R2 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox say there will be 18 shows, starting July 9th. — R2 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean health, and major TV promotion will be arriving shortly. — R2 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Poster promo. — R2 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Every site is listing different amounts of shows for this tour, BBC says 8, CNN says 10, also no new pictures guys?--RafiCHAMP1 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The correct figure is 10, as stated by the presenter who opened and closed for Jackson. Any pictures will take a few days to surface. — R2 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An oddly positive message, from the usually vile Mirror. — R2 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

about baby dangeling incident

i think we need to write an explanation for the baby dangling incident:

In November of that year, in response to the fans who insisted to see his baby, Jackson brought his new born son onto the balcony of his hotel room.--X7000matrix (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the "baby dangling" incident was glossed over considering the amount of coverage it got at the time. It should also do more to explain that he didn't just hold the baby up but out over the edge of the balcony. Nobody gets in trouble for holding their baby for people to see, it was the three story drop that got him in trouble. Padillah (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem adding an extra sentence. It's been 6-7 years since the incident, and it is still something people widely know about. That said, it was sensationalized, and we have an obligation not to add to that sensationalism. — R2 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The section has been tweaked, in order to make clear why it was controversial and received so much media coverage at the time. Also, the CNN link at [12] was not working for some reason, so this was a good opportunity to replace it. The MTV link also contains a picture of the incident, which belongs to CNN.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine. — R2 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, Done!--X7000matrix (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"the world's most famous living being"

in WMA 2006 the man from the Guinness world records says that MJ is "the world's most famous living being". is it a record for him?--X7000matrix (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article at [13], but I don't know if MJ is in the current Guinness World Records.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Feature Article

I guareente that by the end or the begining of his tour, this article will be within top 50 most viewed wiki pages.--RafiCHAMP1 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely, the concert is in the UK. 95% of people who use Wikipedia are American (that's why it doesn't have an international perspective) and US media aren't interested in anything that happens abroad (unless it's the middle east). — R2 02:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The AEG manager said that if the concerts turn out successful, then it will be followed by a world tour, but michael just has to give the "okey" with it.--RafiCHAMP1 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Already 1million pre-regestration tickets are sold, therefore mj will add additional 10 more concerts

Still waiting for confirmation of additional dates. — R2 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we add chris brown under people michael jackson influenced under legacy and influence. Its pretty clear he mimics Michael more than any one else right now (MTV performance 2008, his concerts). Nothing big. What do you think?
Hmm, he's only sold a few million records. I know he's popular at the moment, but Jackson has influenced artists who have achieved a lot more. — R2 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys this might interest you. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/07/10-more-shows-115875-21177771/ --RafiCHAMP1 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should say in the This is It article that the pre-registration for early tickets hitover 1 million?--RafiCHAMP1 03:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the tour article page. However further dates have not yet been announced, they must have an odd definition of "immanent". — R2 03:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling all Michael Jackson fans

As you are probably aware, at this point in time, Jackson has brought the number of concerts up to 25 (beating Prince's record), and it's going to rise further probably. Plenty of fan's should be able to attend. Please, please, please take photographs while you are there. We really need images of Michael Jackson live. All the best, and it's lovely to wipe the smug grin off the media's face :) — R2 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hype

Wow I predicted maybe 10 more shows and thats it, but all the tickets are sold out from the pre-sale, therefore, they added 20 more shows, plus 20 more during January-February 2010, then if that goes successful, then a world tour will be announced. All of this could be found at michaeljackson.com, or michaeljacksonlive.com.--RafiCHAMP1 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A unique interpretation of "final", then… – iridescent 01:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's certainly unique, what else would you expect :D — R2 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

World Tour

OK, it has exceeded what I expected, today they just announced an aditional 44 more shows, source, michaeljacksonlive.com --RafiCHAMP1 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the world constitute the city of london? — R2 19:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, there is more, this concert has already set some guiness world records, they are in the main page of michaeljacksonlive.com, so its official, I will copy and paste the records.

Records have tumbled:

•The biggest audience ever to see an artist in one city. •The most amount of people to attend a series of arena shows. •The fastest ticket sales in history

So it would be good to add these to either the This is it wiki page, or in this article, with the section about this is it.--RafiCHAMP1 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW its not 45 shows anymore, 5 more shows were just added, its now 50, please update that on this is it page; source michaeljacksonlive.com.--RafiCHAMP1 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all tickets are sold out, all 50 concerts sold out, in a span of what 3-4 days?--RafiCHAMP1 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They would have sold out in one day, had they allowed. — R2 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to dampen the mood, but Jackson has a long way to go before he reaches "The biggest audience ever to see an artist in one city" or "The most amount of people to attend a series of arena shows"; Elvis Presley's residency at the Las Vegas Hilton lasted 837 nights. The O2 is about 4 times bigger than the Hilton coliseum; only if Jackson extends the residency to 150-200 nights (possible, if the demand's there and he wants to stay out of the US) will the records start to be broken. (It may break the record for the longest unbroken residency, however, as Elvis played other engagements as well) – iridescent 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've attributed the claim specifically to his website, it's save to say that the records allegedly broken are rather...vague, and open to interpretation. I've been reading all the articles at google news, and thus far no-one has pointed out an inaccuracy. I'm sure if there is an error, the media will be very willing to set the record start. I'll look out for it. — R2 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The media have finally lost control of the public, things are getting desperate. — R2 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGG - Is The Sun touting the pro Jackson ticket already? — R2 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Didn't even know him for a year yet and look, he staged a comeback for me. TechOutsider (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Super Bowl XXVII

According to the wikilinked article, the aforementioned Super Bowl was held in January 1993. However, the section's scope is from 1991 through 1992. I believe the paragraph about the Super Bowl should be bumped to the next section, 1993 through 199*. However, I could see why not; the next section concern's Jackson's child molestation accusations and a juxtaposition of two topic matters with a + and - connotations would be awkward; off the top my mind I remember the Super Bowl being a landmark for Jackson. Or is the time period just very loosely defined and overlaps other periods? Any thoughts? TechOutsider (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I was aware the superbowl is technically inside 1993 (by a few days), but if it were added to the 1993 section, the 1991-1992 section would be very short, while the 1993-1994 section would be very long. — R2 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to change the title of the Super Bowl section to 1991 to 1993; although the next section starts on 1993, I expect users will understand we mean the first half of 1993 and then the second half of 1993 ... TechOutsider (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Hopefully. — R2 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From July 8, 2009 to February 24, 2010, Jackson will perform 50 sell out concerts to over one million people, at London's O2 arena.

From which moment Wikipedia is soothsayer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.145.66 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right; amended to "is scheduled to perform". Everyone, please read WP:CRYSTAL before you change it back. – iridescent 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, but the media is just itching for any of the concerts to be cancelled, so that it can drag out its "Michael Jackson is past it" stories again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all comments on issue. — R2 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_22&oldid=1138134376"