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

Jackson's extensive history of plastic surgery is never even mentioned in this article. That seems like a big oversight to me. Is the omission intentional? --Osbojos 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael jackson denies having plastic surgery.--Billy 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what? He's had it, and it's one of the noteworthy things about him. (So is, arguably, his denial/admission of it.) --ProhibitOnions 20:09, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Jackson admits some plastic surgery. Most of it is controversial and hard to prove one way or the other. It is also becoming more common these days, so who cares. User:McTrav

How is hard to prove that Michael Jackson has had plastic surgery, just look at him

No plastic surgery here... Mga 01:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is quite plain that this fellow has had significant facial plastic surgery, and moreover he is world famous for it. It is a major oversight that this article does not metion this. Duracell 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is it with the comment about the nose, and what's typical with "African" noses. I think, it's generally accepted that a shared trait with person's of African ancestory is they are more likely to have a wider nose. Now, those with mixed ancestory, whether in America, or North Eastern Africa, will share traits with other racial groups, like Arabs and whites. This is pretty murky controversial subject, so I'm not going to change it, since I don't know what to change it ot. But, maybe the whole "are wide noses related to being of African descent" thing should just be removed altogether. The the only "nose comparison, should be between Jackson's old nose, and his newer ones. Also, I would like to point that, Michael Jackson has admitted to nose surgery. He merely denies it's more than two times, and denies it was to change his appearance. He said it was to help him breath better, and therefore sing better. --rob 2 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

"He is a generous children's friend, but he has also repeatedly been accused of sexual abuse of children and is, as of March 2005, on trial for alleged child molestation and other offenses."

Does this strike anyone else as a bit less than optimal for the second paragraph of the article? I don't know anyone who would use that phrase. Also it seems a bit less than neutral really, I know what is meant, but what exactly do those words really mean? Perhaps it needs some editing to something more intelligible?

What is confusing? Generous refers to friend, it does not mean friend of generous children, was that the problem? You mean generous is not neutral? Or friend?--Patrick 11:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither "generous" nor "friend" is neutral. --62.254.0.38 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you just stated the facts: He donates a lot of his time and money to help children. User:McTrav

It has already been rephrased.--Patrick 09:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate. Squiquifox 22:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Squiquifox 03:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a little ridiculous and NPOV to say that Jackson "is known as the King of Pop", without further explanation. You may remember that the reason he has that tag is that in the full flush of his fame, after Liz Taylor - apparently unprompted - referred to him as the "King Of Pop, Rock and Soul" at an awards show, his own press agent issued a directive saying that Michael was now to be referred to by that title at all times. Notwithstanding his many more recent protestations that "I don't know where that 'self-proclaimed' stuff came from", it most definitely *was*. Hence the press affection for using that handle to refer to him - it was seen as a striking example of hubris, on a par with the floating of the big Michael Jackson statue up the Thames to launch "HIStory" and the infamous Brits performance that Jarvis Cocker disrupted...

It's a nickname. It's nothing more, nothing less. --b. Touch 04:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though there should probably be some mention that "King of Pop" was effectively self-applied. Also, where does "King of the Music Video" come from? A Google search only turns up Wikipedia mirrors, some unrelated pages, and only one or two other pages related to Jackson. —tregoweth 22:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson never gave himself the name "King of Pop". This was never self-proclaimed. It was coined by Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson fans picked adopted it for him after that.

"his own press agent issued a directive saying that Michael was now to be referred to by that title at all times." << That is a lie. And King Of Pop title was never SELF Proclamed, Oprah even assisted Michael Jackson in her 1993 interview with him and said Michael or any one in his camp ever said to call him The King Of POP. In that same interview Ms. Taylor noted that she was the one who first called Michael Jackson. The King Of Pop, Rock, And Soul, and his fans therefore continued to call him the King of Pop.... "The Self Proclaimed" junk was added on by the Press and Media to belittle his status and create new rumors about Jacksons "Diva" antics. You can not prove that "King Of POP" was self proclaimed, but in many ways it can be Disproved that it wasn't.

The article currently refers to Michael as one of the most successful African American artists of all time. This is makes it seem as if he were popular only by some lower African-American standard. While it is important that it be mentioned he is black, this is a bad way of stating it, considering he is arguably the most famous living person on the planet.

He's not the most popular American artist of all time. Elvis has him beat, I'd say. As far as being the most famous person living right now....possibly, but it's more important to note that yes, he is one of the most successful Black performers of all time, and that should be noted in the first sentence (I'm pretty sure he is THE most successful Black solo artist of all time, but I need attribution) --b. Touch 01:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may have noted the phrase "one of" so mentioning the fact that Elvis was more popular is rather pointless. In regards to that anyway, Elvis is the only artist to have outsold Jackson, meaning my edit of "one of the most popular" is indeed very accurate and Elvis actually has a much, much lower average- per album sales record. Michael Jackson has had eight solo albums, Elvis has about ninety-five. Anyway, my point was it should be noted for Jackson as one of the most successful artists of all time rather than one of the most successful black artists as the second statement sounds as though he may be in the top five among blacks but he's not even in the top 50 overall, when in reality he is first among blacks and second overall. Zoso Jade

I like that last comment by Jade and think the current paragraph is fine. It is interesting that Elvis is the only artist to have outsold Jackson. It is also interesting that Jackson had a higher sales average per album. Perhaps a section comparing Elvis to Jackson could be made if enough room permits- the current article is at the 32kb limit, so I read. User:McTrav

I cleaned up the discography/filmography section. Two things to note:

• "State of Shock" is a Jacksons song, not Michael Jackson featuring/with the Jacksons. Michael was still a member of The Jacksons in 1984.
  • For that matter, the same with the "I Want You Back" remix in 1988. Both are listed in the Jackson 5 article.
• "Albums are italicized and songs are in quotes"

--b. Touch 05:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are two sections called "Miscellaneous", should they be merged or one renamed? --OGoncho 22:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LEAVE THESE PHOTOS OFF. I don't want to start an edit war, but these pictures clearly have no right being on here. Only Fair Use, PD, Creative Commons, GNU... images should be shown in the article. Discuss this matter if you don't think I'm right, before reverting my corrections. -- user:zanimum P.S. These photos do look fantastic, and enhance the article, I'm not debating that by any extent. I simply don't want Wikipedia to get it's butt sued off by Michael or any professional photographer.

(Photos removed -- they were interfering with the formatting of this talk page and probably don't legally belong here either. 128.61.70.49 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))

You sure the Captain EO pic isn't a screencap? --b. Touch 06:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look tards, "what some perceive as an eccentric lifestyle" is already a bloated, weasel-worded enough phrase, you don't need to put "eccentric" in quotes.

Does Michael Jackson really write his songs on his own, as he states f.e. in the Bashir interview, or does he let other do that job? Thanks, --Abdull 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jackson has been writing his own material since Off the Wall in 1979. He wrote a number of the songs on that LP and its two follow-ups, and has written the bulk of his material since 1991. He is very much a songwriter; in fact, he has written for other artists as well, including Diana Ross ("Muscles, 1982). --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I eliminated the phrase "the most successful artist in black music history". Michael Jackson does not write and sing black music. He sings music. He himself is black. If someone else wants to indicate this information somewhere else in the article, they are welcome to, but the former usage was unsuitable, for many of the same reasons as discussed above. Michael Jackson is plenty famous in his own right, he does not need dumb qualifiers to pump up his success.

Furthermore, that link was completely irrelevant. I was expecting to see a chart with record sales or something and instead I read about Eminem. 128.61.70.49 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to find attribution with that link; that was as close as I got. I reworded it to state that he is the most successful African-American solo artist in music history, a fact which is very much true. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know there is a seperate article on the trial, but I believe the general article on Michael Jackson needs to have more on it than it has now. Why have completely meaningless 'miscellaneous' but so little on the trial? I mean, it's not because of his music that he has been in the news lately, is it?

That's what the seperate article is for, so that we have room for other sections here. --FuriousFreddy 21:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about this (from Wikipedia:Too_long_articles): "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view."Michaël 11:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This article is already well over the 32 KB limit. Adding additional info would not be advisable. If you desire to add that info here, you'll need to break out the info on Jackson's musical career to an article called Solo musical career of Michael Jackson or something similar, so that this article is shorter. Take that info, summarize it as tightly as possible (about two paragraphs), and add the link into the article like I did for the Jackson 5 section (Main entry: The Jackson 5) Then, you can add a brief summarization (two to three paragraphs maximum, I'd suggest) about the Bashir interviews and trial. --FuriousFreddy 15:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Jackson was considering a tour of Africa in May or June 2004 to raise money to fight AIDS, if the court will let him." (this date has already passed. Can we figure out if the date is wrong or if it has passed and we need to change the tenses of the verbs? --68.95.152.162 01:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick 13:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope it's ok, but I did removed some (not all) of the details about the trial, specifically about juror comments, which seemed way off topic and redundant. Also, it's factually wrong to refer to "several" jurors when talking about the comments of three jurors. We just don't know yet what all the jurors think. Changing information should not be stored redundantly. --rob 29 June 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Aren't there too many pictures at the top of the article? The whole text becomes distorted. Why not move two of them to other places in the article, or delete them completely? Luis rib 16:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice the freaky yelling among the fans at the court scene?

Is this simply the dark side at the far end of a screaming "tradition" started by Elvis and the Beatles fans?

Not to mention Frankie Sinatra and Franz Liszt.

--Scroll1 07:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It says:

1. Highest note: E6
2. Lowest note : E3
3. Vocal range: 3.5 octaves

E3 to E6 is 3 octaves exactly, not 3.5. Anyone with any musical training whatsoever can recognise this. What gives?

That would seem to be an anomaly, but if corrected I think the 'vocal range' section makes for an interesting addition to the article. Adambisset 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As of right now, the lowest note is purported as Bb3, reducing the vocal range to a 2.5 octaves. Why has this note been changed? This data is very easy to make verifiable: add the song and m:ss location where we can hear a "record" note. So please: give us this source data when you make a statement what the highest or lowest notes are. In a very limited search (8 songs), I was able to find F5 as the highest note in "I'll be there" (1:18), pre-breaking of the voice, and D5 post in "Human nature" (3:38). As well as a Bb4 in belting style during "Earth Song" (6:06). Lowest note: F2 in "Blood on the Dance Floor" (0:35). All data with A3=440 Hz. The section might also add that vocal range is purely a technical thing and doesn't make somebody a better entertainer. Peter S. 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are still problems with the current version ("E2-C6"): 1. No example is given for the low notes, 2. all data is shown without a reference point (like "A3=440 Hz"), 3. he is definitely neither a baritone nor a bass, 4. it would have been nice to see a timecode for the high notes. Peter S. 12:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

He started singing career at the age of 12? ("born in 1958, began his career in 1960s") That seems a bit weird to me...Could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks:) --Eternal 06:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson started his professional singing career at the age of five, in 1963, as a member of The Jackson 5. The group got its first record deal in 1967 with a local record label called Steeltown. In 1969, The J5 signed to Motown and began a successful, long-running career of hits. When they had their first hit, "I Want You Back", Michael had just turned eleven. For the full story, please see the article on The Jackson 5. --FuriousFreddy 15:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you really think of it though, I don't think he entered the professional ranks of singing until he was eight (1966). He did began singing in front of people at five though. It has some merit. But I do think the ranks of when he entered a PROFESSIONAL career is strange because he himself has contradicted himself. He started performing at 5 but didn't really start to get into it until he was made the lead singer of the Jackson 5 which was later than what has been said. BrothaTimothy 19:27, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• • You have a point, there. My definition of "professional music career" is when, to oversimplify, you sing so that yo ucan get paid for it. Perhaps we should refer to Jackson beginning his professional when the JK5 signed with Steeltown (1967)? --FuriousFreddy 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, you can say that if you want, yeah, that'll work. I think the E! True Hollywood Story had a date for Michael's first recording session: November of 1967 for "Big Boy" (note: the song was released the next January). So really he's been singing professionally since '66 and been RECORDING since '67. But he sure didn't began professionally at five. LOL That fact has been exagerrated, especially by the media over their analysis of Michael. BrothaTimothy 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The introduction in this article states that he is a pedophile. it is of no interest to this article in particular to decide if he is or not. Therefore, that statement must be erased in order to preserve the neutrality of it. With that being said, webmasters must decide. Thank you.

Erm, actually, I've just read the intro and it doesn't state that at all. No change required. (adidas)

This article has been the subject of some severe vandalism in the last day or two, including replacing the entire article with one on pedophilia. You may have seen a vandalized version. Shoaler 11:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Jackson's "love" of children is stressed more than anything in the background and introduction. I count 4 or 5 times that the word "children" is used (besides Jacksons' children and mentions of his siblings). No big deal, just seems to stress that an awful lot - and I guess we know why. JoeHenzi 02:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People keep removing reference to the nickname Wacko Jacko. Please quit removing it. It belongs in this article. This article mentions his positive nickname "King of Pop". It should also mention Wacko Jacko, to maintain balance. This nickname is extremely well known. A google search on it generates well over 100,000 hits. [1] Wacko Jacko even redirects to this page. Please quit removing it. 12.221.158.143 11:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have therefore returned "Wacko Jacko" to the article. The only reason to remove a name commonly used for Jackson is that one has a positive POV of him and wants this article to reflect it. Avalon 02:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And just what is the deal with "Jesus Juice"? What does it mean and what connection does it have with Jackson? Purple Rose 17:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus Juice" is what the name the accuser says Jackson gave the wine he allegedly plied the accuser with. --FuriousFreddy 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop saying "allegedly." → JarlaxleArtemis 01:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

A jury held that Jackson did not give wine to the accuser. Why shouldn't it be "allegedly" when the law says he didn't do it?210.50.86.103 08:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly, Michael Jackson was born August 29, 1958 in Gary, Indiana. Thodin 09:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't state matter-of-factly that Jackson was a pedophiliac in the lead paragraph. He was found not guilty on all of these charges, so stating that he is a pedophile is POV. JYolkowski // talk 01:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's also actionable. And furthernmore, where did the word pedophiliac come from. Must have meant pedophile. Moriori

It is POV to draw that conclusion. Please stop adding the word "pedophiliac" to the article as if it were a blanket fact. Rhobite 02:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Proven fact" ? Really ? :) Vorash 02:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He claimed that he slept in the same bed with them. He denied that there was any sexual contact, and he was acquitted of the charges. It would be POV to draw the conclusion that he is a "pedophiliac" based on that premise. Rhobite 02:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the verdict of the jury is a reliable source for the notion that he is not a pedophile. History has shown in many examples that the majority can and has been wrong. The belief of "many" (I notice you wrote "many" and not "most") on a topic is not evidence for fact. User:W wanderers

Rhobite's talk page is full of people complaining about his bad edits. Okay, now "Jesus Juice" should be left. It's not in the trial despite its significance. It also is something older than the trial. And blanking out edits is wrong. You should edit them instead. Not every article matters to you but it may to someone else. You can shorten something without erasing it completely. Outright blanking an edit is vandalism. Besides, this page is even missing a section on Michael Jackson's child abuse; someone obviously deleted it when they shouldn't have. Also the significance of the race card is important whether or not you refer to the daily show, and so is the ambiguity of what race jackson is. Thodin 04:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, put me on trial. You added three sentences of random trivia to the article, including a JOKE from a late night talk show, which you presented as fact. I took it out. Sue me. Rhobite 04:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

To Ral315, man thanks you are fast on cleaning vandalism from the talk page. Okay to Rhobite, As I said you should not blank the page, but edit it. The significance of the race card is important and so is the ambiguity of what race jackson is. If you don't like something, you keep the info but make it better, and maybe move it elsewhere in the article. But outright blanking something out is vandalism. So then you should find another source about the race card combined with his racial ambiguity and put it in. I think on your talk page they said you keep changing this article's name so it's your job to correct the links to it--same thing. Thodin 04:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing three sentences of trivia is not "page blanking", nor is it "vandalism". Rhobite 04:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

My edit regarding this wasn't POV. I was removing something which was. This link: http://outpostnine.com/editorials/teacher23.html doesn't refer to the alleged "jesus juice" besides them both having the word juice in it. It was just something a Japanese student wrote on an assignment I guess. That paragraph implies that the "Michael Jackson juice" comment written by that student is evidence of there being allegations of Michael Jackson giving wine to children before this trial, when such a connection can't possibly be drawn. 210.50.86.119 15:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. All that link says is that some Japanese schoolchild made a joke about "Michael Jackson juice". But Thodin writes "the Japanese public already knew about the 'Jesus Juice' allegation and called it 'Michael Jackson Juice.'" This is pretty much trolling IMO. Silly coincidences like this one don't belong in articles. It certainly has nothing to do with the Japanese public's knowledge of the molestation allegations. Rhobite 17:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I came across this today. http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html It is a history of his face from before plastic surgery to present. I think it should be a link to this page. Also do the pictures of him count as fairuse? There are several in there that should be included in the Plastic surgery article. Shorthair 02:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one has responded for several days. I take this as no one having objections, so I don't want to link removed after I put it up. Shorthair 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it was just that nobody was paying attention. The link is a bad idea, see Wikipedia is not a web directory and Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 16:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

First of all, thank you. You should have done that when I first brought it up. I hate these sneaky link deletions. You still should have debated it when I originally asked and so should Tregoweth. Second then, the link I mentioned proves Michael Jackson's plastic surgery. There has been a debate about it (see articles way above) and MJ denied all but 1-3 operations. However, the link proves otherwise. Okay, and well--this is a huge article. It needs sources and most information in this article does NOT come from the two measly sites listed. No, they come from elsewhere, sometimes personal viewpoints, sometimes other sources. The wikipedia link policy says "Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.". So this article is plagarized right now without sources for every piece of information to back it up. I see this all the time on edit histories where people shorten links to one or two. Sometimes someone will revert the shorten and say "those links you took out proved half the article," which is what people have done to many popular topics by removing the links. You don't have to have a link section just the old annotation after each paragraph or two. Shorthair 16:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Example of what this link would be a good source for "He has, however, been dogged by media fascination with his changing physical appearance and what some perceive as an eccentric lifestyle, resulting in his being nicknamed Wacko Jacko." Where is the proof? None of the linked sites have it. My link about the plastic surgery does. I suggest an annotation right there so it would be like this (for the text I am paraphrasing and simplifying a bit): "Michael Jackson...plastic surgery...controversy...nicknamed Jacko...[2]" Can you see how much nicer that looks? Now people can't reasonably just change it or remove it to how their personal biases to MJ goes. I mean one guy recently removed the Jacko reference, which others have debated here and decided to leave on. Shorthair 16:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're not claiming he had more than the number of plastic surgeries he admitted to, so an article that claims to prove he did can never be a reference. --W(t) 16:30, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I edited the article to claim that, then you would accept the link? Shorthair 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... This is interesting. If you google for Michael Jackson Click here Then the first site is www.michaeljackson.com and the second site is anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html, which is the link for debate. Fascinating really, how high on google this link is. I'd assume that would warrant more discussion than just two people. Chunitaku 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason Jackson has a Wikipedia article is that he is a famous singer. Every famous singer has, or should have, an article here. He is not in Wikipedia because he is an alleged pedophile. Not all alleged pedophiles have, or should have, an article in Wikipedia. I would argue, therefore, that the material on the alleged pedophilia should come after the sections on his music. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not arguing that we should whitewash the article by removing the pedophilia accusations. I am merely suggesting that we should recognize that readers are primarily interested in the pedophilia accusations because Jackson is a famous singer. Deleting Unnecessary Words 23:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just an unrelated FYI, there's a website that lists convicted sex offenders in the USA. DyslexicEditor 01:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What needs to be done is that the article should flow in chroological order. It talks about all of the adult Jackson's peculiarities before talking abvout The Jackson 5. --FuriousFreddy 02:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where would this Computer Generated Age Progression if Jackson didn't have plastic surgery fit in? DyslexicEditor 03:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I love the fact that plastic surgery is a link at the bottom of Michael Jackson's page! Deskana 23:27, 25th June 2005 (GMT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&action=edit&section=27

Someone will eventually delete this because it is so good, leaving only one see also remaining. They erase all the good links, too. SnowConeYellow 28 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)

I like the irony too of the photo caption "Michael Jackson in 1987". Mandel 02:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You guys need to find something better to do with your lives than defaming celebs. Try joining the Anti-Defammation League www.adl.org User:W wanderers

The article mentions the supposed value of this asset. Nobody knows the value. Any reference to value, should either mention acquisition cost, secured value, or cite the specific source for the current values. It should not state as fact a single "value". Estimates vary wildly from half a billion, to several billion. Valuing a privately held intangible asset is pretty dubious.

This claim is included with no footnote: "In his lifetime, Jackson spent over $50 million for the charity, excluding such fund-rising projects as..."

Now, this may well be true, but it needs proof. Also, there have been controversies with where money went with some. Any statements about charity, must be balanced with that. Although, for starters, I would be happy with a single reputable article that says somebody confirmed the grand total. Jackson's former spokesperson, Raymone Bain, was found to have released phony names of non-existent charities to the media, although these did not involve financial donations[3]. So, there has to be an independent source other than Michael Jackson, his people, and any organization of fans. Just to be clear, I think the $50 million could be true, it sounds very consistent with what I have heard, but I don't see the proof in the article. Also, please note, that the sentence above, doesn't include examples of the $50 million, but says the mentioned funds are actually "extra", on top of this. I haven't deleted this claim, since I actually think it's probably true, and it's easier to prove, than disprove. --rob 2 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

[The information below is correct, but it does not include singles and albums sales of michael as child on Motown, this would increase his sales dramatically. His sold at least 300mil albums+singles as a solo artist. The jacksons 170mil seems correct, though it would great to have break down of albums + singles sales. I refuse to believe that Madonna, Mariah or Celine have sold more than Michael(their sales look somewhat correct and(although I believe some of Mariah sales are inflated) their discraphy information are so much better mj's they have detailed album+singles sales - its not fair!). It's really difficult to find out record sales of Motown artist ie Stevie Wonder too. Motown website does give up to date sales data - it should! Michael released 6 ablums with motowns, 4 child albums + one in your life lb+ farewell my summer love lp+ Best of MJ. I hope his website does a full update on his sales, we'll probably have to wait till him releases new material unless somebody can find out sooner. Please someone find out soon!! Perhaps someone should email our discusion to his website so that the staff can update us (Anonymous fan)] :-

It seems the number of "records" MJ has sold is changing every day, up *and* down. Here is the latest version:

"He has sold about 300 million records worldwide as a solo artist and another estimated 170 million records with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons."

Now check out the official web site: http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=category&sectionid=3&id=67&Itemid=28

• Worldwide Album Sales Figures
• Off The Wall: 19 million*
• Thriller: 59 million*
• Bad: 28 million*
• Dangerous: 29 million*
• HIStory: 18 million double albums (36 million disks).
• Blood On The Dance Floor: 6 million
• Invincible: 8 million
• Number Ones: 6 million
• -----
• my GRAND TOTAL: 173 or 191 million (depending how you count the doubles)But this does not include his career at motown and other compilation albums!!! It's 173mil+motown+other CD's!

Now the article (last time I checked) says 300 solo record sales. That's over 50% more than Michael Jackson's own web site claims. I ask the next person to edit this, to find an independant reliable third-party source, and then place a footnote by each and every number you place. At this moment, I do not know for certain if the above is a complete solo record list.

I suggest the correct figure is 173 million. What do you think? --rob 4 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

ok, it turns out that MJ's "Official Website" completely forgot about Motown. So, I haven't a clue, and give up for now. --rob 5 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

I don't think Michael sold anymore than about 6 to 8 million records worldwide as a solo artist on Motown. He only had two hit albums while he was there: Got to Be There and Ben. --FuriousFreddy 5 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Extra issue: the comparison to Elvis is irrelevant and also undocumented. Saying somebody outsold somebody in a year (2002) is unclear. Does that mean total dollars, total records/albums, singles, what? Is that birth-to-year-2002 sales? Do post-death sales count? The fact Jackson "outsold" Elvis, shortly after he outlived him, doesn't seem to prove anything. In fact, it shows, that at about the same age, they had about the same number of sales. Not a big deal. I don't see the relationship to racism. I say drop the Elvis issue. Note, if you go to the Elvis article, it says Elvis' sales records have been topped by "nobody".

• Elvis=>"In terms of sheer record sales, Elvis' impact is utterly phenomenal and eclipses any other recording

artist"

• Jackson=>"Jackson believes that the media's coverage of him is fueled by racism; in 2002, he outsold Elvis Presley, the first white rock star"

See, both artists have outsold all others, including each other. --rob 5 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

I removed the comparison to Evlis, since there is no proof to back this up. Please cite a source, and define the statistic carefully, if you wish to add this back. I will now go take a look at the Elvis page, to see if there is still the reciprical claim their. --rob 7 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Some, who follow changes, may have noticed periodic links to "isitscary.com" have popped up. I placed a comment in the discussion page, to discuss the validity of it's claims of "official" status. The "isitscary.com" person comes from a changing IP address (like 172.201.82.10). S/he has deleted all the discussion (after initially editing my words). So, first, to whoever did this, a non-admin should never edit/delete another person's discussion, without their knowledge/consent. If links to isitscary.com re-appear, with unsubstantiated claims of being "official" they will be promptly deleted. Oh, and please sign your comments. --rob 22:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:161.74.11.24 made a number of changes to the intro, and while I like most of the changes, I tweaked some of the grammar and structure, and removed references to "King of the Music Video" and the idea that "most people" consider Thriller the best video ever. "King of the Music Video" turns up very few non-Wikipedia mirrors when searched for on Google, and I'm afraid the Thriller as best video claim will need to be sourced or qualified. I doubt the population of the world at large even has an opinion on the best music video. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• ...and I just had to revert those changes again. If you want to keep them in the article, please discuss them on this talk page rather than just adding them back in. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• ...and once again, this time reverted edits by Khalif. User:161.74.11.24 also likes to delete negative comments about MJ on this talk page. If either of you two gents would be so kind as to provide a source for the "King of the Music Video" claim, I'd be more than happy to leave it in the article, but Google knows nothing about it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis - Tεxτurε 22:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey the site says that Elvis is the "King of Music." Which is totally different from being the King of music videos. furthermore isnt that a fan site? Elvis did not make many music videos and MJ is known for his music videos, so that is a very lame attempt ot try to say that Elvis is the King of Music videos

The introduction section contains too many BEST words and looks more like fan-page or advertisement. - Vorash 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. Jackson is one of the most influential, popular, and acclaimed performers of our time. This is factually and accurately reflected in the introduction, and is balanced with criticisms of his lifestyle in the last two paragraphs. I don't feel this is a good reason to keep the ((NPOV)) tag on this article, and since you are the only editor that has expressed this opinion on the intro, I will remove the tag. android79 14:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the guy that is doing all the editing on the Michael Jackson page. First off, I don't know any of you but if you want me to be honest, I had to cut down some of the stuff said in the article. First off, I put the vitiligo/skin disease issue at the Miscellaneous Controversies section so you didn't have to put that back in there. And also for those statements of "Michael is fond of children" and blah, blah, blah, I didn't think it was that necessary to make it seem like people will look at "is fond" as a bad thing so I wanted to edit that part. And as for the "Black or White" edit, I created an article for the video so you can put your information there on that article AND the video so it doesn't distract from the topics in between it. And also for the repeated statements: "He got cleared off charges... he got cleared off charges", c'mon, EVERYONE knows he was cleared, you didn't have to repeat it. And sorry if I sound rude on that, but yeah, it didn't have to be repeated five times. LOL Anyway, also the page is MUCH too long and you're putting the [[ ]] on songs that ain't even in ARTICLES yet. But if you will, I'll put articles to the songs so you wouldn't have to worry about the red that's on the page. And for the top, Michael Jackson is not only a singer, dancer, writer, and producer, but he can arrange too and he is a humanitarian as well as a philanthropist, so I thought I just cut that out. Also, he didn't BEGIN his solo career in 1979, he began it in 1971 so that's the reason I edit that part because he just didn't get into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame on the basis of AFTER "Off the Wall", he had some influential records as a solo artist in the early '70s too. Anyway I hope you understand why I feel I needed to edit certain parts. Also, again, the page is too long for preferrable reads. Ain't it like 32 kilobytes in maximum or something? That's why I'm editing the page and please don't edit back, LOL. And again, was all that VOCAL stuff necessary except for what his vocal type is, you didn't have to go over other stuff like he sung in this length or that, just provide the link to it like a summary on the external link page. And to correct some of you, Michael Jackson recorded "Rockin' Robin" in 1971, NOT the late 1960s. BrothaTimothy 16:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• That kind of drastic change needs to be discussed on this talk page first, and since you did it from an anonymous IP (I'm assuming you are 208.7.216.2?) it was easy to mistake for vandalism. I disagree with a number of your changes. For instance, "EVERYONE knows he was cleared" is not a compelling reason to remove that fact from the article. However, I will agree that not all of the singles for which there are not already articles need to be wikilinked. The chance that someone will want to write an article about, say, "Dirty Diana" is pretty small... android79 17:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, I'm 208.7.216.2. I didn't even write "EVERYONE..." but you didn't have to repeat...or whoever was repating that three, four, five times. I mean the trial and the child allegations are discussed in other articles, I felt that it didn't need to be all over it that much. BrothaTimothy 18:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • You said "EVERYONE knows he was cleared" in your comments above. That's what I was referring to. It makes sense for the fact that he was acquitted to be mentioned at least twice – once briefly in the introduction, and again in more detail on the section on the trial. That way, someone who reads only the intro gets the right impression, and the fact is reinforced later on. If it's repeated more than that, I can see removing it, but a too-long article is not a good reason to remove important facts from the article. android79 18:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vorash recently excised a large amount of text from the introduction as "POV." Included were:

• "He is known as the King of Pop, a nickname that Elizabeth Taylor gave him in 1989 during an awards ceremony." This is a verifiable fact, not POV.
• "His innovative dance moves, music videos and diverse musical tastes have inspired and influenced many of today's singers, such as Usher, Beyonce, Missy Elliot, Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake." This might be interpreted as POV, but probably just needs to be sourced.
• "Many music industry critics consider his Thriller video to be the greatest music video of all time and a large step forward in artistic quality for music videos." This might be interpreted as POV, but probably just needs to be toned down and sourced.
• "MTV and Rolling Stone magazine, in a list compiled in 2000, named four of his songs ("Billie Jean" #5, The Jackson 5's "I Want You Back" #9, "Beat It" #22, and "Rock with You" #82) among the 100 greatest pop songs of all time. [4]" These are verifiable facts, not POV, with a reference linked right there.

Two of these are clearly not POV at all, and the other two are debatable. Please discuss this here rather than removing the text from the article unilaterally. Thanks. android79 17:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Britney Spears being listed as one of the influenced artists? User:W wanderers

Also, "He has sold about 250 million records worldwide as a solo artist and another estimated 170 million records with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons" was removed in an earlier edit by Vorash. While I agree that this fact needs to be sourced, and that it should probably stay out of the article until it is, this information is useful, and if reliable numbers for Jackson's sales can be tracked down, it would be good to have. android79 17:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

King of Pop is POV, its the same thing as saying that Madonna is a Queen of POP, clear POV statement !!

• "MTV and Rolling Stone BEst songs belongs to Trivia section not to entry section !!! If it appears in entry it's a POV ! Vorash 17:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Liz Taylor gave Jackson the nickname, and that he is widely known by it, is not POV. The MTV/Rolling Stone list establishes Jackson's music's extreme popularity. For good or ill, MTV and Rolling Stone are widely considered authorities on popular music, and presenting their opinion on Jackson's music is not POV. Its presence in the introduction is fine. android79 17:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"MTV and Rolling Stone are widely considered authorities on popular music". Who say that ??????????? "authorities" ??????????????????? What is this ??? Presenting opinion of only one Music channel and only one Music magazine is POV !!! YOu probably have some more 100 magazines that will say that Jackson's music is a crap !!

Also there is no any need in 250 million unverified figure here, we have all Jackson's album sales numbers in his discography. We also don't have any verifiable figures about Jackson 5 sales. Vorash 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Jackson is widely known as the King of Pop. Whether or not he should be is another thing entirely – to make a judgment there would be POV, and is thus not present in the article. Rolling Stone and MTV have helped define trends in popular music for 38 and 24 years, respectively, and even if you and I don't agree with it (I personally dislike most of Jackson's music and his lifestyle and actions), their opinion deserves a mention in the article. I challenge you to find across-the-board criticism of Jackson's music from any source at the same level of respectability as either Rolling Stone or MTV. If you do find such criticism, it should be added alongside the RS/MTV claim.

If there isn't any verifiable data on the Jackson 5's sales, that's fine, but if Jackson's sales numbers as a solo artist are reliable, they should be added back in. android79 17:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ain't this some confusing mess? I don't know... the musical analysises of Michael Jackson's output probably shouldn't had been included. I don't know. And as for Michael's album sales, the confirmed number is 173 million albums in total. That's the only thing I would've allowed in. Maybe we should delete much of that intro, what you think? Good and bad thoughts on MJ's music probably shouldn't be included for various reasons as somebody said, it's POV (point of view). BrothaTimothy 18:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Outside praise and criticism for a musician's work don't belong in the introduction to an article about that musician? That's preposterous. Both of you need to read WP:NPOV closely and thoroughly if you haven't already. android79 18:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "It is a verifiable fact that Jackson is widely known as the King of Pop" ????????? What does it mean King of Pop ??? It means subjective opinion - POV!! The one and only verifiable fact is that the Michael Jackson was a very popular singer !!

Also there is no such a thing MTV opinion !!! It's just a subjective opinion of random MTV's current workers, that created this list of popular songs - subjective opinion is POV !

Jackson's albums sales numbers are "reliable" but we don't have any numbers about singles. Vorash 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reporting someone else's opinion in an article is not a violation of the NPOV policy. If it were, a large majority of Wikipedia's content would have to be deleted. I've linked the NPOV policy above; you should give it a good long read. In fact, reporting that "Michael Jackson is a very popular singer" would not be sufficient – sources such as the MTV/Rolling Stone list are necessary to provide some context for that statement. android79 18:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Android79 is correct. It is acceptable for Wikipedia to report what other people said. It is not POV for us to report the fact that "The King of Pop" is a well-known nickname for Michael Jackson. The opinions of MTV and Rolling Stone are also acceptable in this article, as long as we present them in an accurate and verifiable way. Vorash, I think you are misunderstanding the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean "no point of view", it means we describe other sources' opinions accurately. Rhobite 18:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I read that but still, I mean, it can be viewed in a different way. Yeah I might have been a little too harsh on the "removal" part. Maybe we need to add a page to that, if not trivia, something else entirely. And even though Liz Taylor gave him the title of the King of Pop, I'd rather give him the respect (Michael, that is) that he is one of the most successful artists in music history. None of that Liz-proclaimed or self-proclaimed BS. Just view him as a legendary musical force as well as a very popular singer. But I do see what you mean about how much his musical output has been praised. BrothaTimothy 18:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"reporting that "Michael Jackson is a very popular singer" would not be sufficient – sources such as the MTV/Rolling Stone list are necessary to provide some context for that statement" - would not be sufficient  ??? Sufficient for what ?? For Michael Jackson's fans ?? Vorash 18:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sufficient for providing justification of that statement. "X is popular" is a flat, unsourced statement. "X is popular; Y and Z, authorities on the subject, agree on that fact" is much better for an encyclopedia article. android79 18:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Very funny: "It is not POV for us to report the fact that "The King of Pop" is a well-known nickname for Michael Jackson"  !!!

• So why it was deleted that Wacko JAcko is a well-known nickname for Michael Jackson ???

If Wikipedia became NEws Egency why it reports only POSITIVE facts. ??? Vorash 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• No, it is simply not POV to report the King of Pop thing. I am not joking. FuriousFreddy recently reworked the articlen (nice job, BTW!), and the Wacko Jacko nickname is now in there, as it should have been before. If you find a source that states that many people think he is a pedophile, go ahead and add it. The word "pedophile" is not explicitly used, but Jackson's relationships with children are covered in the introduction. (You seem very concerned with the verifiability of some things, but not of others. It's quite curious.) Postive and negative facts are both presented in the article. And, BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "If Wikipedia became NEws Egency," but Wikipedia is not a news service, it is an encyclopedia. android79 18:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to look at it from a legal fact, since he was acquitted on charges related TO what you claim is verified, he's not really verified as a pedophile. That's as exagerrated as saying Michael is "the most successful artist ever". BrothaTimothy 18:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"He is also known by the nickname "The King of Pop"", but "The media therefore began referring to Jackson with the nickname "Wacko Jacko. POVs continue. - Vorash 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I think it's clear that none of us are gonna get anywhere with the names that people give Michael. Like, we can't agree on whether it's "opinion" or "NPOV"... I do like the edit on the intro a bit. I wish I had done it but there was too much info, I didn't know what to get rid of. BrothaTimothy 19:10, July 27, 2005

• Look, Vorash, we understand you don't like Michael Jackson. But you can't force your bias on the article; that's what POV is. I edited so that it says that Jackson refers to himself as the King of Pop, which should provide some balancement. But you are seriously going over the edge with this. As far as stating that "people often call Jackson a pedophile", people also call Sisqó a rapper. Doesn't majke it true. It is NPOVe and safe to state that Jackson has been accused of child molestation/sexual child abuse, it is not safe and very much POV to state that "people call him a pedophile". --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Look User:FuriousFreddy "I WILL request that Voarsh be banned if he contnues vandalising" is a personal attack !!! - Vorash 19:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Removing POVs statements is not a vandalism !! I will request that you will be banned too !- Vorash 19:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• • ...that's not a personal attack. Vandalising users are to be banned. What you are doing (constantly slapping that NPOV tag on the article and removing verifiable facts from the article) is indeed vandalism. --FuriousFreddy 19:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So what are you saing  ?? THat i will be banned because i putted NPOV tag ??? Thats what you saying ?? Admimistrator User:Mel Etitis also removed the statement "Many consider Madonna to be one of the most iconic and influential female figures of the late 20th century." in MAdonna article. So he should be called VANDAL too , and he should be banned too ???? Vorash 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Repeatedly re-adding the NPOV tag when there is no substantive NPOV dispute is, at best, disruptive, and some might call it vandalism. We've attempted to explain to you why the things you say are POV are not POV, but you appear not to understand the policy. What Mel removed from Madonna is neither here nor there, but I'm guessing he removed it because it was vague and unsourced. android79 21:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag while the "actual accuracy of the article is disputed" is in fact a VIOLATION oF WIKIPEDIA policy and VANDALISm !!! THats what YOU should understand , not me !! So your and FuriousFredd actions are actions of vandalism, because you remove a tag before a discussion about POV statements is finnished !! Vorash 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Which parts of the article do you now dispute? FuriousFreddy says below that he thought he took care of your NPOV concerns; if you disagree, say specifically what you think is wrong. android79 22:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well i think its enough, i don't want to "discuss" any issues with people that are calling me VANDAL, threaten me with BAN and telling a lies about me !! - Vorash 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So, what you're saying is, you re-applied the NPOV tag, even though you were just fine with the article's content. Seems to me you shouldn't have had a problem with its removal. Please stop overreacting. I haven't called you a vandal, threatened you with a ban, or lied. android79 22:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also about Madonna, It the same thing here: you don't quote any sources !!! You say "He has been referred to by some as "The King of Pop"." Where is your sources for this info ?????????????? If you don't have any sources, it's a POV and should be removed !! Vorash 21:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't say that. The article says it, and I prefer the version where Liz Taylor is mentioned as the originator of the nickname. Just because something is unsourced doesn't mean it's POV. Regardless, Google gives over 180,000 results for ""michael jackson" "king of pop". Not conclusive, surely, but I'm looking for a good source that contains the Liz Taylor thing. android79 21:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was just the single! LOL When did the album come in? First things first, wasn't the album named USA For Africa? And "We are the World" was the only thing Michael did on that USA For Africa album, I believe. I don't know why it was verified as an album. LOL! BrothaTimothy 18:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What is this with including songs that didn't even PEAK in the top 5 of either the US or UK charts?! There was a reason I edited that because if songs peaked at #6 downwards, why SHOULD it be included when it said TOP FIVE? LOL! BrothaTimothy 18:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe you're not paying any attention to my edit summaries, but "of" is not capitalized in song titles. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. Please stop reverting. android79 19:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I took care of the NPOV concerns noted by Vorash, in both the header and otherwise. I also re-structured the article so that information about Jackson's musical career prefaces the information about his personal life (which is the standard for most other music articles; there's no reason why we jump from Gary to neverland and then BACK to Gary). Also cleaned up and expanded the "Misc. controversies" section (does anyone know the date of Jackson's post-arrest press conference from the eary 90s?) --FuriousFreddy 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• LOL! He wasn't even arrested, Freddy, my man. (smile) But as for the post-ACCUSATION press conference in the early '90s: December 22, 1993. That's when he began to declare his innocence. BrothaTimothy 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just copy-edited the article and brought it into line with Wikipedia style. The only major excision was the details of Jackson's vocal range, which are (as I've ascertained at other articles edited by the same person) original research. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Those "vocal profile" were always quite the head-scratchers, especially when they were obviously mathematically wrong (when they miscalculated the number of octaves people could hit, etc). --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

...is there any particular reason why Michael Jackson cannot be labled an African American? It's a verifiable fact, it's not POV in any way, and it helps when you start talking about transracial changes, skin color changes, etc. --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason not to mention that he's black, but we normally place a person's nationality in the summary, and "African-American" isn't his nationality, but a reference to his ancestry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Then what is to be added then isnt he an African American man, all the other singers who are African Americans are listed as such, so Mel Etitis what is your problem?

If other articles give "African-American" as a person's nationality, then they're wrong, not this article. It's certainly not true that all articles about black American singers do that, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why all of Jackson's music statistics were moved to a new article? The main aritcle on a musician should have at least some of his hit singles and albums listed. --FuriousFreddy 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm about ready to give up on this article. Vandals and POV-pushing anons routinely make significant changes, some of which remain for a long time. I thought the last revision by FuriousFreddy was rather good, though I hesitate to revert all the way back to that version. What we need is a "Last Known Good" version of this article, with consensus-supported structure and content, to which we can revert when one of these waves comes through. Hell, maybe we could turn it into a FAC at some point. Anyone want to help? android79 22:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

This article will never be an FAC. It gets completely altered every 3 hours. --FuriousFreddy 10:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Never is rather defeatist, though I realize FAC is a long way off. My point was, to make a last-known-good version we can agree on by consensus, to revert to when a wave of POV pushing or vandalism comes through. Perhaps we could even maintain a Michael Jackson/Last Known Good version that we work on independently of the actual article, and pushing changes out to Michael Jackson whenever deemed necessary. ("We" being any editor that wishes to make good-faith edits to this article, of course – I'm not trying to turn this into an exclusive club.) Anyway, I'm just throwing out ideas. This article fluctuates between Bad and Even Worse, and there needs to be some systematic way to get rid of the garbage. Even if it's a simple once-a-week clean-and-copyedit, I'd be happy. android79 21:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just frustrated at how repeatedly vandalised it is. I saw your first message this morning and reverted ot my last good edit (the only thing that chaged was the addition of some somewhat apologetic text defending Jackson's various problems, and changing the court date reference form future tense to past tense). --FuriousFreddy 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like this template. If it is intended to just list articles related to Jackson's discography, then it should probably just go on Michael Jackson discography and album and single articles. If it is intended to list all articles related to Jackson currently available on Wikipedia, I propose that a Controversies section be added to it, including links to Allegations of child sexual abuse by Michael Jackson in the early 1990s and 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. I'd prefer the former. android79 20:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Should this article mention anything about Michael Jackson's current situation? Should it be mentioned he is, and has been since the trial ended, staying in Bahrain and recently visited Dubai? There are also recent photo's of Michael Jackson in Dubai circulating the net.