Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Thriller...again

According to the 2008 edition of Guinness Records, released in October of 2007, it states Thriller has confirmed sales of 55 million copies world-wide, which makes it the best-selling album of all-time. It's Sony who claim the album has sold in excess of 100 million copies, but there is no definitive way to track world-wide sales of an album. So at 55 million, it's still the top seller ever. Not forgetting, in Jackson's box-set; The Ultimate Collection, releasd in 2004, it states at the back of the booklet that Thriller is the best-selling album of all-time with sales of 47 million. How could it jump from 47 million to 104 million within 2 years. That's 52 million additional sales within 2 years - RIDICULOUS - it managed 40 million in it's original chart run. The 55 million figure should suffice when speaking of sales of the album on this page. Jackson's booklet stated 47 million in 2004, and Guinness claim 55 million in 2007, that's 8 million sales in 3 years, which is still very high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.134 (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vague/dateable language in intro

It's a small point but the quote "Jackson is putting the "finishing touches on his new music" to be released next year." seems like it could be a little more specific... I don't know when it was written, but is there a date-certain (or even approx.) when this is supposed to happen? i.e. "Jackson is... to be released sometime in 2008." Not knowing anything about the supposed album, I can't do it myself.

218.152.32.186 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

"He has been symbolically named the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" by Guinness World Records.....maybe[6]"

I like it. It flows better now because of that. Not sure why but it's much less hard to get thru now. Well done.

Is there anything major left or can it not just be FA nom'd now? --Manboobies 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not ready for FA status....not by a longshot.UberCryxic 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

no definately not the history era is still terrible and dangerous isn`t brilliant either, for example you are not alone is not even mentioned despite becoming the first song to debut at #1 in america, still we go on about the 1996 brit awards instead forgetting that earthsong is his biggest uk hit. ha trust me theres a long way to go yet. Realist2 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are relatively minor problems. The biggest problem is the sources. There are no books cited at all. That would (virtually) automatically sink this article's FA nomination.UberCryxic 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Later eras are quite poor... can we please stop focussing on the scandals? It may be tempting for some, but we need to approach this in a balanced manner.--Paaerduag 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me im trying to improve history , but the more experienced uber is not helping. Instead of editing what I have done to make it flow better he deletes the entire thing, which he isn`t allowed to do so long as it has sources (which it does) uber is more than welcome to improve what I have put but cannot delete it.Realist2 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should source that info using a book then? He can't complain if the information is from a book as that then simultaneously does what you want as well as bringing in book sources.--Manboobies 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

single sales

[[1]] looking at this source which we have used in the past because of its reliability and accuracy I have calculated the single sales of each album.

• Thriller 19.55 mil
• HIStory 10.45 mil
• Bad 10.03 mil
• Dangerous 8.36 mil
• off the wall 6.8 mil

As I suspected HIStory was his most successful singles album after thriller and did exceptionally well considering it only released 5 singles as obossed to `bad 8` and `Dangerous 9`. This means the likes of Scream, You are not alone and Earthsong were HUGE internationally , I intend therefore to comment on the singles sales of HIStory in better detail, does anyone have any ideas? Maybe We should say after Thriller History was his most successful singles album? Realist2 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The thriller figure is wrong. It has sold at least 100 000 000 copies. The others are also severe reductions from fact. this must have been made quite a while ago.--Paaerduag 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not on about the thriller album, Im on about the singles off Thriller!!!!!!!!!!!!! These singles sold 19.55 copies together. HIStory has the second best singles sales, this needs mentioning. Realist2 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

article segmentation

this segmentation is crazy. Sorry but it is. We have a HIStory era talking about singles, and about that scandal, but then we have lisa marie marriage, breakup, and ongoing friendship at the other end of the article. I'm sorry but chronology really does seem necessary. Also, why isn't the 'cocker' rubbish put under personal life? Well, I understand why that may be disputed, but this junting of information is really annoying. No one else seems to feel that way though. I suppose that if y'all think it'll get this article to FA, I'll have to put up with it.--Paaerduag 00:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it'll be more likely to be FA status when I can read it all the way through without becoming emotionally, physically and mentally drained by its overlong appearance and lack of, well, excellent prose. I was thinking perhaps some parts of it could be made into a timeline picture or something.--Manboobies 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did clear it up a little, I put the singles in order, I added a little reference to lisa marie presley and the music video, at least its a start but uber deleted it out right. not because it was badly sourced , oh no because it wasnt written in mikipedia fashion. To that I say you can jolly well sort out the language yourself if you dont like it, ha , just dont delete it, because that is not your right at all under wikipedia policy. It seems that if someone is more experienced on wikipedia, they are prepared to edit it to suit the article if it is a point they agree with, however if they dont like what is written they instead delete it. They then have the nerve to tell you that it will only be included if you improve the language when if they wanted to be helpfull and understanding they could spend just 5 minutes of there own time to clear it up and to therefore allow it to stay. Ha but thats only if they like the ideas you are righting about, if it isn`t to their taste they refuse to help you and instead delete it. I wount be pushed around like this, tryly insulting.Realist2 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A article

I believe this is an A article, pretty close to FA. 75.43.168.13 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I might be so bold as to mention that there is in fact no mention of Jackson's wide range of vocal abilities. Can something concrete be found regarding his vocal range? Jackson has written or sung some of the most critically acclaimed songs in history......there may be a need to mention his technical skills as a singer. 67.160.172.22 08:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)OOML

Fosse influence

MJ's style is pretty clearly influenced by modern dancers/choreographers from the 70's, specifically Fosse (check out a video of 'snake in the grass'). There probably should be some mention of Fosse here. 74.135.164.249 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I think he's probably been more influenced by street dancers and James Brown than Fosse, however it probably is worth mentioning. Of course one should also mention his admiration for Fred Astaire. In the Making of Thriller video he mentions how Astaire called him after the Motown 25 performance and called him "one hell of a mover" to which Michael replied "well thank you cause I think you're the greatest!". :: ehmjay 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The video "Scream"

it should be noted somewhere that the video "Scream", a colabaration with Janet Jackson, is the most expensive music video ever made. That's an important fact to include.

it has dont worryRealist2 11:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really an important fact though?--Manboobies 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is, scream is easily in his top 5 if not top 3 most famous videos, its been nominated for more mtv awards than any other video and eventually won 3. it also won him a grammy, so yes I think it is important as the cost was directly related to its succuess.Realist2 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

20 problems

Go to the main page. Click "Printable version". Click print preview. Under File in IE. (If not using IE, load it for this one). 20 Pages. Insane. That's 20 pages I'm proud to have had a hand in, but it's still 20 pages. That's 10 pages overlong, IMO.--Manboobies 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there's a toolbar to let me highlight portions of text in IE? It would be so useful for editing this. A couple of highlights and I could probably do a good rewrite in some places. I initially planned to print off the document and go thru by hand. I'm not willing to use up 20 pages on an internet document however.--Manboobies 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed for MJ? Really?

Is it really needed? I mean, come on, his initials are MJ... his company was MJJ Productions, his logo was a stylized M and J. I think this is just one of those instances of people requiring citations for the tiniest things because it's Michael Jackson. Michael Jordan wouldn't need a citation for his use of MJ... I mean this is just my opinion, but I really don't see the need. I also noticed numerous other instances of new required citations for things that hardly seem to require them (not going to go through and list right now as it's late and I'm tired). Not only does it make the article hard to read, I personally feel that this is just going overboard with people requiring so much to be sourced because this is an article about Jackson. (However I also feel that some of the things that require citations could be removed entirely as they seem to have very little value in the article). :: ehmjay 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not needed. In fact, it's beyond silly.UberCryxic 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it seems silly, whoever made a request for a citation may have had legitimate reasons for doing so. Considering the fact that references help substantiate article content, and are not too difficult to find for the subject matter of this article, it is better to err on the side of "well substantiated". WP policy is quite clear in indicating that "biography" articles are to adhere to the highest standards of verifiability and reliability.

Yes, a request for a cite on this fact may seem silly, but then there is no harm in adding one, and it's good general practice to be on the safe side when dealing with facts about individuals. It also helps to reinforce your credibility to prove you aren't just adding content to WP articles strictly from personal knowledge or opinion. This is *especially* important for "pop culture" and "fan-related" articles such as this one. dr.ef.tymac 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

dont worry i provided a source to shut the critics up.Realist2 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Realist2, I already added cites for the lead section right after I posted my remark here (see fn1), and right before another contributor came in and added some more requests for citations ... hope you didn't think I was criticizing you or anyone else. Thank you for being among the WP contributors who help out and lead by example. dr.ef.tymac 19:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether his initials are MJ. That's obvious. Rather, the question is whether it is true that Michael Jackson is "commonly known as MJ" as the article presetnly asserts. To my mind, this is a false statement; "MJ" is not commonly understood as a term referring to Michael Jackson; few celebrities are known by their initials, and the examples given don't suggest Jackson is, either. The assertion should be removed. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following verbatim text comes directly from a reference that is cited in a footnote of this article:

   "Michael Jackson is commonly known as MJ, or Jacko" 
   
   (emphasis not in original, see footnote 1)

What part of that text strikes you as ambiguous? dr.ef.tymac 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's wrong. Jacko is a commonly understood term referring to Michael Jackson. MJ isn't. I notice that fans keep removing the former and adding the latter. It is possible that the MJ moniker is used within a certain group of people, such as his fan club. However, that's not "common" and would need to be rephrased. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but can you please provide the substantiation for your claim that this information provided in a published and reliable source is incorrect? So far all I've seen is your claim: To my mind, this is a false statement ... perhaps you can understand why this is not enough. "Your mind" is not a published source and WP contributors have no way of independently evaluating the credibility of your "thoughts".

If you expect others to make a good-faith evaluation of the validity of your claims, you will have to start with something a little more substantial than what you have offered so far, otherwise we could go round and round for days playing the "is not!" ... "is too!" ... "is not!" game. dr.ef.tymac 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "published and reliable source" you mention is Buying & Selling Music, Instruments, and Music Collectibles on eBay. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If the term appears only in this book, and is not widely seen in mainstream media (which it isn't), it isn't "common," despite what someone writing about eBay collectibles may have said in a book on that subject. Fortunately, the term has disappeared from the article, so it is a moot point. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not a moot point. You said: 1) if the term appears only in this book; and 2) not widely seen in the mainstream media and 3) it isn't. Now, let's talk about Reliable sources. How many reliable sources do you have to support claim # 3)? So far in this discussion, you've provided *zero*. How many reliable sources do you have to substantiate claim # 2)? So far in this discussion, you've provided *zero*. You also said "if" the term only appears in this book. How is it you can refute the claim of a reliable source with nothing more than an unsubstantiated "if"? WP articles don't get written and referenced based on "if".

Do you have a single shred of documented evidence undermining the credibility of the Ebay reference? Do you have *any* source to back up *any* of your factual assertions? Is everyone supposed to just "take your word" for which sources count as "mainstream" enough for you?

You don't like Ebay as a "widely seen" "mainstream media" source? O.k., fine, try BBC instead:

• [2]

Or, if you don't like BBC, perhaps, you've heard of CNN?

• [3]

Do you think Reuters or Fox news or USA Today might suit your rigorous requirements?

• [4][5][6]

Yes, let's consider reliable sources when discussing edits to WP articles, shall we? Follow the links and you will see *hundreds* of examples. How about you provide *a single* reliable source that supports *any* of your claims. Just one. I don't particularly fancy reading articles that are based on unreferenced personal opinions with *zero* substantiation to back it up. The point about "MJ" is really a secondary issue, the main point is: if you are going to go around linking WP:RS for people, it would be nice if you could actually provide a *single* reliable source yourself. dr.ef.tymac 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for incivility, and please avoid making personal attacks, or you will likely be blocked.

Furthermore, they're not my "rigorous requirements"; they're Wikipedia's. As I said, this eBay book is an unreliable source. Furthermore, no one, including myself, is required to prove a negative; the onus is on those, such as yourself, to demonstrate that something is in common use. As it happens, the majority of the Google searches (not specific articles) point to Jackson's "MJ Publishing Trust" - which, by itself, does not show that the term is in use in a widespread manner to refer to Jackson himself. Several of the others refer to abbreviations of his name held up at protests at which he was present - intended for Jackson himself. The other articles are either written by fans where the context is clear (a not unusual use of initials) or are used on second reference. In no case does it seem that "MJ" can be used without further qualification to refer to Michael Jackson, the pop star. Those who have added "MJ" to the intro have generally also deleted "Jacko" or "Wacko Jacko" - terms that can stand alone in newspaper headlines, and everyone knows whom they refer to, which would seem a pretty fair definition of common; I can only assume that in these cases we are encountering fancruft, as a common and possibly derogatory moniker is replaced by one that appears to have currency only within "MJ" fandom. However, if you can find several articles in mainstream media in which "MJ" is used on first reference or in headlines without accompanying pictures, I might be swayed to agree that that is common use. But a bunch of '"michael jackson" mj' Google searches are far from conclusive. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to yet another "not mainstream enough" argument

There's no need for incivility, and please avoid making personal attacks

Please cite the exact text where I attacked you, or made an uncivil remark. If you do, I will either:

• 1) immediately recant the remark and post a formal apology, making sure not to do it again; or
• 2) explain why the remark was entirely appropriate and consistent with WP policy.

If you fail to honor my reasonable request, I will disregard this comment as unsubstantiated, beyond the scope of this discussion page, and therefore irrelevant.

no one, including myself, is required to prove a negative

This doesn't even make logical sense. Any English statement can be reformulated as a "negative" (For example, "Michael Jackson is not commonly known as anything besides MJ, or Jacko"). If you can clarify this point to actually make rational sense, please do, otherwise I will disregard it as meaningless and irrelevant.

As I said, this eBay book is an unreliable source.

Yes, exactly, as *you* said. Keyword: YOU. May I ask who "you" are? May I ask where "your" credentials come from? May I ask why "your" personal, unsubstantiated opinion of what constitutes a "reliable source" has any independent merit whatsoever? May I ask why "your" statement is not yet another iteration of No true scotsman? May I ask why "you" get to define "the mainstream"?

By the way, if the Ebay book is inherently unreliable, can you please explain why and how you affirmed that the following information from that book is actually correct?

   "Michael Jackson is commonly known as ... Jacko"  (quoting ISBN 1592005004)
   
   "Jacko is a commonly understood term referring to Michael Jackson." (quoting ProhibitOnions)

Are you implying that you get to "pick and choose" which statements from an "unreliable source" are actually reliable? Do you have a single source or reference to WP policy to support "selective reliance" on references? If so, please cite the exact language from policy that permits you to do this. If not, please permit me to disregard your repudiation of the Ebay book as yet another totally unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim.

the majority of the Google searches point to Jackson's "MJ Publishing Trust

This is incorrect. Please look again. Yes, *all* of the Reuters links point to "MJ Publishing Trust", but those are only about fifteen in total. Approximately fifteen out of over 250 does not equal "most". I give specific examples below.

Besides, what does the "MJ" part stand for, and how many people could easily answer this question with no additional context whatsoever?

if you can find several articles in mainstream media in which "MJ" is used on first reference

Whoa, wait a minute. May I ask where you derive your authority to plot out the particulars of how reliable sources must be precisely structured? I've already given you one unambiguous source that you've unilaterally stamped "unreliable" (though even you openly acknowledge that it actually contains correct information) ... and now you get to set up additional hoops that others have to jump through? No. Not having it.

This kind of "requirement" is precisely the scenario that WP:V is designed to prevent when it says:

   The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" 
   in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to 
   Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
   
   (emphasis in original)

I've already met this threshold. I've provided you with exact language from references and WP policy. You've provided *nothing* but generalized WP links, a warning about being blocked, and glib dismissals of Google results and published sources. You have not provided a *single sentence* from a reliable source in support of your view. As far as I can see, it's all just your "personal take" on things. No. No more arbitrary hoops. Please do not waste people's time.

appears to have currency only within "MJ" fandom

Appears based on what, your personal opinion? Sorry, I don't see anywhere in WP where personal opinion counts as substantiation.

a bunch of '"michael jackson" mj' Google searches are far from conclusive

Who said anything about "conclusive" ... the threshold for inclusion in WP is (aww shucks, you already know, so I won't repeat it) ... even if "conclusive" were the threshold, so far all you've given is personal opinion, which is even further from conclusive, in fact, it's irrelevant.

Besides, I wasn't offering just a "bunch of Google searches" just for the fun of it ... those searches actually point to specific articles, which apparently you're going to force me to repost here in order to counter the glib generalizations and incorrect statements.

terms that can stand alone in newspaper headlines

Uhhhmm, you mean news headlines like these? :

• News headline: M.J. has own U.N. in his corner outside courthouse
  • [7]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: Media go into MJ overdrive
  • [8]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: Witness: MJ associate cashed checks
  • [9]
  • (USAToday.com)

• News headline: 'Millionaire' crushes MJ, gets huge ratings
  • [10]
  • (CNN.com)

• Magazine promo: Check Out The New Cover, Gasp at the Latest MJ-Related Disaster
  • [11]
  • (Rolling Stone)

Please, ProhibitOnions, have the decency to acknowledge the merits of the statements that have been provided to you. Either provide a reliable source to substantiate your claims, or come up with something more than just "personal opinion" to explain why all these published sources are "unreliable", this will enhance your credibility and justify my continuing assumption that you are indeed acting in good faith, and not just trying to waste people's time here. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the patronizing and hostile tone of your writing aside; again, have a look at WP:CIVIL. Nevertheless, you have finally provided examples of what I suggested would substantiate the claim that "MJ" can fairly be described as a common term referring to Jackson. Now, what do you have against including "Jacko" (and "Wacko Jacko") in the same sentence? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the track of citing policy to each other, please take a look at WP:ICA. For the second time: if I've said something inappropriate, cite the exact remark so I can either: 1) apologize and avoid making the same mistake again; or 2) explain why it was not inappropriate to begin with. Unfounded accusations provide users with no opportunity for self-correction and no opportunity to demonstrate good faith.

As far as finally providing examples ... they were out there all along. You could have found them yourself. Also, you still haven't substantiated what was wrong with the original cite in the first place. Nevertheless, if you've dropped it, so will I.

As far as adding "Jacko" or "Wacko Jacko" goes, personally, I don't really care either way. My personal opinion, however, is just as irrelevant as yours. If someone deemed that "wacko jacko" was too sensitive or insulting to add to this article in light of WP:BLP, then that's another debate entirely. If you want to argue that it is appropriate, go right ahead. Heck, I'll even support you if you make a good case. dr.ef.tymac 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MJ in lead

The MJ text in the lead is somewhat fancruftic however you have failed to deliver a solid argument against it, ProhibitOnions.

dr.ef.tymac I notice the antagonistic tone of your posts and you don't have to outright insult ProhibitOnions to be worthy of a temp ban, I would support one against you if the case was made for it, given your tone. So take it down a notch and show some respect.--Manboobies 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Manboobies, for expressing your concerns, and for recognizing the value and importance of mutual respect among all WP contributors. I have left a detailed reply on your user talk page. dr.ef.tymac 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead for the inclusion of MJ, while it uses MJ in the headline, never uses it within the body of the article, but DOES use 'Jacko'. That same newspaper chain also uses 'Jacko' in a headline referring Mr. Jackson. USA Today If 'MJ' is part of the lead in sentance, surely 'Jacko' should be too. 144.15.115.165 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that i have NEVER heard the expression "MJ" used but "Jacko" or even "Wacko Jacko" is EXTREMELY widely used in the UK.

A Article (Debate 2!!!)

Now that an extra 35 sources have been provided is it possible to try to ask for FA? this article is 107,000 bytes long with 150 sources. Mariah carey`s article is FA and is 63,000 with 93 sources so the ratios are very similar. I no its not a clever way of debating the issue but it does show this article is very good in many ways. I still have an issue with pictures, im sure there is a conspiracy on this article to forget that mj is now infact white and that we no longer live in the 80`s,there is no pictures on this article after 1988 which stinks of lamentation of his 80`s career, something that annoys me entirely as you all no, dont get me started on the main picture, its actually quiet offencive to jackson, no other artist has a main picture from donks years ago, there all resent, I think a dangerous or History era picture is much more appropriate here although I no his loyal "Beat it" fans wont allow it. Ive laughed thinking about it, his critics always say "his only good thing was thriller ,it was all down hill from there" can you blame them when his own fans act in the same way? I always believed as a fan for many years it was important to dispel this myth created by the media, maybe im alone. However im not sure how much of an affect pictures have on FA statues.Realist2 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are still many problems with prose and reference formatting. Those have to be fully fixed before this article can become featured. The lead picture is notable and in the public domain. We're not necessarily looking for "recent" pictures as we are for famous ones.UberCryxic 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also a lot of pictures of mj when he was white, they were also famous I would say, superbowl for example, thats very famous. why is it only michael jackson has a picture from 25 years ago, its quite silly. no1 seems to want to address the issue of pictures on this page, Realist2 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A picture from his last concert, the 2001 anniversary thing, would be a nice addition if any newer pics were to be used. (The Elfoid 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

It would be nice to have something resent, people want to pretend we still live in 1983 however. Realist2 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... I have never edited this article or anything, but I just stumbled on it. I see you guys are talking about it being an FAC. One thing I noticed that you have to fix before anything, is the references. A lot of them are just a number, or some are missing information like the accessdate and such. Xihix 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an issue there that must be resolved. Those refs may have to be removed if they are not fully realised, textually.--Manboobies 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?

"While his sexual orientation is debated, it is more likely that he is either transgendered or a homosexual." Sounds like some massive speculation to me. Who says?

I deleted it, its just unsourced shit, Realist2 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What he's more likely to be is speculation, but that his orientation is debated...well, it's not as such. No one really cares now. But in the mid-late 80s it was a serious issue (hence people thinking his wedding to Lisa-Marie was just a publicity stunt to convince people he's a straight man). Don't know a source tho. (The Elfoid 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

he married presley in the mid 90`s not mid 80`s so do you mean it was a big issue while he was still a commercial artist (1979-1997). Realist2 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After his legal issues in 93 he clearly took it more seriously. Around the BAD era he had girls start playing a role in his videos too - something some pages on the singles say was to confirm his sexuality. Go read em. (The Elfoid 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

M.Jackson and Islam?

There are/were rumors/facts(?) about him converting to Islam (Just search the web for it). I know I don't know much about it myself, but shouldn't the topic be mentioned in the article? Atleast as a rumor if it's not right, since it's still a question to me.GLdK 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that he was at least until 2004 islamic to some degree that I no from the biography "The magic and the madness" however michael Jacksons religious views are unknown and ever changing. He has dabbled in many area , a jehova witness as a child, kabbala through Elizabeth Taylor, Scientology through Lisa Maria Presley and Islam through Jermaine Jackson, next week it`l be something else. Realist2 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He apparently only had Nation of Islam security detail at the beginning of the trial 2005, before Thomas Meserau stepped in. He has said up until recent interviews that he believes in God. The security detail doesn't mean a thing and as far as I know he has never identified as a Muslim. Marnifrances 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Morphine reference

this needs to be referenced "Jackson dedicated the album to Elton John, who reportedly helped him through his addiction to painkillers, notably morphine." As far as I know, Michael was never addicted to morphine. He was on percodan and other narcotic painkillers but NOT morphine. "Morphine" was just the title of a song.Marnifrances 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

actually according to the biography the magic and the madness which is very reliable he was addicted to morphine, valium and demerole mixtures of painkillers and tranquilisers. Realist2 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have my copy here and nowhere does it say morphine. Here is a direct quote from page 518 of "The Magic and the Madness", 2003 edition: "...in pain because of dental work and a recent surgery to his scalp...Michael began taking more of the painkillers, Percodan, Demerol, and codeine, as well as tranquilizers Valium, Xanax and Ativan."

Nothing in that book says morphine and I also have another book that verifies what is written above. I am yet to see a book or article other than what is online (from unreliable sources) that says he was taking morphine. We need to reference it or take it out. Marnifrances 11:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected it with the book as a source. Hope its ok. Realist2 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the correction- but what I am saying is that book has NO reference to Morphine at all. Michael Jackson was not on morphine. Can't we correct it properly to read "painkillers, notably Percodan and Demerol". Michael does sing about "demerol" in that song anyway. I vote we take the word morphine out altogether. Marnifrances 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did do it but another edotor keeps reverting my edits at the moment he`s obseesed with the mugshot thing. I changed it to painkillers and tranquilizers using the magic and the madness as the source. I didnt start naming any specifically. If he reverts my edit just revert his so it comes back. Realist2 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks so much! The other book that says almost exactly the same thing is "Michael Jackson Unauthorized" by Christoper Anderson (as much as I hate that book, it still has almost identical info about MJ's rehab to J. Randy's book)I just don't want people to think he was taking Morphine- it's a common myth because he wrote a song with the title. thanks again! I will do if he reverts the edit. Marnifrances 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit again- this is ridiculous! we finally have a referenced source and someone keeps messing with it. It's not us vandalizing! Marnifrances 13:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted him aswellRealist2 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are complete vandals. You are welcome to change whatever you want about morphine in my version in which Jackson's mugshot (notable and sourced) and Rowe's statement about paternity are.

MoritzB 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

haven't you got something better to do? How are we vandals? For one, Realist2 is part of the MJ Wiki project and you're not. I am a writer for www.allmichaeljackson.com so we both know what we are talking about. Rowe has stated over and over that those are MJ's kids, compared to one article where she was "quoted" as saying they weren't. Check your facts and go and find something else to do. what you're "contributing" to the article isn't necessary. Marnifrances 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a part of a project does not give anybody more authority here. And see: WP:RS.

MoritzB 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's white children

According to the MSNBC article Debbie Rowe says that Jackson is not the biological father. This information should definitely replace the unverified, erroneous previous information that both Rowe and Jackson said that Michael is the father. A picture of them: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/02/0201_jackson_kids_2.jpg MoritzB 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your issue with race? I have looked through your contibutions on wikipedia and the only articles you contribute to are those on race (and very controversial topics on race I might add such as how black people have a lower IQ than white people) . I also discovered that you have tried to include the michael jackson mugshot on at least 1 other article. Realist2 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in lamarckism. Because Jackson is black and the children are white this proves beyond doubt that Jackson is not the biological father. Why are you so anxious to delete Rowe's statement reported by MSNBC that Jackson is not the biological father?

MoritzB 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is also direct interviews from her where she verifies that they are his biological children! Check "The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See" and other interviews with her. How are these erroneous or unverified? Marnifrances 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowe may have changed her mind.

MoritzB 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as they went through a custody battle where Rowe tried to get full custody of the kids, wouldn't she have made the argument "he's not the real father" and subsequently had tests done. But that isn't the case, and Michael still has custody. Hence we can only assume he is the father. Not only that I've heard news that someone other than Rowe claims to be the MOTHER but not that Rowe claims Jackson isn't the father. :: ehmjay 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowe says that Jackson isn't the father according to the MSNBC report. It is a reliable source, thus the information has to be included to the article. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about "truth".

MoritzB 12:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

this is NOT a reliable source. It's NOT verifiable material either, it's speculation. Here is the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9916524/ It says "The mother of two of Michael Jackson’s children has reportedly said that the babies were conceived from a test tube." It's taken from tabloid material in Ireland and doesn't state any facts. The other point I would like to make is that this article is in a GOSSIP column of MSNBC. Marnifrances 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However, because the words attributed to Rowe have been published again in countless reliable sources this satisfies WP:RS.

MoritzB 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, you're DONE. we've learned anough about your UNFAIR mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.215 (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

mugshot and paternity

this issue should be delt with here,

A) firstly there is no chance in hell you will be allowed to keep that mugshot there, there is an obvious concensus that it is not wanted, its offencive and distasteful, I have seen your past record and your obsession with it.

B) There are much more reliable sources where Rowe says they are the children. So it can stay as it is. To claim that they are not his children on wikipedia must be extremely well sourced, remember michael jackson is a living person, you will have to provide a lot more evidence to back up these claims . Realist2 09:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, the children are white, not black.

MoritzB 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, how many pictures have you seen of his kids? There's not that many around, and plus, who cares? they have a white mother don't they? And WHO CARES? Are you an expert on Genetics? Obviously your reasoning for wanting to include the "information" is to disprove the kids are Jackson's which is not true anyway. Marnifrances 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

another point on the things that Rowe supposedly said: every time she has been "quoted" as saying Jackson aren't MJ's children, it has come from a tabloid source and gossip columns and not her own mouth. These cannot be verified. Every time she has been "quoted" as saying the children ARE his, it has come from her own mouth- from interviews. These can be verified. Marnifrances 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, there is no reason that the mugshot should be removed other than to appease overly-sensitive Jackson fans. It is notable, relevant, and more imporantly: its a free image that accurately illustrates Jackson's current appearance. Put it back in.--Dronzo 13:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not "accuratly" illustrate his current appearance at all, it is obvious that the man was suffering from quite a number of mental and drug related issues at the time of the shoot as well weight problems, he does not look that bad now, it was seen as shocking because people werent used to seeing him like that so obviously its not his normal apperance. There are very few articles on wikipedia where the mugshot is used and those are only on people who were found guilty. Michael Jackson was found not guilty so the article should reflect that. The mugshot would be symbolic of guilt just like the unnessary racist handcuffing episode. if a picture is needed for this episode of his life then this picture which is hardly neutral or reflective of events should not be the one. Realist2 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackson's nose looks good in the mugshot. As Dronzo said it is a notable, non-free image which illustrates Jackson's current appearance.

MoritzB 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, you no full well what that picture is designed to do. Your obsessed by it. Get another hobby on wikipedia one that doesnt circle the issue of race continually, its quite unhealthly im sure. Realist2 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem.

MoritzB 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its the truth, further more the picture I provided is much more relevent to his career, the album came out on the same day as the raids on his house, you are determined to include the mudshot no matter what, Realist2 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it shouldn't be included.

MoritzB 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus for a start, you have tried to introduce this picture to other articles (unsuccessfully I might add), when an alternative picture is suggested you revert it, you continually breach the 3rr according to your user page, you have been accused of sock and meat puppetary according to your user page, your edits on wikipedia are almost entirely on issues of race. Lets be honest things arent going well for you on wikipedia at the moment are they. Realist2 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Realist2 almost every debate you get into here on other pages you are clearly in support of optimistic views on our dear Mr. Jackson. So you're biased, that much is clear. I would say that the mugshot is important since it tells an important part of the story (The Elfoid 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh still licking the wounds after are debate on "HIStory" and "The Wall" I see.Realist2 06:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get personal on Wikipedia. I just happened to notice several instances recently where you've been involved in arguments because you like Mr. Jackson too much to let his name be tarnished due to your biased nature. I am a huge Michael Jackson fan infact, and it's a shame his career got slowed down big time due to the court case (regardless of his innocence or guiltiness, it did damage his career). But that doesn't mean it should be erased from his history. My prior debate with you was what brought you to my attention, but I have noticed you on numerous articles since I began to take an interest in these topics. Infact reading on your profile your love of Jackson, it's quite clear he's a demi-god figure in your eyes and there's no way you could avoid being biased really.

(The Elfoid 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Some additional points on the mugshot: One of the few high quality images of Jackson without sunglasses, since his appearance (and it's changes) have been a source of constant controversy a good look at the man is important. Also, for once, he's not made up to look good for the press (The Elfoid 15:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree. Unless you can a suitable free image of jackson that relects his current appearance close enough, the mugshot should stay.--Dronzo 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THE MUGSHOT.

removing box around references

Hi. I removed the box that was previously enclosing the references list. It caused references not to print, which in my opinion outweighs any benefit of fitting the references in a smaller space on the page: it doesn't hurt anyone to scroll a bit. :) --jacobolus (t) 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to that I've changed the format to a two column layout, just to make the list somewhat shorted, yet still printable
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Michael Jackson's legal troubles

While the 1993 and 2003 charges have been noted on here, no one has really done much to point out how much his career was affected.

The disappointing sales for HIStory and reason why Jackson didn't bother to tour the USA in support of it were considered because the 1993 charges meant the cancellation of his USA Dangerous Tour and a negative profile. I have heard it said that he feared bad press if he did a tour without selling out all dates could further damage his career.

Also I'm sure the fact that he had barely any free time during the trial that began in 2003 delayed the follow up to Invincible, as have the various troubles he's been in since then. Had Jackson not had these trials he would be a bigger star today and his career would probably have been nearer to the strength it had been during the Dangerous era.

I may begin writing some things up but doubt I have the time since it would be a large task.

(The Elfoid 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Its a thought but where to begin on an issue thats so big, is there any room left on the article? It a good point however, if it wasn`t for 1993 dangerous would easily have outsold the bad album worldwide as would HIStory more than likely, its an interesting point. Realist2 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It could go on the end of the Dangerous era. We could say something like "due to legal difficulties (see below), MJ cancelled his US tour for the album and his career was put on ice for a while to sort out problems. This brief lack of activity, and tarnished reputation, were things his career never recovered from. While Dangerous had sales similar to previous release Bad, subsequent releases would do increasingly poorly". Not perfect, but it'd be a start.

(The Elfoid 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Personaaly id like to spell it out crystal clear for people, at the moment bad outsells dangerous by no more than 1.5 million copies, the bad world tour had an audiance of 4.4 million, the dangerous tour only 2.2, if it wasnt for 1993 the 9th single from the album gone too soon would have been a hit and the tenth single Dangerous would have been release. The tour would have reached america bringing audiance figures to the same 4.4 figure, all this and the fact jackson would have still had a clean image would have resulted in dangerous selling at least 5 million more copies and therefore beating Bad. As for the last part about increasingly poor sales, im personally not a fan of writing about something that is obvious, especially when this article is already too big, its clear if a you read the article that his sales were lower after 1993, im not sure it needs to be said. Realist2 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It affected his profession though; Jackson's music became a LOT more bitter post-trial. In general he was much less in love with humanity. Everyone who's reviewed the albums that I've ever seen has commented on how from HIStory onwards he became a different person and the trial had a huge part in that.

Estimated figures say Dangerous is infact 2 million behind, not 1.5 million. But to be honest while you make it sound like it's not a large figure, it is considering Jackson's recent sales. Invincible only sold 8 million, when you start looking at things at that scale 2 million is infact quite a large amount. Dangerous was around 3.5 million people at the tour too.

So the tour was more successful than you thought, and the album still did comparably poorly. Also a trial's results aren't always the same; Judas Priest weren't affected at all by a trial suggesting they convinced children to kill themselves. Tommy Lee was in prison for 6 months for a supposed assault on Pamela Anderson and he's still doing fine. Jackson's fall from fame as a result of such a publicised trial is somewhat unique. I think that once again, as a Michael Jackson fan, you're refusing to allow anything negative into the article (while you keep things like "Bad was second best selling album in the world by sometime before 1993 and sometime after it wasn't" which is vague). (The Elfoid 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Dangerous did not do comparably poorly to bad!! in terms of a percentage difference its quite small, dangerous was much bigger everywhere else in the would outside America and the UK and shows his break into asia. I have given a source that clearly shows that bad was the second best selling album until AT LEAST 1993, its not rediculuse to say on the side picture the mid 90`s its only an extra 1/2 years.Realist2 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, point taken. Fair play to you. I was wrong (The Elfoid 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Time For A New Picture

I must say that picture is nearly 24 years old, somehow i i think we need a new picture of him when he is white? or mabe like a picture pith two pictures of him on white and black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression your trying to cause controversy, no thankyou. personally yes i do want a newer picture but i can see what your intent is from a mile off, you seem to want to make this an issue of race when the debate is about a different picture, personally i have always been in on the side of a picture from the dangerous era when he broke into asia, but its clear this unsigned user would relish in having his mug shot as the main picture. oh and by the way stop reading tabloid crap you tool, he hasn`t remarried, Realist2 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No im a great fan of him but what im trying to say is that picture is not really him anymore so it should be updated with a white photo of him or a photo with both pictures in so people can see both of his looks -gaogier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.229.250 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested numerous times the dangerous era, although Thriller was his commercial hight, i think in terms of pure fame, by the early 1990 he was the most famous person on the planet, he didnt break into asia until the 90`s and i think thats an important issue, his international peak was with dangerous and so to avoid american bias (a huge issue on wikipedia) i think this era would be best for a picture. Realist2 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

loving the new picture its resent and he looks ok, well done , Realist2 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree a Dangerous era photo would be good. --Paaerduag 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reaasons to use a post-Thriller-era photo:

• He had the first child molestation allegations in the early 1990s too. It did raise his profile big time. Even people who didn't listen to much music at all knew him much better then.
• His marriage in 1994 also raised his profile as an individual. He went from music icon to celebrity. A celebrity's image is generally much better remembered than anyone else since they get so much press. In general his entire post-1993 allegations life has been documented far better.
• Thriller's fame as an album now is greater than it was THEN. It took 11 weeks to hit number 1 on Billboard. Bad and Dangerous arrived in the charts at number 1. The Thriller album's chart attack only arrived with the Motown 25 performance. Really at the time he was "the guy who used to be in The Jackson 5 and went solo", by the time of Bad/Dangerous he was "the guy who made the best selling album ever" - a much grander title.
• The present photo his skin is lit up since the photo was taken outside. It looks lighter than it did at that time in his life, and given how much his skin has changed is misleading. People might think it's not just the lighting.
• I don't know exactly but I'm pretty sure globally his chart positions were up for albums in the 1990s
• Since he had so many hit singles on BAD, then went on a huge tour, his face was actually publicised much more. Then there was all the newspaper articles on his skin colour change too. It was the moment he went from a musician to an icon of pop culture.
• Newer photos, being more recent, are fresher in the minds of viewers and more relevant
• Thriller might have sold 104 million albums (supposedly - that debate doesn't belong here), but BAD (32 mil), Dangerous (30 mil), HIStory (30 mil), Blood on the Dance Floor (6 mil) and Invincible (8 mil) total 108 million. That's not including Greatest Hits (3 mil), Number Ones (7 mil), Essential MJ (2 mil)...which brings his total to 120 million album sales post-Thriller. He might have sold MORE during the Thriller era than any other, but it far from represents the majority of his sales.
• A lot of Thriller's vast sales came about after it's actual release. It sells around 60 000 copies annually in the USA alone according to the Thriller page...if you backtrack that a few years it's a significant portion of the album's actual sales.
• He was still in the Jacksons at this point and still considered by most "Michael Jackson from The Jacksons", not "Michael Jackson"
• The guy's changed in appearance beyond recognition completely. Honestly. Having a picture from 1984 as a reference point, when you take into account the unusually rapid rate of change is like showing a childhood photo of someone else as a useful reference.

Personally I think the article needs a Thriller era photo (start of fame), a Dangerous one (height of fame), an Invincible one (from the 30th Anniversary shows perhaps? It was after the release of Invincible that Michael Jackson stopped being viewed as 'current' with the long delay in release to another album, lack of singles, lack of videos, and release of compilations...decline in fame at it's most obvious?) and the mugshot (height of infamy...newish photo...and one of the few photos without loads of makeup). If we did that, removed the present BAD photo, and perhaps put the Dangerous one in the opening profile...it'd be fine. That was we'd have photos from his career peaks in the 80s, 90s and 00s, and a recent photo. The present BAD-era photo isn't great anyway.

(The Elfoid 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

"Weasel" tag added

This site is utterly packed with "weasel" terms. Be careful about this.Boab 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is laughable, packed with fan-generated hyerbole, eg MTV an obscure channel until Jackson was played on it! The list of exaggerations is endless Vauxhall1964 12:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

if you have any good sources that contradict anything said you are more than welcome to challenge something written Realist2 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi editors, I agree that this article is filled with "weasel words" and "peacock language", like "it is widely agreed that" and "most successful", "greatest". Some of the sources are not good sources, according to WIkipedia policies on sources. I quote: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. //////Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ".//////Check out the last point...."exceptional claims require exceptional sources"....I argue that calling MJ the "greatest and most successful entertainter" (paraphrase from memory) is an exceptional claim, so the source, BMI, doesn't cut it. BMI is a performers rights association that distributes royalty payments. BMI's webpage may be a very good source on the amounts of royalty or rights payments, but it isn't a pop music reference encyclopediaNazamo 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Charity work

I just wanted to point out that MJ's charity work actually began far before 1984. The Jacksons are noted in several publications as donating $100,000 from the "Triumph Tour" to Atlanta Children’s Foundation. Marnifrances 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it please go right ahead, Realist2 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll dig it up and I will get you to add it- I am terrible at references. thanks. :) Marnifrances 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way realist, do we need a book reference or can we use a website? My article on the off the wall era (including triumph tour) is here if you would like to use it as a source for the charity work. http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/era/off-the-wall/index.html Marnifrances 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use either so this is just fine, I will add it, let me no if your happy with what I put. Realist2 07:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much- I love it and now it's more accurate! wonderful work :) Marnifrances 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested photos

This is the result of quick searches - very quick. Just tell me what you think, for the infobox pic. I know we decided on Dangerous era but I put in a few later ones. They're still during the time when he looked "Dangerous-style" before his face morphed yet again.

http://img.verycd.com/posts/0604/post-240106-1146057913.jpg - The Superbowl performance, Dangerous era. Did he ever get bigger than during that one performance?

(The Elfoid 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

PICTURES SUGGESTED BY REALIST 2

• [12] History promo 3
• [13] Dangerous era Live 1
• [14] Stranger in moscow 1
• [15] Scream 1
• [16] Scream live 1
• [17] Dangerous era live 2
• [18] Dangerous pic 1
• [19] Dangerous era live 3
• [20] 90`s pepsi
• [21] Jam Vid

[22] Bad era Live. Realist2 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

comments on above pictures (all discussions on the above links to pictures should be kept here)

I would choose the 1st picture of the superbowl mainly because i had suggesred that a million times previously. However the reason I dont want the other pictures goes as follows.

• The child molestation 1993 picture should not be the main picture it will only over shadow what the article is predominantly about (his music) it would be almost (but not quite) as bad as the mugshot as the intro picture.
• The history era picture isnt the best quality resolution, if it was a better quality i wouldn`t object to it.
• The press release photo is just a little boring, . Realist2 07:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The child molestation 1993 image I don't suggest we would portray as that. I wasn't saying the caption would be "MJ talking about child molestation allegations", just "MJ, circa 1993". It was the height of his fame really - his celebrity marriages, other trials, and various other events in his life hadn't happened yet. It was the first time people who didn't care about his music would be taking an interest but before his musical career begin it's commercial decline.

The HIStory photo, I'll have a look and see what I can find so we can consider that though. I agree...press photo isn't great now I look at it in detail.

These photos are just examples of stuff I found very quickly from Google searches. The HIStory picture is far from the best we could find of that era I'd imagine, it was just so we had a rough example. (The Elfoid 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah its a good start, i have no objections to the history era, i think a picture from his HIStory teaser music video would be good in his military jacket. Look at the pictures I have added. Realist2 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Scream 1 and Scream Live 1 we should consider. Dangerous Live Era 3 is good too. 90s Pepsi. Bad Era Live. Dangerous Era 2.

Image quality, appropriateness, and what the pictures show means I don't think any of the others you suggested are much good. These things need to show his face clearly (sunglasses I suppose are acceptable since they're as much a part of his face as his body nowadays), and should focus on MJ himself - no Janet, no pyrotechnics in the way etc. Anything grainy's not ideal either, and too much motion tends to distort an observer's view slightly due to odd angles.

If you approve of that Realist2 (since you seem to be the only person in the debate), delete the pics from my list other than the HIStory one and superbowl, and any from yours that you agree we can do without.(The Elfoid 04:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Sure good idea, lets cut this list down a little. Realist2 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I cut the list down a little, i quite like all of whats left, i deleted my superbowl picture because i think yours looks better, so the list is down to about 10 pictures , lets remember though if we really like some of the photos we can put them throughout the article as well, after the main picture i still wanna change the others, anyway so im having a real difficult job deciding what to pick, what do you really hate from whats left, I think thats the best way to look at this. What pictures would you hate to see on it?? Realist2 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My HIStory tour pic's not the best out there. Lets cut it out. A better image from that period might be findable, but that aint it. The Jam video pic looks great in terms of showing his physique and dancing ability - possibly could be used in the article somewhere (in general the pics need sorting out I think) but it's not showing his face really. Dangerous era live 2 his eyes are screwed up, and you can't see them at all in history promo 2. I think his face should be in clear view, unless he has shades on. (The Elfoid 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

ok I deleted your HIStory picture and history promo 4. I didn`t delete dangerous era live 2 because that picture is quite famous and i have seen it used quite often. I think it might be best now if we both pick our top 5 pictures, and see if we have any common ground on our favourites, dont include the jam picture in this, i agree we can use that elsewhere in the article(and you might wanna do the same for the bad era picture???). So what do you think? do you wanna name your top 5? Realist2 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://img.verycd.com/posts/0604/post-240106-1146057913.jpg http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/gallery/dangerousera/pages/dangerousera125.html http://www.mjsite.com/pages/1401

My top 3. Pepsi add is ok too though, at a push. (The Elfoid 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Ok shall we have your superbowl picture as the main picture, then have the bad era picture for the Bad era of the article and have the Jam video for the Dangerous era of the article? Realist2 12:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and cut out the present Bad era photo. We could do with an Invincible era photo and Off the Wall one for the 'physical appearance' part - for comparison. (The Elfoid 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

My thoughts exactly on the bad era photo, the old 1 is shit (no offence). go on elfoid put the 3 new pictures on and then we will carry on debating the other eras. Realist2 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I never manage to upload pictures and get the justification right - it always gets removed. You do it or it just won't last. (The Elfoid 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

ill speck to some1 about it. i cant do it either. Realist2 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot

why does everyone want the mugshot in the page so badly? it's such a sickening photo... please dont put it back again..

219.75.10.110 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo was discussed earlier, generally it was viewed as necessary. Plus who cares if it's sickening? There's photos of penises if you go to the penis article, I don't love that, but it's needed for the article's sake. Some things in life ARE sickening. (The Elfoid 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Connection with Slash

This section appears twice in the article, once under the "Influence" heading, and once under the "Personal life". In both places it contains essentially the same information with slight variations. The information should be merged, and one of these sections removed.71.213.82.71 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

no it only appears as 1 paragraphRealist2 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

................................................................................................

24/10/07

'Slash first came to fame as lead guitarist for Guns N' Roses from 1985 to 1996, though he has remained prolific ever since in various ventures such as Slash's Snakepit and Velvet Revolver'

- Please purge Slash's résumé from Jackson's page.

Main Image

I have reverted the main image back to the previous one, as wiki guidelines and policy state that only free, not fair use, images can be used for the main photo in an article. Please do not revert this image back, or change it to any other fair use photo, as you will be directly convening wiki policy. Thnaks  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe you should put a new main image because the one that is on is not a fair representation of Michael Jackson. It is over 20 years old AND is repeated a few paragraphs down. It does not look like the current appearance of Michael. Another image that is complimentary of Michael should be uploaded such as the one I previously uploaded. - Kaneite

That is all very well, but wiki policy is that only free use images, not fair use images can be used as the main image on an article. If you don't like the current image, I suggest you either; find another free image or change it to the more "recent" mug shot picture, as these are currently the ONLY images hosted on wikipedia that would be acceptable under the current rules.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

about the mogshot you answered: "The photo was discussed earlier, generally it was viewed as necessary. Plus who cares if it's sickening? There's photos of penises if you go to the penis article, I don't love that, but it's needed for the article's sake. Some things in life ARE sickening." (The Elfoid 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

sorry, but what you reasoned isn't reasonable. you compared the mogshot 

with the photos in the type of article you mentioned:

1.but when you write an article about penis or bones or flowers or....

the article should include photos to show what it is like.to give the

visitor a picture of it. FOR ARTICLE'S SAKE. but the mogshot doesn't help the visitor know Mr.Jackson better it just

makes people who love him sad and his enemies happy.

2.among few photos in this page, mostly longshots, such fullshot photo

that he's been forced and surprised by the flash light has a negative

effect on visitor's impression of Mr.Jackson.

3.specially after the recent scandal that he was acquitted of it,it

reminds that period and all the rumours tabloid media made up against

him. please don't help tabloid media.

4.it works negatively in this era that people are waiting for his new

materal.

so it is not necessary. it is botherig to have that mogshot on Michael

It is a snapshot of when he was probably at his most well known outside of the music business. "

that he's been forced and surprised by the flash light has a negative effect on visitor's impression of Mr.Jackson."

He has makeup in other pictures, you gonna complain about that being too positive too?

I'm sure Jews don't like the holocaust, it's "bothering" for them. I'm part Jewish, I know how much that upset people. But they don't want to erase the past - what happened happened.

He wasn't surprised by flash, a mugshot is prepared carefully and anyone involved is fully informed.

You have to realise this isn't a propaganda article.(The Elfoid 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Elfoid be fair. he WAS completely surprised by thr flash light don't you see his eyebrows? the mugshot is completely misleading and must be removed.

I am on my word.and don't you deny the truthe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.215 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Jackson's wikipedia article on the world music awards had a picture of Mr.Jackson before but it isn't in the article now. I dunno why it was removed. the picture was that famous photo of Mr.Jackson performing "We are the world" with young chorus.

you can find this photo and other photos of Mr.Jackson from 2006 world music awards any where on web it is free and available those photos are newer (just one year before), and they are free and without the risen eyebrow problme or sunglasses problme. something like this can be a good replacement for the mugshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a problem with many of these sources regarding POV?

[23] used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially. [24], [25], [26], [27] or most information from dedicated fan sites such as [28] and [29].

[30], [31]. Umm, is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?

[32] IMDB is a partially user submitted site. Its information and trivia sections are not journalistic.

just a comment about IMDB- I have tried over and over to correct incorrect trivia, such as his height, which is clearly stated as 5'11" on his mugshot. it gets changed every week to 5'9" one week and 5'8" the next week. The trivia section there is changed frequently to also include "trivia" from old tabloids and even just from what people think Jackson has done here or there. IMDB is not a source and shouldn't be used. If you want more info on Captain Eo, have a look at 'the Magic and the Madness" or, even better, "The Visual Documentary"- they have filming dates and budget costs.Marnifrances 07:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All references through 51 to 57 being derived from fan sites and could be considered questionable. Also the attmepts at encyclopedaic tone seem disingenuous and fan written. I'm not doubting the sources but I may as well set up a fan site reviewing all Jackson's albums positively and use it as an 'objective' source. I'd rather see the original sources these pages used as references.

Oh well, pop another page in the 'take with a pinch of salt' bin. Le Gibbon 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't ever reference itself. EVER. IMDB's stuff tends to be vetted, I say we can trust it.

We can use anything official or well informed for stats and figures. How something was received - anything opinion based - must be from someone unbiased. (The Elfoid 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Use of Fox News Article

There is a big problem with the newest Fox news article. RF said that MJ doesn't plan to release new material, yet R Bain and several producers have, in fact, confirmed that Michael is working on a new album. I believe Bain said 'Michael is putting the finishing touches on his new music'. Freedman's article contradicts everything that has already been confirmed. Is there a way that we can stress that or take the Fox news article out all together? It's confusing and is blatantly untrue, as usual. I also think it's misleading. Thanks Marnifrances 07:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ive tried deleting it and saying that it seems unlikely but its always reverted. The Fox news article is rediculose, why should we include it when numerous reliable artists have stated for the record they are working on NEW material with Jackson, what reason would the likes of Kanye West and Will I Am have for lying???? Why would they Lie??? It doesn`t back sense!!!! The Fox News report as usual is complete rubbish, if people read just a fraction of the articles that fox make on Jackson it is blatent they are anti-Jackson. I think a consensus needs reaching on this, the article is already very long so unless people believe it is very note worth it should be deleted. Michael might very well release a Thriller special, thats not the problem. The problem is that Fox are saying Jackson will not release new material which we all no is a lie because reliable people are saying he will. Realist2 17:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Further more Im actually quite tempted to suggest a Blanket Ban on all fox news sources on this article because of there obvious biases, which are endless. Realist2 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am also surprised about the insertion of this junk Fox news. Can someone delete it? 161.72.81.220 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake children, this is an encyclopaedia not a news bulletin service. If a reliable source (eg record label, official publicity) announces new material that is the time to put it in and with a citation. At the moment it is getting very silly.--Egghead06 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A consensus seems to have been reached that its not needed so im removing it.Realist2 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

that's so clear that it isn't necessary for the article ....why would they lie? it is what fox news always does to MJ. they call people stupid in their faces. better make this mental disease official.and make this media aware that they can't cheat us.fox news and media like fox news are no more believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.224 (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Will.I.Am says new album due early next year

thank you! There is also an article where Will I Am says it is a new album, due early next year. Here's the article- he had an interview with Aussie reporters: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=312689&rss=yes

Marnifrances 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Jackson and vitiligo

here are links about Mr.Jackson and vitiligo please put them into the article for article's sake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SUwwJYD6aI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TSEKXXIvI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.224 (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe that can be used as 'see also'...Marnifrances 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Jackson is mostly known as king of pop or MJ

Mr.Jackson is mostly known as king of pop or MJ if we put disrespectable UK media aside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.224 (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE THE MUGSHOT

• • PLEASE REMOVE THE MUGSHOT ** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.13.223 (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mug Shot Image

I am unable to edit/change the image placed on this page. There is a mug shot from Michael's leagal harassments up there now. This undoubtedly was done out of spite. It would be great if someone with a qualified image that reflects Mr. Jackson's accomplishments as an artist and entertainer could edit/replaced the mugshot prank. Thank You Takingcare 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the more complimentary 1984 pictures which still needs changing!!!!! Realist2 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the mugshot has been added out of spite. I see no mugshot of OJ Simpson or CONVICTED paedophile Gary Glitter. I fail to see mugshots of Hugh Grant and George Michael who were found guilty of lewd acts in a public place. The last three were found Guilty. Michael was not. I, therefore, suggest either uploading mugshots of the above people or deleting the mugshot of the acquitted Michael Jackson. There is absolutely no need for the mugshot. If people want to look at this unflattering photograph then they can feel free to search for it in Google Images where it will be easily found. I think this image should be deleted immediately and without hesitation because if not I will not hesitate in having mugshots of people who are guilty of sexual offences uploaded. In the People vs Jackson case Jackson was acquitted by a jury who saw ALL the evidence and did not act upon media propaganda, rumours and speculation. Michael Jackson is undoubtedly the King of Music and the greatest entertainer of all time, the statistics reflect that. He is also a charitable humanitarian who only asks to be loved. Michael Jackson should be treated with the respect he deserves. His mugshot is not respect - it is an insult hidden behind false reasons of essentiality. - Kaneite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneite (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep wondering about this. quite a few people feel it is necessary, but where is OJ's mugshot on HIS page?, AND Hugh Grant's mugshot is not on his page either. Why does MJ's mugshot NEEd to be on this page? someone said it represents what his appearance is now, but I disagree. How about taking a shot from the L'uomo vogue to be really current? Currency is not an argument here and it should be taken out and never used again- Michael Jackson was arrested, sure, but he was NEVER convicted, in fact, he was acquitted and people seem to forget that. The mugshot just reminds people he was arrested which takes away from his ART, as it would for OJ, who was also acquitted OR Hugh Grant who is a fabulous actor. Why is Michael Jackson the LONE person who gets stuck with his mugshot?Marnifrances 11:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it shouldn`t be there no your correct however enough people at the moment seem to want it included, there is a strong consensus though that it should`t be used as the lead which is the main thing. Realist2 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for including the mugshot is quite simple. (1) It illustrates a very notable part of his life involving child molestation charges. (2) More importantly, it is the only FREE image we have that displays Jackson in more or less his current appearance. If any here can find a suitable FREE image of Jackson that reflects his current appearance, then I will not object to the mugshot being removed.--Dronzo 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok that makes me FURIOUS! did you actually READ my argument Dronzo? The same goes for OJ and Hugh Grant!! It does NOt in anyway illustrate his current appearance- currency is a stupid argument and those who want it in. It also does not say under the picture "Michael jackson's current appearance". I am SURE we can find a newer free image. Marnifrances 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

another problem- paternity of Jackson children

why bring attention to tabloid stories by saying this: "Since the children outwardly have a phenotype caucasian appearance, the paternity of Michael Jackson's children has been heavily debated by the public, and fuelled by tabloid rumors". No one actually knows what the children look like considering any pictures of them unmasked are grainy, blown up and lightened - in effect, distorted. It is unnecessary to say his children have a "phenotype Caucasian appearance" or any of the above sentence. why do we need a debate about paternity, especially when Michael Jackson is the childrens' father no matter what people say?- he raised them and has sole custody. Marnifrances 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the caucasion comment, it is pov anyway. Realist2 16:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks. It just seems un encyclopaedic and speculative to me. Marnifrances 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

confused about Slash- why is it in this article?

Wouldn't it be better to include "connection with Quincy Jones" or nothing at all? Slash only played on a few songs, I think it's silly to include a paragraph on Slash, when Michael Jackson has worked with a lot of artists repeatedly- Carol Bayer Sager, Greg Phillinganes, Rod Temperton, Louis Johnson, Paulihno Da Costa, Bruce Swedien, etc etc... why include Slash? I don't get it. It just lengthens the article. The use of the wording "regular guest after Dangerous" is silly, since it gives a total of 2 album appearances. Marnifrances 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a concensus that it should be deleted, I actually have no problem with the paragraph however its not essentual (this article is so long only essentuals are needed) and it does seem to cause minor edit wars. I will remove it and see how people react, if people say on the talk page that they want it back we will readd it. Realist2 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just unnecessary and confusing. I don't see how that connection is important when he has had a longer and more frequent connection with other artists.Marnifrances 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important since he's the most contrasting artist to Jackson in style,[So?] the most visually recognised one [So?] (few others appeared with Jackson) [wtf?]. Most of the others haven't been on stage with him, or in music videos. And all those others...they didn't work with him for 10 years. Plus he played on 4 songs, was in a music video [Already mentioned that], appeared with him on at least 7 documented occasions live (twice in 2001, twice in 1995, three times in 1992) [big deal].

He's got other people he's worked with, but few are famous IN THEIR OWN RIGHT to the level Slash was. Guns N' Roses [but not *Slash*] sold 75 million albums worldwide. That vastly outstrips anything anyone like Da Costa did.

Irrespective of Slash's fame, his contribution to Jackson's music and career is negligable.

And he's a regular guest if he appears on 3 albums in a row. (The Elfoid 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Realist2, there's me and you in agreement of keeping it. That's one person in disagreement. Two other people have commented on it on the talk page, not in a negative light. So we can assume they accept it too. It's not a consensus for deletion.

Edit wars come largely since most Michael Jackson fans are probably not big Guns N' Roses fans I'd guess!(The Elfoid 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Actually, my issue isn't with that at all. I just think it's stupid and confusing being here. He has a much bigger connection to Quincy Jones, and the other artists I named above. What about Jennifer Batten? she's been on 3 tours! we could go on and on here. it lengthens an already lengthy article. Marnifrances 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well they are ordinary connections, that's the thing. Batten's his backing band's guitarist...most solo artists have that. Jones is a producer...most musicians have one. But it's not so common to guest perform on albums, or live, as Slash has. Particularly in the pop world. There's also the fact that he's an unusual person for a connection with. (The Elfoid 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Why isn't Slash an ordinary Connection? Batten isn't part of his backing band- she's an independent guitarist that Mj picked for her unique style. She has her own albums and so forth and has a completely different style as well... there';s a longer connection. Quincy Jones is a "Jazz musician". Do you see what I'm saying? Why ad something that's unnecessary and lengthens an article? While a connection may be significant, plenty of artists have regular collaborations with unusual artists... I just don't understand the point here. Slash already has a page. Why include his whole resume here?Marnifrances (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'Slash came to fame as lead guitarist for Guns N' Roses from 1985 to 1996, and remained prolific recently in Velvet Revolver[133].'

~ Please purge Slash's résumé from Jackson's page.

I doubt anyone here would have suggested/demanded *such an extensive* Slash feature, had one not been included.

Final Debate On Mugshot ( This Is It The Final Discussion... Here Only)

OK OK OK the Mugshot thing is now doing my head in so we are now going to have a final consensus on it here. Any discussion on the Mugshot is to be made here!!! There will be 2 headings FOR MUGSHOT and AGAINST MUGSHOT. Sign you name under which 1 you would rather, reasons for your decision can be included but its optionary. When this consensus is reached it sticks for ever and if someone edits against the consensus made, it must be reverted informing them that a consensus has been reached either way. Votes will be calculated on November 10th.

• FOR MUGSHOT

• AGAINST MUGSHOT
• Realist2(Im against photo) 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Micah J. Manary 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Marnifrances 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:mtnnm(Im against photo)
• --Paaerduag 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) : it appears that only two users on here wants the mugshot to stay. Wikipedia works on concensus, elfoid and dronzo. You cannot simply keep something if the greater community disagrees. --Paaerduag 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes are not a valid way to settle content disputes. And worse still, trying to determine consensus with a vote? I wonder if people here have even read WP:CON. The mugshot is here because it is a free image that reflects his current appearance, as well as being relevant to a significant event in his life. So far the only opposing arguments I've heard are somewhere along the vain of: GET RID OF IT, I DON'T LIKE IT! or IT'S NOT NICE! POOR MICHAEL!, and these are not substantial rationales for removal (and no amount of voting will change that - wikipedia is NOT a democracy). As I stated above however, if anyone here can find a suitable free image that either illustrates Jackson's current appearance, or his trial, then I'm happy to see the mugshot replaced. Dronzo 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dronzo, but I would like to add the following: We've had debates, and the consensus was to keep it. It's been done several times.

No one came up with a decent argument except that it was "insulting" to Michael Jackson as well as not relevant. Everyone has said "It's horrible, and not useful, so why have it?". The instant that biased attitude creeps into things, you know no one's gonna tell you anything useful since they just care about Michael Jackson.

I think a better thing for us to do is produce a bullet pointed list of good and bad things about it. A simple vote like that isn't enough. Now, I'll start a list of reasons for and against deleting it below. Since we can check the history of pages, I think it's ok for people to delete as well as add to it. That way, provided we all act like mature adults who don't just blank the entire thing in a fit of rage, we can get this settled.

So: Delete anything you think it truly irrelevant (add a comment at the bottom on anything deleted and explain why it is a worthless statement) and add anything else. I think this might work better than a straight vote, given almost no one who's said they don't like the photo has offered a useful reason why (Realist2 constructs his arguments, most people don't bother though). Anyone up for my idea? I think this might sort it out. Not everyone'll be happy, but it's definitive.

(The Elfoid 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Paaerduag, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Stop thinking a vote ends it all. More people visit here that are big Michael Jackson fans than people that aren't. We can't assume a vote'll give an honest response. A simple vote like that is against the Wikipedia policy unless we all agree to abide by it. (The Elfoid 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Justification of mugshot

• Recent photo
• Shows Jackson without heavy make-up obscuring his appearance - rare
• New photo of him without sunglasses - rare
• Photo of him when he was at the most famous he's been in a long time. The Number Ones album was a minor hit. Invincible was big but not ground breaking or special in terms of sales. In terms of singles, it was poor. So Jackson hadn't had this much of a spotlight on him since the peak of the HIStory tour (1996).
• The man's face has changed a lot, but it is recognisable as how he looks now. Even a photo from 1999 or 2000 looks vastly out of date.
• Most newer pictures of him he has sunglasses on, or is carefully presented for magazine photoshoots
• It's a photograph taken by a professional and designed to give a clear and well defined view of his actual appearance - no trickery to improve his look or ruin it paparazzi style
• It's a close-up. Good view.
• Hundreds of millions of people have seen this. Career wise, he's best known for the Thriller/Bad/Dangerous/HIStory music videos, yes. But as a person, who the tabloids follow? This was his peak as a celebrity, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. Fans, non-fans, people who'd never heard of him (as a singer) were all into this.
• The picture's there, we haven't got a good replacement lined up
• It's been voted on before and the decision was to keep it. More than once.
• It's a free image
• Jackson lost a lot of weight shortly after, during the trial. He has regained that weight now, but it means he looks more like he does now in that photo than he did for some time after it was taken.
• Everyone who has disagreed so far has claimed to be 'offended' and are self-proclaimed Michael Jackson fans. You can be an unbiased fan, but it's often not the case.
• Contrasts greatly with other photos here - we show all sides of him
• Photo of Jackson as an ordinary man. It's something anyone can relate to and reminds a viewer he is really, only human. The media can present people as otherwise.
• Photo frequently used by the press - it is the most iconic photo of the trial and one of the photos of Jackson that will probably never, ever be forgotten. Next to the Motown 25 performance, various Superbowl shows and his best known music videos.

(deleted- "humanity argued above) Marnifrances 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• At Jackson's present age, his body should have stopped changing. Due to the trial 2003-2005, time off to recover (2005-2006), intensive work looking at properties, Jackson 5 reunion, public appearances accross the world, further legal wrangling (largely about finances) and work on a new album means Jackson probably just has not had time to have any more surgery done. Jackson's surgery is well known. He has claimed to have none done in some time but we can never be certain. However it seems likely then, he has had no surgery done in the 2003-2007 period so a photo from the trial would show a 'stable' image of Jackson. On the other hand between 97-03 Jackson appeared in photos to change his face further so these cannot be relied upon. A photo from before this time is too old to count as 'current'.

Reasons not to use the photo

• Seen by some as distasteful
• Shows Jackson in the worst light possible, making him look uglier than usual
• He doesn't usually dress down this way. Poor representation.
• Other photos may be available
• Though it is recent, Jackson has made a few public appearances since this time.
• It significantly implies his guilt in the 2005 trial. The article should support the impression of the not guilty verdict.
• It is hard to find an image on Wikipedia of someone not charged for a crime, where a mugshot has been used. It is unfair to make an exception out of Jackson.
• It can be considered racist to have that picture up, why is jackson being made an example of some might argue? many black and white people do believe there was an element of racism in the trial, with the no black jury, ridiculously expensive bail payment and the completely unnessary handcuffing.
• The picture of overwhelmingly used by the anti Jackson brigade so its usage and symbolism is automatically biased.
• It doesn't look anything like Jackson does now in 2007 infact Jackson`s appearance has improved dramatically since the invincible era and a very updated picture would be better to show that his appearance has improved.
• Drug abuse would have slightly affected his appearance at the time.
• It is only America that has a known majority of its population believing in his guilt so therefore the mugshot has an american viewpoint bias.

more arguments:

• Takes away from the significance of his impact on MUSIC

I would like to counter the points added by realist2.

1) [Image:Reinhard_Gehlen_1945.jpg], [Image:Richardgotti1.JPG], [Image:Josephguglielmo2.JPG], [Image:Edwardcummiskey1.JPG]. As you can see, many convicts have a mugshot on Wikipedia. So it's not a one-off.

I'll admit I couldn't find in my 30-second-search any non-convicts with a mugshot, but that's because famous criminals are remembered forever. Can anyone honestly remember many cases where someone was really, really famous for being not guilty?

OJ simpson? Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Michael Jackson's one of the most famous people in history. If we use the argument "Why are we making him an exception to ordinary rules?", you might as well erase everything on here about the crimes he was accused of committing.

That he was found not guilty of and the mugshot has nothing to do with the 93 case.Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2) How is the picture itself racist? The only way I could imagine that happening would be if he was made to look worse than most people do in mugshots by the photographers, surely? And no one ever said that. A trial is organised by courts (bail payment and jury etc.), not the police department. The handcuffing was done by the people who arrested him, and generally there's a specific photography team. When you get a mugshot you get told what is about to happen, look at the camera, and a photo is taken. There's no make-up, no clever camera angles - no photo manipulation is possible. How can this be seen as racist? Furthermore, allegations of racism are acceptable on Wikipedia if we are referring to a historical event. The black slave trade was racist, I think you'll find Wikipedia hasn't erased all of that!

actually, you can clearly see eyeliner. Makeup is not the issue here. Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3) "overwelmingly used by the anti Jackson brigade so its usage and symbolism is automatically biased". I've seen this photo many, many times in newspapers. It's iconic of the fall from pop icon to ordinary man. Facing a trial just like anyone else would have to. I've never, ever seen it suggest guilt. I found mugshots on Wikipedia, you find me proof it's anti-Jackson.

and the papers were notorious for rounding up "evidence" against Jackson which is why they used the mugshot over and over. When maureen orth reported on Jackson, a known anti-Jackson reporter, that mugshot was shown over and over. Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

5) "Jackson`s appearance has improved dramatically" - how good he looks doesn't matter. Ugly people have just as much of a right to be portrayed realistically on Wikipedia as pretty people. "since the invincible" - Jackson was arrested November 20, 2003. Invincible was October 30, 2001. This photo's two years more recent than Invincible and has nothing to do with that. "a very updated picture would be better to show that his appearance has improved" - as I said already, how good he looks does not matter. And the reason Jackson looks horrendous in the mugshot is not lack of weight, it's stress, probably tiredness (I doubt he slept well that night), lack of make-up and the fact that it's a photograph that isn't trying to present him in a positive light. Every other photo on here he has heavy make-up on and is professionally shot to show Jackson in a positive light due to it's value promotionally.

actually, you're wrong again: all the pictures here except the top picture were paparazzi or fan shots. None are promotional (again except for the whitehouse ones)Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

6) Why do we encourage the not-guilty verdict? The trial might be steeped in controversy, but so was the Jury! Wikipedia states the facts. What are the facts? Jackson was arrested. The American legal system's Jury team found him to be not guilty. This does not means Jackson was or was not guilty, it means he probably was not. We cannot guarantee that, we are not sponsored by them. Also, we are not all in America!

So you don't trust the American Jury?Sai2020 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware some of my points are open to debate, but I'm pretty sure (2) and (4) are sound. Can we delete the comments about racism and weight, then? (The Elfoid 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Part 4 about the weight lose can be removed, your right it wouldn`t have shown on the face until a little latter but part 2 about racism is still a valid point. I will delete part4. Realist2 08:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep contradicting yourself 1 minute you say the reason we are making an exception of jackson is because he is the most famous man alive and then later you say it should / has been used to show the fall of an icon to "A NORMAL PERSON". So are we going to treat him as a superstar or a normal person on this debate im a little confused.

Unless you can find a mugshot on wikipedia of an innocent persons (innocent til proven guilty = innocent)then I think your argument for point 1 is unwarranted. Realist2 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was, Jackson is seen by the world as someone very different, in good and bad ways. A very unusual person, and a remarkable one. And yet to the law, all his various extreme actions (major surgery, his humanitarian efforts, his hugely popular music and his huge decline in musical popularity etc.) mean absolutely nothing. So I guess what I mean he's incredibly famous, but still human. Different to most of us, but not in every way imaginable. Does that make more sense?

My argument for point one was really that using a mugshot for an innocent person is something Wikipedia policy states can be done in appropriate circumstances. We can't just say "It's a mugshot but he is innocent, so we can't use it". I suppose that means more careful consideration is required than a total 'yes or no' vote.

The racist thing, can you explain to me? I agree there was some dodgy conduct by various people involved in the trial and whether this way anti-Jackson, anti-black, anti-paedophile (given many people considered him guilty after the 1993 trial)...but the trial and the arrest were separate. The legal system and the police service are not the same thing. Other than the forceful arrest, was anything they did racist? And was that? Just because a white guy's nasty to a black guy doesn't mean he's racist. Do remember that.

I'm not an expert on Michael Jackson. I know he had some drug problems in the 90s (the song morphine was related to that, despite him not actually doing morphine I think? Painkillers of some other kind), but what was he doing around 2003?

I'd like to point out that what he was "doing" in 2003 was only reported by tabloid sources and you're correct, he was on other painkillers in 1993.Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is only America that has a known majority of its population believing in his guilt so therefore the mugshot has an american viewpoint bias."

What you're attempting to say is, in America he is considered guilty by the majority. So a photo that some might consider indicates guilt thus has an American bias?

That's nationalist, assuming someone's nationality affects their viewpoint. Given how multi-cultural America is, you can't assume there is a national viewpoint. It's bordering on an insult to the American people by assuming they all trust the tabloid press. Most British people (I'm British) I talk to say he's definitely guilty. Most Americans basically say "He's weird, he's a bit mad, I don't know what he did but it's not my business". That's my point of view I guess. Has anyone ever seen a vote on what MJ's public reputation is in America? I think that comment's utter garbage. (The Elfoid 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

why can't we just find a current picture that illustrates his current look? I'm sure it will be easy to find one from a news source that is from say, his 2006 WMA appearance or something else. It's ridiculous to keep something that people are so passionate for and against and will keep arguing about. It's not his current appearance full stop. There is plenty of shots of him without sunglasses since 2003. Marnifrances 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Realist2 and Paaerduag : please remove the mugshot.

besides all the discussions told AGAINST the mugshot that I AGREE, there is another point. the most insisted point among what people who want to keep that mugshot discuss is that: they say they want it cause it shows Mr.Jackson's latest appearance. besides all the discussions that tells it is NOT even a good photo of his current appearance that I agree all, there is another litti pitti point:

take a look at the mugshot, Michael Jackson's eyebrows and his forthhead, his eyebrows were raised when the mugshot was been taken. see, the mugshot can't be the right thing to show his currect appearance. what you say that it is a good thing available for free (maybe you wanna stick in our minds that it is the best) it is just rediculose.when you wanna show somebody's currect appearance will you show the photo of person with raised eyebrows??? is it the best choice?? specially when you reason you wanna show a right photo that shows his currect appearance. I donno why you realy wanna keep this mugshot and for whatever reason you have in your mind. THIS MUGSHOT HAS NOTHING TO STAY. NOT NECESSARY, NO BENEFITS, besides it is used for showing currect appearance of an INNOCENT person (this one is realy super rediculose). we have a Michael Jackson page on wikipedia and among afew photos this one realy shows up the way I said. just have this example: you wanna talk about someone who is innocent and you right go ahead showing a mugshot of him ...???!!!! you wanted to take alook at him as an ordinary person then go right ahead ould you insist this way for mugshot of an ordinary person?

there are many good new photos that can show his currect appearance very well. and we all know that. then if you realy wanna show his currect appearance put on of them.

The Elfoid, dronzo, funky monkey, how you insist on keeping it is realy strange.

Again I say I agree with all the discussions told AGAINST the mugshot. the eyebrow thing was just a point left.

remove the mugshot

MUGSHOT

The mugshot will stay for the following reasons:

It has been discussed at length before and consensus was that it should stay. The reasons for this consensus haven't changed just because a few fans feel that this "insults" Jackson. He is an adult and will just have to get over it. This is an encyclopedia, and as such documents major points in a person's life. Jackson is as famous for his altered appearance as he is his music. This is the ONLY free use image we have of Jackson looking as he does at present, the other 2 free use images show Jackson in various other transformations, therefore this image must stay as it is the only image we can use that shows Jackson as he is NOW. Arguments over whether it is insulting to him, the fact that he was innocent etc., hold no sway. The photo is used here to show how Jackson looks now compared to how he did in this youth, not to aid debate as to his guilt or not. A perfectly justifiable use of a free use photo.

The above poll has no weight here. Please see m:Polling is evil and WP:DEMOCRACY  Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Funky Monkey, the mugshot has definite value, and I don't see any valid rationale to remove it. Dronzo 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to translate a section of "funky monkey's" post. In specific, I'm referring to the REAL way his last sentence should read: "Community concensus should be disregarded because I decide what happens on this article." There has been NO concensus reached per this article. There are still those who want it to stay, and those who want it to go. The latter category is comprised of Dronzo, funky monkey and elfoid. Three users. And what a 'community' it is. Funky monkey, you have absolutely no authority to DECLARE that the mugshot "will stay." concensus has not been reached, and editors like yourself who are resistant to change have to learn that you do not control wikipedia. one individual does not equal a community. --Paaerduag 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I stated it will stay, is because as yet, there is no valid rational for removing it. "Fans don't like it", is not a valid rational for removing a picture. Plain and simple really. I also find it bizarre that you claim 3 users opinion does not a consensus make, when you removed the picture claiming consensus had been reached by, wait for it, 3 users.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who takes part in a debate over if something should be deleted and then deletes it anyway shows a reckless attitude which reduces their credibility. My two cents on Paaerduag's conduct. Realist2 might firmly disagree with the image's use, but he's dealing with it in a mature manner. (The Elfoid 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Firstly would dronzo, funky garilla or whoever stop saying that the only reason people are opposed to it is because they are sensitive fans I have included some valid points on why it shouldn`t be included which have nothing to do with upsetting his fans, they are serious points so lets stop making it out that people who are opossed are blinded by a love for jackson, we can make sensible arguments.

This is my point about racism... Michael Jackson had an all white Jury which is quite rare to say the least considering the demographic of america this raised eyebrows from black people, secondly he had to post a $3 million bail when Phil Spector only had to post a $1 million bail for his MURDER trial, this raised eyebrows amoungst black people, thirdly even though michael jackson volentarily handed himself into police for the world to see, the police state still publicaly shamed him by unnessarily handcuffing him, this raised the eyebrows of black people, he was convicted by the media before the trial even began, this raised the eyebrows of black people, after he was aquited the media still imply his guilt this raised the eyebrows of black people.... in the end you get a lot of black people with a lot of high eyebrows (im trying to be comical to lighten the seriousness of the issue). all lot of black radio stations and black magazines ran articles like "Black America is spitting mad... they are lynching are men" , if the picture were to be included it can stire up racial tention because it is a reminder to black people that he wasn`t and isnt being treated equaly because of his race, black people percieve and very possibly correctly that it was mared in racism and i think its safe to say that conservative sneddon probably wasnt the most open minded fellow in the world. Lets start treating like a human being for a second irreveant of fame or race, he is an innocent man and therefore did nothing wrong please remember we are dealing with a LIVING PERSON ... this inclusion would completely undermine the princible of innocent till proven guitly. Realist2 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, your suggesting that we remove the mugshot based on pure speculation on your part that race had something to do with his trial? Thats even worse than simply stating "I don't like it!". Additionally, your assuming that a mugshot implies guilt, which it doesn't. The article clearly states that Jackson was acquitted, the mugshot merely serves to illustrate this event in his life. Dronzo 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No!!! did you not read what i said many black people feel this this, black radio stations and magazines have talked on it, there have been polls with a clear racial divide on wiether he is guilty or innocent, a much larger percentage of black people believe he is innocent than the percentage of white people. Yes but the mugshot does imply guilt even if you say in the article he`s innocent. Furthermore why if it is such a contentious issue would we choose the option that will offend? Having the picture will offend people unnessarily while removing the picture wount offend people, people are not doing to get upset because there isn`t a mugshot of jackson, the mugshot will do more damage than good.Realist2 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop accusing everyone who opposes the mugshot of being a "blind fan". If you are having problems with the way I acted earlier today, perhaps you should look at your own accusations, and stop accusing people of being fans who can't see reality. Anyway, to move on from that: The trial did indeed cause a lot of resentment in the black community because of the unfair way Michael was treated. But the key point I think we should be noting here is: this picture portrays Michael as some sort of 'criminal' (as mugshots tend to do) and per your theory that it shows the latest 'transformation' of Michael, I think that is just ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous that there is a severe lack of pictures in the main part of the article, but then this picture has been 'thrown' into the scandals section. Why not put some actually relevant pictures in this article, from the various eras, rather than trying to bring down Michael by making this article solely about the stupid allegations. I think this mugshot is defamatory, but more important, considering trigger-happy nature of users in removing pictures in this article, the mugshot is absolutely UNNECESSARY. I mean, if we can go around removing album covers and iconic images, what's a mugshot? It is not iconic - it is simply defamatory. --Paaerduag 11:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument is purely subjective with no objectivity whatsoever. Realist2 claim that including the picture in this article could stir up racial tension is laughable. Also Paaerduag, if you read and familiarise yourself with wiki image policy you will realise that the reason album covers and "iconic images" are removed is because they are, unlike the mugshot picture, NOT FREE USE.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear picture of his face, and we are allowed to use it. That seems to be the only relevant infomation here.--Crestville 11:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Realist2, you missed my point about your racism thing. The jury was decided by the courts. The bail was decided by the courts. Someone has to be handcuffed when arrested - they might voluntarily hand themselves over but then change their mind. I mean, it's one thing to say "I'll go to the police station", another thing to go through those big doors and lock yourself away. Anyway, just because someone handcuffed him doesn't automatically mean they're racist. They might not like him, they might think he's guilty, there's...all kinds of reasons. But they're nothing to do with any court related incidents.

You're suggesting one cop handcuffing Michael Jackson makes the entire police department a possibly racist organisation. That's a stronger prejudice against a group of people than any account of racism against Jackson I ever heard. The media's nothing to do with it either. I'm sure racist people had different views against Jackson, but the person who took the photograph didn't make him look any different to any other mugshot. I imagine Michael Jackson himself would agree, not every policeman is racist just because of this. It's like saying people who are racist are more likely to be cops than anyone else. Which is just weird.

Wikipedia definition of iconic: "An icon (from Greek , eikon, "image") is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics; in computers an icon is a symbol on the monitor used to signify a command, file or record; by"

I think this image, like any, is a representation of Jackson. It stands for him, representing him at the peak of his fame since at least 1994 (some would argue before then). It signifies him.

And on the guilt thing...Wikipedia states specifically a mugshot can be used. What it MIGHT imply is to be considered, but we have not got a blanket ban on mugshots for the un-convicted.(The Elfoid 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Im fully aware of how the legal system works im studying for a degree in law, my point isnt that the whole process was racist or even that certain parts of it were racist, my point is that it was percieved to be racist by black and some white people, that doesn`t mean it definately was but that doesnt change what people feel about it, be it the police with the handcuffing (it was seen as the police saying look we got him to the world . it was seen as obviously unnessarly) or the courts with the unfair jury panel. My point is that some see that jackson was made an example of not because of his fame but his skin colour and that by having this mugshot on only enforces that. The courts ruled that Jackson did nothing wrong that he infact was the victim, we should reflect that. Realist2 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we're not officially associated with the trial, the local police force, or anything else, so any racist allegations are not really relevant. None of the newspapers that featured the mugshot have received allegations of racism as a result, that I know of. (The Elfoid 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

before the trial yes, but the mugshot hasn`t appeared in newspapers now that the trial is long over. Realist2 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• • sighs** I give up on you.(The Elfoid 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Elfoid you dont give up on me!!! We have always had a love / hate relationship on wikipedia , i make your experience here certainly more memerable!!! I dont nessarily disagree with the picture but i do want to prove a counter argument. Yours always Realist2 10:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will admit every time we get in an MJ argument, you're the only guy I actually enjoy disagreeing with. I just hope you never start editing the articles I tend to focus on. (The Elfoid 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Realist2 and Paaerduag : please remove the mugshot.

besides all the discussions told AGAINST the mugshot that I AGREE, there is another point. the most insisted point among what people who want to keep that mugshot discuss is that: they say they want it cause it shows Mr.Jackson's latest appearance. besides all the discussions that tells it is NOT even a good photo of his current appearance that I agree all, there is another litti pitti point:

take a look at the mugshot, Michael Jackson's eyebrows and his forthhead, his eyebrows were raised when the mugshot was been taken. see, the mugshot can't be the right thing to show his currect appearance. what you say that it is a good thing available for free (maybe you wanna stick in our minds that it is the best) it is just rediculose.when you wanna show somebody's currect appearance will you show the photo of person with raised eyebrows??? is it the best choice?? specially when you reason you wanna show a right photo that shows his currect appearance. I donno why you realy wanna keep this mugshot and for whatever reason you have in your mind. THIS MUGSHOT HAS NOTHING TO STAY. NOT NECESSARY, NO BENEFITS, besides it is used for showing currect appearance of an INNOCENT person (this one is realy super rediculose). we have a Michael Jackson page on wikipedia and among afew photos this one realy shows up the way I said. just have this example: you wanna talk about someone who is innocent and you right go ahead showing a mugshot of him ...???!!!! you wanted to take alook at him as an ordinary person then go right ahead ould you insist this way for mugshot of an ordinary person?

there are many good new photos that can show his currect appearance very well. and we all know that. then if you realy wanna show his currect appearance put on of them.

The Elfoid, dronzo, funky monkey, how you insist on keeping it is realy strange.

Again I say I agree with all the discussions told AGAINST the mugshot. the eyebrow thing was just a point left.

remove the mugshot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.13.217 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually READ what I say above then you will know the reason for keeping the picture. It is quite simple. IT IS A FREE USE PHOTO OF HOW JACKSON LOOKS NOW. It is the ONLY free use picture showing Jackson as he looks now. There is a NEED in this article for a picture of how Jackson looks now, and as this is the only FREE USE IMAGE we have; it has to stay. It really is that simple. Would people arguing against it's removal PLEASE read wikipedia's image policy, a simple understanding of said policy would stop the majority of these arguments.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The image needs to stay, the caption needs to be changed. That is all. Lord Metroid 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there have been enough discussions about this mugshot and THIS MUGSHOT HAS NOTHING TO STAY. NOT NECESSARY, NO BENEFITS. and it is not the only free available photo nor a reasonable one to show Mr.Jackson's currect appearance and also review all reasons to remove it discussed on this page that are completely right and fair. this mugshot has taken place on Mr.Jackson's WIKIPEDIA page for enough long time.

it is time to remove it. like now that it is removed of the face of even the most anti jackson media. you think is wikipedia worse than them?

NO?...then let's REMOVE the mugshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.14.11 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous user 78.38...this is not a reference to your barely coherent English, but your logic is quite preposterous and it's hard to work out why you even think it. Let us take your argument apart piece by piece. First you claim his eyebrows being risen hugely distort how he looks? Are you saying a person with their eyebrows risen is un-natural? The human body is constantly relaxing/contracting facial muscles. It's not a 100% relaxed state of being, no, but to get a photo as placid as you might want requires someone to be...dead

"what you say that it is a good thing available for free (maybe you wanna stick in our minds that it is the best)"

The image has to be free. It's all we've got except some photos of him with his glasses on which cover his appearance. No photos anyone has suggested as RECENT alternatives are available. It's not a mind game. You make it sound like we're conspiring against everyone because of our addiction to this image.

"THIS MUGSHOT HAS NOTHING TO STAY. NOT NECESSARY, NO BENEFITS, besides it is used for showing currect appearance of an INNOCENT person (this one is realy super rediculose)."

Well I've benefited from seeing it. I have a much clearer idea of what he looks like nowadays. I'd wondered if he had something wrong with his eyes since he covers them so often - this proved me wrong.

"just have this example: you wanna talk about someone who is innocent and you right go ahead showing a mugshot of him ...???!!!! you wanted to take alook at him as an ordinary person then go right ahead ould you insist this way for mugshot of an ordinary person?"

It is an ordinary thing to have a mugshot taken of you when you are arrested under suspicion of committing a crime. Is it not?

Then you move on...

"it is time to remove it. like now that it is removed of the face of even the most anti jackson media. you think is wikipedia worse than them?"

I don't think it's anti-Jackson. I think it's realistic. We don't portray Jackson as good, bad, great, heroic, monstrous...Wikipedia reports facts. It's a FACT that in recent years he looked like that. Just like it's a FACT that we can use that image according to Wikipedia's rules. It's a FACT he was arrested. I own Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous and Invincible. I read MJ news all the time since I want to get all the info I can on the new album. If he tours, I will travel several hundred miles to see him if I can I imagine. I am not anti-Jackson.

I'm just sick of these pages seeming so positive it goes beyond belief. (The Elfoid 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Elfoid you didn`t buy HIStory im shocked im beginning to think your a jackson hater (Just joking), the main argument seems to be that it is free use so shows be included.... therefore i suggest that the mugshot stays but as soon as we find a more updated free use image it can be replaced. I think this is the only compromise on such a contentious issue that is SOOOOOOOO split. This should make more people happy and might been the only thing we can reach a consensus on the issue. Realist2 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo itself is very important since it shows him without make-up on too, but yes, I agree, if a decent photo can be found then it's probably no longer 100% justifiable and does at least become open to debate. It could go in the trial's page though, I think it's still got a use in there. (The Elfoid 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

The Elfoid, First I didn't mean what you claimed I mean. read it again. you've ended up making up things out of what I have not said. what you answered me doesn't make sense. it is more what you've made up in your mind not what I mean, not what I reasoned. so let's take your argument and mine apart piece by piece:

First, the part you asked: First you claim his eyebrows being risen hugely distort how he looks? Are you saying a person with their eyebrows risen is un-natural?

what you made this up from is: when you wanna show somebody's currect appearance will you show the photo of person with raised eyebrows??? is it the best choice?? specially when you reason you wanna show a right photo that shows his currect appearance.

Did I use any word like unnatural? No. what I mean is completely clear:

when you wanna show somebody's currect appearance will you show the photo of person with raised eyebrows??? is it the best choice?? specially when you reason you wanna show a right photo that shows his current appearance.....it is used for showing current appearance of an INNOCENT person (this one is realy super rediculose). we have a Michael Jackson page on wikipedia and among afew photos this one realy shows up the way I said. just have this example: you wanna talk about someone who is innocent and you right go ahead showing a mugshot of him ...???!!!! you wanted to take alook at him as an ordinary person then go right ahead. would you insist this way for mugshot of an ordinary person?

you may have problme with photos that don't have risen eyebrow problme however this is rediculose to say: The human body is constantly relaxing/contracting facial muscles. It's not a 100% relaxed state of being, no, but to get a photo as placid as you might want requires someone to be...dead

and lets mention the part: The image has to be free. It's all we've got except some photos of him with his glasses on which cover his appearance. No photos anyone has suggested as RECENT alternatives are available.

for: "what you say that it is a good thing available for free (maybe you wanna stick in our minds that it is the best)"

Michael Jackson page can have a photo of Mr.Jackson in 2006 WORLD MUSIC AWARDS. it is newer (just one year before), it is free and doesn't have the risen eyebrow problme nor sunglasses problme.

then you move on: It's not a mind game. You make it sound like we're conspiring against everyone because of our addiction to this image.

I dunno about your addiction to this image or your sickness: I'm just sick of these pages seeming so positive it goes beyond belief

what you reasoned had nothing to do with what I said and is quite preposterous.

another part you wrote: Well I've benefited from seeing it. I have a much clearer idea of what he looks like nowadays. I'd wondered if he had something wrong with his eyes since he covers them so often - this proved me wrong.

for the part: "THIS MUGSHOT HAS NOTHING TO STAY. NOT NECESSARY, NO BENEFITS, besides it is used for showing current appearance of an INNOCENT person (this one is realy super rediculose)."

well, it never benefited me that way cause I never try to think like that about people. I think you'd better start changing the way you think of what you see. simply this won't help you to know people better.

and then you go: It is an ordinary thing to have a mugshot taken of you when you are arrested under suspicion of committing a crime. Is it not?

for the part: "just have this example: you wanna talk about someone who is innocent and you right go ahead showing a mugshot of him ...???!!!! you wanted to take alook at him as an ordinary person then go right ahead ould you insist this way for mugshot of an ordinary person?"

what you answered doesn't make any sense. we are not discussing if: It is an ordinary thing to have a mugshot taken of you when you are arrested under suspicion of committing a crime.

what you've thrown is quite preposterous.

then you go: I don't think it's anti-Jackson. I think it's realistic. We don't portray Jackson as good, bad, great, heroic, monstrous...Wikipedia reports facts. It's a FACT that in recent years he looked like that. Just like it's a FACT that we can use that image according to Wikipedia's rules. It's a FACT he was arrested.

for the part: "it is time to remove it. like now that it is removed of the face of even the most anti jackson media. you think is wikipedia worse than them?"

there is no problme with facts here. and it is not the matter of Wikipedia's rules. it is a living person we are dealing with sure whatever we can do here is because it is according to Wikipedia's rules. if it isn't we can't. so it is not reasonable when you can't have enough reasons about keeping this mugshot you go: we can use that image according to Wikipedia's rules.

this mugshot's time is over and yes this photo isn't anti Jackson by itself. but the way it works is different.the message it sends is different. I agree with some points Realist2 have mentioned about it.

and I find nothing you discussed reasonable. the mugshot isn't necessary. It must be removed. a photo of Mr.Jackson in 2006 WORLD MUSIC AWARDS is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets just keep it until we have a new free use image to replace it(I dont no what your were on about with the world music awards picture because the article on the world music awards doesn`t have any pictures of Jackson on), im tired of this pathetic confersation it seems like im the only 1 trying to provide a coherent counter argument and the only 1 willing to reach a semi agreement... now would some1 archive this mess of a page. Realist2 12:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Jackson's wikipedia article on the world music awards had a picture of Mr.Jackson before but it isn't in the article now. I dunno why it was removed. the picture was that famous photo of Mr.Jackson performing "We are the world" with young chorus.

you can find this photo and other photos of Mr.Jackson from 2006 world music awards any where on web it is free and available those photos are newer (just one year before), and they are free and without the risen eyebrow problme or sunglasses problme. something like this can be a good replacement for the mugshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why has Michael's Picture been removed? I put it back again.. Sai 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The mugshot should never have been the main photo. There are many people on wikipedia who have either had mugshots taken of them and/or currently look hideous and are not represented by such photos (OJ Simpson, Elizabeth Taylor, etc). If for some reason, the most recent picture of Hitler were him taking a morning dump, would it make sense to make that his main photo simply because it's the most recent photo? Dumb. Secondly, why was the "San Whatever Sheriff's Office" info and insignia not cropped out? Clearly the mugshot was posted for mean-spirited purposes. Also, every other language of Wikipedia I checked does not use the mugshot. In America the significance of tabloid journalism is of greater value than a person's life work. Let's open Abe Lincoln's coffin, take a picture and post it here. Bagnato 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a MJ Fan.. His main picture was removed.. the one in the White House and i put back that one.. I hate the mugshot and I want to get rid of it but people here won't agree.. :( Sai2020 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

I think we should put the lyrics of the song in all the song pages like You Are Not Alone, Billie Jean etc. I'll get started if I hear positive response.

Sai2020 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No the page is rediculosely long as it is, we really need to reach a consensus on deleting info not adding. -- Realist2 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant adding lyrics to the Song Pages. not to the MJ page. like I've done here You Are Not Alone#Lyrics and Billie Jean#Lyrics. I think it'll be a great idea.

Sai2020 01:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacement for the Mugshot

How is it? Sai2020 10:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Excellent its free use as well, we now no longer need the mugshot because we agreed that when a new free use image was found it cound be replaced? Can I ask did you free use it yourself? If you no how to go about it could you do the same for a shot from ebony magazine?-- Realist2 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the picture information- it was June 13th, 2005 on his acquittalMarnifrances (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

I just had the patience to browse through about 1250 images licensed under Creative Commons in Flickr. I'm the happiest person on Earth. Long Live The King Of Pop

Sai2020 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a small, black and white photo where Jackson's face is obscured by dark tinted glasses and an umbrella is remotely suitable compared to the clear, easy to understand image we had before. His hand covers some of his hair too, since I'm picky. It's pretty grainy, on top of all that.

Also he'd just been acquitted - Jackson had been suffering horribly from weight loss and malnutrition at the time. He looked less like he does now than he had in years.

• Poor quality
• Monochrome
• Un-natural physical appearance for Jackson
• Major features more obscured than in previous photo

He's not dressed in a typical manor either, I might add.

(The Elfoid (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I don't understand how this image is more un-natural looking than the mugshot.Also the size or the quality of the image doesn't matter. No one is going to zoom in on his face and see how he looks. And if you can take the time to go to This site and scroll down and see a couple of his latest images, you can see that his face right now more closely resembles this image than the mugshot. PS: although I keep saying 'you' this argument is not intended at any specific person.

Sai2020 08:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone Photoshop the image and make it colourful? I don't have the software or else I'll do it myself.. Please
Thanks
Sai2020 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

actually, he looks more like himself in that picture in recent weeks than he does in the mugshot. If you compare this shot with the recent Jesse Jackson Birthday Party pictures, the acquittal pic looks far more like him than the mugshot does. It's a replacement for a terrible photo, so deal with it.Marnifrances (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look un-natural, but his physique was not actually a natural one at the time. So even though it isn't so easy to tell here, it 's still worth considering.

My problem is more with the low quality of the image though. Size and quality do count - if you can't get a decent view of someone from a photograph, it's no good to anyone. I honestly think that this gives no representation with regards to his appearance at all - all you can tell is he has long hair and white skin. His nose and chin are not well defined, his eyes as I said, obscured.

What you're saying is, this is a free photo of Michael Jackson and thus is more useful than any other. The other photo he didn't look great, but that's because no one famous does when you take the make-up off. (The Elfoid (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

hmm, he has makeup on in the mugshot! I'm not sure why people think he has no makeup on in it when he clearly does. Why revert back to it when he looks more like himself here? The mugshot isn't great quality anyway! Also, his physique and look is virtually identical to how he looks now- just have a look at the Jesse Jackson b'day pics- he is just as thin, has sunglasses on and is in a suit, which is how we've seen him on every public outing since the trial. The mugshot just is not a representation of when he looks like in my opinion. Marnifrances (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a reference which says Michael Jackson lost weight during the trial? and there is no resolution problem here. The mugshot was of 258*331 pixels while the new one is 200*250 pixels. Michael is almost always (except in concerts) seen wearing tinted glasses and this is no exception. even in the main photo he's got glasses.

Sai2020 15:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the replacement image is great, and I see NO legitimate reason why we should revert back to the mugshot. The fan protesting image is also very helpful in the article, and I think it's a great addition. Good work. --Paaerduag (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jackson barely ate during the trial.

http://racerelations.about.com/od/celebritiesandrace/a/afterthetrial.htm

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-In-Hospital-Since-The-Trial-Ended-5451.shtml

http://www.courttv.com/trials/jackson/061305_verdict_ctv.html

We can debate the legitimacy of these sources, but yeah...there's the first examples I found. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

The Elfoid im afraid you have to back down now, we agreed that when a new free image was found it would be ok, i compromised and you and you supportes muttedly agreed, a consensus was reached. This you now have to accept as im sure your not 1 to go back on your word. It seems to be what the vast magority want, i think you have to let this 1 go. Realist2 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna complain about it to anyone, or edit it myself, but I am gonna protest all the same. Since it was a GOOD free image we wanted, specifically. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Ok. so he did lose weight. but still as I said and as others have said, Jackson right now looks more like this photo than the mugshot. Now all the arguments against (sorry) for the mugshot have been rebutted. I think a consensus has been reached and the mugshot will not appear any more in the page.

Long Live The King Of Pop

Sai2020 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Slash Thing again- an idea

I just had an idea about the slash paragraph. I still think it is unnecessary and silly to keep it in but I had an idea that may satisfy everyone. How about we do a paragraph titled "connection with rock guitarists"? In the slash paragraph, it's already mentioned that MJ had other guitarists as guests on his records like "Beat It" and "Dirty Diana"- how about we keep all that in, change the title of the paragraph and add jennifer Batten and her 3 tours and ten years of work with MJ? I think this way, the paragraph would make more sense and wouldn't just look like another Slash resume on another page... what do you think? Marnifrances (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not Slash's resume, it's the history of Slash's connection with MJ. It's as much about MJ as him - the only Slash-only stuff on there is saying why he's famous. A brief comment like that is just fine.

The reason I think it should be on there is simply because it's so unexpected. It's not unusual for one off collaborations between odd artists (like thrash metal band Anthrax duetting with a rap group for instance), but a long term link between artists from totally different worlds is so rare. It might even be unique to Slash/MJ, infact.

In answer to your earlier comments:

"Batten isn't part of his backing band- she's an independent guitarist that MK picked for her unique style. She has her own albums and so forth and has a completely different style as well... there';s a longer connection."

She was selected for his TOURING BACKING BAND. She was contracted for entire tours, not on a gig by gig basis. She was in his backing band and put her entire career on hold for the duration of the tour. Plus she worked with Jackson 1992-1997. Slash was involved with Jackson first sometime between 1990-1991, and the last time he was involved was 2001. That's 1-2 years before Batten, and 4 years afterwards. Plus she's less well known - Slash is an icon of rock 'n' roll and was a big part of why JD is so strongly associated with the rocker persona. Him working with MJ was really, really odd...she's done all kinds of stuff.

"Quincy Jones is a "Jazz musician". Do you see what I'm saying? Why ad something that's unnecessary and lengthens an article? While a connection may be significant, plenty of artists have regular collaborations with unusual artists... I just don't understand the point here. Slash already has a page. Why include his whole resume here?"

As stated before, it's not a resume. It's a brief history of Slash and MJ's collaborative works, and how unusual they are. Since he was involved with MJ's career, rather than the other way around, it really belongs on the MJ page and not his own. I really think influences needs to be it's own article, and then expanded a bit (a lot's been cut out due to the whole article's length, it could be put back)

(The Elfoid (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

actually, Jennifer Batten worked for all three of Mj's tours- Bad- 1987-1989, Dangerous 1992 and HIStory 1996-1997. That's 10 years. That's exactly what I am saying- she was hired by MJ for whole tours. It doesn't matter how well kown they are, I just don't see why slash should be singled out when he's had other rock guitarists working with him and I really do think "Connection with Rock' or "Connection With Rock Guitarists" would make much more sense. Marnifrances (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, though a sub-paragraph for Slash would still make sense. Your point's good though - few pop musicians work with so many rock ones. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I know Slash is a good friend and all and I am not trying to get him off or anything, but yeah, Michael has worked with other rock guitarists for many years and he has kind of been a pioneer by collaborating in this way. Also, Carlos Santana played on Invincible. Marnifrances (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How to reduce the size of the article, ideas here and a consensus can be made later.

as all of us know, this article ought to be reduced in size. I got an idea. how about we write briefly about Jackson's "Influence" and say Main Article Michael Jackson's influence? and write the whole thing in Michael Jackson's Influence.

Sai2020 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, loger article is best, also somone make that bad era photo the main photo please! ~ Gaogier

Wikipedia says that article over 100 kb ought o be reduced in length. and this is 114kb long

Sai2020 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Put Bad and the Bad world tour back together, the others aren`t seperated so why here?
• Put History and Blood back together.
• Remove Legacy of Thriller, the Thriller section itself is detailed enough.
• Remove connection to slash. Realist2 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all tours should have a divider like Bad personally. But it'd need a bit of re-writing.

I agree on the article split though - it'd be a huge help and plenty of other artists do it. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Ok. let me get a poll kind of thing here. I want to make the Influence a separate article and expand it a bit. and write a bit briefly over here. what do you say? Sai2020 12:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a democracy, you don't have to do that! (The Elfoid (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

I knew you would say this. All I wanted was a consensus kind of thing like we got for the mugshot above. And that's why I said a 'poll kind of thing' not a poll. All I want is arguments for and against and a consensus so that I can do something. and not get blocked or something.

Sai2020 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We didn't get a consensus for the mugshot, we came to an agreement. Realist2 and I have a longstanding relationship of fighting each other, and believe me, a consensus probably wouldn't stop either of us. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Lol to right, still constuctive disagreement is important, an agreement has been reached and im bored of this 1, i think the important thing is the lengh of this article. Realist2 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmm.. it really doesn't matter if you two were long time enemies.. Now, I want to do something and I want a consensus. Can I cut the influence section and create a seperate page for it or not? Sai2020 13:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh lighten up Sai2020 were are only joking around, its takes away the bitter edgy of glomy days on the michael jackson article, i dont particulary see the point of it no because i dont think people will access it, i think its best to keep it here but just remove the two sections i was talking about, i dont think people will go looking for a Michael Jackson influence article over the main Michael Jackson article. Realist2 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But we'll have a header saying Main Article: Michael Jackson's Influence. Then it's okay right?

Sai2020 12:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as we kept the header, linking to a main article, nothing wrong with a move. Put it this way: If they were separate, would you merge two such huge articles? (The Elfoid (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC))