Jump to content

Talk:Invincible (Michael Jackson album)/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Article's Opening

[edit]

Declaring Invincible - Jackson's 'first first full album of only all-new material since 1995 (his previous album, HIStory, was sold with some of his greatest hits included as an extra CD).' - was inaccurate [*Both* History's discs feature past recordings].

Racism Allegations

[edit]

In the article, it claims that "Jackson's allegations were not unfounded since Motolla had referred to Jackson's fellow artist Irv Gotti as "that fat nigger"" Is this actually a confirmed fact, or is it just something Michael has claimed? Any sources to back the statement up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.172.155 (talk • contribs)

Well, now that the wording is changed, I think it's more obvious to think that it's merely a claim. But on the paragraph...isn't Mariah Carey only a quarter Black, not half? Highconclave 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were claims by Michael Jackson. I am not sure why this is not clear to people. I will find references- there are several on the web, including transcripts of what he said at fan meetings and press conferences. Marnifrances 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Overestimated Album Sales

[edit]

Any official record sales sites will state that Invincible has sold 5-6 million. A fansite then estimated it to be 8 million. Somehow through fansite sepculation this has become 12 million, can people please stick to the real figures here rather than the fansite speculations which are prone to massive exagerrations. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incubotic (talk • contribs)

Sony once 'confirmed' sales of over 10 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.61.100 (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony are not an impartial source. The current certifications for all the leading markets in the world only come to about 4 million copies, so where are the other 6 million? Smells a lot like the pure BS when he claimed Thriller sold 104 million. This needs to be adequately sourced by an official body that is in no way related to Jackson, or it needs to be removed. 79.74.116.72 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Invincible has sold more than 10 million copies. If that's what Sony says than we have to respect their claims. Sutsare (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Your Body Trivia

[edit]

Is this piece of trivia false? Justin Timberlake wrote this song with Hugo / Williams. As far as I know, "Rock Your Body" was never intended for "Invincible". Where is the citation on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marnifrances (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The NME said it.--88.105.52.62 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Can Wait

[edit]

Dear lord, it takes over 5 people to write a song these days?--88.105.52.62 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Heaps of people write songs together. that's just silly. People often use a team of composers and writers. 4 people wrote "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur%27s_Theme_%28Best_That_You_Can_Do%29

Also check Janet Jackson's compositions and various other artists. lots of people use 4 or more people to write. Marnifrances 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does it really take 7 people to write a good song? Jackson wrote Beat it alone.--148.197.5.20 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is that an issue though? 7 people are credited on that song, so what? lol Marnifrances (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all the song writing credits be listed on this page somewhere? I mean, don't those co-writers deserve the acknowedgement for their contributions to the album under discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.233.150 (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't understand why there are no songwriting credits on this page either. I came here to see who wrote a particular song and instead I find no such information. --Breshkovsky (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview Section taken out

[edit]

I took the "overview section" out. Basically it is a direct copy of the Invincible Era- taken from www.allmichaeljackson.com Whoever made this contribution, please do not directly copy and paste massive articles into pages like this. Thanks Marnifrances (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Watts

[edit]

Can anybody explain why Michael sounds so much different in this song? I had theorized that someone else might be singing this song as many artist have featured a song on one of their albums which they contribute no vocals to like Elton John's "Don't Go Breaking My Heart". Sarujo (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because hes the king, isnt that obvious? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They just lowered the tempo of his voice, genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's just his normal voice. He's used his normal voice a few times. I remember him using it when Beyonce presented him with an award at some award show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.235.8 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies

[edit]

Was "Butterflies" ever released as a single from Invincible? Just because it charted, dosen't mean its a single.

Yes, it was. — Realist2 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was never officially released as a single. 203.213.74.82 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was released as a Promo single. The song that charted but wasn't released as a single was Heaven Can Wait. Sutsare (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if any ral fans of michael jackson who has his all albums with video. please tell me where could i get his videos of invincible album? i hope any one can mail me at pawan_kalyan2606120@yahoo.com

mj a legend will never die. he always alive in our hearts. we miss you so much mj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.222.56 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

[edit]

Can someone make a list of singles from the album like other articles have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it today. — Realist2 12:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU NEVER DID IT BUDDY. Just kidding. Take your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ;-) — Realist2 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can You add the release dates to the singles on the "singles list" please?

I don't know the dates sorry, only the order. If someone can provide them, even if it's just the month, that would help me. It must be the release date of the first country the song was released in, we avoid US bias as much as possible. — Realist2 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found the release dates of the singles from the "First" country they were relesed in:"You Rock My World"(leaked july 30 01,) official release: sept. 6, 01, u.s released first) relesed "Cry" (official release: oct. 15, 01, europe relaesed it first) "Butterfles" (officially released: Dec 3, 01 Europe released it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.88.22 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody PLEASE stop adding "planned singles" to this article? There is no evidence from anybody for any other singles. Sony didn't even do a good job of releasing the second single. And no label will release even a 4th single unless the 3rd one sells. Since the first two didn't do very well, any more singles were never going to happen. Not only will a label not plan that far ahead, but they will also look around to see what else is being released at the same time. Meticulously planning 9 singles (with videos) from one album is simply unheard of. It's just silly to list your 9 favorite songs from an album and pretend they were all going to be released as singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.48 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies Release Date

[edit]

I hope no one minds, but i changed the release date of Butterflies to 2001, more specific, 11/8/01 on the single's page. Thats the date that it made its debut on the U.S. Hot 100 at #60. It had already spent 2 weeks at the R&B/HipHop charts before. Source located at: http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12063973 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.245.107 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — Realist2 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable featuring The Notorious B.I.G.

[edit]

I tried adding The Notorious B.I.G. to the note spot of Unbreakable in the way that Rod Serling is on Threatened, but it won't show up. Can someone else do it so it actually works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.236.54 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slash?

[edit]

Did Slash do the guitar solo on Privacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.247.137 (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't credited in the album booklet, so no. This is something of a myth, spread by fans of Jackson and Slash. — R2 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened the song and Michael at 2:54 says: Slash! And begins the solo, so... Paranoidhuman (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I seriously think that we need to give credit to the featured guests on this album such as The Notorious B.I.G. and maybe even R. Kelly on Cry? I'm pretty sure R. Kelly sang like half of a bar, but he was on the song nonetheless. And what about the generic rappers from Heartbreaker & Invincible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.213.63 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I found the name of one of the unknown rappers featured twice on the album. He was a New Jersey rapper named Fats. I believe he was featured on Heartbreaker and Invincible.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1435389/20001221/jackson_michael.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.226.51 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last studio album?

[edit]

Isn't that a little premature? Last in his lifetime, certainly, but reports suggest that Jackson died with several albums worth of new studio material lying about. I think we can safely assume that it's going to see the light of day.

That would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. — Please comment R2 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Hip-Hop was added? Hmm.. Not sure about that one.. - Jeffrey Mall (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He collaborated with several hip hop artists on it, that said, it needs sourcing. — Please comment R2 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Touché, never actually heard any songs from the album so I thought I'd verify that before making any changes ;). - Jeffrey Mall (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I had started to work on this article just before he died, I'll get back into it eventually, when everything calms down. — Please comment R2 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Please add Hard Rock as a genre. Privacy is a Hard Rock song. :Note

2000 Watts

[edit]

Yes, I know that people talked about it before but come on, use common sense. His "normal" voice? It sounds absolutely nothing like him --Mpurplegirl (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Bhatti

[edit]

Seriously, "Omer Bhatti" forwards here and then it says nothing about all the news about him and that people thought he was MJ's son and whatnot? Deletionists, damn you! --82.171.70.54 (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: locked.

[edit]

Some mindless vandals keep making unwarranted changes to the lead text. Should the article be protected until they get bored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.105 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've now had the same revert for about 10 consecutive days, each time with no edit summary. Somebody is trying to change the first sentence so that it doesn't make sense. Suggest protecting the article until this person forgets all about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.48 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to get silly now. It's the 10th' album, and received praise after his death. Wikipedia is no place to get sentimental and erase such words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.135.215 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't it been locked yet?!?

[edit]

The article is being damaged by instability caused by children. Somebody please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.135.215 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article into a state that combines both of your edits (see WP:WRONG), and given both of you a short block for edit warring. Please come back in a few hours when your block expires, and try to resolve this with one another on this talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the other participant in this content dispute appears to be editing from multiple IPs. I've now semi-protected the page. since this looks like the best way to put a stop to this. To both participants: please discuss content disputes here, rather than engaging in to-and-from reverts -- please see WP:3RR for more guidance about this. Might I suggest that you get yourselves accounts, so other users can identify you by name, not by IP address? -- The Anome (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had feared that this might start back up. It seems like the person from Miami is using 2 or 3 IP addresses in an attempt to agree with himself. See the Sony section below - they all start with either 65 or 169. Can we lock again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BILLBOARD READERS

[edit]

{{editsemiprotect}}even though it is nice a magazines readers voted in favor of the album, it should not be on the same page as a Grammy nomination which does have a lot of musical integrity, could someone with edit-ability look into this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.62.90 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled this request. Please establish consensus support for a specific edit and explain the specifics of the edit being requested. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't it kind of weird to have an album voted the best of the decade by readers when it wasn't even fully released according to this "Invincible album" page itself, it says that the record company cancelled a song called "Unbreakable" and on that page and this one it mentions other song cancelations how can this be consistent with putting "best of the decade by readers" in an encyclopedia page??--169.139.19.117 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The single release of that song was cancelled, mainly due to the TV coverage of the allegations. This doesn't matter. There is no question that this album WAS released, and that it received the title claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.159 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately, this is not what the album page of "Invincible" says and therefore not logical and it is non-encyclopedic.--72.153.84.108 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make yourself a little clearer? What's illogical? And what does being "encyclopedic" have to do with it? What are you trying to say? Forgetting singles, this album was released and did get voted album of the decade. In fact, it's Billboard themselves who are the only ones at fault, since the decade isn't over yet, but that's another story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.159 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i guess it should not be encyclopedic either .--72.144.62.242 (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


{{editsemiprotect}} Would it be possible to change the sentence to indicate it is not an award by placing...."Though not an award ( like the Grammy's),Billboard readers voted Invincible the #1 album of the decade."--169.139.19.117 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is entirely necessary, it already clearly states that this was a magazine poll so I don't think there's any need to distinguish this. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.billboard.com/charts-decade-end/billboard-200-albums?year=2009#/charts-decade-end/billboard-200-albums?year=2009 ....This is the correct link to the album of the decade which was "No Strings" by n'sync, there should be a correction.--72.144.62.67 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change, in agreement with IP 169.139.19.117 I agree it should be clearer, and this is a concensus opinion.--72.144.192.120 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

epic records

[edit]

{{editsemiprotect}} in actuality INVINCIBLE is the 6th album from epic/sony records, not otherwise can this be looked at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.1.170 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this by any chance? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio so indicates the first five epic/sony albums and then Invincible would be the sixth as indicated by Michael Jackson release of it in 2001. --65.10.1.170 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find an independent source, like a news article? That one is OK, I guess, but a separate one would be better.  fetchcomms☛ 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Internal consistency demands it, I count: Invincible · Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix · HIStory · Dangerous · Bad · Thriller by scrolling back through the chronology. Josh Parris 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is O.K. as indicated by "Fetchcomms", then i am happy to have assisted, should i find additional sources to add to that one in the future i will immediately bring it up. thank you--65.10.1.170 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 solo albums on Motown, +6 on Epic = 10. No reference required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.159 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sony sales

[edit]

sony records has not confirmed that the sales for this album is 13 million, where is the reference, this is an encyclopedia and therefore needs one.--68.215.6.45 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sony records

[edit]

this is the sixth Sony Records release which can be verified by Wikipedia itself simply by going backward to "Off The Wall" his first album with the company. --68.215.6.45 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter which label it was on. Record stores don't have a Sony section and an EMI section. They categorise albums by artist, and sometimes also be genre. Nothing else. Furthermore, critics and the public don't care, either. It should be numbered in one big sequence, together with the Motown albums. After all, the reader may not know if Jackson was on six different labels beforehand, so saying Off The Wall was "first" is utterly meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.153 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

sony

[edit]

the number of albums is not correct , as per wikipedia itself, at Sony records he has six studio albums.--65.10.1.201 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and ten altogether. Are you even reading what everybody has said above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree halfway with user "65.10.1.201" except I think the intro should have something else to it, is this not concensus.--169.139.19.117 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shouldnt an intro be more respectful to a brother than this , yo we can do betta?--169.139.19.114 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ All three above users are the same person, from Miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a vandal who keeps erasing the intro, "81.141.22.22" does not even sign his/her messages , I hope this is looked into so that knowledge is not erased.--65.11.249.232 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i believe that there is a "concensus" among several people in this section to slightly change the intro to reflect the talent of Michael Jackson in the context of an encyclopedia, I hope I dont have to contact an administrator .--169.139.19.117 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jackson albums

[edit]

{{editsemiprotect}} as per wikipedia itself Invincible by michael jackson is the sixth album with Sony records, would it be possible ot look at this. thank you.--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. You're forgetting Got to Be There, Forever, Michael etc. Michael Jackson released 10 solo albums. See above. This case is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No agreement  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

according to the Sony Record website michael jackson has released 6 albums and 1 remix album, why is this not corrected?--169.139.19.114 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can count, are 10. TbhotchTalk2 Me 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio so indicates as a Sony records source, the number of albums which jackson has had, which is clearly shown.--169.139.19.117 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Five of Jackson's solo albums - "Off the Wall," "Thriller," "Bad," "Dangerous" and "HIStory," all with Epic Records - are among the top-sellers of all time"

The page say that "5 Jackson's solo albums are best selling", BUT no say Michael Jackson only had 5 albums. TbhotchTalk2 Me 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isnt Off The Wall 1979 at 20 million his debut worldwide album?--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It was Got to Be There his solo debut. TbhotchTalk2 Me 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so determined to erase history? The Motown years were very significant in MJ's development. We cannot just ignore the first half of his career and pretend it didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i believe the other post meant that the reference http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio is an indication of his solo career.--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if for any reason http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio is not reference enough I'm certain more can be found from reliable sources that are used in encyclopedias in regards to his studio albums.--169.139.19.117 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. another possibility is just to wait for the semiprotection to run out, so that 'consensus can be true, and better'--169.139.19.117 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yo man the reference for solo albums for jackson are in his sony site, http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio whats tha big deal .--68.223.243.32 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/music/got-be-there

WOW them pages are not from the same website!! OMG.

And now a new IP account. Excuse me, How many computers are on those schools? TbhotchTalk2 Me 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the above references aren't enough then http://www.mjworld.net/ might make a difference.--68.223.157.94 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE IT'S ENOUGH OF YOU MOTHERFUCKING SOCKPUPPET. Fan clubs, blogs or any other invalid pages NO. TbhotchTalk2 Me 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this obsession with wanting to change history? Michael Jackson.com / Allmusic / or any other pages knows this is the tenth and last studio album by him. Everybody knows his first solo album was Got to Be There and his fifth studio album was Off the Wall, yes he was black on his first 4 albums. Also on HIStory still removing always the same; his 1993 child abuse case. What's the problem with that? Only if I delete it from the lead paragraph, it didn't happen? Of course NO. TbhotchTalk2 Me 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if for any reason an administrator needs to be contacted, it will be done . In the meantime hopefully the above references will be put to good use to fix the article.--68.223.156.78 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should you need further assistance to fix the intro please contact me--68.223.247.101 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's impossible contact you because you change your IP each day, so better let me see who have more sources

Of course this does not make any difference to the stupid people of Atlanta and Miami, but I don't care. TbhotchTalk2 Me 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm certain all the references can be put together to make the correct intro --65.10.14.95 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio in viewing all the possible references i believe this is the most complete one.--65.10.26.187 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


of course, that does not mean that all references can't work together to a goal.--68.215.6.8 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


once the semiprotect expires this will be fixed --68.223.153.89 (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i find it interesting that sony's numbers , album sales, are not taken into account --68.223.247.41 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


michael jackson albums during the 80's , 90's and beyond were musically important , and that is what counts.--72.144.62.86 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why do not count 1960s and 1970s albums? TbhotchTalk C. 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Neither he nor the Jackson 5 were around in the 60's, as for the 70's it was 99% Jackson 5 ... his solo career did not start in earnest until Off the Wall.--72.144.62.86 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Jackson leave The Jackson 5 on the 70s and started his solo career on 1971 with Motown records, Off the wall was his first album with Epic Records. TbhotchTalk C. 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wong. Wong. He no leave Jackson 5 in 70's he there--72.144.62.86 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

off the wall definitely put him on the map--65.11.155.231 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

soon we can edit --68.223.154.16 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we have go for edits ..--68.223.154.225 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


freedom to edit ....oz

billboard top 200 albums

[edit]

{{editsemiprotect}}Invincible by michael jackson did not re-enter the charts in 2004 or 2009, it may have sold more but that does not mean it entered Billboard top 200 album "charts".--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

almost all Jackson albums re-enter to the chart after Jackson's death TbhotchTalk2 Me 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is the reference as required by an encyclopedia as to Invincible's entrance in the Billboard top 200 albums in 2004 and 2009?--169.139.19.114 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you "click" that link, if you don't here is: Billboard. As you can see, the album say:
  • Peak - Chart - Last Date on the chart
    1. 1 - Billboard Hot 200 - november 17, 2001
    2. 154 - Billboard Hot 200 - december 4, 2004
    3. 9 - Catalog Albums - july 18, 2009

It is recommended to view the sources before you speak.

 Not done TbhotchTalk2 Me 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_(Michael_Jackson_album) cites at the bottom of the page as "catalogue album" not top 200 album as the correct reference, 2004 should therefore be left in the intro as correct but 2009 removed as per this source.--169.139.19.117 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only billboard chart I see are:
  • Billboard Catalogue Albums Chart
  • Billboard Digital Albums Chart

there's no more billboard charts on 2009. TbhotchTalk2 Me 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i believe "169.139.19.117" is correct b/c Billboard magazine changed its policies in regard to the top albums and cataloge album charts last year...--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the following IPs, plus others, have all been repeatedly used to make the same word-for-word edits. It's no coincidence that they are all from Miami.

74.225.255.160
74.225.120.155
169.139.19.114
72.153.84.108
72.144.62.242
169.139.19.117
65.10.1.201
65.10.25.216
65.10.29.57
68.223.156.200
68.223.244.47
72.153.78.25
65.11.249.88
65.10.14.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i believe last year BILLBOARD Magazine changed its policy for catalog albums since it was in fact michael jacksons Number Ones that was at the pole position in that list, but it was selling more than the top 200 album (which is contemporary) therefore last year the magazine decided in December to count all albums on the same list.However for the sales period which Invincible rose in sale it did not reenter the top 200 album chart because the policy change had not been implemented, that is why the intro to this article should be 2004 not 2009.--169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • and again billboard 200 doesn't appear on 2009.

you say therefore last year the magazine decided in December to count all albums on the same list. Invincible charted at last on July NOT on December. TbhotchTalk2 Me 19:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for any future references regarding Invincible "not charting on Billboard magazines chart in 2009" , Billboard magazines website/archive will suffice.--169.139.19.117 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.billboard.com/ this is the link to Billboard magazine should you need it--65.10.26.187 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


as of january of this year all albums are on one chart.--68.215.6.8 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


im certain once the semiprotect expires this can be fixed --68.223.153.89 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INVINCIBLE has in fact been a consistent seller--68.223.247.41 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


actually now it does qualify as a Billboard top 200 album--72.144.62.86 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


perhaps a compromise could be done...--65.11.155.231 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

t minus one month --68.223.154.16 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


soon we can edit --68.223.154.225 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


we shall edit again as soon as unprotected....os101

Incorrect number of countries

[edit]

The article states the album was number one in 12 countries, but then only lists 11... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.22 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invincible_(Michael_Jackson_album)/Archive&oldid=1136269175"