Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

A note RE: reverts

I noticed one user was against my reverts claiming that I and others were removing comments that I and others dislike/don't agree with to dictate what should and should not be discussed. This is not the case. I remove comments that are either unsourced, vandalism (calling Jackson a pedophile), adding POV nonsence (ie: At least Hitler and Charles Manson didn't record "Billie Jean".), and anything that doesn't really apply to the article or topic in discussion. This IS allowed. Not only that, the person who made these reverts decided to remove valid arguments by other people - which in turn is no better than what they claimed that I and others have done. :: ehmjay 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So it was you all along was it, funny I thought it was that anonymous user who was so anxious to prove Bing Crosby did not sell 500 million albums. Paul Martin was a terrible leader and Steven Harper rules forever!

I didn't touch any of your comments regarding Bing Crosby. The only comments I removed of yours were ones that were offensive, libelous, slanderous, POV, or nonsence. You can look at the history if you want to. :: ehmjay 01:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

: Then why didn't you remove his last comment you're replying too? "Steven Harper Rules Forever" is POV. I guess you don't take offense to it, so just over look it. 74.65.39.59 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

74.65.39.59 That last comment is personal harrassment and disruptive of wikipedia's proper function. If you do it again, you will be blocked. I suggest you concentrate on some research to source some worthwhile material for the article. Tyrenius 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So asking someone why they remove only selective comments is "harrasment" is it? Despite the fact you are threating to have me blocked because I dare raise a point, could you please then tell me how to make these comments in future without someone threating to block me because I was concerned that someone may only be taking POV comments off that they only dissagree with and leaving on the POV commments they only agree with. I'm hope you would agree if such conduct is taking place this is also "disruptive of wikipedia's proper function". 74.65.39.59 14:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The tone of your remarks is confrontational and provocative, and violates assume good faith, which is a cornerstone of wiki conduct. The best thing is to put your concerns to him in the way you have to me, i.e. in a more reasoned tone. Better still - fix it! Remove the POV comments that still remain. However, removal of comments from the talk page should be done with caution, and only if they are quite clearly counter-productive. There has to be a certain latitude. Unfortunately this talk page is all about people's personal opinions. It's all hot air, and no decent productive work. If any of the involved editors continue from now on to assert statements, facts and figures or whatever, without backing them up with verifiable sources, then I will consider that to be disruptive and will consider blocking.

Don't call Ehmjay "the Bing Crosby fan". It's provocation.

The thing is - pull together. Put wiki and a good article before your own egos. Be friends, and if you can't be friends, then at least be good co-workers.

Tyrenius 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not the Bing Crosby fan. I'm the Michael Jackson fan. :: ehmjay 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the joke. He was making fun of you.--Crestville 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New Image on Main Page

I noticed the image change on the main page - and im sure this has been discussed before - but personally I think that the image should be left as the most recent photo of Jackson. I understand the new image is free (and Im not sure what the wikipolicy is regarding this) but I think it makes sence to show Jackson as he currently looks. If not then at least the Japan photo should be at the end of the article at the section where it mentions his appearence. Also if the 1984 pic is left I feel the description at least needs to be better flushed out (Jackson in 1984 seems lackluster - perhaps include where the shot was taken?). Also - and this is just a matter of taste - is there a version without the crop of Jackson and the shadow? Like I said - that part is totally bias but I just think a full photo would look better. Any thoughts? :: ehmjay 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of information. PD should always be used in preference to Fair Use wherever possible. This is a strong requirement. Tyrenius 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case - I revoke my commment re: changing the images. However I do think the other image should be included at the bottom, and the description should be a little better. :: ehmjay 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Fair use and especially the talk page there. Tyrenius 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Quincy Jones

The article needs to mention Jones more prominently. The success of "Thriller" (47 million copies sold as of 2006)‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  owed as much to Jones's producing as it did to Jackson's vocal and songwriting skills. Once he got rid of Jones, his career not surprisingly declined a lot.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

While I agree that Jones should be mentioned as he did an excellent job of producing, you cannot argue that the loss of Jones is the reason jackson's career has declined. Dangerous is considered to be an exteremly fine album [1][2] - and Jones did not produce it.[3] :: ehmjay 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Dangerous" got better reviews that the "Bad" album overall, ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  but it still contained some mediocre tracks.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  People always talk about how one could tell Presley was going to be a big star from the moment he recorded "That's All Right Mama",‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  while Bing's "I've Got the Girl" failed to get his career moving.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  But the fact is that Presley had an experienced producer in Sam Phillips, and recording equipment was vastly improved. Bing had no such figure when he started, so he was at an immense disadvantage to both Presley and Jackson.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

first of all 47 millions is wrong.[4][5] Jacksons career declined after he got rid of Jones? Well maybe in America but there is a world outside of america you know. "This reinforces the impression that Jackson was never a musical genius at all, but instead simply an artist who happened to have the right people helping him", ridiculous, this is only your opinion. Jones helped thrillers succes very much, but Jackson did write and co-produce the 3 biggest song of that album. Aeneiden-Rex 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thriller's sales as pf 2006 are 47 million, like it or not.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

No it hasn't. That number is from the 90's.Aeneiden-Rex 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

According to MJ's hype machine. However, the diffrence is it has now really hit that figure.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  74.65.39.59

The Jacksons view of Jackson

Ok, we all know that there are three types of people in regard to Michael Jackson:‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Haters, Fans, and neutrals who don't care or want to remain objectional. I'm wondering what his family thinks of him? We know that he has friends like the famous Elizabeth Taylor and Chris Tucker, and was friends with Marlon Brando, but what do Janet and the crew think of him? Does janet try to distance herself from him, or does she stick up for him? Did she even turn up for the trial? And what about the brothers? Were the jealous of his solo success, and still hate him? or are they supporting him? or do they not really care because he looks weird? I'm just interested about the situation with the family. --Paaerduag 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that they all support him now but the eighties and the 90's was tumultuous decades‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . I mean Jermaine didn't write the song Word to the Badd! just for fun‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , and MJ later wrote Money. And La Toya made some weird statements about the 93 allegations and other things about her family that I don't think the rest of the family liked‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . I think Janet and MJ always had a good relationship. I think that the brothers were jelous of MJs succes, but I don't think that they ever hated him. I think that the situation is good now, they're a family again. Already in the eighties MJ was reluctant about performing with his brother‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . He didn't want to perform at the Motown 25th at first‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . About his looks I don't know what the brothers think of it. His parents also claims that MJ has vitiligo‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , it was on his fathers side according to Joseph. I believe the situation is fine now. Aeneiden-Rex 11:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Many members of the family turned up at the trial last year (Janet‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , Jermaine‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , Joe, Katherine for sure...not 100% sure about the rest‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ...pretty sure LaToya did once or twice)‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  and they constantly have supported him.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  I remember also there was an interview the other year with Joe and Katherine in which they stood behind Michael‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . LaToya did make some comments about Michael in the early nineteens but if my memory serves me correctly‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , she later came out saying that she was pressured by her husband/boyfriend at the time to do so‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . I think all in all - the Jackson family stands behind Michael‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . :: ehmjay 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the comments she made it doesn't sound like she was pressured‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , more like speaking her mind‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Probably legal threats caused her to hush up‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Arniep 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LaToya sounds weird. Janet is an overall nicer person, despite "Nipplegate"‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  --Paaerduag 07:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LaToya's alright now I think, she claimed she was pressured by her boyfriend‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , but I don't know if it's true. it seems like she has always tried to look like MJ. Janet is also nice, what do u mean nipplegate? do u mean that thing that happened at superbowl?? I don't understand the big deal. Aeneiden-Rex 08:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

She try to look like MJ? LOL. Arniep 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um I don't think she's the weirdest of the Jacksons at all‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , she just has tried to disassociate herself from them and has been branded an outsider/traitor etc. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› Arniep 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To Aeneiden-Rex: I don't actually think that Nipplegate should have been publicised. I mean, the breast is the first thing a child sees when it want's to drink. It's not anything new, I agree, what's the big deal? Janet and Michael are the biggest musical talents in the family‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , and seem to be close. I also think Jermaine is a nice person. --Paaerduag 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the book "The magic and the madness"; MJ didn't forgive Latoya for her statements around 93 until the trial in 2005, if I remember correct. So it is as Arniep said, shw was considered to be an traitor. Aeneiden-Rex 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A traitor for telling the truth?‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Lol.

How do you know it's the truth?? Aeneiden-Rex 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[Refactored to remove unverified negative comments]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk)

And just how do you know that? Aeneiden-Rex 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese are absolutely CRAWLING over him‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Pop into 'youtube.com' sometime. I dare you to just WATCH the MTV awards ceremony. He has no lack of fans‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . --Paaerduag 11:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I think that for the benefit of this article, we should DEFINATELY discuss how Joseph Jackson abused his children‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Leaving that out is a breach of NPOV in my opinion. It is a crucial part of information‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . It should be integrated into this article‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . --Paaerduag 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is well documented elsewhere so there shouldn't be any problem finding sources for it‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Arniep 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious as to who exactly wants citations for all this information? I will go and find it for my post, but seriously I don't exactly have the time on my hands. I think that this site should help anyone who wants to know about who was where at the Jackson trial. Honestly - the number of citations requested in this section alone is a little bit rediculous! :: ehmjay 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who the h*ll has put so many "citations needed" here? It'just ridiculous + some stuff here was peoples own opinions and thoughts and there's no need to put sources to peoples own thoughts. I wrote f.ex. "I think that the situation is good now" and someone added a "fact" after that, why? Aeneiden-Rex 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass vandalism

Today there was a number of edits by new users removing most of the text on Jackson's media problems. Please note whitewashing is vandalism. I reccomend one of the admins active here look to the previous edits before my reversion to my last version for who did it. They clearly are in need of a ban.--I'll bring the food 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This user for example [6]--I'll bring the food 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That guy stopped after a second level warning. No need for a block, much less a ban. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Marlon

I wonder if Michael's brother Marlon was named after Marlon Brando and that is part of the reason they became friends? Or is Marlon a fairly common American name? Arniep 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

lol...actually Tito's full name is Toriano Adaryll, work that one out. Arniep 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Being serious for a minute... I just wondered whether MJ's parents may have been Brando fans as films such as A Streetcar Named Desire, The Wild One and On the Waterfront all came out just before Marlon Jackson was born. But if the name Marlon is really common there may be no connection. Arniep 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Um yes it is a very common name and why would Joe and Katharine have cared for some mumbling white actor?

Is it only a common name after Brando became famous though? Brando was a big sex symbol in the 50s, alongside James Dean and Presley, he got the reputation for being eccentric later. Arniep 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I just checked the 1880 census and the Marlin spelling is much more common than Marlon. There were about 980 Marlins as opposed to about 70 Marlons in the whole of the U.S, so it is possible that Brando made the Marlon spelling more popular. Arniep 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

These websites seem to confirm that Marlon only became popular name from 1950 onwards with a peak in 1970 (before Brando's reputation went somewhat awry) [7], [8], [9]. Arniep 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oz Actor

Jackson is on the "Oz Actors" category. As far as I know, his only Oz related performance was "The Wiz". Is that normally considered an Oz movie? I may be wrong, but I think it was an unofficial parody. I think he's also the only Wiz actor to be in the category.--Agent Aquamarine 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably correct. The Wiz is not an official part of the "OZ" series - much like the currently popular novel/musical "Wicked". However, since it is a musical/film to be based on "The Wizard of Oz" it may technically belong. :: ehmjay 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why it should come back

I think the Michael Jackson webpage should be unprotected. Nobody has edited it with lies.

I think there's a reason why there's not been much vandalism and I think it's because of the protection. I don't want to make assumptions, but an unsigned comment wanting to unprotect a controversial article is a sign that one may want to vandalise. Sorry if I'm wrong -A Shade Of Gray

Not only that - its only from newly register or annon. users. We've had a lot of trouble with annon. users in the discussion page alone so thats part of the reason why they locked the article itself. If you have something you feel should be added you can always tell a more experienced wiki-user who would be more than glad to insert it for you. :: ehmjay 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

nu-album

what about the nu album? is details released? is he pairing up with drugged up loser eminem? can we expect to hear MJ or is some loser rap artist going to overpower his beautiful and melodic voice? what's the latest?--138.130.213.10 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He won't be teaming up with a man who hates him, remember that video? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk)

The latest news is that Michael Jackson (with Teddy Riley) will be spearheading the New Jack Swing revival. Teddy Riley has been working with a lot of new jack swing artist, and hopes to have Michael Jackson's new album as the first of many new jack swing albums he has worked on and plans to release over the next few years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Street walker (talk • contribs)

Jackson's left the record label "Two Seas" and has made his own company, the Michael Jackson Company "which will take care of Jackson's business affairs as well as a new album planned for release in 2007" IOL - Ashadeofgrey 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

mjni.com, a reliable michael jackson fan club and news source reports:

It has been just over five months since Michael Jackson announced that he was working on a new album with Bahrain-based 2 Seas Records, which he hoped would be released by late next year. In those five months a lot has happened!

Firstly, the deal with 2 Seas Records is no more. Michael's spokesperson, Raymone Bain, has confirmed that the deal with Abdulla Hamad Al-Khalifa (Prince of Bahrain) had come to an end and he was no longer affiliated with the label.

Gut Records chairman Guy Holmes was said to have been the man in charge of overseeing the project when it was announced, but he told the BBC that no deal was was ever completely formalised and that he was not overseeing any new project.

If that wasn't confusing enough for you, then how about this...

The album has NOT been put on hold despite the 2 Seas deal falling through. In fact, Michael's new company - the Michael Jackson Company - is set to act as a record label, as well as looking after all of his business interests. As previously reported on June 27th, The MJ Company is set to phase out MJJ Productions.

So, with that little complicated change of business regime dealt with, what next for this new album? This is where it gets exciting...

Several reports have been flying around claiming this and that about any kind of new set up, but one name keeps cropping up and has been for months - Teddy Riley.

Back in May we reported that Riley himself confirmed that he had been working with Michael, and many outlets are again reporting of continued production between them, however Bain has denied any work has taken place in the studio.

A few new names have now entered the equation according to the Los Angeles Times. Talent manager Charles "Big Chuck" Stanton and his hip-hop producer nephew Ron "Neff U" Feemster are said to have met Michael earlier this month while he was staying in Ireland.

Stanton told the Times that they met a focused and fired-up artist. "He's ready to take over the world." Stanton also said that Michael has been given tracks by several producers, "He's got some hot records. Will.i.am did one, Teddy Reilly. We're giving Michael a lot of edgy street records. He's putting melodies to some hard party records."

Bain again stated that no studio time has taken place but MP3's may have been submitted for approval. "Michael is moving very much forward with his new music," she did say positively. "He is readying to release an album."

Let's hope it sells as well as the last one.

somebody's watching me

the clip for Somebody's watching me should not be under Michael Jackson because he did not sing it. It should be under Rockwell.

But Jackson did feature in the song - and many claim that the song would not have gone anywhere if it weren't for Jackson's appearance in the chorus. I personally think it's a great song either way. But either way that's why its under Michael Jackson - but you're right...it should be under Rockwell aswell. :: ehmjay 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

refusing royalties

I read this article about jackson and his song 'what more can I give' and how he refused to give the royalties to charity which I think is wrong. [http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/showarticle.cfm?articleid=7879Mr. mister 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I had not seen that before. However - it is important to bear in mind that he wanted to retain the "publishing rights" - which is slightly different. The way the article is worded makes it sound that any royalties at all would not be donated however merely royalties from publishing rights. The article does state that "If the track was to be released, only physical and digital sales would generate revenue for the charity.". In other words - proceeds from sales would go to charity, proceeds from the song being translated, transcribed, printed, performed publicly - would go to whomever holds the publishing rights. In other words - if the single were released there would be more money from sales than there would be from owning publishing rights...remember we're talking about one song. If it were an entire album things would be slightly different. In the end its somewhat of a moot point because the song wasn't released. For more info about publishing rights visit this site :: ehmjay 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

good point, i seems it has been covered in the article already Mr. mister 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Prince/Bad

The song was originally intended as a duet with longtime rival Prince. Prince was approached and briefly considered taking part in the project, but eventually decided against it. Prince claims he did not want people making gay jokes about the first line "your butt is mine", which Jackson refused to change. Years later, Quincy Jones told a different story when he said that Prince told him and Jackson that he hadn't wanted to participate because "it would be a hit without (him)". Allegedly, Prince said of the album, it was called "Bad" because "they didn't have enough room to spell 'Pathetic' ". 81.155.77.170 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify why you posted this - was it because you're proposing to have it added to the article or just because you wanted to post this to anger people? It really has no place on this page and I wouldn't be surprised if it's deleted. :: ehmjay 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just stating the actual reason Prince didnt take part in the project, and how he criticised the album later on. Why do you think I am trying to anger people, im only stating a point, i realise it might not get on the article, I just found it quite interesting and thought other people might. It is clear you are very fond of jackson so i realise you dont want anyone giving him criticism, therefore i apologise. 81.156.67.242 16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that - it's just that there are certain rules in place in the discussion section - the most important that any claims be sourced. I will admit I am a Jackson fan and as so do not like to see negative comments about him, however I accept the fact that there are negative things that have occured. However - what urks myself and many others is when things are not cited. So please - cite your sources when you contribute information and all should be well. It is important to keep in mind (and you do mention this) that this is all alleged. :: ehmjay 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:195.93.21.66

This user is back to the old tricks of defamatory posts. Please delete on sight. Tyrenius 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

REVERT VANDALISM.

Latest version of the article removes all the info on "The song contained the lyrics "Jew me, sue me" and "kick me, kike me." After... " and replaces it with crap about how "successful" HISTory was. And why can't i edit this article yet? My username is 5 days old! ridiculous. Unprotect the page!--I'll bring the food 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be able to be edited by some, but if you take a look on this discussion page you'll see why it has to be protected. I can try and make some changes if you'd like on your behalf. Although I gotta ask, HIStory was fairly successful was it not? At least that's how I remember it.:: ehmjay 14:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The Dangerous album in 1991 was his last hugely successful release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) .

But isn't that a matter of opinion of what hugely sucessful is? I dont know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I can imagine that they aren't that small. Maybe not as big as previous albums but let us not forget, going platnum is still a major achievement (not sure if it did though. Like I said, I don't know the numbers) The tour certainly was huge, running for 3 years. :: ehmjay 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went back and read the section on HIStory (not the HIStory article, but the section under Jackson's page) and it doesn't appear to be wrong to me. What EXACTLY do you see as needing changes? Also, I just checked the HIStory page which states "Since its release in 1995, HIStory: Past, Present and Future - has sold 18 million copies worldwide, making it the biggest selling multiple-disc album of all-time. " Sounds successful to me. :: ehmjay 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

18 million sold worldwide does sound very successful to me as well. To IBTF, remember to always sign your posts. Dionyseus 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not compared to "Thriller"'s 47 million sales. Anyway, Michael Jackson hasn't even been on the list of biggest selling artists in the last few years.

Just because its not as many as Thrillers 47 million sales doesn't mean its not a sucess. If that we the case then every album for the past 20 years would not be a sucess seeing as NOTHING has come close to that number. Yes, it was not his MOST successful album but it was hardly a flop. As for the not being biggest selling artists...he hasn't released anything since Invincible (which did debut at number one) and actually has topped fairly high on the UK charts with the re-releases of his previous albums and singles. :: ehmjay 21:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Invincible" got poor reviews and only sold 6.5 million copies - and that was before the Berlin balcony incident, the Martin Bashir documentary and the trial for sexually abusing children. The chances of Jackson ever making a comeback are zilch.

First off, the Berlin incendent happened a year after Invincible was released, the documentary a year later and the trial 3 years later - so that's incorrect. Secondly, since when is 6.5 million copies a low number? Yes, its not 47 million, but I know a lot of musicians and bands who would LOVE to sell 6.5 million. :: ehmjay 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they would love to sell over 6 million albums, but they wouldn't love to spend $20 million recording it.

That's rediculous - 6.5 million albums is still quite an achievement. Also, im not sure many children go to Jackson concerts - from what I've seen they're mostly young adults and older people. He is not the least bit ill, infact he is in quite good health and his voice sounds find to me. As for his voice not being powerful - well he is able to hit notes some trained opera singers cannot (and that is a fact) so that seems like a pretty powerful voice. Elvis, Roy and Tom are all excellent singers as well but jackson is just as good. If you can't see hear that then you should get your hearing checked. :: ehmjay 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think more people would agree that Jacksons songs are more timely then a lot of Elvis' songs - not that Elvis' songs are bad, but teenagers these days would recognize a Jackson track as being more of something of this time. I'm not sure how you can say he mumbled his way through We've Had Enough...although it begs the question...how did you hear it? It's not a single, its only on the Ultimate Collection. Do we have a closet jackson fan? And once again, yes not as good as his heyday but that is not an argument. Lion King sold well, but if you look at the Wiki article for Elton,"In 2004, however, he released a new album, Peachtree Road which, despite some favourable reviews, was his least commercially successful album in every country it was released in." so therefore not a great argument. Every artist can have a low selling album compared to a previous album of theirs but it doesn't mean that it was not sucessful. And btw - I dont want to be accused of hating Elton. I infact think that he is another one of the worlds greatest talents with Goodbye Yellow Brick Road being one of the finest albums of all time. BTW - where do you get your album sale stats? I'd be interetsed in finding some. :: ehmjay 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think more people would agree that Jacksons songs are more timely

Oooh, no! I don't want to be pedantic (!), but I must protest! I'm not a massive fan of either, but I am a teenager these days and all of my friends acknowlege that at least Elvis could sing without sounding silly. Jackson had a good, novel disco voice but, lest we forget, Disco is Dead Baby. Ajnd I've just remebered, Elvis actually managed a comeback a few years ago, despite the noticable disability of being dead. The Beatles also managed it in 1995. Both released new material. I'll be interested to see if Jackson, given the advantage of being alive, can manage a similar comeback.--Crestville 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as you mentioned this new material was hardly new - just unreleased or in the case of Evlis - remixed. I have no doubt that once Jackson passes away he will also have a "post mortem" comeback seeing as there are hundreds of unreleased tracks just waiting to come out. BTW...I agree Elvis is a legend, but if know for sure apart from the remixes (which hardly count) you would not hear Elvis on any dance floors - yet Jackson is played all the time. It aint disco music - its dance music. :: ehmjay 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been going to the wrong clubs--Crestville 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Clubs are not the be all and end all anyway (not that I hear many Jackson songs in clubs at any rate - no more than Presley, and NOT just remixes, I don't think "Burning Love" and "Way Down" hve been "remixed"). How many Cliff Richard, Elton John, Kenny Rogers, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd and Led Zepelin tracks do they play in clubs? Dosen't mean a lot of young people don't listen to their music and that these artists aren't legends today. The only reason Jackson is considerd more of this time is because he is still alive, whereas Elvis has been dead 29 years, not because he is a more respected artist to younger people TonyLeigh 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

lol.. MJJ isn't a great singer?? ... lol no more to say but this listen to his live stuff, ignore all the dancing and just listenPubuman 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this section can be moved to the archive as it seems that most of the section doesn't concern the title or any probable improvement to the article. - A Shade Of Gray

im afraid i disagree with ehmjay, although jacko was great in the 80s he disappointed in the mid-90s and I think it is ludicrous to say hes better than elvis and the beatles. it is also very true that jackos career is pretty much nothing to what it used to be now, I heard his last greatest hits album 'The Essential Michael Jackson' was a huge flop in America. Also 6.5 million albums is very poor for an artist of his fame, these figures show that his career is not a patch on what it was in the 80s. Littlepaulscholes 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Un-needed Brando Related Information?

I was just reading through the last bits of the article and noticed the following section:

These Court proceedings also brought to light unsuccessful projects planned with the actor Marlon Brando, including a dual interview at the actor's private island near Tahiti, and a DVD on acting.[65] Brando's son Miko Brando, a long time bodyguard and assistant to Jackson stated "The last time my father left his house to go anywhere, to spend any kind of time, it was with Michael Jackson,", "He loved it ... [He] had a 24-hour chef, 24-hour security, 24-hour help, 24-hour kitchen, 24-hour maid service.".[66]

I personally do not think that this is really nescicary to the Jackson article. Perhaps it could be worked into the Brando article, but personally I feel it has nothing to do with Jackson and has no place here. Any thoughts? :: ehmjay 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arniep's edits to Michael Jackson page

this user has replaced the recent 2006 pic with me with a pic from 1984. while it is a decent pic, i have an issue with the fact that just days ago when i posted a pic from 1983 my edits were reversed and the reasons given dealt with a wiki standard of using the most current pics as primary photos.

now we have Arniep who keeps changing the pic to one from 22 years ago...and NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. if there's a wiki standard then everyone needs to be held to it right?

i just thought i'd give everyone a heads up and ask that you help enforce the "wiki policy" that was spoken of to me when i attempted to use a 1980s era pics as a primary photo...as Arniep is getting away with doing. Drmagic 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about Wikipedia:Image use policy here. Anyone insisting that we use "the most current" image because of policy is confused. There is no such policy. What is policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria), is that images under a freely-reusable license are used whenever possible. One can see a small selection of images with such licensing at commons:Michael Jackson. Uploading unfree images, or images without verifiable source and licensing information, is just creating more work, as freely-licensed images exist and unfree ones will be deleted. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)