Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shoeluv76 (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 27 November 2008 (MJ's "conversion to Islam" is not up for discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMichael Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 25, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Maintained

Hollywood Walk of Fame Picture

In the book "Michael Jackson: The King of Pop" (http://books.google.com/books?id=BVC9zltjf-EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI#PPP1,M1 pg 104)it claims that Michael Jackson's star on the Walk of Fame is registered as "Michael J. Jackson" because another radio broadcaster named Michael Jackson was already there, and you can't have the same name twice. The picture on the wikipedia page just says "Michael Jackson" so I think it might actually be the radio broadcaster's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.137.136 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Should the image right when someone clicks on the page really be from 1984? I mean, he's not dead or anything, he's still alive and making music, so naturally there must be a picture from at least 2000. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wanted to change it, really, I don't like the 1984 image and always wanted a dangerous era (1991-1993) image (it was the height of his international fame). However we can only use free images in the infobox (you probably know that already). The other free image we have is from 1988 but everyone hates that image. Then the only other free image we have is the statue, but the haters will strongly oppose that. This all said, if the tabloids are correct (not that I believe a word they say), Jackson will be releasing music and touring in the near future. We must wait and pray that we can get some images. — Realist2 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Known for his Awkward noises he is able to produce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.212.12 (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vocal hiccup is mentioned in the article, as is "shamone". I haven't been able to find RELIABLE SOURCES for his beatboxing and talk/rapping yet. Recent album reviews of Jackson's work are shit, since they are dominated by a review of his personal life not the music in question. This has been a persistent problem since HIStory but I noticed instances of it as early as Dangerous (album). It might be better to get music reviews from non English sources instead. — Realist2 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't use the Oprah interview, The Diane Sawyer interview and their transcripts as reliable sources for beatboxing? He clearly demonstrates it in those 2 interviews. Marnifrances (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could use the transcripts yes, but it would have to be the original transcripts, not those found on fan sites. Otherwise it's a copyright violation for a start. If we can find original transcripts those would defo be ok. — Realist2 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s examples like this that really underline how ridiculous the policy of using free media over fair use media is. Yeah, let’s take a crummy and wholly inappropriate free image just because it’s free. Jesus. — NRen2k5(TALK), 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, i never understood this fair image business anyway. What exactly IS a free image? Could you at least use one from the plethora of MJ fan galleries out there? MaJic (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Free-use" means it's in the public domain, so anyone else can take the image and do whatever they want with it (change it, publish it commercially, put it on the cover of their forthcoming book "Michael Jackson: Why I Hate Him". You need permission of the copyright owner for this which is almost impposible to get; the 1984 one is valid because as a work of the US Government (it's an official photo of him meeting Reagan) it's owned by the public, not Jackson. – iridescent 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Associated acts

His associated acts only lists The Jackson 5/Jacksons era. However he also had notable collaboration with R. Kelly (You Are Not Alone, Cry, and One More Chance), Lionel Richie (We are the world), Diana Ross (Ease on Down the Road), Slash (Black or White, Give in to Me, DS, Privacy), Janet Jackson (Scream), Stevie Wonder (Just Good Friends, I Can't Help It) and Paul McCartney (The Girl is Mine, Say Say Say, The Man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.226.98 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated act's does not mean that we list co-lab's. Just former groups. Cheers — Realist2 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson being Sued

Mj is being sued guys you can read further information on this; heres the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7733608.stm--rafichamp (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's being sued everyday, thus it lacks notability. If the plaintiff wins notability increases and it might be worth a mention. Again, Michael Jackson losing a lawsuit isn't a rarity, it happens every year. We are not here to document every legal affair. Sure that's obvious but just reminding everyone. — Realist2 11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text

I have removed the following text;

On 17 November 2008 is was reported that Jackson is being sued by Sheikh Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa for £4.7 millon at the High Court in London in a breach of contract case. Jackson stayed with Sheikh Abdulla, the second son of the King of Bahrain, in 2005 following the child abuse court case. Jackson may have to visit England to defend the case in person. [1][2][3]

Jackson has been taken to court nearly one hundred times in his life. I agree this could become notable, but currently it's just another court case. It is not notable to Jackson's life at this stage, he eats a meal as often as he is accused of something. Until the court reaches a verdict and a possible settlement is reached there is nothing about this particular lawsuit that deserves a mention over the lawsuits he had in the 80's. Clear case of recentism at this stage. — Realist2 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure in the US being sued is an everyday occurance. In the High Court in London it is not. Being sued by a Crown Prince of a foreign country and a person who bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months is relevant. They recorded songs together and signed contracts. He paid the bills at Neverland. All of these points are notable. If it blows over in a couple of weeks then it should be removed. If, as I suspect theis is the next big scandal, then your actions are doing the article and the readers a dis-service. Please reinsert the text. simonthebold (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you believe the Prince's argument that he "bankrolled his lifestyle for 6 months...songs together and signed contracts...paid the bills at Neverland" that's your right. It's usually accepted that their is a presumption of innocence in any decent country at least. We can wait the full 10 day duration of this short civil trial and find out what actually happens. And actually Michael Jackson has been in the High court several times before. It's really not a notable part of Jackson's history at this stage. If the court rules that he must repay a large sum of money it may be notable, but again, this will not be remembered in 4 years time and Jackson will forget about it before then. At this stage it's really irrelevant to Jackson's 50 year existence on planet earth. He's been through and seen a lot. — Realist2 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt has been made to reinsert the text, people, we are not a breaking news cite, read WP:RECENTISM, there are other venues for breaking news. We do not add text until it becomes notable, not because it could become notable. We are not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Please just wait the darn 9 days and see what develops. We are not a news site, this is not the venue to read about news. — Realist2 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it heartening for Jackson to see that his loyal fans are defending HIS honour so vigorously. BTW when did HE become deified? simonthebold (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS before you accuse me of personal attacks you should consider your own ethnic slur above.[reply]
What ethnic slur? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simon123, your bad faith attack against me is completely unacceptable and highly offensive. Yes I like Michael Jackson, it's not a crime and lot's of people secretly do, I just admit it publicaly. However, I near single handily rewrote this article and turned it into an WP:FA article. My level of neutrality is not in question, I'm fully prepared to write all the shit about Jackson that feeds your desires. However everything written on this article, will appear in newspapers at some point. What we write is used by the press.
As for ethnic slur? That is such a ridiculous statement, I can't believe your even saying it. If you can't win a dispute using policy then be quiet, don't attack me personally. — Realist2 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I said 'the US supreme court is a sham and breaches universal human rights because the US isn't a decent country', you might interpret that as an attack on your ethnic identity if you were a US citizen. I'm English and you attacked my ethnicity. Anyway I don't really care about that, I'm more affronted by your editing choices:
The points I raised were valid. I suspect you removed the comments about the court case, not because of any supposed breach of WP guidelines but because you are the self appointed guardian of this page and that you believe this gives you the right to determine editing policy. I suspect you do this because you are a devoted fan and no doubt this is in some way admirable. I fear the reality is that your choices are biased against any criticism of HIM. I note, for example, no mention of the widespread ridicule afforded to the large egotistical statues floated on the Thames to promote his world tour. No mention of the Jarvis Cocker incident at the Brits in 1996. Come to think of it the whole article is unremittingly positive; no section about criticism of the man even though there is a veritable industry in knocking him and exposing his eccentricities (I'm being generous here), countless books and documentaries etc. Perhaps balance and judgement come with age - who knows? All the same I think readers would like to know about the current court case where Jackson will have to appear (no doubt feigning some kind of illness as usual). I think you'll find the English courts a lot less tolerant of HIS theatrics and therefore the truth might even emerge this time. simonthebold (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS. don't swear, its a sign of immaturity.[reply]
Deleting comments that upset you, because its easier than dealing with the arguments is also immature. simonthebold (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I'm too tired to bicker about me being a racist pov pusher. In the mean while can you provide me with the writer of the daily mail piece so I can add it to the reference. — Realist2 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I never called you racist nor disclosed my race.
2. There is no author because I just made it up to make a point.
3. Although I made it up, the stautes were an object of ridicule, I remember it well.
4. I won't edit the article anymore, because I have a life and more important things to do ;-)
5. Sorry, if I offended you, but I really do think the article is too one-sided. You are well place to correct this - good luck. simonthebold (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made it up to make a point!? This is a featured article! What on earth are you playing at? This is highly destructive. To sum up, you have made bad faith allegations against me, you have made BLP comments against Jackson on this talk page, you have breached NPOV multiple times, you have added deliberate mis-information to the article and acted in a WP:POINTY manner. Goodbye. Your lucky I'm not taking this to WP:ANI. — Realist2 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson is to make an appearance in the High Court, according to this article, so it's possibly more noticeable than some of the other lawsuits. But it may be worth waiting until he actually shows up before adding it: As Realist 2 says, we're not a breaking news service.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Jackson has appeared in civil court, in person, many many times. He has appeared even in the London High Court in person at least twice before. I know the press are trying to drum this up into something exciting, but to Jackson it is just another lawsuit. Why does this specific one warrant attention over any other? Do we start documenting all these civil cases? Why is this case being isolated? Could it be recentism perhaps? Will this be important in the future? At this point it's impossible to tell. Probably not, only one civil case (out of court settlement actually) has sustained enough notability to be included in this biography (the 1993 settlement). This is such a none important issue in the long term and we all know it deep down. It's incomprehensible to suggest that every allegation (found to be true or not) should be included in this biography. If this case had happened in the 80's to 1990's, before the Wikipedia internet age, it would not be in the biography. No-one would remember it today.
At the very least we can wait the 9 days and just see what, if anything, warrants notability (Jackson appearing in person is not notable, it's the norm). Hopefully if he does go to the UK someone can snap a picture for our Wikipedia article :0 — Realist2 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to UK television news stations the court case is off, the agreed an out of court settlement, kissed and made up apparently. End of the excitement, move on. — Realist2 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Thriller 25" but "Off the Wall 30"

A respected fan site has published this. Obviously we can't use them yet as it's a fan site but they are notoriously accurate, infact Sony contacted them about the release of T25 before billboard. Please help lookout for third party sources on this so I/we can go ahead and make the article. — Realist2 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony BMG confirmed to MJfrance that OTW30 was being released in Feb a few months ago. Also, Maximum Jackson got the news from Sony BMG AU. MJFC got it after that. We should expect an official press release soon. :) Marnifrances (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great news, a shame it couldn't have been released in 2008, he's had a cracking year sales wise already and it would have been nice to make it even more. — Realist2 12:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Note: Read the section below this before reviving this discussion. If sources have not confirmed that MJ has converted to Islam, move along. No matter how reliable the source (NY Times, CNN, The Telegraph), it does not matter if they are only stating that he has "reportedly" converted. If a source only cites The Sun, which is a notorious tabloid, the story is not reliable, regardless of how reliable the source may otherwise be. So, once again, until it is confirmed by someone representing MJ, or MJ himself, we are not publishing it. لennavecia 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

Heard he converted to Islam. Is it just rumour or..?--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for Mr Jackson to comment on any conversion. — Realist2 13:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] --SkyWalker (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story was disseminated by a notorious tabloid called the sun. Times of india are just repeating the suns story. Even if Jackson did wear a hat and sing a Muslim song to please and be respectful to his guest's, that does not mean he has converted religion. The conservative media did the same to Barrack Obama when he took part in a ceremony with his guests Tabloids have been talking this crap up for over a decade, move along folks. — Realist2 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its sad that realist has taken the stance that converting to Islam is a bad thing that the conservative media does. In fact, this story has run in numerous papers across the world--109 on the last count. Until he says he hasn't, I believe it. --Zjhafeez (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a story spread by The Sun, a tabloid that has been spreading this crap for 10 years, others are simply repeating it. — Realist2 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Converting to Islam is not a "bad thing" and Realist is not insinuating any such stance. What we have here is a BLP concern. It is not acceptable to "believe" anything reported in a tabliod that regards someone's personal life - no matter what the subject is. There has to be a respectable third party source to back up that claim. We would remove such controversial content if Jackson was claimed to convert to Buddhism, paganism, Judaism, or any other religion practiced on earth. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who knows what religion Michael Jackson follows is Michael Jackson, not The Sun, not The Daily Hate. Only Michael Jackson. We are dealing with a living person here, he breaths in air and bleeds like the rest of us believe it or not. I will continue to remove this crap, with or without the help of other editors. — Realist2 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also on CNN International, [6], [7] and other international media Lihaas (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Post only list The Sun as its only source of information on the subject and the second doesnt offer any original research either. We still need an actual statement from Jackson himself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how this works

We don't publish claims made by a tabloid in a BLP "until the subject says it's not true". Absolutely unacceptable. There is a difference between:

  • a tabloid publishing a claim and then reliable sources reporting that claim, and
  • a tabloid publishing a claim that is then confirmed in reliable sources.

The Sun can publish anything it wants, and as a tabloid, that's find and dandy. Reliable sources can report on that claim until the end of times, but it's not notable for Wikipedia that this unconfirmed claim has been published for the thirtyleventh time in the past decade. It will be a notable event once it is, if ever, confirmed in reliable sources that he actually has converted.

Anyone who adds this information as it applies to bullet 1 will be reverted and warned. If the warning is ignored and the information is added again, unless bullet two then applies, they will be blocked from editing. Feel free to discuss, ask questions, all that, but do not add this unverified tabloid claim to this BLP again... anyone. لennavecia 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mj turns muslim

Guys this is no joke I just saw on the news that Michael Jackson officially became a muslim today, if you dont believe me it should be all over the media by tomorrow.--rafichamp (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, You need to read and understand Jenna reply. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/news.php?newsid=7966 ^ there's ya source. Put it now if you want so Wiki is ahead of things:) Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html 148.197.81.135 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just copies The Sun. It's a reliable source of a rumour, but of nothing more. --Rodhullandemu 12:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Telegraph is a reliable source but it is quoting The Sun. For more information go top. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled Michael Jackson Islam. There are no credible sources for this information, and most

conspicuously absent is Jackson's own statement. This is obviously not encyclopedia-worthy. Give it some time. This is not Wikitabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talkcontribs) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about this [8] ibnlive.com is very much reliable source CS2020 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the rumour, yes, but it contains those magic words of death for this encyclopedia, "reported The Sun". Sorry, but no. --Rodhullandemu 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if you people ever read those article fully or do you just read the title and say here it is.. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate The Sun from this day forth, look at the hassle they've caused. Not that I ever read them...honest...— Realist2 14:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and needn't be the first to report the story. If the story is true then in due course a reliable source will emerge (such as Jackson confirming it) and then it can be added, until then there is no value to adding something which may or may not be true. PiTalk - Contribs 03:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I archived the previous discussion to avoid this same drama. لennavecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has MJ confirmed he's converted to Islam?

No. So don't drop your sources here stating that it's in reliable sources if all the source says is that it's been reported. I don't care if The New York Times, CNN and FoxNews.com all greet morning readers and viewers with the breaking news that MJ has "reportedly" converted to Islam. Until it is confirmed it is not encyclopedic. Stop the dramatics. Neither Wikipedia or its readers will suffer if it turns out to be true and we are the last to publish it. No one reads this bio for breaking news. We only publish what has already been published. And we're not publishing what's already been published on this because 1/ it is not encyclopedic, and 2/ it violates our policy for biographies on living people. Let it rest. لennavecia 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many that won't let it to rest. They will bring links after links and those people will not read the articles before submitting here.. Good that page is semi and move locked.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is seems that the main source is from the british news paper the Sun, with other online news sites almost copying the same wording. I agree that it needs to be confirmed (by other reliabe sources)to be included in wikipedia87.236.48.194 (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

he has converted to Islam, i saw it on jay leno last night. jay leno told the audience that mj has accepted islam and his new name is mikaeel. which is the name of one of ALLAH's(GOD) angels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frakistan (talkcontribs) 11:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a min and read what others have told?. You are just repeating what others are saying. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a little silly now. — Realist2 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my two cents' worth on this. No matter how "silly" the story, it has been receiving some mainstream media coverage. The article may need to find a compromise position to prevent claims that this is being censored by Jackson's fans. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Micheal Jackson fan :). Most of it are just rumor unless MJ or his associates confirms he is converted it can be mentioned. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure WP:recentism, we run a news service elsewhere. If you want to start an article dedicated to Jackson's relationship with the press be my guest. This is nothing to do with being a Jackson fan censoring. It's about respecting the basic human dignity of the subject and not making this mockery any worse. — Realist2 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This situation has a parallel with another famous headline from The Sun, which was "FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER". Although obviously untrue, the huge amount of media coverage generated by the story made it notable in its own right. The real problem with the "Michael Jackson converts to Islam" headline is not whether it is true or not, but whether it is notable enough for the article. On balance, I do not believe that it is at the moment. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must consider the following, do we honestly think anyone will remember or care about this in a few years time? do we appreciate that Jackson is a global megastar, many parts of the world are not interested in this issue. Although 70% of editors to Wikipedia are US and UK citizens that only amounts to 6% of the world population. The 2 countries where Jackson is most disliked or ridiculed only make up a small fraction of the worlds population. We have to pretend this is an international encyclopedia. A fabricated story spread by one UK newspaper should not get a mention on the biography of a world famous figure. It will pass. — Realist2 14:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 21 November, 2008 or onwards, there are a couple of sources which definitely say he has converted to Islam. Apparently he converted at a friends house in LA, with the Qur'an and the Imam present there, said the shahada, and changed his name to Mikaeel. What is the reason to why this development cannot be mentioned? This is an encyclopedia, and if someone wanted to know about this story, unfortunately they won't find it. It must be added there, just speaking from the sources (google Michael Jackson Muslim), backed by definite reliable sources. Many Sources: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Mohsin (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until Michael Jackson or his well paid spokesperson say's he has converted to Islam it doesn't get a mention. It's that simple. Only Michael Jackson knows what religion he follows. These sources either point out that the sun started it or they say "reportedly" converted to Islam. — Realist2 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly trust Worldnet Daily as a reliable news source myself. DodgerOfZion (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MJ's "conversion to Islam" is not up for discussion

For those who can't understand the differences clearly outlined multiple times above who decide to post the same such sources here, everyone else please just ignore it. We need not acknowledge every post with the same information. This isn't up for discussion and is not a consensus-based issue. The information will not, under any circumstances, be added to the article unless confirmed. It's not notable enough to add the details of this tabloid rumor to the article at this time, and to discuss it in any other context is a violation of our BLP policy. So, one last time... unless confirmed or until the media circus itself is a big enough joke that it becomes a legitimately notable event in his life (as this is his biography, so no matter how notable you may think this event is, in the grand scheme of things, it's very insignificant in his life), we're not adding it. Period. No need to reply to this. Just let the discussion be over with. لennavecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a last word, Michael Jackson's lawyer has denied the report. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/11/24/2008-11-24_michael_jackson_and_prince_of_bahrain_se.html Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue," McMillan told reporters.Marnifrances (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks. لennavecia 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So i think this concludes?. The End. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as MJ sang in his song "Tabloid Junkie", "just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a T.V. screen, don't make it factual". — Realist2 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I don't care one way or the other, but I do think that it is pretty hypocrisy for Wikipedia Editors to not allow the reported story about Michael Jackson converting to Islam be added but at the same time add that, for example, Robert Gates has reporting been asked to stay on as Secretary of Defense or that Hillary Clinton has been asked to serve as Secretary of State. These are also BLP, so why the difference? Michaelcox (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends of the editors. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this article is defended by fanboys. If something is reported on hundreds of newspapers all over the world, it can be mentioned not as a 100 % fact, but as that "It was reported in 2008 that.." in Wikipedia. Even if someone doesn't like it. --Pudeo 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also "defended" by Admins who understand the policies of Wikipedia. Now, in what way, please, is an unconfirmed rumour encyclopedic, and how useful would it become if we permitted these into articles? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu 21:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three admins that have said this material should be avoided. There is also me and Bookkeeperoftheoccult who understand article writing policy rather well. We both work on highly controversial BLP's all the time. The fact of the matter is, if every rumour were to be allowed the article would be a complete tabloid. Before you call me a fanboy, if you read the archives of this page you will see that I expanded the info on the 1993 allegation, advocated the expansion of info on the 2005 trial and only yesterday suggested trimming the info on Thriller 25 (a positive aspect). Making bad faith allegations of whitewashing will only make people turn away from your comments. This is not the venue for strongly refuted tabloid smut that the subject might be strongly offended by or breaking news. — Realist2 21:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To set the whining straight.

  1. I'm not a fanboy. I like "Thriller" and pretty much nothing else from MJ. Not my style of music.
  2. The two examples given above regard their jobs. Big whoop. This involved his religion, which is a much bigger, more personal deal. Also, this same worn out story has been "reported" every few years for a decade.
  3. What sources are reporting the above info for Gates and Clinton? Are these "reports" coming from respected newspapers and Washington? Or are the "reports" coming from some worthless tabloid and then that report being picked up by respected newspapers?
  4. Also, last I heard, both the Gates and Clinton stories were confirmed, this MJ story, as expected, was not.

So basically, what it comes down to is not one bit of hypocrisy, rather editors who can't grasp a policy in place to protect living people, and who can't tell the difference between tabloid crap and reputable sources. لennavecia 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still even being debated? Firstly, MJ converting to islam has been reported over and over again since 2005, and numerous current reports even used elements of old 2005 stories. Secondly, every single article from the current reports referenced the original article from the Sun or elements of it. It can be traced back to a single source. Thirdly, it's been denied by Michael's lawyer. Marnifrances (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy in the choice of the main photo.

I seriously believe that the picture of Jackson in the sidebar is skewed. Every other page I've seen has a recent likeness of the subject. Why shouldn't this page be the same? Admittedly Jackson doesn't look as human as he once did, but I'm sure a quick search could turn up some acceptable photos of him. Just something to mull over. 68.191.151.151 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are our options for images. لennavecia 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we wouldn't use images that makes him look "less than human" as the main image. We have WP:BLP issues to consider, and need to respect the subjects basic human dignity, and we cannot mock him further. Please remember that we are dealing with a figure that has severe health problems, physical and emotional. This is not the place to ridicule. There are plenty of nasty sites out there fore that. — Realist2 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is pretty sad how Micheal Jackson and Britney Spears has suffered a lot from media and other means. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 section- Possibly to much detail?

Does anyone else here feel the 2008 section suffers any undue weight or recentism? My concern is with the Thriller 25 content being too detailed. Am I just being paranoid or could we tighten that a little bit? — Realist2 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see a problem; in any article on something/someone current, chances are the most recent material will be of most interest to readers. If/when The New Album comes out, T25 can be scaled down (or even merged with Thriller). – iridescent 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By some accounts we will see a "Off the Wall 30" before a new studio album (see several posts above). Roll on "Invincible 25" that's what I say! :0 — Realist2 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]