Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 21

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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)

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. :)

talk

) 12:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

talk

) 10:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks.

vecia

13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So i think this concludes?. The End. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

It depends on the editors. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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⺮ 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

talk

) 08:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As it has been reported again and again it has a place in the main article, as long as long as the wiki page does not say he has converted to Islam then it is fair.

--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, you will be blocked of you insert it again. — Realist² 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest any editor wishing to include this material should read about
  reliable sources first. The Sun is not regarded as such, no matter how many other journals have copied this rumour. 1000 times zero is still zero. It stays out until MJ confirms it. --Rodhullandemu
  17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And his lawyer has denied it as seen in the link above. — Realist² 17:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read

and I would almost consider it bullying; the whole point of a wiki is to get consensus over time not to shoot somebody down for having a different point of view. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source you cited contains the words "According to The Sun" which, as already pointed out, is the kiss of death as far as

WP:RS is concerned. There can be no consensus when cited sources derive from one unreliable source; it just won't fly, and that is where the matter ends. --Rodhullandemu

18:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so if you read the article carefully it states "According to The Sun, the ceremony took place while Jackson, 50, was recording an album at the home of Steve Porcaro, a keyboard player who composed music on his Thriller album." not that the story came from the sun, the Telegraph itself has an editorial duty to check info before they publish or they would not be considered a reliable source. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has denied he is a muslim, it's all rubbish, there is no truth to it. Michael Jackson knows whar religion he is/isn't. In regard to the BITE comment, I do apologize, there used to be a template warning that was visible to all editors who tried to insert the text, I thought the template was still there but apparently it was recently deleted. — Realist² 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a tabloid rumor. It's been settled by a representative of MJ. It's not going in the article. Period.

As far as additions to the article: One warning. Subsequent edits to add the content will bring a block. This is a matter of

21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

vecia

07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As many pages have a section on conspiracy theories, why not a MJ section on rumors, suspicions, allegations, falsehoods, etc? After all, this has been a big part of the MJ culture, and has certainly affected both MJ and his fanbase.

When people hear the Islam rumor, they come flying over to Wikipedia. Finding no mention, they keep digging, then come back to Wiki to contribute the hot news.

Instead of no information, maybe the buck could stop here with the rumor's source, impact, and refutation, with source (in the case of the Islam rumor, his own manager's statement that it is not true).

Realist2: You are one patient person. Undo, undo, undo, ad nauseum.

Just a thought. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

While I support the idea in theory, on this article in particular it sets up a glaring open door (can doors glare?) in that by far the best-known "untrue rumour about Jackson" is one that

iridescent

23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh -- my lips are chapped! Good point though. But flipping through the page, I see so many sections polluted with these rumors, etc. Extracting these stray points and moving them to a rumors section might help keep the sections on topic.

Just another thought. (Wow, two in one day! Three away from a record. I am HOT today!)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, a section about the various lies/rumours/jokes/falsehoods would act very much like a criticism or controversy section, something Wikipedia has recently started to object to. — Realist² 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this too, you said in an earlier post on this page about his current law suit that it should not be included because it is one of many many law suit's that are made against him; and that is the point, Michael Jackson is now known for people litigating against him therefore it is appropriate in his biography, What is important to think about is that if somebody was writing a biography now about him these things would be included as reported items, because it is news worthy and from newsworthy sources(I agree the sun is not a great source but to reiterate for the telegraph to publish it they would have had to check their own sources). Stating that because his lawyer has denied it, it is suddenly irrelevant in his biography is baseless; just as the fact that he has denied sexual contact with children does not mean that this period of his life should go unreported in a biography. The irony is that I know of care very little about Michael Jackson I came from an independent viewpoint looked at the source and report and thought it should be included. This is obviously what a large number of wiki users have done; and I agree as an ‘owner’ of a page you want to keep that page as pure as possible; however Wikipedia is not the viewpoint of the few(however experienced they may be) but the masses; this is what sets us apart and what gives us the power, the power of community. What I see is two or three people try and keep this out of the article while many wiki users want it in. I also agree that this is not a place of rumours or tabloid press, but that is a very easy defence to hide against and not what we are talking about; there are literally millions of souce citations that have made it into the wiki legitimately that are weaker than say the telegraph.

--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 100th time…

This is not up for negotiation.

Wikipedia is not "the voice of the masses", it is an unashamedly elitist exercise in producing as accurate an encyclopedia as possible. Michael Jackson is not a Muslim and has issued a statement to that effect. The Sun is not a reliable source. Articles in other sources reporting what The Sun says are possibly suitable for an article about The Sun. In the article on Michael Jackson they are defamatory libel without a reliable source.

Anyone adding said "fact" to the article for a second time after having received a warning for adding it, or anyone adding said "fact" to the article after having participated in this discussion (and thus can be assumed to have read the repeated warnings on this talkpage) will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. – 

19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this ironic from you Iridescent who themselves defended its inclusion on their talk page and I quote:

Will watch it, although the "Muslim" thing at least warrants a mention. Whether or not it's true, the fact that it's been alleged is verifiable from reliable sources ([11], [12]). – 

iridescent

17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At that point it was an allegation which had not yet been refuted, and it was possible to make a case for inclusion. It has now been denied; adding it is now is adding an unsourced libel. I repeat, this is not open to negotiation. – 

iridescent

20:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my brain is actually bleeding. Is there anyway to remove talk pages from my watchlist!? — Realist² 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As I clearly spelled out, via cut and paste, on your talk page, Julia, is that community is completely irrelevant when it comes to Biographies of Living People. Indiscriminate information about countries, governments, corporations, academic etc are widely different from reporting on a living breathing human being. Let it go. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Julia The Little Lady wants it included as fact, but still thinks fallacies and rumors have a place. But, if we keep this up, R² may snap and start buying Bay City Rollers albums.

But how can one agree with The Bookkeeper's last statement. The fact remains: a living person and the public with whom she or he interacts are inextricably linked.

Rumors, fallacies, and the like have an effect. Politicians do things which create public outrage, which in turn prevent their reelection. Jackson may do something which perhaps wins him public approval somewhere, and hence a new fan base in some far off country. This can influence record sales and tour schedules, even his style.

The community, and their attitudes are not "completely irrelevant", as perhaps evidenced by MJ's seclusion, or even surgery. People said he was an alien at one point, then he appeared in Men in Black.

There is also the added benefit of not driving iridescent crazy by keeping fiction out of the fact section, and putting it where it belongs.

I'm actually not sure where I stand here. I strongly disagree with The Bookkeeper's last comment. Trouble is, unless someone can figure out a smart way to do it, the case against a fallacies section is a rock.

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivial matters on a living persons biography are always to be avoided. MJ's supposed conversion to Islam is quite trivial based on the sole fact it was reported by The Sun. In contrast, allegations of child sex abuse were not only covered by mass media, but actually refuted in court. Other rumors about Jackson, such as purchasing the bones of the Elephant man were so widespread they actually became a part of

pop culture. MJ's "conversion" to Islam has no such relevance to his overall biography, and as I said earlier are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia covering him as a subject. Just because someone is a highly recognized public figure does not give license for anyone one media outlet to simply say anything about them, thats why liability claims exist and why newspapers have occasionally (or frequently depending on the paper) get sued. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

11:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent I know wikipedia is not "the voice of the masses" what I meant was that the view of the few should not override the view of the many, wikipedia is all about consensus

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

as a founding principle. I feel that I have been threatened from talking about this issue on the talk page, which is crazy. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, telling me to 'let it go' completely misses the point, you may not want to have a discussion about it, but other users may and that is fine, I have not reverted my changes, been threatening or vandalized anything, in fact as far as I am aware I am being the perfect user by trying to understand the consensus view. The sad thing is that if you guys had not been so aggressive and been a little more relaxed this issue would have gone away a lot sooner! --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No Julia, consensus means nothing when we are dealing with a BLP, nothing at all. I don't care how many IP's demand that we insert such text, consensus doesn't even come into play on this issue. — Realist² 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I can apologize if my comments, or anyone's comments on this talk page has made you feel "threatened" in any way shape or form, as that was not my intention (and I'm sure no one else's), however, I stand by my statement that "letting it go" would be th best option. I agree the founding principle of wikipedia is consensus, but BLP have a slightly different set of rule for a reason. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to perpetuate rumors of any kind. If negative material regarding a living person had be avoided, it should be, for the sole purpose of protecting the interest of the individual and having an aversion to sensationalism. It doesn't matter if its the President of the United States or an internet celebrity. This entire issue falls under

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

11:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is a BLP does not mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, yes sources need to be referenced but I suggest you read

WP:SOURCES

according to wikipedia owns policys my original edit would have been fine. Also having worked shall we say at a high level in law both in the UK and the US(which is why a BLP has to be handled carefully in case you did not know) referenced like this and not stating a fact is not legally a risk. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget about

WP:RECENTISM, which the Sun story fails to satisfy. It is tempting to ask for no more postings on this PLEASE, but it seems that it will not go away. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made my mind up on this. No section on fallacies and rumours because it would be impossible to manage, and morevover, the vast majority of it would be irrelevant to the person.

If, on the other hand, a rumour comes out that is so big that it causes the some sort of serious consequence to the person, a consequence which is notable enough for Wikipedia, then the rumour might also deserve a mention as the cause, and no more.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for understanding our logic/point of view. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; "Does this allegation significantly affect the subject's career or public perception of the subject" is a BLP yardstick. Stop random members of the public and ask them to give three facts about Jackson, and (after "singer") the other two will likely be "

iridescent

14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, although I dare say we could add

People v. Jackson to the nightmare list (people don't read the article, it's terrible and should be burnt and restarted from scratch). I think the majority of people have made their mind about about Jackson by now. He's not likely to make many more fans (aside younger people who discover his talent) and he's not likely to lose many more fans (if you've stuck by him this long then your obviously dedicated). — Realist²

14:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI this is also on time. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1861497,00.html - --66.253.36.46 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still "According to the Sun" and not a RS. Do not add "converted to islam" to the article. – 

iridescent

03:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So let me sum this up, we are still unclear if michael has converted or not?--[[User:(rafiCHAMP)|<font color="blue" size="2px">(rafiCHAMP)</font>]] (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We are entirely clear that he hasn't. Drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. – 

iridescent

11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the source?--RafiCHAMP¹ 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rafi, his spokes person has already called it a lie, the link is on the talk page (or in the archives). This was a load of crap, started by The Sun. You are fast becoming a disruption to this talk page. Please go and edit an article that needs improving. — Realist² 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Another respectable source thinks we are reliable enough to use, how heart warming. — Realist² 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of sourcing this book into his biography? It values the Sony/ATV Catalogue at $30 billion, meaning MJ has at least $15 billion in assets. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless a source says "Michael Jackson has $15 billion in assets" it can't be included, it's a very controversial statement which needs an exceptional source. — Realist² 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What is Michael's net worth, any estimates? Or even his assests worth. Im guessing 250m --rafiCHAMP (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum or fan site or hate site for that matter. No-one knows how much he's worth, I'd be surprised if even his closest advisers know. Let's discuss improving the article instead... — Realist² 23:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

what is a elephant man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This poor fellow. The article links to him. — Realist² 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Realist² 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, was michael jackson in the guiness world of records in the 2006 edition for being the most famous person in the world?--rafichamp (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you think obama is more famous than mj right now?--rafichamp (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, to both questions. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The line "five of his solo studio albums have become some of the world's best-selling record" is in the introduction of the article. I think here the phrase "best-selling record" lacks a definition or a clear criteria. A lot of people could argue that, say, Invincible, which sold 10 million copies, should be considered a best-selling record; or perhaps, Off The Wall, which sold "just" 20 million copies, should not. It would perhaps be better if we make an arbitrary criteria - say, 20 million copies or above. Naur (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All five albums listed have sold at least 20 million copies worldwide. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I think it should say "have sold at least 20 million copies worldwide" instead of "best-selling record" in the article. Naur (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it gets overly detailed at that point. The link to List of best-selling albums worldwide is already provided in the last paragraph of the lead. Alternatively you could de-link it in the last paragraph and link in the the opening paragraph so it reads: five of his solo studio albums have become some of the world's [[List of best-selling albums worldwide|best-selling records]] The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

HIStory isn't on that list, it sold 18 million copies (36 million units) and is sourced as the best selling multi disk album of all time in the article. So 4 of them are on the list and we have a separate source for HIStory's record breaking achievement. It's really not inaccurate in any way. The lead is always meant to be general in detail. It doesn't need flow and pie charts shooting out the side. :-) We could probably get a source for it anyway, if it'd really an issue, which it's not. —

²

01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

guys this website is saying that they have an official spokesperson of michael jackson to say that he is almost ready for a world tour, here is the site. http://mjjr.net/news.php

Tell me what you guys think.--rafichamp (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a fan / blog sites (and not a very reliable one either, as these sites go) so can't be mentioned. We don't report career issue's until they do happen. There is too much spin and counter spin when it comes to Michael Jackson. As we have come to learn in recent weeks with the Muslim thing and this lung disease crap, nothing said about Jackson can be trusted. I think the public are finally waking up to this BS for what it is. —

²

04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW i think i changed some settings or something but everytime i log into wikipedia its black and the writting is green, how do i change it back?--rafichamp (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Click on "My preferences" (at the top of your page), then click "gadgets". You will be able to change it on the gadgets page by clicking on the relevant box. —

²

04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, MJJR is VERY reliable (they only publish FACTS on Michael Jackson, backed with strong sources) and the statement is also very official, and is being reported on everywhere. The statement was first released by Scoop Marketing & Market Watch: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/michael-jackson-issues-statement-regarding/story.aspx?guid=%7B1F4CA7C5-3820-427E-BEB9-823712D04194%7D&dist=msr_2 (as below)

talk
) 05:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that we could post facts sourced from mjjr.net or no.--rafichamp (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not accept fan sites or blogs. —

²

15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A few articles today on the news that Jackson is in the last stages of his life according to his biographer; other reports that his team has denied that those rumors are true. Any idea why his health probelms are not mentioned? Thanks

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like another rumour mill story. It has received some coverage on the web, but has been denied by a spokesman.[13]. Like the "MJ converts to Islam" brouhaha a few weeks back, this should not be added to the article unless it reaches a threshold of

notability that would be wrong to ignore. MJ attracts stories like this on a regular basis, as has been pointed out many times before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

09:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's official and sole spokesperson, Dr. Tohme. Tohme, in response to recent rumors regarding Michael's alleged medical condition, has issued the following statement:

"Concerning this author's allegations, we would hope in the future that legitimate media will not continue to be exploited by such an obvious attempt to promote this unauthorized 'biography.'

The writer's wild allegations concerning Mr. Jackson's health are a total fabrication. Mr. Jackson is in fine health, and finalizing negotiations with a major entertainment company & television network for both a world tour and a series of specials and appearances."''

SOURCE: Scoop Marketing[14] Pyrrhus16 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Rolling Stone say he is exaggerating his credentials, move along folks, he just wants money. Jackson was not involved in the making of this "biography". Also this guy worked for

²

13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The story was again started by "The Sun", the "Newspaper" that started the whole "Muslim" lie a few weeks ago. I can tell they won't review a new Michael Jackson album in a neutral manner. —

²

13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources are saying that Jackson is renting a $100,000 a month property in California. This source is interesting for a number of reason's. The new property is still in California (like Neverland Ranch) and the source points out that Jackson had made public statements to the effect that he no longer saw Neverland as a home, after the police raid. The newspaper suggests that Jackson moved out of Neverland for personal reason's, not financial, as touted by the tabloids. If details of Jackson's new rented accommodation seem notable I will include them. I would like some feedback on this.

Please also consider that Jackson moves around a lot and hasn't had stable residency since he stopped going to Neverland in 2005. With so much moving around, we can't guarantee that he will stay here very long anyway, but I do think it indicates that Jackson still has quite a lot of cash to throw around, and the media don't like to talk about that. P.S., that new house looks bloody amazing, I'm well jealous. —

00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Also one more Q, how do I customize my signature, maybe put colors and etc, on it? --rafiCHAMP (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rafi, this is not the page to be asking such things, contrary to popular believe this is not my talk page. :-) If you have questions unrelated to this article you can speak to me

²

19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At the end of this should we add, michael jackson is the biggest selling music artist "alive" right now?, Or something close to it.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's total sales are around 750 million; Paul McCartney's are well over a (American) billion. The current last paragraph of the lead already makes it clear that Jackson is a very successful artist. – 

iridescent

15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the Beatles as a whole, not McCartney as an individual. McCartney isn't on the list. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't use other Wiki articles as a reference point. — Realist² 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but the fact of the matter is McCartney hasn't sold over 1 billion units. I agree with Rafichamp's idea on this, a sentence saying that Jackson is "the biggest selling artist in the world" - or something along those lines. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, just by having that sentence on the article, it would show a lot of people (mostly new kids) the amount of success he has had over his music career.

Btw Mj was spotted shopping for books yesterday, ultimately removing the conclusion that he is dying of a disease, just wanted to make sure everybody knew that.--RafiCHAMP¹ 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"I agree with Rafichamp's idea on this, a sentence saying that Jackson is "the biggest selling artist in the world" - or something along those lines"... He isn't the biggest-selling artist. That would be the Beatles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.157.95 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"The biggest selling artist in the world". The Beatles no longer physically, or collectively, exist. They are referred to in the past tense. Harrison & Lennon have died, whilst McCartney & Starr are now solo artists. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please drop this one folks, the lead discusses his Guinness World Record as "the most successful entertainer of all time", the reader get's the picture. Let's not have an MJ/Beatles/Elvis flamewar. They've all sold a shit more records than anyone else, that's all that matters. — Realist² 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be correct to consider Michael Jackson the greatest entertainer of the XX century? In my opinion he is. If I am right, then perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article? Пипумбрик (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write on MJ's wikipedia page that he is considered as the most sucessful entertainer of all time (it even appeared in Guiness Records book)? Why don't you write that he donated 300 millions to charity? Why do you make MJ look guilty in the 1993 accusations? Why don't you write that he is the most awarded artist of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are issues here with

reliable sourcing. The child abuse allegations in 1993 are discussed extensively in the article, but the claim that they make look MJ "look guilty" is a personal interpretation. The statement that MJ is the most awarded artist of all time would also require reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

14:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Being the most sucessful entertainer of all time isn't subjective- it's on the Guiness World Records Book. "Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals."- Jordan Chandler, under the influence of sedatives, then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals. You should also point out that, to this day, Jordan is mad at his father, Evan Chandler, and refused to testify in the 2005 trial.

Yes, Jackson is indeed the most awarded artist of all time: http://bix.yahoo.com/top10/39125

Also, Michael is considered as the most sucessful entertainer: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5319.aspx—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a

WP:RS, while the "most successful" status is linked to an award by Guinness World Records that appears similar to the citation in the article at [15]. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

14:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the 1993 allegation coverage makes Jackson look guilty. Per,

• "The friendship between Jackson and Evan Chandler broke down. Sometime afterward, Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over".
• A year after they had met, under the influence of a controversial
  sedative
  , Jordan Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched his penis.
• Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial settlement; the negotiations were initiated by Chandler but Jackson did make several counter offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals.
• An official investigation began, with Jordan Chandler's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part. Neverland Ranch was searched; multiple children and family members strongly denied that he was a
  pedophile. Jackson's image took a further turn for the worse when his older sister La Toya Jackson
  accused him of being a pedophile, a statement she later retracted.
• Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip search, conducted at his ranch. The search was required to see if a description provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities, but it was not a definitive match. Jackson made an emotional public statement on the events; he proclaimed his innocence, criticized what he perceived as biased media coverage and told of his strip search.
• Jackson began taking
  Ativan
  to deal with the stress of the allegations made against him. By the fall of 1993, Jackson was addicted to the drugs. Jackson's health deteriorated to the extent that he canceled the remainder of the Dangerous World Tour and went into drug rehabilitation for a few months. The stress of the allegations also caused Jackson to stop eating, losing a large amount of weight. With his health in decline, Jackson's friends and legal advisers took over his defense and finances; they called on him to settle the allegations out of court, believing that he could not endure a lengthy trial.
• Tabloid reaction to the allegations put Jackson in an unfavorable light. Complaints about the coverage and media included everything from bias against Jackson, accepting stories of alleged criminal activity for money to engaging in illegal activity themselves.
• On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, in a civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan Chandler refused to continue with Police criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.

The prosecution had one piece of evidence against Jackson, the body strip search, and even that was not a definitive match. It's quite clear that there was a distinct lack of evidence, and the first allegation the boy made was after being drugged by his father. I don't know how you could possibly come to the conclusion that the text paints Jackson as guilty. This would not stack up in court at all, the article makes that perfectly clear. If you have reliable sources that Jordan is now "mad" at his father, please bring it up at the talk page of

16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the info about him being the "most successful entertainer of all time", per sources already in the article. Make of the award what you will, it seems rather ambiguous anyway. However that's nothing to do with us, rather, it's the fault of Guinness. — Realist² 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Michael is innocent. I just said that what was posted on Michael Jackson's wikipedia page about the Chandler's case makes Michael look guilty, when, in fact, he is innocent. Was Michael Jackson's wikipedia page written by Diane Dimond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.243.201 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that the Wikipedia page gives Jackson a much fairer shake than anything the mainstream press will give him. Could you please explain which aspects of the text "make Jackson look guilty". Cheers. — Realist² 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there be mentions of the trial in Bahrain just last winter? Apparently it wasn't just covered by tabloid sites but many news sites. Frankyboy5 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed, Jackson has been involved in hundreds of lawsuits, this was settled out of court, thus, even less notable an example of Jackson's legal issues. Pure recentism. — Realist² 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article losing popularity because wasn't this article in the top 99 most viewed wiki pages, now its like 140. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably fluctuates. When I first started editing (18 months ago) someone told me it was just inside the top 200. He hasn't released a studio album since 2001 and hasn't done anything really controversial/dull in more than 3½ years. — Realist² 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion doesn't matter an awful lot. All kinds of crazy things can affect it. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Why wikipedians are finding so much of difficulty to write about conversion to Islam. I want clear answer in simple english.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.15.19 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If English is not your first language, here it is as simple as I can make it:

a) The Sun often has stories that are not true. b) Wikipedia does not have stories if they are not true.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What Ianmacm said. — Realist² 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the claims were denied by Michael's lawyer.

Also- the new house in LA has been confirmed by Michael's spokesperson. Just thought I'd let you know :)

) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's still living the good life, completely confusing the press, who had convinced themselves he was bankrupt. Lol, they have started to believe their own lies. :) — Realist² 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to stay away from generalities and inaccurate reportage. Comments on here are unhelpful and do not forward the issue academically. Please refrain from non NPOV comments.

Avenger786 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where news is carried in multiple national, multi-national or global news agencies; it is taken as credible on the balance of probabilities. This is a legal test. We are not applying anything more stringent nor is this required.

This is not a test applied on other articles especially in relation to someone's faith let alone reportage.

If it should be done here then we have serious issues of bias, agenda, POV and discriminatory conduct to answer. There are now enough news media sources (NPOV) which have independently confirmed this - they do not all refer to the Sun as source material. It is not for WPs to have to interrogate news media agencies and reporters about the validity of their claims. They report, we recite, you decide.

It is for WPs to in the least reflect the common knowledge - not bias or agenda driving. Statements like "prove it or move on" are unhelpeful on WP and raise serious questions about the motivation for making such statements especially where they are backed up with disproportionate penalties for accurate article writing. Seniority does not exclude us from error or bias. Ask Dick Cheney. It is however common practice in the modern media age for most news media in the modern age to be 'echoed' across varying sources. This is how many agencies work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539088-michael-jackson-muslim#continueArticle http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8230-michael-jackson-has-converted-to-islam.html

Our own definition of news is: 'News is any new information or information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience. News, the reporting of current information on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines'

Reuters and UPI work in exactly this manner. It is unusual that something so accepted in so many places requires such a debate here. Could it be that the most famous man in pop history potentially converting to Islam raises too many issues. WP does not shirk from article writing on controversial issues. We do not censor the truth. If the story is carried in multiple national or global news sources it should be, despite misgivings, relied upon and reported on if relevent. Despite us deploring them, The Sun and Fox News Corp are news media sources (and sister companies).

If you want to apply an indirectly discriminatory condition on the reporting relating to Muslims, we are on a slippery slope. Someone should give Jimmy a heads up in this case.

Amendments should be made to the article to correspond to at least that it has been reported - to the scale of the reporting. How many Muslims have confirmed to the press directly their faith? Is it something we ask Jews, Christians or any other faith group to do? NB: having recently returned from the Middle East, there is widespread acceptance of this as a matter of fact, including his building and funding of mosques and appearances publically.

Avenger786 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No crap please. There is absolutely no point reporting unsubstantiated rumours about Jackson, because there are just too many of them. If he wants to announce his conversion, he will do it officially, and woolly speculation just won't do; it fails

WP:BLP we should only report it here if, and when, he chooses to announce it. Let's get it clear; we are not detectives or rumour-mongers here, we are encyclopedia writers, and nothing else. --Rodhullandemu

00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• first: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Whether or not it is "true" Michael Jackson has coverted to Islam is unverifiable because it is his personal interpretation on the supernatural/God and to-date, has not commented on the subject. These "echoed" sources are derived from an unreliable source. 1,000 X 0 = 0.
• second: accusations of anit-islamic sentiments are incivil. As I said before, it wouldn't matter if MJ had been "reported" to covert to Buddhism, Judaism, Taosim, or another denomination of Christianity. It wouldn't matter if he had "reportedly" denounced religion all together and "became" an atheist. Without a statement from Jackson, its irrelevant as a BLP concern. We have the ability to reason: Is it logical to consider a source reliable when the source cliams their information came from an unnamed third party? I don't believe so. Throughout his career, even Jacson's siblings have made statements about him that were either complete fabrications, or honest mistakes because they didn't speak with him directly. In any event, the alleged conversion has had no impact whatsoever on his career or personal life that we know of. We have an obligation to respect the right to privacy, even if mainstream media does not do the same. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• See Also:
  WP:REDFLAG. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)
  01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Michael Jackson's spokesperson called it bullshit. End of discussion. There was no conversion. It's very sad people still believe anything they read in print. — Realist² 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New York Daily news 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. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)