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. — Realist 2 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The Elephant Man link is inaccurate and should be correctly pointed to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merrick
Heard he converted to Islam. Is it just rumour or..?-- Abhishek Jacob ( talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] -- SkyWalker ( talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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:
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. لenna vecia 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I hate The Sun from this day forth, look at the hassle they've caused. Not that I ever read them...honest...— Realist 2 14:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 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. لenna vecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
To set the whining straight.
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. لenna vecia 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Julia-The-Little-Lady ( talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you read WP:WELLKNOWN it very clearly defines that as long as it is notable and has been published by a reliable source, in this case I cited the Telegraph it is relevant, obviously it is notable as a large number of wiki users have tried to insert it in good faith. If you read the Telegraph article carefully it does not say the infomation came from the Sun just the details. The Telegraph would have made their own call on the reliability of their sources and chose to publish it, along with hundreds of other news outlets. I will not revert but I think it is still a legitimate conversation to be had on the talk page, your response to me felt against the intention of WP:BITE 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)
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 WP:BLP and I'm completely serious about enforcing it. How possibly anyone could think it would be appropriate to add the information that Julia did after it's already been cleared up by MJ's attorney is completely beyond my comprehension. Before it was a matter of inability to distinguish between RS and tabloid crap. There is no excuse for this latest edit. لenna vecia 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)
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? — Realist 2 22:14, 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)
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. — Realist 2 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)
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. – iride scent 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:
--
Julia-The-Little-Lady (
talk) 20:31, 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)
-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 18:26, 1 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)
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:GRAPEVINE then WP:VERIFY then specifically 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)
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)
Wheres the source?-- RafiCHAMP 1 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Another respectable source thinks we are reliable enough to use, how heart warming. — Realist 2 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)
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)
what is a elephant man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Marnifrances ( 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)
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
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)
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. — Realist 2 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)
At the end of this should we add, michael jackson is the biggest selling music artist "alive" right now?, Or something close to it.-- RafiCHAMP 1 04:15, 2 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.-- RafiCHAMP 1 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)
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)
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.
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)
I certainly don't think the 1993 allegation coverage makes Jackson look guilty. Per,
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 this article, where it is more relevant. That article makes it perfectly clear that Jordan didn't appear at the 2005 trial. We can't document every detail on this article, that's why there is a separate, more in depth article for the 1993 allegations. — Realist 2 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. — Realist 2 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Also- the new house in LA has been confirmed by Michael's spokesperson. Just thought I'd let you know :) Marnifrances ( talk) 03:54, 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)
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. — Realist 2 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The Elephant Man link is inaccurate and should be correctly pointed to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merrick
Heard he converted to Islam. Is it just rumour or..?-- Abhishek Jacob ( talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] -- SkyWalker ( talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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:
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. لenna vecia 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I hate The Sun from this day forth, look at the hassle they've caused. Not that I ever read them...honest...— Realist 2 14:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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. لenna vecia 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 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. لenna vecia 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
To set the whining straight.
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. لenna vecia 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Julia-The-Little-Lady ( talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you read WP:WELLKNOWN it very clearly defines that as long as it is notable and has been published by a reliable source, in this case I cited the Telegraph it is relevant, obviously it is notable as a large number of wiki users have tried to insert it in good faith. If you read the Telegraph article carefully it does not say the infomation came from the Sun just the details. The Telegraph would have made their own call on the reliability of their sources and chose to publish it, along with hundreds of other news outlets. I will not revert but I think it is still a legitimate conversation to be had on the talk page, your response to me felt against the intention of WP:BITE 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)
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 WP:BLP and I'm completely serious about enforcing it. How possibly anyone could think it would be appropriate to add the information that Julia did after it's already been cleared up by MJ's attorney is completely beyond my comprehension. Before it was a matter of inability to distinguish between RS and tabloid crap. There is no excuse for this latest edit. لenna vecia 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)
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? — Realist 2 22:14, 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)
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. — Realist 2 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)
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. – iride scent 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:
--
Julia-The-Little-Lady (
talk) 20:31, 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)
-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 18:26, 1 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)
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:GRAPEVINE then WP:VERIFY then specifically 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)
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)
Wheres the source?-- RafiCHAMP 1 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Another respectable source thinks we are reliable enough to use, how heart warming. — Realist 2 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)
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)
what is a elephant man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinhong ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Marnifrances ( 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)
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
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)
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. — Realist 2 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)
At the end of this should we add, michael jackson is the biggest selling music artist "alive" right now?, Or something close to it.-- RafiCHAMP 1 04:15, 2 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.-- RafiCHAMP 1 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)
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)
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.
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)
I certainly don't think the 1993 allegation coverage makes Jackson look guilty. Per,
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 this article, where it is more relevant. That article makes it perfectly clear that Jordan didn't appear at the 2005 trial. We can't document every detail on this article, that's why there is a separate, more in depth article for the 1993 allegations. — Realist 2 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. — Realist 2 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Also- the new house in LA has been confirmed by Michael's spokesperson. Just thought I'd let you know :) Marnifrances ( talk) 03:54, 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)