Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Specific generations needed?

I don't think specific generation names are really that necessary to mention as the article intro is already so long. I think just saying his music and popularity span several generations or span generations from the 60s to the 00s or something to that liking would be sufficient and still signify the extents of his success. Vpuliva (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pure article spam, it should not be there. MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is that spam? I don't get that at all. Specific generation names are absolutely relevant here; they don't take up much space and each generational moniker evokes numerous relevant variables.TreadingWater (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever that means. So far, it looks, and smells, like bollocks; unless we've stopped writing an encyclopedia, but I've been busy and perhaps missed that. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's the generation that grew up with the Jackson Five, the generation that grew up with Off The Wall and Thriller, and the generation that grew up after Jackson stopped making good music. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chamone

Why does Chamone redirect to Michael Jackson? Nowhere in the article nor in this discussion page is it spoken of Chanone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.30.180 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read this deleted material it may make the matter clearer. WWGB (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
'Chamone' is mentioned here. Pyrrhus16 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the redirect to point to that section Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Than you, exactly what I wanted to know :-)) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Why?

Why is this article still locked? It seems like the edits made were in good faith,yet TMZ who is right most of the time and was right about MJ's death is still not enough of a reliable resource for Wikipedia. I think it is a case of power hungry admins locking the article just because they can,that and the fact that they want to tell everyone that they wrote or were in charge of one of the biggest stories ever,Michael Jackson's death. It is time to unlock the article,I mean its been almost 4 days since he died. Is it going to be locked forever? Or locked until after the toxicology reports come in? That way the admins and not us regular folk will get credit for being the first to edit why he died. I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Apparently that is not true.--70.156.0.160 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Death sub-sub heading

Why is the "Death" section a sub-sub-heading under milestones and such? I'd think it more appropriate as a sub-heading under "Life and career", if not it's own L2 heading. Thoughts? لennavecia 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and changed it. It can always be changed back if that's the consensus, but it seems entirely out of place as a subsection of Milestones, and it's not in line with what I believe is current practice. لennavecia 05:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First vs. Firstly

Sorry to split hairs, but I was always taught that 'first', 'second' is preferable to 'firstly', 'secondly'. I'd rather bring it up here than change it and have it reverted. Thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording: "Movie" versus "film"

I made a recent change to this article where in one part it says "movie." I changed it to "film" but was reverted by Aaroncrick with the explanation "Movie sounds better and more modern than 'film'."

I disagree with the assertion that "Movie sounds better and more modern than 'film'." My reasoning? "Movie" is not viewed as encyclopedic to many editors here, which is something I have been accustomed to and has led to my not seeing it as encyclopedic either. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And, oh...any thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer "film", since "movie" is a bit slangy and mainly an American English term. Other thoughts welcome, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I now agree with Flyer22 after seeing "Movie" is redirected to "Film". Sorry about that. I suppose you leanr something everyday :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and "movie" is also Australian English term, as you never hear of the word "film" here. =) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, really? I'm Australian and I can say that's absolute nonsense. I don't understand how you could even come up with that, it's just silly. Open up Google and search the word 'film' and restrict your results to Australia. --202.134.251.206 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Someone could add that, after his death, MJ's songs occupied 8 positions in the iTunes top 10. "Man in the Mirror" occupies the first position. Also, someone could add that Jackson's CDs' sales exploded. http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-itunes-domination/ http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Michael-Jackson-s-Albums-Climb-iTunes-Top-40-Fast-2.png/ http://digg.com/music/Michael_Jackson_iTunes_Popularity_PIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be in Death of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

911 Call from Anonymous caller

Has anyone identified the caller of the 911 call? It seems as though no one has mentioned the persons' name at all which I find odd in such a big death like this. I understand there is 26 pages of talk, but I'm hoping this has not been brought up. AcePuppy (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The caller in the recording is not identified in current media reports [1], but from the contents it is presumably one of the staff at Jackson's mansion in Holmby Hills.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy and Charity work

Please expand this section; here is a starting link: http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=1099

58.181.109.126 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)OR 29/june/2009

Some of the charities he supported including USA for Africa, the Make-a-Wish Foundation, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation. He was listed in the guiness book of world records for the most amount of charities supported by a pop star, numbering 39 in total. In 1985 he wrote "we are the world" with Lionel Richie, a song which raised millions of dollars for famine relief in africa. In 1992 he crated ---ill carry on tomorrow... but you get the idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edited by a BOT

What? I can't post anything here now? Has my name been entered into the Hugger bot? I made a post and it was removed... apparently, a bot... or someone behind this bot. NiteHacker (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see if you check the page's History, your edit was removed by User:Doniago here. He didn't say why, but presumably because this is not a forum. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see... it's back to business! I will stick to the guidelines then. NiteHacker (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate external link?

Should this be amongst the external links, as it is now? WWGB (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, soundboards are worse that fansites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.4 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Help with sidebar

I tried to add spouses to the sidebar summary. I should be autoconfirmed, and the text is still present. This is what I entered: | Spouse = Lisa Marie Presley (1994–1996)
Deborah Jeanne Rowe (1996–1999) Cmntgmry (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox musician}} does not have a spouse parameter coded. You can only use that parameter if it is contained in the template. – ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatles songs

Any info on who will inherit the Beatles song catalog? Or am I missing something and did he already sell them off when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.37.76 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Paul McCartney got them. Zazaban (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No,Paul McCartney did not get them. Why would he? The songs are worth millions,if not billions,and you don't just give something like that away. I am sure part or all of the catalog belong to his children in the event of his death.--70.156.0.160 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a complex area which often leads to misconceptions. Snopes gives the background here, while this Bloomberg article from 26 June says:

Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, the publishing venture owned by Michael Jackson and Sony Corp., will keep control of Beatles songs following the pop singer’s death, said a person with knowledge of the venture’s plans.

Jackson, who died yesterday at age 50 in Los Angeles, owned 50 percent of Sony/ATV, which holds rights to more than 200 songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, as well Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond and others. His stake is worth about $1 billion, said Ivan Thornton, a private-wealth adviser who has worked with Jackson and his family.

Sony/ATV will continue to hold the Lennon and McCartney catalog, said the person, who asked not to be named because the matter isn’t public. The U.K.’s Daily Mirror reported in January that Jackson planned to leave the Beatles rights to McCartney in his will to heal a rift between the musicians. Jackson paid $47.5 million in 1985 to buy the ATV catalog, outbidding McCartney and Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono.

Paul McCartney has never owned the publishing rights to the songs, having declined to buy them in 1984.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent death tag

I boldly removed the recent death tag a couple times[2][3] with edit comments because I don't think it improves the quality of reading for this article—mostly because this article is not about his death. The current event tag at Death of Michael Jackson takes care of this nicely. The section on his death, in WP:SS is only a few lines on this page. Thus, in my opinion, we should not burden readers with a tag that only affects a minimal portion of this article, as a whole. -Pecoc (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a service to the reader than anything. I think that, as long as the tag is on Farrah Fawcett, it should remain on this page too (incidentally, the tag is still on Ed McMahon, so...) Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Which makes my argument consistent (unnecessarily so, in my opinion, as I don't consider precedent on other recent deaths an argument). Neither of them have Death pages... -Pecoc (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
With due respect, you can't argue his death is insignificant to this article. Give it a week or or so, then take it down. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a strawman to state that I am arguing "his death is insignificant to this article", in my opinion. -Pecoc (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
What the tag states is very true of this article; RDTs should stay on the articles of recently deceased people for 7 days after the death of the subject. If there should be any exception made to that rule, regarding this article, it should be that the tag remain on the article for a longer, not shorter amount of time, as there will be more info about his death still being announced by the media and added to this article long after the 7 days is up. Information yes (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is this "rule" stated? -Pecoc (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's not edit war over this. The tag should stay up for a few days yet, due to the ongoing media coverage and new information emerging.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ianmac on this. Tag should stay up until the stream of new info slows down. I'd add a reminder that this is his main bio and not an appropriate place for minute-by-minute updates of reports on the circumstances of his death, or what's happening with his children, etc. This article should wait until facts are verified in reliable sources, and ideally that enough time has gone by to evaluate their relevance to his bio. Tvoz/talk 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree when Tvoz states, "this isn't the appropriate place for minute-by-minute updates" (better off at Death of Michael Jackson) yet the tag states "Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known" (emphasis added). Therefore the tag is misleading in addition to placing undue weight on such a small portion of this bio. -Pecoc (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Won't the influx of people looking at the Michael Jackson wikipedia page be primarily interested in his death? Think about it. And shouldn't it be made easy for these, most likely, relatively new to wiki users to access? It makes perfect sense if you think about it. I think it should be left up indefinently. Stakingsin (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Remove it, the message is now irrelevant, especially now that this is not the place that frequent updates are being made. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant, it is a helpful tool to non users who are just interested about his death! This is meant to be a free search engine, and it should be easy to use aswell. Not all people know how to use this site, they see a load of links at the top and they look for 'death' It is what you would do if you had never been on wikipedia before, or even if you were an infrequent user.Stakingsin (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Stakingsin, the tag is not supposed to be a WP:DISAMBIG to direct people to the Death of Michael Jackson page. That would be separate discussion entirely. -Pecoc (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point, people will just be interested on michaels death, searching his name, and it would be helpful to have the link right there. I think it is the biggest, most important thing in the article atm and needs to be expanded, a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

How can he be 11 in 1968? {72.201.168.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Good point, this has been removed. The Jackson 5 says: "By 1968, The Jackson 5 were a headlining act for the All Star Floor Show at Chicago's The Guys' and Gals' Cocktail Lounge and Restaurant. From August 12–27, 1968, The Jackson 5 opened for Motown group Bobby Taylor & the Vancouvers at Chicago's Regal Theater." Strictly speaking, Michael Jackson would have been nine at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, unless I missed it, why is there no mention in the article about MJ being burned during the shooting of a Pepsi commercial? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_4046000/4046605.stm

It's there. While viewing the article, hit ctrl-F to use the 'search' option of your browser to look for 'pepsi'. Tempshill (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam

-And besides, "Nation of Islam" is rejected as apostate by regular islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.180.165 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When he converted to Islam, he changed his name to Mikaeel Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.194.5 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

what did Jackson really die from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunniev (talk • contribs) 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have coroners, to find out. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It was reported on BBC today (29 Jun 2009) that the family is asking for another autopsy, cause of death is still unclear.Betty Butt (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been some vandalism in the "Death" section and it needs to be removed. I would remove it myself but the article is locked....

Elephant man.

{{editsemiprotected}} I have a reliable source detailing the attempted purchase of the elephant man. It is published by Candian Broadcast Corp and is preserved at [[4]] 97.112.166.80 (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The above edit was by me, I was unaware i wasn't logged in. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done:Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used by non-autoconfirmed users to request specific changes to articles. Please use a "change X to Y" level of detail when you use this template. I tried to find an obvious place to simply insert the reference, but failed. The existing copy is already well referenced and this primary source would not nessecarily conflict with those. Celestra (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

occupation spam, countertenor, and businessman.

The infobox looks silly to me with so many occupations (plus it kinda violates our 'undue weight' provisions) - same with the 'businessman' in the lead - and the 'countertenor' bit is just plain wrong (see up top on this too) - any objections to removing? Privatemusings (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead (and article) passed Featured Article Candidacy, by way of editors and administrators, remaining stable for eight months thereafter and then went through peer review. The lead is and infobox reflect all infomation current sourced in the infobox and is in no way a violation of WP:UNDUE.
Regarding the "businessman" label, we've discussed this in depth before here, and here with community involvement and with recent specific examples seen here by Sony and here by CNN. In a nutshell for the lead sentence, "recording artist" covers singing, songwriting, producing, "entertainer" covers choreographer, acting, performing, and "businessman" covers all other professional dealings, including his philanthropy and contractual agreements and ventures. The occupations value of the infobox gives specifics.
With regard to countertenor, one editor opinion does not trump WP:VERIFY. If there are a wide variety of sources claiming him as another voice type, fine, but the voice type value exists for a reason and we're not going to omit it because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As noted above, consensus may change via WP:FAR or yet another peer review, but in the interest of maintaining stability, those should not be approached until after the worldwide hysteria of Jackson's death subsides and the articles resumes its normal traffic flow. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion to offer on the specific content issues raised, but I'd like to point out that not a single aspect of editorial content is protected by featured article status, and neither WP:FAR nor WP:PR are necessary to agree on changes. The value of the discussion contained in the FAC and talk page archives are the only precedent necessary to new discussions here.
On vocal range, I'd like to point out that the source provided is describing Jackson's early voice as countertenor, and that our own countertenor article currently uses Jackson as an example of a singer who uses the range of a countertenor but frequently in the falsetto register, who is therefore usually not described as a countertenor. I'd therefore characterise the sourcing of this particular "fact" weak, and at best needs to be better researched. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue of the "businessman" statement has been brought up before by several editors who find it weird and poorly sourced. The most recent discussion is Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 26#Businessman here from a day or two ago. My suggestion would be some sort of compromise wording about him being a "music industry mogul" or a "leading figure in the music business" or to say something about his owning music catalogs as an investor. I haven't seen any good sources that establish his being a businessman including those provided above. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually kinda ok with 'businessman', even whilst finding it a bit silly. The countertenor ("This term is used exclusively in the context of the classical vocal tradition" - from our article) bit is still just plain wrong, to which we can add confusing to readers who click through that link - we're contradicting ourselves. The occupation spam I do believe would be improved by some significant culling - the 'occupations' listed are arbitrary and silly - it would be foolish to add 'charity worker, animator, property developer, publisher, fair ground operator, counsellor etc. etc.' but just as justifiable. I'll re-do some edits after a bit of time for thought / comment... Privatemusings (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight, it would be hard-pressed to find any kind of source calling Jackson "music industry mogul" versus using the wide variety of sources that call him a businessman straightforward as a man who transacts business  ; especially : a business executive. His joint ownership of Sony/ATV Music Publishing alone fits him into that category. Second, I dismiss the idea the occupations list is spam. Every aspect is discussed to varying degrees in the body of the article. To counter your last point: Charity work = philanthropy. Property developer/fairground operator can just as easily fall under philanthropy (as Never Land Ranch was developed specifically for ill children) or business ventures. The list of occupations have been given weight with relation to Jackson's publicly known dealings. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New image

I think the article requires a new updated image of Michael because most of these are based around during the 80s, it requires at least up to the 90s or onwards, users can email image owners from websites for permission (specify a Wikimedia license), see Commons:OTRS for more information on how to do this. DinajGao (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The regular editors of this article have been trying that for years, quite literally. There's a better chance of wikipedia crashing again, before anyone agrees to give us a photo to use. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Really now, well thats a shame! just a thought will a non-free image qualify to be used in the article? DinajGao (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably not. Since the subject is now deceased, fair use rational might apply, but we already have free images in addition to the 90s image of him in the screen shot for "Scream", so I doubt the fair use argument will hold water. In any case, its hell just trying to keep this article stable, there really shouldn't be any major changes for the next week or so. Trying to keep 24 hour watch to weed out vandals from well meaning edits it taking a toll on sleep @_@. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Using a non-free image in the infobox would probably fail WP:NFCC. The request for non-copyrighted images still stands, and any help would be welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it would fail NFCC. It's no secret that Michael's physical appearance changed a lot over time; an image of him from the 90s is not necessarily equivalent to an image of him from the 80s, in terms of what information it gives to the reader. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, i think this image is good in this article and it´s not necessary to be changed... However,if it changed, i think the photo most appropriate would be the image from the album Thriller (album)... But this is good anyway. Regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Info box omissions

How is it that this article omits his spouses, Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Jeanne Rowe? - his children? This info is present in infoboxes of other major figures, such as actors, politicians.Dogru144 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The template for the infobox of music artists, unlike the templates for other professions, does not allot for spouses or children, or awards, or anything else. that something you would have to bring up with the Parent WikiProject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of nanny; nanny's and Leonard Muhammad's ties to Nation of Islam

Article omits mention of Rwandan nanny, Rwaramba, and her increasingly important day-today role in his life. (e.g., pumping his stomach of drugs). Article omits attention to the nanny's ties to or Leonard Muhammad's role in Nation of Islam. The latter man is the son-in-law of Louis Farrakhan.<ref>Fox News "Claim: Jacko's Rep Threatened Harm From Nation of Islam" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510258,00.html</ref>Dogru144 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Final rehearsal to be released as CD/DVD

I just read about this: [5]. I don't seem to see this info here, so I'll let other editors sort it out. just64helpin (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New 2009 Album

Michael Jackson had an album in the works that was said to be originally going to be released in July but was said to be delayed (sometime early this year) and to be released later this year[6]. Does anyone know if the album was finished before his death? Seeing as the above fact is true, maybe this would be released with his new album if it was indeed finished. AcePuppy (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delayed? Where is the source stating his album was delayed? TechOutsider (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple articles online that had the original release date slated for July of 2009 when it was first being produced late last year. It was then delayed sometime the beginning of this year till later this year. I can't find the article specifically, but it was a reliable one. AcePuppy (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution for the voice-type problem

I think I've found the perfect answer (ignore the line 24/25 stuff and below; that was accidental and has been reverted), but there's a catch: The best-looking source that I could find was a page on JohnTorres.net. On further inspection, though, I was unable to link this site to John Torres; and in light of WP:SPS, I'm hesitant to deem this a reliable source. Seth Riggs has been noted several times to have called Jackson a "high tenor", and has been directly quoted in this regard. The assertion does not seem so outrageous as to raise many WP:BLP flags (in regard to Riggs), but in a BLP/WP:FA it ought to be sourced as reliably as possible. So, if others find the JohnTorres.net citation problematic, they might want to remove it or to WP:COMMENT it out until a better source shows up. In any case, I think the operative questions are as follows: Can it be reliably understood that Riggs classified Jackson in this way? And, if so, then through what source can this be understood? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I offer this as a tentative placeholder, but still think that a good sourcing of Riggs's own classification might be ideal. Given MJ's distinctive voice, one would expect this matter to be long-settled by now... Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Londell McMillan

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/11/24/2008-11-24_michael_jackson_and_prince_of_bahrain_se.html states: 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.

Also, see Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 21 and Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 23#Why not write about his conversion to Islam?. -84user (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson#See also

Why is the Peter Pan Syndrome listed under that section? No where in the article does it mention how Jackson could have the syndrome. 116.234.74.35 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SEEALSO section is for stuff that isn't already integrated into the article, but which plausibly could fit into it. As for plausibility, the connections between Jackson and Peter Pan are endless (e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], ad infinitum), with the most (in)famous association coming from Jackson himself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

Given recent events and the nearly 2,500 edits since July 2008 when this article made Featured status, should it go up for a review. --Stephen 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At some point when the world hysteria over his death subsides. FAR at this current point in time would be a nightmare on all editors and the article would probably have to put on probation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think so. One of the criteria for Good and Featured Article status is stability. While the situation is still developing, particularly the impending funeral, autopsy results, and inevitable issues surrounding Jackson's will or other disposition of his property, I doubt this is likely to be resolved in the short term. Meanwhile, there is no particular pressure to re-assess this article against the background of developing events. In short, please let us not get ahead of ourselves and let us the dust settle somewhat. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Bookkeeper and Rodhull - this is not the time to do a FAR. Nightmare is an understatement. Tvoz/talk 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe FAR is necessary right now. I suggested to User:Iridescent that when the furor and aptly worded hysteria dies down a bit, Realist2 requests the FA Team concentrate on making this article FA quality once again. This article has gone through a record-breaking amount of attention and stress, and I don't anticipate it would be difficult to have a few editors take on the grammar, citations, and general minutiae of copy editing. --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some guideline that automatically degrades articles that experience heavy revision from FA status to A or GA? 76.66.193.20 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So far the "heavy" revisions have been to either copy-edit current information or to add a small section of the subject's death which links to another article, and some vandalism. The way a FA or GA is nominated for review is if the heavy amount of revisions result in a loss of quality for the overall readability of the article. This article has yet to experience that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Countertenor

Once again this factoid has cropped up in the infobox, without any comment on this talk page contending the reasons given why it isn't appropriate. Once again:

  1. Countertenor is only formally valid in the classical tradition. Since this clearly is not the case here, what do we learn from pigeonholing Jackson's voice in this questionable manner?
  2. The source doesn't even come close to backing up the claim:
    1. The term refers to Jackson's early voice
    2. It compares that voice to that of a "Baroque countertenor", never suggesting that this is a credible formal classification

This article has been a stable FA for almost a year without the "countertenor" label. I've removed it again and suggest engaging on the talk page first if anyone still disagrees with this. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually hadn't noticed any changes made to the voice type value. My point in my recent edit was to rollback to a previous version which didn't wp:overlink or have undue emphasis on Jackson's death. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, as far as I can make out there has been no discussion of voice type here prior to his death, nor has there been a voice type value in the infobox. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I explained my infobox edits a little while ago. Bigbluefish, I agree with each of your points, and I don't think for a moment that MJ should be "pigeonholed" as a countertenor. That's why I called it a "tentative placeholder" and added the footnote: "Winn likens Jackson's voice to that of a Baroque countertenor." Perhaps that should have said, "Jackson's early voice". In any case, although the source doesn't allow us to conclude, "Michael Jackson was a countertenor", it indicates something that could be "headlined" (for lack of a better term) in the infobox, and then "footnoted" at the bottom of the page. It probably would be a safe bet that, of the gazillion people who read this article, many will be both A) aware of MJ's distinctive voice and B) relatively unaware of voice typology. By calling him a countertenor, we won't definitively synthesize A and B; but as long as we've got a reference and a footnote, we surely can accomplish something toward that end. And something, I suspect, might be preferable to the obvious alternative, which is nothing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comment above; I think I was searching for the "countertenor" keyword. I'm happy to agree with your final conclusion provided that you mean a good reference and footnote. Something is often better than nothing, but in a featured article that something must be reliable and defended by authority. I still doubt that such an authority on his voice type exists. Have you read Voice classification in non-classical music? I don't think a classification exists that wouldn't detract from the more unique facets of Jackson's voice. If anything, omitting a blanket label encourages the reader to read the Vocal style section for a proper explanation of his voice. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

MJ dominates charts and sales in US (again)

Michael Jackson Breaks Billboard Charts Records....some of this information could be notable enough to include in the article, especially as coverage about his death and its impact. In particular, he became the first musical act to sell over 1 million digital singles in a week, an enormous feat. It's like Thriller all over again.

Also breaking: Sony becomes the first company to escape the global recession. They are going to make a ton of money.UberCryxic (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The boost in sales is covered in Death of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TMZ adoption claims

Why is TMZ considered to be a reliable source of information? They provide no proof of their claim that Jackson's children are not his. Shouldn't the paragraph be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.24.253 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article said "On June 30, TMZ revealed none of Jackson's children had actually been born to him nor Debbie Rowe and that he had never legally adopted them because he felt no third party, including Debbie, would attempt to enforce a custody battle." The suitability of TMZ as a WP:RS has been hotly debated, and it might be best to wait for confirmation from mainstream media sources. This has been removed for the time being.[21]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, they broke the news of his death, but as has already been said, where TMZ go (so long as it's true) more reliable sources will follow. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
CBS, The Telegraph and Access Hollywood are all commenting on the alleged donor issue, but all cite TMZ as the primary source of information. Rowe's lawyer denies the rumor. Until there is a definitive answer, I don't believe it belongs in the article. As with the alleged conversion to Islam, rumors circulated through various sources are still rumors. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken ribs?

it is also said that from repeated CPR michael jackson had some of his ribs broken, as a desperate attempt to bring him back but unfortunatley it didnt work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.241.160 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This claim comes from our old friend The Sun at [22]. We will have to wait for the autopsy report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson a Muslim

Michael Jackson was raised a Jehovah's Witness but converted to Islam sometime in 2007 or November 2008 (the actual date is disputed). 3 of the sources in the article cite he was a Muslim, yet no mention of this is made in the article; why has this not been mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.213.178 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ and talk page archive. The consensus is that the single report in The Sun claiming this does not constitute reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Use the Search box above in the Archives... it's been discussed a million times already! Besides, who really cares what religion he is? Does that really matter at this point? He's going to be remembered and evaluated by what he's done... not what religion he is! If he was a church official or did something related to religion, then it might matter! I really think religion should be kept out of Wikipedia! I don't see why it matters what religion someone is? It would be nice to know BUT it really doesn't mean that they practiced it faithfully and/or they might just be claiming to be just to look good. NiteHacker (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because as we all know, The Sun is a crap British newspaper.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 8:49 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Well it is actually one of the top newspapers in the UK, with an audience of 2.05 million, and has won numerous amounts of awards including the British Press Award. DinajGao (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's still not a reliable source, especially when nobody else on the planet confirms what it claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It was actually accepted and published by the LA Times, NYDN, Washington Post, CBC News, Daily Mail and others. at the moment we cannot really confirm his religious status since hes gone, even though if he was alive for a couple of years he would never publicly say that he has converted really looking at the amount of media attention and scrutiny he received, and I don't really think the media would love to publish that news. the question of his faith was raised again after his death because people starting questioning how the funeral will take place, then I think we can decide. DinajGao (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was Christian... Well, your God is my God!Stakingsin (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that The Sun has a reputation for simply inventing stories, including one which has caused a whole city to refuse to stock it on principle. Sceptre (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's also a rag ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice a user changed minor grammar and spelling issues as well as capitalizing "christian" and "god" in other users' posts in this section. Is it permissible to alter discussion from others on a talk page? 63.227.64.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC).
It is not the done thing. And it is surely good to let people flaunt their ignorance. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Here, it really doesn't matter... in articles, you can edit for the following reasons... spelling, correcting upper/lowercase and remove curse words. Of course, you can add something to an article if it's relative... BUT you shouldn't remove something... unless it's real extreme. Leave it to more experienced editors or an admin and/or discuss your problem on the discussion page... that's why it's there. Otherwise, you should be careful as to what you do to someone else's work! If it's an obvious problem, then go ahead and edit... if not, try to discuss it first and give the original author a chance to correct the problem. Here, in the discussion page, it really doesn't matter and people write all kinds of things in all different ways but no one takes the time to correct it as it really doesn't matter but if it bugs you, you can just tell the person and let them correct it, if they want, otherwise, just let it go and don't worry about it! NiteHacker (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a new section about Michael Jackson religion should be somehow included in the article. It shouldn't be left out as it overwhelmingly passes WP:N & WP:CRYSTAL. If it is to be included, it should be somehow written in the safest way like "Michael Jackson was brought up as a bla bla bla... It is believed that he has converted bla bla bla". Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 04:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't someone just ask Jermaine Jackson? Also I'm curious to know why the media reports the most useless news on the MJ death (like what kind of art he purchased before her died) but they won't clear up the speculation going on about his conversion? and if he is going to have an Islamic burial. It all seems so peculiar to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp67us (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael may have a muslim funeral: The family of Michael Jackson is considering a traditional Muslim burial for the pop icon who had converted to Islam months prior to his death, says a new report. X 17 online, a celebrity website reported quoting sources close to the family that Jackson's new found will states that he will be buried in the traditions of his new faith. "The family is considering following the Muslim burial traditions because Michael would have wanted to be laid to rest in keeping with his new-found religious beliefs. Michael's brother Jermaine is educating the family as to the special rites," the source said Jackson had reportedly converted to Islam in November last year and taken the name of 'Mikhaail'. Meanwhile, a public viewing of the performer will take place on Friday at his fantasy themed abode California ranch, Neverland. There has been no official confirmation from Jackson's family on the location where his body will be laid to rest. [23][24][25][26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.54 (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Category:Converts to Islam: Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in their article to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up. There are no sources which have any level of certainty of his religious beliefs. As noted on the talk page discussions, all major publications which commented on the alleged conversion gave almost exact quotes from The Sun, or specified in their articles that the Sun was their only source of information. Also Wikipedia:BLP: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. If Jackson chose not to discuss his religious beliefs, then it is considered a matter of privacy, and it is not wikipedia's responsibility to present any uncertainty. Finally: Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased: In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. If at some point, someone in Jackson camp disclose official confirmation of Jackson's spiritual beliefs, it will be perfectly legitimate to add that information. However, until then, it remain speculation and is not a matter which is critical to understanding his biography since it is something he chose not to reveal or discuss. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessively citing Taraborelli

I noticed that Taraborelli is cited excessively in this article. I'm not familiar with what he wrote, but I think the entry would be more well-rounded with diverse sources. The section on the 1993 child abuse allegations is almost entirely cited to this author. What's more, it's a secondary source, so the information Taraborelli gathered had to come from somewhere. One example is LaToya stating to the press that she thought her brother was a pedophile. But when I checked the citation it's credited to Taborelli, who probably cited some interview that LaToya gave. I hope this can be cleaned up soon. 88.8.5.71 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The abuse allegation section reads as biased, something a defense attorney would write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.56.104 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Taraborelli is a legitimate third party source, a well known writer and biographer. I do not think that using that source is in any way a violation of [WP:NPOV]. I do not see a specific point of view,the source states that Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges, which he was.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern isn't the tone, it's that there are sections of this entry that come out of one book, and in some cases the book is citing something else. Good academic writing mixes up the sources. 88.8.5.18 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:PSTS: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources...Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources.
More variety in sourcing could be used, but it not exactly a pressing concern for the quality of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fabricated reports

FYI, here are some claims that need to be kept out of the article. http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20288706,00.html WillOakland (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, on what basis does Taraborrelli claim that Jackson was the source of some of the early rumors about himself? We've seen in the last week just how shameless "news" writers can be in fabricating quotes, manipulating soundbites etc. where Jackson is concerned. WillOakland (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael's First Son's Name

It says here on Wiki that Michael's eldest son is named Michael Jackson I, but I'm like 99% sure it's Prince Michael Jackson I If it wasn't why would his second son go by Prince Michael Jackson the II? In his album booklets he thanks his kids & lists them as Prince, Paris and Blanket. Also, he named his boys Prince not because he's the "King of Pop", but because he's grandfather was named Prince. I think that could be added as a trivia sorta thing. 67.84.164.119 (talk)Santos89

Read his will it states his 1st son's name as Prince Michael Jackson Jr. 67.84.164.119 (talk)Santos89 —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

His Last Will

Michael Joseph Jackson's Last Will --Psychodaddy (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This will is dated July 7, 2002, and media reports caution that it may be one of several.[27]. The most interesting part is that it names Jackson's children as Prince Michael Jackson, Jr, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael Joseph Jackson, II. This may help to clear up some long-running arguments.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson Will

The Will of Micheal jackson has been filed in a Los Angeles Court giving his entire estate to a family trust and naming his mother as a beneficiary of the trust and the guardian of his three children.-Mayur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.216.13 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen Chamber

fyi, I was watching Michael Jackson's 1993 Oprah interview in which he responds directly to the oxygen chamber story. I'd like to make the update myself but the article is locked.

I included it below. I'm new so I don't exactly know how this works. Rip me to shreds. Thanks.

Listed below is his response to the claim:

"That, that story is so crazy, I mean it's one of those tabloid things, it's completely made up... I did a commercial for Pepsi and I was burned very badly and we settled for 1 million dollars and I gave all the money...like, we bulit this place called the Michael Jackson Burn Centre and that's a piece of technology used for burn victims, right. So I'm looking at the piece of technology and decide to go inside it and just to hammer around, somebody takes the picture, when they process the picture the person who processes the picture says,

'Oh Michael Jackson.' He made a copy and these pictures went all over the world with this lie attached to it. It's a complete lie, why do people buy these papers? It's not the truth I'm here to say. You know, don't judge a person, do not pass judgement, unless you have talked to them one on one. I don't care what the story is, do not judge them because it is a lie."

Please refer to the transcript at [28]. The actual video is available for viewing on youtube [29].

joe_bob_attacks (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of this story in the article is not entirely satisfactory. In 1986, the National Enquirer published a photograph which it claimed was Michael Jackson in a oxygen chamber. The photo is here on the MTV website. It has been claimed subsequently that although the photo is not fake, it was done as a prank. There is a sourcing issue here, since MJ specifically denies having an oxygen chamber in his house in the Oprah interview on February 10, 1993. He says that the photo was taken as part of a trip to a burns unit after the Pepsi commercial incident. The claim that MJ "disseminated the story himself" should be removed/reworded in view of the denial at [30] 3:20 in the YouTube video. The claim that the oxygen chamber photos were a publicity stunt endorsed by Jackson himself is another example of relying on Taraborrelli as a primary source. In the account of the Oprah interview here, Jackson denies both the oxygen chamber and Elephant Man bones story--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Names - Mention variations in the article?

Michael Jackson's will lists his children as Prince Michael Jackson Jr., Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II.

Other documents lists them as Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael Jackson, II.

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0701_mj_will_wm.pdf http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/jackson_guardianship062909.pdf


Some documents list Michael's full name as Michael Joe Jackson. It could be added to the 'Also known as' section.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/042805minuteorder.pdf http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/ce-felonycomplaint-12-18mj.pdf

Israell (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

The infobox has that he was a multi-instrumentalist but the article has no mention of him having lessons, practicing, performing or recording with any instruments. I think this qualifies as being unreferenced. Kansaikiwi (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

please check out

in death of Sid Vicious, he died of overdose of heroin from what would be called a hot dose, (where the heroin is mucher purer than usual and so leads to death) ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_vicious#Death ; what this has to do with Michael Jackson is that in Sid Vicious case, he has just released in past year or so 3 top 5 hits in UK that were earning well, but on his death they sky rocketed to even larger sales suggesting he was given that hot dose of heroin on purpose; that is the situation with Michael Jackson; with his death, his sales of old albums etc have skyrocketed, reported Wed /today to have sold 450,000 in sales the past 4-5 days with his albums/ records being also top 9 of 10 in sales in pop; SO who stands to profit hugely from Michael Jackson's recent death... beside his estate and children ? and esp in regard to the UK tour, esp when he had finished to some degree having taped the songs and dancing for that tour in his practices ... fan 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source makes this comparison, it's outside our remit. Find sources that have said this, fine. Until then, I doubt it will happen. Rodhullandemu 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This thoery seem to constitute original research which wikipedia does not allow. If the theory is substantiated at some point by a major reliable source I think the information would be more appropriate in the Death of Michael Jackson page. Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bubbles

It may be interesting to note that Bubble's is now in the Center for Great Apes in Florida. According to the CNN article, Bubbles became "too big and strong for Jackson to keep as a pet." [31] joe_bob_attacks (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.205.200 (talk)

Maybe a short addition about the fact Bubbles is currently in the Center for Great Apes. The information mainly belongs in the article Bubbles (chimpanzee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaMoonwalker (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic Over-referenced

There are an awful lot of references to Allmusic here, in partuicular some inappropriate ones like non-contemporaneous reviews and comments on singing style that might just as well have been made by anybody. I suggest that they may have been inserted to promote the site. As a comparison, there are five references to Allmusic and five to Rolling Stone magazine. Does Allmusic really deserve such prominence? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is always heavily used in Wikipedia, particularly for reviews. Portillo (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic is a reliable source and is used regularly by most music related articles. Allmusic references have been present in the article since 2007. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's just that I noticed a reference to his singing style was from the nephew of the site's founder and someone who does not appear well-respected. Also a review of a 1979 album in 1991 seems a bit after the fact, and also not capable of divorcing itself from received or previous opinions. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone, Allmusic, Slant and a number of other music magazines commonly give secondary reviews of older albums to give modern listeners a contemporary point of view on older material. Its not at all abnormal and once again, is quite common in music related articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Some say the same about cricinfo in cricket articles, but if the website is a reliable source like this one is, why not? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Video game

A video game has been announced, should it be added to any of his articles? http://www.mjdatabank.com/english_version/news/2009/june/20090621_mj_video_game.htm Portillo (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a good finding Portillo!! But i think is better to waiting for more details about this game...Anyway, it was the first time i see this new game... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Presley similarities

Jacksons life has many similarities to Presley's. Graceland/Neverland, drugs, suspicious "death" and rumours about the "death" being a hoax. The news that jackson was seen on Hawaii the 30th of June is just an other example of this. Perhaps the article ought to reflect this and make some comments about these sightings. It is a puzzle to me that the Presley-article lacks this information. Given the huge number of persons that have reported seeing Presley it is a puzzle that this fact is left out. Shall the Jackson article have the same lack of information? Personalyy I believe that the most neutral way to describe the current events is to write that Jackson "withdraw from public life in June 2009", and leave it up to everyone to decide if they want to believe he is dead or bewlieve the huge number of persons having seen him since. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See for instandce http://www.michaeljacksonsightings.com/ 85.227.196.162 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Major sources, such as the BBC, confirm he is dead. It is not open for interpretation. The similarities may be of some notability. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I do not know if you are familiar with the term primary and secondary sources. There are only secondary sources claimin that Jackson is dead, i.e. news agencies that will never be seen as witnesses in a court of law. However the persons having seen Jackson the 30th of June are primary sources. Thus the only evidence is that he is still alive. 85.227.196.162 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The source you posted contains no information about the author(s)，the publisher(s) or the date of the post. Such information is essential when citing a source. It seems to be a website created by someone, or a self-published article. It may be used when the author is an established expert in the subject whose work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. In this case, the author is unknown, and fails WP:V.
Such major claims require exceptional sources. See WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Red flags include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". His presence in Hawaii has not been covered by any major news source. Another red flag is "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". His presence in Hawaii is most definitely controversial; Jackson's had cardiac arrest, an autospy, and even his family has commented on this death. The last red flag is "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The claim is definitely contradicted by reliable sources, such as the BBC. Simply put, "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."
As for primary sources, see Wikipedia:No original research#Sources. Primary sources may be used if they have been "reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper)". The link above has not been reliably published. Regards, ThaMoonwalker (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"Michael Jackson is alive" is little more than a joke/urban legend going round a few obscure websites. It could be mentioned in Death of Michael Jackson if the mainstream media picked up on it, but it fails WP:GNG at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This Daily Mail article and this Fox News article look at the conspiracy theory angle. Perez Hilton was strongly criticized for a post suggesting the death was a fake, and has since removed the post concerned. Possibly notable enough for Death of Michael Jackson.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_26&oldid=1137007026"