Talk:Michael Jackson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 247: Line 247:
I think the whole fake nose thing is irrelevant and doesn't belong. Even if there are links to it, it is stupid. But we should debate it before we remove it. [[User:Toonami Reactor|Toonami]] ([[User talk:Toonami Reactor|talk]]) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole fake nose thing is irrelevant and doesn't belong. Even if there are links to it, it is stupid. But we should debate it before we remove it. [[User:Toonami Reactor|Toonami]] ([[User talk:Toonami Reactor|talk]]) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:I've removed it. It doesn't belong here, because within the context of a 40+ year career, it fails [[WP:UNDUE]], even if the sources are reliable. I suggest that the editor seeking to include it argue, per [[WP:BURDEN]], at [[Death of Michael Jackson]], where it ''might'' belong. But not here. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:I've removed it. It doesn't belong here, because within the context of a 40+ year career, it fails [[WP:UNDUE]], even if the sources are reliable. I suggest that the editor seeking to include it argue, per [[WP:BURDEN]], at [[Death of Michael Jackson]], where it ''might'' belong. But not here. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. Yeah, I thought it just sounded plain stupid. Anyway again, thanks. [[User:Toonami Reactor|Toonami]] ([[User talk:Toonami Reactor|talk]]) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:15, 28 July 2009

Template:VA

Featured articleMichael Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 25, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 25, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

Jackson's Memorial Service

However wrote the section about the memorial service forgot to mention all of the performers. I mean, you forgot to mention John Mayers instrumental contribution of Human Nature. Come on people!!

Also it states that Lionel Richie sang a Michael Jackson song. He actually sang a gospel style song that was not Michael Jackson's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjcollectables (talkcontribs) 14:26, 11 July, 2009 (UTC)

trademark

The article does not mention Jackson's white glove, his black hat and his jacket with the ribon around one sleeve. I think the information should be added. Tajik (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the glove was mentioned in past versions of the article, but is not there at the moment. The single white glove on the right hand seems to have been a Jackson trademark during the eighties era (see the 1984 infobox picture), but is not found in later photos. This probably should be in the article at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have a new section on his style of dress over the years, including the iconic single glove? He seems to have had considerable influence on fashions, and the very strong association between the wearing of a single glove and Michael Jackson has made it a popular feature of parodies and homages. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. See WP:OR. If you can find reliable sources talking about his dress style and influence, that would be excellent material to add. TechOutsider (talkcontribs) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the New York Times a reliable source? See A Sequined Glove That Mesmerized the World. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant media coverage is another requirement. A single story will not justify. Sorry I did not mention this the first time. TechOutsider (talkcontribs) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, it does not need any media coverage to at least mention his legendary white glove or his black hat in the article. Only a very very very few people in the world would not recognize Michael Jackson on this, this or this picture. Don't you agree?! Tajik (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be mentioned somewhere that MJ was to be buried wearing a single white glove, as it was his trademark style. The image with the caption "Queues for a Michael Jackson concert in West Berlin in June 1988" in the Legacy and Influence section could perhaps be replaced with the image of a single white glove on MJ's hand, as it is something which has had a profound influence on imitators and tribute acts to him. Dokerz (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Kid and Question

Alot of people are saying that someone named Omar Bhatti is Michael's secret love child. And I wanted to if I were to take a picture off of my TV screen, could I post it here --Mpurplegirl (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing better to do, I guess. It's probably going to get removed considering it's irrelevant non-sense, but go for it.UberCryxic (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claim about Jackson's children will go in the article without reliable sourcing, which in practice would be a DNA test.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interview with Omer Bhatti in today's Sunday Mirror. In it he denies that Michael Jackson is his father.[5] This story started life in The Sun.[6] Enough said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the World Awards reverts

Regarding this:

  • non-notable: I persist in saying World Awards foundation is ten years old and has established notability to give this sort of awards. Why can't it be treated the same as Guinness establishment or any other valid/recognized corporation? About recentism, will you put this awards only in ten years? This is non-sense.
  • it certainly shouldn't be placed in the second intro. paragraph Why not? There are a lot of prices/awards mentions in the lead ... Or the whole awards should be put in a dedicated section and not into the lead. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As he has won so many awards, I think it's best if it is added to List of awards received by Michael Jackson. We only need the major music awards (Grammys, WMAs) mentioned here. Pyrrhus16 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least, we should mention in the lead he has been awarded for numerous humanitarian awards. He is not only a notable philanthropist but a humanitarian. I suggest: "He was also a notable philanthropist and humanitarian who donated millions of dollars to a record 39 charities, plus what he raised by way of his own Heal the World Foundation." BTW why not mentioning he is also a superstar? It describes pretty much the phenomena around MJ's fame. The lead should mention it, IMHO. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Superstar" is a vague term and while it may apply to him, I have never heard it being used to refer to Jackson. TechOutsider (talkcontribs) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh!? American superstar Michael Jackson was born in Gary...STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problem is that the word "superstar" doesn't apply to MJ. Clearly it does, and plenty of people have described him as a superstar. It seems like the word is actually too small for him -- as in, MJ is well beyond a superstar (icon, legend, etc), whatever that word means.UberCryxic (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least, we should try to render and depict its fame if this aforementioned citation is true and sourced. Why not using the same term as Elvis Presley article: cultural icon? His look is so unique (I mean in 80s) that people are looking for whatever is linked to it (: see andy warhol's painting which is going to be sold to millions). I would add that Michael kept a deep love relation with its fans and whoever was in contact with him (did he ever trial someone?). I know nothing of any other relation like that with any other superstar. Among many declarations from closest relatives, we find this "Michael Jackson was an exceptional Human Being. He was gifted, deeply compassionate and brought joy to the lives of so many. He loved his family dearly, and above all, his beautiful children." and "Michael touched the heart of many in the world"-something like that. His "human-being" nature should be mentioned in a way or another, imho. And next to all rewards-prices he got as a big megastar. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarks

This article is an FA but it does not mention Jackson's famous trademarks: his white glove, his black fedora, and his very unique clothing. That HAS to be added to article. In fact, I did add them, but someone has removed them again. Tajik (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJJ Music

Here's an element of Jackson's business dealings that has been neglected, MJJ Music. Was it merely a vanity label under epic, or was it a lot more than that? Sony/ATV has earned GA approval, so maybe this can use some work since its along the lines of his involvement with the business side of music. Imperatore (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a major label; it only accommodated a few independent artists. Most of the time it was the music of the Jackson family released through MJJ Music. Pyrrhus16 11:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it classifies as a vanity label. In any case, the article needs some attention seeing that it was only created in this month. Also Pyrrhus16, are you one of the editors behind Sony/ATV's GA approval?? Imperatore (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, MJJ Music should be redirected to Michael Jackson, as there is no indepth outside coverage of it. Most of the results at Google News mention it in passing.
Yes, I brought Sony/ATV to GA status. Pyrrhus16 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't feel its right to pass up an MJ label as not notable no matter how insignificant it may appear to be to outside coverage. I was also asking because I'm very impressed by the commendable work done on Sony/ATV; many congrats. I have tried to work on the foundation of Sony Music but its still a very undeveloped article- I was wondering could somehow sony music, epic records and mjj music receive some attention from active MJ project editors, even thought they aren't as directly relevant? Imperatore (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) Getting Sony Music to GA looks like it would be a big project. If you were to find some books on Sony, I think you'd be able to make it a decent sized article. Pyrrhus16 12:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo seriously out of date

As I've pointed out before it's ridiculous how out of date the photo on the article is, and a more up to date one should be used even if it's fair use or whatever because that one just doesn't really illustrate the person properly

This has now appeared in the New York Times as a particular example of Wikipedia's poor handling of photos, so maybe it's time to take notice at last?

Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos, New York Times, July 19, 2009 --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fame - we are in the New York Times! The infobox image has been discussed a zillion times, and as the NYT article points out, Wikipedia is limited to copyright free photos unless a fair use rationale can be found. The regular editors of this page do not make the rules, and are bound by WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a generous donator will abandon some image rights to the Commons project for this article? We can always dream ... they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright this is a free project and the copyright word doesn't chime very well with it, trials happens. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be at least one fan out there that has taken a non copyrighted picture of him! Hopefully someone can donate one. Portillo (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found that a bit surprising at first. TechOutsider (talkcontribs) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

This isn't mentioned on the article? Michael Jackson referred to Jews as 'leeches', Michael Jackson, anti-Semite. Apparently, in the song 'They Don't Care About Us' he sang "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, Kike me" but he changed it after people complained... then he changed it back for the video. AWT (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this leads to a sourcing issue. Michael Jackson fell out with Uri Geller over these alleged comments, although he had been best man at Geller's wedding in 2001.[7][8] Other comments on this issue welcomed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and they published this story.[9] Postits (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article touches on a similar theme. [10] Postits (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a Wikipedia point of view, there are WP:REDFLAG issues in this type of situation. The BBC website uses the phrase "alleged comments" [11] due to the unusual way that they were obtained. The most interesting aspect of this story (for me anyway) is that Jackson and Geller fell out over it. Although Geller has been interviewed on television recently about his "friend", it seems that they had no contact since 2006. Most of the photos of them together are from the early 2000s.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the BBC uses the phrase "alleged comments" then the article should also used the phrase "alleged comments" when discussing this. The BBC is an extremely high quality source so that should be our template. Postits (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Islam and Nation of Islam

Nothing in the article is said of Jackson converting to Islam, nor of his association with the Nation of Islam. Manjor newspapers report this: Michael Jackson's aide 'quit due to Nation of Islam', Michael Jackson 'converts to Islam and changes name to Mikaeel', Michael Jackson: was he influenced by the Nation of Islam? AWT (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page FAQ and archive. There is no reliable evidence that Jackson converted to Islam, and nothing at his memorial service suggested this either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson's lawyer also denied this claim. — Σxplicit 06:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that: there is a significant difference between Islam and the Nation of Islam which is not accepted as "Muslim" by any orthodox or traditional Muslim group. Tajik (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He used Nation of Islam body guards at his trial and Louis Farrakhan claims Michael asked for Farrakhan's counsel one week before his death [12]. I think this should be included in the article because there are over a billion muslims in the world, many of whome would be quite happy to hear Michael was makeing moves towards Islam. He spent most of his final years in the Arab world. Postits (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this source saying he became a Muslim [13] Postits (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) Wikipedia is not about "making Muslims happy" (or any other group or religious movement). So far, I have not seen any reliable source supporting this rumor. b) YouTube is not a valid source (there only a few exceptions). c) More important than adding all of these rumors to the article, someone should at least mention his trademarks (i.e. the white glove or his black hat) in the article! It's a shame that this FA does not even mention his legendary white glove that was just about to be sold for more than $15000 (of course, this has changed since his death). Tajik (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat the longstanding consensus, no claim about MJ converting to Islam is suitable for the article, because it is tabloid froth. I would like to see the article mention the white glove somewhere, and would welcome suggestions on the best place. It is mainly a feature from the 80s era, so perhaps it could go there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for his trademarks: I think that a new paragraph should be added to the "Musical style and performance" section, dealing with his clothing, trademarks and appearance. In that section, his glove, his hat, his crotch-grabbing etc. should be mentioned. Tajik (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a concensus cannot be reached about MJ's religious beliefs then his religion should not be mentioned and the section should not be included. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Why is there so much opposition to mentioning he might have turned Muslim? Is there something wrong with being Muslim? Postits (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. The problem is that if every half-baked tabloid story about MJ over the years was listed in the article, it would be twice as long and half as good.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stick to factual sources. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a member of any religion but wikipedia is an encylopedia and it is important that it sticks to the facts. We can neither confirm nor deny whether he was a Muslim or not. Therefore the best option is to remove all sections of the article that reference his religion and stick to his musicallity which we can prove and verify. Furthermore in-linbe with what has been said above the stories from the tabloids have been conflicting and no official source (e.g. respect public figure or member of immediate family) has confirmed or denied the rumour. Even having this conversation is a little disrespectful to MJ's memory. We should remember his legacy for his music because at the end of the day i think his religion was seperate to his music. When he was alive he never made a huge deal out of it, so now he's died we should make a huge deal out of it. This wikipedia page should educate the younger generation on his legacy. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Check out WikiIslam it disagrees about his conversion, it starts from the start of the conversion story to all the way to his funeral, it concludes by saying there is not enough evidence or reliable evidence to suggest that he had converted to Islam. It even states that Yusuf Islam or David Wharnsbey never met up with Michael Jackson. [14] Dimario (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Sun article it stated that the British singer Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was there at the conversion ceremony, however in his own website he has stated this: Contrary to persistent press rumours, I was not at any kind of conversion ceremony for Michael Jackson. Nor, I believe, was Dawud Wharnsby or any of the others mentioned in connection with the story. Granted, I was in Los Angeles at the time these rumours first appeared – but I was busy filming a video for a new song, Boots & Sand. [15] More info can be found on that WikiIslam page. Dimario (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic The Hedgehog 3

I ran into some really interesting stuff that proves Michael Jackson had influence in some of the game's music, you can see the links at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbVM-l2Oku4 and at http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=392&title=Sega%20Legends:%20Michael%20Jackson%20&%20Sonic%203 And he he also mentioned that he was a big fan of Sonic. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me put this interesting note of information about him on his article, since he was a Sonic fan, i think he would of appericated it. but thats just me. What do you think?--Dr. Pizza (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are reliable sources. Also, I think that information would count as trivia, which is not really accepted in good quality articles. If we were to include that information, we would also have to add stuff about him being a fan of KFC, etc. Basically, the Sonic stuff isn't really important to his life story as a whole. Pyrrhus16 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sega fan site...And worst of all, Youtube... Need we say anymore? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead (again)

Without wishing to set off fresh arguments about the lead, the phrase "a record 39 charities" has found its way back in again. Is this sourced and notable?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s wording is a little Un-Encyclopedic (Maybe a tad fan written). From what I can see, all such material should be treated as Original Research and non-NPOV as such…But then that’s just my opinion, take no heed!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious question is "Who decided that this is a record, and is it a WP:RS?" Without an answer, this should be edited. There is also a peacocking tone here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone really wants this information included I think they have to be specific about exactly what the record is (I doubt if giving to 39 different charities is a record in itself, and if it were how could it be verified?) and provide a reliable source. As it stands at the time I'm writing this, the information is impossibly vague: not only does it fail to impart useful information to the reader, it doesn't give other editors who might want to research the matter much to go on. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe why philantropist and humanitarian were abandoned in the lead, so I reverted: you could get some insights here for the 39 charities or Usa For Africa statement on MJ death and there. The truth is: Michael was (very/too much) generous but didn't want everyone to be aware of his numerous gifts, especially to critically ill children. Please, ask some fan forums for more url pointers. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Nose

I think the whole fake nose thing is irrelevant and doesn't belong. Even if there are links to it, it is stupid. But we should debate it before we remove it. Toonami (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It doesn't belong here, because within the context of a 40+ year career, it fails WP:UNDUE, even if the sources are reliable. I suggest that the editor seeking to include it argue, per WP:BURDEN, at Death of Michael Jackson, where it might belong. But not here. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I thought it just sounded plain stupid. Anyway again, thanks. Toonami (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]