Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Why not write about his conversion to Islam?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html

Seems fairly significant? Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krabborg (talk • contribs) 07:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the talk page archive, see [1].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He did not convert. Please don't believe everything you read. — R² 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? are you his secretary or something? i cannot see why a Wikipedia editor decides if he has converted than a top news reporters. There are sources of him converted, but are there really any sources which state he hasn't converted. Totally not neutral in this case. HaireDunya (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

read this discussion. Several editors and administrators agreed these reports are inconclusive and are to be excluded. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also: New York Daily news Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue," McMillan told reporters. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenation of Anti-Gang-Violence

Using the Enligsh phrase checker, which I discovered when reading a Wikipedia article about writing great articles, I searched "Anti-Gang-Violence", and found it was actually "Anti-Gang Violence". I do not know the rules of hyphenation too well; if you disagree then just drop a note here. TechOutsider (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

"His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists."

There is no citation to backup that possibly controversial claim. TechOutsider (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

There is a list of artists he influenced, with sources, in the article body. Leads don't need sourcing. Certainly we could remove the word "numerous" unless a specific source could be found for that, or we could add more artists he has influenced to the list. But the rest seems fine in my opinion. — R² 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" has been removed. — R² 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review coming soon

It's been quite some time since the article passed FAC and since then we have the 2008-present section (which, for the most part, did not exist during the review). So, in the coming days I plan to have the article peer reviewed for prose and MoS issues only. I have a few referencing issues to sort out before then. — R² 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review now complete, thanks for all the feedback. — R² 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

also have a1 fan who care's about eveything he's done for the world and do not care what anyone say'sabout him.<crystal n. jackson.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.96.162 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok.... — R² 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MJ's Influence on Chris Brown

Chris Brown said a few times (in interviews, TV, etc) that MJ was a major influence on his career. Can someone find it and post it to the list of artists who have been influenced by MJ?Facial (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Will.i.am from the Black-Eyed Peas also cites MJ as the major influence on his career.Facial (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the artists that he worked with on Thriller 25 have actually been influenced by him. If possible, I'm sure there are admissions by Fergie and Akon somewhere out there too. Facial (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing with artists like Fergie, Akon, will.i.am and Chris Brown, it while they certainly are popular right now, they have only sold a few million albums/singles each, having a relatively minor impact on music in a historical context. Jackson has influenced much bigger artists in his life time, notably Mariah Carey, R. Kelly, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Kanye West (not sourced in article yet, but easy to find). — R² 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Since MJ has been around for so long, all the wierd things he does don't effedt him as much as they would effect someone else. If Chris Brown or anyone else that is really popular right now did half the things that MJ did, they're career would be over pretty fase. But that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singingshar (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably true, we could probably add something about it to the article, but it's very unlikely the media have discussed it. At this stage it doesn't seem like the media can cause any further damage to his commercial clout. They've thrown everything at him and yet he just sold out 50 dates at the O2 in a heartbeat. The media are a little out of touch with the public when it comes to Jackson. Currently there is a very expensive documentary being made on the singer. The producer has said that he is finding it difficult to get a distribution deal with a broadcaster, because the documentary is pro Jackson. The media aren't interested in playing it. I think the media bias against Jackson is a very interesting aspect of the Michael Jackson story, it seems to be a philosophical/political bias over any commercial reasoning (clearly there is a huge market for pro-Jackson material right now). Of course, the media are very unlikely to admit to their own biases, so I'm not sure how we could get it into the article. — R² 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New section on Dance styles?

There is a section on music style. I think someone (who is more versed in dance) should start a section on his dance styles.

What I know is that he has been influenced first by tapdancing, then disco, then by a form of freestyle dance known as popping, and then made some more moves on his own. Facial (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Some information about his dancing is included throughout the article. I'm not opposed to a specific section on his dancing, it was suggested during it's WP:FAC. — R² 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"...a new song called 'For All Time'."

I believe it was "previously unreleased". TechOutsider (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done — R² 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, don't think he recoreded a new song recently. TechOutsider (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

He recently recorded a new song with Akon, called "Hold my Hand". Billboard we're talking about it and it was leaked onto youtube. Was planned as an album track according to Akon, but because of the leak they decided not too. — R² 17:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the leaker(s) should have thought of that. I would have :) TechOutsider (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference "Campbell, Lisa (1995). Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour. Branden. ISBN 0828320039."

King of Pops? TechOutsider (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

King of Pop(')s . Fixed. — R² 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Messy Talk Page

Hey, this talk page is mostly occupied by the banners. Some overlap in meaning. I don't really think they are needed. YOu should have faith here in how people govern themselves. Just an opinion. TechOutsider (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions on which ones need removing, this is standard with controversial articles on living people. See Obama's biography as an example. — R² 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the fourth template should be removed. The second template clearly states this is not a forum of general discussions. TechOutsider (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. — R² 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Billboards new sales figures

Billboard Publishes Top Selling List Sunday, April 12th 2009

US magazine Billboard has published their list of the three hundred Best Selling Albums Of All Time. Not surprisingly, ‘Thriller’ was top of the list with 72,400,000 units sold. ‘Bad’ was Michael’s next entry at Number 9, with 33,200,000 units and ‘Dangerous’ was came in at Number 20 with 30,000,000 units.

‘HIStory’ came in at Number 71 with 19.600,000 units and ‘Off The Wall’ featured at Number 75, with 19,000,000 units sold.

These remarkable sales just prove yet again, that Michael is the best selling artist of all time with over 174 million albums!

Source: Billboard & MJWN

Kelvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.32.249 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you you have a billboard web link to that, the info would be useful. — R² 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thorson claims

I added the following to the Jackson entry as there was no mention of it: "In 2004, Scott Thorson, the former boyfriend of Liberace went public with claims to the National Enquirer that he and Jackson had sex in 1979 and later, including in the U.K. homes of Danny La Rue and Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu, and further, that Jackson possessed boy pornography. To support the allegations Thorson underwent and passed a lie detector test." Reference: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/liberace.s%20ex.lover%20claims%20gay%20affair%20with%20jackson

This was deleted by a fangurl with the statement: " big claims need big sources". Well, the National Enquirer never had a reputation for accuracy, but it IS a big public source. However the issue here is that the claim was made, and it was acknowledged by Jackson's lawyers. Not surprisingly they dismissed it, but they didn't sue Thorson's ass. However flakey his character or not, given he named dates, celebrity home locations, and supposedly passed a profesionally supervised polygraph test, perhaps that's also not surprising. In any case, that such a huge and controversial claim was publicly made by a public 'identity', and publicly acknowledged by the opposing party, surely begs for the incident's inclusion, if only as a matter of record. Some fans may even be pleased to read of it: Thorson was at least out of short pants. So: shall I restore the entry with the addition "A laywer for Jackson dismissed the claim." with the reference: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,627959,00.html Engleham (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This falls into broadly the same category as the "Michael Jackson converts to Islam" brouhaha from November 2008, which is not mentioned in the article per WP:CONSENSUS. The Thorson claims are not all that notable anyway, since there is always a rumour mill of poorly sourced stories surrounding MJ. Like The Sun, The National Enquirer often falls short of being a reliable source, so the presumption here would be against including it in the article. See also WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Issuing personal attacks against me is not going to help your case. Firstly, the claim made against Jackson is covered already in the Thorson article, where it should be covered. It could also be covered in People v. Jackson I suppose, but it has little baring on the biography of Michael Jackson. It really is of little historical importance to the singers biography. The big claims of 1993 and 2003 are noted and they will be the ones remembered by history. The National Enquirer is a sensationalist tabloid that has a long history of printing outright lies and Thorson himsef has zero credibility. Regarding the alleged "child porn", during the 2005 trial the prosecution tried to trump up certain paper material Jackson owned as "child porn", even though it was perfectly legal material. Material that some might argue is child porn is probably not under US law. — R² 13:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No way is The National Enquirer a reliable source. The polygraph isn't even accepted by the FBI as reliable these days. "Boy pornography" may or may not be legal depending on the age of the "boys", and it's easy to bend a description if you have an axe to grind, particularly when it involves getting a nice fat fee for helping to inflate the circulation of The National Enquirer. Nonsense on stilts, as they say. Rodhullandemu 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Former publicist to sue Jackson

Another day, another lawsuit: [2] --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how it pans out, but this could quite possibly warrant inclusion in the article. She was a very notable figure in his recent business life. — R² 11:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

Some interesting wording in the lead; "In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further sexual abuse allegations and several other charges."

I'm not sure if "further" is the right word; in fact I believe it should be omitted. He was acquitted on all charges, not acquitted on "further" abuse allegations. TechOutsider (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, "further" is correct. One set of allegations were made against him in 1993 and the case was dropped; he was charged in 2003 with further allegations. It's necessary to clarify that this was a fresh set of allegations, not a re-opening of the Chandler case. – iridescent 10:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should use a word to distinguish the allegations, if there is a better word than "further" I'm open to it. — R² 13:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not mention two sets of abuse allegations. It should clarify; one in the 90s and one in the new millennium. TechOutsider (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Though he was accused of child sexual abuse in 1993, the criminal investigation was closed due to lack of evidence and Jackson was not charged. The singer has experienced health concerns since the early 1990s and conflicting reports regarding the state of his finances since the late 1990s. Jackson married twice and fathered three children, all of which caused further controversy. In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further sexual abuse allegations and several other charges.

— R² 15:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Works. TechOutsider (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Should his occupations be wikilinked? TechOutsider (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it would be overlinking – if someone doesn't know what recording artist, entertainer, or businessman means, they're probably too stupid to turn the computer on in the first place. – iridescent 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ROFL @ Iridescent's comment. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Common terms should not be wikilinked, I think most of those are common terms. — R² 12:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Many other articles, including Prince (musician), Akon, Kanye West, Fergie and will.i.am have some or all of their occupations wikilinked. TechOutsider (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK: In short, Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link

1. plain English words;
2. terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
3. items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"damaging his public image"

This phrase has been in the lead for a very long time, but I have had concerns about it for a long time. How on earth do we know what the "public" actually things of Jackson? Recent events would suggest the public (in the UK) love the guy. I think it would be better to word it as "media image" or something. What the media think of Jackson and what the public think of Jackson don't seem to be the same. — R² 17:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it damaged both, if not all of this images. I do agree "public" differs slightly from "media"; one likes to blow things up a little bit. TechOutsider (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Media image" would not quite fit, because some people personally believe he is guilty. One of my teachers claimed he "loved boys" as to why I could not do a research project on him. Maybe a compromise and mention both his "media" and "public" images? Or maybe "reputation"? Or just "image"? TechOutsider (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_italic.png

My point is, it is impossible to calculate how, if at all, his "public image" was "damaged". These are both extremely vague terms and open to interpretation. All we know for certain is it led to unfavorable media coverage, but we have no way of proving that the public actually believe (or care) what the media have to say. I can find quite a few sources that describe the media as "out of touch" with the public's feelings on Jackson. Surely the coverage has turned "some" of the public against him, but is the damage enough that it warrants a mention in the lead? We have no way of proving the level of damage caused. — R² 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his is difficult to source (I doubt there have been any opinion polls on the subject), but I don't think there's any doubt that his image has suffered. He is much more of a joke than he used to be. I don't think it's an unreasonable phrase.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reasonableness" is not a criteria for including pure opinion in the article, even if it is a popular opinion. The phrase has no context either. I could argue that he has a higher level of public support than most public figures, I doubt anyone else could sell out 50 dates at the 02, in the space of a few hours. What criteria do we use to measure "damage to public image"? And how can we say his "public image" was "damaged" yet not mention the fact that he is still extremely popular amongst the public? I can also think of a few people that think he has a few screws missing, but would still happily buy any of his products. Does that mean they like him any less? It might be easier to say that he divides public opinion. Like Hillary Clinton, peoples opinion of her was greatly divided yet she was still popular enough to nearly win the election. I think something like that would be easier to source, and be more accurate. — R² 15:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that he's still popular and a lot of people still want to see him live, just that he is not as popular as he used to be and the allegations have played a part in that. But yes, "divides public opinion" might be a better way of putting it. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's someone whose public support is quantifiable, as 30 years of back catalog provides a benchmark. Ignoring new releases, reissues etc – did sales of the less high-profile back catalog material (which only diehard fans are likely to buy) drop when the allegations were made, and rise when he was acquitted? If sales of something less well-known, like Forever, Michael (why is that article only seven sentences long?) dropped 75% in 1993 and never recovered to previous levels, that provides a measurable statistic for "new fans". – iridescent 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(This is only based on US sales). Jackson was acquitted in 2005, his back catalog sales declined in 2005 and further in 2006 but recovered sharply in 2007 and further again in 2008. 2009 is thus far a good year again, his Number Ones album is selling 5,000 copies a week in the US alone. I'm not sure if his catalog sales have fully recovered to a pre 2003-2005 level yet (I don't know the data), but they are getting better and better. However basing it on US sales alone would be highly inaccurate since that country only makes up 25% of his sales. — R² 16:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm having trouble figuring out how a high profile figure could twice be accused of child abuse and not have their public image damaged. Even if you are acquitted, you are still tainted:that's just the nature of these things.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, a possible way that could happen – and I'm not saying that this is the case – is that, although 10% of people are irredeemably turned off him by the allegations and never buy anything he releases again, the fact of his presence all over the news reminds a generation of kids who were too young first time around, and enough of them decide they like him to cancel out those fans that are lost. We are talking about a man who spent much of the 1980s planting "mental illness" stories in the press on the "any publicity is good publicity" principle, after all! – iridescent 20:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, his image was definitely damaged. However, by just how much? I don't think such information is quantifiable. You can research the sales figures for his music, however an array of other factors influence sales. You can try to work out a correlation between the sales figures and the allegations, however I do not believe most readers will be bothered by the lack of context for the particular phrase. Additionally, global figures, not just US figures would be best. Omit it and readers will claim you're being biased. I believe most readers have an understanding of the allegations and have formed their own personal opinions on the subject matter. I didn't notice it up to now. I read it, and I thought it was fair, neutral and accurate representation of Michael Jackson. As for "dividing public opinion", per Pawnkingthree, that's a great idea! If an opinion poll was held, that would be excellent information to leverage. Seems as if we as humans tend to fill in the gaps when reading encyclopedic articles. OK, so we have no way of quantifying the amount of damage the media did to Jackson, nor did he sue. We do have sales figures (US only). We could possibly omit that phrase from the lead. Or we could reword it. Keep the discussion going! TechOutsider (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How about removing "damaging his public image", leaving the sentence as

“ Other aspects of his personal life, including his changing appearance and behavior, generated significant controversy. ”

Yes, the events generated significant controversy; for example coverage in mass media (tabloids, newspapers, TV, etc) TechOutsider (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disputing that certain sections of the public have been turned off by Jackson, I'm just disputing whether the degree of "turned off" is such that it warrants a mention in the lead. It's impossible to measure or quantify how much the public reacted. You can't base it on a decline in sales because hardly anyone sells more than 5 million units of a studio album these days, the whole industry has been falling to pieces of the last 6-7 years. Dangerous (1991) outsold Bad (1987), think about the level of damage the media could have done in that 4 year period (his skin went completely white between those albums too), yet Dangerous did better. Does that mean the public liked him more in 1991-1993 than they did between 1987-1989? Impossible to tell. — R² 08:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Skin cancer

In today's Sun, Michael Jackson has skin cancer. WP:REDFLAG etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they have anything better to do? Who believes this shit anyway? — R² 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a good chance that it may be true NY Daily News/Michael Jackson diagnosed with skin cancer --88.233.50.78 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Find a single article that doesn't include the phrase "according to The Sun" and maybe it's plausible. Until then, no. The Sun is indeed occasionally right, on the stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day principle, but is no more reliable as a source than The Beano. – iridescent 16:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ♦IanMacM♦ realized not to add the information to the article immediately; instead he checked with Wikipedia policies and asked people for a consensus here. Let's give him credit for that. TechOutsider (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tech, Ian had no intention of adding it to the article at all. Just making a point to let editors know about the latest rumor reported by tabloids so we know what to watch out for. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has skin cancer??

I think this should be included, because it was not denied by his publicist (http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=15). It is likely that he does...?? Entteengossip (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It was denied. Also, that website is not a reliable source. Pyrrhus16 10:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Today, a White House spokesperson refused to deny that Barack Obama was a serial killer." That proves it, or does it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Until Jackson confirms anything regarding his health it's not going in the article, period. — R² 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I move that that restriction be now lifted--Hugh7 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

- wow, talk about being tyrannical. 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So much for THAT! --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson photos

well i think he needs a new picture up here. i looked back in the discussion and saw that some people had trouble with a mugshot of michael being posted, and i think that is very mean and inhumane. however, i do think we need a RECENT photo, that isnt in spite of jackson or been altered by tabloids to humiliate him. how about we use a photo of jackson at his recent 02 announcement? i mean, he looked amazing in that. while he was wearing sunglasses, there are some great shots of him. [3] [4] [5] those are some amazing shots. that sites main page has alot of other pictures if you follow links to 2009, 02 anouncement. now understand that particular site would probably not be the best place to get the image due to the watermarks and everything, and obviously whoever posts an image must follow wikipedias rules. however im just using that site as a guideline to what would be a great improvement to the article. it would really help wikipedia as its a positive, yet recent, image. Kingofpop69 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly can't use those images, because they are clearly copyrighted and almost certainly pirated. I'm suspicious of an index page that has embedded popups anyway. But since MJ is a living person, we do need images that are free of copyright; the ones you link don't qualify. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

well certainly. like i said, those images were just guidelines for somethinng to use. what im saying is, does anybody have pictures of this that they own that would qualify? because this would be a great set of pictures to use from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofpop69 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice Type

It says in the article that hes a tenor with very high tenor abilities. I know that he often sings in falsetto but isnt his chest voice high enough to be classified as countertenor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.81 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

this is a lie. do not believe it.

The info box says his voice type is “falsetto”. This seems plain wrong to me. Sure, he sang in falsetto sometimes (as to lots of male pop stars) but his voice is more accurately described as tenor. Any previous discussion on this? (I couldn’t find anything in the archives)Amilnerwhite (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Genius

Someone should create a category called geniuses so I can put Michael Jackson in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrictheWelshDragon (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be a rather pointless category, but aren't they all a little pointless? — R² 21:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The term 'genius' is rather subjective, as compared to factual. And this is, an encyclopedia.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Does anyone know anything else about Michael's current position on Jehovah's Witnesses, and how active his religious upbringing was? If he is a disfellowshipped Witness, then someone should file his name away in the Former Jehovah's Witnesses category. 62 Misfit (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson was a very strong Witnesses all the way up to his mid twenties. He broke away from the religion but still respects aspects of it. For example, during his 2005 trial he occasionally wore good luck charms from the witness religion. These days he only talks about spirituality in general terms and doesn't specify his religion. — R² 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh...they don't USE good luck charms or symbols. It's against their religion.- User:Psychotime (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

genres:urban

in the off the wall,bad,thriller albums has no urban feel to them and when i correct it someone changes it some one tell me why--Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Because here at Wikipedia we use reliable sources not our own opinion. Also, this has nothing to do with the Michael Jackson article, you should have discussed the issue with me personally or on the talk pages of those albums. — R² 10:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

His Religon

Does anybody know wheather or not the allegations that Michael Jackson is Islamic is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.238.106 (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Only Michael Jackson knows what religion he is, and he say's he is not a Muslim. — R² 13:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Who can say that he is muslim or not? Just he! Finoqueto (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson converted to Islam. Here's one of many sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html

"Beleaguered pop star Michael Jackson has converted to Islam and changed his name to Mikaeel, it has been claimed today.

The 50-year-old singer, who has previously been photographed wearing a traditional Arab women's veil, reportedly became a Muslim in a ceremony at a friend's house in Los Angeles.

The singer, who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, is said to have sat on the floor and worn a small hat while an imam officiated at the home of Steve Porcaro, who composed music on his Thriller album."

Please update his page with the correct information

Another lawsuit

This from the BBC today [6]. Also, this about the concerts in the Daily Telegraph.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like everyone wants a piece of the pie. — R² 12:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor addition for clarification

In the section of Vocal Style, the following sentence is found:

A distinctive deliberate mispronunciation used frequently by Jackson, occasionally spelt "cha'mone" or "shamone", is also a staple in impressions and caricatures of him.

It does not say what word is these spellings are mispronounciations of. As it turns it (if you follow the reference for that sentence), the word is "c'mon" (yes, perhaps an obvious guess, but it inspired at least me to try to confirm).

Ordinarily, I would just make an edit, but this page is semi-protected, and I've never bothered to create an account. This is the edit I would make:

A distinctive deliberate mispronunciation of the phrase "c'mon" used frequently by Jackson, occasionally spelt "cha'mone" or "shamone", is also a staple in impressions and caricatures of him.

69.181.137.117 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Sean

Aside from the single "source" of the Bad lyric sheet, is there actually a source for "c'mon" being the source for "shamone"? – iridescent 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Video games

I am wondering where the best place to mention the several video games MJ has been/participated in, such as Michael Jackson's Moonwalker? SharkD (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The only one worthy of mention would be the Moonwalker one, we have to avoid trivia stuff. If we are going to mention the video game, it would go in the Bad era section, since it was released in 1990 I believe. We also need to prove that the video game is notable enough to go in this biography. Did it do well, either critically or commercially? Have the BBC, CNN etc discussed it? — Please comment R² 01:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Check this out: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10273229-1.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20