Talk:Michael Jackson

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
Change Joseph to Joe.

Michael Jackson's middle name is Joe, not Joseph.

This comes from court documents. Mjsmyidol (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Which document(s) are you referring to? Last I checked, "Joe" was an alternate middle name used while the more formal "Joseph" was his legal name, but either way links would be helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Mihchael has verbally stated « Joseph » as his middle name on a few occasions. Chasetruth101 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the image of MJ
Why is the main image of him in black and white? I think it would be cooler to have an image of him in color on the top of the article, as long as it's freely licensed. Zakawer (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what led to the current image used, but if you have any particular suggestions on what else to use for the infobox, then please list them here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His most famous looks are
 * Smooth Criminal (1988)
 * History Era w/Black Fedora Hat (1996-98)
 * Black or White (1991)
 * Thriller (1984)
 * Bad (1987)
 * American Music Awards (1984)
 * In the Closet (1993)
 * Dangerous Tour (1993)
 * Short Hair (1995)
 * Billie Jean (1982)
 * So any of these would do Never17 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * These are copyrighted and not suitable for WP:NFCC as there are various free to use images of Jackson on Wikimedia Commons. There have been numerous debates about this and I'm not the greatest fan of the 1988 image, but it does have a consensus.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's tough because the estate copyrights literally any usage of his likeness, it's hard to find a good one we can use. But i was just throwing it out there that one of those would be good if we were to make a change Never17 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Images we currently have the proper copyright are available for viewing at https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Michael_Jackson .... Is there something there that stands out? Moxy 🍁 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the ones available, this one is easily the most famous (Dangerous Tour 1993). The image is extremely high quality, in color and would be a great picture to use since it's frequently referenced a lot. So my vote is for this Never17 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2024
This sentence should be re-written in the past tense. It should also be clearer.

Change this: “The executors claim that it was worth about $7 million, the IRS that it was worth over $1.1 billion.”

To this: “The executors claimed that it was worth about $7 million, while the IRS claimed that it was worth over $1.1 billion.” 2600:4040:549B:7300:7027:BCB4:5F36:50E5 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ the sentence has been revised accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 15:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory information in Death section
Currently, the death section says: "Jackson died from cardiac arrest, caused by a propofol and benzodiazepine overdose." …and then says… "Murray had administered propofol, lorazepam, and midazolam; his death was caused by a propofol overdose." Which one is correct? Nosferattus (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2024
This a very minor request, instead of "Michael Jackson sold around 500 million records" it should be "Michael Jackson sold over 500 million records. All i want changed is one word Never17 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done It looks like you have since become extended-confirmed and made the change in this edit. Left guide (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Religion/Personal life
Hello. Could anyone tell me if it's appropriate to include Michael's conversion to Islam? Thank you Grandia01 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of this page. This was dismissed as unreliable a long time ago.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i don't know how i missed that. thank you Grandia01 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheWikiholic, you've (partially) reverted my edit, but (tbh) I don't see a clear consensus that philanthropist should be included in the first sentence and I'm still confused even though I did read this conversation. Its inclusion is definitely against MOS:ROLEBIO, which says, "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader) ..." Thedarkknightli (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would support removing "philanthropist" per MOS:ROLEBIO as it's not how Jackson is most commonly described by reliable sources and isn't what made him notable. Popcornfud (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the talk discussion that led to the re-addition of "philanthropist" to the lead. It seems there was a consensus there and the descriptor was added soon after.


 * I will not hide my stance on this issue given that I opened that discussion as a novice Wikipedian. Some of the points presented in that discussion include that the quantity of Jackson's donations was unprecedented for a pop star, to the point that they were recognized by Guinness, and that his philanthropy influenced future pop stars. RyanAl6 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We recently discussed this topic in greater detail, as shown here. We have a dedicated article on Jackson's philanthropy. Based on the aforementioned discussion, a summary of his philanthropic activities has been added to the body of this article under the "Philanthropy" section, although it has not yet been summarized in the lead TheWikiholic (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Guys, I would actually be fine with including "philanthropist" if we do summarize his philanthropy in the lead.
 * Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Its unnecessary puffery and something hes widely known for. It. should be removed. Instantwatym (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Michael Jackson is widely regarded as a notable philanthropist and humanitarian. His charity work is unprecedented, and his message of world peace is well known. I vote for keeping the term "philanthropist" in the lede. Israell (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not among the things he's most notable for though, and that sohuld be our guiding principle per MOS:ROLEBIO. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If Jackson's philanthropic actions had been anecdotal, then there would not be an article about his philanthropy. That philanthropy is even linked to places associated with Jackson, such as the Neverland Ranch or works (albums, songs like "We Are The World", "Gone Too Soon"...). Salvabl (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, in the year 2000, Guinness World Records honoured Michael Jackson for supporting 39 charities, more than any other entertainer, and Michael donated over 500M to charity throughout his career. Israell (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was anecdotal, or non-notable. I'm saying it isn't one of the things he's most notable for. It probably isn't even in the top 3 (This is a high bar — MJ is one of the most notable people ever to exist.) Popcornfud (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the aforesaid reasons. The very existence of Neverland makes it one of the things he's most notable for. Israell (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one way to test this is to see what obituaries wrote about Jackson shortly after his death. Here are the first handful of reliable sources I came across: Guardian, NME,NYT, LA Times, Economist, Uncut, Times, Rolling Stone.
 * An initial scan through each of them don't reveal any mention of his philanthropic work. This suggests to me that it wasn't one of the things Jackson was most notable for, and therefore listing it in the lead sentence may be WP:UNDUE and not meet the requirements of WP:ROLEBIO, which have been stated above.
 * We can't make decisions about notability based on what Wikipedia pages exist, because Wikipedia obviously can't be used to indicate notability. (I mean, we also have a page on Bubbles the chimpanzee — should we mention him in the lead sentence too?) We can't make decisions about notability based on whether Neverland (or anything else) exists, because Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neverland Ranch is perhaps the worst example anyone can point to about his supposed Philanthrophy. That Ranch is associated with most (if not all) of his pedophilia and child sex abuse allegations, including one related to an upcoming trial which is pending a date. If guilt is established at the most recent trial (for alleged crimes prior to his death), would we still include his ranch activities under philanthrophy? It would asinine to do so. Notability is what most people (the general public, not die hard fans) associate with an individual. Philanthropy is really pushing it and its not something he is widely known for. And some of his "philanthrophic" activities such as the ranch are questionable at best, and perhaps even criminal. Instantwatym (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jackson was proven innocent and there was no evidence ever found that he was guilty of any crime. Was he weird? Yes, he's one of the most famous people ever and his circumstances his entire life was abnormal. Most people do not care about these false accusations and the average person living in Africa, Europe, Latin America or islands in the middle of nowhere listening to him have never heard of them.
 * His few "accusers" were people who went on record defending him and then later contradicting their previous testimonies and claiming retroactively abuse happened after being offered money for their stories. "Child Sex abuse accusations against Michael Jackson ruled unfounded after month long investigation". This was the same case he went to court on, during this investigation which followed Living with Michael Jackson he was in Miami Florida during the majority of the period. He met the family in 2000, the accusations claimed that he waited 3 years after meeting them only until he got backlash for the Bashir interview and was under investigation for a crime before actually committing the crime. They changed their story in July of 2003, claiming they were actually being abused by Jackson during the period he was under a criminal investigation. Which is complete nonsense.  If that isn't enough the DA who had a clear vendetta literally performed a illegal raid of Jackson's attorney's offices, got a copy of this memo and then retroactively changed the dates of the sexual abuse accusations and added more charges including a conspiracy charge even though Jackson was the only person allegedly involved in the conspiracy.
 * This is pure nonsense and rightfully got thrown out of court. With the Jurors stating on video a few years ago "The Prosecution had no evidence, what little case they had was tainted by the District Attorney" Never17 (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only brought that up in response to someone saying that one example of his philanthropy is a place linked to most of his child sex abuse allegations. The dispute at hand is whether to define this individual as a philanthrophist in the first line of the lead. I don't think so because his philanthropic activities are something that vast majority of individuals are familiar with. His notability among most people is as a singer, dancer, entertainer, etc.
 * P.S. Since the allegations were brought up, it is a fact that there is an active case that is proceeding trial. One could argue that it should be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the lead, because the way the lead is written currently implies that he has been cleared of any and all wrongdoing and does not have an active case. Instantwatym (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes he settled in 1993 and that fucked him up since even though he was cleared it opened the door for grifters to sell their stories to the media in exchange for cash Never17 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not sure how one can convict or even sue a dead person, it is true that having an article dedicated to something doesn't automatically warrant a mention in the lead, and we shouldn't exclusively follow what fans associate with the guy. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There are multiple reliable secondary sources discussing Jackson's philanthropy and humanitarian work, as well can see here and here . Numerous sources are also available in non-English languages. This extensive coverage is precisely why Jackson's philanthropic efforts have a standalone article. A standalone article does not necessarily mean it must be included in the lead, but it clearly indicates the significance of his humanitarian contributions.
 * According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Jackson supported more charities than any other entertainer. Some estimates suggest that he donated over $500 million to charities, which is more than any other entertainer. Additionally, his will stipulates that 20% of his earnings and 20% of his assets are allocated to charity. His estate is currently worth more than $2 billion, further establishing Jackson as one of the most prolific philanthropist and humanitarian in history.
 * According to WP:ROLEBIO, a position, activity, or role should generally not be included in the lead paragraph if it is not otherwise discussed in the lead.
 * And here we have the 2019 version of the articles lead states: "He traveled the world attending events honoring his humanitarianism, and, in 2000, Guinness World Records recognized him for supporting 39 charities, more than any other entertainer." TheWikiholic (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally believe his philanthropy should be included as a part of his description. His humanitarianism is woven into his music and what Michael Jackson was most proud of. He became a significant humanitarian figure during the start of the Dangerous era (1991-onwards) and during the 1990s he was at the peak of his fame and popularity meeting with world leaders on a regular basis on the subject of his humanitarian work Never17 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all great but Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)