Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

Voicemail message

@Jimcastor, can you provide a source for this edit? This episode was reported by multiple reliable sources at the time but I can't find any further coverage. Popcornfud (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Dieter Wiesner's book , audio version included the recording in question [1] If we cite the ADL's own site as a source we could cite Wiesner's book as a source too. Without context citing ABC's one sided report is misleading. At the time of the ABC report Wiesner was suing Jackson for $64 million [2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4462616.stm] thus he had a vested interest to smear Jackson in the media. Wiesner gave the edited audio to ABC then his book directly contradicted the ABC report. If we include every negative story the mainstream media told about Jackson the article would be 100 times longer. What makes you think this incident is relevant enough to be included in the first place? castorbailey (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The ADL site was not cited as a source for that edit — the Guardian was. I see the ADL is used as a source elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, though I think this as irrelevant to our current debate. However, as Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, I have replaced this with a Washington Post source.
What makes you think this incident is relevant enough to be included in the first place?
The coverage in numerous high-quality secondary sources from the period, such as the BBC, Guardian, Rolling Stone, etc.
Wiesner gave the edited audio to ABC then his book directly contradicted the ABC report.
I'll take a look at the source. Popcornfud (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant as in if ADL is a good source for that part of the page Dieter's book should be a good source for this part. Otherwise how do you decide when to use a direct source and when not? The coverage only mentioned the tape which Wiesner edited, not his motive or the fact that he had edited the tape, which his own book and the release of the audio after Jackson died prove he did. If we included every single thing some mainstream media companies copypasted about or against Jackson the page would be endless. castorbailey (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant as in if ADL is a good source for that part of the page Dieter's book should be a good source for this part.
ADL is not a good source, as Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources, per
WP:SECONDARY
. That is why I replaced it with a secondary source. That's also why pointing at it and saying "but what about this" is a red herring for this conversation.
The coverage only mentioned the tape which Wiesner edited, not his motive or the fact that he had edited the tape.
Because those sources do not say that, we can't include it, per
WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE
.
which his own book and the release of the audio after Jackson died prove he did.
I have examined the book, which says that Jackson said "They do it on purpose" instead of "Jews do it on purpose". It offers no explanation for why this transcription differs from the version that made the news.
However:
1) This does not prove that's what Jackson said. It's just what this book says.
2) The book is a
WP:PRIMARY
source. It also hardly seems reliable for Wikipedia purposes. (You yourself state that Dieter cannot be trusted, so why trust him on this book?)
3) We have several high-quality
WP:SECONDARY
sources that report that Jackson said "Jews", not "they".
Weigh up the sources here. We have a stack of high-quality secondary sources that report one thing, vs a memoir by someone with no established reliability for Wikipedia purposes that mysteriously reports something else, without any commentary or explanation. I would really prefer to see a reliable secondary source reporting on this discrepancy instead. Popcornfud (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Good source or not, the inclusion of this is not only knowingly misleading at this point, it’s irrelevant to the section that it is included in and irrelevant to this page altogether. There are multiple independent reliable sources that says MJ had converted to Islam. He didn’t. He also never responded to these allegations. Are we going to include that too? No. For the same reasons why that isn’t being included, are the same reasons this Dieter reporting should remain excluded.
This is bloat. This is an example of the media running with a story before full facts come out. This is also a violation of WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUE. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Plenty of time has passed to conclude WP:Recentism is also retrospectively being violated here. The inclusion of this is overburdening the article with misleading breaking news reports and controversy as it happened. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view, one that has since been clarified and not corrected in the media. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple independent reliable sources that says MJ had converted to Islam. He didn’t. He also never responded to these allegations. Are we going to include that too?
This returns us to a bigger, recurring problem on pages to do with Michael Jackson: how we deal with reliable sources, and when we dismiss them.
The guiding principle of Wikipedia is that we report what reliable secondary sources say. When we start dismissing them because we personally know differently, we get into choppy waters. Don't get me wrong: sometimes it's the right thing to do. But I am not seeing a rigorous approach here.
This goes both ways. Only a couple of weeks ago, there was a debate about whether to include the report that the "Wacko Jacko" nickname has racist connotations. As I am strongly biased in favor of reporting what sources say, my inclination was that we should include this information. @User talk:Ianmacm raised some reasonable concerns over the accuracy of the source, but neither you (TruthGuardians) nor castorbailey were troubled by that, seemingly.
Please note that I am not advocating for the wilful inclusion of false information on Wikipedia. It's not as simple as that. What I'm saying is that there is a tension between sources here that probably needs to be addressed and formalized. We as a community ought to come to a collective, conscious consensus about how we handle them. Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Wacko Jacko and Jacko in and of itself have been routinely used across the media for decades. Jackson himself is on the record addressing the problem so it would be hard to argue that this is not a relevant part of his life. But this one-off story about Dieter's tape that is contradicted by his own release years later is on Jackson-was-castrated-level of a story. Wiki's guiding principle is not to include everything just because reliable sources report it. If we did that how long would biography articles be? castorbailey (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
You yourself state that Dieter cannot be trusted, so why trust him on this book?
If you admit Dieter is not a reliable source then you should dismiss the reports about the very tape he gave to ABC too. ABC aired Dieter's tape, the edited one that is. It's not just his book but in his audiobook he released that very same recording which showed Jackson did not call Jews leeches. Of course the coverage only mentioned the edited one since that's all Dieter gave them at that time, in context of his $64 million lawsuit against Jackson. It was a smearjob and if we included every story about Jackson that certain mainstream media companies copypasted the page would be endless. You don't have any good reason why this particular report should be included and that because it was reported by this and that media is not a good reason. Especially since the story has two diametrically opposing versions. There is no wiki rule that every story about someone that is copypasted across multiple mainstream media sources should be included in the articles. Should we include that Jackson was said to be castrated just because multiple accepted source reported it?
This does not prove that's what Jackson said. It's just what this book says.
Then those "high quality" reports do not prove he said Jews either and your purpose with including this in the article is to make the reader believe he did say that.
ADL is not a good source,
Does this mean you want to delete the part relying on that source? Primary sources can be included if they were reputably published. And in this case the source is not someone writing something about an event but the very recording which is presented differently in the ABC report.
I have examined the book, which says that Jackson said "They do it on purpose" instead of "Jews do it on purpose". It offers no explanation for why this transcription differs from the version that made the news.
We have the very audio not just the book. Listen to it. You think we should include one sided reporting about an edited tape without even mentioning that the very same recording exists in a different version released by the very source of those articles? castorbailey (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
If you admit Dieter is not a reliable source then you should dismiss the reports about the very tape he gave to ABC too.
No, and this suggests you are confused about how sources work on Wikipedia. The sources (from Wikipedia's perspective) are the Guardian/BBC/Rolling Stone etc, not Dieter himself. That is the key difference. That is what is meant by a
WP:SECONDARY source. Popcornfud (talk
) 13:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's a non-MJ example.
I work on articles to do with Sega. Sometimes Sega developers write tweets with interesting info about a Sonic game, or whatever. When that happens, we don't add this information to Wikipedia, because the source would be a primary source from that person's social media account. Not a great source from Wikipedia's perspective, and besides there would be no indication of why that fact would be notable for Wikipedia.
However, when that tweet then gets reported by a reliable video game news site, that then allows us to integrate that info in the article. Even though the secondary source itself is based on the primary source, we need the secondary source. That's the distinction. Popcornfud (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I know how sources work and I also know how reality works. The source for the ABC story, which was copypasted by the other outlets, was Dieter's own recording, we have a reliable source on that if you need it. [3] You want to include this story without informing the reader about that fact, in fact without even including the news about Dieter's lawsuit which is the context of this particular attack on Jackson in the media. Again, there is no wiki rule that we should include every story in biographic articles just because X number of outlets repeat them. Each has to be evaluated based on relevance and credibility. The very source you rely on [4] admits that they could not verify Wiesner's tapes beyond any doubt so why would you want to lead the reader to believe that the tapes accurately reflected what Jackson said? Dieter's own released audio after Jackson's death in his audiobook is a primary source that was reputably published hence in this case WP:SECONDARY does not trump WP:PRIMARY and in this case should be included for accuracy, if this otherwise irrelevant story should be included at all, which it shouldn't much like the news of Dieter's lawsuit was not included in the first place. castorbailey (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
> @Popcornfud: I have examined the book, which says that Jackson said "They do it on purpose" instead of "Jews do it on purpose". It offers no explanation for why this transcription differs from the version that made the news.
Here is the video that aired on ABC News GMA:
Exact quote from the video, as it also appeared in several news sources:

“They suck they're like leeches. ... I'm so tired of it ... They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up with penniless. It is a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose.”

YitzhakNat (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
That is the version Dieter edited and gave to ABC to smear Jackson during a massive lawsuit. The audio you can hear in his own book however does not include Jews at all. There this is the exact quote:
"they suck them like leeches...take advantage of it. I'm so tired of it. I'm so tired of it. They start out the mot popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything. End up penniless. It's a conspiracy.They do it on purpose."
Visionary: An Interactive Look Into Michael Jackson's MJ Universe
Dieter Wiesner M Jackson recorded call castorbailey (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of whether we include this in the article etc.
Do you have any source to show that this audio recording was edited? Or is this your own conclusion based on comparing audio sources? (I don't have access to this other audio recording.) Popcornfud (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. Now that I hear a different version, I have no idea what is real anymore. For some reason this article doesn't mention a word about Wiesner.. It would be at least worth a mention about the false allegations against MJ and fabrication of evidence against MJ, to make clear that the countless articles about this in 2005 are actually false and a result of a smear campaign organized by former adviser Wiesner. YitzhakNat (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no way we can say evidence was fabricated without sources. We can't use our own judgement. Popcornfud (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, but if there are two different versions of the same message by MJ, that clearly is some type of manipulation which is worth a mention - about the differences of audio message that was aired on TV as a major controversy and later published in audio book as simply a neutral phone call.
Interestingly, Wiesner filed a $64 million lawsuit on November 21st 2005 and the next day (Nov 22nd) the tape was aired on GMA. YitzhakNat (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a direct connection between the lawsuit and Dieter using the media to smear Jackson. Without that context including this story is grossly misleading. castorbailey (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, but if there are two different versions of the same message by MJ, that clearly is some type of manipulation which is worth a mention
We can't mention that without finding a third source that observes the discrepancy. Otherwise, this would be
WP:SYNTH
: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."
Likewise, castorbailey's claim that it was a smear campaign is irrelevant for our conversation until a reliable secondary source states it. Popcornfud (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
So far you couldn't even provide a good reason why this story should be included at all and it's not true we don't have a source, we do, except you don't accept it even though primary sources can be accepted if they were reputably published. This book and audiobook were not self-published so they can be used just like countless other books are used as sources on wiki. Especially since in this case the source of both versions is the same guy. You want to use a secondary source which admits they could not verify the tape but the way you want to include it in the article would lead the reader to believe that the tape was unquestionably what Jackson said. castorbailey (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll ask again:
Do you have any source to show that this audio recording was edited? Or is this your own conclusion based on comparing audio sources?
This isn't a trick question. I'm not trying to trap you. I don't mean like "aha, see, you have no sources so we have to include this!" I mean I am genuinely trying to find out if this tape was edited. Popcornfud (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess this is just a supposition, then? Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, there’s nothing to prove here. The burden of proof would be on the media reporting the story, who have already admitted that it was unverifiable, and to this date hasn’t been verified by any media outlets. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the burden of proof right now, I'm asking from a non-Wikipedia perspective what the situation is.
Is the two different audio recordings all we have to go on or has there been any commentary from anyone else involved, sources, interviews, books, etc? (Even stuff that isn't reliable for Wikipedia — I'm just genuinely curious right now before we get back into issues of sources.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The source is Wiesner's own book which was reputably published. If you include that and the ABC story for any reasonable reader it's self evident that the tape had to be edited as the two versions clearly differ. You removed information related to Jackson's involvement with SEGA based on "two paragraphs is excessive WP:UNDUE detail for what amounts to a relatively tiny part of MJ's life and career)" but you want to include this episode which is even less relevant in his life and career. The whole story of Wiesner's machinations with that tape is WP: UNDUE along with countless other sensationalized and dubious stories in the media related to Jackson. The source you want to cite stated they cannot verify the tape's authencity. Wiesner's own book cast doubt about that. That is enough ground to exclude this questionable story from the page. castorbailey (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
You removed information related to Jackson's involvement with SEGA based on "two paragraphs is excessive WP:UNDUE detail for what amounts to a relatively tiny part of MJ's life and career)" but you want to include this episode which is even less relevant in his life and career.
It's not the same. We still have the Sega info in the article, we just don't need two paragraphs of it — especially as we have another article, the
Sonic 3
article, to cover the story in depth. But you want to remove this episode entirely.
it's self evident that the tape had to be edited as the two versions clearly differ.
Yes, but which version was edited and how do we know that? Popcornfud (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
To add to the above. There is clearly no consensus to include this in the article and clearly no one's minds are being changed, as usual. So I'll drop it. But I want to impress on you, I am genuinely curious about this issue and trying to figure out what the story is with this weird edited audio recording and why, if it was edited, seemingly this did not kick off another MJ drama shitstorm. I find it quite a puzzle and I would appreciate any further information you have on it (which may end up being useful for the article further down the line). Popcornfud (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses verified information. This is admitted to be unverified information by even the TV program that published it. So how is it that Wikipedia’s own rules are being circumvented here just to add claims about MJ that would not even pass a wp:Recentism test. So if Wikipedia only uses verified information, we certainly should not use this. the tape could have been edited and the media that showed it acknowledged they couldn't verify the Jewish related comments as we learn from GMA and secondary sources like this which says, “Good Morning America was unable to verify the anti-Semitic message was left by Jackson, but claims it has confirmed the second message made to Schaffer requesting cash.” The tape being edited is not Jackson’s burden of proof, or the burden of proof for the editors that oppose this addition to this article. What is important in this case is the fact that the information being added is verified. In this scenario it is not verified.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

How exactly did he learn how to sing early on?

They never get into how he or his family found out he had a talent. from reading some bios, they make it seem like he miraculously discovered he had a voice by 5-6 years old. Usually most famous black singers in the 20th century had some experience in the church, but I don't see nothing indicating that for Jackson. 174.251.135.128 (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is purely speculation on my part, but if I had to guess, then I'd say dad Joe one day heard him sing and decided to make a living off it. Either way, such a detail would be nice to know for certain so we could implement that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

King of Pop

the authenticity of the opening comment that Mr. Jackson was dubbed the king of pop is in doubt. It was Michael himself who dubbed himself King Of Pop, well documented at the time on tv news sources, as MJ wished to be compared to Elvis - the King of Rock. He felt he had accomplished this level of fame. the difference here that your article is excluding is that some journalists, artists, do dub artists 'Duchess of Cool' or "Lady Day' the "Duke" Ellington. This distinction should be noted in an article on the King of Pop. Rickie Lee Jones (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been had. In the discussion it was proven that the media started referring to Jackson as the King of Pop, there is no infatuation with Elvis, and to further add an exclamation on the conversation, the Michael Jackson estate trademarks the name “King of Pop” as shown here. There is only one King of Pop. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
IIRC Jackson specifically denied coming up with the phrase himself in his TV interview with Oprah Winfrey. They then played a clip of Elizabeth Taylor referring to him as the King of Pop at The Soul Train Awards in 1989, as noted in the article. He certainly embraced it though, as he was annoyed that Elvis was "The King" and "Springsteen was "The Boss" but he didn't have one.[5]-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI, Jackson was called by the king of pop just after the success of his Thriller album even though it was not widely used on TV. Here is the London Herald article from May 1984 after the Jacksons visited the White House he was called King Of Pop. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Non-hagiographic biographies are clear that the King of Pop moniker came from Jackson's camp. Jackson leaned hard on the media, allowing them to publish interviews or carry his videos only if they called him the "King of Pop". The 2011 book I Want My MTV has a chapter dedicated to this development, called " 'I Want to Have a Nickname' – How MTV helped Michael Jackson elect himself 'the King of Pop' " spanning pages 478–482. The first public indication of the nickname is described as a memo written by MTV exec Matt Farber in November 1991, saying "Here's a unique one: We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop' on-air." Farber went on to instruct his VJs to refer to MJ as the King of Pop at least twice per week, setting a quota. The book authors state that this instruction was directly from Jackson's management. Film director Larry Stessel said that the idea originated with Bob Jones, a publicist hired by MJ. A week after the MTV memo was delivered to its own VJs, an exposé about the memo appeared in Rolling Stone. Steve Isaacs says that the internal leak probably came from VJ Kurt Loder who was previously a writer for Rolling Stone. The Los Angeles Times refered to this issue on November 29, 1991, in an article titled "MTV 10". They wrote, "Michael Jackson (or 'the King of Pop,' as MTV is allegedly obligated to refer to him in return for his ongoing cooperation)." Plenty of sources call him the "self-proclaimed King of Pop", including this NYT piece from 2005. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, this discussion has already been had years ago. It’s not the case as per the example above. The name is trademarked by the Jackson estate and can only be used commercially by the entity. No one else, for anyone else. This conversation therefore serves no purpose. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Your stated position is
tendentious. Nobody here cares whether the nickname is trademarked. We go by WP:Reliable sources, which define the topic. Your obstruction will not stand. Binksternet (talk
) 21:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
and there are plenty of reliable source disputing the claims above. Again, this discussion has been had. Find it. The difference is when there are more than one reliable independent source reporting contradicting information, like here in this case, we bet the sources and choose the source most applicable for the topic at hand, which has already been done. When there are no contradictory sources, we stick to the only source confirmed as verifiable and reliable. So you’re, we do stick to reliable sources, and that’s what this page displays. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
MJ was first called the King Of Pop by promoter Don King when he was promoting the Jacksons' 1984 Victory tour. Multiple newspapers have labeled him as so, including the London herald. As a Madonna stan, you know how and when the term “the queen of pop” was bestowed upon Madonna. MTV has been saying nothing like they didn't refuse to play MJ's music as well but it's well documented the truth. There are plenty of reliable sources that contradict both claims you are making which is why these discussions have already been had and the article says what it says. TheWikiholic (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Is your reply aimed at me? Because nothing I've ever done would categorize me as a Madonna stan. But I am very interested in seeing a source that talks about Don King in 1984. A fact like that should already be in this biography of MJ. Anything that predates Liz Taylor in 1989 would be remarkable. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The New York Post, Daily Star, TV Guide Chicago Sun Times and Boston Globe all called him King of Pop already in 1984. See [6] , [7] , [8] ,[9] , [10] , [11] , [12]
Additional newspapers calling him King of Pop in 1984:
Sydney Morning Herald [13]
Arizona Republic [14]
Southern Illinoisan [15]
also, The Daily News-Journal (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) · 8 Jul 1984, Sun · Page 49
The News and Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina) · 19 Feb 1984, Sun · Page 2
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Texas) · 13 Jul 1984, Fri · Page 109
The Danville News (Danville, Pennsylvania) · 19 Feb 1985, Tue · Page 12
There is no evidence or even claim that any of these publications got that name from Jackson himself. In 1989 Liz Taylor called him the King of Pop, Rock and Soul, for the first time in television. There is no evidence that she got it from Jackson either, in fact none of the media which later accused him of self proclaiming himself alleged that he told Taylor to call him that. He didn't invent the name. Nor is there any record of Jackson proclaiming himself King of Pop. The New York Times and other media's effort to mock him for it later on, as part of their overall effort to diminish Jackson's achievements, without ever presenting proof that he ever proclaimed himself as such, won't change the origin of the name. This photo was taken during the Bad tour which ended in Jan 1989 proving fans called him King of Pop even before Taylor's proclaiming him as such in Apr 1989. [16] This was not and couldn't possibly be the result of Jackson proclaiming himself the title back then. @Rickie Lee Jones there is no evidence Jackson wanted to be compared to Elvis, there is proof, as in his own handwritten notes, he saw Elvis as undeserving of the title King. castorbailey (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the nickname "King of Pop"

Rolling Stone reporter Gerri Hirshey wrote in 1983 that Jackson was "a young prince of pop".[1] When Elizabeth Taylor presented Jackson with the Soul Train Heritage Award in 1989, she called him "the true king of pop, rock and soul."[2][3] In 1991, Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself, so he instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose.[4] For the networks to play the music video for "Black or White", Jackson's publicist Bob Jones demanded that the nickname be used twice a week by video jockeys (VJs) on MTV and BET.[5][6] MTV executive Matt Farber sent a memo to his staff in November 1991, saying "We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop' on-air", naming the quota of two mentions per week, and advising the VJs to document these mentions in case Jackson's management wanted proof. Rolling Stone published the memo two weeks later, possibly obtaining their copy from VJ Kurt Loder.[6] Both Los Angeles Times[7] and Entertainment Weekly acknowledged the demands on November 29, 1991, with EW adding that Jackson also requested of Fox Broadcasting Company that fictional character Bart Simpson refer to Jackson as the King of Pop during his cameo appearance at the end of the video for "Black or White". Bart's animators did not comply, but the honorific appeared in promotional material issued by Fox, and by Jackson's management.[8] After this, the media sometimes represented Jackson as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop".[9][10][11] Jackson denied the marketing tactics, telling USA Today in 2001 that the honorific was initially bestowed by Taylor, then freely adopted by the media. He ended by saying, "This self-proclaimed garbage, I don't know who said that."[12]

References

  1. ^ Hirshey, Gerri (February 17, 1983). "Inside the Magical Kingdom". Rolling Stone. No. 389. p. 58.
  2. ^ Campbell 1993, pp. 260–263.
  3. ^ Luther, Robina (April 13, 1989). "Anita Baker wins three 'Soul Train' awards". United Press International. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  4. ^ Vogel 2012, p. 231.
  5. ISBN 9780743201209
    .
  6. ^ a b Tannenbaum & Marks 2011, pp. 478–482, Chapter 41, " 'I Want to Have a Nickname' – How MTV helped Michael Jackson elect himself 'the King of Pop' ".
  7. ^ Willman, Chris (November 29, 1991). "'MTV 10': A Star-Studded Self-Tribute". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  8. ^ "Michael Jackson's Black or White Blues". Entertainment Weekly. November 29, 1991. Retrieved March 1, 2023. [A] highly placed source at MTV says the network was obligated to refer to Jackson on air as the King of Pop in order to be allowed to show "Black or White." An MTV spokeswoman denies that, but the phrase was part of MTV's ads for the video and was repeatedly used by its VJs. A source at Fox confirms that Jackson's people did request that Bart use the phrase "King of Pop" in the video and that the phrase also be used in the network's press releases; "King of Pop" also crops up in Fox's print ads for the video and in press releases by Jackson's publicists, Solters/Roskin/Friedman.
  9. ISBN 9780195126549
    .
  10. ISBN 9780743426824
    .
  11. ISBN 9780842377393
    .
  12. ^ Gundersen, Edna (December 14, 2001). "Michael in the Mirror". USA Today. Retrieved March 1, 2023. Republished by ABC News in June 2009.

The above text is a prototype of what I intend to add to the biography when protection lifts. Let me know if you have ideas for improvement. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Don’t. The edit will never be agree upon because it’s all only hearsay and unverified as the sources you use is transparent about. Jackson has been called the king of Pop since 1982, per the Guardian and per both of these sources here and here “By 1984 Jackson was renowned worldwide as the “King of Pop.” His much anticipated Victory reunion tour with his brothers was one of the most popular concert events of 1984.” Here is a 1984 cover of the
Boston Globe saying that Michael Jackson was crowned the king of Pop in 1984. I also recommend you checking the talk page archives as well for previous discussions on this topic. The article is stable as is. Making edits that you are being told won’t have support because of counter reliable sources, would be consider disruptive editing. TruthGuardians (talk
) 01:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Your Guardian source says MJ's King of Pop moniker was first noticed by the reporter in 1993, when MJ's management "enforced" the nickname in the same manner as described in my proposed text. Which means your Guardian source supports my text. Your ufoscience.org source is an unreliable blog entry and useless here. Your Britannica source fails
WP:SECONDARY sources which define the topic. The only good source you have is the Boston Globe in 1984, using the headline "Jackson crowned King of Pop". But that source is an outlier; the media in general did not call Jackson the King of Pop until he demanded it in 1991. Binksternet (talk
) 03:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It does not support your proposed text as it says this supposed enforcement didn't happen until 1993 and the demands were on journalists and magazines in exchange for access. The author, of course, doesn't say which journalist or magazine or which "PR handler" or what access that would be given that Jackson didn't give interviews, so yes WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but that is not the story you proposed anyway. It is about a supposed effort in 1991 to somehow force TV networks to call him King of Pop. But if that effort led to the media in general calling him King of Pop as you said how could this reporter only hear it first in 1993? If we accept other parts of the Guardian article as fact, that by 1993 he was nothing short of King of Pop just a "king of shadows, or of weirdness", the allegation that he could force magazines and journalist to call him King of Pop then is even more hollow. The Boston Globe was not an outliar, please check my comment above where I cite 12 papers calling him King of Pop before 1989. You however present no evidence that the media in general, which is way beyond BET and MTV only called him King of Pop after the alleged demands sent to those networks in 1991. castorbailey (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, the source you alleged as being a “blog site” above is not a blog site. Furthermore, The Boston Globe is not an outlier. The Buffalo News referred to Jackson as the “Crowned King of Pop” in 1985. Here is an article from 1984 posing the question if Prince can dethrone King of pop, Michael Jackson. Then you have this source by New York Daily News pitting Prince up against the King of Pop Michael Jackson in 1985. The Derby Evening Telegraph, The Sunday Mirror, and literally dozens of more sources pre-1985 all referring to Jackson as the King of Pop. You can even easily find pictures of fans with “King of Pop” posters at the Victory and Bad concerts when doing image searches. It’s absolutely clear that the “self-proclaimed” allegation is a myth. The origins of Jackson being called the king of pop started in the media and with Fans. Not by an unverifiable story that started in the early-1990’s, not by Elizabeth Taylor, and not by Jackson himself. Case closed.
Finally, the Guardian article contradicts Your flawed narrative and suggested edit if you actually read it. The Guardian says that Jackson tried to force the name in 1993 and that he didn't even hear it before
but you sources claim that it was in 1991 and after that
the media in general called him King of Pop. If that was the case (it’s not)
1. how did this reporter first hear it in 1993?
2. why would Jackson need to demand magazines and journalists in 1993 call him that in exchange for access? TruthGuardians (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Putting aside a section like that would be WP:UNDUE, sections must be referred to in the lead to keep featured article status and this is not a lead worthy topic, the title and the content are not in sync as it is not about the origin of the nickname King of Pop, which was not Gerri Hirshey's "a young prince of pop" and certainly not any possible demand from Jackson, as outlined above, many publications called him King of Pop long before 1991 or even 1989. This is rather to convince the reader that Jackson demanded to be called King of Pop and he wouldn't have been without it. But no source you cite explains how Jackson could possibly force BET, MTV or FOX to do that, as he had no authority over those networks. Citing unnamed "highly placed source" and "a source at Fox" as evidence is questionable too, given that the network was in fact not obliged to do anything for Jackson, if such demand was indeed made they could have simply said no and not play his video. It's also unclear from the sources if the alleged demand came from Jackson himself or Bob Jones and whether Jackson knew the specifics Jones was doing. The memo you cite does not say that Jackson demanded to be called King of Pop, rather Farber telling VJs "We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop'". Why they would need let alone obliged to do that is not explained. You wrote the Los Angeles Times acknowledged the demands, but the article does not say that, rather "MTV is allegedly obligated to refer to him in return for his ongoing cooperation". The last part makes it sound the media started to call him self-proclaimed as a result of the alleged demands in 1991 as if they wouldn't have done it anyway, but the sources you use do not support that. Vogel 2012, p. 231. is incorrect reference. So if we did include this topic as a section what you wrote would not be sufficient and at time distorts what the sources state. castorbailey (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Vogel says in Man in the Music (2019) that Jackson's preferred nickname was King of Pop. Regarding Jackson's actions in November 1991, Vogel says on page 231, "The nickname actually went back years, but Jackson felt like it hadn't fully stuck; to fix this, the artist worked out a marketing strategy with his management that ensured MTV would refer to him by the name throughout the week." Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Man in the Music was first published in 2011 not 2012 and 2012 can't refer to the 2019 edition. In the 2011 edition Vogel told a different story. There he said Jackson's management (not Jackson himself) worked out this supposed marketing ploy years before 1991. Here he says it was specifically to ensure that MTV call him that for a week attached to the premier of Black or White. Like the other sources Vogel does not explain either how any marketing strategy by Jackson could ensure that MTV would call him that as Jackson did not own or control MTV in any manner, MTV could have easily said no whatever Jackson or his management asked for. Nor does Vogel explain how he could possibly be privy to Jackson's "feelings" that it hadn't fully stuck, whatever "fully stuck" would mean. castorbailey (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Apoxyomenus:
By feelings and different sources, there always exist different Queen or Kings in every nicknames, before, during and after their most prominent or recognized representatives. Bruce Springsteen and Cyndi Lauper, were called King and Queen of Pop in 1985 by Billboard for example. Mainstream singers stylized in R&B/Soul/Urban/Adult contemporary like Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey were also called Queens of Pop, and until our present day, each new pop singers have been also called Kings of Pop, from Robbie Williams to Harry Styles. On the other hand, Madonna was also called Queen of Rock/Goddess of Pop, or Elvis Presley and Elton John Kings of Pop, even Queen of Pop (John) and so on. Our honorific nicknames page should serve in my understanding, as a repository for the rest of artists/their other nicknames if the user want, because we aren't judges. And a mention in Impact/Legacy rather than lead for individual cases.
In my understanding, we can't call everything "against" MJ, a liar. He was a human, and also a celebrity (even those with a "good/stylized girl" image projections had their critics/missteps), with his footprints, ego, feelings and missteps in his moment, witnessed by others. A close association with Elizabeth, would have the press of his time, suspected as well with the other charges. Both Madonna and MJ epitomized the self-marketing stars, good/bad press at their services. Back with the nicknames, their own figures perpetuated it more than others before and after, crossing the association outside their industry, and psyche, including professional reviews (CDs/other projects). So, in this terrain, doesn't matter any background. I also understand a demand from others, past and present to present all sides of the "history". Perhaps super-summarizing things in one-two lines would help, including MJ's response and led the reader what they wanna pick. I'm neither for and against the inclusion, just bringing an idea. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what Jackson being human, celebrity, having feelings etc. have to do with the fact that he was named King of Pop by numerous newspapers long before 1991 hence any demand on 3 TV networks in 1991 can't possibly be the origin of this nickname or explain why many more outlets then called him King of Pop after 1991 too. I don't see how this could be fairly super-summarized given the holes in the story, too many unanswered questions. castorbailey (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Anything "against" MJ, by editors, or media is a liar. He was a human without an ego or mistakes. You know. So charges from media about marketing around, in this case, with the nickname, is a liar. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
But Jackson being human has nothing to do with the fact that the origin of the King of Pop nickname was not any marketing ploy in 1991 which is what the current topic is about. We are not talking about anything, but this specific issue. By the same token you could say that those who accused him were human, they had ego and agendas, jealousy, racism and other types of prejudices which could dictate what they said and wrote about Jackson and thus anything negative they ever said should be dismissed as a lie. Such generalizations never reveal whether someone tells the truth about XYZ though. Whatever their motives were, the facts here show that there are contradictory versions, many unanswered questions and no explanation from any source how Jackson, without any authority over those media companies could possibly force them to call him anything. castorbailey (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It explains things from other ways. Unfortunately, yes there exist racism, sexism and other things in the industry, but he wasn't a saint, because nobody is perfect. Outside Michael Jackson's camp and fandom, his myth is understood much from marketing, and sometimes, this arose with "aggressive" campaigns behind the scenes. All mainstream pop acts, would made extravagant marketing tactis, and Jackson/team were not an exception, instead, he used it perhaps more than any other of his era according to natural observers. And is related to the issue, as charges to the nickname relies that he used a marketing strategy, and what I understand, Binksternet feels is necessary further provide a complete story beyond the current statement in his biography and thus, provide all possible sides to the reader. Is how Wikipedia also works because in many ways, we aren't judges. Myself, I'm neither oppose or support of the topic, just giving an opinion. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
But what if we apply the "not a saint, not perfect etc". standard to those who accused him of self proclaiming himself the King of Pop too and thus conclude from that that they lied on Jackson out of ulterior motives? It would be fallacious. It is that when applied to Jackson too. Vague generalities and accusations (like "his myth is understood much from marketing" -- understood by who, what myth, what marketing exactly? -- If marketing could create such "myth" why didn't other artists, much less attacked by the media than Jackson, became "mythical" too etc.) or that " behind the scenes he used it perhaps more than any other of his era" (How exactly would you know that? How could he use it when much of the media was generally hostile toward him and did you compare everyone of his era (what period would that be?) lead nowhere. We need specifics. As I pointed out in other comments one of the problems with Binksternet's text is that it by no means provides the complete story, it lacks the necessary specifics and evidence of causation and there are numerous contradictions. Another one is that Jackson couldn't possibly be aggressive against any of those media companies as he had no power over them, he did not own or control them and none of the sources explains what exactly Jackson himself did that could oblige them to call him King of Pop. This big hole in the story cannot be filled with assumptions like " this arose with "aggressive" campaigns behind the scenes" and "all mainstream pop acts use extravagant marketing tactics". castorbailey (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The big list from castorbailey shows that the Boston Globe source was not an outlier as I had believed. But something can still be said about the MTV/BET/Fox demands made by MJ's publicity people. And about how he was sometimes called "self-proclaimed King of Pop" and "self-styled King of Pop" after the memo was published showing the strong-arm tactics. And we can still describe his reaction against the "self-proclaimed garbage". How about the following? Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In 1991, Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself, to diminish unflattering nicknames,[1] so he instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose.[2] For the networks to play the music video for "Black or White", Jackson's publicist Bob Jones demanded that the nickname be used twice a week by video jockeys (VJs) on MTV and BET.[3][4] MTV executive Matt Farber sent a memo to his staff in November 1991, saying "We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop' on-air", naming the quota of two mentions per week, and advising the VJs to document these mentions in case Jackson's management wanted proof. Rolling Stone published the memo two weeks later, possibly obtaining their copy from VJ Kurt Loder.[4] Both Los Angeles Times[5] and Entertainment Weekly acknowledged the issue on November 29, 1991, with EW adding that Jackson also requested of Fox Broadcasting Company that fictional character Bart Simpson refer to Jackson as the King of Pop during his cameo appearance at the end of the video for "Black or White". Bart's animators did not comply, but the honorific appeared in promotional material issued by Fox.[6] After this, the media sometimes represented Jackson as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop".[7][8][9][10] Jackson told USA Today in 2001 that the King of Pop honorific was initially bestowed by Elizabeth Taylor, then freely adopted by the media. He ended by saying, "This self-proclaimed garbage, I don't know who said that."[11]

References

  1. ^ Staff (July 13, 2009). "Factbox: The strange side of Michael Jackson". Reuters. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  2. ^ Vogel 2012, p. 231.
  3. ISBN 9780743201209
    .
  4. ^ a b Tannenbaum & Marks 2011, pp. 478–482, Chapter 41, " 'I Want to Have a Nickname' – How MTV helped Michael Jackson elect himself 'the King of Pop' ".
  5. ^ Willman, Chris (November 29, 1991). "'MTV 10': A Star-Studded Self-Tribute". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  6. ^ "Michael Jackson's Black or White Blues". Entertainment Weekly. November 29, 1991. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  7. ISSN 0006-2510
    .
  8. ISBN 9780195126549
    .
  9. ISBN 9780743426824
    .
  10. ISBN 9780842377393
    .
  11. ^ Gundersen, Edna (December 14, 2001). "Michael in the Mirror". USA Today. Retrieved March 1, 2023. Republished by ABC News in June 2009.
No. the origins of the King of Pop was proven to be organic. The sources being cited aren’t transparent about their sources and it’s not known if this is something that Jackson directed, or if it is something that was done unbeknownst to him, or if the entire story is even made up. Then there is one source (The Guardian) saying it started in 93 and another one saying 1991. This suggested addition has no place in this article. It just doesn’t. I don’t feel like the addition is notable enough and certainly feel as though the suggestion is a violation of WP:UNDOWEIGHT. It just doesn’t add encyclopedic value.TruthGuardians (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not
WP:UNDUE since multiple sources comment on it. I accept that you don't like it, but improving the encyclopedia is another matter altogether. My aim is to improve the encyclopedia. Source published in 1991 throw the 1993 mistake into the rubbish bin. Binksternet (talk
) 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This is absolutely undo weight. The policy states,”undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject…” 1) the proposed sources are contradictory to one another. 2) The subject here is Michael Jackson. The one time alleged promotional tactic is hardly worthy of its weight in this article. In fact, it so minuscule that even the proposed cited sources doesn’t even present the same information. 3) The proposed section being longer than some of the other sections that is far more notable with far more reliable non-contradictory sources, gives this way too much weight. What you’re not accepting is the fact that the origins are organic and started with fans and the media. Thus any marketing tactics in the early 90’s is irrelevant as that’s not the origins of Jackson becoming known as the King of Pop and eventually owning the honorary nickname. It’s not that I don’t like it, so don’t put words in my mouth. There’s nothing to be accepted. Every single source here is contradictory to one another. You can use one source to promote a narrative, then another one with different context to promote another narrative. That’s not how featured articles are structured and that not how this article will be structured. The content has no encyclopedic value and it serves no purpose whatsoever. What is the purpose of this proposed addition? What value is it adding to any of the sections or to the article? TruthGuardians (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The value to the reader is that it informs them about MJ's strong-arm marketing tactics, and it explains why they sometimes see "self-styled" or "self-proclaimed" in front of "King of Pop". It tells them about MJ's loathing of that kind of "garbage". Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
That he had strong-arm marketing tactics is only your POV, nothing proves that that happened, that he used threats or force against anyone, and nothing you cited shows that certain media called him "self-proclaimed" because of the alleged tactics in 1991. If anything about the MTV's and Rolling Stone's allegations included it should be based on consensus only castorbailey (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
There are several issues with this:
  • WP:UNDUE. You want to dedicate more words for this particular conflict between Jackson and the media than the article has for Off the Wall. Multiple media outlet commenting on something is not sufficient to include a story. If we used that standard Jackson's page would be a full book.
  • Your sources do not show strong-armed tactics, that would mean using force and threats, but none of the sources explain how Jackson , who had no authority over any of those companies, could possibly force them to do anything.
  • The sources do not establish causation: that the specific sources you mentioned calling him self-proclaimed did it as a direct result of alleged demands on MTV/BET and FOX.
  • To support the first sentence, you cite a Reuters article which states this: "The “King of Pop” title was conceived by two spokesmen in the early 1990s". As proven by the sources I posted this is clearly not true, hence the second part that they did this "to deflect attention from such less-savory nicknames" cannot be true either. As for Vogel, in the first edition of his book the issue is mentioned on page 144-145, but not that Jackson "instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose", let alone that that purpose was "to diminish unflattering nicknames", and in this version of the story this supposed marketing ploy was worked out years before 1991, even though no media company even accused Jackson of doing this before 1991. Which leads to the next problem:
  • Which version of the story do you want to include? The one told by the Guardian or Reuters or the Rolling Stone or Vogel1 or Vogel2? All cannot be true at the same time. Was it years before 1991, 1991 or 1993 that Jackson supposedly came up with this? Was it two spokesmen in the early 1990 or Jackson's management years before 1991? Who was it aimed at specific TV networks, was it in exchange for airing Black or White or was it aimed at magazines and journalists in exchange for access, in a year where he didn't even talk to any magazine except one (Life), which did not accuse Jackson of such a ploy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcastor (talk • contribs) 06:38 UTC, March 3, 2023
Now you're just throwing up a spray of obscurantism. There's no problem at all with sources saying 1993—they obviously made a mistake with the date, which we know because of sources published in 1991. One mistake in a source doesn't poison the whole source. Our job is to summarize sources, which means we take the core facts shared by most of the sources and present them to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It's hardly a mistake with the date since he also said that in 1993 when all this supposedly happened Jackson was no longer seen as the King of Pop. Arguably in 1991 he very much was (if not him then who?). Nor did the author present any evidence that in 1991 Jackson asked any magazine or journalist to call him that in exchange for access. What access would this be either in 1991? Which magazines, which journalists? You say we know the Guardian author told the truth because of sources published in 1991. But none of those sources allege that Jackson forced magazines or journalists to call him King of Pop in exchange for access. The 1991 stories are strickly about the Black or White video and TV networks. Problem is you didn't take core facts, you just decided arbitrarily that this author just made a mistake with the year and otherwise told the truth, but the rest of his article shows, he simply lied, which explains the vagueness of his accusation. So how would you summarize these sources then? Should we say Jackson demanded unspecified magazines and journalists to call him King of Pop in exchange for access in 1993 or 1991 or should we say Jackson demanded that MTV BET and FOX call him King of Pop in exchange for showing his video (which, let's not forget, they could have easily rejected)? Or should we say Jackson came up with the name, or two unnamed spokemen came up with the name or Jackson's management came up with the name? (None of them is true). Obscurantism is attempt to prevent the full details from becoming known. I did the exact opposite. It's you who want to include this without the full presentation of contradictory details. castorbailey (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

MJ was named the King of Pop by various music journalists, fans and many other famous personalities just as soon as Thriller went on to be the biggest selling album of all time in 1984, even before that he was nicknamed "new king of pop" in the late 70s. MJ has never even once called himself that, especially not in puplic. Wikipedia is no place for gossip and conspiracy theories. Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

“Most awarded musician in history”

This is probably either not true depending on the interpretation or if it is true, it isn’t saying very clearly what it means, then.

It’s hard to claim someone is the most awarded musician in history because it requires you to consider every instance of “musician”. Of course, someone playing some instrument is a prototypical idea of a musician, but there may be boundary cases where it is difficult for people to assess or agree if someone is or is not a musician.

Second of all, the exact same thing is true for “award”. How do you determine what is and is not an award? Maybe there was a certain title or form of recognition given to a beloved musician in the court of the Sultanate during the Ottoman Empire. Maybe it did not use the word “award”. Maybe it did not come with a trophy, plaque, or certifying document, as some “awards” do. Yet, it may be strongly analogous to the idea of “prize-winning”, “lauded”, etc.

There probably have been “musicians” in a huge variety of societies, many of whom are not known to any living person, who had a high level of respect, recognition, status, and symbolic approval, from their communities. If there is a valid way to count how “awarded” they are, we haven’t ruled out that there was a different musician in “history” that was more “awarded” than Michael Jackson.

I am pretty sure they are trying to say “in modern history” or even more precisely, probably around the 20th century, but even then, the question of geographic scope is definitely unsettled. Whatever parts of the world Michael Jackson is known in, I believe he is not known, or well-known, to every society in the world during the 20th century. Maybe there was a musician in a different cultural sphere that had similarly massive cultural impact and regard, in a certain area.

It would probably make more sense to say he is the most awarded musician in the US in the 20th century. 90.233.192.41 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is based on the separate article
WP:OR. Nobody is disputing that Jackson won a lot of awards, and he may have won more than all of the other famous pop stars of the 20th century. Maybe the wording should be toned down a bit.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
15:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest to either reword the statement into one of the most awarded recording artist or completely remove it from the article. This is just a bold claim that really needs to be verified. How many awards exactly had he won to explicitly claim that feat? It seems pretty obvious that
Beyonce is actually the most awarded artist in history. She holds the all-time record for at least these ceremonies: Grammy Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, NAACP Image Awards, BET Awards, and Soul Train Music Awards. Bluesatellite (talk
) 02:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Beyoncé is far from the most awarded artists in history. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Jackson has won over 850 awards in his lifetime. The problem is, a lot of the awards he’s won have been from overseas in non-English speaking countries, and finding reliable resources in other languages on English platforms is extraordinarily difficult. This is the same issue that other international megastars experience too like Madonna and Whitney Houston. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
You have to give a detail breakdown of your exaggerated claim of "850 awards" because
WP:RS. Bluesatellite (talk
) 06:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It’s not exaggerated. And I don’t have to give a detailed anything. The only thing I have to do is stick to the sources. What you posted is merely a Wikipedia article in progress, not a source. For this article, all we have to do is WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and another Wikipedia article is not a source. However, the following articles does mention Jackson having over 800 awards, and/or being the most awarded and decorated artists in music history. here here here here here herehere here and countless other articles that predates the existence of Wikipedia all the way up to today in articles talking about what is expected to be the biggest biopic of all time. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course you have to list all those so-called "850 awards" at least on List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson (which is by now only 281 awards listed). Other artists such as Taylor Swift has over 500 awards listed (detailed) on her List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift (including 40 American Music Awards). There's no denying that Michael is one of the most awarded artists of all time, but explicitly calling him THE most awarded one is still controversial and highly debatable. I can provide a ton of reliable sources calling Nana Mouskouri the best-selling female musician ever, or sources calling Whitney Houston the Guinness World Records most-awarded female artist. However both claims have been proven hoax. I gotta ping fellow editors @Binksternet:, @Apoxyomenus:, @SNUGGUMS: Bluesatellite (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH. Swift has a significantly bigger list of awards detailed at her awards page, making it unbelievable to accede Jackson the title. The first step for those wishing to put Jackson on top would be to flesh out a few hundred more of his supposed awards. Binksternet (talk
) 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect about everything. You would need reliable sources to dispute the claim that anything is a hoax. They don’t exist. We are going to to WP:STICKTOSOURCE here because that’s what Wikipedia does. You’re still trying to use a Wikipedia article as a source. You just can’t do that. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Proven by evidence would mean that each awards should have a reliable source independently? What makes the reports that Jackson is the most awarded artist extraordinary? Obviously someone has to be the most awarded, given Jackson's career it's not extraordinary that it is him. Is there proof that any other artist is the most awarded? castorbailey (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a contentious claim that's hard to quantify and might become outdated (assuming it isn't already). Removing the whole thing feels like a safer choice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to say that "some sources have deemed" Jackson the most awarded musician in history, or that "by some measures" Jackson was the most awarded musician in history. BD2412 T 03:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with SNUGGUMS. I think it's much safer to remove the controversial/debatable claim. Let's also remember that this claim has been in the first paragraph of MJ article since forever, so we should also be cautious of Circular reporting. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Being the highest award winner of a few awards ceremonies doesn't make someone the most awarded artist. If that makes sense Taylor Swift would have overtaken Beyonce already. And Wikipedia's list has removed many of MJ's awards because those awards don't meet the Wikipedia criteria (which is not applied to all lists) for inclusion. That Wikipedia doesn't include them as an award doesn't mean it's not an award. And if you check the edit history of the Beyonce awards list you can see that I've already removed more than 50 awards from her page because the list included awards that she received as part of The Destiny's Child and The Carters, and there are still more to go. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
And yet, it still doesn't make Michel Jackson "the most" one though. Why are you insisting on keeping this unproven claim? Bluesatellite (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not insisting to keep the wording. I agree with BD2412 suggestions as I think that it is more neutral. Let's also remember that this claim has been in the first paragraph of MJ article forever, so we should also be cautious of Circular reporting. this is an exaggerated claim as we can verify that
it wasn't in the article as of July 12, 2020, and the sources that we used in the article for this claim doesn't' suggest your circular reporting allegations. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not about neutrality, but about "factuality" that you fans hardly understand. Based on all available and measurable metrics, Jackson is far from being the most awarded artist. Artists like
Beyonce and Taylor Swift (just to name a few) have far more verified awards than him. Per User:Binksternet: If the extraordinary claim is simply parroted but not proven by evidence, and if evidence is available to disprove the claim, then we should ignore the claim. Bluesatellite (talk
) 02:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This August 2010 version stated on the lead section that "have made him the most-awarded recording artist in the history of music", but it's not sourced anywhere in the article's body. This proves the Circular Reporting that I mentioned above. The citation currently used in the article is from a 2014 book. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
They don’t have far more verified awards, they have more sources that report in the rewards won. 2 different things. Older artists were at the mercy of printed news. Newer ones benefit from the internet. Printed news is physically archived or completely destroyed. Most don’t even get an online database. But then there’s the issue of global artists like Madonna, MJ, and Whitney who have won awards in other languages. It’s a double whammy for them. Imagine trying to find archived printed news in another language on an artist, then claiming that the artist have won less awards than they have because there’s not an online source for Wikipedia. Yeah, the real world doesn’t work that way. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear here, there is no consensus. There was a discussion. The discussion does not permit an edit to take place. In fact, I was once involved in an arbitration as a result of an edit war in a similar scenario. During that arbitration, that if there is not a recent source that disputes the claim or a presented fact in an article, or in this case pits someone above MJ, then the desired change cannot stand. I won that arbitration because I stuck to the sources. The burden to prove that Jackson is not the most awarded artist of time does not lie in this discussion, it lies in a reliable source that does not exist. Until it does, then this discussion would have value.TruthGuardians (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You haven't provide any valid points after nearly a month of this thread. You're still the minority here I see. And then let's see... suddenly, all these non-active accounts of MJ stans will log in to comment here. Just like previous debates surrounding MJ. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
have you and your gang that you canvassed here already been in trouble for making accusations and violating WP:Goodfaith? I certainly would want to keep getting told over and over and over about the same issues. Nonetheless, that’s now how consensus work. There is no clear consensus here and any admin getting involved will tell you that. This page has general sanctions and you are in violation of those sanction. Once an edit is reverted, from what its original form, it’s not allowed to be reverted back. You have broken the sanctions more than once. My valid points are dozens of reliable resources posted above that has made the claim, again, what resources do you have challenging the claim? In you have none, this conversation is dead in the water. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The status of the issue at this point is that we do not list MJ as the most-awarded musical artist.
WP:BURDEN tells us that disputed text should not stay in the article unless a clear consensus is formed to keep it. Binksternet (talk
) 15:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
We can easily take this to arbitration, it will be a waste of time, but I don’t mind. However, you will need to have your sources ready (that don’t exist) that disputes my dozens of sources that claim Jackson is the most awarded artist in the world of all time. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The alleged consensus was on how to reword the sentence. There wasn't any consensus on how to reword that. Instead, Bluestatelite has removed the entire sentence from the lead even though multiple editors reverted him and it's indeed  disruptive editing on an article with strict sanctions. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I've also noticed points addressed by TruthGuardians and TheWikiholic in past, including award pages of some artists with dubious inclusions and perhaps less audited. MJ's case itself, is a mix of all points addressed too. One of my main concerns are those awards not provided with a source per
WP:GOODFAITH, as sometimes IPs and unexperienced users put claims without providing a source/a good source when they would exist. I took a brief moment to verify un-broken sources/print sources prior to the existence of Wikipedia/addition to our project. This book contains a similar claim, pag 102 (Chapter Ten: Michael's Awards & Achievements), published in 2005. I didn't found other claims, nor further researched, but there exist a possibility that the same user could be the author/associated. IDK. A hand finding a contemporary source could help, if not, my suggestion would be remove from lead that claim and also if there is no consensus, elaborate something like this: "Michael Jackson has won several accolades, including xx, xx. By some estimations, he was [or still] the most awarded artist". --Apoxyomenus (talk
) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I’m not opposed to your latter suggestion. It’s similar to what the Admin, BD2412 suggested when he said, “I think it would be reasonable to say that "some sources have deemed" Jackson the most awarded musician in history, or that "by some measures" Jackson was the most awarded musician in history. Really either would be fine as it is accurate and sourced. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be highlighted at the top if so. To me still it would be a last step, and it wouldn't really hurt provide a generous weight to such extraordinary claim. Similarly with gaps in music sales, but here still outlier. It also comes with the nature of what constitutes an "award"/amount for other editors/fans, similarly with what I said in the AfD of the most-awarded artists. Some devoted artist's fan pages, could provide more award's names/clue to find more awards and try to search a 3rd-party source. See mjjcommunity, for example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Gaps in music sale claims are backed up with other conflicting reliable sources reporting on music sales. Here in this case, there is no single reliable source that claims Jackson is not the most awarded artist of all time, or that someone else is. In fact, there are clippings and biography entries as early as 1995 as I can recall that have made that claim. I notice that in Beyonce fan community, they were counting VEVO certification and awards won with her group as awards. Furthermore, some people count platinum and Diamond certifications from certifying bodies from around the world as awards too. Technically, that’s what they are. So you do pose a fair question when you ask what constitutes as an award. But like I said in another discussion, when we are dealing with these older artists Madonna, like MJ, and Houston who were global superstars in an analog (non digital) age, we have to hope that we can find awards in some type of newspaper archives. But it gets even worse when they are winning awards in different languages from around the world. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I completely understand what you said. For me, all sides have provided reasonable points. But much like Beyoncé's fan claims regarding her total awards (+800), MJ's claim was probably made with similar circumstances. A fan/editor maybe unified his solo/group triumphs, Guinness certificates, or now Vevo, and perhaps MJ-related tribute shows among many things to build the myth. This is part in how volatile the claim of "the most awarded artist" is to me. And this is also a part of why a generous weight, I feel must be provided, instead of parroted and contribute with a possibly woozle effect. It also, wouldn't hurt to do so. Myself, I've not included awards to some artists, when their organization/award shows don't have an entry with us, or/and with little info in 3rd party sources. MJ, I've noticed had a bunch of these accolades/trophies, but the most important thing to me, is bring references, and various of them don't have in the current list. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that, as some users have proposed, the statement requires reword. However, it should be remarked that the fact that the measurable metrics are not sufficient to back up the statement does not mean that it is false. It is difficult to name artists, with the only exception of Madonna, with Jackson's global reach over such a broad period of time covering the era in which the world has been most globalized (after the fall of the Eastern Bloc). This implies that, apart from the most well-known awards in the U.S., Jackson traveled across the world, receiving little-known awards whose documentary coverage is sometimes very scarce or null. An example of this is the case of the National Order of Merit of Gabon that was awarded to him in 1992. Many news sources (including world-renowned magazines such as Ebony) covered this awarding incorrectly, and with the passing of the years it became really difficult to find sources covering it properly. If this happens with a decoration awarded by a sovereign country, we can imagine what can happen with little-known awards, given in non-English-speaking countries, or sometimes created specifically for Jackson.

In any case, what is remarkable is the fact that, for reasons of fame and global reach along with a commercially extremely successful career, there are claims which maintain that Jackson is the most awarded artist. A simple search is enough to find numerous sources that support it (e.g. 1, 2). Therefore, I understand that some users consider it necessary to provide sources that explicitly deny the claim.

I think these discussions are positive and may result in greater accuracy in the article. I think it is necessary reword the statement with some phrase like "He is often claimed as the most awarded recording artist in pop music history” or “He is frequently claimed as...", or “According to some estimates” (similar to what was proposed by user Apoxyomenus).

On the other hand, what is necessary, until this discussion has concluded, is to restore the article to its state prior to the change made by Bluesatellite on February 28 at 19:37. This does not mean that I support what the text read at that moment, since as I said I think it needs to be reworded. Hopefully this discussion will result in improving the article by making it more accurate, but until that occurs the statement should be kept, as there was no consensus of any kind (either perfect or rough) for its removal. The user Bluesatellite, who proceeded to change the article after 9 days of inactivity in the discussion, stated in the edit summary that "out of 7 people, only 1 user insisted on putting this claim, 2 favored wording". This is completely false, since the discussion had a total of 8 people participating (if we include the IP address that started the discussion), of which 4 (the IP address and the users Ianmacm, TheWikiholic & BD2412) did not support the deletion but wording, and on the other hand the user TruthGuardians did not support the deletion of the statement either.

Only 3 users (Bluesatellite, Binksternet y SNUGGUMS) out of the 8 participants in the discussion supported the deletion. Therefore, I believe that the way of proceeding with the deletion of the statement at that time (and the subsequent edit war) was inappropriate and makes it necessary to restore the article. In a complex discussion such as this one, unilateral actions of that kind are dangerous, since once the disputed text disappears, it affects the subsequent development of the discussion, making the situation unfair and increasing the possibilities of conflict.

In any case, whatever will be decided for the end of the first paragraph (whether it be reword it, delete it, or add a different line covering other aspects about Jackson or his career); at the time the change was made (19:37, 28 February 2023‎) there was no consensus of any kind to endorse the action carried out by Bluesatellite. Afterwards, the discussion has continued and is active. Now is the time to continue contributing ideas to improve the article. Sentences like "He is often claimed as the most awarded recording artist in pop music history" or if it is preferred "He is one of the most awarded recording artis..." can certainly work reducing possible exaggerations. Salvabl (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to me, all sides gave reasonable reasons in their own way. But beyond merely keep or remove it, I still feel is correct find more sources to the current unsourced awards, and add more awards thus providing a generous balance with the bold claim. This is also how Wikipedia works. I also think, y'll could help with that goal; an example: set an imaginary timeline in his 50-years life, and see other possible awards in his "today in MJ story", then drop them in a draft and seek for a reference in a 3rd party source. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a very good idea. Although in this case, that concerns more (and would help to improve) the article of the list of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson. Either way, a plausible option in this case, in Jackson's article, is to reword the line to something like "He is often claimed as..." or "He is one of the most..." as that would definitely be objective. Salvabl (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

MJ is the most awarded person in history. It's a known fact and all the sources provided proves this to be true. Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This situation is complex and has become even more complex due to the development that this discussion has undergone and the changes that have been applied to the article.
I have been checking the article's history, and before the statement in the first paragraph was removed (when there was not consensus to do so), the action was supposedly compliant with
WP:BURDEN
.
However, it should be noted that prior to the deletion of the abovementioned statement there was a reference to an article from the Miami Herald (link) that supported what it read at the end of the first paragraph. There was some debate as to whether or not it was sufficient to support the statement, but, as I have already said, there was no consensus for its deletion, nor to conclude that the statement was not sufficiently supported. And, as I have said before, in a complex discussion such as this one, unilateral actions of that kind are dangerous, since once the disputed text disappears, it affects the subsequent development of the discussion, making the situation unfair and increasing the possibilities of conflict.
In any case, taking into account the development of the discussion after March 28, I think that the article can be more accurate and reduce any possible exaggeration by modifying the statement. In fact I proposed the sentence "According to some estimates, he is claimed as the most awarded recording artist in pop music history", which is objectively true.
I think we all should focus on proposing several phrases that could work for a case like this, prioritizing the most objectively true and neutral as possible. Salvabl (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
According to some estimates is not even true, they simply claim. And remember that the claim has been on this article's lead section for years and years, of course there would be a lot of websites recycling the information, without even try to analyze or verify its accuracy. Even, if MJ was indeed the most-awarded artist ever at some points of his career, the claim is very likely obsolete now.
Beyonce, and Taylor Swift way more awards listed here in Wikipedia, as opposed to MJ. Instead of focusing on this exaggerated claim, why not putting your energy on revamp his awards list instead. List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson currently only has about 280 awards. Okay let's say it's incomplete with some of missing printed sources, but it wouldn't certainly be 850 awards (as TruthGuardian claims). It's very unrealistic. Bluesatellite (talk
) 02:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
When we talk about recycling information we can never be 100% sure. There is always the possibility that what is published by a journal is the result of research that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or is based on other sources.
Yet, we have the capacity to discern these situations when, for example, we find sources that replicate word for word the text available on Wikipedia, but if that is not the case, we may fall into wrong assumptions or speculation.
On the other hand, you mention the List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson. It is one thing to say that the article (like so many others on Wikipedia) needs to be improved, but the fact that it does not list all the awards Jackson received does not diminish the fact that multiple sources claim that he is the most awarded music artist in history. And what is objectively true is that such a claim is not made about other artists.
We can do our own research and talk about how many awards
WP:STICKTOSOURCE
applies.
However,
WP:ONUS
also exists, and as I said before, I think we should find a way to rewrite the statement to make it more neutral. You said that "According to some estimates is not even true, they simply claim". Okey, then maybe the sentence should start with "According to some claims, " or look for a sentence that does not generate any doubt and is objectively true like "He is one of the most awarded music artists..". I think we should have a dialogue about it and try to find a suitable final sentence for the first paragraph of this article.
Apart from that, it is also worth mentioning something about the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Honors and awards" section. After removing the statement that claimed that Jackson is the most awarded music artist in history, several users (Bluesatellite, Apoxyomenus and Popcornfud) modified the content of that paragraph to adapt it to the new situation. Of course, what they changed/added to the paragraph does not claim that Jackson is the most awarded artist in history. The content is neutral and objectively true. However, you removed the aforementioned content in this change. Your action turns that content into disputed content, and according to WP:ONUS "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article". And so far, there is no consensus to remove that content. Salvabl (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, you have violated the article’s sanctions again by willfully not understanding the policy you cite or willfully being disruptive. You keep reverting an edit that has not reached consensus. You cite WP:ONUS, but that clearly does not apply to the new edit, as the information included has been verifiable for years.

WP:STABLE states that the article must be restored to the most recent revision of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war. And you are in violation of not just the sanctions and edit warring, but following WP:STABLE. MraClean (talk
) 15:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Change infobox photo

1984
1990

I am starting this discussion to change the infobox photo, because the current one is outdated, black and white, blurry and looks old. MJ needs an updated, colorized photo in better quality. MraClean (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We are limited by the choice available on Wikimedia Commons, and cannot have a non-free image. Personally I would go for this 1984 image which has been used in the past, but the infobox image should not be changed without a consensus to avoid edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
We have a similar photo like this from the White House. What's your opinion on this one? The current one looks kinda blurry, with Jackson's eyes closed and his face not facing the camera. Do anyone here know the
WP:fair use policy for deceased people? I think there are provisions under fair use, to use the photos of deceased people as there is no chance of taking a photo of them anymore. TheWikiholic (talk
) 14:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I still prefer the 1984 photo as it shows Jackson at the height of his fame. It was taken during a visit to the White House where he met Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and it is considered to be public domain US gov.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the above picture also from the White House and in the public domain? I don't think there was any difference in the popularity of Jackson in 1990 either. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Look at
WP:NFCI #10: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. I don't think we can argue that use of a nonfree image is justified here just because we don't like the free images that exist. FWIW, I also prefer the 1984 image. Alyo (chat·edits
) 16:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you two prefer the image from 1984 over 1990? I don't think there is much difference in the popularity of Jackson between these two years. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that the 1990 image looks a bit bland both artistically and technically, overall the 1984 image looks better.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding whether he was more or less popular in 1990 vs 1984: I'm sure I've seen various sources cite the 80s as Jackson's "prime", such as this CNN article cited in our Wikipedia article, so an 80s photo might be more appropriate. Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would stick for the 1988 one currently, in both of these photos he has sunglasses on, It's better to show his face without them. Aaron106 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also think a photo that shows him doing what he was known for (singing) is better for the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this. As the two other photos have sunglasses. And also what OliveYouBean says about MJ doing what he was known for (singing) So after some thought, the current photo is more suitable than the 1990 and the 1984 ones. MraClean (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree. The 1984 picture is not of good quality, he is wearing big sunglasses and it doesn't show Jackson performing (which is what he is best known for). About the 1990 picture the same can be said, and that there is hardly any difference in Jackson's physical appearance compared to the 1988 picture. I think the most convenient thing is to keep the current picture. Salvabl (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
[https://cdn.smehost.net/michaeljacksoncom-uslegacyprod/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/220210_mj_perform1984_FEAT-692x1024.jpg I think this image is cool. It's a clear photo of him preforming during the Victory tour. 2601:5C2:4300:5220:AC20:9995:D98C:3EBD (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

RIAA’s Biggest-selling Artist— Why removed?

Riaa has stated on their official website that Michael Jackson is the biggest-selling artist of all time.RIAA Michael Jackson‘s Thriller First Ever 30x Platinum RIAA Certification He is in fact recognized by them as such. Why are users (suspiciously linked to Elvis pages) removing the facts? It’s very irrational and against what this website is about. Facts over feelings. Joedelte (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: 1991 marketing campaign to increase usage of the moniker "King of Pop"

Should the following paragraph be inserted into the biography? Yes or no. The paragraph is about a widely reported development in November 1991, a marketing campaign which backfired somewhat and gave Michael Jackson's reputation a dunking. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


During this time, Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself, to diminish unflattering nicknames,[1] so he instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose.[2] For the networks to play the music video for "Black or White", Jackson's publicist Bob Jones demanded that the nickname be used twice a week by video jockeys (VJs) on MTV and BET.[3][4] MTV executive Matt Farber sent a memo to his staff in November 1991, saying "We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop' on-air", naming the quota of two mentions per week, and advising the VJs to document these mentions in case Jackson's management wanted proof. Rolling Stone published the memo two weeks later, possibly obtaining their copy from VJ Kurt Loder.[4] Both Los Angeles Times[5] and Entertainment Weekly acknowledged the issue on November 29, 1991, with EW adding that Jackson also requested of Fox Broadcasting Company that fictional character Bart Simpson refer to Jackson as the King of Pop during his cameo appearance at the end of the video for "Black or White". Bart's animators did not comply, but the honorific appeared in promotional material issued by Fox.[6] After this heavy-handed marketing tactic was revealed, the media sometimes represented Jackson as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop".[7][8][9][10] Jackson told USA Today in 2001 that the King of Pop honorific was initially bestowed by Elizabeth Taylor, then freely adopted by the media. He ended by saying, "This self-proclaimed garbage, I don't know who said that."[11]

References

  1. ^ Staff (July 13, 2009). "Factbox: The strange side of Michael Jackson". Reuters. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  2. ^ Vogel 2012, p. 231.
  3. ISBN 9780743201209
    .
  4. ^ a b Tannenbaum & Marks 2011, pp. 478–482, Chapter 41, " 'I Want to Have a Nickname' – How MTV helped Michael Jackson elect himself 'the King of Pop' ".
  5. ^ Willman, Chris (November 29, 1991). "'MTV 10': A Star-Studded Self-Tribute". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  6. ^ "Michael Jackson's Black or White Blues". Entertainment Weekly. November 29, 1991. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  7. ISSN 0006-2510
    .
  8. ISBN 9780195126549
    .
  9. ISBN 9780743426824
    .
  10. ISBN 9780842377393
    .
  11. ^ Gundersen, Edna (December 14, 2001). "Michael in the Mirror". USA Today. Retrieved March 1, 2023. Republished by ABC News in June 2009.

Poll

  • Yes per nom. The heavy-handed marketing campaign was reported at the time in Rolling Stone, the Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly. It was covered 20 years later by the book I Want My MTV by Tannenbaum and Marks. It is significant to the biography, and it explains for the first time why MJ has been called "self-proclaimed King of Pop". Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No This is absolutely a clear violation of
    WP:UNDUE. The policy states,”undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject…” 1) the proposed sources are contradictory to one another. 2) The subject here is Michael Jackson. The one time alleged promotional tactic is hardly worthy of its weight in this article. In fact, it so minuscule that even the proposed cited sources doesn’t even present the same information. 3) The proposed section being longer than some of the other sections that is far more notable with far more reliable non-contradictory sources, gives this way too much weight. The proven fact of the matter at hand is that the origins of Jackson being called the King of Pop are organic and started with fans and the media. Thus any marketing tactics in the early 90’s is irrelevant as that’s not the origins of Jackson becoming known as the King of Pop and eventually owning the trademark of honorary nickname. You can use one source to promote a narrative, then another one with different context to promote another narrative. That’s not how featured articles are structured and that not how this article should be structured. The content has no encyclopedic value and it serves no purpose whatsoever. What is the purpose of this proposed addition? What value is it adding to any of the sections or to the article?TruthGuardians (talk
    ) 06:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No because I don’t see this as a notable footnote in the legacy of the King of Pop. Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, per
    WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and the sources above don’t all tell the same story.NE0mAn7o! (talk
    ) 07:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No. There are several problems with this paragraph:
  1. The first source (Reuters) is dubious, as it lists strange-but-true and strange-but-untrue stories without specifying which of those the "King of Pop" story is. It definitely does not support the assertion that Jackson himself determined to amplify the nickname.
  2. It puts an opinion in wikivoice: heavy-handed.
  3. It's
    unduly
    long and detailed. This deserves a sentence, no more.
In fact, the article already has such a sentence: Jackson became known as the "King of Pop", a nickname that Jackson's publicists embraced, which even cites a couple of the same sources as this RfC proposal.
However, I do think there is a kernel of merit in the proposal, in that it seeks to explain why some sources use the phrase self-proclaimed King of Pop. I could support a brief expansion of this existing sentence to cover the issue, providing it does not unduly attribute marketing antics to Jackson himself. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Problem is none of the sources prove anyone in the media started to call him that because of either the alleged 1991 or the alleged 1993 requests by Jackson or Jackson's managment (it's not even clear which one of those as the sources contradict each other on that too). Would the media call him that out of their general hostility toward Jackson or would they only call him that because he or his management requested MTV and BET to call him that in 1991? castorbailey (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The 2011 book I Want My MTV by Tannenbaum and Marks makes the connection between marketing action and media reaction, saying MJ got slammed by the media for his high-handed tactics. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Any specific source who called him self proclaimed and admitted it was because of his request in 1991 toward those networks? I would like to see the exact wording in that book as being slammed for the alleged tactics and being called self-proclaimed are two different things, one doesn't follow from the other, not the least because it's a fact Jackson did not declared himself King of Pop. What were these high handed tactics when Jackson had no authority over anyone in the media, who could easily say no to whatever request he might have? High handed means "having or showing no regard for the rights, concerns, or feelings of other". How did Jackson violate MTV or BET's rights or hurt their feelings? castorbailey (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No While reading the above discussion, I have noted that the editors already provided Jackson being associated with king of pop title since 1984. A crucial part in the citation of good sources is that they are
    WP:FACTCHECK. Fact checking has uncovered that the sources being cited aren’t all in unison and that they aren’t even accurate. For all of these reasons, I am inclined to vote no. MraClean (talk
    ) 11:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No As I previously stated. Wikipedia is no place for gossip and conspiracy theories. Alessiorom13 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No WP:UNDUE. There isn't this much text for far more important aspects of his life and the sources are contradictory. Nor is there evidence in the sources that whoever called Jackson that name didn't do it on their own free will, that Jackson somehow had the power to force anyone to call him that. The word "heavy-handed" shows bias, especially since the network could have easily rejected whatever Jackson allegedly asked for and not play his video. castorbailey (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Question Isn't there a Media perception of Michael Jackson or similar article where this paragraph might be more appropriate? That said, perhaps the first sentence of this paragraph would be appropriate for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes If he promoted the nickname it should be in the article. Other than the questionable Reuters Factbox, the sources seem to support this. The tone should change: remove things like "heavy-handed" to make it more neutral.--Jahalive (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No I fail to see the relevance of this information. This information bares no weight in this article, especially considering the proposed sources are in contradiction to one another. Israell (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak no - This probably deserves a small mention in the article, but an entire paragraph seems overkil and trivial. How the nickname was created or marketed should not be a significant part of this biography. Nemov (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning no, though I am intrigued by the prospect of a Public image of Michael Jackson article. BD2412 T 01:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    I have been working on an article modeled after "Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders" article before the name of it was recently changed. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No I agree with
    WP:FACTCHECK
    . Reliable sources say MJ was referred to as The King Of Pop already back in the mid 80s. It is clear this poll did not have to be entered into talk space.
    Mr Boar1 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Clearly No - this claim of him pushing the title does not have enough coverage to be
    WP:DUE any mention, may be false or exaggerated, and just has no biographic significance of enduring effect in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk
    ) 23:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Leaning toward agreeing with WP:UNDUE here. But after reading the above commentaries, I support the idea of creating the "Public image of Michael Jackson", or a similar article in the style of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders where the "stories" about the nickname could fit for an inclusion. Regarding to the broader sense, it is difficult to blur the lines between what is "true" and what is "false", but I also found difficult to categorize "every negative" aspect as tabloid/gossip/media agenda against MJ. An underground phenomenon of pro-fan internet conspiracy theories have contributed more than ever, and where media have borrowed. There is nothing against the subject, MJ: But I move to the idea that we, Wikipedia, aren't "judges" of the information. Most political, artists, or other well-known public figures have always been the subject of commentaries/reviews from different ideologies and perspectives, including different opinions on their impact, acts or publicized life. MJ was never an exception. Miles away from the so generalized claimed media bias-agenda against MJ, a fan's POV could also contrast differently from an expert/s in a certain area, and beyond. While this is not a condition exclusively with MJ, sometimes these commentaries have more presence in print media, rather than the instant "clicks" of news-cycles, and/or sometimes are also simply ignored by fandoms. I think that because we aren't judges, we overrides any side: fan/anti-fan bias, pro/counter-agenda-settings, or conflict of interests: we are simply letting the reader what they wanna pick. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jackson-controversy-factbox/factbox-the-strange-side-of-michael-jackson-idUSTRE5665US20090713

Request for comment: awards-related statement

NO CONSENSUS
No consensus to include any statements proposed (10 votes for D, out of all 24 votes)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Taking into account the recent changes that have been made in this article, and that the awards-related statement has been removed from the end of the first paragraph of this article; I think it is necessary to implement a new statement in the lead section of the article in order to cover the information according to the new situation.

Therefore, I consider that the appropriate location to add such a statement is the middle part of the fourth paragraph of the article, before the sentence "His honors include 15 Grammy Awards...".

Keeping in mind some suggestions previously expressed in this Talk page by users such as BD2412 and Apoxyomenus, and aiming for greater neutrality and accuracy for the article, I ask for your opinion:

What statement do you consider should be added to cover the awards-related information within the new situation?

  • A "According to some estimates, Jackson is claimed as the most awarded recording artist in pop music history"
  • B "Some sources have deemed Jackson the most awarded musician in history"
  • C "By some measures, Jackson was the most awarded musician in history"
  • D "According to some sources, Jackson is considered the most awarded recording artist in history"
  • X "Jackson is one of the most awarded music artists"

The following options are statements that would be placed before the sentence "Jackson's inductions include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame..." in the fourth paragraph of the lead section.

  • Z "By some estimations, he was the most awarded music artist in history"
  • E "By some estimations, he is the most awarded music artist in history"

Finally, if anyone wishes to propose a different statement, suggestions are completely welcome. Salvabl (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


Poll

As been discussed before, the claim has been on the lead section of this Wikipedia article for over a decade, of course there would be a lot of websites recycling the information. It was originally added to Wikipedia without even a source, proving the case of
Woozle Effect. Bluesatellite (talk
) 03:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
His other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records; 13 Grammy Awards (as well as the Grammy Legend Award and the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award); 26 American Music Awards (more than any other artist, including the "Artist of the Century"); 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career (more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era)...
... with the following excerpt from this article as-at 1st June 2010:
His awards include many Guinness World Records (eight in 2006 alone), 13 Grammy Awards (as well as the Grammy Legend Award and the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award), 26 American Music Awards (24 only as a solo artist, including one for "artist of the century")—more than any artist—, 13 number one singles in the US in his solo career—more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era...
It's an incredibly suspiciously close match, and I believe is strong evidence that Wikipedia was used as a source for that article, which lends credence to the concerns about circular reporting and the woozle effect.
Now, the "most awarded" claim is simultaneously highly plausible and hard to verify, which is the worst-case scenario for us, because this means it is likely to have gone unchallenged in the editorial processes of our sources, and there are unlikely to be sources promoting counterclaims (because it's probably true).
So about those sources... others have cited long lists of sources most of which do indeed make the "most awarded" claim, but unfortunately they are all a little... lightweight? Just looking at TruthGuardians' list, most of them appear to be content farms, the exceptions being The Atlantic and People's World. The Atlantic is mainstream, but it doesn't actually make the "most awarded" claim. People's World? Well, it's not exactly an authority on the entertainment industry, and just like all these sources it doesn't offer any justification for its claim.
We must
WP:STICKTOSOURCE, but we must also exercise editorial judgement and determine which sources are reliable. Where is Rolling Stone's analysis, or NME
's?
A major part of the issue is that there is no universal definition of "award", which undermines the whole concept of counting them and comparing artists. I note that the article already contains the statement one of the most-awarded artists in popular music in the Honors and awards section. I suggest that this is sufficient. Not every part of the article needs to be, or can be, included in the lead - especially not using
WP:WEASEL
words.
Note that not making the "most awarded" claim is not equivalent to saying someone else was the most awarded - we are simply abstaining from making a claim either way. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I can't help but smell a bit of hypocrisy from some of the editors in this discussion. Just a few weeks ago, those editors blocked the inclusion of information about Jackson supposedly making antisemitic claims, even though the claims were reported by reliable sources. This was because at least one other source contradicted it, and it was suspected that the sources were based on bad information. Excluding it is therefore IMO not a necessarily an unreasonable position (though I am not convinced it was always argued in terms of Wikipedia policy), so, fine.
And... now we have a situation that does not seem completely dissimilar: reliable sources make a claim that some other sources contradict, and which seems impossible to get to the very bottom of. But those same editors who opposed the antisemitic stuff are now insisting we
WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE
and keep the claim, even though those sources disagree, or may be based on bad information?
This article continues to be a wearying battleground. Popcornfud (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this Talk page looks like a battlefield. I started this RfC with the aim of being able to find a possible consensus (leaving also open the possibility for other users to make their own suggestions) and, although it seemed to have started well, this is turning into a battle again.
In any case, I would like to remind that this RfC is only focused on adding a new sentence, in order to state that there are some sources/estimates that regard Jackson as the most awarded music artist in history (it's not about labeling him directly as "the most awarded"). Salvabl (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Is there any reliable source that declares someone else other than Jackson the most awarded artist of all time? In any case, it was blocked not just because of the contradictory sources but also because the whole episode was WP:UNDUE. Obviously how many awards Jackson got is far more relevant to his life than what some plaintiff suing him for money gave the media to smear him to help him win that lawsuit. Imagine if we included every single lawsuit and every single accusation against Jackson, no matter how dubious. While you wanted to include it to convince the reader that it happened, period, and Jackson was anti-semitic, here the proposal is merely including that "according to some sources". Information about awards is part of other artists pages too. Dubious claims by random plaintiffs with ulterior motives are not. castorbailey (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
His being the most awarded is also a dubious claim.
WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE is cherry-picked here and only applies when it's favorable to the fandom. Bluesatellite (talk
) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Since there is no source which declares anyone else but him the most awarded artist of all time it's hardly just a fandom construction unless you can prove that all sources with that declaration was written by a fan. Sounds more like because you don't like those sources you dismiss them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT But since the sources do not provide a detailed list of what awards Jackson got I am in favor of qualifying that statement with "according to some sources"castorbailey (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
What and where is a contradictory source in this case, Popcorn? Why are you bringing up a completely unrelated topic just to fail at your talking point? There is not a single contradictory source in this case. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: there apparently is reason to doubt the sources making the claim, because it's not clear what those sources are basing the claim on.
That is a similar case to the antisemitism issue discussed above. (Nitpick about differences all you like. I don't buy it. Apples and oranges are, on the whole, remarkably similar objects.)
Why am I bringing it up? Because I want to flag what I identify as a long-running double standard about content on this page: a tendency towards preserving content that flatters the subject, and removing content that doesn't. Popcornfud (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X or leave out The problem with the other suggestions (such as "the most awarded") is that it is ill-defined. What constitutes an award? Are all awards created equal? If my local school group decides to give MJ an award, does that count? How about if I decide to give MJ an award, does that count? "One of the most awarded recording artists in history" avoids making a definitive statement that he has won more awards than any other music artist. In other words, it's a safe wording that I don't think anyone would seriously dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have merged your two messages here, to display it as a suggestion made by you. Your suggestion is very similar to option X. For that reason, it is preferable not to add another option to the list if there are no substantial differences in the proposed statements. Salvabl (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't see option X. I will change my !vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    I'm going to amend my !vote slightly to include or leave out. I think the point the article is trying to make is that Jackson was one of the most popular musical artists in his day which the lede already clearly establishes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • D I'm inclined to vote for the option D considering the two 1, 2 sources user Binksternet provided in this afd. These two sources explicitly say Michael Jackson is the most-awarded artist of all time with over 800 awards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X - People, we are not on MJ's payroll. We are not on the marketing or PR teams. A neutral encyclopedia should not be trying to make such promotional-sounding estimations beyond the X option's wording (at most.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • DToo many sources called him the most awarded at the same time no source called anyone else the most awarded to be dismissed as mere marketing. castorbailey (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • None of these in the lead: Yes I support we can't see all the awards given to an artist, but the claim of "the most" has need to be accompanied with weight (his list of awards) for such extraordinary claim presented in a lead, considering the paradigm of what constitutes an award. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • D MJ is well regarded as being the most awarded artist in history and countless of sources has confirmed this. Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • D The biggest problem with "X" is that the sources does not say he is one of the most awarded artists of all time, they say he is the most awarded artist of all time with over 800 awards. Just because an award doesn’t have a source, that doesn’t mean that the award was not issued. It only means that award is unable to be mentioned on Wikipedia because of the lack of being able to find a source. Israell (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X. The other options reek of Woozle effect. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • D I consider it a good option, as the statement provides neutrality and is accurate (the word used in its initial part is "sources" instead of "estimates/measures"). There are multiple sources (1, 2, 3...) that regard Jackson as the most awarded artist, and we can find substantial differences in their content (some of them, for example, include numerical figures, which makes it difficult to claim that there was Woozle effect, since these figures have never been included in Jackson's Wikipedia article). On the other hand, there are no sources that explicitly dispute what the previously mentioned sources assert. In any case, I think it is a good option because it covers the information accurately while establishing the "According to some sources" constraint. Salvabl (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • None of these statements The current lead reads better than any of the options presented. Opinions about music awards are rather nebulous and it's not a significant enough part of the bio to justify inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X concise and (I'm assuming) accurate. Some1 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X and D. Both statements are equally true and appropriate to include: "Jackson is one of the most awarded music artists, and according to some sources, Jackson is considered the most awarded recording artist in history". BD2412 T 01:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X is most accurate. He may have been the most awarded at some point, but it seems nebulous and arguable now if he still is.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X or none of these statements, because MJ is certainly not the most awarded music artist in the history, and with so many new artists coming, it is questionable if he will even remain one of the most awarded musicians.Iraniangal777 (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    What are your sources that proves your statements? I can provide 2 sources right now that show not only Jackson is the most awarded artist in history, he’s won over 800 awards. Do you have sources debunking these? [Source 1] Source 1 Source 2 TruthGuardians (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    You can't even give a breakdown of those so-called 800 awards. Not even fansite like this can provide the number anywhere close to that. It's simply an imaginary and illusory number, just like MJ's claimed 1 billion record sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    Regardless of what our perspective is, we have to accept that this is a complex matter. For example, if someone states something like "MJ is certainly not the most awarded music artist in the history". The first thing to know is whether that claim is supported by anything more than the user's personal opinion. Are there sources that explicitly dispute what sources like this or this one state? As far as I have researched, they do not exist. If they do exist, please bring them here.
    On the other hand, I understand that there are users who give importance to the existence of sources claiming that Jackson won more than 800 awards, because apart from the number (there are users who may think that the true figure is higher, and others may think it is lower) I think what is relevant is that the content is different in some sources than in others, which makes it difficult to claim that there was Woozle effect. You have also stated that the List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson contains an insufficient number of awards listed to support the claim. Let me tell you that even if that list had never existed, that would not be incompatible with the presence of the awards-related information in Jackson's article supported by sources (as there are several available).
    Taking the claimed sales figure of 1 billion as an example, I agree that it is an inflated figure; there are also 1 billion sales claims for The Beatles and Elvis Presley. In Presley's case, the figure is claimed by the Guinness World Records. If we go to Presley's Wikipedia article we can find a statement that reads "Presley is recognized as the best-selling solo music artist of all time by Guinness World Records". Is Presley the best-selling solo music artist of all time? Some will say yes and some will say no (that's not the point), but regardless of whether he is or not, the statement is correct because it reads "recognized [...] by Guinness World Records".
    In this case the situation is similar. The statament that claimed that Jackson is the most awarded music artist in history (in the lead section's first paragraph) has already been removed. Including content stating that there are some sources that consider Jackson the most awarded artist would be including information that is objectively true. For that reason, I understand the suggestion made by @BD2412. When an artist has a large number of awards and a commercially successful career, as in Jackson's case, he/she can be labeled as "one of the most awarded artists", but in this case there are sources that regard Jackson as the most awarded, and that is so simply true, that both statements could be together covering the information. Salvabl (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • D No need for any changes here at all. There was sanctions broken as I recall as well, then the edit should have been reverted back per
    WP:NOR
    as mentioned too is a reminder agree. Reliable sources say that Michael Jackson indeed is the most awared artist of all time, and Wikipedia is a platform where this should matter first and foremost, above fan disputes. This is a clear example of WP:STICKTOSOURCE can apply too in this instance

Mr Boar1 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  • X or a revised D. Both of those seem the citeable and somewhat different facts. Definately of the few with hundreds of awards he is one, and yes some sources say he is the most awarded. But strike out the awkward phrase wording "considered" because those sources say he is the most awarded, not that he is "considered". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your suggestion. Taking into account what you have explained, which of the following statements do you think would be an appropriate revised option D that most accurately corresponds to your suggestion?
    D-1 "According to some sources, Jackson is claimed as the most awarded recording artist in history".
    D-2 "According to some sources, Jackson is the most awarded recording artist in history". Salvabl (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
D-2, because the sources say he "is" the most awarded artist as their own assertion, not saying he is "considered" such as if remarking on the views of others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • X. I wouldn't torment our readers with the question of "sources", which is a problem for us Wikipedia editors, not for them, and I wouldn't leave them puzzled with generic expressions such as "some measures", "some estimates", as if there is some kind of scientific debate trying to measure and estimate the extent of MJ's awards. "Jackson is one of the most awarded music artists" is fully verifiable and simple and therefore preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • None of these in the lead There are many other statements in the lead section that better illustrate Jackson's fame. Being "most awarded" does not appear to be that important in comparison. The strong claim of "most" does not have the strongest support, because some sources only deem or consider it to be true by certain measures. A section other than the lead would be a better place for such a statement. Senorangel (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_40&oldid=1159062595"