Talk:Janet Jackson

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

"Having sold close to 800 million records..."

Please update that upwards to 800 million. The number has risen since last update. Not only did Rolling Stone magazine [1] but Pitchfork [2] reported it back in 2018 when she received the ICON Award from the 2018 Billboard Music Awards. Then the following year, Prnewswire [3] also reported it when 6 of her albums were reissued on vinyl.

Thank you. WarehouseMusic (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 08:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And Undone.[4] Prnewswire is not reliable. The figure of 100 million is estimated, using guesswork and certainly a multiplication factor of some sort to account for sales that are not certified. There's no way that her sales could have jumped from 100 to 180 million without a couple of huge chart hits, which were not present, as her last album release was five years ago. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

And redone as Rolling Stone and pitchfork are approved sources. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

They are, but you were citing Janelle Monáe's speech which was reprinted by them. Janelle Monáe is not a reliable source for sales figures. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added a new source, this time from NBC News. I also agree with the update. Israell (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, I read the hidden note. Four of us here agree w/ the increase, and NBC is a reliable source. I've found many more sources, but the NBC one is the only one we'd use. More sources for the record: . One of these sources is from Universal Music Canada, the other one from Live Nation. Such sources may not be acceptable here, but I do not believe the 180 million figure to be purely fabricated. And once again, the NBC source is sufficient. As for the other article, we'd edit it as well. Israell (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

When comparing what has been going on here to what has been going on with Madonna’s page it’s is quite clear that one artist is being over inflated (Madonna) and the other one is being under valued. The question is why? Why are the same editors over inflating Madonna’s numbers are the same ones here under valuing Janet? Why do these editors follow one another? It’s time to get to the bottom of these questions. As an editor responsible for making Wikipedia a better place, I’m aware of foul play when and where it exists. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Madonna has nothing to do here, drop your stan card! Go to List of best-selling music artists and seek for consensus there. There're a ton of sources claiming The Beatles, Elvis, and MJ sold over 1 billion records as well, do we use those claims? No. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, does consensus absolutely need to take place on List of best-selling music artists? Four of us here agree w/ the update, and I have provided one reliable source at least, NBC (backed by Universal Music Canada and Live Nation + even more sources). If enough agree here, the change may also be reflected on that other article. I do not think it is a good idea (and look) for editors to keep fighting like this, and I also have other things to cater to. My vote on this matter is yes. Israell (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no insight into the matter. BD2412 T 17:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021 - albums sold

Change "over 100 million" albums sold to "over 160 million." This Wikipedia page is often used even in news stories for her albums sold, but it is no longer accurate. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame states she sold more than 160 million albums worldwide. This is also what her record label has said during her last release. Billboard also confirmed that number when they gave her an icon award a few years back. I posted links to these below so you can see. The Billboard one I can't post because it's from a blocked Google site, but it is easily findable

https://www.rockhall.com/janet-jackson https://www.bmg.com/de/news/intl-bmg-to-release-janet-jacksons-first-new-album-in-seven-years-this-fall-2015.html 2601:448:8380:3B80:B40C:9D2:63E3:EDD7 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done. It's been discussed many many times both here and on Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead title is wrong

Janet began her television career with the Jacksons variety show in 1976, but in 1974 she began her career performing with her family at the MGM Grand Casino. I hope somebody can correct this. --Aaron106 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MGM Grand Las Vegas is not a TV show. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that? I said she began her television career with the Jacksons variety show in 1976 which is correct. In the lead title it say's she began her career though with the variety show which is wrong. She began her career at age seven performing at the MGM Grand in 1974. It needs to be fixed. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discography for singles needs a link

When going to the Janet Jackson Discography section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson#Discography), clicking the Main article: Janet Jackson discography link brings up J.J.s Album discography, but not the Singles discography. Please fix. Thanks! Packzap (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Eissa Al Mana is her son, why "1 child" in the information box

It says in the article that Janet Jackson has a son, and that he is called Eissa Al Mana. Shouldn't that be in the information box, rather than just "1 child"? 2001:9E8:78:800:71A2:5B79:84E9:5ABB (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The infobox should just say a number if the children are not independently notable. "1 child" is correct here. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

10th child

She is the ninth 2603:8001:8700:9C4D:24FD:6312:EB9A:5F5 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Brandon David Jackson (b. and d. March 12, 1957) has been included although he died shortly after birth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Contributions/reversion of User:Instantwatym

Avoiding a non-sense edit war, and for the record, user Instantwatym have claimed that the title "Queen of Pop" for Janet Jackson is worthy of inclusion in lede, for a variety of reasons, including body article's mentions from a featured article. Me, and another user (User:Bluesatellite) have reverted the lede inclusion. The user claims there is an editorial bias because me and Bluesatellite have contributed substantially to articles related to Madonna, and appears that the subject, Madonna have been used as a redeemer to JJ's inclusion/case. He also claims, "there is more support for Jackson having this title". As far is my concern, at least, there are indicative claims from third-party reliable sources, both inside and outside music-related world. For example, The Times (2008) explicitly states that the subject Madonna "has been referred to habitually as “the Queen of Pop” since the mid-Eighties". To avoid possibly cherry-picking bias from journalists or media publications, the second subject, Madonna, appears to have from major publications like BBC, Reuters, Billboard, mentions from different staff members, editorial's staff, or yearly if the artist have received such internal coverage, beyond merely a mention to a random article. I translate this as a consistency, or "more support for [...] having this title".

I also brought to the user, a perhaps more universal example of the "King of Pop", that in his same analogous way, there also exist reliable sources indicating how many artists have been called "King of Pop", and all of these sources can be implemented to their articles, and therefore, in their article's lead. Despite the famous case with Michael Jackson, and trademark protection from Estate of Michael Jackson circa 2009, for instance. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

- Multiple reputable sources, spanning different decades, have referred to Jackson as the Queen of Pop. Therefore including it in the lede is due per WP:DUE.

- You and the other editor have an editorial bias based on signficant contributions in articles for Madonna who is sometimes referred to by the same title. Ideally it should include it for both under the justification of WP:DUE, as any fair or neutral editor would do. But if you have issues with multiple reputable sources conferring honorific titles then you should remove them from both articles to avoid being accused of having an editorial bias.

- Your point about cherrypicking is nonsensical because youre removing sourced content based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

- The Michael Jackson examples is a poor one because there is overwhelming support for him being dubbed the "King of Pop", as opposed to others. The same cant be said for Madonna in comparison to Janet Jackson, which is why I want the titles included in both articles, as opposed to removing them from one article or from both. Instantwatym (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It relies much how the article is written. In the same vein, "multiple" sources have called Queen of Country, King of Pop, Goddess of Pop or Queen of Soul to "multiple" artists. I could put the same to their body's articles to various of these performers, and I guess from your side, you will have no problem because aren't unreliable references or isn't unbiased to add these "titles" to multiple of these artists, I guess, right?. You have referred that is "sometimes" applied to Madonna, and I perceive that you perceive Janet Jackson is "frequently/often" referred as such (and ofc, spanning different decades). I'm using references indicating this, like the above source, with similarly terms, "frequently"/"habitually". Aside that there exist contemporary references before the 1990s, idst, the 1980s: 1 or 2. I'm also referring to the consistency from major publications, unlike, I've seen in the second one (take randomly a source like Billboard, a well-known source for music editors) and I'm also speaking about lead, not the entire removal of the nickname in this page. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Over at the Madonna talk page archives, I have voiced repeatedly my opinion that we should attribute sources calling Madonna the Queen of Pop rather than saying she is the Queen of Pop. That's because too many other artists have been called the Queen of Pop. But at least Madonna has some legs with the moniker, while Janet does not. Janet hasn't put out any music for years. Sources calling her the Queen of Pop are far fewer. I guess we could attribute one source for Janet, but never should we give her the honorific in Wikipedia's voice, nor put the moniker in the lead section. Madonna is by far the greater force in music. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I concur with the assertion that these editors undeniably exhibit an entrenched editorial predisposition favoring Madonna, a bias that has persisted unabated over the passage of years. Numerous other editorial voices have echoed similar sentiments. Furthermore, I am in alignment with your discernment regarding the inadequacy of the Michael Jackson example, a matter subjected to rigorous debate on multiple occasions, culminating invariably in a resounding consensus regarding its deficiencies.

It is worth noting that the Jackson estate has meticulously safeguarded the trademarked epithet "King of Pop," endowing its proprietor, Michael Jackson, with exclusive prerogatives over its utilization within specific commercial domains. Such trademark protection confers upon the owner the sole authority to employ the designation in conjunction with designated goods or services. Consequently, any unauthorized usage of the term that engenders confusion among consumers or diminishes the trademark's intrinsic value may precipitate legal recourse on the part of the trademark holder, as has been exemplified by the Jackson estate's successful enforcement actions in the past.

In elucidating these points, it becomes evident that Madonna does not enjoy commensurate legal entitlements to the designation "Queen of Pop," her recognition as such being on par with that accorded to Janet Jackson. Thus, while Janet Jackson indisputably merits the appellation of "Queen of Pop," Madonna equally occupies a position of eminence within the realm of pop culture. Consequently, in light of the cogency of your argument, it appears plausible to advocate for the consideration of Janet Jackson as "a" queen of pop in certain contexts, as opposed to the unequivocal designation of "THE" Queen of Pop. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The legal status is irrelevant. And Madonna has always been a larger musical force than Janet; there was never a time when Janet was "on par" with Madonna. For one, Madonna was massively popular worldwide, while Janet enjoyed primarily domestic success. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I brought to the user the example of the nickname King of Pop, because aside that he associates a bias with me due my contributions to Madonna's articles, he used terms such as "multiple" sources attributing it to JJ. He also primarily edit on R&B artists, and I saw as worthy to mention his comparative of history+usage+wiki's policies too with a similar moniker, and with an artist he has also a familiar knowledge.

So "multiple" can be defined as two or more sources, right?, or perhaps, "different" decades... and is exactly what happen with almost every single pop moniker... including the King of Pop. The moniker have been always present, before (Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby or Elvis Presley +), during (George Michael, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Robbie Williams, Timberlake, Usher +) and after Michael Jackson's life on this Earth (Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Harry Styles, Bad Bunny +). Even thou, the moniker "King of Pop" appears to have a deeper history/usage and tenier over Queen of Pop, and at one time, with multiple artists if we compare it with today's dominance/abundance of female pop singers over male pop singers... Examples of older+today's usage could be Elvis Presley (1970s or before); even we have Al Jolson (1886-1950) who was defined as "first King of Pop". Michael himself, generated a bit of stir... before today's fandom's of female artists.. See how this source of the 1990s explains the singer likes the sound of that phrase (King of Pop).... that his History CD package and merchandise emblazoned with the "King of Pop" to later been perpetuated to a trademark. Returning to this pair, Janet and Madonna, the latter have an established/consistency media attributions, likely before Janet... see how this 1986 source, defines Madonna "solidified her role as the queen of pop"... And note that a similar description have been used for this page but with a reference of the next decade, the 1990s. I know is a fact that Janet has also been called a Queen of Pop, so I don't oppose to have this included in the article, but lead is a bit different. Is not a thing of "Madonna contributors". Indeed, came from newspapers (Reuters 2008), and sources have proven the habitually/consistently attribution with the subject, including The Times (2008), or South China Morning Post (1998), contrary to Janet. With Janet, it appears to be more a thing by American sources, and despite this, Madonna have a better scope, before/during Wikepedia's existence (avoid probably circular reporting). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems like the editor above wants to push a false narrative on Wikipedia that there is unequivocal support for Madonna having this title and no else. Which is flat out false, considering there is signficant support for Janet Jackson as well. The compromise should be to include it on both articles by stating that both artists have been referred to by this title, as opposed to saying that Madonna or Jackson IS the Queen of Pop. Instantwatym (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

How? Instantwatym. I speak out with sources and context. At the end, I don't saying "delete all things related to Queen of Pop with Janet and others artists". FYI, the user above refers to a undiscussed bias when he and a bunch of users have been accused of conflict of interests related to Jackson family by other users, and weren't "Madonna editors" [only].. I can help you with your commitment of neutrality in Wikipedia, related to multiple artists/multiple sources, with this moniker (Queen of Pop), and others too, like the King of Pop, Queen of R&B, King of Rap etc, in a couple of days/weeks. I proposed it in the special page of nicknames to a couple of years ago. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Change "Jackson has sold over 100 million records,[3][4][5] making her one of the world's best-selling music artists. " to "Jackson has sold over 180 million records, making her one of the world's best-selling music artists. Terrelltjohnson (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Latest sources are used in the article. Provide with most recent sources. Charliehdb (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)