Talk:Janet Jackson/Archive 3

Michael, Michael, Michael!

Why is Janet always compared to her BIG BROTHER, both negatively and positively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.11.8 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

expanding Janet's history

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, though I have worked on and off in Final Fantasy Wiki. I am not used to locked pages, but considering the family and things associated with the name Jackson, I can understand.

I was wanting to make the addition to Janet's page about her completion of the film Why Did I Get Married Too, as well as her own confirmation of making a new album set to be released in 2010. I was thinking not only would it make fans happy to see a new album/film coming out, but it would help bring some positive news within Janet's page, instead of ending with the passing of the King of Pop. My sources for the album and completion of the film are her Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pages, as well as her official website. Thanks for being patient with he new person.

(Bahamutskingdom (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Welcome to wikipedia. Although your enthusiasm is appreciated, there are a number of factors you must consider when adding information to an article, especially one which is a featured article. A wiki article is an encyclopedic entry, therefore we are not concerned with "making fans happy" (although that may be a welcome side effect to a well written article) but accurate coverage of notable events.

Please have a quick read of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. When writing an article with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW only third party source are considered acceptable (newspapers, journal, books, transcripts). Self-published information, such as Jackson's personal web site and her MySpace, FaceBook and Twitter pages or blogs are considered unacceptable.

Also read WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not normally document future events unless there are unusual circumstances or an unusually high volume of media coverage. To put it simply, until the new movie or album actually come out, its not important enough to mention here - at least not until its close to release. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

bookkeeper: Self published info from jj's (& another other person's) website, my\face ARE indeed reliable. They come from jj herself after all. An example is Miley Cyrus page being loaded with info that is cited w her twitter and personal website. 70.108.96.18 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE JANET'S PIC

Hello, I want to know why wikipedia refuses to change Janet's article picture. There are TONS of Janet fans with free images that have been taken of Miss Jackson and uploaded, only to have them taken off not even a minute later. The current picture of Miss Jackson is outdated, 3 years to be exact, and it is an unflattering pose. I would like to know the reason why there seems to be a problem changing Janet's picture, yet other artists on wikipedia get their article pictures changed on a regular basis, and not with free images, either. What is the reason for this?24.11.32.51 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The current picture has the clearest representation of her classic look. The only other free images abstract her face or have her hair styled in a mohawk (from the recent Rock Witchu Tour). Also The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. The only other image that might be worth considering is File:Janet Jackson 4.jpg but again, the mohawk isn't a part of her normal appearance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

bookkeeper: What do you mean by 'classic look'? Is JJ's classic look her looking @ her *ss? May the picture of her on her janet. album be used in the infobox? 70.108.96.18 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No. That image is copyright Virgin records. Only free image (a picture someone personally took and uploaded to wikipedia, specifically allowing us to use) can be used in the infobox. Non-free images can only be used to illustrate why that image was taken. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong use of musical terminology

Hello, i'm newly registered so i'm not yet allowed to edit the article 'Janet Jackson'.
In three places in this article there is 'triple swing' mentioned when it should be triplet swing or 'triplet feel'. Can somebody change this?
MBM writer (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed "compilation albums" to actual names

I changed "compilation album" in the two headings to Design of a Decade 1986/1996 and Number Ones. This keeps things consistent with other headings that specifically name album titles. - StarIV (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To section pls add more info that Discipline wasnt successful

2008–present: Discipline, death of Michael Jackson and Number Ones Jackson performs during the Rock Witchu Tour 2008. In July 2007, Jackson changed labels and signed a record contract with Island Records. Jackson's tenth studio album, Discipline, was released in February 2008, debuting on the Billboard 200 at number one.[7] Paul Grein of Yahoo! Music observed that with six number one studio albums, Jackson had "surpasse[d] her brother Michael Jackson, who has amassed five [number one] albums."[137] Jackson commented, "I wanted to name the album Discipline because it has a lot of different meanings for me but the most important would be work—to have done this for as long as I have ... And to have had the success that I've had—not excluding God by any means—but it takes a great deal of focus."[138] Margeaux Watson of Entertainment Weekly referred to the lyrical content as "cheesy", while Dan Cairns of The Sunday Times called the album "bizarre".[139][140] However, Allmusic's Andy Kellman described the album as "innocent, universal inviting as anything else in Janet's past."[141] Prior to the album's debut, the first single from the album, "Feedback", was leaked to select radio stations in the United States in December 2007. The single peaked at number nineteen on the Hot 100.[15]

This sections make mention of Feedback peaking @ #19. It doesnt make mention of the rest of the songs not peaking highly. To me it seems like the unsuccess of 'Discpline' is not being mentioned. I think to be a fair article it does need to be mentioned. In the above sections there is gloat after gloat of the success of Control/RN/janet/Velvet Rope/All 4 U, so let us please be fair 70.108.122.113 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The rest of the section also discusses her leaving her record label. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why there wasn't a problem with adding the info about Janet Jackson's "Discipline" album being unsuccessful, yet there seems to be a problem with adding information about future projects (which is done all the time on wikipedia), and changing her pic (plenty of free images of Ms. Jackson have been uploaded to her page that "represent her natural look" much better than the current 3-year old pic, only to be constantly replaced with this one). It seems to some that her page is purposely being represented poorly. Any insight into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.32.51 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted above: see WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Wikipedia policy is NOT to offer firsthand news reports nor to document future events, even if other editors unknowingly or purposefully break this rule. Also noted above: I've seen all the free images uploaded of her and they're mostly from the Rock Witchu Tour sporting the mohawk look. If you have examples of other, I'd be happy to see them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

bookkeeper:To me it seems like you are the end all say all (esp with this comment I've seen all the free images uploaded of her and they're mostly from the Rock Witchu Tour sporting the mohawk look.). I have a huge problem w the article pic being her looking @ her *ss. I think the pics of her from rockwitu tour would be better. We need a vote, it shouldnt be you decison. Whethers others make changes you revert. Now this article is featured with this less than stellar pic. 70.108.85.109 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering I'm the editor who has worked day and night on this article for the past year and put it through Featured Article Candidacy, I can say its Featured specifically because of my efforts - not to imply ownership, but this article was sad to say the least before I started monitoring it and its not as if there are legions of editors working on Janet-related articles, I'm mostly working on my own as of late. Nonetheless, I never said it can't be used. I said the point of having an image in the infobox is to give the reader the most accurate visual depiction of the subject. That means there needs to be a close up of her face without anything obscuring it (like glasses or a microphone). You can see all free images of her here. Be best two are the current image and File:Janet Jackson 4.jpg, though I don't think the latter is anymore "flattering" than the current pic. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Change Janet's picture now

ITS NOT EVEN A FACE PICTURE, YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT ASAP SOMETHING MORE RECENT THAT DOES IN FACT REFLECT HER "NATURAL LOOK" JANET JUST LOST 60 POUNDS AND WAS NOT LOOKING LIKE "NATURAL JANET" AT THAT TIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretay (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia requires images to be licensed under a free license, under almost all circumstances, so there's only a very limited number of pictures that can be used here. You can have a look through other pictures of her at commons:Category:Janet Jackson, but I didn't see a better one. Unless you yourself own copyright to a picture, there's little that can be done about it.
Kind regards, Amalthea 21:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several pretty decent pictures taken when I was at the Up Close and Personal Tour. Since they are my own, can I place one of them on here to get rid of the now 3+ year old picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahamutskingdom —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

As long as they are completely yours, you can upload them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now uploaded what I think is the best quality picture from my pile of them, and cannot for the life of me figure out how to change the main picture on the page. it is a rather good one I think. Can we please let me know how to change the picture, or Bookkeeper look at it yourself, and see if it can be used? If not for the main picture, then how about for the section covering the Up Close and Personal Tour.Bahamutskingdom (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the picture has to be verified. I'll check with an admin soon. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely give up. Looked in on my picture, and it says not my own work. basically I am being called a liar. Very pissed off at being called a liar (One of my buttons). So it would seem no matter how hard people try to get something on here, it will be deleted no matter what. I call discrimination on behalf of Janet Jackson. Plain and Simple. Bahamutskingdom (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Starring in a TV show vs. appearing in one.

I do not think that a few appearances in a TV show count as "starring" and think that there should be some differences noted here between them.

Gary Coleman starred in Diff'rent Strokes. Janet Jackson, she did not.

Sukiari (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. She was a part of the main cast. This was not a guest appearance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Jackson was part of the main casts of Good Times and Fame, but played simply recurring character on Diff'rent Strokes. Her name was always relegated to the closing credits, alongside the other guest actors of the episode. Despite her numerous appearances, she - technically - wasn't an official cast member. —The Real One Returns 06:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

After some research it appears you are right. Staring roles include Fame, Good Times, but Diff'rent Strokes is a recurring role.

Imagine that. - The Real One Returns 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

personal life

Personal items such as her marriages ought to be in a separate section. Were there children?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs)

This article is not structured that way, nor is it required to be by wikipedia. She has never had children, so why put emphasis on a subject that does not exist? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

what about the men in her life(james debarge,jermaine dupri,etc.)? Smokiewight (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All of them mentioned in the article already. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please change Janet's picture

Hello,

I've read through the discussion page and agree with other wiki users that the current photo of Janet needs to be changed. Not only is it out dated, but it isn't the best representation of her classic look at all. I do sympathise in what you've said to the other users and agree completely that the other possible photos are not suitable or flattering. All I ask is if you could put a few feelers out on fan sites to see if anyone has any free images to give, seeing as you've made it clear that you're responsible for the article and seem to be quite proud of it. If you've already done this then thank you, if not then I'm sure a lot of people including myself would be very thankful. Kind Regards. Janetfan 00:38, 25th January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.179.254 (talk)

I did contact a few fansites last year to see if they could e-mail me any freely licensed photos, or if they could upload any directly. I got no response. I assume - like most fansite - all of Jackson's fan-based websites only have copyright photos; not ones taken by the owners of the site. Hopefully, more people will take photos during her next concert tour or any upcoming special events she might attend. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Star" in shows

Seriously, people, did she "star" in every show she appeared in?

I would argue, no, probably not by any reasonable metric. This smells like PR.

Sukiari (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph on American Idol Appearance on 5/26/2010

I think this paragraph should be re-tooled. It sounds like it belongs more on a fan site than Wikipedia. While I agree she got thunderous applause, we can't say that it was the most well received performance ever. I remembered when Prince performed everyone went crazy. Anyway that paragraph contains too much of an opinion and not a lot of fact. It should be reworded or removed.

Here is the paragraph that I object to:

"On May 26, 2010 she performed on the season finale of american idol, she recieved a standing ovation from all four judges, and as she walked off stage much of the crowd cheered her name for an encore. She recieved a greater cheer of enthusiasm from the audience than any other performer in idol history. she was even recieved better from the audience than the new winner of idol that night."

Thank you.

Thediva (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced and poorly-written twaddle. It's gone. Rodhullandemu 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I was in the middle of rewriting it. But no worries, I've restored a neutral, fact-based version of the American Idol bit with a source. — ξ^xplicit 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Number siblings

There were ten: From Rebbie Jackson article: Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, La Toya, Brandon (d. 1957), Marlon, Michael (d. 2009), Randy and Janet. Gerardw (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

blackglama fur ad

Recently Janet has been in the news for her apparent support of the fur trade and subsequent outrage by PETA and others who stand in opposition to what they perceive as the cruel business of fur. This is highly historically significant and should be mentioned in the article.Mrrealtime (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't about it being "historically" significant, but I added a paragraph on the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Janet's Picture

I've just been searching wiki and noticed that Madonna's page has an image which isn't free, with the photographer being credited as source and author, and links to his website. My enquiry is to ask if it would be possible to use a similar image of Janet as long as credit/copyright was given to the photographer? 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetfan2010 (talk • contribs)

The photographer who took that image of Madonna uploaded it onto wikipedia personally, giving wikipedia permission to use it. No copyright images can be used as the main image of a biography if there are free images available, unless the copyright holder gives permission to do so. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have several really nice pictures I took from her "Up Close And Personal Tour". Would love to donate them to wikipedia to get rid of the more horrid one that is there. There is no obstruction of her in several shots. Face is good, and all that. The best is a side shot in mid dance, but it is certainly better than what is there now. But I do not know how to upload, nor can I find the place to do so. Let me know what can be done.Bahamutskingdom (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jackson's Photograph...

I see that the photo of Jackon on the set of The Jacksons was deleted because it has "no fair use rationale for use" in the article. I just wanted to see if it is possible to have it available for use in this article. Ga Be 19 04:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

It must be said, under the reviews of the "Control" album, there are attacks against Patti LaBelle, Whitney Houston, and Diana Ross. Of all the reviews that are out there at the time "Control" was released, it is really unacceptable to attack other artists to try and make Jackson appear better than them. It is cowardly and unneccessary to do so. LaBelle's, Houston's, and Ross' articles do not attack Jackson so why should her article attack them? And you can bet there is ample opportunity. There are plenty of reviews were Jackson's whimsical, weak, and thin vocals were attacked when new albums by vocal powerhouses like Houston and LaBelle were being released; and also Ross, who has a much better voice than Janet Jackson. So it would seem better to replace those reviews with ones that actually talk about "Control" itself, not putting other people down to make this album appear better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image date

Could someone clarify when this photo was taken? The Commons tag at Janet Jackson 4.jpg contradicts itself on whether it was 2008 or 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr source says September 10, 2008, and according to Rock Witchu Tour, this was the only occasion on which JJ appeared in Vancouver. Since the photo was uploaded in 2008, it cannot have been taken in 2009. The Commons image description has been updated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Marriage(s)?

Has Janet ever been married? This would be great information to add to the article. Estheroliver (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

She's been married and divorced twice, which is covered already in the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically, most celebrities have distinctive and easy-to-find separate sections for that (ex. "Personal Life" "Marriages"), so somehow I missed it, haha. Estheroliver (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 218.186.17.240, 1 June 2011

218.186.17.10 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC) sh

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please state exactly what you want changed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jean7422, 16 June 2011

In the Music Videos and choreography section, change "Jackson's music videos have also found report within the gay community," to "Jackson's music videos have also found rapport within the gay community. (At least I think this is the meaning the author intended.)

Jean7422 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Done GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2012

Would it be possible to change the picture of this page to a more recent one? That picture is more than 3 years old now and she looks so different these days. The picture I suggest is this one:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k277/jarrylf/261580_121833841237038_100002312676186_187254_2895676_n.jpg

Bubear89 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bubear89 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: All pictures on Wikipedia have to comply with our image use policy. If you like to have the picture changed, use the Upload file link in the Toolbox to the left to upload it then reopen the request and someone will insert it into the article for you. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this right. I'm new to this. I have uploaded the picture using the Toolbox as you suggested. I'm not sure what to do after that.

86.30.221.57 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see the upload under your contributions. Could you tell me the name of the uploaded file? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's called "Janet Jackson performs Rhythm Nation in London".

Bubear89 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I searched for that name, but I didn't find any uploaded picture. You need to upload the picture and tell me the name you gave the file when you uploaded it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

Would it be possible to remove the 20 YO contest picture? It's not really historically relevant to the page and is just taking up space, unnecessarily.

Bubear89 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, there is no obvious reason to remove this image simply because it is old, and it relates to the surrounding text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Janet is a 'singer-dancer' and model (in addition to...)

I added in Janet's description that she is a 'singer-dancer' and model. Until Beyonce came along (who was highly influenced by Janet), Janet was clearly the world's best female singer-dancer. She is also an incredible model whose photographs have that 'goddess quality' unseen since Marilyn Monroe. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are meant to be labeled by an individuals primary profession, which in Janet's case is a singer. She isn't a professional dancer in the strictest sense - meaning she never been under contract to dance with anyone (like belonging to a ballet company or being hired as a backup dancer for an artist), she's always been under either recording contracts or acting contracts. Plus, there is no infobox designation for "solo singer-dancer" (see Template:Infobox musical artist). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Janet believes in reincarnation

Janet - although a Jehovah (Yehowah) Witness like the rest of the Jackson family - believes in reincarnation. I've read this in two different interviews. Unfortunately, I didn't write down those sources. Anybody know? This personal afterlife belief should be added to the article, but not without the sources. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Janet Jackson kept Katherine Jackson away from MJ's kids?

Should this new revelation be added to the article somehow? http://static02.mediaite.com/gossipcop/uploads/2012/07/AyugdPtCUAAlS5V.jpg-large.jpeg --The lorax (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There's very little tangible evidence of anything solid. Just a bunch of ambigious tweets and a possible lawsuit against the executors. I think it should stay out of the Jackson family articles at least until something other than "he said/she said/they allegedly" is reported. Wikipedia isn't the same as Wikinews. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This will story is relevant though. Her attorney has put out a statement regarding all the negative press she's receiving. This is a major part of her life now. Something must be included on her entry. Partyclams (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would caution you to only post content that is substantiated. Rumors and online fiction will be a problem since the community will remove that and/or gossip. Borntodeal (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You must be kidding with the photo?!

LOL Who the heck put that up?! Change it back NOW hahahah it's horrid! --91.152.235.120 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a photo that you own personally, then you should upload it and post it in a relevant way. Borntodeal (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a flattering photo

Puffery

This article is loaded with puffery. I am a Jackson's fan... but this is a bit much. The opening paragraph and all throughout the article border on encyclopedic. Please see WP:AMNESIA and then read the article. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a real and practical way to address this powerfully. Help edit! If you feel you have a better way of explaining something, then help the community. If you take something away, that's vandalism, but if you guide, edit and help other writings, that's a contribution! Borntodeal (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? I don't see the article as too positive. She's a incredibly successful and accomplished woman so simply reporting the facts will sound like puffery but it's the truth. Janetrocks (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above user, some parts of the article seem too much. The last paragraph of Legacy section is totally bloated, do we really need to include what all those singers think about Janet Jackson? Can you imagine how The Beatles page would be, if its editors wrote comments from all artists who take influence from them? Bluesatellite (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Janet is an incredibly iconic figure Janetrocks (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed down the quotations in the Legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Third Party Input

I take great care in the development of my writing including contributions to Wikipedia. I love the subjects for which I contribute.

I am reviewing many of the contributions I made to Janet's page and they have been undone in such a way that I feel needs third party input. I am attempting to remain objective, but there was a lot of time, research and care put into the work that I did and I'd like it honored by the community.

Seems one person made a lionshare of the changes. Can we open this up to some other contributors and ask if you agree or disagree with the content I created and if you agree, I'd like to restore most of all of it with fair collaboration here. Borntodeal (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have not been completely undone or erased, just modified to make sure it's on par with a featured article. Everyone's contributions get modified over time, it's the nature of wikipedia. Is there anything specific that's troubling you? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few changes to my content that aren't IMO correctly revised. One is at the beginning. This line is not correct 'Janet Damita Jo Jackson (born May 16, 1966) is an American recording artist and actress' and does not properly reflect her body of work and accomplishments. My revision more accurately described her and is accurately reflected elsewhere in the page too.Borntodeal (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you ever work on featured articles, the review process will be particularly grueling (trust me, featured reviewrs are not nice when it comes to evaluating an article that is meant to reflect "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." For the introduction, people who have been known for an extensive body of work are usually asked to be identified by their best known work, or in Janet's case - what does the average reader know specifically about Janet's occupation? most reliable sources (especially ones used in the majority of her articles) cite her as a "singer/actress". This does not mean she has never held other occupations (which is specifically what the "occupations" value of the infobox is for) it just means being a singer and an actress is what is most commenly known about her by the general public. For instance: while she is technically a film producer, being under contract, she is not by any definition notable for producing films since she has yet to do so. While she is a model, she is not famous specifically for modeling unlike Kate Moss or Gisele Bündchen. Listing every occupation she has ever had is cumbersome for what is designed to be a concise overview of the subject's notability without being overly specific. If edits such as these make you feel as if you are being singled out, trust me it's not the case. Minute details like this (in addition to bigger problem like incorrect sourcing or bad prose, and not saying that you have done either) are what can call for article's like this to go under Wikipedia:Featured article review and end up being demoted if not corrected in a timely manner. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 June 2013 - Causes/Humanitarian

I am suggesting a section be added (perhaps in Legacy) about Janet's involvement in charity work and social causes over the years. I can provide further data and links if desired for this. Thank you for your consideration. JoannaSRobinson (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Foundations Janet supports include: amfAR The Foundations for AIDS Research, UNICEF, The Trevor Project and several more listed on her site. Janet is an amfAR Ambassador and co-chaired the 2013 Cinema Against AIDS XX this year (as she has done for several years prior ) which raised over 25 million for AIDS Research in May. Janet donated the proceeds of her single "Together Again" to this charity as well in the past. Janet published an Op-Ed on CNN entitled "Creating an AIDS-Free Generation By Starting at Home" with co-author Mathilde Krim, Ph.D. in 2012. Janet released a PSA on June 3, 2013 in support of UNICEF's efforts to fight hunger, to help children in the Sahel region of Africa.

JoannaSRobinson (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is not yet ripe for an edit request. An edit request (especially to a featured article) should be used for specific changes to an article, in the form of "Change X to Y" or "Add this specific text". That said, you're in the right place - this is an excellent starter for a talk page discussion to seek consensus for this addition and hash out exactly what text (if any) should be added. Thanks for your contribution! --ElHef (Meep?) 23:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Marte Deborah Dalelv

Please add a reference to this:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=10112152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttjarl (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Janet photo

I have been granted permission to upload a photo from Janet's "Number Ones, Up Close and Personal" tour for use on Wikipedia by the photographer and his representative via e-mail. How would I upload it on Wikimedia Commons without it being deleted? User5482 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's vocal fach/voice type.

Janet Jackson is in no way a mezzo-soprano. Examples of mezzo-sopranos are Beyonce Knowles and Whitney Houston. The minimal resonance, lightness, lack of thickness, and brightness of Janet's voice are all characteristic of a light lyric soprano.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithclark15 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2014

99.225.225.9 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) This article mentions nothing of her failings, her critics, her conversion to Islam or her marriage.

Reads like PR spin to me. Wiki must have been paid big bucks for a Press Release like this article.

I have lost complete faith in Wiki now. Will look for the truth elsewhere.

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, but is currently under Pending Changes, so you can make these edits yourself, but they will be reviewed before they become part of the published article. Arjayay (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Going on a diet -- too much text and references

Since this article gained its FA status in 2008, it has more than doubled in size, going from 102kb to 224kb. A lot of the text that has been added over the past six years has been in the form of adulation and quotes. Some of the sources are very low quality, such as http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-story-billboardmusicawards2006-janetjackson,0,4508687.story, http://www.promonews.tv/videos/2010/11/03/peter-andre%E2%80%99s-defender-peter-falloon, and http://www.stufish.com/janet-jackson/all-for-you/press-and-credits-2.html, the latter a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Other references do not support the relevant text, such as the Elle magazine reference which was used to back up the article text, "Joe Zee of Elle declared Jackson's individual presentation of sexuality as 'stratospherically different' from Madonna's," even though the magazine actually said, "Of course, Madonna's idea of sexy is stratospherically different from that of, say, Janet Jackson, or Lady Gaga, or even Diana Ross or Liza Minnelli." The magazine was not discussing Jackson's individual presentation of sexuality.

Still other references violate WP:SYNTH, such as the "Milli & the Reality Question" article which is not about Janet Jackson but about singers in general. Another synthesis-violating sentence is, "Gwen Stefani, Fergie, Alicia Keys, Ke$ha, and Justin Bieber have also drawn comparisons to Jackson for their vocals, performances, or lyrical themes." The Fergie reference is not at all complimentary, same with the Ke$ha ref, the Gwen Stefani ref says Janet's technique does not work, the Alicia Keys ref is not complimentary, and the Justin Bieber ref says nothing about Janet Jackson.

A bunch of Twitter posts had been added—another violation of WP:BLPSPS.

So I propose that the article be trimmed down to a manageable size, especially with regard to unnecessary text praising Jackson over and over making the same kinds of comments. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article was already trimmed and condensed, but the additions were from valid sources and made improvements to the article. The Pete Andre source is a from a music video website which states an exclusive quote from Andre about him being inspired by Janet. The Stufish.com article is copied from The Washington Post since the original article is no longer available online. Its a critique from her All for You tour, not a biography written from the webmaster so it doesn't violate WP:BLPSPS. But the source should be rewritten as cited from The Washington Post and not link to the site so that can be changed.

About Madonna being her counterpart: Its taken from the article sourced there. Perhaps it can be rewritten as "who has been regarded as her counterpart." The Elle critique can be omitted though.

The Fergie reference from MTV News: "And with her remarkable abs and sultry dance moves, Fergie looked like the new Janet." This is complimentary towards Janet and a valid observation even if the rest of the article wasn't positive.

Kesha: "In a similar vein, if Ke$ha represents the fusion of the flip and the forward, then “If” is the sexual nugget that her music aims to send up." There's nothing disrespectful about this reference. The author from Vulture.com says she aims for the sexuality Janet suggests in her music.

Gwen: "The technique, ubiquitous ever since Janet Jackson rode it to success in the '80s," This is positive towards Janet, even if the author doesn't feel it worked for Gwen. It shows her influence on Gwen's vocal technique. The same for the Alicia Keys reference, but applied to a performance.

Justin Beiber reference: "ending the performance with some Rhythm Nation-esque moves." It shows critical reception from VH1 of his performance drawing a comparison to Janet.

None of these observations are negative towards Janet. Fergie, Alicia, and Justin are compared for their performances, which the sources explicitly state. Kesha, Gwen, and Kylie are compared for their music or lyrics. This doesn't violate WP:SYNTH if they make the same argument applied to different artists, which is being condensed into one sentence.

It was rewritten as: Entertainment critics have also observed influence from Jackson in the performing styles of artists such as Justin Bieber, Fergie, and Alicia Keys. Her vocals or lyrical themes have been thought to influence Kylie Minogue, Gwen Stefani, and Kesha.

Removing the word 'mink' - There's nothing particularly wrong with omitting this.

As for the Twitter posts, Wikipedia states: "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people." These are several quotes from verified accounts about Janet. They do not violate WP:BLPSPS.

The ending article was a final paragraph to conclude the legacy section properly, saying who critics suggested as her successors and how she's been regarded in recent critiques. It was shortened and did not violate anything or have reason to be removed. None of the quotes were unnecessary, each artist page has a legacy section with multiple critics speaking of their influence. The rest of the edits were small corrections or a few additional artist quotes about her as an influence. They don't serve to fluff the article, but to improve it and show her impact within music. The aforementioned all had reason to be there and should be readded to improve the section. User5482 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The stufish.com website cannot be considered a reliable copy of the original Washington Post article. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, no attempt should be made to relable the stufish text as being from the Washington Post. Instead the text and reference should be deleted.

If Janet Jackson tweets something then it might be usable here in her biography. Tweets from other people are a violation of WP:SPS and cannot be used. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Jackson came under fire from PETA for modeling mink clothing for Blackglama. We can delve further into this (fairly small) controversy or we can just keep the word "mink" so that the reader knows the line of clothing involves furs. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The book When Markets Fail: Race And Economics is not strong enough to make the absolute statement that Janet Jackson and Madonna are "counterparts". First, the book does not actually make that statement. Second, there should be some kind of wide agreement in a number of sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is archived here at Highbeam Research. The sentence was changed to: "Several critics regarded the show to surpass her contemporaries, also considering the tour a direct influence to upcoming artists."

If the mink issue was a fairly small controversy, it doesn't seem notable to include. PETA has gone after so many celebrities without it being mentioned in their articles unless its an ongoing issue with that person in particular, then it seems to become more drastic and noteworthy.

The "counterpart" issue is also mentioned here, but that can be omitted.

However, the rest of the additions were valid and should be placed back into the article. User5482 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are serious about trimming the article—and I think we must be—then the sentence about Gwen Stefani, Fergie, Alicia Keys, Ke$ha, and Justin Bieber is a marvelous example of stuff to trim. None of these people are frequently compared to Janet Jackson, just once, or maybe twice. They do not make a significant dent in Jackson's life story. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence only serves to show observed influence on that selected array of artists. Even if its for one particular comparison, it shows how they've taken influence from her, or have been regarded to convey similarities, in one way or another. Its a very brief addition and doesn't seem to disrupt anything or be overly lengthy, and fits into the Influence and Recognition section. User5482 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding self-published sources such as the Sparro bit. Please stop inserting fluff such as the Blackglama people saying that Jackson is a true legend. Please stop misrepresenting one review as being several. Please stop using the the marketing book to praise Jackson; that part of the book focuses mainly on Jackson's nipple revealed at the Superbowl. Please do not represent Jackson as the "Queen of Pop" without acknowledging that other singers have been called that title, especially Madonna. See discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_14#Queen_of_Pop, Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_14#Queen of Pop... Again, and Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_15#The_.22Queen_of_Pop.22_title_must_be_included. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sparro reference was changed to an interview. The Perry article may be a parody but it still qualifies as a reference to something major involving her, it doesn't apply to her career biography. For the Harrington issue, the sentence was changed to: "Several critics regarded the show to surpass her contemporaries, also considering the tour a direct influence to upcoming artists" which uses two sources, the latter being an article from the Los Angeles Times compiled from three different critics. It didn't mention any artist names or slander, its a brief sentence to show how she was viewed by those critics at the time. The addition from Spin.com seems unnecessary. After you previously omitted the Harrington reference as a "press release," then seeing what you wrote above about the "Queen of Pop" term (which was written as "several critics" in the article only to show how those critics particularly viewed her) and addition of the Spin reference, it seems somewhat like WP:Bias even if unintentionally. That comes across as an unnecessary reference added solely because the other references claimed she triumphed over her contemporaries, it doesn't need to be included. User5482 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Talking about this change of yours, I don't have any idea why you would want the reader to think Katy Perry referenced Jackson in a positive manner when she did not.

I am amazed that you removed the Spin magazine bit since it is a major media magazine, and the concert review was relevant and referenced, despite having some negative observations.

There is little likelihood that a current review of a concert tour can support the notion that the tour has already influenced up-and-coming artists. You would have to cite a later observer saying that the tour was influential afterward.

I'm worried that you are too favorably inclined toward Jackson, that you are putting too much of a positive spin to the article text. This is an encyclopedia article, not a coffee table book about Jackson. We should strive for accuracy and neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference seems to be of a humorous nature but it's not negative towards her, it's only reenacting what happened. It still shows the impact of the whole scenario, regardless if that incident was positive towards Jackson in actuality. That's why it doesn't seem fitting towards her career section, since the reenactment isn't part of Jackson's own career.

There isn't any overly favorable inclination, but in trying to remove the Harrington reference multiple times as it stated she surpassed her contemporaries, namely Madonna, then pointing to the 'Queen of Pop' title from a Madonna section, and removing several references which again, had put her influence on par with that of Madonna's; that's where the observation of bias comes from, although likely unintentional. It came across as if you didn't want the reference included unless something negative regarding Jackson could also be written rather than for neutrality. I think the original statement was suitable and can be left intact as: "Several critics regarded the show to surpass her contemporaries, also considering the tour to likely influence upcoming artists," adding the word likely for proper clarification, without further additions or delving into specifics. User5482 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What reference to you have that supports the phrase "also considering the tour to likely influence upcoming artists"?

Let's keep the reader in mind with regard to the Katy Perry "Last Friday Night" video in which she reveals her right nipple. You say that Perry's video "shows the impact" of Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, but your wording does not relay that fact to the reader. At any rate, the cited source does not say anything about the "impact" of Jackson—it just says that Perry spoofed Jackson. Nothing about the cited source gives respect to Jackson. I looked at a few other possible references for the Perry video, and none of them give respect to Jackson. An ABC reference says Perry "apes" Jackson; that's not respectful wording. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The supporting phrase was from the LA Times reference, which stated Jackson is "emulated by the type of show she puts on by the current teen-fab". It also seemed to fit the original wording of it being a "direct influence to upcoming artists."

The sentence used said it "referenced" her performance, worded in that manner to show how the incident involving Jackson was imitated in her video. Another source states she "flashes a la Janet Jackson", while this source alludes to the Jackson reference to have 'stirred controversy.' It still seems to fit under the Recognition section as a reference to a major event in her career, but not part of her own career history itself. Perhaps one of these sources can be used as an additional reference? User5482 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your link is a letter from a reader saying Jackson is "emulated by" etc. Letters to the editor are not reliable unless the writer is an expert.

Perry's video references the wardrobe malfunction and nothing else about Jackson's career. That's why it fits best in the section about that Superbowl show. Binksternet (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is a collection of opinions from entertainment critics who had written for the publication. That specific mention was written by David Massey, a music executive. About the Perry reference, it still alludes to a part of her career, no matter what it was. Both seemed suitable with their original placements and wording within the article and should be restored to where they were originally. Then I think that would cover just about everything, lol. User5482 (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it—we cannot misrepresent the Katy Perry video, per WP:NPOV. Not gonna happen. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(→) This article is extremely large and pretty difficult to navigate with the prose I feel not remaining at its FA standard due to the immense piling up of content. I believe a drastic reduction to around 150KB can surely be done, especially from the recent biography paras and the legacy and influences ones. What do you all think? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a huge reduction can be made if we remove most of the quotes and comparisons. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to contribute and hold the scissors for pruning, maybe at Talk:Janet Jackson/reduced for all to work on, but would really like to have a consensus that this needs to be pruned. Not just you and me ya know, as I can see the above User5482 is vehemently against it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been active on here in ages, but I agree as the editor that actually got this article promoted it needs a massive reduction to maintain its FA status. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Stepping back to move forward

Let's roll back the article a few years then update it as necessary. I think we ought to identify a past version of the article that is suitably rich without being larded. Perhaps we can discuss the merits of this or that previous version. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• The FA version, at 102 kb in August 2008. The "Musical style and performance section starts with three paragraphs, then has two more paragraphs under "Choreography". The "Legacy" section has three paragraphs.
• 115 kb in December 2009. There was a flurry of editing in September to November 2009, and this version is what settled out of all that. The "Choreography" section got another paragraph, and other paragraphs in the last few sections got bit bigger.
• 130 kb in September 2010. There was another flurry of editing in mid-2010, then in September Bookkeeperoftheoccult put the article through a slimming regimen to arrive at this version. The choreography section grew by one big paragraph, and the "Legacy" section grew by two big paragraphs. There are perhaps too many quotes in this version, rather than a summary of what people think about Jackson.
• 155 kb in June 2011. Of course, there is new text about the 2011 tour. The musical style, choreography and legacy sections grew bigger, with more quotes.
• 162 kb in November 2012. This version has far too much text under "Musical style" and "Legacy". Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I also made an edit here to condense the last paragraph of the legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The Influence/Recognition section was just annoying me so I moved it to Artists influenced by Janet Jackson a la List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson/The Beatles' influence on popular culture. This way at least the contribution aren't completely erased and any problems concerning that information can be addressed separately without endangering this article's FA. The rest of the article could still use some pruning but at least at this point its not overwhelming. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bookkeeperoftheoccult:, I can't thank you enough for your wonderful editing on the article. It looks so much better and professional due to your diligent editing. For everyone else, these are the current size statistics of the article:

• File size: 621 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 120 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 25 kB
• Wiki text: 163 kB
• Prose size (text only): 67 kB (10768 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1817 B

I believe that 67 KB of readable prose size is perfectly acceptable for a FA of Janet's magnitude. Congratulations, I believe we accomplished it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam?

History is repeating itself here, because it was claimed many times that Michael Jackson converted to Islam. He didn't, or at least never gave any inkling of this in public, see Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_25#Michael_Jackson_converted_to_Islam among others in the talk page archive. The sourcing saying that Janet Jackson converted to Islam in June 2013 is far from blue chip, which is required for verifying statements in a BLP article. Also, religious belief is for a person to declare publicly, not for a media source to report, conjecture or claim. So this isn't suitable for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the sources shows they are working under the assumption that since Jackson married a Muslim, she has converted. I agree that this falls short of the sort of confirmation which would come from Jackson herself. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As of Oct 2016, no source on the subject I've seen show any statement from Jackson, her husband or anyone notably close to her. Conversion (however likely) is still an assumption by all reports. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Listing her spouses and Net worth?

Other stars appear to have their spouses listed at the side information now, should we do the same for Janet?

Also net worth has been finally updated http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/janet-jackson/

Tombo671 (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Janet Jackson Queen of Pop

On November 7, 2014 after 3 weeks of voting and deliberation Janet Jackson was officially voted and crowned the Queen Of Pop by Vh1.

98.163.212.225 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Forum style discussion

"Official" according to whom? One company cannot crown anyone "Queen of Pop" or anything of the sort. Besides she is far too obscure to be the "Queen of Pop". There are hundreds of more prominent, and thousands of more talented, female pop singers.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No, there aren't. Tell me when someone could outperform this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4xWP8uYx_U Second, fans votes matter more than any source, hence Janet is most deserving Queen of Pop. You're Madonna fan, hence you couldn't digest this fact that people chose Janet over her and decided to come in between this update. I expect administrators to be genuine and declare Janet as Queen of Pop and not Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and opinions, guys. Encoreameya, there is some sources that say Janet Jackson is the Queen of Pop, as well for Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga etc, but not like Madonna (with sources since 1980s) and in all contexts and languages which demostrates actually that Madonna is the Queen of Pop. The same for King of Pop, is most associated with Michael Jackson that any other singer. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 22:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You feel like it was personal attack because some writers are here being personal and biased with it. They have to be unbiased and genuine. Like I said before, fans' votes matter more than any source, if Madonna was truly queen of pop music then she wouldn't have been lost. Hence, I expect not just basic writers but administrators to be genuine and declare Janet as Queen of Pop and not Madonna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am making change using above proclaim, if you have any queries then talk with me on this page or on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason of the writers who revert Janet being voted as Queen of Pop. If you're not interested in mentioning her achievements, then why you people are bothering making edits here. Go on Wikipedia pages of other singers and do whatever you like. Leave Janet's articles alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I suggest to merge the article Janet Jackson filmography into this article. Reason for this is that, in my opinion, a large part of Janet Jackson filmography is double with Janet Jackson. The Banner talk 14:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: merge to Janet Jackson videography by redirecting to that article and including TV/film roles as well as commercials there. See Justin Timberlake videography and Michael Jackson videography for similar examples. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with counter proposal - already a section there. The promotional section should be cut - no need to mention adverts unless they are notable. Karst (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Awkward wording

" The Jacksons were lower-middle class and devout Jehovah's Witnesses, although Jackson would later refrain from organized religion." is currently in the article. Refrain from organized religion sounds like the subject is complying with a court order. Non-participant, secular, uninvolved, as possible examples all seem more neutral to me than "would later refrain from. . . "

Didn't come to the article to edit it but to look for info about subject's participation in the show Good Times.

In this case among others in the article saying Jackson could have an unclear antecedent and it might be better to name parties more specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.23.10 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Artistry of Janet Jackson be merged into Janet Jackson (this article). No other artists on Wikipedia have their own "Artistry of" article. Furthermore, the content in Artistry of Janet Jackson would fit well into this article, and there's already another article (List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson) about Janet Jackson; I don't see why there should be a third one too. wia (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was split by Bookkeeperoftheoccult back in June 2014 with the stated intention of reducing the size of the Janet Jackson article. Merging this material back in will lard up the biography again. Personally, I think the artistry article should simply be redirected, its contents abandoned rather than merged. What should have been done in June 2014 (in my opinion) was to reduce the size of the Jackson biography by removing excessive material, without creating a new home for that material. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible solution to me. I'm jumping in here rather late (wasn't around this article in 2014) so I will defer to the bigger players, but I'm on board with that! wia (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Reduce the content in Janet Jackson, and redirect the artistry article. Most of it is a little too bloated up for a featured article I saw. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. We need to distinguish between content that is encyclopedic, and content that merely repeats the same sentiments over and over. Artistry of Janet Jackson reads more like a publicist's hagiography than an encyclopedia entry. Almost all of it can be cut with no loss to the encyclopedic nature of the main article on Janet Jackson. I slightly surprised things have got to this stage, to be honest, as it seems to me that some heavy pruning should have been done last year. RomanSpa (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is a FA, but actually it`s look unstable by this status. Reduce the content in the main article, removing excessive material and redirect the artistry entry. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. There is wa-a-ay too much text brought into Wikipedia by Janet Jackson devotees. It should be reduced and slimmed, and limited to just one article to describe her 'artistry'. So the artistry article's contents should be deleted rather than brought into the Jackson biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. My only concern is making sure this article does not dilapidate to the point where it needs to be dragged through WP:FAR. I'm fine with deleting the artistry article altogether. Since there have been no objections, can we close this? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has been merged based on consensus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

recording deals

The article states that Jackson signed with Virgin Records in 1993 with a deal that was estimated to have been for between $32 - $50 million. Then it states that she signed with them again in 1996 for a record-breaking $80 million. The only album she would have made for Virgin in the time during the first contract would have been 1993's Janet. It seems highly unlikely that Virgin would have paid her up to $50 million just for one album. Does anybody have the correct details? 90.216.184.9 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations for estimated figures are already in the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Janet Jackson stats

Curious why Janet Jackson's album stats were changed to 100 million. That's incorrect and too low.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InductJanet (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

160 million records sales of Janet Jackson

I remove the sources and informations that reports her 160 million records. Many of these references that one can be added in Wikipedia, are reliable sources; is this point we don't have problems. The problem is the information, in this case, the sales have problems with the verifiability.

For one example I can cited the Billboard reference with the 160 million records, but the author really, report the sales by BMG, not for Billboard itself. This gives much to be desired, and in principle, every reference appears with this figure is an inflated and promotional generated by the matrix report: BMG (even if the report does not cite BMG). Now the singer is working in the release of her new material, therefore these are also strategies using information of sales.

And to avoid further discussions, maybe, one User will write that since 2008 or 2010, the media report her records with over 100 million records or albums; wherever, are not old references. Furthermore, currents references also report this figure. Janet Jackson is not a million-seller singer of albums and singles in world market, maybe for sometimes in the 1980s and 1990s (and just in some anglo-markets); but not relevant for sales after. Her certified units are too low, by support this figures, and even by an inactive artist for several years. How can sell 40 or 60 million in few years without a new album? This is a new records guinness for "the best seller singer in her/his inactive period"??. Chrishonduras (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. WP:VERIFY is not the same as truth. We're all aware sales figure are typically inflated for nearly all recording artists, but since we're not here to conduct our own original research, we only reiterate what sources who are considered reliable have stated. The 'truth' of the statement is not our actual concern. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a answer. As well as "we're all aware sales figure are typically inflated for nearly all recording artists", It is centralized as an example of what is happening, but if we analyze each individual case is different, like with Janet Jackson. But wherever, 2015 references reports 140 million records, and this is WP:VERIFY. We need to be used common sense, because in this case, we can add up to 200 million of Rihanna's records or 500 million of records that Madonna sold according to (non-english but) other VERIFY languages references cited because we only reiterate what sources who are considered reliable have stated. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Chrishounduras. Janet Jackson hasn't sold 160 million records worldwide. She has sold 100 million records worldwide. Here the 3 sources from 2009,2010 and 2012 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/janet-jacksons-greatest-hits-celebrated-on-number-ones-64079852.html http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/InTheSpotlight/janet-jackson-blames-dr-conrad-murray-michaels-death/story?id=9069859 http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/janet-jackson-talks-about-life-after-245151 and we all know She hasn't sold 60 million records since 2009,2010 or 2012. It's impossible —Navyiconer (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Navyiconer. I think that is possible that we can remove the figure of 160 million, because more than 1 user agrees with one point: those figures are inflate (160 or 140, and even 120). This is a Woozle effect as Binksternet explained. So, doesnt matters is there is a reliable sources (because there is also reliable sources for the 100 million), and this is not Original research. Chrishonduras (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering Janet's available certified units at 52 million, we can ensure that her actual sales would be nowhere close to 160 million (which is more than triple of 52 million). Madonna has 170 million certified units to support her 300 million figure, while Mariah Carey has 131 million certified units to support her 200 million figure. Per Chrishonduras, this is not WP:OR, since we can provide a lot of sources for the 100 million figure. It's all about consensus, just like that of Thriller which we all agreed to remove its inflated 100 million claim. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Bluesatellite that's what I mean. I was finding a consensus because I think and its clearly that is a inflated figure or promotional for her comeback. And I already know that this is not WP:OR (I already wrote in my last post). Thanks for your comment. Chrishonduras (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

These explanations make no sense and are clearly biased. If you're going to diminish Janet's current sales figures (160 Million), which were released by her current record label, and base your article on old sales figures from 4-5 year old press releases, then you need to do the same for all recording artists. Madonna, Mariah, and Rihanna all have inflated sales figures from unreliable and unofficial sources yet Wikipedia credits those inflated numbers. BMG states Janet's worldwide record sales at 160 Million; Billboard and other reputable music industry sources have gone on record in agreement with those figures, which they wouldn't do if they weren't in agreement with the numbers, specifically Billboard. So it seems rather unprofessional that Wikipedia decides to ignore valid credible sources and take the word of 1 or 2 users that claim 160 million is "impossible", yet don't have any current valid sources to back up their claims (other than outdated press releases), and just don't like her sales figures because they may not be fans. Therefore, articles on Madonna, Mariah, and Rihanna's sales figures need to be revised with current verified sources as well, because their inflated sales have no current verifiable references in those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.4.80 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Inflated sales figures are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes. Those sales are from BMG and is Woozle effect (so doesnt matters is confirmed by Billboard, Los Angeles Times). However, Janet Jackson just has 52.1 million certified units (which represent her biggest markets) and is too slow by 160, 140 or even 120. Chrishonduras (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Janet has sold 160 million records whether you want to accept this truth or not. If you're trying to update singers' articles only based on certified units then do the same for Madonna as well because according to certified units Rihanna is best selling woman singer to date and not Madonna. Hence there's no meaning in believing she has sold 300 million records. I know you're coming in between this update because you're a Madonna fan and cannot digest Janet's achievements. Hence I expect administrators to be genuine and update Janet's article with 160 million records, the same way how you did of Madonna with 300 million records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, you guys are being ridiculous. Janet has sold 160 million records and both Janet & Rhythm nation albums have sold over 20 million copies and Control over 14 million copies; and there are dependable sources to prove it. Just because she has rivalry with Madonna, hence you don't have deflate her achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am making change using above figure, if you have any queries then talk with me on this page or on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am using Billboard as source of it while both Janet's and BMG's official websites back up the claim. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg http://www.janetjackson.com/news/all/janet-jackson-makes-history-again#.WGeGA7k4-1A http://www.bmg.com/us/news/intl-bmg-to-release-janet-jacksons-first-new-album-in-seven-years-this-fall-2015.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Her website said that she sold 60 million copies worldwide in 2001, how this woman sold more 100 million copies worldwide with albums that not even sold 4 million copies each?--88marcus (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

88marcus, like you said, those were back in 2001, as of 2015, all Janet, BMG, and Billboard agreed on she selling 160 million figure. http://www.janetjackson.com/news/all/janet-jackson-makes-history-again#.WGeGA7k4-1A http://www.bmg.com/us/news/intl-bmg-to-release-janet-jacksons-first-new-album-in-seven-years-this-fall-2015.html http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg And when you have that many reliable sources, I think you should not doubt such statement. On the other hand, all the Wikipedia writers have accepted that Madonna has sold 300 million records. In 2006, according to her website, she sold 200 million records, and as of 2015, she sold 300 million records. http://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-tour-dates-announced http://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-announces-performances-in-australia--new-zealand You have problem accepting how Janet can sell 100 million records in 14 years but tell how did Madonna manage to sell 100 million records within 9 years? Other than Hard candy, she has no album that sold 4 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you always refering Madonna with Janet Jackson. Both singers are completely different. Madonna is a world cultural and sales phenomenon over 4 decades and Janet Jackson during 1980's and 1990's. But if you're refering one singer with other, is time to update sales for The Beatles with 1 billion records, Elvis Presley with 1 billion records, Michael Jackson with 750 million records or Madonna (even) with 500-400 million records. Ahhh I forgot, Janet Jackson for 160 million records, course because they have references that support those figures (doesnt matters the common sense or rules on Wikipedia). What do you think?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 09:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I link Madonna to Janet because I believe writers like you who deflate Janet's achievements are her fans and you're declining this update because of the rivalry between the two. Second, both Janet and Madonna lost relevancy in music industry after 1990s. Madonna only got successful tours in 2000s, not successful albums or singles. Beatles do not agree with 1 billion figure on their own website, the same with Madonna, about Michael; the article says Adrian Strain, a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said that this figure is unreal; but I just checked that article of Wall Street Journal, he made no such statement. So I agree on he selling 750 million records which is agreed by him on his website and by MTV.
https://www.michaeljackson.com/en-ca/news/tune-world-michael-jackson-itunes/
http://www.mtv.com/news/1614815/michael-jacksons-groundbreaking-career-by-the-numbers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you're answering your question. This will go so far, is like a forum (sorry) but Madonna sales are superior that Jackson and generally always appears between the top 10 in major markets (and the best-selling albums in the end-year). So different with albums like Discipline or Unbreakable for example that reached so differente peaks: 30, 1 or 100 between all countries (that is very inconsistent). With Michael Jackson I just put a example, but those sales are a hox (he never sold more than 750 million, that's jock). There is other references that put Madonna's sales more than 300 million record, but the last figure is more accurate and reliable: with more that 200 million albums according to IFPI in 2006 and more than 115 million singles and at least her certifications support more than 50% (that is very very different with Janet Jackson). Just see previous comments, you're pushing a statistics sales for Janet Jackson (that may have references), but is like The Beatles with the billion records that it doesnt matter that have references: also, with Like a Virgin with 25 million, The Immacullate Collection with more than 35 million (you see). Try to discuss on "list of best-selling music artists" and you will see how will denied by users the sales from 160 million records (that's awkward). AND... also Assume good faith with the other users please. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC) P.S.: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.

Chrishonduras, Madonna might have sold more records than Janet. But Janet is not far behind. You're forgetting the fact that Janet's Janet Jackson, and Dream street albums are still not certified. Control charted much higher on 1986 and 1987 year end charts and all time chart than True blue. Control also sold more than True blue according to Soundscan as well. Control also sold more than True blue according to BMG as well. So despite True blue is certified 7x platinum by RIAA and Control 5x, Control has definitely sold more copies in US than True blue. Control deserves at least 7 or more times platinum certification and is undercertified. Rhythm nation was best selling album of 1990 while it also charted in all time chart, Like a prayer didn't even make it to the list. Rhythm nation has also sold more copies than Like a prayer according to Soundscan. Rhythm nation has also sold more copies than Like a prayer according to BMG. Janet album has sold 7.09 million copies if you combine sales of Soundscan and BMG while it is certified 6x platinum by RIAA. All for you has sold 3,207,000 copies if you combine sales of Soundscan and BMG and is certified 2x platinum by RIAA. Unbreakable also sold more copies than Rebel heart according to Soundscan. So overall, I am trying to say is that Madonna might have sold more in foreign countries than Janet but definitely not always in US which is biggest music market, there were times when Janet outsold Madonna, and she was at top place but Madonna never. Janet is most undercertified singer, you can assume if she's undercertified that much in US and think how much she must be undercertified worldwide. So if you're going decide her sales just based on certifications then that is completely unreasonable. And what is this 50%? Either go 100% or don't. By the way, my first goal is to change this forced outdated 100 million figure and update it to 160 million on Janet Jackson biography page and then I'll think of going further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are still no closer to where this figure of 160 million comes from. The BMG/Official website does not mention any source. The Billboard article cited the BMG press release, so we are none the wiser. This needs to be confirmed otherwise it comes across as promotional, inflated and unsourced. Karst (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Karst, The 160 million figure is accepted by Janet, BMG, and Billboard. But don't worry everyone, this time I won't change it from 100 million to 160 million because even administrators are on your side and they want to deny the truth despite dependable sources. I have lost trust on Wikipedia. Bye. Take care.

We cannot use a press-release issued by her record company as a source. It needs to be independently verified. Karst (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

reflist, you believe that Janet and her record label are inflating her sales, right? Then ignore what Janet or her record label is saying, Wikipedia only trusts third party sources, right? Then what about Billboard? Billboard itself agreed on Janet selling 160 million records. It is okay, I know how Wikipedia works now. Inflate numbers of inferior quality artist like Madonna and deflate of superior quality artist like Janet. Bye. Take care.

The same and the same disruptive contribuitions after a blocking. But don't worry let's inflate figures for Elvis Presley with 1 billion, The Beatles and Michael Jackson with 1 billion just because Billboard or the own website say that. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's look very carefully at what the Billboard artice says: "Jackson has sold over 160 million records worldwide, according to BMG's announcement, and boasts a well-decorated Billboard chart history". Here according to BMG's announcement is key - it makes it clear that those figures are not confirmed by Billboard or soundscan. Instrwad they point at her chart history. Which adds more weight anyway then sales figures. Karst (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Karst, yeah! that what I mean since June 2015 when I opened this discussion. However, user cannot accept that. So, I said him that we can accepted 1 billion records for MJ, The Beatles and Elvis Presley first (that it is impossible) to add the 160 million figure for Janet Jackson. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, forcing 100 million figure on all the Wikipedia readers is actually disruptive editing when in reality, the artist herself is saying she sold 160 million records, her record label, and music industry reliable source such as Billboard. But still for sake your trust, I preferred Billboard over the rest of the two sources but still it got reverted. And previously I agreed on Michael selling 750 million records and I have no problem accepting Elvis has sold 1 billion records as well based on his official and MTV websites.

References

According to many reliable sources, Janet Jackson has sold over 160 million records worldwide. Her certifications for her albums haven't been updated in several years, certifications are not automatically updated, certifications are updated when the artist's record company (or the artist themselves) requests an update to them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/25/entertainment/janet-jackson-postpones-tour/index.html http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-janet-jackson-announces-new-album-and-record-label-20150603-story.html http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg https://www.biography.com/news/janet-jackson-biography-facts

Jordantr7 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110110093834/http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4614593-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4614593-1.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.queersighted.com/2009/11/23/janet-jackson-at-her-best/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/music/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101221000645/http://blackreelawards.wordpress.com:80/2010/12/15/2011-black-reel-awards-nominations/ to http://blackreelawards.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/2011-black-reel-awards-nominations/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fluxblog.org/2008/07/your-new-influences-1.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.musicomh.com/music/dvds/janet-jackson.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

It seems that she really become a Muslim: [1]128.65.238.173 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

Isn't legacy the title for the influence of someone who is dead? Shouldn't the title be influence, since she is still alive?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Royalcourtier "Legacy" is not something you leave behind only when you are dead. And even, if you noted the Michael Jackson article had a legacy section long before his death, or currently Madonna. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is - or should be. I refer you to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which defines legacy as "something (such as property or money) that is received from someone who has died". "Influence" would be the word for someone who is still alive.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked the definition which doesn't work, because you don't want the word "legacy". However, the word has several definitions, for instance "something that someone has achieved that continues to exist after they stop working or die. The word's use in the article section heading is perfectly appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

RIAA vs Soundscan

The RIAA quote might be misleading and an inadequate quote, as 3 of Jackson's albums have scanned more than what the RIAA has them certified for. As with all of Jackson's albums -- most of the successful albums haven't been re-certified in 20-30 years. In this case it doesn't give a good idea of what she has actually SOLD if RIAA states "janet." is certified for 6 million but SoundScan reports over 7.1 million actually sold. [2] Dam!ta (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Janet+Jackson&format=ALBUM&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1839
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000000/http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0%2C20812%2C666900%2C00.html to http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0%2C20812%2C666900%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=947178
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417002609/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/51507/week-ending-april-11-2010-bieber-bounces-back/ to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/51507/week-ending-april-11-2010-bieber-bounces-back/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222220143/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1632205/20100218/dupri_jermaine.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1632205/20100218/dupri_jermaine.jhtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/entertainment/janet-jackson-new-album-tour
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/janet-jackson-confirms-splits-husband-months-giving-birth/story?id=46689441
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=367
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1921
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-02-13/vh1s-100-greatest-women-in-music-complete-list/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629061423/http://www.vh1.com/shows/the_greatest/episode.jhtml?episodeID=66355 to http://www.vh1.com/shows/the_greatest/episode.jhtml?episodeID=66355
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/specials/hot100/charts/top100-artists-20.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713152201/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30554 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30554

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Article length

Although appreciate the good amount of content it presents, the article is voluminous and I believe needs a trimming especially from the Artistry, Legacy sections. Many of the content can be combined or simplified easily. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The 100 million vs. 160 million thing, redux

I blundered into this during a Pending Changes review on the article. Now, first off, I don't know anything about Janet Jackson other than that I've listened to her music, I haven't contributed anything to this article, and I just don't care what the article's sales figures are. That's already been discussed at length by several wikipedians who clearly have strong views on the subject, whereas I simply do not. (In fact, if anyone responds here please be kind enough to {{mention}} me, as I doubt I'll notice the response otherwise.) No, I should definitely just walk away and not get involved.

I should, but... here's the thing. I have (now) read the extensive discussion above, started three years ago, regarding the sales figures. But before I'd read that, the situation as I initially understood it:

[NB: edit summaries are "as originally written"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBG02 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Justifylips made an edit to the article, updating the text from "over 100 million records" to "over 160 million records", and updating the associated citations for that figure with a recent Variety source.

   Edit summary: Shouldn't worldwide sales citation be from recent sources. The one listed is from seven years ago. Current sources list her global sales at 160 million. Changed sales figure. Please feel free to let me know why it should be changed.

2. 88marcus reverted that edit.

   Edit summary: She didn't sold 60 million copies in the last 7 years, and there are recent sources that says 100 millions worldwide, till today.

3. Unaware of the long history behind this dispute, I reversed 88marcus, since "She didn't sold 60 million copies in the last 7 years" is a very original-research sort of argument for rejecting a sourced claim, and the "recent sources that says 100 millions worldwide, till today" were conspicuous in their absence. The only sources cited in the article are from 2009 and 2012.

   Edit summary: Undid revision 864991790 by 88marcus (talk) If a recent source says it's over 160 million, it's over 160 million without a source to the contrary. 160 million *IS* over 100 million, after all...

Now, I'm not arguing that Janet Jackson has sold over 160 million records. I have no idea how many she's sold, I have no involvement in the music industry and don't follow such things.

But I will argue that, as an outside observer with no previous involvement, the insistence on 100 million as the correct figure appears to be completely arbitrary. Where does that 100 million come from? In terms of cited sources, in the article there are two.

Those sources are being held up as gospel, and any updates to the figure, even when accompanied by citations, are being rejected on the basis that reliable sources peg the figure at 100 million so 160 million is impossible. But... the figures from sources cited to back up "100 million" appear to be just as arbitrary/suspect, and no more verifiable, as the numbers in the Variety article.

In fact, when ABC News (one of the two cited "100 million" sources) have written about Janet Jackson in recent years, they've either chosen not to mention her sales figures, or they've switched to the subtly different (more verifiable?) "over 50 million albums sold". Recent articles about Jackson in the Indianapolis Star (the other cited "100 million" source), including one piece by David Lindquist (the author of the 2012 citation for "100 million"), again make no mention of sales figures.

So, it seems to me that, despite insistence on maintaining the "100 million" figure, all of the criticisms leveled against "160 million" also apply to "100 milliion", which makes it difficult for me to see why that number is being held up as correct, or why it's being used to reject newer figures.

References

In summary / conclusion:

• I absolutely understand that sales inflation exists.
• I am NOT insisting that the 160 million figure is correct.
• I am unconvinced that the 100 million figure is any more correct than the 160 million figure.
• I don't see any reason why it's being assumed that the 100 million figure isn't just as inflated as the 160 milllion figure.
• I would fully support changing the "100 million" figure to something genuinely verifiable — i.e. based on real, published statistics — even if it's far lower than 100 million. (For instance, "over 50 million albums" seems like a candidate, if there are more verifiable sources for it than an ABC News / Good Morning America profile blurb.) Anything would be better than unverifiable stats tossed out in profile articles, which would appear to describe BOTH the "100 million" and "160 million" figures equally.
• Arguing that "160 million is impossible because it was 100 million 7 years ago" (or 9 years ago, or whatever) is an argument (a) of original research, and (b) based on the implicit assumption that the 100 million figure is correct, which is not supported by evidence. (Especially since one of the two sources reads, "over 100 million", which could mean 101 million, or could mean 140 million. If anything, it feels like an implicit admission that the source in question really didn't have any sort of verifiable numbers, and makes it feel like keeping "over 100 million" in Wikipedia's article amounts to exactly the same sort of punt.)
• As long as the article still contains "over 100 million" with 7- and 9-year-old sources to support it, I think it's understandable that editors are going to keep updating that with newer sources. If there really are current sources that still put the figure at 100 million (as has been claimed in various edit summaries, without providing those sources), then I would strongly recommend someone cite them in the article. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)