DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Janet Jackson

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Featured articleJanet Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2009.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 8, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 16, 2017, May 16, 2021, and May 16, 2023.
Current status: Featured article


Contributions/reversion of User:Instantwatym

[edit]

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

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

- Multiple reputable sources, spanning different decades, have referred to Jackson as the Queen of Pop. Therefore including it in the lede is due per WP:DUE.
- You and the other editor have an editorial bias based on signficant contributions in articles for Madonna who is sometimes referred to by the same title. Ideally it should include it for both under the justification of WP:DUE, as any fair or neutral editor would do. But if you have issues with multiple reputable sources conferring honorific titles then you should remove them from both articles to avoid being accused of having an editorial bias.
- Your point about cherrypicking is nonsensical because youre removing sourced content based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
- The Michael Jackson examples is a poor one because there is overwhelming support for him being dubbed the "King of Pop", as opposed to others. The same cant be said for Madonna in comparison to Janet Jackson, which is why I want the titles included in both articles, as opposed to removing them from one article or from both. Instantwatym (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It relies much how the article is written. In the same vein, "multiple" sources have called Queen of Country, King of Pop, Goddess of Pop or Queen of Soul to "multiple" artists. I could put the same to their body's articles to various of these performers, and I guess from your side, you will have no problem because aren't unreliable references or isn't unbiased to add these "titles" to multiple of these artists, I guess, right?. You have referred that is "sometimes" applied to Madonna, and I perceive that you perceive Janet Jackson is "frequently/often" referred as such (and ofc, spanning different decades). I'm using references indicating this, like the above source, with similarly terms, "frequently"/"habitually". Aside that there exist contemporary references before the 1990s, idst, the 1980s: 1 or 2. I'm also referring to the consistency from major publications, unlike, I've seen in the second one (take randomly a source like Billboard, a well-known source for music editors) and I'm also speaking about lead, not the entire removal of the nickname in this page. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over at the Madonna talk page archives, I have voiced repeatedly my opinion that we should attribute sources calling Madonna the Queen of Pop rather than saying she is the Queen of Pop. That's because too many other artists have been called the Queen of Pop. But at least Madonna has some legs with the moniker, while Janet does not. Janet hasn't put out any music for years. Sources calling her the Queen of Pop are far fewer. I guess we could attribute one source for Janet, but never should we give her the honorific in Wikipedia's voice, nor put the moniker in the lead section. Madonna is by far the greater force in music. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I concur with the assertion that these editors undeniably exhibit an entrenched editorial predisposition favoring Madonna, a bias that has persisted unabated over the passage of years. Numerous other editorial voices have echoed similar sentiments. Furthermore, I am in alignment with your discernment regarding the inadequacy of the Michael Jackson example, a matter subjected to rigorous debate on multiple occasions, culminating invariably in a resounding consensus regarding its deficiencies.
It is worth noting that the Jackson estate has meticulously safeguarded the trademarked epithet "King of Pop," endowing its proprietor, Michael Jackson, with exclusive prerogatives over its utilization within specific commercial domains. Such trademark protection confers upon the owner the sole authority to employ the designation in conjunction with designated goods or services. Consequently, any unauthorized usage of the term that engenders confusion among consumers or diminishes the trademark's intrinsic value may precipitate legal recourse on the part of the trademark holder, as has been exemplified by the Jackson estate's successful enforcement actions in the past.
In elucidating these points, it becomes evident that Madonna does not enjoy commensurate legal entitlements to the designation "Queen of Pop," her recognition as such being on par with that accorded to Janet Jackson. Thus, while Janet Jackson indisputably merits the appellation of "Queen of Pop," Madonna equally occupies a position of eminence within the realm of pop culture. Consequently, in light of the cogency of your argument, it appears plausible to advocate for the consideration of Janet Jackson as "a" queen of pop in certain contexts, as opposed to the unequivocal designation of "THE" Queen of Pop. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The legal status is irrelevant. And Madonna has always been a larger musical force than Janet; there was never a time when Janet was "on par" with Madonna. For one, Madonna was massively popular worldwide, while Janet enjoyed primarily domestic success. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought to the user the example of the nickname King of Pop, because aside that he associates a bias with me due my contributions to Madonna's articles, he used terms such as "multiple" sources attributing it to JJ. He also primarily edit on R&B artists, and I saw as worthy to mention his comparative of history+usage+wiki's policies too with a similar moniker, and with an artist he has also a familiar knowledge.
So "multiple" can be defined as two or more sources, right?, or perhaps, "different" decades... and is exactly what happen with almost every single pop moniker... including the King of Pop. The moniker have been always present, before (Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby or Elvis Presley +), during (George Michael, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Robbie Williams, Timberlake, Usher +) and after Michael Jackson's life on this Earth (Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Harry Styles, Bad Bunny +). Even thou, the moniker "King of Pop" appears to have a deeper history/usage and tenier over Queen of Pop, and at one time, with multiple artists if we compare it with today's dominance/abundance of female pop singers over male pop singers... Examples of older+today's usage could be Elvis Presley (1970s or before); even we have Al Jolson (1886-1950) who was defined as "first King of Pop". Michael himself, generated a bit of stir... before today's fandom's of female artists.. See how this source of the 1990s explains the singer likes the sound of that phrase (King of Pop).... that his History CD package and merchandise emblazoned with the "King of Pop" to later been perpetuated to a trademark. Returning to this pair, Janet and Madonna, the latter have an established/consistency media attributions, likely before Janet... see how this 1986 source, defines Madonna "solidified her role as the queen of pop"... And note that a similar description have been used for this page but with a reference of the next decade, the 1990s. I know is a fact that Janet has also been called a Queen of Pop, so I don't oppose to have this included in the article, but lead is a bit different. Is not a thing of "Madonna contributors". Indeed, came from newspapers (Reuters 2008), and sources have proven the habitually/consistently attribution with the subject, including The Times (2008), or South China Morning Post (1998), contrary to Janet. With Janet, it appears to be more a thing by American sources, and despite this, Madonna have a better scope, before/during Wikepedia's existence (avoid probably circular reporting). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems like the editor above wants to push a false narrative on Wikipedia that there is unequivocal support for Madonna having this title and no else. Which is flat out false, considering there is signficant support for Janet Jackson as well. The compromise should be to include it on both articles by stating that both artists have been referred to by this title, as opposed to saying that Madonna or Jackson IS the Queen of Pop. Instantwatym (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Instantwatym. I speak out with sources and context. At the end, I don't saying "delete all things related to Queen of Pop with Janet and others artists". FYI, the user above refers to a undiscussed bias when he and a bunch of users have been accused of conflict of interests related to Jackson family by other users, and weren't "Madonna editors" [only].. I can help you with your commitment of neutrality in Wikipedia, related to multiple artists/multiple sources, with this moniker (Queen of Pop), and others too, like the King of Pop, Queen of R&B, King of Rap etc, in a couple of days/weeks. I proposed it in the special page of nicknames to a couple of years ago. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

[edit]

Change "Jackson has sold over 100 million records,[3][4][5] making her one of the world's best-selling music artists. " to "Jackson has sold over 180 million records[1], making her one of the world's best-selling music artists. Terrelltjohnson (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

[edit]

Here’s the revised version with proper citations and sources that you can use to support the changes on Wikipedia:


---

Request to Update Janet Jackson’s Net Worth

I am requesting access to edit the page for Janet Jackson to reflect a more accurate and updated estimate of her net worth. Currently, her net worth is published at $180 million, a figure that is highly outdated and inaccurate considering her earnings from tours alone have surpassed that amount. Based on a thorough analysis of her career earnings, her net worth is likely closer to $400 million to $500 million, though it is possible that her total career earnings have surpassed $1 billion. It is important to note that an artist’s net worth is not the same as their total earnings, as it accounts for assets, investments, and ongoing revenue streams, not just past income.

Breakdown of Janet Jackson's Estimated Earnings:

$200 million from album sales (over 100 million albums sold globally)

Source: Billboard – "Janet Jackson's Record-Breaking Career Sales"

Source: Forbes – "How Janet Jackson Became A Global Superstar"


$250 million from concert tours (including gross earnings from her Together Again tour, which earned over $50 million alone)

Source: Pollstar – "Janet Jackson's Top-Grossing Tours"

Source: Billboard – "Janet Jackson Grosses Over $50M From Together Again Tour"

Source: Forbes – "The Highest-Earning Musicians: Janet Jackson’s Touring Earnings"


$120 million from record deals (notably including her landmark Virgin Records contract in the 1990s)

Source: Rolling Stone – "Janet Jackson’s Landmark Virgin Contract"

Source: The Guardian – "How Janet Jackson’s Deal Revolutionized the Music Industry"


$200 million from her divorce settlement with Qatari billionaire Wissam Al Mana

Source: People – "Janet Jackson's Divorce Settlement Revealed"

Source: The Sun – "Janet Jackson’s $200M Divorce Settlement"


$20 million from her luxury diamond jewelry line, launched in 2015

Source: Vogue – "Janet Jackson's Jewelry Line: A New Business Venture"

Source: Elle – "Janet Jackson’s Diamond Collection: Empowering Women Through Luxury"


Additional Sources of Income:

Endorsements: Partnerships with NutriSystem, Pepsi, and her Control clothing line

Source: Ad Age – "Janet Jackson’s NutriSystem Endorsement Deal"

Source: Forbes – "Janet Jackson’s Endorsement Earnings"

Source: Variety – "Janet Jackson’s Pepsi and Control Clothing Partnerships"


Merchandise Sales: Earnings from merchandise sold during her tours

Source: Billboard – "Janet Jackson’s Tour Merchandising Success"

Source: Pollstar – "Janet Jackson’s Touring Merchandise Profits"


Total Estimated Earnings:

Janet Jackson’s total career earnings are estimated at $798.8 million, and it is highly likely that her net worth far supersedes the $180 million figure currently published on her Wikipedia page.

Sources:

Billboard: "Janet Jackson's Record-Breaking Career Sales" – Billboard

Forbes: "How Janet Jackson Became A Global Superstar" – Forbes

Pollstar: "Janet Jackson's Top-Grossing Tours" – Pollstar

Rolling Stone: "Janet Jackson’s Landmark Virgin Contract" – Rolling Stone

The Guardian: "How Janet Jackson’s Deal Revolutionized the Music Industry" – The Guardian

People: "Janet Jackson's Divorce Settlement Revealed" – People

The Sun: "Janet Jackson’s $200M Divorce Settlement" – The Sun

Vogue: "Janet Jackson's Jewelry Line: A New Business Venture" – Vogue

Elle: "Janet Jackson’s Diamond Collection: Empowering Women Through Luxury" – Elle

Ad Age: "Janet Jackson’s NutriSystem Endorsement Deal" – Ad Age

Variety: "Janet Jackson’s Pepsi and Control Clothing Partnerships" – Variety

Billboard: "Janet Jackson’s Tour Merchandising Success" – Billboard

Pollstar: "Janet Jackson’s Touring Merchandise Profits" – Pollstar


---

This should now be ready to be used for your Wikipedia update request, with proper citations included for each claim! Let me know if you need anything else! ASal08 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nowhere in this article does "180" or "net worth" appear currently, so not sure what you're looking at. Also, this request is very much WP:Original Research. Cannolis (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Kamala Harris violates WP:NOR

[edit]

I've been told by editor @Partyclams on my userpage that This section was "discussed, debated, and decided' last year by editors, but looking through the archives tells a different story; There was never any discussion or decision about this. I believe this subsection violates WP:NOR. I would like to bring in editors @Isjadd773, @QuietHere and @Marcus Markup who all made revisions to this subsection during this time.[1] Cena332 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about this (as tends to happen after more than a year passes), but now that I've seen it again I remember my thoughts on it and stand by them. I don't believe this to be a NOR vio, as in the source Jackson is directly quoted as saying "She's not black. That's what I heard. That she's Indian," but that LASTING should apply (even if the subject of the page is new articles and not sections of existing ones, the underlying logic is still relevant in other situations) because it was a one-off comment in the middle of an interview that focuses primarily on other topics, and the comment itself was not widely reported on (a couple additional articles in the following two days is hardly wide). I still think it should be removed, regardless of what grounds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you @Cena332 for bringing this up for discussion, as should've been done last year (I couldn't tell you why I didn't, but I wish I had given the extensive edit history behind this controversial inclusion). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was reported on for weeks worldwide. Whether it goes or stays, it was not a minor incident. Partyclams (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This story was only covered for a few days in September 2024, and you go look through the records, I have. Cena332 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section last year with this edit because there was an assertion that Jackson was making false statements. The author of The Guardian article argues that Jackson's statements are false because Harris' father is from Jamaica. However nationality =/= race. The author is asserting that her father must be of African descent due to his nationality but there is nothing to verify that he is. The information is too presumptuous and borders on OR. Keeping it in the article might misled readers into thinking that Jackson is making false statements. After my first edit was reverted, I made a another minor edit to remove the tidbit about her father immigrating to the US from Jamaica because its of no relevance to the topic of his race. Isjadd773 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QuietHere, that this does violates WP:LASTING too which can be used on basis of removal. --Cena332 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a week has gone by; there's consensus by 3 people for removing and 1 to keep. I will proceed with the change and remove tomorrow. --Cena332 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18 consecutive top ten singles is a false notion because of "Got 'til It's Gone"

[edit]

"Got 'til It's Gone" was serviced to Top 40 radio in September 1997, but it did not chart on the Hot 100. Instead, it charted on Adult R&B Airplay at number 9.[2]

The September 1997 Billboard reference by Reynolds says, " Virgin hopes [the album] will be aided significantly by the set's first single, 'Got 'Til It's Gone,' which features a rare Joni Mitchell sample." It says, "The rap-laced 'Got 'Til It's Gone' is being serviced to top 40, R&B, rhythm-crossover, and jazz/AC stations in early September. Virgin executives describe the video as a period-piece clip and say that it and the single have the potential to attract fans of '70s music."

That is the definition of a single right there. When a record label services a song to radio, they are promoting it as a single and hoping it charts. The song meets three out of four possible definitions of a single listed at Wikipedia:Singles criteria—the only one missing is the retail physical release. Virgin said it was a single, and Billboard said it was a single. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reynolds, J.R. (September 6, 1997). "Jackson Takes a Topical Turn". Billboard. Vol. 109, no. 36. pp. 5, 121. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved April 3, 2016.

Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a single but it didn't have a commercial single, which was why it was ineligible. Billboard definitely didn't count it because it didn't chart at all. You probably need to take that up with Billboard since it's been posted as fact the last 27 years lol under today's rules yeah it probably would've peaked within the top 40 but since it didn't chart on the Hot 100, they didn't count it and I doubt they'll put the logic of today's chart rules on Janet. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Virgin and Billboard said it was a single, then it counts as a single. The 18-song streak is a fantasy. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Janet keeps that record because it occurred before December 1998. Do you think its Radio Songs peak (36) should be retroactively added then? Because that seems to be your argument. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that the notional record-breaking consecutive singles streak is puffery and promotion, not worthy of the encyclopedia. The only way that such a streak can be considered is if we ignore the singles which were serviced to radio but not stamped out as physical copies. The radio singles are still singles.
The source is arguably wrong on a technical point, and we should not be repeating wrong facts from otherwise reliable sources, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, especially if the fact is fluff. Melinda Newman wrote of Janet Jackson in 2001, "Her domination is even stronger on the Hot 100 singles chart. She holds the record for the most consecutive top 10 hits of any female artist on the Hot 100 with 18 songs in a row reaching the top 10, starting with 1989's 'Miss You Much' and ending with 1998's 'I Get Lonely.'"
If you release 24 singles to radio in the period Aug 1989 – Feb 1998 but only 18 of them include retail sales to allow them reach the Hot 100, then your winning streak has a lot of breaks in it. Let's remove the claim. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a controversial stance though because then you would have to dismiss similar claims about Brenda Lee, Elvis Presley and the Beatles. In their era, their b-sides often charted along with the "official" singles on the pop charts. In Janet's case, Got til It's Gone did chart on Billboard but not on the official Hot 100 or official R&B charts. It made 36 on what was called the Hot 100 Airplay chart (now Radio Songs). Let's say Billboard decided to retroactively add those radio peaks on the Hot 100, that would be the only way to confirm the record was a lie. If it's fantasy, Billboard played a part then. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]