Talk:Michael Jackson

We should update the main image

The main image is a grainy, black and white (which I believe makes an image worse when there is color alternatives), and overall low quality. The problem is many images of Jackson on Wikimedia Commons are not really high quality. Any actually high quality ones (including two images below), are being nominated due to copyrighted issues. Here are two examples:

• File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993.jpg
• File:Jackson se esta preparando para interpretar Jam en (1992).jpg

So here are the highest quality images I could find, from highest to lowest quality. Please know that I believe that color is better, but other factors like quality (including amount of grain, quality of image scan, and image size) also apply

Update: Image 15 has been added from the Jackson 5

Template:Side box

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

---

• 0
  0
• 1
  1
• 2 (best of other Alan Light photos of Jackson)
  2 (best of other Alan Light photos of Jackson)
• 3
  3
• 4
  4
• 5
  5
• 6
  6
• 7
  7
• 8
  8
• 9
  9
• 10
  10
• 11
  11
• 12
  12
• 13
  13
• 14
  14
• 15
  15

If we are to choose another image, which I strongly believe should be the case since 1-9 are better than 10 (the current main image), which should we do? Wcamp9 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You're misusing the words "objective" and "objectively" here when whether certain pictures are better than others is an inherently subjective matter, so please don't treat your personal opinions as facts. Regardless, my preference of these would be image#7 for giving a clear front view of his face and isn't black-and-white like some of the other listings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that 2 should be used because of how high quality it is compared to other images Wcamp9 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

4 has been used in the past and is my choice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

7 is my pick per the SNUGGUMS arguments. I think it is more recent and more recognisable than image #4 TheWikiholic (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok Wcamp9 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose #7; it doesn't have a clear view of his face due to his sunglasses. #3, #4, and #8 are disqualified for the same reason. #5, #6, and #9 have strange expressions. #10 is good, but not ideal because of a poor view of his face. #1 has good potential if cropped, and #2 is probably the best overall despite his atypical outfit. My favorite of all is File:Michael Jackson 1983.jpg, mentioned above, if it survives copyright challenges. — Goszei (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What era would be preferable for the main image? Do you guys want the Dangerous era (early 90s), Bad era (late 80s)or the Thriller era (early 80s)? Never17 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I support #7, and I agree with @SNUGGUMS's statement. Although I don't think it is imperatively necessary to change the current image; but if it were to be done, I think #7 is the only suitable one, and it is a good option for the future considering, among other reasons, that it is in color.

Apart from that, I am going to give my opinion on why I think some of the others are not valid at all. The optimal thing to do in a case like Jackson's, considering that he is one of the most public people the world knew and that it is easy for anyone to recognize him, is to choose a picture that represents what he is known for (i.e. music artist); that's why it is not appropriate to use as the main picture something that is part of his non-artistic life, like the mugshot or #2 (where he is not exercising as an entertainer, and he is not even wearing clothes that represent his artistic persona, just as if it were a picture at home in his pyjamas. It's a picture with close friends where he's wearing a Hilton Hotels cap...). I consider picture #6 to be of very low quality taking into account the other options and I don't find #3 and #8 to be good choices, because they show Jackson in his last years of life, and it is always preferable (as has been done in other cases, such as Queen Elizabeth II) to choose a picture from the "in-between" part of the subject's life. #1, #4, #5, #5, #7 and #10 are valid and appropriate pictures to be used as the main picture in this article, but I consider #7 and #10 (the one currently used) to be the best choices considering that they are better representing Jackson at an in-between time in his life. Salvabl (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, number 10 is the lowest qauality picture of Jackson, and each of the reasons you give make sense, but a side profile of Jackson that is low quality does not make for a better representation of the subject in most cases. I thought we should have done 2, but 4 and 7 are fine too, with all in high quality color Wcamp9 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

How would i go about acquiring the right to use a image of him for this page? Who do i contact? Never17 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The most famous photo we have is the one set during the Dangerous world tour in his Jam outfit, however there's apparently issues with that one. Of the remaining options, his estate currently uses a image of MJ from the Bad world tour as his profile picture across their social media platforms but the one we got is in black in white and not very high quality. The only other option i think would be suitable is #7 as it's a photo of him receiving the artist of the decade award at the white house in high quality. This was set between the Bad and Dangerous era's of his career when he was at his arguable peak and is fitting for his biographical page. Never17 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the press photo from 1983 (Michael Jackson 1983.jpg) should be used, it's well-lit, copyright free and is arguably of the highest quality of all of the images there.PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That will work Never17 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Never17 Please don't change the photo without consensus. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't change anything, i just agreed with what the other guy said Never17 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do it, but can someone start an RfC or something that will have a more significant way to change it Wcamp9 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I would love to find someway to acquire copyright rights for some high quality images to use for this page, i don't know how to do that though. Maybe a admin here would know Never17 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You guys may try to retrieve a press kit photo of Michael, which are public domain. Must meet these reqs: 1. Between 1978 and March 1, 1989. There are a lot of promotional photos during this era for him. Example https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/86109934_disney-michael-jackson-captain-eo-publicity-folder 2. Check that they have no copyright notice and not registered in U.S. Copyright office. 3. Has imprint of the company releasing said press kit on photo itself or from source. Raolae (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Never17 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

ok Wcamp9 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

How and when is consensus reached because I believe someone needs to start and RfC so I think we should do a vote or something. I personally say 7 though Wcamp9 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

7 looks good, until we can secure other images it's the best bet Never17 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Never17 i don't think we can secure another image, what should we do Wcamp9 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS, @Ianmacm, @Never17, @Alyo, @PHShanghai, @Goszei, @TheWikiholic,@Raolae @Salvabl, there seems to be no consenus on the topic so should I or one of you start and RfC (I have never done so before but I will look at tutorial) Wcamp9 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah do it, i tried getting into contact with people at the Estate regarding acquiring free usage for some images. But so far i've gotten no response yet, so at the moment a RfC is the best course of action based on the images we currently have Never17 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 1984 (enhanced).jpg is the best. 2605:A601:A694:900:66:38E5:E3B7:E89F (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

https://pin.it/6eAMJNOxz I wish this was the picture, but it’s copyrighted. 😭😭😭 2605:A601:A694:900:66:38E5:E3B7:E89F (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's a great one, he had a lot of high quality photos during that period

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d6/a9/72/d6a9725c4c7fb7ffe0593e61fc1cbb74.jpg Never17 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

13 is the best one we've got from here, i also love the postage stamp used for him in the legacy section very nice touch Never17 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of what Image 15 would look like for the article, it probably would have to be a bit larger.

Concept of the Article using Image 15 as the main photograph Never17 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Outdent The thread is already over 3 months old, and RFCs tend to unnecessarily drag things on for longer than they would otherwise last, so I'm not sure how much help starting one would be now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't object to 2, because it gives a decent look at his face without sunglasses. But there should be a consensus before changing the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od The thread is three months old with ten editors participating. Out of these, eight editors have shared their opinions, with five supporting Image 7, two supporting Image 2, and one supporting Image 4. Isn't a majority of five a decent indication of rough consensus?-- TheWikiholic (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we can probably change it to 7 Never17 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

7..... doesn't even meet the basics for quality and there's someone in the background. Can we get all to refer to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY before making suggestions for changing an image. Moxy🍁 20:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to veto 7, because it isn't by any means a great image, nor does it show Jackson's face at all clearly. The person in the background is also a no-no.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

7 is good. I don’t know why you hate it. 9 is good if it could be cropped, 4 is good, I would veto 3,5,6,8 and 10 2605:A601:A694:900:66:38E5:E3B7:E89F (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

3 is actually good now that I think about it 2605:A601:A694:900:66:38E5:E3B7:E89F (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Veto 7, because it doesn't show his face from the sunglasses. Raolae (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Popped in to add an eleventh image. 웃OO 06:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

A promotional package photo from 1981's 'Say Say Say' I found yesterday, could possibly fit as an uncopyrighted publicity photo categorized under Category:Columbia_Records_publicity_photos and was released between 1978-89 "PD-Scan|PD-US-1978-89": https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/paul-mccartney-michael-jackson-photo-4767275147 It has no copyright underneath it, or in various related scans. Can someone check the copyright database if the photo was registered under copyright. If not, it can be cropped to his face as well, enhanced and used on Wikipedia. Raolae (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

will look into this Never17 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

12 and 13 cannot be used because of copyright issues -- they likely are not in the public domain since someone just said they weren't copyrighted without evidence Wcamp9 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Damn Never17 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

And another one for 12 and 13. Absolutiva (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

well i would do 3 MichaelJacksonFan234 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

12 looks really good if we could just zoom in the image, it's the best one we have so far Never17 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS we need consensus on the image - i think what is most widely agreed is that our current image needs to be changed, and I think we should try to do that asap Wcamp9 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you specifically pinged me of all editors, but whichever image reaches the most support and isn't copyrighted can be boldly implemented. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS, @Ianmacm, @Never17, @Alyo, @PHShanghai, @Goszei, @TheWikiholic,@Raolae @Salvabl @MichaelJacksonFan234, there is an image previously debated if in public domain is confirmed to be in public domain due to the fact that the photographer is unknown, but it is a publicity still, which would make it public domain. I think this is a good image and if we have consensus we could finally change the current image. What should we do? Wcamp9 (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If you mean the Red/Pink shirt photo, then i 100% agree with using it Never17 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think image 12 is a great photo and should be the lead image if all copyright is cleared. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Michael_Jackson#New_Images. Claims that publicity stills are in the public domain are dubious unless the original photographer has clearly stated this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that one has less evidence as it’s a year before the 1989 copyright act. The other one is also a poster pre-1989 but on the packaging there is no copyright marks. Look at all the images of people such as Sharon Tate, in which the original image is not copyrighted because it is not on the label. Also look at Johnny Cash Wikipedia image therefore I think it’s reasonable to say that this image is public domain. Wcamp9 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would not consider the newly uploaded image number 12 a publicity still, let alone a photo shoot. The photo of MJ in number zero is a photo shoot and therefore can qualify closer to a publicity still. I think the argument that the other images of publicity still is not valid while this one is totally. Wcamp9 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Image #12 and #13 are very likely to be copyright violations and should not be considered. PascalHD (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This is another publicity still taken by Matthew Rolston, i couldn't find any visible Copyright notice on the image at all. Either this or 0 would work

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ0mKVCW4AAYso-.jpg Never17 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Never17 I don't see a notice on the print [1], potentially PD? Further searching should be done to ensure it was not published with a notice elsewhere. Otherwise image #1 is a suitable image. PascalHD (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The poster does not have a © symbol or any copyright notice.

A larger and more high res version

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/y7EAAOSw6B9laMlp/s-l1600.png

The photo was apart of a publicity photoshoot in 1984, as other photos such as this one can be found

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNhKp2QXEAEe6FX.jpg:large Never17 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Never17 Hate to burst your bubble, but photo #15 is not suitable either. Please see the deletion request. PascalHD (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Damn swing and a miss i guess Never17 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal #14? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That looks really clean, i like it a lot. Great photo, it would work Never17 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I support the use of #12, and failing that definitely #0. The black-and-white is a downside, but it can be overlooked. — Goszei (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS, @Ianmacm, @Never17, @Alyo, @PHShanghai, @Goszei, @TheWikiholic,@Raolae @Salvabl@MichaelJacksonFan234 sorry for nominating you all but i think 12, 13 and 14 are all out of the picture. color pictures are nice but we have 0% certainty any of those are in the public domain as the claim suggests. 14 is a straight lie from someone who doesn’t know copyright policies, and 12 and 13 are snagged off google. they didn’t even put the right photographer in the description (they were part of the Michael Ochs Archive, not taken by Michael Ochs).

Can we get this talk page post done after more than half a year and get consensus on 0 since it’s in public domain? I think we have to get this done. Wcamp9 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Any photo is out of the question on copyright grounds unless it has a clear history tracing back to the original photographer. The recent additions of 12, 13 and 14 aren't good enough here. I'm not the greatest fan of image 0 and will leave it to a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

While personally I prefer not to have black-and-white photos, if that's the only non-copyrighted options to use, then go with one of those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

that’s a yes to 0 Wcamp9 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

i think once all the editors nominated comment on if using 0 is good, then we should use it. sound good? Wcamp9 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point 0 is the best bet since it IS public domain unless we waive the rule not allowing glasses Never17 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

we have to be certain, and what isn’t good enough can’t make it. i like that image too but image 0 is the best bet Wcamp9 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, the page looks great with the new image Never17 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I am really against this new photo. Michael only looked like this for a short amount of time, where as when his longer hair look lasted from the late 80s to 00s. He was most recognisable like that as a superstar. --Cena332 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images related to Michael Jackson are protected by various copyright holders, so it's very difficult to find stuff we can actually use. Of what's available this is the best we've got Never17 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

There was no vote taken to change the Main Picture on this wiki.

Editor Yovt changed the photo of Michael Jackson based on 'sufficient consensus'. Scrolling through the archives, I hardly see a consensus for Image 0 and on April 22, out of the blue just changed the photo. We should all have a vote first, before this big change takes place. Cena332 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the image back to the agreed upon 1983 photo that was discussed here at the Talk page. If someone is opposed to using that photo; a discussion can be had here before changing the agreed upon photo that has consensus. I do agree further discussion is always welcome. PascalHD (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Height: 5’10 feet (177 cm) 78.80.25.105 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Nd I'm not sure where you found this, but even with credible sourcing, it's a trivial detail for him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Change image description of Gary childhood home from March 2020 to July 2009 when it was taken (visible in detailed image description). 94.21.42.31 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done - I've changed the image description. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

High profile controversies lack prominence in this article

These two subections should not be subsections, they are prominent enough to be first class sections..

• First child sexual abuse accusations and first marriage (1993–1995)
• Documentary, Number Ones, second child abuse allegations and acquittal (2002–2005)

best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section [...] For example [...] If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

— Template:Comma separated entries

So a section limited to these allegations/court cases is more than justified, which can contain opposition and accusation both. But merging it in with "first marriage" and "number ones" is NOT following official policy.

New editors and IP use it a lot, specifically the WP:CSECTION, to remove criticisms or controversial items from articles. Most of the times this is a COI/NPV issue and the criticism they tend to wrongly remove is justified by WP:DUE. Turning it into a guideline or policy, as in its current version, could just empower them more. We need to fix this for sure.

— Template:Comma separated entries

Wallby (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "first class sections", but it's not like the article neglects to mention allegations against him during his lifetime. The arrangement was used to help reduce chances of editors bloating the page with excessive or undue details on them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of First class citizen. What I mean is to make it a top/root level section, not buried in "Life and career".

best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section.

— Template:Comma separated entries

Wallby (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It's rather misleading to say they get "buried" underneath that heading when technically part of a section title. Undue negative or even positive weight (depending on how much is mentioned on refuting allegations) is more likely to occur when split out into a completely separate section without being under anything else. I'm undecided on how much should go under a "Public image" heading regardless of whether allegations against him are placed there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations are split into a separate article, which is the right thing to do per WP:TOPIC. I don't think that the sexual abuse allegations are downplayed in this article and they are mentioned in adequate detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my point. My point is not about lack of detail, it is about bloated groupings whereas these controversies are notable enough to deserve their entire own sections as per WP:CRITS.

So no "First child sexual abuse accusations and first marriage (1993–1995)" but "First child sexual abuse accusations" seperately. And no "Documentary, Number Ones, second child abuse allegations and acquittal (2002–2005)" but "Documentary, second child abuse allegations and acquittal". Or even better in my opinion, a section "Public image" with a "Child sexual abuse allegations" section. Wallby (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This biography is a Featured Article, structured chronologically with section titles reflecting notable events in the subject's career. The current sections include 'First child sexual abuse accusations and first marriage (1993–1995)', 'Documentary, Number Ones, second child abuse allegations and acquittal (2002–2005)', and 'Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations', which may conflict with WP:CRITS guidelines advising against sections focused on criticisms. Given the article's protected status, limiting edits to extended confirmed editors, I'm unsure how discussions about IP and new user edits at the village pump relate to this article's specific concerns. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Given how posthumous allegations are contained within "Death", I believe that helps reduce the section's chances of being bloated, and either way don't see how it would go against WP:CRITS. A benefit I forgot to mention earlier about putting 1993 and 2003 allegations under "Life and career" ks how it helps show how these (along with the accompanying 2005 trial) affected his career path without scattering such results. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRITS is the opposite of what you want to do, WP:CRITS is to avoid sections focusing on controversies as the article structure must protect neutrality. You however want to create sections exclusively focusing on controversies. Based on notability we could have separate sections for numerous other topic not less notable, his marriages, Thriller , Motown 25 , the ATV catalog purchase, his conflict with Sony, his fashion, Bad , Neverland, the Pepsi incident and its consequences, his humanitarian work, his surgeries, his kids, his skin disease, his friendships with Liz Taylor, his animals etc. so notability alone does not justify separate sections.PinkSlippers (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that (almost) all of those are much less noteable. Crimes weigh heavier on society than "an album release". Safety is a bigger concern than "art taste", no matter how big. Wallby (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We have sections already given their own article, they require extensive detail to cover them and can't possibly be summarized in one section under his main article without bloating it beyond what's acceptable here. The editors have Done the right thing and there's no major change that needs to be made with this page, it's handled very well. Never17 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this article has turned into the equivalent of a contract with deeply buried very important terms which you should expect most readers to not look at and thus walk away poorly informed. Currently the article starts with "oh look at all these wonderful achievements and praise he got, and there were some accusations of assault but no biggie he was acquitted" and then deeply buried is "holy shit he was accused of abusing multiple children which was heavily documented, explained and the majority of institutions believed the accusations". Wallby (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Since these are mere allegations of crimes which have had little impact in most of the world where Jackson's art however has become important (China or India for example) it's hard to see how mere allegations, especially as dubious as these ones, would be more important than the biggest selling album of all time or the purchase of the ATV catalog. It's a slippery slope since since Jackson had numerous allegations which were categorically untrue. Should we include separate sections for those too then? In any case, WP:CRITS guides against what you are proposing, sections should not focus on controversies. PinkSlippers (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Jackson was taken to court based on hearsay alone in 2005 with a deeply contradictory timeline on a unfounded case and the 1993 case re-introduced and they still failed to win with a loaded courtroom (all white jury), months to restructure the case around Jackson’s defense team files and only having to prove the believability of the claims without any evidence either the lowest burden of proof. And he still won on every possible charge. There’s nothing against Michael Jackson in any legal case, he was just a weird guy with a messed up upbringing due to his abusive father & extensive fame at such a young age. He absolutely wasn't normal and had some issues but that's 100% not a crime. Never17 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No matter how many people believe the allegations made both after and before his death, Wallby, you shouldn't have downplayed how the fact that they even are mentioned in subheadings at all draws attention to them. A quick glance at the table contents can make the details easy to locate, so please stop wrongfully claiming they get "buried", and that contract-with-hidden-details comparison is faulty. However, if you think it would be beneficial for the lead to delve further into those before the body gives additional information, then feel free to elaborate on ways to do so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

However we could also say the article deeply buries that "holy shit he was falsely accused of abusing children where the accusing family's ulterior motives and contradictions were well documented and explained along with the bias of institutions which condemned him". Since including both the allegations and all the evidence that they were false would expand this article into a whole book the current material in the article about this subject is sufficient as it includes links to other articles which elaborate on the subject. PinkSlippers (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, simply summarizing the allegations can't do them justice, you leave crucial details out. It's better to direct readers to the own articles dedicated to extensively covering them, the media's reaction, the prosecution, the controversial methods of investigation and Jackson's various defense evidence provided during the decades of investigation in his life. This article handles it well, we Do cover them here but not enough to make it way too long Never17 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

“ Greatest entertainer of all time”

That needs to be changed, this isn’t fact but completely subjective. Although he was great, this is purely based on opinion 82.42.70.100 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

While such a stance definitely is a personal opinion, it isn't presented as a fact. The lead specifically mentions he is "often deemed" the greatest while the article body gives attribution to opinions from BET as well as Berry Gordy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Macleans - The Greatest artist of all time (media opinion)

OK Magazine - The Most influential entertainer of the 20th century (Media opinion)

The Athletic - The Most influential artist of the 20th century (Media opinion)

Bloomberg - The Greatest Entertainer that ever lived (Media opinion) [2]

Ranker - The Greatest Entertainer of all time (Public vote - Won)

Vibe - Widely recognized as the Greatest performer of all time (Media opinion)

Rolling Stones - The Greatest Pop Artist of all time (Media opinion)

The Guardian - The Greatest entertainer of his Generation (1970-2009) (Overlaps with any 20th century act, so see above)

WatchMojo - The Greatest entertainer of all time

NME Magazine - The Greatest Singer of all time (Public Vote - Won)

Billboard - The Greatest Artist of all time (Public Vote - Won)

SmooothRadio - The Greatest Artist of all time (Public Vote - 3x Winner)

Time Magazine - The Most famous entertainer in the world (the same thing but worded differently)

BMI Organization - Definitively the greatest entertainer of all time

Rhino Records - The World's Most Famous Man, The Most Popular Artist in History, the Most Awarded artist in history and the Biggest Selling Artist of all time

Today Magazine (Quoting Billboard) - The world’s greatest entertainer and (biggest pop star in history)

GQ Magazine - The Mount Everest of Entertainment (Same meaning)

CNN - The World's top entertainer (Same meaning, he's deceased here)

Complex Magazine - The World's Greatest Pop Star (Just a entertainer so same thing)

Smithsonian - The Throne in Pop Royalty History (Similar meaning)

There is WAY more than enough sources from outlets who weren't even positive towards Michael at all during his life to substantiate this statement, we don't claim definitively we saw often which is Factually true. Never17 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)