Michael 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 1, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed November 23, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 11, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed January 24, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 25, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 28, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2009 Peer review Reviewed News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 22, 2004, and June 25, 2009. A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 29, 2019. Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Michael Jackson FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians / Core FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Pop music FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. R&B and Soul Music FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Rock music FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Dance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles WikiProject Dance To-do list: To nominate at WP:FAC: To improve to Featured standard: To nominate as a Good article: To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow To unbias: To check for copyvios: To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images African diaspora FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Janet Jackson FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Southern California FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Music / Television / Indiana FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

	Other talk page banners
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Justinesim.

Hi, I read Wikiholic's comment that Taraborelli is not considered a reliable source. Does that apply to all Michael Jackson articles?Quaffel (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaffel: What makes him an unreliable source? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found it. According to this RFC, Taraborrelli's "controversial claims" are not to be used on this sole article "unless corroborated by other reliable sources." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

TheWikiholic, I don't care if Taraborrelli is a RS or not, but then what's the source what Jackson got second and third degree burns? Right now the exact same Taraborrelli book is used as a source throughout that section, except that it's to random page numbers (as least on the internet archive version) that don't verify any of the information they're attached to. I'm a little confused if there's consensus for a random Taraborrelli page a sentence later, but not for the sentence about second- and third-degree burns. Am I missing something? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taraborelli is not a reliable source of MJ articles so you are not supposed to use it as a source for MJ articles. Editors like flyer22 reborn used to remove it from MJ-related articles. I think it's still being used in the MJ article and it might have gone unnoticed; I think there are many other sources about the second and third-degree burns incident that we can use instead of Taraborelli.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiholic, ahh, I see. Well, for future reference, a ctrl-F pops up 34 Taraborrelli citations, so the current state of the article just doesn't give the impression that Taraborrelli isn't a RS. Thanks for the answer. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

103.120.37.49 (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are going to suggest changes to this of all articles please learn how to spell "Michael". Britmax (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph two it does not specify what platform Jackson created the music videos on. PurpleBanana12345 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1975-1981 is a bit of a long stretch I think we should have a new section from 1979–1981, so many things happen in those years with the release of Off the Wall and Triumph. It's its own era in itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 (talk • contribs)

I disagree; the section currently just has three paragraphs, and splitting off only one of them into another section would make it seem rather short. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to rename the the Health and appeance of Michael Jackson article. Please comment on the article's Talk Page. Thanks!Quaffel (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other title(s) did you have in mind? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be called "Health of Michael Jackson". His skin was light due to Vitilgo which is a health issue. The cartilage of his nose had collapsed. That's also a health issue. However, the cosmetic surgery are still mentioned. I just removed the part about the chin cleft and his cheekbones. It is already covered here. I made the edit already. You can take a look. I would bmove the deleted part about sensitivity to pain to the drug section. There's only one sentence about demerol that could be expanded. There's already a comment on the article's talk page.

There's something else I'd like to address. I don't know if I can use the People with vitiligo category. It's already used for the main article but I think it would make sense to use it for the Health article. There aren't many options for categories for that article.Quaffel (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for more than a month but haven't made 500 edits. I found a fallacy detailing Jackson's death in the sentence itself. "Resuscitation efforts continued en route to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and for more than an hour after arriving there, but were unsuccessful,[291][292] and Jackson was pronounced dead at 2:26 pm Pacific time (21:26 UTC)." I feel like it should be:"Resuscitation efforts continued en route to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and for more than an hour after arriving there, but were unsuccessful.[291][292] Jackson was pronounced dead at 2:26 pm Pacific time (21:26 UTC)." I'm new to this sorta stuff, so don't judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidum Hydra (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 review

This is a 2008 FA promotion whose nominator is no longer editing and that has not been maintained to current WP:WIAFA standards. Some issues (not a comprehensive list) are:

• The promoted version was before Jackson's death and had 9,800 words of readable prose, and no evidence of excessive WP:PROSELINE or listiness. The current version has 12,900 words of readable prose, so along with considerable changes in article content, at least a quarter of the current content has never been vetted in a content review process.
• There is considerable proseline everywhere and prose that is not at FA standard. For example (there are others):
  • Every paragraph in "2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It" starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Earnings" section starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Honors and awards" section starts with "Jackson".
  • The end of the "Posthumous releases and productions" section appears to be content tacked on ala proseline.
• There is unencyclopedic trivia throughout bloating the article size, sample: On June 25, 2010, the first anniversary of Jackson's death, fans, family and friends visited Jackson's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, his family home, and Forest Lawn Memorial Park. Many left tributes at the sites. (Also, Proseline)
• There are quite a few sources highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script (red or yellow) that should be checked. As one example, WP:FORBES contributors should be reviewed per WP:SPS relative to high-quality sources required for Featured articles.
• Throwaway statement that says nothing (sample only, there are others): In 2010, two university librarians found that there were references to Jackson in academic writing on music, popular culture, chemistry and other topics.
• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review WP:OVERLINKing (some duplicate links can be justified).
• There are over 20 instances of also and also is almost always redundant; see User:Tony1 writing exercises to help reduce redundancies. Sample: Meanwhile, it was also reported ...
• WP:NBSP review may be needed.

This is a brief start at items that could be looked at to begin a tune-up to bring the article to current FA standards. If these can be addressed, then a more indepth look at sourcing and prose issues could be done, so that a Featured article review can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Could you be specific which sources you are referring to? castorbailey (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay, as I took most of the year off. Will revisit now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've taken an initial stab at cleaning this up, removing some excess verbage, updating a bit of out-of-date info and removing some elements I feel are less important for this article. Much more work can still be done.

Regarding the WP:PROSELINE issue: I feel the proseline problem is sometimes misunderstood on Wikipedia, and this is a case where I don't agree there's a problem, at least not in all the examples you cite. I think some editors interpret it to mean that starting consecutive sentences or paragraphs with "In [date]" is just bad period - I think it depends. The "2006-2009" section, for example, reads fairly well imo; the dating pattern gives a useful structure and there's enough detail in each paragraph not to feel brainless or monotonous. I am also wary of falling into the trap of variation for variation's sake. Popcornfud (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Popcornfud; adding a revisit to my ToDo list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've only addressed some of the prose issues; I'm not going to be able to address every issue single-handedly. You might also want to contribute to the debate about some prose bloat above in the "Guitar chord stuff" section. Popcornfud (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather not get sucked in to a big kerfuffle, but yes, I was just looking over the article generally, and there is bloated prose everywhere. I also still think the many sections that have paragraph after paragraphs starting with dates are not very compelling prose. And glancing about, one finds prose issues everywhere, sample: 22 days after the trial ended, Murray received the maximum sentence of four years in prison. He was released in late 2013 due to California prison overcrowding and good behavior. Sentence starting with number, excess detail for this article, in a short stubby section, and “on good behavior due to overcrowding”? Do you think more time would help here, or should this article be headed for WP:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give it more time; taking this to FAR feels premature at the moment. Let's at least try to improve the article first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; considering the years of curation that have gone in to this article, it would be a shame for it to lose the star. Unwatching, ping me when ready for a new look. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Popcornfud. I don't see why anyone would be bothered by dates anyway. If they are accurate they are relevant information.castorbailey (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are trimming content “per talk page” but not much was discussed as to what would be trimmed within reason and adding additional content that is only hearsay as best for an article that has been stable for quite sometime.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Guess we can kiss that star goodbye after all. Popcornfud (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a bit of an exaggerated claim. The star won’t go anywhere. There’s no reason for it to. The issues here are very minor and correctable. There’s simply wouldn’t be enough support to remove a star on the most trafficked celebrity article in Wikipedia.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not jump the gun; there's still a chance rework the page. We just have to figure out how to best carry that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TruthGuardians, nothing was added to the page. This information about the alleged castration had been in the article for months. Popcornfud (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But has since been removed and hasn’t been there too terribly long. It serves no purpose. It doesn’t even fit in the section where it is and hope that you would agree that this could certainly be trimmed out. Jackson’s autopsy report proved he had a penis and nothing was out of the norm for a person born as a male at both and that he in fact was not chemically castrated. Even Conrad Murray says he held Michael Jackson's penis every night (https://www.news24.com/channel/conrad-murray-says-he-touched-michael-jacksons-penis-every-night-20131125). So which is it? In any event, I didn’t have a problem with many of the other edits made by you and SNUGGUMS, and I do agree with some of SandyGeorgia’s concerns. We can work together on this, it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve worked together in goodfaith, Popcorn.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical castration does not involve the removal of the penis. Popcornfud (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? We are trying to trim the article by removing irrelevant content and Murray's hallucinations are certainly in that category. There is absolutely no evidence Jackson was castrated in any shape or fashion. Obviously, we do not include everything Murray ever said about Jackson so why include this one? It's not on Murray's page either. castorbailey (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to me - it's a serious claim about Jackson's health made by his personal physician and reported by a reliable (non-tabloid) secondary source. Note that the article did not say it was true or false either way, just that Murray made the claim.

Do we have another reliable source that disputes it? If so, we could report that, too. Popcornfud (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Him being his incompetent personally physical who killed him and profited from selling lies about him won't make his claims serious, to say the least. Again, why should we include this particular crazy claim, which everyone with ears can know is nonsense as Jackson's voice did get much deeper during puberty, when we don't include his other crazy claims like Jackson wanted to marry Harriet Lester (reported by ITV) or wanted a brain transplant (reported by Yahoo) or for that matter, he gave himself the lethal dose of propofol (reported by the same Independent as the castration story)? Just because someone's provable lie is reported in a RS does not mean we have to include it. This article would be 1 million words if we included everything some RS ever reported about what someone said about Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that's a whole lot of "I personally don't believe this guy", which is fine, but we need to go by sources. Do we have another reliable source that disputes it? Popcornfud (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "I don't believe the guy". The issue is why we should include this particular nonsense just because it was reported by a RS when we don't include his other hallucinations, also reported by RS? While content must be backed by RS that does not mean we have to include everything someone says just because some reported he said it. A RS could report that XYZ said the Earth is flat, that does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. We don't need any reporting to know that Jackson was not chemically castrated. Enough to listen to his voice around age 14-15. Do we need a media report to know that the Earth is not flat? For what it's worth here's a Vice article about Murray's bonker conspiracy theory ^[1] There is no consensus if Vice is RS, but there is that Taraborelli is not and I still see him among the sources castorbailey (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 review

A lot of work has happened since I reviewed in March, so I'll start over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You can install User:Headbomb/unreliable to see the sources of concern. Many are Forbes, so just need a check for WP:FORBESCON, but there are others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The scripts to check date consistency, dashes and duplicate links all look good. There are still quite a few duplicate links, but they can probably be justified in an article of this length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No MOS:SANDWICH has crept in since I last looked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation cleanup: don't link to google book in titles, add them to the specific page field, this has bare URL and is malformed: Lecocq, Richard; Allard, François (2018). https://books.google.com/books?id=4qJfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT384 |chapter-url= missing title (help). Michael Jackson All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. London, England: Cassell. ISBN 9781788400572. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There should always be an WP:NBSP to keep the "5" with the Jackson, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=1058452579&oldid=1058451875 was the proper name "The Jackson 5"? That is, should the "The" be uppercase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see some discussion above about what/where/how to trim the article. The readable prose has not changed (still as 12,800 words), so can the article be trimmed to make better use of WP:SS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The WP:Proseline that I mentioned above is still present; vary the prose so entire sections don't have every para starting with a date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Have been" or "were"?? Check for tense throughout, as most is now probably history or resolved ?? "The reasons for Jackson's departure and whether his compositions remain in the released game have been the subject of debate. Sega Technical Institute director Roger Hector and Sonic the Hedgehog co-creator Naoto Ohshima said that Jackson's involvement was terminated and his music reworked following the allegations."
• Needs date context; make sure an as of date is recorded in the body of the article, and perhaps should be added to the lead: "He is the most awarded music artist in history." (Check throughout for similar--any statement that needs to have date context or could become dated. As of x date, so-and-so fact is true ...) As a counterexample, this statement won't become dated, because it provides time context: "He had 13 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles (more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era)". But as another example from the lead, missing time context, is this still true ? " the Dance Hall of Fame (the only recording artist to be inducted) " ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I have too many WP:URFA/2020 reviews underway to keep them all watchlisted, so please ping me (and be patient) when a revisit is needed. Right now, the article size makes it hard to edit. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]