This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theMichael Jackson article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
1. Should the article mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim? (No.)
No. The article should not mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim. Jackson had not publicly spoken about his exact religion in a number of years and only spoke about spirituality in general terms. The specific reports of a conversion ceremony for Jackson have been denied by his New York lawyer Londell McMillan.[1] They were also denied byYusuf Islam/Cat Stevens[2] andDawud Wharnsby[3] who were allegedly present at the ceremony. The Michael Jackson memorial service did not involve any Islamic rites. Without further details from his family or representatives, it will not be included in the article.
2. Should the "Jacko" name be mentioned in the lead? (No.)
No. The "Jacko" name should not be mentioned in the lead. Past consensus goes against such inclusion. The name is a derogatory term used primarily by US/UK/Australian tabloids. The slogan is discussed in the relevant section of the article.
3. Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer/blindness/liver disease/AIDS, etc.? (No.)
No. The article should not mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer, blindness, liver disease, AIDS, etc. Until such claims are confirmed by a Jackson representative it will not go in the article at all. These claims are largely fabricated by tabloids.
4. Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had a secret child called Omer Bhatti? (No.)
No. This claim was denied by Bhatti[4] and only a DNA test would resolve the matter.
5. Isn't Jackson theseventh child of the Jackson family, not the eighth? (No.)
No. Marlon had a twin, Brandon, who died shortly after birth. This makes Michael the eighth child.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
While thebiographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced orpoorly sourced contentious material about living personsmust be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please seethis noticeboard.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMichael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbusiness articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related topop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject 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 jointhe 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
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's documentation ofRecord Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome atthe project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project:add your name to thelist of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofRock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDance andDance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrican diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJanet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that arespoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Michael Jackson's religion was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on16 November 2009 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoMichael Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere.
RfC: Should we include the demand made to MTV in 1991?
The following discussion is an archived record of arequest for comment.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"?Binksternet (talk)04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During this time, Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself, to diminish unflattering nicknames,[1] so he instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose.[2] For the networks to play themusic video for "Black or White", Jackson's publicist Bob Jones demanded that the nickname be used twice a week byvideo jockeys (VJs) onMTV andBET.[3][4] MTV executive Matt Farber sent a memo to his staff in November 1991, saying "We need to refer to Michael Jackson as 'the King of Pop' on-air", naming the quota of two mentions per week, and advising the VJs to document these mentions in case Jackson's management wanted proof.Rolling Stone published the memo two weeks later, possibly obtaining their copy from VJKurt Loder.[4] The memo was reported by theLos Angeles Times,[5] andEntertainment Weekly added that Jackson also requested ofFox Broadcasting Company that fictional characterBart Simpson refer to Jackson as the King of Pop during his cameo appearance at the end of the video for "Black or White". Bart's animators did not comply, but the honorific appeared in promotional material issued by Fox.[6] After this marketing tactic was revealed, the media sometimes represented Jackson as the "self-proclaimed King of Pop".[7][8][9][10] Jackson toldUSA Today in 2001 that the King of Pop honorific was initially bestowed by Elizabeth Taylor, then freely adopted by the media. He ended by saying, "This self-proclaimed garbage, I don't know who said that."[11]
^abTannenbaum & Marks 2011, pp. 478–482, Chapter 41, "'I Want to Have a Nickname' – How MTV helped Michael Jackson elect himself 'the King of Pop'". sfn error: no target: CITEREFTannenbaumMarks2011 (help)
Yes, because major new agencies reported it at the time, including theLos Angeles Times,Entertainment Weekly, and it continues to be discusssed in scholarly books.Binksternet (talk)04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first source cited is full of long disproven claims: Jackson invented the "moonwalk" in 1983 (he didn't invent the moonwalk at all), "He bought a hyperbaric chamber" (he never bought such a chamber), and " The "King of Pop" title was conceived by two spokesmen in the early 1990s", that title was already used by papers in 1984 and Liz Taylor called him that on live TV in 1989 , it wasn't conceived by "two spokesmen" (who would they be anyway?) and not in the early 90s.TheWikiholic (talk)13:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed paragraph doesn't say what you think it says. Your reasoning is not sufficient. The article still says "Around this time, [1988] Jackson became known as the "King of Pop", a nickname that Jackson's publicists embraced." The proposed paragraph just adds information about how he pushed harder in 1991 to get the nickname used more on TV. The UKGuardian said in 2009 at MJ's death that the tactic was"an unusually crude way" to get a nickname to stick. Which shows that the issue was big, international. There's no good reason to hide it from our readers.Binksternet (talk)23:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian piece contradicts your paragraph offering a very different reason why Jackson ended up being called the King of Pop. There Mike Scott alleged that he never heard Jackson being called King of Pop before 1993 where, allegedly, Jackson's PR team warned journalists and magazines to use the nickname, otherwise they wouldn't get access to him. He called that crude, although offered no proof, didn't name any journalist or any magazine which called Jackson the King of Pop as a result of such warnings. There is no mention in the Guardian article there about Jackson somehow forcing networks in the US in 1991 to repeat this name on air, not mention of Black or White. An opinion piece in one paper in one country, written by a man who got angry that Jackson was named the King of Pop, also hardly make this a "big international issue".castorbailey (talk)11:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
adam corrola disagrees with your claims .
During the promotion for his 1991 album Dangerous, his publicists worked with networks like MTV, VH1, and FOX to ensure the "King of Pop" title was used when referring to him, effectively turning the nickname into a formal part of his brand.
The "Self-Proclaimed" Discussion: The user's reference to "self-proclaimed" ties into a long-running discussion, sometimes mentioned by media personalities like Adam Carolla (who worked at MTV in the late 90s on Loveline and The Man Show), that Michael Jackson's team actively pushed for the title's use rather than it being an entirely organic nickname.~2026-15388-5 (talk)12:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. The wording and tone of this addition misleadingly suggest that Jackson coined the "King of Pop" title himself. In reality, he had been referred to by that title in magazines and newspapers since the mid-1980s, and it gained widespread recognition after Elizabeth Taylor publicly used it at the 1989 Soul Train Awards. Reliable sources supporting this were already presented during aprior discussion two years ago. Additionally, the proposed addition would further bloat an article that is already under Featured Article Review, where concerns have been raised about its excessive length (WP:TOOLONG) and the need for copy editing.TheWikiholic (talk)00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, it seems notable that the subject of the article actively pushed and used his leverage to increase the use of the nickname, and it clearly created some waves at the time. I don't think that the wording suggests that he coined it or anything like that. If one wants to integrate it with the current text in such a way that it is clear that the nickname was already in use since the mid-80s and gained widespread recognition after Elizabeth Taylor used it in '89, and they already have good sources lined up for it, they are very much welcome to do so imo.*No, but... OP has not produced a source that supports Jackson's personal involvement in pushing for the nickname's use, and that is a crucial part of the claim being made here. However, if they can produce a new (and ideally shorter) version of this suggestion which shows with careful language and good sourcing that his team used some strong-arm tactics to push for its use, I will support a new RfC being called, and will vote yes. Thanks and good tidings,غوّاص العلم (talk)14:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Updated 08:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already addresses this with appropriate due weight: “Around this time [1988], Jackson became known as the 'King of Pop', a nickname that Jackson’s publicists embraced.” Adding a separate paragraph of 1,200–1,300 bytes on the same topic risks giving itundue weight, especially as the article is currently undergoing copy-editing to reduce bloating and maintain its Featured Article status. Including excessive detail on a single aspect violatesWP:DUE andWP:UNDUE.TheWikiholic (talk)15:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. However, given that the "King of Pop" nickname is considered notable enough to open the second sentence of the lead (withbolded letters, no less, and it also opens the "legacy" section), having the only part about pushing for the adoption of the nickname from his side be "a nickname that Jackson’s publicists embraced" seems lacking, considering that there was a whole controversy off the reveal that he himself instructed his management to create a campaign, etc. as mentioned in the suggested addition.
It creates a vacuum both on his direct involvement (only mentioning his producers), and on the kind of leverage that was used, not to mention the waves that the reveal on the matter made at the time.
If someone wants to suggest a shorter version of this paragraph which still gets across the important facts of Jackson's direct involvement, the kind of leverage that was used and the waves that the leaks made in the press, I would very much support it. But as it is, my feelings are that despite the bloat, the article would be better having the full paragraph than none of it.غوّاص العلم (talk)15:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Direct proof is not required for us to tell the reader that MJ was seen by the media as pushing too hard to get people to use the nickname. The cited sources are more than sufficient. Additional sources exist but are not needed, for instance, the MTV oral history bookI Want My MTV has a chapter about this issue: Chapter 41, "I Want to Have a Nickname".Binksternet (talk)16:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MTV is the main source behind this claim, but their credibility is questionable. Multiple sources describe MTV as having acomplex relationship with Jackson. They once denied refusing to air his (and other Black artists’) videos, despite historical evidence. In 2002, they invited him to the VMAs, on his birthday, where Britney Spears introduced him as the "Artist of the Millennium" and presented a trophy. Jackson, believing it to be a real award, gave a speech. MTV later claimed it was not an actual award and even allowed the incident to be parodied the following year. Given this track record, relying on MTV to frame Jackson’s bestowed title, trademarked by the Jackson estate, does not reflectWP:NPOV.TruthGuardians (talk)01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would need to see the claim made in this "Vogel, 2012" (terrible citation btw. I assume it refers tothis).
Please improve the citation. I understand that the full citation is found under "Print sources", in the full article, but there is no reason to make this citation so laconic, especially considering that in this talk page it is disconnected from that full reference. Additionally, the archive link in the full article is dead.
Please add to the citation a quotation text from the source which corroborates the claim made (if that's possible in terms of copyright, I suppose), or at the very least share it here in the discussion. Otherwise, I don't see how we can proceed. Unless you can come up with other sources for the claim "he instructed his management to create a marketing campaign for that purpose".
Looking at the Reuters source that is supposed to support the claim "Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself, to diminish unflattering nicknames", it does not support it at all. It says that "The "King of Pop" title wasconceived by two spokesmen in the early 1990s to deflect attention from such less-savory nicknames, according to a former tour publicist".
Thanks for the suggestions. I guess the MTV book will have to be cited, because that's where a bunch of this stuff is from. That's where I first learned of the issue, and from there I searched for news items and analysis. But the MTV book is composed of personal recollections from interviewees, with little attempt made by the editors to corroborate or place in context. The citations to it must followWP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, for instance saying "MTV producerJudy McGrath, later CEO, said that Jackson insisted upon being awarded a life-size Moonman trophy at theMTV Video Music Awards." Or, "Epic Records executive Larry Stessel said that Jackson hired his own personal publicist named Bob Jones who pushed for Jackson's nickname to be used more widely." Or, "MTV VJSteve Isaacs said, 'the VJs got a memo that instructed us to refer to Michael Jackson as the King of Pop. There was a quota—we had to do it at least twice a week for two weeks.' Isaacs suggested that fellow VJ Kurt Loder leaked the memo toRolling Stone, as Loder had previously written for the magazine." Or, "MTV VJAdam Curry said that MTV had completed a series called 'Michael Jackson Weekend' but were informed one day before it aired that they would have to reshoot it because it did not refer to Jackson as the King of Pop." Or, "MTV VJKevin Seal said he was "genuinely appalled" that the VJs were required to refer to Jackson as the King of Pop. Seal said, 'It didn't seem effective. If you tell everybody they have to love this guy, why would they love him?'"Binksternet (talk)17:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this alleged push is that it’s ONLY MTV stating this. And there is no proof that this was a push in the early nineties that was media wide. The problem with your proposed edit is that it makes it seem as though that it was a media wide push. Also, why does MTV get so much weight here on this topic? Did Jackson’s team pushed other media publications at the time like the LA times, the New York Times, and others to refer to him as the king of Pop as they were doing prior to this during this and afterwards and even do this day?TruthGuardians (talk)17:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not only MTV. You are ignoring the many other sources reporting the issue: Reuters,Rolling Stone,Los Angeles Times,Entertainment Weekly, and the scholarPhillip Brian Harper who analyzed it in 1996. Your opposition to the suggested paragraph is not based on reality.Binksternet (talk)19:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand that other outlets reported what MTV alleged, but they are not reporting that Jackson’s team reached out to them with the same request. That’s what I am saying.TruthGuardians (talk)23:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harper doesn't analyze it just calls Jackson the self-proclaimed, offers no evidence of self proclamation. Reuters's source is the Rolling Stone, also falsely reports that two spokesmen conceived the title in the early 90s. LAT says "alleged" not fact, the link to the EW article is dead. You need much better sourcing than this. Considering MTV's problematic behavior toward Jackson over the years an MTV book which didn't even publish a photocopy of this alleged memo is questionable at the very least.castorbailey (talk)09:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these quotes, which you yourself acknowledge are themselves not of a very high level of veritability, corroborate the crucial claim that "Jackson determined to attach the "King of Pop" nickname more strongly to himself". The closest is "Epic Records executive Larry Stessel said that Jackson hired his own personal publicist named Bob Jones who pushed for Jackson's nickname to be used more widely.", but it still doesn't directly state that Jackson himself ordered for this push to happen.
For now, I am changing my original vote. I will support an addition about the active push by his team, etc, if it is more carefully and accurately phrased and better sourced. I suggest you close this RfC, do some reworking of it, and then try for a new one. If you will get crap for trying a new RfC, I will stand by your side.غوّاص العلم (talk)08:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The suggested edit is misleading. Reporting referring to Michael Jackson as the king of pop goes back all the way to the early 80’s. This is even before Elizabeth Taylor introduced Michael as the king of Pop, rock, and soul. There is no mention in the current edit as is to this fact.MraClean (talk)17:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This same paragraph waswidely rejected about two years ago, the same problems still standWP:UNDUEWP:SUSTAINEDWP:FACTCHECK. Numerous problems with the sources: Reuters doesn't support what the first sentence says, there is no 2012 edition of Vogel's book and the 2011 edition mentions no instruction from Jackson and puts the alledged ploy years before the Black or White video[1], the Farber quote from the supposed memo mentions no demand from Jackson and "Rolling Stone published the memo two weeks later, possibly obtaining their copy from VJ Kurt Loder" is not in the cited book. Rolling Stone never published the memo, no source published proof this memo existed in the first place, the LA Times article labels it as an *alleged* memo, the ABC News article says nothing about this subject at all, the EW link goes nowhere. The media freely called Jackson the King of Pop years before 1991. All these make this nothing but a questionable rumor unworthy of 250 words in an already long article.castorbailey (talk)19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I think it's could be seen as a misleading narrative michael manufactured the king of pop title. When it isn't true as media call him the king of pop since the early 80s such as a newspaper article called him the king of pop when discussing the courtroom situation when there was a plagiarism lawsuit about the girl is mine song which was a bogus lawsuit .We need consider other sources in mind especially about the alleged mtv memo. Even if he did or his team for sake of it ,given his history with mtv he would likely doi it as a statement for mtv as a sign of respect and showcasing for other black artists to have respective nicknames /titles the same way white artists had titles like Bruce Springsteen (the boss) and elvis presley (the king ) I'm aware you put his denial n them but don't think it paints a clear picture to others with one statement of denialMr Boar1(talk •contribs)00:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The sourcing is very weak. MTV doesn’t constitute the entire media industry either. The suggested edit is also misleading and confusing.Israell (talk)01:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but together with the paragraph that talk about it, something like: "Around this time (1988), Jackson became known as the "King of Pop", a nickname that his publicists embraced. In the early 1990s, he strategically pushed its use, instructing his team to require outlets such as MTV and BET to mention it regularly. When this marketing effort became public, some media outlets labeled him "self-proclaimed", a claim Jackson later rejected, stating that the title was first given to him by Elizabeth Taylor and subsequently adopted by the press.--Markus WikiEditor (talk)18:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
In the opening line of the article, I think “stages” is an odd phrase to describe his impact on visual performance. I believe replacing that with both concerts and short films would be better suited and more specific.PopCultureFan125 (talk)06:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was lots of disruptive editing from people with auto-confirmed accounts, showing that lower level of protection was insufficient here.SNUGGUMS (talk /edits)13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on this is one of the most viewed pages on WP + the most translated biography on Wikipedia, so it’s no surprise. This article still gets disruptive edits even with its extended confirmed protection.750h+13:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason can by found by clicking on "Edit" on the article page. It says "22:26, 3 March 2023 Favonian talk changed protection settings for Michael Jackson [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (Restore indef EC after expiration of temporary full protection -- requested atWP:RFPP). This is becauseWP:AUTOCONFIRMED isn't always enough to prevent vandalism on high profile articles like this one.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) Under "Life and career", then "Early life and the Jackson 5 (1958-1975)" the link on "Encino, California" in the fifth paragraph and third sentence leads to an article on "Encino, Los Angeles".
2) Under "Life and career", then "Final years, financial problems, Thriller 25 and This Is It (2005–2009)" the link on "AEG Live" in the sixth paragraph and fifth sentence leads to the article "Anschutz Entertainment Group", despite the first usage of the intialism.
3) Under "Death" the link on "CPR" in the first paragraph and fourth sentence leads to the article "Cardiopulmonary resuscitation", despite the first usage of the initialism.
4) Under "Death", then "Posthumous releases and productions" the links on "Michael Jackson's This Is It" in the first paragraph and fourth sentence and "Michael Jackson's This Is It" in the fifth paragraph and ninth sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.
5) Under "Death", then "Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations" the link on "SLAPP" in the fifth paragraph and third sentence leads to the article "Strategic lawsuit against public participation", despite the first usage of the initialism.
6) Under "Artistry", then "Vocal style" the links on "falsetto" in the first paragraph and fifth sentence and "falsetto" in the second paragraph and fifth sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.~2026-87373-2 (talk)20:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.jpg)
