Talk:Michael Jackson

Featured Article issues

So, this article's been featured since 2008, before Jackson's death. There was some review archived here for WP:URFA/2020 in 2021, and some discussions since, but I don't think all the issues raised have been addressed and the article hasn't been put through FAR either. There are, it seems, evident issues with lead length and stability (ie discussion on how the allegations should be covered). Bringing an article back to FA quality is hard and I doubt I'll be able to contribute much, but if this article can't be brought to FA standards sometime soon it really should be nominated for FAR. Erinius (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

A lack of stability isn't surprising given the recent allegations made and a biopic coming out lately. As for the lead, I'll try to trim that down before digging into other issues. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Erinius (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, it's 458 words, but that's fine because most, if not all, feature articles are over 400, so I don't see a problem. Lililolol (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:LEADLENGTH says most FAs have leads between 250 and 400 words although there is no hard limit Erinius (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

And right now it seems like it's at an appropriate length? Ie it doesn't seem obviously too long or too short . Erinius (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

As I see, edits have been made (diff). Nonetheless, this article would be too large for an average FA reviewer to mark this as "satisfactory". Furthermore, the article's compliance with WP:FACR#1e (stable) has been questioned or endangered lately. So is its compliance with WP:FACR#2a (a lead). Will list this at WP:FARGIVEN soon. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC); edited, 20:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Stability is a much bigger concern than sheer sizes of articles, and you appear to be blindly assuming large articles are a bad thing to have. Sometimes being long actually is necessary to encompass all crucial details for a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak for George Ho, but to say an article is too long doesn't necessarily mean you think long articles are always bad, only that they shouldn't be longer than is necessary. MJ is a big topic so this article is always going to be pretty long, but there might still be things that ought to be trimmed. Perhaps an FA reviewer would come to that opinion here. I don't know. Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case, it would help to name certain things that can be cut down instead of just trying to stick to a particular article size or anything. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say that I, as an "average FA reviewer", may not have enough time to thoroughly and comprehensively review the whole article... without a Featured Article Review discussion. I don't mind large articles, and I apologize for saying "too large". Indeed, I don't want certain parts to be split into bad content forks already. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd still like to take this article to FAR, but I see more edits made. Shall I go ahead and then initiate, nonetheless? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Too hasty; I don't see any glaring issues that would merit FAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean listing the article under WP:FARGIVEN was a mistake or something? Also, per your reply, have you considered marking the article as "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A yet? George Ho (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't tell whether it was appropriate for frequent contributors such as myself to make removals from the WP:FARGIVEN list, and either way meant that the article looks improved enough to not need FAR at the moment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh... Honestly either forgot, overlooked, or didn't realize you frequently contributed to the article (though I briefly checked the history logs just now). I'm uncertain why FARs have been frowned upon (other than being either resulted in FARCs, waste of space supposedly, or unnecessary compared to three-"Satisfactory" alternative). Indeed, FARs are formal reassurances of a Featured Article's active status (and not always resulted in FARCs). George Ho (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this article has too many issues. They could probably be fixed with one copyedit. UltraCobson (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

What about consistency of citation/reference styling, required by WP:FACR#2c? As I see, one type of reference is used, while another type is used.

Well, I see edits slowing down now, and no apparent edit warring very recently, so stability is possible at this time. Also, the article may have been comprehensive all the time (albeit too comprehensive?), but unsure about length. Length is too subjective for me to judge yet. Can't say that the article is too long or too short at this time either, especially when important content policies apply, like WP:NPOV. George Ho (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC); edited, 23:46, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "one type of reference is used, while another type is used"? NRP (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops. Should've said "One type of citation style is used, while another type is used". So far, I see full info about one reference and shortcuts of references mixed together. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean {{sfn}}s? Because those are used for book/print sources to cite a specific page. They're commonly used for just about every article using print sources. NRP (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Well.... both sfn's and detailed citation info can be used all right. Unsure whether such uses are consistent per FACR #2c. Compare that with the intellectual diversity article. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

SFNs are hard to use for citations that don't come from books or print magazines/journals. I can't imagine how one would implement them for web-only sources. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly ... plus practically every featured article uses a mix of SFNs and citations. I think these concerns are a bit misplaced NRP (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Propofol / benzodiazepine

For overdose, the death section currently mentions first both propofol and benzodiazepine, but then just propofol. This cited ref mentions only propofol, stating "acute propofol intoxication", and other refs there seemingly don't mention benzodiazepine. So was it just propofol or benzodiazepine was also overdosed? Brandmeister ^talk 21:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we update his main image?

• 

Now that some publicity photos from the 80s and 90s has been filed into Wikipedia, I feel this photo (Michael Jackson 1984 publicity photo.jpg) is clearer and his face can be seen without any blur compared to File:Michael Jackson 1983 (3x4 cropped) (contrast).jpg. What do we think? Raolae (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there evidence its copyright was not renewed? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on clothing, it's a Thriller publicity photo and from this link searching the topic: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/search?page_number=1&query=%22Thriller%20michael%20jackson%22&field_type=%22keyword%22&records_per_page=50&sort_field=%22relevancy%22&sort_order=%22asc%22&model=%22%22 verdict is that particularly the music sound recordings and dance itself are copyrighted/renewed but this specific photo is not. Previous version of said image also has zero copyright or name under the photo. Reverse image search has no copyright for the photo on Google (from what I see). The author categorized the license under PD-US-1978-89 which seems correct. Raolae (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Are we sure this file is not part of this catalogue? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 02:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s his publicity still (main headshot) from his Thriller press kit so I’m almost sure it’s not copyrighted. But let me look into it or email to see if I’m wrong. Raolae (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I sent an email to Douglas Kirkland team, he replied. The replier says to email his estate to see. Does anyone have that email? Raolae (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You might ask the person who replied, assuming they can provide it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm against posting that photo. He liked being seen as a white man. ~2026-48511-80 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

His preference is not something I thought of when giving this suggestion. The photo is ambiguous to skin color just like the current chosen photo. I'm just basing it on the quality of the photo. Majority of previous Wiki photos are not official headshots or are blurry. This one is high quality and it's a press photo which follows the standards of copyright.

No response from estate team as of 9/10. I did receive a response from Douglas Kirkland team that they do not have estate email info. Can we go ahead with the photo change and citing PD-US-1978-89 license similar to current photo. Raolae (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Honestly, I think the current image looks much better. UltraCobson (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. - RTSthestardust (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Other Names for Michael

While most people call Michael the King of Pop, few have called him the Dance King and the King of Music.

It isn't that big of a change, but it would be nice to have more details in the article.

There is a reason to oppose this, and I get it. Some details are unnecessary in an article.

But I would like to add this detail if it is reasonable. Broskiu (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't say I've heard anybody refer to him as "Dance King" or "King of Music" before. Even if you did provide citations for such dubs, I don't see how they would be worth adding when nowhere near as frequently used as "King of Pop". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I won't add the detail. Broskiu (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2026

This sentence doesnt make sense: "Through his father, Michael had Native American (Choctaw) ancestry; his great-grandfather, Israel Nero Jackson, utilized and sold traditional Indigenous herbal medicine, a practice passed down from his father,[19] July "Jack" Gale, an US Army scout who had married a Black slave named Gina before the Civil War.[20]". The last part about July Jack Gale is missing context or some introduction of how it relates to michael jackson? I reread it 10 times i cant make sense of it. ~2026-51574-84 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

My reading of it is that Gale was presumably Choctaw, married Gina, and they had a son Israel who was Michael's great-grandfather.

I don't see an "X->Y" edit request here so I will close it, but any other comments on the sentence are welcome. I don't have access to the book source. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Price of Knowledge

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 24 August 2026 and 4 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aryaa1.15 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aryaa1.15 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we change his main image

cause it looks like it was from 1988 like a long time ago and because it is black and white if Michael jackson was alive right now and he went 9n Wikipedia he would not like his pic like that Kuromi 6767 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion immediately above asking for the same thing. Please comment on the respective section instead. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)