This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why is Janet always compared to her BIG BROTHER, both negatively and positively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.11.8 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, though I have worked on and off in Final Fantasy Wiki. I am not used to locked pages, but considering the family and things associated with the name Jackson, I can understand.
I was wanting to make the addition to Janet's page about her completion of the film Why Did I Get Married Too, as well as her own confirmation of making a new album set to be released in 2010. I was thinking not only would it make fans happy to see a new album/film coming out, but it would help bring some positive news within Janet's page, instead of ending with the passing of the King of Pop. My sources for the album and completion of the film are her Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pages, as well as her official website. Thanks for being patient with he new person.
(Bahamutskingdom (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
bookkeeper: Self published info from jj's (& another other person's) website, my\face ARE indeed reliable. They come from jj herself after all. An example is Miley Cyrus page being loaded with info that is cited w her twitter and personal website. 70.108.96.18 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I want to know why wikipedia refuses to change Janet's article picture. There are TONS of Janet fans with free images that have been taken of Miss Jackson and uploaded, only to have them taken off not even a minute later. The current picture of Miss Jackson is outdated, 3 years to be exact, and it is an unflattering pose. I would like to know the reason why there seems to be a problem changing Janet's picture, yet other artists on wikipedia get their article pictures changed on a regular basis, and not with free images, either. What is the reason for this?24.11.32.51 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
bookkeeper: What do you mean by 'classic look'? Is JJ's classic look her looking @ her *ss? May the picture of her on her janet. album be used in the infobox? 70.108.96.18 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, i'm newly registered so i'm not yet allowed to edit the article 'Janet Jackson'.
In three places in this article there is 'triple swing' mentioned when it should be triplet swing or 'triplet feel'. Can somebody change this?
MBM writer (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed "compilation album" in the two headings to Design of a Decade 1986/1996 and Number Ones. This keeps things consistent with other headings that specifically name album titles. - StarIV (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2008–present: Discipline, death of Michael Jackson and Number Ones Jackson performs during the Rock Witchu Tour 2008. In July 2007, Jackson changed labels and signed a record contract with Island Records. Jackson's tenth studio album, Discipline, was released in February 2008, debuting on the Billboard 200 at number one.[7] Paul Grein of Yahoo! Music observed that with six number one studio albums, Jackson had "surpasse[d] her brother Michael Jackson, who has amassed five [number one] albums."[137] Jackson commented, "I wanted to name the album Discipline because it has a lot of different meanings for me but the most important would be work—to have done this for as long as I have ... And to have had the success that I've had—not excluding God by any means—but it takes a great deal of focus."[138] Margeaux Watson of Entertainment Weekly referred to the lyrical content as "cheesy", while Dan Cairns of The Sunday Times called the album "bizarre".[139][140] However, Allmusic's Andy Kellman described the album as "innocent, universal inviting as anything else in Janet's past."[141] Prior to the album's debut, the first single from the album, "Feedback", was leaked to select radio stations in the United States in December 2007. The single peaked at number nineteen on the Hot 100.[15]
This sections make mention of Feedback peaking @ #19. It doesnt make mention of the rest of the songs not peaking highly. To me it seems like the unsuccess of 'Discpline' is not being mentioned. I think to be a fair article it does need to be mentioned. In the above sections there is gloat after gloat of the success of Control/RN/janet/Velvet Rope/All 4 U, so let us please be fair 70.108.122.113 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Done The rest of the section also discusses her leaving her record label. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why there wasn't a problem with adding the info about Janet Jackson's "Discipline" album being unsuccessful, yet there seems to be a problem with adding information about future projects (which is done all the time on wikipedia), and changing her pic (plenty of free images of Ms. Jackson have been uploaded to her page that "represent her natural look" much better than the current 3-year old pic, only to be constantly replaced with this one). It seems to some that her page is purposely being represented poorly. Any insight into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.32.51 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
bookkeeper:To me it seems like you are the end all say all (esp with this comment I've seen all the free images uploaded of her and they're mostly from the Rock Witchu Tour sporting the mohawk look.). I have a huge problem w the article pic being her looking @ her *ss. I think the pics of her from rockwitu tour would be better. We need a vote, it shouldnt be you decison. Whethers others make changes you revert. Now this article is featured with this less than stellar pic. 70.108.85.109 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
ITS NOT EVEN A FACE PICTURE, YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT ASAP SOMETHING MORE RECENT THAT DOES IN FACT REFLECT HER "NATURAL LOOK" JANET JUST LOST 60 POUNDS AND WAS NOT LOOKING LIKE "NATURAL JANET" AT THAT TIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretay (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have several pretty decent pictures taken when I was at the Up Close and Personal Tour. Since they are my own, can I place one of them on here to get rid of the now 3+ year old picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahamutskingdom —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC).
I have now uploaded what I think is the best quality picture from my pile of them, and cannot for the life of me figure out how to change the main picture on the page. it is a rather good one I think. Can we please let me know how to change the picture, or Bookkeeper look at it yourself, and see if it can be used? If not for the main picture, then how about for the section covering the Up Close and Personal Tour.Bahamutskingdom (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I completely give up. Looked in on my picture, and it says not my own work. basically I am being called a liar. Very pissed off at being called a liar (One of my buttons). So it would seem no matter how hard people try to get something on here, it will be deleted no matter what. I call discrimination on behalf of Janet Jackson. Plain and Simple. Bahamutskingdom (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that a few appearances in a TV show count as "starring" and think that there should be some differences noted here between them.
Gary Coleman starred in Diff'rent Strokes. Janet Jackson, she did not.
Sukiari (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal items such as her marriages ought to be in a separate section. Were there children?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs)
what about the men in her life(james debarge,jermaine dupri,etc.)? Smokiewight (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I've read through the discussion page and agree with other wiki users that the current photo of Janet needs to be changed. Not only is it out dated, but it isn't the best representation of her classic look at all. I do sympathise in what you've said to the other users and agree completely that the other possible photos are not suitable or flattering. All I ask is if you could put a few feelers out on fan sites to see if anyone has any free images to give, seeing as you've made it clear that you're responsible for the article and seem to be quite proud of it. If you've already done this then thank you, if not then I'm sure a lot of people including myself would be very thankful. Kind Regards. Janetfan 00:38, 25th January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.179.254 (talk)
Seriously, people, did she "star" in every show she appeared in?
I would argue, no, probably not by any reasonable metric. This smells like PR.
Sukiari (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this paragraph should be re-tooled. It sounds like it belongs more on a fan site than Wikipedia. While I agree she got thunderous applause, we can't say that it was the most well received performance ever. I remembered when Prince performed everyone went crazy. Anyway that paragraph contains too much of an opinion and not a lot of fact. It should be reworded or removed.
Here is the paragraph that I object to:
"On May 26, 2010 she performed on the season finale of american idol, she recieved a standing ovation from all four judges, and as she walked off stage much of the crowd cheered her name for an encore. She recieved a greater cheer of enthusiasm from the audience than any other performer in idol history. she was even recieved better from the audience than the new winner of idol that night."
Thank you.
Thediva (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There were ten: From Rebbie Jackson article: Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, La Toya, Brandon (d. 1957), Marlon, Michael (d. 2009), Randy and Janet. Gerardw (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Recently Janet has been in the news for her apparent support of the fur trade and subsequent outrage by PETA and others who stand in opposition to what they perceive as the cruel business of fur. This is highly historically significant and should be mentioned in the article.Mrrealtime (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just been searching wiki and noticed that Madonna's page has an image which isn't free, with the photographer being credited as source and author, and links to his website. My enquiry is to ask if it would be possible to use a similar image of Janet as long as credit/copyright was given to the photographer? 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetfan2010 (talk • contribs)
I have several really nice pictures I took from her "Up Close And Personal Tour". Would love to donate them to wikipedia to get rid of the more horrid one that is there. There is no obstruction of her in several shots. Face is good, and all that. The best is a side shot in mid dance, but it is certainly better than what is there now. But I do not know how to upload, nor can I find the place to do so. Let me know what can be done.Bahamutskingdom (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that the photo of Jackon on the set of The Jacksons was deleted because it has "no fair use rationale for use" in the article. I just wanted to see if it is possible to have it available for use in this article. Ga Be 19 04:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It must be said, under the reviews of the "Control" album, there are attacks against Patti LaBelle, Whitney Houston, and Diana Ross. Of all the reviews that are out there at the time "Control" was released, it is really unacceptable to attack other artists to try and make Jackson appear better than them. It is cowardly and unneccessary to do so. LaBelle's, Houston's, and Ross' articles do not attack Jackson so why should her article attack them? And you can bet there is ample opportunity. There are plenty of reviews were Jackson's whimsical, weak, and thin vocals were attacked when new albums by vocal powerhouses like Houston and LaBelle were being released; and also Ross, who has a much better voice than Janet Jackson. So it would seem better to replace those reviews with ones that actually talk about "Control" itself, not putting other people down to make this album appear better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone clarify when this photo was taken? The Commons tag at Janet Jackson 4.jpg contradicts itself on whether it was 2008 or 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Has Janet ever been married? This would be great information to add to the article. Estheroliver (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
218.186.17.10 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
sh
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please state exactly what you want changed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Music Videos and choreography section, change "Jackson's music videos have also found report within the gay community," to "Jackson's music videos have also found rapport within the gay community. (At least I think this is the meaning the author intended.)
Jean7422 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it be possible to change the picture of this page to a more recent one? That picture is more than 3 years old now and she looks so different these days. The picture I suggest is this one:
Bubear89 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Bubear89 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: All pictures on Wikipedia have to comply with our image use policy. If you like to have the picture changed, use the Upload file link in the Toolbox to the left to upload it then reopen the request and someone will insert it into the article for you. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope I'm doing this right. I'm new to this. I have uploaded the picture using the Toolbox as you suggested. I'm not sure what to do after that.
86.30.221.57 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's called "Janet Jackson performs Rhythm Nation in London".
Bubear89 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it be possible to remove the 20 YO contest picture? It's not really historically relevant to the page and is just taking up space, unnecessarily.
Bubear89 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I added in Janet's description that she is a 'singer-dancer' and model. Until Beyonce came along (who was highly influenced by Janet), Janet was clearly the world's best female singer-dancer. She is also an incredible model whose photographs have that 'goddess quality' unseen since Marilyn Monroe. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Janet - although a Jehovah (Yehowah) Witness like the rest of the Jackson family - believes in reincarnation. I've read this in two different interviews. Unfortunately, I didn't write down those sources. Anybody know? This personal afterlife belief should be added to the article, but not without the sources. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this new revelation be added to the article somehow? http://static02.mediaite.com/gossipcop/uploads/2012/07/AyugdPtCUAAlS5V.jpg-large.jpeg --The lorax (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I would caution you to only post content that is substantiated. Rumors and online fiction will be a problem since the community will remove that and/or gossip. Borntodeal (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL Who the heck put that up?! Change it back NOW hahahah it's horrid! --91.152.235.120 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have a photo that you own personally, then you should upload it and post it in a relevant way. Borntodeal (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is loaded with puffery. I am a Jackson's fan... but this is a bit much. The opening paragraph and all throughout the article border on encyclopedic. Please see WP:AMNESIA and then read the article. Cheers! Stella BATPHONEGROOVES 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a real and practical way to address this powerfully. Help edit! If you feel you have a better way of explaining something, then help the community. If you take something away, that's vandalism, but if you guide, edit and help other writings, that's a contribution! Borntodeal (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with above user, some parts of the article seem too much. The last paragraph of Legacy section is totally bloated, do we really need to include what all those singers think about Janet Jackson? Can you imagine how The Beatles page would be, if its editors wrote comments from all artists who take influence from them? Bluesatellite (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I take great care in the development of my writing including contributions to Wikipedia. I love the subjects for which I contribute.
I am reviewing many of the contributions I made to Janet's page and they have been undone in such a way that I feel needs third party input. I am attempting to remain objective, but there was a lot of time, research and care put into the work that I did and I'd like it honored by the community.
Seems one person made a lionshare of the changes. Can we open this up to some other contributors and ask if you agree or disagree with the content I created and if you agree, I'd like to restore most of all of it with fair collaboration here. Borntodeal (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a few changes to my content that aren't IMO correctly revised. One is at the beginning. This line is not correct 'Janet Damita Jo Jackson (born May 16, 1966) is an American recording artist and actress' and does not properly reflect her body of work and accomplishments. My revision more accurately described her and is accurately reflected elsewhere in the page too.Borntodeal (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am suggesting a section be added (perhaps in Legacy) about Janet's involvement in charity work and social causes over the years. I can provide further data and links if desired for this. Thank you for your consideration. JoannaSRobinson (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Foundations Janet supports include: amfAR The Foundations for AIDS Research, UNICEF, The Trevor Project and several more listed on her site. [1] Janet is an amfAR Ambassador and co-chaired the 2013 Cinema Against AIDS XX this year (as she has done for several years prior [2]) which raised over 25 million for AIDS Research in May. Janet donated the proceeds of her single "Together Again" to this charity as well in the past. [3] Janet published an Op-Ed on CNN entitled "Creating an AIDS-Free Generation By Starting at Home" with co-author Mathilde Krim, Ph.D. in 2012. [4] Janet released a PSA on June 3, 2013 in support of UNICEF's efforts to fight hunger, to help children in the Sahel region of Africa. [5]
JoannaSRobinson (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Please add a reference to this:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=10112152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttjarl (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been granted permission to upload a photo from Janet's "Number Ones, Up Close and Personal" tour for use on Wikipedia by the photographer and his representative via e-mail. How would I upload it on Wikimedia Commons without it being deleted? User5482 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Janet Jackson is in no way a mezzo-soprano. Examples of mezzo-sopranos are Beyonce Knowles and Whitney Houston. The minimal resonance, lightness, lack of thickness, and brightness of Janet's voice are all characteristic of a light lyric soprano.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithclark15 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
99.225.225.9 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) This article mentions nothing of her failings, her critics, her conversion to Islam or her marriage.
Reads like PR spin to me. Wiki must have been paid big bucks for a Press Release like this article.
I have lost complete faith in Wiki now. Will look for the truth elsewhere.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Since this article gained its FA status in 2008, it has more than doubled in size, going from 102kb to 224kb. A lot of the text that has been added over the past six years has been in the form of adulation and quotes. Some of the sources are very low quality, such as http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-story-billboardmusicawards2006-janetjackson,0,4508687.story, http://www.promonews.tv/videos/2010/11/03/peter-andre%E2%80%99s-defender-peter-falloon, and http://www.stufish.com/janet-jackson/all-for-you/press-and-credits-2.html, the latter a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Other references do not support the relevant text, such as the Elle magazine reference which was used to back up the article text, "Joe Zee of Elle declared Jackson's individual presentation of sexuality as 'stratospherically different' from Madonna's," even though the magazine actually said, "Of course, Madonna's idea of sexy is stratospherically different from that of, say, Janet Jackson, or Lady Gaga, or even Diana Ross or Liza Minnelli." The magazine was not discussing Jackson's individual presentation of sexuality.
Still other references violate WP:SYNTH, such as the "Milli & the Reality Question" article which is not about Janet Jackson but about singers in general. Another synthesis-violating sentence is, "Gwen Stefani, Fergie, Alicia Keys, Ke$ha, and Justin Bieber have also drawn comparisons to Jackson for their vocals, performances, or lyrical themes." The Fergie reference is not at all complimentary, same with the Ke$ha ref, the Gwen Stefani ref says Janet's technique does not work, the Alicia Keys ref is not complimentary, and the Justin Bieber ref says nothing about Janet Jackson.
A bunch of Twitter posts had been added—another violation of WP:BLPSPS.
So I propose that the article be trimmed down to a manageable size, especially with regard to unnecessary text praising Jackson over and over making the same kinds of comments. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
(→) This article is extremely large and pretty difficult to navigate with the prose I feel not remaining at its FA standard due to the immense piling up of content. I believe a drastic reduction to around 150KB can surely be done, especially from the recent biography paras and the legacy and influences ones. What do you all think? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's roll back the article a few years then update it as necessary. I think we ought to identify a past version of the article that is suitably rich without being larded. Perhaps we can discuss the merits of this or that previous version. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
History is repeating itself here, because it was claimed many times that Michael Jackson converted to Islam. He didn't, or at least never gave any inkling of this in public, see Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_25#Michael_Jackson_converted_to_Islam among others in the talk page archive. The sourcing saying that Janet Jackson converted to Islam in June 2013 is far from blue chip, which is required for verifying statements in a BLP article. Also, religious belief is for a person to declare publicly, not for a media source to report, conjecture or claim. So this isn't suitable for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Other stars appear to have their spouses listed at the side information now, should we do the same for Janet?
Also net worth has been finally updated
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/janet-jackson/
Tombo671 (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
On November 7, 2014 after 3 weeks of voting and deliberation Janet Jackson was officially voted and crowned the Queen Of Pop by Vh1.
98.163.212.225 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(help); External link in |website=
(help); Missing or empty |url=
(help)
No, there aren't. Tell me when someone could outperform this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4xWP8uYx_U Second, fans votes matter more than any source, hence Janet is most deserving Queen of Pop. You're Madonna fan, hence you couldn't digest this fact that people chose Janet over her and decided to come in between this update. I expect administrators to be genuine and declare Janet as Queen of Pop and not Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You feel like it was personal attack because some writers are here being personal and biased with it. They have to be unbiased and genuine. Like I said before, fans' votes matter more than any source, if Madonna was truly queen of pop music then she wouldn't have been lost. Hence, I expect not just basic writers but administrators to be genuine and declare Janet as Queen of Pop and not Madonna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I am making change using above proclaim, if you have any queries then talk with me on this page or on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason of the writers who revert Janet being voted as Queen of Pop. If you're not interested in mentioning her achievements, then why you people are bothering making edits here. Go on Wikipedia pages of other singers and do whatever you like. Leave Janet's articles alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to merge the article Janet Jackson filmography into this article. Reason for this is that, in my opinion, a large part of Janet Jackson filmography is double with Janet Jackson. The Banner talk 14:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
" The Jacksons were lower-middle class and devout Jehovah's Witnesses, although Jackson would later refrain from organized religion." is currently in the article. Refrain from organized religion sounds like the subject is complying with a court order. Non-participant, secular, uninvolved, as possible examples all seem more neutral to me than "would later refrain from. . . "
Didn't come to the article to edit it but to look for info about subject's participation in the show Good Times.
In this case among others in the article saying Jackson could have an unclear antecedent and it might be better to name parties more specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.23.10 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Artistry of Janet Jackson be merged into Janet Jackson (this article). No other artists on Wikipedia have their own "Artistry of" article. Furthermore, the content in Artistry of Janet Jackson would fit well into this article, and there's already another article (List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson) about Janet Jackson; I don't see why there should be a third one too. wia (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The article states that Jackson signed with Virgin Records in 1993 with a deal that was estimated to have been for between $32 - $50 million. Then it states that she signed with them again in 1996 for a record-breaking $80 million. The only album she would have made for Virgin in the time during the first contract would have been 1993's Janet. It seems highly unlikely that Virgin would have paid her up to $50 million just for one album. Does anybody have the correct details? 90.216.184.9 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Curious why Janet Jackson's album stats were changed to 100 million. That's incorrect and too low.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InductJanet (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I remove the sources and informations that reports her 160 million records. Many of these references that one can be added in Wikipedia, are reliable sources; is this point we don't have problems. The problem is the information, in this case, the sales have problems with the verifiability.
For one example I can cited the Billboard reference with the 160 million records, but the author really, report the sales by BMG, not for Billboard itself. This gives much to be desired, and in principle, every reference appears with this figure is an inflated and promotional generated by the matrix report: BMG (even if the report does not cite BMG). Now the singer is working in the release of her new material, therefore these are also strategies using information of sales.
And to avoid further discussions, maybe, one User will write that since 2008 or 2010, the media report her records with over 100 million records or albums; wherever, are not old references. Furthermore, currents references also report this figure. Janet Jackson is not a million-seller singer of albums and singles in world market, maybe for sometimes in the 1980s and 1990s (and just in some anglo-markets); but not relevant for sales after. Her certified units are too low, by support this figures, and even by an inactive artist for several years. How can sell 40 or 60 million in few years without a new album? This is a new records guinness for "the best seller singer in her/his inactive period"??. Chrishonduras (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you Chrishounduras. Janet Jackson hasn't sold 160 million records worldwide. She has sold 100 million records worldwide. Here the 3 sources from 2009,2010 and 2012 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/janet-jacksons-greatest-hits-celebrated-on-number-ones-64079852.html http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/InTheSpotlight/janet-jackson-blames-dr-conrad-murray-michaels-death/story?id=9069859 http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/janet-jackson-talks-about-life-after-245151 and we all know She hasn't sold 60 million records since 2009,2010 or 2012. It's impossible —Navyiconer (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
These explanations make no sense and are clearly biased. If you're going to diminish Janet's current sales figures (160 Million), which were released by her current record label, and base your article on old sales figures from 4-5 year old press releases, then you need to do the same for all recording artists. Madonna, Mariah, and Rihanna all have inflated sales figures from unreliable and unofficial sources yet Wikipedia credits those inflated numbers. BMG states Janet's worldwide record sales at 160 Million; Billboard and other reputable music industry sources have gone on record in agreement with those figures, which they wouldn't do if they weren't in agreement with the numbers, specifically Billboard. So it seems rather unprofessional that Wikipedia decides to ignore valid credible sources and take the word of 1 or 2 users that claim 160 million is "impossible", yet don't have any current valid sources to back up their claims (other than outdated press releases), and just don't like her sales figures because they may not be fans. Therefore, articles on Madonna, Mariah, and Rihanna's sales figures need to be revised with current verified sources as well, because their inflated sales have no current verifiable references in those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.4.80 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Janet has sold 160 million records whether you want to accept this truth or not. If you're trying to update singers' articles only based on certified units then do the same for Madonna as well because according to certified units Rihanna is best selling woman singer to date and not Madonna. Hence there's no meaning in believing she has sold 300 million records. I know you're coming in between this update because you're a Madonna fan and cannot digest Janet's achievements. Hence I expect administrators to be genuine and update Janet's article with 160 million records, the same way how you did of Madonna with 300 million records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Haha, you guys are being ridiculous. Janet has sold 160 million records and both Janet & Rhythm nation albums have sold over 20 million copies and Control over 14 million copies; and there are dependable sources to prove it. Just because she has rivalry with Madonna, hence you don't have deflate her achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I am making change using above figure, if you have any queries then talk with me on this page or on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I am using Billboard as source of it while both Janet's and BMG's official websites back up the claim. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg http://www.janetjackson.com/news/all/janet-jackson-makes-history-again#.WGeGA7k4-1A http://www.bmg.com/us/news/intl-bmg-to-release-janet-jacksons-first-new-album-in-seven-years-this-fall-2015.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Her website said that she sold 60 million copies worldwide in 2001, how this woman sold more 100 million copies worldwide with albums that not even sold 4 million copies each?--88marcus (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
88marcus, like you said, those were back in 2001, as of 2015, all Janet, BMG, and Billboard agreed on she selling 160 million figure. http://www.janetjackson.com/news/all/janet-jackson-makes-history-again#.WGeGA7k4-1A http://www.bmg.com/us/news/intl-bmg-to-release-janet-jacksons-first-new-album-in-seven-years-this-fall-2015.html http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg And when you have that many reliable sources, I think you should not doubt such statement. On the other hand, all the Wikipedia writers have accepted that Madonna has sold 300 million records. In 2006, according to her website, she sold 200 million records, and as of 2015, she sold 300 million records. http://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-tour-dates-announced http://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-announces-performances-in-australia--new-zealand You have problem accepting how Janet can sell 100 million records in 14 years but tell how did Madonna manage to sell 100 million records within 9 years? Other than Hard candy, she has no album that sold 4 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Chrishonduras, I link Madonna to Janet because I believe writers like you who deflate Janet's achievements are her fans and you're declining this update because of the rivalry between the two. Second, both Janet and Madonna lost relevancy in music industry after 1990s. Madonna only got successful tours in 2000s, not successful albums or singles. Beatles do not agree with 1 billion figure on their own website, the same with Madonna, about Michael; the article says Adrian Strain, a representative from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has said that this figure is unreal; but I just checked that article of Wall Street Journal, he made no such statement. So I agree on he selling 750 million records which is agreed by him on his website and by MTV.
https://www.michaeljackson.com/en-ca/news/tune-world-michael-jackson-itunes/
http://www.mtv.com/news/1614815/michael-jacksons-groundbreaking-career-by-the-numbers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Chrishonduras, Madonna might have sold more records than Janet. But Janet is not far behind. You're forgetting the fact that Janet's Janet Jackson, and Dream street albums are still not certified. Control charted much higher on 1986 and 1987 year end charts and all time chart than True blue. Control also sold more than True blue according to Soundscan as well. Control also sold more than True blue according to BMG as well. So despite True blue is certified 7x platinum by RIAA and Control 5x, Control has definitely sold more copies in US than True blue. Control deserves at least 7 or more times platinum certification and is undercertified. Rhythm nation was best selling album of 1990 while it also charted in all time chart, Like a prayer didn't even make it to the list. Rhythm nation has also sold more copies than Like a prayer according to Soundscan. Rhythm nation has also sold more copies than Like a prayer according to BMG. Janet album has sold 7.09 million copies if you combine sales of Soundscan and BMG while it is certified 6x platinum by RIAA. All for you has sold 3,207,000 copies if you combine sales of Soundscan and BMG and is certified 2x platinum by RIAA. Unbreakable also sold more copies than Rebel heart according to Soundscan. So overall, I am trying to say is that Madonna might have sold more in foreign countries than Janet but definitely not always in US which is biggest music market, there were times when Janet outsold Madonna, and she was at top place but Madonna never. Janet is most undercertified singer, you can assume if she's undercertified that much in US and think how much she must be undercertified worldwide. So if you're going decide her sales just based on certifications then that is completely unreasonable. And what is this 50%? Either go 100% or don't. By the way, my first goal is to change this forced outdated 100 million figure and update it to 160 million on Janet Jackson biography page and then I'll think of going further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Karst, yeah! that what I mean since June 2015 when I opened this discussion. However, user cannot accept that. So, I said him that we can accepted 1 billion records for MJ, The Beatles and Elvis Presley first (that it is impossible) to add the 160 million figure for Janet Jackson. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Chrishonduras, forcing 100 million figure on all the Wikipedia readers is actually disruptive editing when in reality, the artist herself is saying she sold 160 million records, her record label, and music industry reliable source such as Billboard. But still for sake your trust, I preferred Billboard over the rest of the two sources but still it got reverted. And previously I agreed on Michael selling 750 million records and I have no problem accepting Elvis has sold 1 billion records as well based on his official and MTV websites.[4][5]
References
With sales of over 160 million records worldwide, Janet Jackson stands as one of the best-selling artists of all time as well as one of the most awarded with a string of hits that have left an indelible impression on pop culture.
With sales of over 160 million records worldwide, Janet Jackson stands as one of the best-selling artists of all time as well as one of the most awarded with a string of hits that have left an indelible impression on pop culture.
Jackson has sold over 160 million records worldwide
Globally, he has sold over one billion records
He has sold about 1 billion records and continues to be a top seller
According to many reliable sources, Janet Jackson has sold over 160 million records worldwide. Her certifications for her albums haven't been updated in several years, certifications are not automatically updated, certifications are updated when the artist's record company (or the artist themselves) requests an update to them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/25/entertainment/janet-jackson-postpones-tour/index.html http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-janet-jackson-announces-new-album-and-record-label-20150603-story.html http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6583268/janet-jackson-new-album-fall-rhythm-nation-bmg https://www.biography.com/news/janet-jackson-biography-facts
Jordantr7 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that she really become a Muslim: [1]128.65.238.173 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't legacy the title for the influence of someone who is dead? Shouldn't the title be influence, since she is still alive?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The RIAA quote might be misleading and an inadequate quote, as 3 of Jackson's albums have scanned more than what the RIAA has them certified for. As with all of Jackson's albums -- most of the successful albums haven't been re-certified in 20-30 years. In this case it doesn't give a good idea of what she has actually SOLD if RIAA states "janet." is certified for 6 million but SoundScan reports over 7.1 million actually sold. [2] Dam!ta (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Although appreciate the good amount of content it presents, the article is voluminous and I believe needs a trimming especially from the Artistry, Legacy sections. Many of the content can be combined or simplified easily. —IB [ Poke ] 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I blundered into this during a Pending Changes review on the article. Now, first off, I don't know anything about Janet Jackson other than that I've listened to her music, I haven't contributed anything to this article, and I just don't care what the article's sales figures are. That's already been discussed at length by several wikipedians who clearly have strong views on the subject, whereas I simply do not. (In fact, if anyone responds here please be kind enough to ((mention)) me, as I doubt I'll notice the response otherwise.) No, I should definitely just walk away and not get involved.
I should, but... here's the thing. I have (now) read the extensive discussion above, started three years ago, regarding the sales figures. But before I'd read that, the situation as I initially understood it:
Shouldn't worldwide sales citation be from recent sources. The one listed is from seven years ago. Current sources list her global sales at 160 million. Changed sales figure. Please feel free to let me know why it should be changed.
She didn't sold 60 million copies in the last 7 years, and there are recent sources that says 100 millions worldwide, till today.
Undid revision 864991790 by 88marcus (talk) If a recent source says it's over 160 million, it's over 160 million without a source to the contrary. 160 million *IS* over 100 million, after all...
Now, I'm not arguing that Janet Jackson has sold over 160 million records. I have no idea how many she's sold, I have no involvement in the music industry and don't follow such things.
But I will argue that, as an outside observer with no previous involvement, the insistence on 100 million as the correct figure appears to be completely arbitrary. Where does that 100 million come from? In terms of cited sources, in the article there are two.[2][3]
Those sources are being held up as gospel, and any updates to the figure, even when accompanied by citations, are being rejected on the basis that reliable sources peg the figure at 100 million so 160 million is impossible. But... the figures from sources cited to back up "100 million" appear to be just as arbitrary/suspect, and no more verifiable, as the numbers in the Variety article.
In fact, when ABC News (one of the two cited "100 million" sources) have written about Janet Jackson in recent years, they've either chosen not to mention her sales figures,[4][5][6] or they've switched to the subtly different (more verifiable?) "over 50 million albums sold".[7][8] Recent articles about Jackson in the Indianapolis Star (the other cited "100 million" source), including one piece by David Lindquist (the author of the 2012 citation for "100 million"), again make no mention of sales figures.[9][10][11]
So, it seems to me that, despite insistence on maintaining the "100 million" figure, all of the criticisms leveled against "160 million" also apply to "100 milliion", which makes it difficult for me to see why that number is being held up as correct, or why it's being used to reject newer figures.
References
Jackson is one of the best-selling artists of all time with global sales of over 160 million records.
In summary / conclusion: