Talk:Michael Jackson

We should update the main image

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2025

Height: 5’10 feet (177 cm) 78.80.25.105 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2025

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

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

High profile controversies lack prominence in this article

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

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

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

— WP:CRITS

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

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

— Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 64#WP:CRITICISM's status as an essay

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

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

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

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

— WP:CRITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You vastly overestimate the relevance of the allegations outside of the west.

- The allegations were western media driven, Jackson sold more than 1.2M tickets in the months following them in 1993 alone

- No evidence supports these allegations at all, if they were proven on any level of criminal investigation (such as OJ Simpson which had DNA evidence but lost the case) it would warrant it.

- Adding them to the header implies infamy or guilt

- No evidence of long term impact on his legacy, allegations had a predominantly western centric impact fading quickly from relevance

- Leaving Neverland was pushed heavily by the press but maintains a low 25-27% user score. Indicating universal public disapproval of the claims

- Allegations are already mentioned in the secondary lead paragraph making it redundant

- Jackson's fame extends to every country, where his music is a household name. People instantly associate him with Thriller and other songs, not allegations.

- Most of the world lives in Arab countries within the middle east, Asia & Africa all places where Jackson is hugely popular outside of the west

- Never17 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is so prominent that it should be in the first paragraph of the lede. Something like this.

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer, and philanthropist. Dubbed the "King of Pop", he is regarded as one of the most culturally significant figures of the 20th century, as well as a figure of controversy mainly over allegations of child sexual abuse. Over a four-decade career, his music achievements broke racial barriers in America and made him a dominant figure across the world. Through songs, stages, and fashion, he proliferated visual performance for artists in popular music; popularizing street dance moves including the moonwalk, the robot, and the anti-gravity lean. Jackson is often deemed the greatest entertainer of all time based on his acclaim and records.

Wallby (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

@PinkSlippers It would be false to say that he was "falsely accused", because a lack of legally pursecuitable evidence isn't the same as being found innocent. Unlike my example which was all objective, institutions DID believe him, he was accused by multiple people, it was documented and explained in a lot of depth. Your logic is flawed.

I'm just going to say it, the editors of this page seem very biased, which chills my spine thinking about how much legal persecution means the Jackson family has available to them and the intent they have shown to put those means to use. I really get the impression the editors of this page are either corrupt or heavily biased. Wallby (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

They literally investigated over 400 people in 1993-95 and all defended Jackson leaving them with no leads beyond Chandler, there was no forensic, physical or any evidence found. Years later a few people changed stories and sold claims to tabloids. In 2005, Jackson had another 500+ people who were willing to submit to his defence against the same families with various contradictory stories that fell apart in court. People in the very courtroom who weren't biased documented how little the Jury was swayed by these claims. Every single person who sold their story for cash and the Chandler family particularly the mother participated in his prosecution in 2005 and they still lost when they only had to prove guilt via hearsay alone on every child abuse related crime. How is he still presumed guilty in anyway? Never17 (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "unlike my example which was all objective, institutions DID believe him" but my point was that mere belief by anyone, just like mere allegations with just as well documented and explained contrary evidence that that belief is erroneous could just as well be justified in this article as emphasizing the allegations themselves. Your logic seems to be that allegations are inherently more important and thus should have more emphasis in the article than the evidence that those allegations were false. I don't know what "legal persecution the Jackson family intend to use" or what that has anything to do with the issue at hand namely that you want the reader to focus more on the allegations against Jackson. PinkSlippers (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is so prominent that it should be in the first paragraph of the lede. Something like this.

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer, and philanthropist. Dubbed the "King of Pop", he is regarded as one of the most culturally significant figures of the 20th century, as well as a figure of controversy mainly over allegations of child sexual abuse. Over a four-decade career, his music achievements broke racial barriers in America and made him a dominant figure across the world. Through songs, stages, and fashion, he proliferated visual performance for artists in popular music; popularizing street dance moves including the moonwalk, the robot, and the anti-gravity lean. Jackson is often deemed the greatest entertainer of all time based on his acclaim and records.

Wallby (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea. Let's just see what others have to say first before modifying the lead. As for the accusations made against editors, I cannot speak on behalf of others, but I personally am not even remotely biased or corrupt. This article is something that I by all means wish to keep neutral and encyclopedic. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having the allegations in the Lead, he was cleared and vindicated in one of the largest investigations of a private citizen ever. We can mention them in the article like we have, not in the lead. Never17 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the lead's third paragraph already discusses them. It would be a glaring omission to not have anything at all in the lead on the 1993 and 2003 allegations given their prominence regardless of acquittals. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention Jackson's controversial aspects amongst the media like appearence and allegations and then direct people to those articles which extensively cover it. However this is a issue as the third lead already mentions it, therefore it becomes redundant. In hindsight it's fine the way it is after looking at it. Never17 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This was already discussed after one user had added this without prior discussion in March 2019 and consensus was to remove this per MOS:OPENPARABIO.TheWikiholic (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The lead already mentions the allegations, to essentially repeat that with a far more vague and questionable statement (Jackson was controversial before he was accused and it's impossible to prove that that sentiment is widespread globally) is WP:UNDUE. I also don't know an example on wiki where someone who was never found guilty of anything nor did anyone produce proof of his guilt would be defined by allegations in the lead. It seems you want wiki to reflect your negative feelings about the Jacksons. That's not what an ecyclopedia is for though. PinkSlippers (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss guilt vs. innocence per WP:NOTAFORUM

Bill Cosby was found not guilty but the accusations against him are in his first paragraph. Slackergeneration (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC) Bill Cosby was accused by over 60 women of sexual assault, with allegations spanning decades. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2021 decision to overturn his 2018 conviction for the assault of Andrea Constand was based on a violation of his due process rights, specifically because a prior prosecutor's assurance that he would not face criminal charges led him to provide incriminating testimony in a civil case. This ruling did not address the validity of the accusations from the other women or determine his guilt or innocence in those cases. His Civil Rights were violated, not that he was found not guilty. This is completely different from Jackson's case Never17 (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC) He was found not guilty BECAUSE the testimony used against him was obtained illegally. Jackson was never found guilty because he settled the 1993 case for tens of millions of dollars. The point is neither were found guilty. Yes Cosby had more accusers, but Jackson paid out more money, and unlike Cosby's accusers, Jackson's accuser was able to identify and locate markings on Jackson's genitalia that were corroborated by photograph obtained in police strip search. Slackergeneration (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC) Literally all false information why comment on something you know nothing about? There was no evidence ever found on Jackson in any case and if you go the article right now the lead will have a entire timeline dedicated to showing all of the lies & inconsistencies with the allegations. Never17 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC) In 1993, Jackson settled a civil case, while a criminal case was still ongoing. The criminal case was eventually dropped due to lack of evidence, and Jackson was never indicted. Jordan Chandler's description of MJ's genitalia didn't match . If the accuser claimed to have identified distinctive markings on Jackson's genitalia, corroborated by police strip search photographs, why wasn't he arrested at the time? And Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers at that time, filed a motion in court demanding the photographs of Jackson's genitals and buttocks be barred from the civil trial, wanting Jackson to be strip-searched for the Second time?. By the way, it's good to see editors ending their 14-year hiatus just to add a comment here. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC) The criminal case was eventually dropped due to lack of evidence, which tends to happen when the accuser is paid TENS OF MILLIONS in 1993 dollars. Jordan Chandler's description of MJ's genitalia didn't match . His drawing matched[5] why wasn't he arrested at the time? Because they did not want to cause racial tension so soon after the LA riots. And Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers at that time, filed a motion in court demanding the photographs of Jackson's genitals and buttocks be barred from the civil trial, False. Barred from court was only one option Feldman proposed because he was not given access to the photos so had no idea what they showed. Years later when both sides had access to the evidence, it was Jackson's lawyers that got them barred from the Arvizo trial.[6] Slackergeneration (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC) Evan Chandler demanded 20 million for himself before going public with the false allegations and got 1.8 Million months later after Jackson held out, denied his negotiations & was investigated, he got far less than he asked for because they had no evidence & his prosecutors advised him to accept the deal after the drawing was a mismatch. Years later Chandler later sued for 60M showing his dissatisfaction with his offer. The chandler family got paid 18.3 million total, this is still lower than the 20M Evan wanted. They got a lesser offer regardless of how you try and deny it. Jackson got a settlement completely on his own terms that benefited him in every way. By 1994-95, they had investigated 400 people with all defending Jackson, no new leads were found and no forensic evidence, physical evidence or any illegal material was ever found and the case was closed. The Prosecution threatened Jackson he'd be arrested for refusing the strip search, and then didn't arrest him after the strip search and instead claimed Jackson had surgery on his genitalia to explain the mismatch. In 2005 the entire case revolved around legal art books as the only source of evidence since they had nothing else, June Chandler was submitted as a witness and they retried the 1993 case and still failed miserably after securing the defence's files and restructuring the entire case on hearsay alone against Michael's various iron clad Alibi's & applying every single child abuse charge on top to try and increase the possibility of convicting him in a previously unfounded case Never17 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC) According to CNN, MJ paid out about $25 million (far more than Evan demanded).[7] That's $54 million in today's money. Hard to believe an innocent man would pay so much money to someone accusing him of child sexual abuse. Hard to believe he would pay all that money if the child's drawing of his genitals was wrong. Further we have Tom Sneddon declaring under penalty of perjury that the child's drawing was correct. MJ agreed to the strip search in part because the police agreed not to arrest him. The 2005 case is irrelevant because the jury was ruling on a different accuser but when asked why they acquitted Jackson, a juror said MJ probably molested boys, but not necessarily the 2005 accuser [8]Slackergeneration (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a platform for poorly conducted original research, speculation, or personal theories. Its foundation rests on verifiable, reliable, and published sources with recognized editorial oversight. In line with Wikipedia’s core content policies, Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View—all contributions must be grounded in reputable, authoritative sources. While there is room for constructive discussion regarding the reliability or relevance of specific sources, provided those sources are not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia, disputing a source without presenting independent, reliable counter-evidence is unproductive and contrary to established editorial standards. In the context of topics such as Michael Jackson, arguments must be supported by sources that meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliability and independence; otherwise, such objections cannot meaningfully influence content decisions. And any counter sources, authors, or journalists must not already be banned from the topic through past consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC) I literally think the current article is fine and doesn't need any overhaul, i don't see why people think it needs to be changed. We got something good, leave it at that Never17 (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC) There exists a substantial body of independent, reliable sources, including publicly available court documents, that demonstrate the jury found inconsistencies between the descriptions provided and the known evidence. Furthermore, it is a matter of public record that attorney Larry Feldman petitioned to have certain images excluded from the civil trial, a fact that is well-documented and supported by credible sources. Conversely, the claim that Michael Jackson was not arrested due to concerns over potential racial tensions following the Los Angeles riots constitutes a conspiracy theory, lacking substantiation from reputable, independent sources. In fact, such speculation is so fringe that it does not even appear prominently on websites or forums critical of Jackson. In keeping with Wikipedia’s policies on Reliable Sources, Verifiability, and the strict prohibition of Original Research, content based on conspiracy theories or unsourced speculation has no place in encyclopedic discourse. MraClean (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC) There's also various contradictions - Evan Chandler demanded 20M around the Summer of 1993, and Michael Jackson refused. Chandler read the allegations to Jackson's face and still refused to pay him, we have eyewitness testimonies from third party sources who were there. It is a fact that Chandler demanded the settlement from Michael that summer. - The Settlement document didn't come until the start of 1994, after Jackson had been investigated for months and forced to cancel his tour due to the drug problems caused by the media backlash from the accusation. The idea that he would refuse to settle Before and instead willingly let them go public first and damage his public image makes absolutely no sense. - The Settlement allowed the family to continue to prosecute him in a criminal trial, why would a guilty man settle out with "victims" and still allow them to testify against him in a criminal court where he could be potentially found guilty? That makes no sense, a clause would exist to bind them with a NDA and testify. Yet it did neither, Chandler later wrote a book about Jackson called "All the Glitters" showing they were not barred in any meaningful way. - The prosecution had 4-6 months of investigation into Michael Jackson before the settlement and still failed to provide any evidence to justify indicting him or even arresting him. If the drawing matched that would have been the only proof they needed. . In 2003 you have timeline gaps like Jackson being out of California for weeks when the abuse allegedly took place at Neverland, or him reportedly conspiring to kidnap them and ship them off to Brazil when it was really just a vacation for Jackson with his family that they wanted to go with him on. The family also stayed at Neverland to have dinner with his fans and friends while they were gone in Miami, and using his money for shopping and spa treatment. Never17 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC) The Settlement allowed the family to continue to prosecute him in a criminal trial, why would a guilty man settle out with "victims" and still allow them to testify against him in a criminal court where he could be potentially found guilty? Why would an innocent many pay a reported $25 million[9] ($54 million inflation adjusted) to a family smearing him a pedo? The only logical reason is he feared he would lose in court once strip search photos corroborated the child's knowledge of his genitals, which is why MJ's lawyers would continue to block said photos[10] Slackergeneration (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

“ Greatest entertainer of all time”

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg - The Greatest Entertainer that ever lived (Media opinion) [11]

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

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

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

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

WatchMojo - The Greatest entertainer of all time

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

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

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

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

BMI Organization - Definitively the greatest entertainer of all time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Overshadowing Farrah Fawcett

Just a small suggestion, to point out that media coverage largely overshadowed the death of Farrah Fawcett, who died from cancer earlier that day. Either that or split coverage of both respective passings and combined tributes. It can be included right after "with live news specials featuring reactions from MTV personalities and other celebrities."

Also, for anyone who would argue that it would be irrelevant, what about this? Just a thought. Good day. Xfhxzf (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Refer to WP:UNDUE, it is even undue for the article Death of Michael Jackson. If that information is relevant for Fawcett's biography, then it is relevant there, not here. Sky Saxon also died that day and I'm sure that Fawcett's death was covered more than his. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)