Talk:Janet Jackson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent Archive

Talk page was heavy with old discussion that no longer seemed relevant to the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This Article still requires a large amount of citations

I'm going to go through and add a fairly large amount of citation tags. As mentioned in the archive by other editors, this article makes very bold statements which need to verified by reliable sources.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is grossly inadequate for a biography of a living person

This is taken from directly from WP:PROVEIT

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons. As Jimmy Wales has put it:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [1]

Unless verifiable sources can be provided for the fact/date tags, im going to delete them by March 1st. Some of the statements in this artcle have been tagged and retagged for over a year.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

As previously stated, i've removed any and all unsourced information about Janet Jackson from this article. The Personal Life section has been completely removed as it provided no sources whatsoever and clearly violated WP:PROVEIT AND WP:BLP. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new personal life section with verifiable information. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Janet Jackson has not had a successful album since 2000; her last two, "20 Y.O." & "Damita JO" were both downright flops.Her new album,"Discipline" looks to go the same way, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.131 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
her new album Discipline is her sixth number one album, a greater success than 20 Y.O. and Damita Jo.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales were lower than her two previous though. She needs to have some successful singles to help. Realist2 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. A successful single will produce better responses in album sales. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Information taken directly from WP:BLP

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

EX: Janet's official website OK, A Fan site about Janet, NOT OK.

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Top selling artists and most successful artists

There are editing wars all over musicians articles over what artist is top, second or third as far as overall careers, but this is gaged differently depending on what source you are quoting. For example, the RIAA gages success based off certified album sales:

The American Recording Industry Announces its Artists of the Century

The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Elvis Presley, Barbra Streisand, Eagles and Sir Elton John Top the List

Barbra Streisand: The legendary performer has had 26 Platinum® albums, 13 of which are multi-million sellers. Four Streisand albums have reached the five-million certification plateau -- “Guilty,” “A Christmas Album,” “Memories” and “Barbra Streisand’s Greatest Hits, Vol. 2.” Streisand received her first gold album on May 12, 1964. In the years since, she has never been out of the limelight.

according to the RIAA 1.Barbara Streisand has 71 Certified Units in Millions, while 2.Madonna has 63, 3.Mariah Carey has 61.5, 4.Whitney Houston has 54, 5.Celine Dion has 49, 6.Shania Twain has 47, 7.Reba McEntire has 40.5, 8.Britney Spears has 31, 9.Linda Ronstadt has 30, 10. Enya, and 11. Janet Jackson has 26.

While Madonna is the second top selling female artist according to RIAA certified album sales, she is the top-selling female rock artist.

Top Selling Artists

However,

other organizations such as Billboard and Guinness Book of World Records typically base their results of gross album sales, gross singles sales, debuts at number 1, singles which peak at number 1, and gross ticket sales for Tours, in which case, Madonna, Janet and Mariah rank numbers 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

For the sake of the article it would be beneficial to state what source places Janet Jackson in what rank and for what reason, not neglecting one source for another. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinda off-topic: Most of the information in that first paragraph doesn't belong there. It can be listed in a "Legacy" section, or in the main biography at the appropriate places. In contrast, some basic information is missing from the lead. Where was she born? What albums has she made? Are there any really famous songs? Does she have any equally famous family members? There's also a fair bit of recentism, what with the emphasis on the Super Bowl debacle. try and illustrate the arc of her career in the lead; it's more important than listing accolades. As for what to keep, definitely list how many albums she's sold, domestically and worldwide. List how many studio albums she's released, and possibly the number of singles (and maybe how many #1 singles she's had).
As for sourcing, Janet Jackson is very notable, so stick to the most prominent news sources to start out with. Online, start at nytimes.com, cnn.com, rollingstone.com, time.com, and ew.com. I have no idea if any of the bios written about her are worthwhile (given how much gossip surrounds the Jackson family), so stick with the mainstream press for now. Also, most of the links sourced in the article don't list essential information like author, publisher, and date of publication. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBTProject

while there is no need to dedicate an entire section of the biography to Janet's gay fanbase, I have added the LGBTProject banner to the article (similar to Madonna's page) based on Jackson's awards granted to her by the Gay community and her support for gay marriage and the gay rights movement as a whole. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

After a massive overhaul of the article, I've nominated it for GA. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Its much improved and will hopefully get a GA statues. Well Done. Realist2 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its closer to FA than GA now. Realist2 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

  • I don't see the need for the use of ref 1 in the lead
  • Ref 16 (and many others...check them!) need full formatting
  • note ref 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 44, 46, 48, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65 do not contain Author information and are otherwise formated as correctly as I can tell. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, author information isn't always compulsory - only if you know it, include it! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Jackson also appeared on..." - next sentence also starts with "Jackson also" - use some variety
  • "six on the Billboard Hot R&B albums chart." - "Billboard" goes in italics. Same in the next sentence, and throughout
  • "The album earned Jackson..." - check the overuse of "and" in this sentence
  • Is there a reliable source saying where she got the Rhythm Nation title from?
  • "maintained airplay on the radio for over two years" - "on the radio" is obvious, you don't need to say it
  • "In 1999, Jackson secretly entered into her second marriage with dancer, songwriter and director René Elizondo; a marriage which remained secret until Elizondo filed for divorce in 2000" - why is this mentioned in the 1986–1992 section?
  • "In May 1992 Janet recorded..." - refer to her as "Jackson"
    • "In 1998, Janet set out on the The Velvet Rope Tour" - again. Do a Ctrl + F for "Janet" and see what you find
    • "Janet celebrated her 40th birthday " - found another one for ya!
  • "of 7 million USD" - formatting; "$7 million"
  • "appearance by rapper, Q-Tip." - comma not needed
  • "Worldwide sales for "Together Again," according to Virgin Records are over 6 million copies, one of the largest selling singles ever from a female artist." - citation needed for all the records presented here
  • Ref 33: Answers.com isn't reliable
  • "that of the janet. album" - just "of janet." is fine
  • The paragraph that discusses the success of The Velvet Rope needs a lot of reorganising...you keep throwing out random records and stats and it could be placed in a more logical order. (More citing needed for these stats, too)
  • You might want to avoid using {{main}} and just wlink the stuff in the sections, because it looks really weird at the top of the 2000–2005: All for You and Damita Jo section with all those links there
  • "opposite Eddie Murphy as professor Denise Gaines" - it sounds like Murphy played Gaines (but she did, IIRC), so reword this
  • "It debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 selling 605,128 copies making All For You the biggest first-week sales total of Janet's career and would go on to sell more than three million copies in America." - goes from past to present(ish) tense (needs reword), and needs sourcing.
  • "Jackson's top while singing the lyric 'gonna have you naked by the end of this song.'" - might wanna say what song they were singing
  • "and the most-searched event" - on all search engines? Says who?
  • "CBS would only let Jackson and Timberlake appear on the 2004 46th Annual Grammy..." - this paragraph is unsourced
  • "as a host of Saturday Night Live on April 10, 2004" - date needs wlinking per WP:DATE
  • What's ref 47 referring to...?
  • "at no.13 in February, 1999." - "no" --> "#", and wlink the date (February 1999)
  •  Done
  • Again, the 20YO stats could do with more citing
  • "and the film was released on 12 October 2007. The movie" - film or movie...take your pick, but just use one. You can also throw its name in sometimes to avoid redundancies
  • "In Feb. 2008, " - spell the name out
  • Ref 55 is out of date, and 56-58 need formatting
  • Legacy and Personal Life sections should be ==level 2==
    • Same thing in 71 (and check others)
  • "entertainers including Madonna, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston" - wlinks
  • Try and trim some of the usage of "also"
  • Personal life section needs less quoting and more of your own words
  • It could also do with more wlinking
  • The see also links in the Discography section aren't needed

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Passed, nice work the two of you! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for audio samples

The Academy Award nominated "AGAIN" and the number one hit singles "DOESN'T REALLY MATTER" and "TOGETHER AGAIN" in addition to samples of "SO EXCITED" "CALL ON ME" and "FEEDBACK" should all be added to the article. Unfortunately I don't have access to most of those songs, nor editing software... so if anyone does and you know how to upload them- please do. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol count yourself luck, over at MJ we only have 2 audio samples but yes ill keep a close look out,  :-) Realist2 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The new picture is ace, please dont change it back. :-( Realist2 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

caption

Caption for lead pic needs date etc, Realist2 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I was asked to review this while it was at FAC -sorry to have missed it there, but here are some comments to hopefully improve the article.

  • I would treat the FAC comments as a very detailed peer review and try to address them all, either making the changes requested or having a very good reason for not making the change. From reading the FAC, it seems the two biggest concerns are the large number of fair use music samples and the need for a copyedit.
  • Looking at the lead, I have some WP:Weight concerns - Jackson's TV career is summarized in four sentences in the article, but is about 1/3 of the first paragraph in the lead.
  • I am also concerned that there is some information in the lead that is not repeated elsewhere in the article - for example the year of the TV debut of The Jacksons or Barbra Streisand's number of best-selling albums. I alsways see the lead as summaarizing the article in broad strokes, not giving every detail. Several sentences in the lead are currently pretty convoluted, and it may be that trimming excess detail would help them be more straightforward. For example: After initially performing on stage with her family at the age of seven, Jackson began her career as an actress with the television series The Jacksons—a variety show starring herself and seven of her eight older siblings—which debuted in 1976, and went on to star in other television shows including Good Times, A New Kind of Family, Diff'rent Strokes, and Fame. Could this be trimmed a bit to something more like Jackson first performed on stage with her family at age seven, and her career as an actress began at age ten with her family's 1976 television series The Jacksons, followed by roles in other television shows including Good Times, A New Kind of Family, Diff'rent Strokes, and Fame.
  • I am also surprised there are still statements without references that should have them - picked semi at random ...Rolling Stone named it their 'Most Popular Cover Ever' in 2000. Jackson was criticized for the explicitness of the photograph. Any sort of extraordinary claim (most popularcover ever) needs a ref. Who was responsible for the criticism (another ref)?
  • I agree, though there were a lot of extraordinary claims added to the article long before I started editing it. These are some of the references I am still looking for. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think factually the material needed for FAC all seems to be here (although I am not an expert on Janet Jackson), but it seems to need a good copyedit, checked for refs, and to address the FAC comments.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps

Thanks for the input! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help - I normally write Geography articles (creeks and state parks) so I hope I did not miss anything obvious Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WPBio film group

In discussion on how to deal with an individual whose film career is less significant, and of lower priority to the group, than a music, etc., career, it was finally suggested that a separate template be used for the work group wherein the focus was of less priority. This is why we separated Jackson's film career out and why I am returning it as a mid priority. Since the templates are nested, there's no issue with the additional template taking up too much room. To the filmbio work group, Jackson's film career is not of high priority. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no article to prove that she's the 9th most successful act in Rock and Roll?

Will someone add a link to prove the claim that Janet is the 9th most successful act in the history of Rock and Roll? Otherwise this statement might as well be removed as it's disputable. And if she's the 2nd most successful female artist, per Billboard, who's the most successful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked all 3 links attached to the said phrase that she's such and such but never did I find one that would prove she's the 9th most successful artist in Rock and Roll nor did I see a Billboard article saying she's the 2nd most successful female singer. Will someone back these claims up? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jackson's 24 top-40 hits place her in a tie for ninth all-time. What's more, she's been honored with several Billboard Music Awards, including seven awards at the first ceremony in 1990 (including top pop album artist).

Billboard Feature: Janet Jackson: Still In Control I believe there are more in the billboard archives. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • According to Billboard Magazine [Janet Jackson] is the ninth most successful musical performer in human history.
Exploring Indiana Highways: Trip Trivia By Michael Heim Published 2007 ISBN:097443583X Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But the link on the article is outdated as it had been written way back 1999. Do we have an updated article to really prove she's the 9th most successful in the history of Rock and Roll and the 2nd most successful female, per Billboard? Is she behind Madonna or Barbra Streisand? Cause accdg to the RIAA site, both Barbra and Madonna are the Top 2 biggest selling female in the U.S. and Janet is the 11th over-all. I'm quite baffled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but you're forgetting some very important facts about the RIAA. The RIAA certification ONLY deals in shipments of units- NOT gross album sales and it ONLY tracts units sold within the United States. In addition to the very important fact that an Artist's record label must request AND PAY FOR certification. There will always be a fairly large gap between the RIAA certification and an artist's total albums sales worldwide. Billboard uses Nielsen SoundScan which digitally tracts total sales worldwideand does not depend on the RIAA certification. According to several sources, Madonna has sold 200 million albums worldwide and Janet has sold 100 million, in which case both artists outperform Barbara.
Also, none of the links in the lead are outdated. Each was written between 2007 or 2008. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
2nd source in the lead: February 12, 2008 -- JANET JACKSON is one of the top 10 selling artists in the history of contemporary music - but since 2004, with her infamous Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction," her studio efforts have tanked. New York Post
3rd source in the lead: February 25, 2008 She has sold 100 million albums worldwide and is one of the 10 most successful acts in rock'n'roll history, Billboard says. And that's just her day job. The Sydney Morning Herald
4th source in the lead: January 20, 2008 Jackson is ranked by Billboard magazine as the second most successful female artist in pop music history, selling over 100 million records worldwide. GLAAD
Unless there is a new article stating another artist has surpassed Jackson, then the information in the lead is accurate. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FA

Just wondering, how far off are we from another FA nomination, is there much more to do ?--Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

we have to expand the Artistry section, provide F.U.R. for the sound clips and provide sources for a few more statements in the article (see some of the previous threads on the talk page). Another copy edit wouldn't hurt also. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So a few weeks really, if you want a good copy edit try "HappyMe22", hes good. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tour - its confirmed

Here, this might slow down the FA nomination, ;-( --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Join together

I thik you should join the first 2 subheadings together, there doesnt seem to be a good reason for their seperation. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson Wikiproject

Im interested in starting a Janet Jackson wikiproject much like the Michael Jackson Wikiproject. Before it goes ahead i need to see how much interest there is in it. We need a strong group of at least ten editers (registered) realistically. A wikiproject is a good place for us all to come together and work on Janet articles, in celebration of this queen of R&B. If you are interested please add your name below. Ill keep this open for about 3 weeks. Cheers.

Votes in support of JJ wikiproject

Update There are already seven willing users to help put up the project. Three more to go. --Efe (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, its going well. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to take part too. :) Funk Junkie (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Great, great, great, i cant believe the amount of enthusiasm already! Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It be great if we could imitate the success of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject for Janet, I'm up for it. Eatspie (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding JJ WP preposal

Comment: Why not make it a taskforce within the MJ WP instead? It'll be easier to manage and you'll have less menial work to do like tagging articles etc. indopug (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, i tend to find that the two groups dont mix, most people are fans of one or the other but rarely both. Lol me and bookkeeper are the only ones around here that listen to both. Still if anyone favours this option please say so here, i dont object. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
While I do love both, my knowledge of Janet is way more in depth compared to that for Michael, and I think we have a strong enough group here to tackle this on our own. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I believe Janet Jackson has had enough of an impact on pop culture to warrant her own project. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to add one thing, Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson are not interchangeable. They've collaborated on one song. Having a task force on Janet within Michael's project would be about as logical as having one for Madonna or Mariah Carey. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

JJ WP Userbox picture discussion

Our only Free image of JJ, this is the picture that will most likely appear in the userbox

OK, we have quite a lot of support now so unless any serious comments are made regarding the "comments" section above im guessing the project WILL go ahead. Ill still leave everything open a week or so. As it seems likely to go ahead I think its best we start to prepare a few things in advance. The most important thing is the userbox that identifies an editer as a member. The userbox requires a FREE picture I believe. Example -



Ultimately that means that the main picture of the JJ article is likely to be the same one in the userbox as its the only FREE picture we have. If anyone can find any alternative FREE picture please bring it here so that we can discuss it. Cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


That is interesting. Maybe we could use one of the album pictures as the main picture for the box. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. All album covers are fair use, not free images. Wikipedia is extremely strict on using only free images when they are readily available. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see... BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, its ok, we know your feelings on picture policy at wiki. I hate it too. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like that image of Janet, even that of Michael's. What's that? He looks like not a performer. But since we don't have a free image other than that, well, ok. --Efe (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still offended that's still on there and the rules state that that picture is legitimate for the article but it's not. It's, I feel, a private picture that has been violated due to its rules but I really hate going to them and ask "why you got this photo here?" Every other photo of celebrities get taken out but that picture. For the record, I also don't like Janet's picture on the article either. I like to see both Jacksons in action on stage in their featured pages. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as well all like to vent about image policy- the policy remains. Until someone takes one or more images of Janet and graciously decides to upload them to wikipedia- releasing them into public domain- we're stuck with what we've got. End of story. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree I did not set this section up to vent about photo policy, feel free to take that to the MJ talk page where I will happily rant with you. :-) — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

UP & RUNNING!!!

This user participates in
WikiProject Janet Jackson.





Glad to see all the enthusiasm, all further questions should now be delt with at the Project talk page here where we will discuss our first tasks. Put the project on your watchlist, add the badge to your user page by pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Janet Jackson/Userbox}} .Then add your name on the user project page here. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I noticed that in some refs the titles are all in capitals. They should be changed to lower case, it will be picked on at FA. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Minor contradiction

Jackson's fifth world tour—the Rock Witchu Tour—is set to begin on September 10, 2008.[126] Despite embarking on a world concert tour, Jackson announced there would be no more singles released off Discipline, as the Island Def Jam label had stopped all promotion of the album as of June 2008.[127]

So if she's touring in September obviously Island Def haven't stopped promoting the album completely. Alternatively the tour is being organized by someone else? It's the first time I noticed this discrepancy, hmm. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Its what the sources says though. Besides, the tour was set in place before she made the announcement, so just because the stopped promoting the album itself doesn't mean they were going to pull the tour. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
removed the word "all". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


also, is it a WORLD TOUR at all!!! if its just the US and Canada then thats not a world tour if its 2 countries next to each-other...no asia, no europe etc... = no world tour IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.216.100 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Official YouTube

IDJ and Janet's team are working on crafting the many videos on Janet's new official YouTube at http://youtube.com/janetjacksonvideos. Her partnership is now in talks and it is relevant Janet news.

Hospitalization

She was hospitalized right before a concert in Montreal http://www.accesshollywood.com/updated-janet-jackson-leaves-montreal-hospital_article_11471 . Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a serious illness we will mention it. Likely it is dehydration in which case it is only relevant to the Tour article. — Realist2 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
She has postponed more performances due to the now mysterious illness. It's gonna be hard to ignore that at some point. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As Realist2 stated, if we learn of it being a serious illness, we'll comment on it, otherwise it's not important enough for wikipedia. 5 years from now, no one is going to remember she had to cancel a few concert dates. People get sick, end of story. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Could it be because she's pregnant? :) Funk Junkie (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
She's not pregnant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

y is her marriage to Rene Elizondo not mentioned?

Her brief marriage to James Debarge is mentioned. Y is her almost 10yr marriage to Rene omitted? He helped write 37 of her songs(many of them on the phenomenal album The Velvet Rope) as well as directed some her music vids. When they div he was the inspiration 4 " Son of a Gun (I Betcha Think This Song Is About You)". 70.108.114.35 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Their relationship is mentioned twice actually- both the marriage and the divorce. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rene Elizondo never provided to the public a marriage certificate and therefore it is a possibility it is a fact. The marriage was never documented by any source to Wikipedia and James De Barge was annulled meaning null and void by law it never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.104 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither Elizondo nor Jackson were ever required to provide anything to the public or wikipedia since we are not a news or law organizarion. They both openly discussed their marriage after the divorce as reported by third party reliable sources. While an annulment removes a marriage from the law books, it is still well known and confirmed by Jackson and DeBarge that they did in fact marry and then decided to split. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disipline sales update

Has sold 428,000 copies as of Jan 2009. — Realist2 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

billboard

Didn't know if you guys noticed but discipline is back on the billboard 200. I searched janet's name on the search billbooard part of the site and it says as of this week that the album sits at number 107, and is in its 16th week. [1] Seth71 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

We need personal life because she confirmed she is pregnant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.6.197 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This article does not use personal life sections. Anything notable is added in the chronological order of the time period in which it occurs. There are no sources confirming she is pregnant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

US Weekly Cover

The source for the statement in the article that JJ's US Weekly cover in 2006 was the best selling issue ever for that magazine only states the following: "Legendary songbird Janet Jackson (above with Us's west coast senior editor Ian Drew) stopped by the Us Weekly offices in midtown Manhattan last night for a casual cocktail party celebrating her upcoming album, and recent best-selling Us cover". Of course there is a huge difference between a best selling book, such as every book on the New York Times bestseller lists right now, and the best selling book of all time. I propose that since the source does not support the statement in the article, that statement should be modified appropriately. If i don't hear objections I'll take care of it. Manyanswer (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced citation with a more accurate description from The New York Post. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't see the link to follow, and since US Weekly's average circulation was higher than the cited 1.4 million (at around 1.8 million average per issue) in the year 2006 I doubt the accuracy of what's there so far. See http://www.magazine.org/consumer_marketing/circ_trends/22175.aspx Manyanswer (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no link to follow. I have access to ProQuest which is an online database which archives all newspapers, journals, and other sources of information from the 1980s to today. I also have:
  • But Us Weekly editor in chief Janice Min tells me: "Janet Jackson has been on our cover twice, for two of our best-selling issues we've ever had." New York Daily News
  • If bellies can indeed scream such things, the loudest of the bunch belongs now to Janet Jackson. Us Weekly recently trumpeted her latest weight-loss success story with a slick cover photo that showcased her newly chiseled abs. It was one of the glossy's best- selling covers, says Sasha Charnin Morrison, the magazine's fashion director. The Journal Gazette The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
All of that seems to support a slightly less certain wording, such as "which became one of the magazine's best selling issues". Manyanswer (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical Style

Janet Jackson is a soprano, not a mezzo-soprano. Hence, her voice is high, like her brother Michael's. A lot of the criticism she's received vocally is for a weak lower register; her voice is located in a higher register instead. Datadru (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


2008–present: Discipline and death of Michael Jackson

I'm sorry, but the death of her sibling isn't a milestone in her life. Section should be renamed!--86.124.78.168 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying it is. It is, however, a dramatic impact on her life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category Addition

The category, "Former Jehovah's Witnesses," should also be added to Janet Jackson. She did grow up with the influence, but no longer practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndemmons (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janet_Jackson/Archive_2&oldid=1078752682"