Talk:The Jackson 5/Archive 1

Spam

Limonns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) -- This user is posting Spam into the article. The Jackson family story has no base in reality.

Editing notes:

Please keep the baseless information about the family finances out the article. The source of the information is flawed because it did not cite credible references, provide verifiable and insider-personelle quotes or any other material to substantiate the financial health of the family. Baseless information should be left to National Enquirer and has no place in Wikipedia. Because come here to read hard facts and not tabloid junk.
The members of the group are listed in the order they joined, not in alphabetical order. The syntax flows better that way
The Jackson girls are placed in the "See Also" section, since they aren't members of the band.
The first four number one singles and "Dancing Machine" are important enough to deserve their own breakout pages. Anyone who wants to take care of that is more than welcome.
It was actually "ABC" which overtook "Let It Be" on the Billboard Hot 100, not "I Want You Back"
The genre of the group was listed as "Nigger beat music". I highly doubt anyone would have put this seriously.

--Zoldello (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) -- I removed the material about the family finances because it is pure tabloid junk. The original source did not follow proper information-gathering procedures but apparantly made up material just to make profit. Wikipedia is not a place to post just poor-quality work. Go submit it in a University English class if you want the proper attention that that kind of material deserves.[reply]

I reworded the first part of "Early Works" - the phrasing was awkward and grammatically incorrect. -- Aristophocles (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--b. Touch 13:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

For the dates of birth see Joseph Jackson.

...because you can find out the dates of birth for each jackson by clicking the interwiki link for their names, as well as clicking the Joseph Jackson article. --b. Touch 15:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cousins?

Didn't Michael state in "Moonwalk" that Rancifer and Johnny Jackson weren't their cousins, only Motown claimed that to maintain their image as a family group? Alensha 19:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you transcribe that passage here for us? Then, we can justifyably edit the article. But...why would Motown have a say in Rancifer and Johnny Jackson? By the time the J5 signed Janisha KNight was His best friend and would never betrade him

Caption

One cannot go clockwise from center. I have no idea who is who, except for Michael. ^L_Wizard @ 19:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Questions

The article says that Michael "replaced" Jermaine as lead vocalist, but later indicates that the group's style was "multi-lead vocals". This seems to beg for clarification -- how many songs were harmonies, how many were one singer or another singer (i.e. were there "Jermaine" songs and "Michael" songs, or was there just a lead vocal part that changed)?

Also, the article states that Michael's moonwalk at the Motown 25 show "overshadowed" the reunion. Watching it, and gauging the audience's attitude, it seems that the intent was a deliberate passing of the baton given that Michael was already showing signs of the megastardom that would soon follow.

There's a pretty vague reference to Berry Gordy and child labor laws, but it's not clear how they would affect the band. It should be clarified here that in those days they were primarily a live act and not doing their own records. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Even though the Jacksons shared leads periodically, Michael was still officially the "lead singer" and the focal point, and is featured more prominently on those recordings than his brothers. Most Jackson 5 songs feature Michael and Jermaine sharing leads, and the earliest Motown J5 songs also include Jackie and Tito for isolated lead passages, although Michael always sings a larger share of the lyrics. Not many of their studio tracks are sung in unison, although they performed plenty that way in concert. There are also a number of solo numbers sung by Michael or Jermaine (and sometimes maybe Jackie); Michael's solo numbers were more prominent. It's the same thing with the group they got the idea from: it's apparrent just from the name that Sly Stone is lead singer and frontman of Sly & the Family Stone.

2. Whether or not the moonwalk intentionally overshadowed the J5 reunion doesn't seem to be relevant. The fact is that the most important event involving a Jackson at that show was Michael's solo performance.

3. I don't quite understand the third question. Is this reguarding Gordy's reluctance to sign the group because of child labor laws? Child labor laws would affect Gordy more than the group: he would have to pay for the groups' tutores, lawyers, sign plenty of permits, etc., and would only have the younger Jacksons available for performing for limited amounts of time. The article already mentions that the group only did scant recording before singing to Motown, and the group wasn't under employ to anyone before they were employed by Gordy (they attened public school, and were simply transported and represented by their father). --FuriousFreddy 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding 1, that seems like it's worth a discussion in the article. For 2, what I'm getting at is that the wording implies Michael upstaged his brothers deliberately, while my thinking is that the group well recognized that its glory days were over. Just an impression. As for 3, it seems that should be specifically dealt with or cited, if it was an issue that prevented Gordy from signing them. Even a "speculated that" construction would help. --Dhartung | Talk 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move from The Jackson 5 to The Jacksons, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this article be moved to the title "The Jacksons", as it became their official name once they left Motown and they had more and less than 5 members at a point, so it's more accurate. Superior1 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More people would be looking for this title under the name The Jackson 5 rather than The Jacksons, but it doesn't bother me either way. It will depend upon what the consensus is on the matter. --FuriousFreddy 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Jackson 5 was the name they became famous with, and nearly 2 million hits for "Jackson 5", compared with only half a million for "The Jacksons". Crazysuit 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 132.205.44.5 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Randy, to my knowledge, was never a member of the Jackson Five; to list him as a former member is incorrect. He WAS a member of The Jacksons. Is it possible that a split is actually necessary, and not a merge? LoomisSimmons 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe. They did have a different style, name and members. Superior1 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose under the "common name" guideline. A split might be appropriate. Gazpacho 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creating a separate article for The Jacksons would be excessive, they were essentially the same group. Many bands have lost some of their original members and added new ones, changed labels, style, etc. A separate article will only mean people have to read two pages when they want to learn about this group. Crazysuit 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

QUOTE

Jackie Jackson (1966–1990), vocals and tambourine

   * The eldest brother, Jackie was a high tenor singer and, prior to a musical career, a baseball player. He had a solo career, releasing two albums, and eventually married Enid Jackson.

shouldnt it say "Enid's" maiden name, obviously if they are married she would be known as enid jackson but i dont think thats what she was called before marriage.i could be wrong, maybe she was called jackson before marriage i doubt it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.235.223 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

I'm sorry to inform you that I am quickfailing this article due to lack of references. Please fully reference the article with in-line citations before renomination. Currently, there are entire sections and paragraphs without any citations. Nikki311 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drummer

I went to Fairfax High in 1969/1979. Johnny, Jackie and Tito also attended at the time. I used to hang out in the morning at the little store or cafe directly across the street from the school with Dee Dee and Kathy. Kathy was Johnny's girl friend and Dee Dee was Tito's. Dee Dee and Kathy would wait over there for Joe to drop the boys off. There is no mention of Johnny. He was the original drummer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.122.61.129 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 Movie.

In 1974 there were talks of a movie project which included The Jackson brothers, Bill Cosby, Cecily Tyson and Janet Jackson. The movie was to be called Isomon Cross and Sons. Raymond St. Jacques was going to star and direct this movie which was staged to be set in the 1850's, while the Jackson were going to play his sons and provide songs. It was also understood that Joe Jackson was going to produce this movie. j5collector I've been searching the web to provide credible sources to back up the validity of this information but the most in depth source I've found was from J5 Collector Blogspot. Also I came across a Youtube video where Michael Jackson mentions this information himself while interviewing on Soul Train with Don Cornelius.[1] The information on J5 Collector Blogspot gives some sketchy details as to why the movie never happened but is very informative, including hi-resolution images displaying the articles from the original magazine. However, I was wondering if this information could be included on the main article?

Keviexw (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph

Looking at the Triumph article, there seems to be some confusion with dates. It says it was released in October 1980 - with three singles already released (really?). On the "Can You Feel It" article it mentions that it was the first single (third surely) released in September 1980 but then says released as a single in 1981 with all the chart dates from 81. The dates seem specific September 22 for example, but where have these come from? I'm sure that single was around March 81. The only refs in their discography are the UK charts - which are different again ("Walk Right Noew" being around June 81 for example). Does anybody know the correct dates or get some refs for the US chart positions (Allmusic doesn't mention any chart action for either of the first two singles). All in all it's a mess.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active Again

The Jacksons (as they are now officially known) are active again. The article needs an update to reflect this as its still showing them as inactive since 2013. Sources: - http://www.viagogo.co.uk/Concert-Tickets/Rock-and-Pop/The-Jacksons-Tickets - https://twitter.com/Jacksons/status/837621186431434752 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.252.76 (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing word

Please correct the Jackson 5 article. Location: section Jacksonmania, paragraph 2, line 6, word a instead of every otherwise the sentence does not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.84.173 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Active again

Someone posted above in 2017 that they are active again, and that is still the case. See their Facebook page, for example. This needs to be reflected in the article, which has not been modified two years after the previous poster drew the attention of this talk page to the issue. At the moment the lead para says they "were an American pop band" and there is nothing in the main body of the article about their current activities, although the infobox correctly notes "2012-present" under years active. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline problem?

In the "Early Years" section there appears to be an error in the chronology. The article says the band signed a contract in March, months before they auditioned in July.

It would be great if someone could either clarify or correct this. Thanks.

"They performed a week-long run of shows at the Regal Theater as the opening act for Bobby Taylor & the Vancouvers,[6] and Taylor sent them to Detroit to help with their Motown audition, which was set for July 23 at Motown's headquarters on Woodward Avenue. The taped audition was sent to Berry Gordy's office in Hollywood, but Gordy turned them down again, since he had Stevie Wonder in his spotlight. He changed his mind, however, and the group signed a contract on March 11." 192.135.227.228 (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson 5 → The Jacksons – It should be The Jacksons because that's what they're known now. Last time they were known as The Jackson 5 was in 1976 before Jermaine left the group. They also do concerts and tour now as The Jacksons. The last studio album they released was under "The Jacksons" name aka 2300 Jackson Street. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TrackerMercurial136, SnowFire, and PC78: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably at least worth discussing - the band was famous / notable as The Jackson 5, and later reunion tours as The Jacksons were mostly a footnote and performing existing music, rather than being a living band making new music. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a no concensus RM on this 12 years ago. PC78 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Much better known as the Jackson 5 / Jackson Five, regardless of how long ago it was that a group of performers officially used that name (as with Cat Stevens). The Jackson Five was a more notable phenomenon than the later incarnations (see WP:DEFUNCTS, for example). What matters is not the most current name but the degree of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the rest of the world, but in the UK they had 127 weeks on the singles chart as The Jackson 5 and 136 as The Jacksons. In albums they had 32 weeks as The Jackson 5 and 51 weeks as The Jacksons. I think however they appeared on the charts most frequently should be considered, but you'd need to look at their weeks in the US for greater clarity.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that regardless of sales statistics, the Jackson 5 was more historically important and memorable than the later vague Jacksons, and remains what people primarily remember. To me it seems likely that the general public continued to refer to the Jackson 5 even while they were buying the recordings of a different number of Jacksons. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per above. Their most notable incarnation was as the Jackson 5. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the title is now at the common name and the name which has the most long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition to timeline

There should be a short bar in 2009 reflecting when they recorded backing vocals for This Is It (Michael Jackson song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very informative!

Merge or redirect Johnny Jackson and Ronnie Rancifer?

The Johnny Jackson (musician) and Ronnie Rancifer articles seem unlikely to grow beyond stubs anytime soon (if ever), and there are simply not enough sources in their articles, an to me, they don't seem only notable for one event, don't seem like they'd meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Having said that, I think they should be merged with or redirected to this article.--2601:153:881:3D60:90FC:9BD7:C248:2103 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 and Jackson Five

The opening says "The Jackson 5 (sometimes stylized as the Jackson 5ive, later known as the Jacksons)" but then the article goes on to refer to the group as the Jackson Five. Should "Jackson Five" be added to the beginning of the article as an alternative stylization or should later references to Jackson Five be changed to Jackson 5? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]