Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Speculation:This article doesn't tell the truth

HELLO,new here. It seems to me that this page 'Michael Jackson's health and appearance is just another tabloid speculation.Wikipedia is SUPPOSED TO BE FACTUAL.This article is based on a lot of misconceptions.I am outraged.there aren't really that much reliable sources in this article,especially taraborelli. Sourcing is coming from surgeons who are speculating themselves.It doesn't really cover crucial things.It just seems to flail over things.Yes you could say that he was 'a man of many faces' but not literally.

1. Make-up -eyeliner makes your eyes look different,powder,etc

2 Different hairstyles

3 different facial expressions

4 Different Angles

5. Weight loss and gain (in his face)

6. Most Imprtant AGING (he's getting older his face wasn't going to look the same forever no ones does)

7.Skin color change.

If an african american goes from dark skin to pale white,then they are going to look extremely different.Your features show differently.If you make 'white' michael jackson darker and compare with thriller,he will look similar.You can't bleach your skin to that extent.he went through depigmentation and he was getting whiter due to vitiligo also. He didn't have as much plastic surgery as people think and he wasn't obsessed with it or had body dismorphic order.He wasn't a mopey disturbed person that everyone claims him to be.You have to look extremely close at his face to begin with,compare the pictures.He didn't even have a lot of plastic surgery to begin with.He had 6 or 7.Most on his nose.The first two because he broke it on stage and because of a deviated septum.He did't get cheek implants,etc.He already inherited high cheek bones from his mother and it is a trait that runs in the family.Surgery timeline Explained here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Yks1dl1bU Michael jackson even in an interview and the Glenda phone calls said that he was happy with the way he looked.He didn't do it because he 'didn't want to be like joe' or 'he didn't want his black faetures anymore'.COMPLETELY FALSE AND IGNORANT.Not everyone is satisfied about everything about them anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnHeaven (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious fan in denial is obvious lol, your comment seems to be conceived with a great deal of speculation and excuses for his bizarre appearance. There's honestly no way to know the amount of surgery Jackson had and since he believed everyone in the world was idiotic enough to believe your defense it was simply the complexion change. Any further debate would be merely debate which isn't what this page is for. Youtube isn't a reliable source and your explanation of his face.... maturing can't be used either, sorry. 72.152.133.68 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

vitiligo

Reading through the article it states as a fact that Michael suffered from vitiligo, but sources show that this disease manifests itself by depigmentation of patches of skin, and not of it as a whole, as seems to be the case with Jackson. Couldn't the diagnosis be a coverup to silence critics arguing that he had bleached his skin? I find the evidence towards vitiligo relatively unsubstantiated, and although there isn't any supporting the bleaching, I believe there is sufficient grounds to at least change the formulation of the statement so that it reflects a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, Wikipedia's entry on vitiligo should be modified so that it contains a reference to vitiligo affecting the whole of a person's skin, since it only currently describes different patch patterns. Same goes for the shape of the face, since weight loss seems very unlikely to cause such dramatic changes in someone's fisionomy. 88.7.127.40 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have doubts about Jackson having Vitiligo, since it would be more reasonable for a person to tint their skin back to its original color, not the other way round. In addition, there is a link on the Wiki page covering Jackson's death, that links to statements about Jackson's skin condition made by his doctor in Tokyo to a newspaper: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090716f1.html

In it the doctor decribes Jackson's whitening meds but gives no mention of vitiligo. I do think this doctor's statements should be added to this appearance article. Tell someone (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo does cause patching of the skin. The ONLY reason you do not see the patches on Michaels skin is because he wore makeup....just like all the other vitiligo suffers do. Whne he first began to lose pigmentation in spots, dark makeup was used to blend the white spots with the dark. Over time, due to vitiligo, most of his body was covered in large white spots therefor he wore makeup to match the light skin...in addition to using medication to lighten any remaining dark patches. (Commonly used by vitiligo sufferers). So I guess on a technicality, yes he did bleach his skin in the end. However this is due to the disease and not a need to become a white person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also having issues with the description of "early stages of vitiligo" as this skin condition pertains to Michael Jackson. From my personal knowledge (I have had a long history of vitiligo - since 1966), the skin condition shows up first in patches. MJJ has never been photographed with vitiligo in this state. If anything, I would say that MJJ underwent a depigmentation procedure, assuming that he had extensive loss of pigment of greater than 50%. If MJJ undertook a depigmentation procedure, which is time-consuming and expensive, his vitiligo was far from its early stages - unless the vitiligo dramatically spread over several months and resulted in a loss of a significant amount of pigment in an extremely short period (don't know how common is that). Is there any resource available about MJJ that mentions his vitiligo being in its early stage with significant loss of pigmentation? I've not found one that mention what is referred to in caption of the photo.

I am having issues with people not understanding using makeup. And I didn't understand the problem in the 90's either. I would imagine that you, as a vitiligo sufferer, wear makeup. I would also imagine that MJ would have preferred to NEVER be photographed without makeup. It is my understanding that the disease progressively became worse over a period of 20 years. Hardly suddenly. I just don't see why people don't understand he covered the patches with makeup. There was some doctor who actually stood up and said "if it's vitiligo, it's the strangest case I've ever seen." This doctor did not know, nor every examine MJ. I am sure with the makeup removed, the doctor would have recognized the vitiligo immediately. Does it really take more than a PHd to realize a vitiligo sufferer does not have patches because they are wearing makeup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitiligo is progressive and unpredictable in its spread, and the loss of pigmentation can start and stop or spread a little or a lot in spurts. I don't doubt that MJJ had vitiligo; just question whether the reference in the caption for the photo accurately characterizes early stages of vitiligo. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 05:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several youtube videos showing the vitiligio patches on MJs Skin in the early stages (they can be found by searching youtube for "Michael Jackson vitiligo"). The diagnosis has also been confirmed and the methods used to cover them (up to using full body make-up at times) are discussed by his Make-Up artist in the follow-up video to the "Living with Michael Jackson"-documentary, "The Footage You Were Never Supposed To See" - also to be found on youtube. Kind regards, Gwen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.223.185 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors don't doubt that MJJ had vitiligo; we're commenting that the photo with the caption in this article is misleading as pictured. A better photo would be one that shows patches to indicate the beginning stages. The photo pictured in this article implies from a distance that the vitiligo is extensive, which is beyond the beginning stages. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 04:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The back cover of his Dangerous album shows some spots on his hand.76.235.100.235 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is asserted that MJ "used so much mercury to lighten his skin colour that he went prematurely bald, side-effects not seen since it was used for treatment of syphilis in the 19th century." see . Comments? Is it notable? Jschnur (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's autopsy report has been released. The dermatological consult diagnoses him with vitiligo. http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.43.75 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

question

In the article about Michael's health and appearance it says that "by 1990, Jackson had undergone approximately 10 procedures." This, however, goes against Michael Jackson saying, on two occasions after 1990, that he has only had two nose jobs and a cleft in his chin. Nobody other than MJ and his plastic surgeon know how many procedures MJ has had. Can I, therefore, suggest that the word 'allegedly' is added?

Also, the article states : "In a court deposition unrelated to alleged child abuse, Jackson was visibly drowsy, lacked concentration and repeatedly slurred while speaking. He could not remember the dates of his prior album releases or names of people he had worked with. It took him several minutes to name the members of The Jackson 5—they were all brother's of his—and several minutes to name some of his recent albums." Having reviewed the footage, MJ was indeed drowsy and slurred words. However, it did not take MJ several minutes to name the members of the Jackson 5.

You may see this for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMysUSpviw The footage, therefore, nulls the Jackson 5 statement. - Kaneite

OK, I changed the 1990 part, if you read the full article it does say that this is alleged by those close to him, but still it's best to be safe in the lead. I changed the minutes to moments. It certainly wasn't very long but it is self evident that it wasn't rolling off his tongue. — Realist² 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I removed that part about the Jackson 5, after reviewing the tap I would say that wasn't a major element of his obvious problem. Cheers for that. — Realist² 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Jackson's health and appearance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Article is very well-written, though I did make a few minor copy-editting changes and fixed an issue with the reference citations. I have to admit, I kind of laughed at the topic when I first saw it at WP:GAN, thinking, "WTF? How did this pass WP:NOTABILITY?" But after reading it, the topic is presented quite well and makes sense, and sheds a lot of light on the pop singer's health and appearance issues. The lead section summarizes the article very well also. It is well-cited, though perhaps a little too dependent on the Taraborrelli text -- could be an issue for the folks at WP:FAC, but I think with the other references cited, it's good for GA. As far as the completeness criterion, I think it covers all of the major aspects of his conditions.

I don't see any issues with WP:NPOV or stability. Most of the edits were done by Realist2, with some help by others here and there. Nice work! The images are all tagged appropriately.

So this article passes the Good article criteria and will be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, agree there is a slight over usage of Taraborrelli, but as his book is the most respected on the subject (Mr. Jackson) it only seems like a logical choice to use it. As for FA, I don't think I could stomach it, getting Michael Jackson to FA nearly killed me. :-) — Realist² 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated passage

I'm not sure if the following passage should be in this article, as it seems unrelated to his health or appearance:

During the Australian leg of the HIStory World Tour, Jackson married his dermatologist's nurse, Deborah Jeanne Rowe, with whom he fathered a son, Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr. (also known as "Prince"), and a daughter, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.[6][7] The pair first met in the mid 1980s, when Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo. She spent many years treating his illness as well as providing emotional support, and they built a strong friendship before becoming romantically involved.[8] The couple divorced in 1999 and remain friends.[9]

Should it be removed? -kotra (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, should stay, many tabloid loving readers still refuse to accept the vitiligo thing. Yet he's had a whole marriage and thus children around it. The disease has had a huge affect on his personal live, shaped the person he is. It adds meat and bones and makes it harder for various MJ haters to dispute it. The children aspect is a little unnessary, will remove that. — Realist² 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However, I don't think it's needed to back up the vitiligo case (which is well-documented itself), and it does read like an unrelated tangent about Jackson's romantic/family life. Besides, if one looks at the citations, it doesn't actually make it any easier to believe in Jackson's vitiligo: it's from the same source used elsewhere, Tarraborelli. I admire your hard work on this article, but I still think these 3-4 sentences are unneeded here. -kotra (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will work on it, I want to discuss the affect that the illness had on Jackson's state of mind, how it affects other suffers and more specifically how she was involved in helping him through these issues. I've seen loads of videos on it but looking for good sources. If it comes to a point where I think it's not going anyway I will remove it. But the article is still a work in progress, I would like to take it to FA at some point. It needs to be as broad as possible (without going over the deep end). — Realist² 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure if the subject matter itself will ever allow it to be a FA, but you have far more experience than me in that area, so you would know better than me. In any case, my inclination is to go with just the "cold hard facts" and not delve into emotional/psychological issues. Our goal on Wikipedia shouldn't be to convince the reader to sympathize with someone. But if whatever you add is relevant to the article, notable, and well-referenced, then I suppose it belongs. Good luck! -kotra (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time I thought they would never allow Michael Jackson to pass FA, just proves you should never say never. If it paints him in a sympathetic manner too bad. We have several articles on wikipedia aimed at derailing him as a hideous monster, no one complains about them. He just has a lot of health problems/personal issues that need documenting, if that makes people feel a little sorry for him...its called human nature. I think it opens peoples eyes to why he is like he is, you won't read this side in the tabloids. — Realist² 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, accuracy is our goal. Neutrality is also our goal as I'm sure you know, so any articles on Wikipedia that paint Jackson in a positive or a negative light should be de-POVed. If there are articles that portray him as a hideous monster, they certainly deserve complaint, and swift correction as per WP:BIO. -kotra (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacing

What is the purpose of the spacing after the lead? (Most other articles don't have it, and I was going to delete it until I saw the note.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its to look good, it's harmless, don't lose sleep over it. — Realist² 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not medicine

This is not medicine therefore removed from the wikiproject. This is trivia and should probably be deleted entirely.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This does not qualify as natural science. This is a discussion of a single persons health problems. This is either trivia or biographical information. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article meets the requirements of the GA criteria. IDONTLIKEIT seems to be your general rational. — R² 01:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that I do not like it it is that this topic has nothing at all to do with natural science. My main issue was if this is not natural science than it cannot be a natural science good article. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Death

Obviously something will need to be added to this article regarding the cause of his death, once the cause is officially established and can be reliably sourced. There is no rush, however, and no reason for speculating. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Concurred. I added his death-date, and didn't even bother saying "cause of death not immedately announced" because may as well wait until there actually is something to say. DMacks (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

There are verbs in the present tense in this article which need to be changed to past tense. Why is an established user such as myself unable to do this? — Chameleon 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Down to semi. Cenarium (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Body dysmorphic disorder

The description of the illness given in it's article is totally different from the one here. Zazaban (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Suffered from body dysmorphic disorder?

There is no reference for this, nor does it say if these medical experts personally treated him or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.145.201 (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation and not speculation

Some of this is not speculation. While I see the reasoning behind some of this being removed for now or permanently, I am not certain that I agree with all of it being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there specific parts that we can say are fact? Most of it is speculation on the part of the media, associates and family members. We will know the truth when the toxicology results come through, so it makes sense to wait, we are not a news organization. — Please comment R² 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A person's word cannot always be said to be fact, but we still often relay what people said. My point is that his family members commented on some of this stuff, according to reliable sources, and so did his nurse/nutritionist. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't his nurse sacked before he died? Hardly a reliable point of reference. We should also remember that his family are heartbroken, confused, stressed and suspicious. — Please comment R² 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sacked? What do you mean by that? The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of "sacked" is killed.

In any case, I am not hard-pressed on any of the information you removed being added back to the article. I simply felt that some of it may best not be removed and that this should be discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sacked as in fired, he fired her before he died. — Please comment R² 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material Realist removed, because it is relevant and well-sourced. I can't understand why anyone would want to remove from the lead that he had died, for example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was unwise to do so without discussing in hindsight, I had been away from Wiki for some time and I think the work load got to me. Anyway, I've set up a death section. As you can see, it is quite long now, the majority of it would be better suited to the death article. I don't think more than two paragraphs are needed here. — Please comment R² 12:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm seriously considering nomming this article for deletion. I don't see any notability in someone's health and appearance that can't be said in a paragraph in the subject's own article, even if they are Michael Jackson. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it could be merged too, as it's not particularly detailed. The only thing is that the main article is very long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has survived one AfD, almost unanimously and it's a GA article. It's here mainly to sustain the requirements of summary style over at Michael Jackson. — Please comment R² 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this article should remain. The main reason, I am sure, that it was split off is because the main article is already too long and this one can be used to go into further encyclopedic detail about these things. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also argue that with all the comments from the public, media, doctors and surgeons about Jackson's health and appearance that there is some notability to having an article about this (even if most of it about his looks is considered speculation). Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

I'm not sure what this means. "According to Taraborrelli, in January 2004, following his upcoming trial, Jackson became dependent on morphine and pethidine (Demerol)."

Following his upcoming trial? That was in 2005, and he became addicted in 2004 "following" it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for fixing it. Does the author say when exactly? The chronology throughout the Jackson's articles is somewhat opaque. And why and when does he say he overcame it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The "overcome" part should not be in the article, the book ended in 2004, before the trial finished. I'm guessing someone slipped that it, it does not look like he got over the 2004 addiction at all. — Please comment R² 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, but someone put it back. Does the author give any firm dates (months, years)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No (he say's Jan 2004, but I'm guessing that was the stage when it became overtly obvious), it's not an accurate science, it's quite hard to gauge the exact date/month a person becomes "addicted" to a drug. I very much doubt even Jackson knows the precise date we went from using the drugs, to actually needing them to sustain himself. — Please comment R² 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to know when the use started though. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the most secretive, reclusive pop star on the planet. Very view people would be aware of such details. He's not Britney Spears, getting pissed in the streets with no underwear on. Even when Jackson admitted to his addiction in 1993, he was vague on the details. — Please comment R² 15:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know when he admitted to it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't comment on it until December 22, 1993. He did a broadcast from Neverland about the accusations, cancellation of his tour and addiction. However his spokespeople had admitted to it months before that and he went into rehab before hand. A good timeline of events can be found at 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. — Please comment R² 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

'Is it true that Michael had one layer of skin removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.42.136 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If that had anything to do with the cancer story by The Sun, then no, probably not. — Please comment R² 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline

Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Taraborrelli

This article relies very heavily on the book by Taraborrelli (see footnotes and references), but does not address who Taraborrelli is or why he should be an authority on the life of Jackson, which given the heavy use of the book is probably appropriate. It appears even from the title of the book, "Magic and Madness," that the book probably has some serious POV issues. It is important to address this particularly in light of the contradiction between Taraborrelli's statements (or quotations) and other sources. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been concerned about that too. It's the same on the main Michael Jackson article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been quite concerned about that as well. The objectivity of this article is null, as well as the main Michael Jackson article, which realies very heavily on the book by Taraborrelli. 201.240.87.221 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

IP, do not change sourced information to instead state something else, unless you are justified in such removal or that "something else" is also in the reference (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article, as well as the Michael Jackson article, now links to J. Randy Taraborrelli as it states "According to J. Randy Taraborrelli's biography"... (which was added days ago). If people want to know who Taraborrelli is, they can just click on the link. As for everything else, well, that can be worked out through further discussion here or at the Michael Jackson article (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight loss

Several of the Jackson articles say that the shape of his face changed because of weight loss, though I can't imagine anyone's face changing to that extent because they lose weight. The claim is always sourced to Taraborrelli, pp. 138–144. This is a large page range for a claim about weight loss. Could the person who added that material tell us what Tarborrelli says exactly, with a page number? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's appearance

On the Michael Jackson talk page, the following was stated by ♦IanMacM♦ at 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC):

This article is on Snopes today. It is a genuine magazine article from 1985, showing a projection of what he might look like in 2000, and how things actually turned out. An interesting historical curiosity, possibly suitable for Michael Jackson's health and appearance.

Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

editing this page

Please do not erase something that someone has added to the article immediately as I have just seen someone do to what I just added. It took almost an hour for me to add the little editing that I did only to have all of it erased. Be respectful of others when editing WIKIPEDIA.. it is not YOUR encyclopedia it belongs to the public. Anyone is able to edit Wiki and that is because each of us has our own information, sources, text, and insight into each category. Coming back and taking out all changes made to your article upon notification of changes in your email is not only overly controlling it is rude. Let the computer decide what is in or out of the article unless of course what is added is obviously something that is all opinion or not backed up by sources at all or hateful. None of what I added was any of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzselinakyle (talk • contribs) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Corenor's Report

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/09/michael-jackson-balding-incredibly-tattooed-facial-features/?test=faces

Thought it might be interesting, i never like the guy but never really hated but this above is really sad Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection/Disruptive edits

I am pinging Woody, Flyer 22 Frozen, qedk, NinjaRobotPirate, ★Trekker, Hammelsmith, Woody, Drmies, JG66, SNUGGUMS and Darren-M.

This is so blatant, I had to alert you all. If you ever wanted to know the reason behind some of the ping-pong edits/edit-warring on Michael Jackson articles, here's an example. PunCrock's latest edit (not discussed on this Talk page): "Skin bleaching creams have been used by other black celebrities to lighten their skin tone. Skin bleaching products have also been known to be the cause of vitiligo and so onset of the disease could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching. Vitiligo did not cause him to surgically remove his black features."[1]

Absolutely no source used. Not every single sentence in an article will be sourced, but such an edit certainly requires sourcing. The article does mention that Jackson may have used skin whitening or skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of colour caused by his vitiligo, and it is sourced.

Let us discuss addition of this sentence: "Skin bleaching products have also been known to be the cause of vitiligo and so onset of the disease could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching." Where does it say skin bleaching products may be the cause of vitiligo? It may be true, but that needs to be well-sourced. "...could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching." Here we go! Was that well-sourced or was that pure WP:OR and POV?

"Vitiligo did not cause him to surgically remove his black features." I don't know about you, but this sounds like serious POV to me. Does anyone agree?

"...to surgically remove his black features." What is this supposed to mean? What "black features" was PunCrock referring to? Let me have a guess... His nose? Some Black people have a wider nose, some a slimmer one, some an even slimmer one. Some White people have a wider nose, some a slimmer one, some an even slimmer one. Just saying "black features" implies all Black people look a certain way. Even if they did not mean that, that sentence sounds like pure POV and condemnation to me, a personal opinion/assumption that does not belong to this article. And what is/are the other "black feature(s)"?

This one edit is a clear example of what may cause disruption on Michael Jackson articles. A revert, in such a case, is justified, that revert may be undone, and it leads to instability of the articles. Wikipedia articles are not static (they may gradually be edited with new content), but some stability is required (as opposed to constant disruption), and that's the very reason behind the general sanctions on MJ-related articles. Israell (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Israell, thanks for the ping. I agree with your comments and would say that each of those edits is WP:OR and WP:POV (and arguably controversial to boot, which makes them even more concerning), so would agree that a revert is justified. Best, Darren-M talk 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your revert most definitely was justified when the user was clearly trying to push a point, Israell. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the users edit was very POV pushy.★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Good revert on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read about the skin-bleaching-could-cause-vitiligo theory, yet any of that information from a peer-reviewed reliable scientific source would probably not belong in this article because that would only be speculative since there is no way to know how an individual chooses to spend his or her private time. Wiki does already have the Skin whitening article which mentions vitiligo, so any significant evidence on the theory could be written there. Out of curiosity, I found this post from a physician addressing this, yet it isn't peer-reviewed. Anyway, reverting unfounded and speculative edits is keeping with policy, and talk pages are for discussions. I hope we can strive for a happy medium. Best to all, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. And see this edit made on the Leaving Neverland article: [2]. InedibleHulk wrote in his edit summary: "He wasn't allegedly dead when he molested these kids, that'd be creepy." Okay. They did not state their personal opinion of Jackson's guilt in the article (he was never found guilty in a court of law), but they expressed it very clearly in the edit summary (not sure if that's okay on Wiki). They're entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't cause POV edits, but we now see what is causing disruption on MJ-related articles. Some editors strongly feel MJ's guilty, some strongly feel he isn't, some may be neutral/on the fence, and some editors may want to edit articles in a way that is more reflective of their beliefs.

Note: There isn't much difference between "late singer" or "singer"; it is okay to use "late singer" retroactively. That said, it's all semantics; I did not revert it. Israell (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrongly cited source

I went through the entire print edition and have discovered that not only does John Landis never refers to Jackson’s chest as being bleached, there are only 82 pages in the cited commemorative edition, there’s not even a page 87. What I can also say is that the section title 'What Went Wrong' is not in the cited source either. I will be making the necessary corrections to the wrongly cited information by removing it completely from the article.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi TruthGuardians

I think that's one of my edits. I'm very sure I didn't read that in a book. I think I found it online. The source might have got lost in an edit. I don't insist on it. Please take a look at the articles Health of - Samuel Johnson, - Abraham Lincoln, - Vinvent van Gogh, - Robert E. Howard and Health of Frederic Chopin. I think they could be helpful especially for the lead. I removed the body dysmorphic disorder because it is not sourced (doesn't link to the article). Quaffel (talk)

Hallo TruthGuardians, the Landis quote is mentioned in the Commemoratitive Issue of the Rolling Stone Magazine. The article is also online: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/michael-jackson-what-went-wrong-113580/ Quaffel (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Childhood and Mental Health

This section weights on Jackson'srelation to his father. I'm not trying to leave something out, but imo the Shmuley piece is pure sensationalism. I don't think sensationalism helps. If you have source supporting the photo in 1974, please add it (Wikimedia stated 1972). For now I'll change that part and leave out a year. I'll remove the big nose part due to sensationalism. Quaffel (talk)

Handwritten letter

I removed this part because it's about racism (he even uses the word) and not aout his skin desease. Quaffel (talk)

Change of heading

I changed the heading of the "skin color" section to make clear that it is about deseases and not about skin color in general or racism. The new heading also fits for lupus and goes well with the other headings.Quaffel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Physical health is a better headline. I created made the subsections sections because it makes more sense and it’s more comfortable to read now. I moved the drug section because it was a result of Jackson’s physical health. Quaffel (talk)

I changed the heading of the "Childhood and mental health" section due to the recent edits. I think "Mental health fits better. I also created 2 sub sections. "Appearance" ist first because of the order in the article. Quaffel (talk) I created subsections for the Skin diseases section. I might be doing this for the other sections as well.

Desease vs Disease

After some googling, I'm fairly certain there is no such word as "Desease/s" and it is in fact a typo of "Disease/s".

Hopefully someone with editing power can fix the error.

 Already done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I think the ethnic group should be mentioned in the lead because it was part of the discussions about Jackson's appearance. Quaffel (talk)

Child abuse

I think we should use Jackson as a source in the lead too. I also  placed a wiki link in the childhood section.Quaffel (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Cosmetic procedure

I removed the part about the scars on the neck. The autopsy report (source 23) states „…scarlike areas…“ (p. 17) and „…show no melanocytic pigment. Melanocytes, although present, are in reduced number.“ (p. 38). I think it’s a vitiligo patch. I couldn’t find a conclusion about what caused the scars in the autopsy report, so I removed that as well. I also use the original report as new source. Quaffel (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about the cosmetic tatoo on his scalp. The autopsy report states ”a dark discoloration resembling a tatoo on the the anterior half of the scalp.“ (p.17) That doesn’t mean it’s a tatoo. Quaffel (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC) I moved that part to the death section. Quaffel (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about the ”Daily Mirror“. It didn’t really fit here. The ”Cultural Impact“ article has a section dealing withabout the subject. Quaffel (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Taraborelli states he had his first nose job in 1979 and then he was refferred to Dr Hoefflin. I don’t think he waited for 2 years having breathing problems and trouble singing (p. 205-206). Taraborelli doesn’t state when the second nose job was done.Quaffel (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Reverted myself. He says it was performed in 1981 (p.208)Quaffel (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So you remove all of the scalp information? Either report all of the autopsy information or none of it. We can quote what the autopsy report said. Silveryglove (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

DoneQuaffel (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Silveryglove was right. I deleted the part that I actually wanted to move. Thank you for correcting me!Quaffel (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Vitiligo

None oft the 3 sources stated what the text said. I don’t think this part is needed here because we have a part about skin bleaching for vitiligo patients below.Quaffel (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

All three sources talk about the speculation that he bleached his skin. Because it's very widely reported and is about his health, and Mike says he didn't bleach his skin in the way they mean, it should stay. It's also in the Michael Jackson page, and the health/appearance page is supposed to offer more knowledge on this and others things. Sources after his death also found skin-lightening products in his home and say he likely used them to treat his vitiligo. Silveryglove (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Silveryglove, You said he didn't bleach the skin the way they mean. But the text doesn't say that. That point is actually left out. The text says Jackson's skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler. The change drew widespread media coverage, including speculation that he was bleaching his skin. The sources don't state the 1980s. I mean, I know it started then, but the sources don't tell. Taraborelli says: "There are several reasons for Michael's pale skin. First he used to bleach his skin with different chemicals." p. 435. Actually I wanted to leave that source but I think that's not a speculation. On the next page he's talking about the Vitiligo diagnosis. I think that's not what you want to say. Quaffel (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Silveryglove, I've taken a look at the critcism part in the lead again. I removed DeMello and Radha Sarma Hegde as sources for the following sentences again: …to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. The creams would have further lightened his skin. The lighter skin resulted in criticism that he was trying to appear white. I think the source for the next sentence is a much better source. DeMello doesn’t explicitly state he wanted to be white and doesn’t mention covering up blotches. The book by Radha Sarma Hedging has a quote saying: ”Why do you think should not have pretended to be gora (white)?“ And then there a desriptions of 2 Youtube videos. One showing how his face changed and one defending him saying he had vitiligo. I haven’t read the book. Obviously it deals with racism and social bounderies and also describes the situation of women of color in India. Jackson didn’t want to pretend to be white. He had skin disorder. And I think the Winfrey source reflects his situation better than the other 2 sources. Quaffel (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the Radha Sarma Hegde book as a source for the following sentences: ”Jackson's skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler. The change drew widespread media coverage, including speculation that he was bleaching his skin.“ and ”Jackson's physical changes attracted widespread media coverage and criticism from the public.“ I don’t think that it should be used as a source based on the description of Youtube videos. Note: It doesn’t say anything about his skin getting paler. Quaffel (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a new source I used for the vitiligo section and the appearance section. I think it gets to the heart of what we're talking about. But I think we need to add more. Quaffel (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Vitiligo diagnosis

I deleted the part about Klein observing vitiligo in 1983 part. There was obviously a RfC on that on the Talk Page of the Michael Jackson article and 1986 remained in place instead of a source stating 1984.Quaffel (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC) The deleted part suggested that the source uses a quote of Klein. It doesn't. Actually it's about a book written about Jackson. The source for 1986 however does use a statement made by Klein in 1993.Quaffel (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Degree of paleness

I removed the part under the 1988 image saying "Jackson in the middle of his skin transformation from light brown to pale". That's a speculation. When exactly did the transformation start? We only have photos and lightning does play a role as well as make up. I don't think anybody of us can really tell. He bleached his skin due to vitiligo and not because he wanted to look pale. All we can say is that the image shows Jackson in 1988. Quaffel (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The article states: ”Jackson used fair-colored makeup,[3] and possibly skin-bleaching prescription creams,[4] to cover up the uneven blotches of color. The creams would have further lightened his skin, and, with the application of makeup, he could appear very pale.“ I deleted the last sentence. ”The creams would have further lightened his skin, and, with the application of makeup, he could appear very pale.“ The first sentence is very clear. I don’t think we need any further explaination. I also removed a similar sentence from the lead. Quaffel (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the part about the media coverage regarding his changing appearance based on a new source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Cleft chin

Mike admits to getting a cleft chin in his book, Moonwalk. Quaffel removed it and said Mike only admitted to two nose jobs. That's a falsification of the source. So I added it back. Mike getting a cleft chin is also said on the Michael Jackson page. Silveryglove (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Silveryglove, I didn't remove it. I know he said it. I made several edits. I copied it and moved it down to the subsection about facial structure. The origial statement was still above. I removed the chin cleft which was in the second section now. The subsection above was about nose surgery so I deleted the part about the cleft in that section. The chin cleft was in the subsection below. I did not remove it.Quaffel (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Drug dependancy

First paragraph

"In none of Jackson's hospitalizations, including the one in late 1995, did medics find drugs in Jackson's system" It has 2 sources. The first one is a beauty forum and doesn't say anything about Michael. I'd like to remove it. The second one is a Prince forum. They discuss it, that's not the problem. But recently a forum wasn't allowed as a source on the Nirvana page. I can't find the article that is discussed. Can we use the forum as a source? Quaffel (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph

There's no source for the third paragraph: Jackson said during the 1993 interview that he began taking painkiller medications in 1984. On January 24 of that year, Jackson was filming a Pepsi commercial when his hair caught on fire from faulty pyrotechnics on stage that were intended to be part of one of many being filmed. He sustained second-degree burns to his scalp and never fully recovered from the injury or from the lingering pain. He reportedly began taking the painkillers in order to deal with the intense pain, despite having refused to do so at first. What is it about? The interview with Oprah Winfrey or "60 minutes"? Or ist it about the Neverland statement? What is the statement made at first? I don't know, but we need a source Quaffel (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph It wasn’t sourced and I don’t know which statements it actually reffered to. He did say something about not taking drugs (Moonwalk p. 104) but he was talking about drungs like marihuana. Jackson was addicted to prescription drugs. Quaffel (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nightingale

Campbell’s book doesn’t have page numbers so I can’t tell what page it is (I won’t count). In Chapter 4 she says there were a lot of rumors where he was (Switzerland, France…) and Nightingale was the most widely believed hospital She says Michael stayed with Elton John before going to the clinic but then she goes on saying ”wherever he was…“ Nightingale and his lawyers refused to comment, so I think we shouldn’t present this all as a fact. Taraborelli wrote about this in the chapter ”Chaos and Rehab“ but there’s nothing about this chapter in the source notes. I removed the part based on Campbell and Taraborelli. Regarding the depostion Campbell states the lawyer said: ” He knows and recalls a good deal about songs he’s written, or not written that goes back years“. Nothing about slurred speech and that he doesn’t remember the titles of his albums. I moved the part about the intectual level to the Mental health section and added information.Quaffel (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Tranquillizers

I removed the part about the tranquillizers in 1993 which used Taraborelli as a source. I found some sources saying the same but they use Taraborelli as a source. Some sources that were written later falsely state Jackson admitted having taken them but the 1993 statements only mention painkillers. Most sources dealing with lorazepam refer to his death in 2009, which is backed up by evidence. Taraborelli just states he took tranquillizers and pain killers but he doesn’t offer further information. Then he goes on with the addiction of Liz Taylor and Lisa Marie Presley and Jackson’s relationship with Presley. I don’t think that’s enough.Quaffel (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Childhood

The article stated Jackson first talked about his abusive childhood in the interview in 1993. That’s not correct. He already mentioned it in ”Moonwalk“ (e.g. pp. 29-30) and the book had been published in 1988. Quaffel (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about his father wearing a fright mask. Some things have been changed, the focus is only on Michael Jackson. The source is different. Does Wikipedia have a policy how to deal with child abuse in an article?Quaffel (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about the big nose. He dealt with most of his ”secret childhood“ in Moonwalk. Based on what he said in the unedited version oft he 2003 documentary (Appearance section) I think we shouldn’t draw the conclusion his nose affected the rest of his life. We have enough sources of Jackson talking about his childhood. I also removed the Taraborelli part about Joseph holding three-year-old Michael upside down. The main article doesn’t give such details and I’m not sure how Wikipedia deals with that. Quaffel (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Loneliness

I think ”Moonwalk“ is better here. Both sources match in parts but Taraborelli puts it in a different context and we just a had quote without any context i the text. I also put it in a subsection because it couldn’t stay in the childhood section.Quaffel (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloth Mask

His pale skin is irrelevant in this context. He wore the mask because he was worried he couldn't perform.That's all. Concert had been canceled in the past as you can see in the text. He said "He would say, 'Matt I can't get ill, I can't let my fans down. I've got concerts coming up. I'm on this earth for a reason. I mustn't damage my voice, I've got to stay healthy, I don't know who I'm going to encounter today, I don't know what I might pass on.'" This man needed his voice to do his jobThe rest is the bodyguard's assumption. I dom't read anything about fear of germs. That's speculations. Opera singers wear scarfs to protect their voices. Is that also fear of germs? Athletes change their clothes after competition. I think Bush also wrote something in his book about Jackson wearing masks to avoid cancelations. No fear of germs. He wasn't wearing the mask all the time. Check the internet and you'll find a lot of images without a mask.Quaffel (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC) I rewrote the part about the masks based on Bush’s book. It was published in 2012. I think we shouldn’t connect this with current events. I also moved it to the part about the cancelations.Quaffel (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection

The text states: ”It also started a public discourse on the topic of vitiligo, then a relatively unknown condition“ and ”In his 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey Jackson also spoke of his abusive childhood. He grimaced when speaking of the childhood abuse at the hands of his father; he believed he had missed out on much of his childhood years, acknowledging that he often cried from loneliness.“ Sources are pp. 45- 46 of the ”Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection“ booklet. The ”Further reading“ section states Nelson George as the author. His Wikipedia article states that Nelson George wrote a book about Jackson called ”The Michael Jackson Story“, but the booklet does not state any author. Pages 45 – 46 list some of the awards Jackson won. There’s a brief summary of Jackson’s career and life on pp. 20 – 24 but it’s all about music. Nothing about vitiligo or what he said in the interview. I removed the refs and removed it from the ”Further reading“ section.Quaffel (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

I just removed 2 sources because they didn't state anything that's said in the text. However, the text remains because it was sourced.Quaffel (talk) Note: I removed the concert in Athens, because the source states they still hoped there would be a show in Athens.Quaffel (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alyo, You reverteted my recent edits. What do you think was wrong with my edit in the lead? Quaffel (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I hope we can talk about the other edits here too. I edited the child abuse section the other day (statement of Katz about Jackson) I've been thinking about it and I want to delete it. Katz didn't say xanything in the trial and I#M not sure if the story is true. He was hired to examine the accuser (in 2 one-hour-sessions) not Jackson so I think he couldn't make such a about Jackson.Quaffel (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Quaffel, as a general rule it's better to integrate links into the text instead of having them as "See Also's", but otherwise I have no strong feelings about that section. For the lead, can you explain what is wrong with the sentence "To treat the condition, he used fair-colored makeup and likely skin whitening prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness"? That seems to be more descriptive and nuanced than what you replaced it with, plus you left the Kolata source hanging by itself and didn't put a full stop at the end of one of the sentences. Alyo (chat·edits) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alyo I think I have explain my edit. It stated "To treat the condition, he used fair-colored makeup and likely skin whitening prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness" I wrote Jackson had to depigment his skin because the condition had become severe The lighter skin resulted in criticism that he was trying to appear white. When somebody depigments his skin he uses creams to destroy the pigmentation. His physician confirmed he did that because he had no choice because it became severe. The lead and the section stated likely and in the article those creams were mentioned too. Please have a look at the vitiligo section. It might give a better explaination. I just tried to clarify things and coordinate lead and article. I removed the make up part because it's i the text. Most of the laed about vitiligo is in the text. I don't think i should be like that. Wikipedia has a lot of See also's in articles about Wikipedia. I thought it's okay. I made a wikilink in the text to Wikipedia's article about sexual child abuse. I thought it's better to use see also's for the articles about Jackson. You wrote "one isn't relevant?" Maybe I can answer your question.Quaffel (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add that he depigmented his skin when he couldn't cover it with make up amymore. He made that statement that he used make up in 1993 and it's still in the text. I don't know whe he depigmented his skin. It doesn't make sense to state he used make up and those screams. Make up didn't help anymore. The lead is confusing here.Quaffel (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Quaffel, so a couple of comments: First, it appears that the lead was the result of some previous discussions, so I want to have a good reason to change it. Are you saying that the part about using fair colored makeup just isn't in the main article? Because it shouldn't matter if it "makes sense" to use that language if that's what a source says, and in this case we at least have the New York Times pieces saying that he claimed it about himself. I don't think the lead is confusing in that sense, although maybe we could change it to say that "Michael Jackson claimed he used makeup..." As for see also, I removed FBI files on Michael Jackson because it doesn't explain anything more about his sexuality. The other two see also's are already linked in the article and thus we don't need to link them again. Alyo (chat·edits) 12:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Alyo You have no idea what this about it. I'm not going to waste my time with this Read the vitiligo section and the sources. They are in good English. You should be able to understand it.Quaffel (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Quaffel, I do think I understand the sources. However, much of your edits are extremely similar to the existing content but with slightly worse English grammar. Thus I'm trying to understand what you're contesting, and I'm trying to help develop better language. Insulting me doesn't help. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Bert Fields statement

The statement was made by his then lawyer not by Jackson himself. The statement caused trouble and the lawyer resigned. So we should make clear who actually said it. I moved the part about the intectual level to the Mental health section and added information.Quaffel (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)