This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I have already said why I think Taraborrelli is unreliable. I have said it multiple times on multiple articles. Now, Flyer22 Reborn keeps edit warring without explaining herself. The burden of proof is on her. She has not refuted any of the arguments I've made. She has not even tried to. Instead, she keeps reverting my edits on the grounds that I didn't prove anything which blatantly untrue.
Again, Flyer22 Reborn is the one who needs to do the proving. If this continues, I will consider submitting a notice on ANI. —Partytemple ( talk) 20:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit proposal consensus: As per these edits on "1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films."
The original sentence on Bubbles was misrepresented. The Rolling Stone article didn't say anything about the chimp (or Jackson; I don't know which "he" referred to) being "detached from reality." I fixed the vitiligo sentence to something more reliable than Taraborrelli, as other users have discussed his unreliability before above. Flyer22 Reborn should state her reasons rather than edit warring, dismissing my reasons as "personal beliefs," or that she "doesn't know any doctor..." because her claims are not sourced to anyone but herself. —Partytemple ( talk) 23:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn Your edits are not 100% clear or truthful. You are editing information without causation and will be reported if you do not stop. Jackson’s autopsy report proves that Jackson’s pigmentation was destroyed via vitiligo, NOT bleaching creams. I can assure you, as Jackson has said on many occasions, that he was a proud African American. You’re attempting to change the narrative by suggesting the opposite based on expressed opinion and not facts. Creams like Benoquin are ONLY prescribed to patients only after being diagnosed with a pigmentation destroying disease like vitiligo. Its a cream prescribed by a doctor for such conditions, NOT purchased over-the-counter. Have a look at the autopsy report again if you are in need of a reminder: http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson,%20michael_report.pdf TruthGuardians ( talk) 01:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
A "rabid Jackson fan?" Hardly. Everyone that presents real facts or have factual opposing views aren't "rabid Jackson fans." You present only failed talking points, no evidence. I can tell for certain that there is no amount of bleaching that will make you allergic to the sun and turn you the pale porcelain color that Michael Jackson and others like Winnie Harlow. To suggest otherwise is incredibly racist and insulting for others suffering from Vitiligo. Again, I said what I said. You will abide by Wikipedia's terms and conditions and suggest and make edits as required. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Flyer22_Reborn's behaviour is problematic, going as far as calling other editors "rabid" the minute she does not agree w/ them. Now, per his autopsy report, Jackson did make use of hydroquinone (HYDROQUINONE LIQUID 8% LOTION IN TUBE), and the same autopsy report confirms he had vitiligo. Jackson did use makeup and bleaching (or lightening or whitening) agents in order to even out his tone due to his vitiligo. Israell ( talk) 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The topic hits home. When your 13-year-old nephew is accused of wanting to be white, like mine, because of his vitiligo, it's disheartening to see someone playing a tune to that narrative. Flyer22_Reborn has broken many of Wikipedia's codes of conduct in this thread alone like, but not limited to the following: 1) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Civility 2) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 3) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks There have been many occasions where the user also broke the following rules: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Verifiability I smell an agenda here. TruthGuardians ( talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Bringing this topic back to the edit in question. This is what is currently written and what Flyer22 is trying to defend:
According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984, which causes white patches on the skin, and had also been skin bleaching.
The only citation Taraborrelli has for the claim "[Jackson] had also been skin bleaching" is "one employee" (who's not even named) who saw Jackson "rub cream on his face." And then he has a few some doctors (some named, some anonymous) talking about if "skin bleaching" is possible. This is very speculative. Other sources, on the other hand, have explained very thoroughly that it's common for vitiligo patients to use "skin bleaching" creams to even out their blotches. For those who know this tabloid rumor well, Jackson was accused of being a self-hating black man, so he used plastic surgery and skin creams to turn himself white. The current sentence seems imply the same tabloid rumor. That's the primary issue with this, and it's even in the section that talks about how the tabloids were smearing Jackson. —Partytemple ( talk) 05:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22_Reborn, get off your high horse! All editors, incl. newbies, are welcome here, and you're not superior in any way. I've been on Wiki for years, and I never belittled an editor because they were new. I fail to see how TruthGuardians is turning this topic into a forum. He's on topic and rightfully addressing your insolence and impertinence. Israell ( talk) 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Michael Jackson, like others, was bullied about his skin condition. The word "bleach(ed) is triggering to those bullied about the condition as they are accused of showering or bathing in bleach ( https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/vitiligo-skin-condition-self-love-body-art) As I said, the edits are insulting. There are many other examples of racism and bullying that comes with touching this topic as non-medical professionals as you can find in these articles as well: 1) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-vitiligo-skin-art-health-beauty-ashley-soto-a7635111.html 2) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/vitiligo-model-iomikoe-johnson-winnie-harlow-instagram-a8744566.html 3) https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/06/man-bullied-vitiligo-now-model-sees-skin-art-10125140/ 4) https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/tv/news/i-had-a-knife-in-my-hand-woman-29-with-vitiligo-who-was-driven-to-the-brink-of-suicide-by-bullies-now-appears-on-billboards-in-new-york-after-being-scouted-for-modelling-campaigns/ar-BBQpATG
My suggestion: Michael Jackson's vitiligo is mentioned and that's it. There is no purpose to assume or get into details over hearsay about what products he used, when he used it, and why. It serves no purpose. People can learn more about vitiligo and treatment for it via research into the medical condition, not Michael Jackson. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding relevant information on a topic without offending a group of people is absolutely how Wikipedia works! Perhaps we should start talking about what toothpaste Michael Jackson used to keep his teeth so white? Maybe his hair products? His hair was always on fleek! Again, let's stick to relevant information without offending anyone. TruthGuardians ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. You're only proving others right about you. Israell ( talk) 06:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, WP:GOODFAITH. Quit breaking Wikipedia rules. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, WP:GOODFAITH. TruthGuardians ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
See below for revised proposal.
The source articles from AP/Japan Times states:
The documentary “Leaving Neverland” presented a disturbing depiction of Michael Jackson as a child molester, but the initial wave of negative publicity hasn’t greatly diminished the King of Pop’s image or the enduring popularity of his music.
Many believe Jackson’s musical legacy is still going strong as Tuesday’s 10th anniversary of his death approaches. Backlash to the documentary that aired in March on HBO and Britain’s Channel 4 prompted radio stations in Canada to stop playing his music and the producers of “The Simpsons” to remove an episode that featured Jackson’s voice.
But that has been the most visible extent of the backlash.
The source from The Independent states:
Following the broadcast of Leaving Neverland on Channel 4, Michael Jackson’s albums have climbed the UK album charts.... Despite the controversy, Jackson's music has surged up the UK iTunes charts.
I propose this sentence to represent the above statement:
The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity but ultimately did not diminish his music's popularity or his image.
And replace this (current) sentence:
The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity though did not fully diminish his music's popularity.
It's clear that his music gained popularity among consumers instead of "diminishing" in direct response to the documentary. It's also clear that the backlash happened primarily on the radio stations, since they are directly involved in the music industry; and only a few music stations have stopped playing his music indefinitely. We also know that industry professionals were vindicated in believing Jackson would survive the controversy. I think it's obvious that this backlash have a very limited effect. WP:DUE. I also think Flyer22 is trying very hard with the speculations about Jackson being less popular now than he was before, which is completely contrary to evidence we cited. We should not write WP articles based on speculation into the future and personal opinions and what not. —Partytemple ( talk) 20:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Revised proposal to this statement: "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity, though it did not diminish his music's popularity or image—outside of a few radio stations that banned his music indefinitely."
Popularity refers to the people's tastes, not the decisions of a few music stations. And I'm sorry to say that Flyer22 is still not reading carefully. I have not cited the Billboard senior editor's opinions as facts. I have repeatedly cited album sales as the reason for his enduring popularity. It is the same for all the other articles concerning this statement. And stop bringing up more accusations WP:ASPERSIONS or I will report you again, this time for "meatpuppetry." —Partytemple ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if this sentence:
"[Jordan Chandler] also drew accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when it was lifted.{{sfn|Orth|2005|p=331}"
can be restored to this article with this reference?
Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Partytemple, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, BudapestJoe, Popcornduff, General Ization, Tataral, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpgordon, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No, Hammelsmith, I wouldn't use it neither for the reason SNUGGUMS has just given, and as already mentioned in the article, the jury found Jordan Chandler's description not to be a match. Besides, Chandler stated Jackson was circumcised when he was not circumcised (per his official autopsy report I've already repeatedly linked us to), and Jackson had vitiligo. Chandler's father, Evan, knew of Jackson's vitiligo and used that to lie, cheat and steal:
In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:
“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
“Why?”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”
“Ha!”
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
“That’s very good.”
“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203] [1] Israell ( talk) 04:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
‘’’NO’’’ There is no accurate description of Michael Jackson’s penis anywhere. Far too speculative. That Chandler accurately described Mj's body is one of the myths about the 1993 case. SIX anti-Jackson sources gave SEVEN different reports about what the photos showed and what Chandler described. Jackson suffered from vitilgo which destroyed pigmentation in some areas while others remained brown. Evan Chandlers knew this, Jackson talked about his skin disease on Oprah in February 1993 and Evan Chandler even saw Jackson's left gluteus when he injected a painkiller while Jackson was a guest in his house. Chandler described this scene in his book All that Glitters. So Chandler knew that Jackson's skin had brown splotches except he didn't know the details. Jordan's description was nothing but his father's speculation based on what he saw, the fact that Jackson had vitilgo. If Jordan's description had been accurate there would not be so many contradictory reports about what was so accurate about it coming from those who did their best to prove to the public that the photos and the description matched.
Which version should we accept as accurate?
Government's photographer Gary Spiegel version: one dark spot on the lower left side - supposedly exactly where Chandler put it or Tom Sneddon 2005 declaration version: one dark blemish on the right side - only at about the same relative location where Chandler put it, not exactly where he put it or Dimond version number 1: pinkish splotches on the underside of the penis or Dimond verions number 2: mottled pink spots on scrotum and buttocks and one dark spot at the base of the penis, underneath or Ray Chandler version: numerous distinctive markings and discolorations, different sizes and shapes and locations which took two hours to describe and which then exactly matched the photos or Smoking Gun version: distinctive splotches on his buttocks and one dark splotch on a white penis, the splotch changes location during erection – supposedly precisely where Chandler put it or Victor Gutierrez version: pink and brown marks on testicles, brown patches on buttocks. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Editing is broken for this article, but this statement in the introduction needs a good citation, if one exists:
" he is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century"
Really? By whom? According to what standard?
It's a little hard, really, to imagine Jackson on the same list as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Alexander Fleming, etc. Or even with Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung, for that matter.
Certainly he didn't make Time's list of the 100 most important people of the 20th Century. Of course, neither did Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, so go figure.
Controversy on MJ has become a huge discussion recently and for a number of years from his trials to the sexual abuse accusations. Shouldn't there be a section on this as I'm fairly certain a lot of readers come to this article to become enlightened on them. Lokii192 ( talk) 16:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It" there is a spelling error, so "In 2007, Jackson and Sony bought another music publishing company, Famous Music LLC], formerly owned by Viacom." needs to be "In 2007, Jackson and Sony bought another music publishing company, Famous Music LLC, formerly owned by Viacom." There is a end bracket after Famous Music LLC likely from where someone copied and pasted it, Mario talk 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Michael Jackson was Giannis's father. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
100.11.164.181 (
talk •
contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Taraborrelli a good source for the Michael Jackson article? He is a published biographer but his appropriateness for this article has been questioned. Partytemple ( talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No, but I would leave it unless there is another source that contradicts his claims; and replace his sources with something less gossip-sounding. Here are some issues.
There are several reasons for Michael’s extremely pale skin, especially on his face. First, he used to bleach his skin with different chemicals. Is it possible for a black person to make his skin lighter? ‘Yes,’ said Robert Kotler. ‘You can’t make it white, but you can make it lighter. There are classic bleaching compounds that are commonly found in over-the-counter bleaching creams like Porcelana. Also, there are known bleaching agents, a class of compounds called Hydroquinones, that will make a black person’s skin lighter.’
One employee of Michael’s recalled, ‘He used to rub a cream on his face and neck in the morning and, again, at night. He had all of these little tubes in his makeup kit. I asked him what it was, thinking it was some kind of skin nutrient. He told me it was ‘medicine’. I left it at that. I then noticed that whenever Michael would go out into the sun, he would cover his face with his hand or wear a big hat. He seemed petrified of sunlight, as if he was afraid he would burn.’ ...
In the 1980s, he was diagnosed with the skin disease Vitiligo. (Some doctors have speculated that the Vitiligo is not as much hereditary as it is the consequence of damage done by bleaching chemicals over the years. Vitiligo makes the sufferer sensitive to sunlight.)
In October 1994, about six months after Michael and Lisa were married, the two of them and some friends were invited to dine with Elizabeth Taylor at her Bel Air home. Sixty-two-year-old Elizabeth took twenty-six-year-old Lisa aside to offer some hints as to how she might keep her husband happy. ‘Always look your best,’ she told Lisa. ‘He’s into glamour, and you must be into it, too. And if you don’t like the jewellery he gives you, fake it; act like you do. And keep separate bedrooms to keep him guessing. Also,’ she said, ‘find the right colours and wear the hell out of them.’
Later, when Elizabeth was out of ear shot, Lisa asked Michael, ‘What era is she living in? No wonder she’s been divorced seven times!’
‘Now, Lisa,’ Michael said, with a wag of his finger. ‘Be nice.’
No I too would say that it is possible to use some parts of a source and not all, but not all sources a biographer, author, or editor uses is created equally. That's the case with JRT. What is the source of a lot of his sources if one even exists? Then the credibility of his sources draws questions as almost everything and almost everyone surrounding Jackson was shady at best. How many times have we heard various authors and journalists say that publications and news outlets chose to turn the other cheek when it came to pro and positive Jackson news? Whose to say that JRT's publisher, Pan Macmillan, said that his draft wasn't salacious enough for publication, so things were exaggerated and fabricated? JRT doesn't have the most honest reputation. An example of this dishonesty was how he fabricated the story about Emmanual Lewis and his Mother in his book. Emmanuel Lewis recently took to Twitter to set the record straight: https://twitter.com/TheReal_ELewis/status/1150599110501818368 TruthGuardians ( talk) 02:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
More material from the book in question. Taraborrelli writes a very detailed scene of the strip search that happened in 1993. He was definitely not present at the scene; he would not be allowed in the strip search, and the authorities would not allow details to leak like this. He also does not say where he got this info to write this scene.
Finally, an anguished Michael was told to stand on a platform in the middle of the room as if about to have his pants hemmed by a tailor. He was still wearing a bathrobe. ‘Please don’t make me do this,’ he said, his doe-like eyes watery. ‘This is terrible. Don’t make me.’
‘Sir, we have no choice,’ said one of the detectives.
Then, while standing on that platform and staring at a picture of Elizabeth Taylor on the wall, Michael took off the bathrobe. Under it, he wore a bathing suit.
The scene goes on for awhile, but the issues here are already notable. Other than the fact that Taraborrelli wasn't there and didn't cite who told him about this story, why would Jackson say, "Please don't make me do this"? He had to comply with the search warrant otherwise he would be arrested. If he wanted to refuse, I don't think he would refuse right when he is about to be searched but before it. And why is there a photograph of Elizabeth Taylor in the scene? —Partytemple ( talk) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No Too gossipy, and some details are inaccurate. Israell ( talk) 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Partytemple, I'll bring our conversation down to this section so everyone can weigh in. I understand your argument to be that Taraborrelli didn't first cite vitiligo as the primary reason for Jackson's changing skin colour. I'm not certain that Taraborrelli meant his writing to be interpreted that way. Perhaps he raises the speculation issues first because the public and the media had already been speculating about that for years, so Taraborrelli may have wanted to address that matter first. I think that many accredited authors and journalists are allowed to use unnamed sources, as long as the sources are verified. There is also a section at the end of his book where he lists his contacts and resources. I do think the sensationalism argument is a matter of opinion, depending on what others think. He does write about celebrities, but does that automatically mean he also writes false gossip? Just my take. Good faith comrades. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith ( talk) 06:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No Many parts of his work regarding Jackson are inaccurate. I think his claims could be included in the article only if they are supported by more reliable sources. GiuliaZB ( talk) 10:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of some clarity and getting out of that toxic conversation above. I am restating my edit proposal. Currently, we have this written:
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 had been bleaching his skin.[100][101][102] According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984, which causes white patches on the skin, and had also been skin bleaching.
The speculation or rumor: that Jackson was lightening his skin on purpose, because no one knew about his skin condition until he disclosed it on Oprah Winfrey's interview. Some people thought Jackson was a self-hating black man who wanted to be white, hence Jackson used cosmetic surgery and "skin bleaching" (which people didn't know what this was at the time) to make his skin white.
The fact: Jackson had vitiligo. His autopsy vindicated him that he had vitiligo. He also used skin bleaching creams to conceal his vitiligo, not to purposely make himself white.
The current sentence sourced to Taraborrelli wants to have it both ways, that Jackson wanted to pale himself on purpose and had vitiligo. That's what Taraborrelli implied in his book, because at the time people didn't know much about vitiligo. But as far as I know, there is no solid evidence that Jackson wanted to become a white person and used "skin bleaching" (whatever this means) to achieve his white-person dreams.
I propose changing the above statement to this:
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 rumors that he had been bleaching his skin on purpose. [1] [2] [3] Jackson later revealed on an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993 that he suffered from a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale. His dermatologist Arnold Klein disclosed in an official statement requested by Jackson that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness which causes the loss of pigmentation of the skin and sensitivity to sunlight. Its drastic effects on the patient's body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. [4] [5]
Support or Oppose? —Partytemple ( talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
—Partytemple ( talk) 08:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Is it possible for a black person to make his skin lighter? ‘Yes,’ said Robert Kotler. ‘You can’t make it white, but you can make it lighter. There are classic bleaching compounds that are commonly found in over-the-counter bleaching creams like Porcelana. Also, there are known bleaching agents, a class of compounds called Hydroquinones, that will make a black person’s skin lighter.’
Source by Steve Knopper, another biographer of Jackson. [1] This is what he says about Jackson's skin:
In 1987, after “Thriller” made Jackson the biggest star in the world, he put out his smash follow-up, “Bad” — and was all over MTV with its hit singles. But he looked whiter than he had appeared in “Thriller.” Many fans assumed that Jackson, who had become a star through Motown Records in the early ’70s, was turning his back on his race to continue his quest for crossover success and adoration from a white audience. Greg Tate, an African American cultural critic for the Village Voice and other publications, called him “another Negro gone mad because his mirror reports that his face does not conform to the Nordic ideal.” Steven Shaviro, a white author and academic, said, “In a white supremacist society he wanted to become white.” But Jackson insisted otherwise, and there has never been any evidence to contradict him. He told Winfrey in the 1993 interview that he lightened his skin with makeup because of vitiligo, a disease that gave him blotchy, light-and-dark patches, and an autopsy verified the diagnosis after he died in June 2009. His brother Jermaine Jackson also acknowledged the condition as vitiligo and wrote, “He looks like a white man splashed with coffee.” As for Michael Jackson himself, he told Winfrey: “I’m a black American, I’m proud to be a black American, I am proud of my race. . . . I have a lot of pride in who I am, and dignity.”
—Partytemple ( talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In light of #RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?, I made this edit. Like I stated with it, the "Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984" aspect is only supported by Taraborrelli. I've looked on Google Books and regular Google. Other sources say that Arnold Klein said that Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1986. I left a hidden note about it. I incorporated Partytemple's following wording: "Vitiligo's drastic effects on the body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." But I feel that it's important to continue to note that these treatments further lightened his skin; so I left that in. I also added a quote from Jackson that includes him saying that he wasn't trying to be something he wasn't -- white. I didn't include the word "white" in this regard or word it as "He said he wasn't trying to be white." because the source doesn't explicitly state this even though Jackson is implying it. We would need a different source of him saying he wasn't trying to be white. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Followup tweaks here, here, here, here and here. If we are to re-add that his lupus was in remission, we should look to see if a non-Taraborrelli source states this. I briefly looked. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Changed to this because the two proposed sources for "Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." don't say that. They don't say he used creams to lighten his skin; they speak of makeup. I replaced one source with this Rolling Stone source, which mentions that the skin-bleaching creams found in his home after his death were likely used to treat his vitiligo. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
_____
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Partytemple, I am sick to the teeth of you constantly accusing me of pushing an agenda. I've been editing Wikipedia for about a decade, I understand the need for neutrality, I am not even particularly a fan of Michael Jackson and have no opinion on his guilt or innocence. Please take my edits in WP:GOODFAITH.
I stand by the edit: "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is not relevant for the lead, and reads like damage control. Of course Jackson's fans and associates defended MJ - that's not remarkable or informative. The event is that a documentary was released and had an effect on the subject of the article. Popcornduff ( talk) 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I too would agree that the film's impact has been greatly exaggerated. If you believe that Michael was a victim of false accusations prior to the film, you still believe that. If you believe that the accusations may have some merit, you believed that prior to watching the film. Evidence that supports these claims comes in the form of the increase of Jackson's streams and sales shortly after ( https://fortune.com/2019/03/11/michael-jackson-music-sales-hbo-documentary/) the film failed to garner the viewership HBO was really aiming for ( https://www.showbiz41 1.com/2019/03/05/urgent-leaving-neverland-second-night-was-a-bust-with-fewer-than-1-million-viewers). Even months after Leaving Neverland, radio stations started playing his music even more according to soundcharts.com where you have to create an account to view the global airplay data (though there was a dip in radio rotation in the month of March) and streams showed no signs of slowing down ( https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/07/29/michael-jackson-album-2019-sales-streams-up-significantly-despite-documentary-scandal-and-calls-for-bans-on-his-music). As far as "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is concerned, I believe that is putting it vaguely. Criticism came beyond just Jackson's fans and associates. It came in the form of the black community, other celebrities, and even civil rights and religious leaders ( https://variety.com/2019/music/news/southern-christian-leadership-conference-defends-michael-jackson-slams-leaving-neverland-1203152598/). I don't mind the comment being there as is, as it reveals the neutral truth. TruthGuardians ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Linked here.
Experienced voices welcomed. —Partytemple ( talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It is suggested that Jackson's philanthropy in the lead since it forms an important aspect of his life and legacy ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-jacksons-forgotten-humanitarian-legacy_b_59c7c8d3e4b08d661550436a).
Suggested edit: Jackson is also remembered for his philanthropy and pioneering efforts in charitable fundraising. In 2000, the Guinness World Records recognized him for supporting 39 charities, more than any other entertainer. Or to keep the section shorter we can go with 'His other achievements include Guinness world records (including the Most Successful Entertainer of All Time and most charities supported by an entertainer)
Links: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/105188-most-charities-supported-by-a-pop-star/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jul-08-et-cause8-story.html https://hiphopwired.com/98495/remembering-michael-jackson-the-global-humanitarian/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.83 ( talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Dubbed the King of Pop' should now be 'Dubbed the God of Pop' DaSpencerHere ( talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change it so that michael sounds better from he way the sexual assault section sounds it makes it seem like he is a criminal which he is not Ppanda626 ( talk) 15:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Michael Jackson voice in space channel 5 part 2 so they should credit him for that. Please add that to the biography. Space Michael jackson ( talk) 03:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Deletion of dead persons official website. DrTazz ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that https://www.michaeljackson.com/ must remain on the article. The brand still exists, and new (posthumous) material is released or re-released, and the website features biographical information. Israell ( talk) 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I too would recommend keeping https://www.michaeljackson.com/ for all of Popcornduff’s findings and Israell’s reasons. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References
Eggishorn, SNUGGUMS For many years here on this article, the length of Jackson’s career was listed as 1964-2009. It was well sourced as you can see here. TrackerMercurial136 replaced the source and changed the year. Jackson publicly sang his first song live in 1963 (Climb every mountain) at the age of 5. He joined the band with his brothers that following year in 1964. Before motown they had small local radio releases from 1964-67. They signed with Motown in 1968 to released their first motown material in 1969. This information is well documented in many sources like these [1], [2], [3], [4] and autobiography of Jackson itself.- Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you actually read the source, you can see that it states that it was written by The Jacksons and close friend, Fred Bronson. That alone shows you extreme credibility. Also, in the book it states that they were first billed as the Jackson 5 in august 1965 in which they also performed live for the first time at a shopping mall in Gary, Indiana. TrackerMercurial136 ( talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the edit should be reverted back to the year 1964, per the Jacksons' own website ( https://www.thejacksons.com/history/) Michael's active work-life started when he started rehearsing as a member of the band in 1964, not when they first performed publicly as a group. Even if we are going to go off of first public performances, that will still be 1964 when he performed "Climb Every Mountain" in the school's auditorium. Being billed as "Jackson 5" is not a criterion that determines when his work life started. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. He performed "Climb Every Mountain" in 1965. It's stated in the book, "Michael Jackson: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track". Here's a link to it: ( https://books.google.com/books?id=CbVgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT407&lpg) TrackerMercurial136 ( talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not true. Every legitimate source ever written about Jackson states that Jackson performed the song when he was 5 years old, which would have been from 1963-1964. He would have been 6-7 years old in 1965. His mom has said it to Oprah, he said it to Martin Bashir and in his autobiography, his brothers are saying it on there website, it was said in the movie “Jackson: An American Dream,” and said in the following links: ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5649814/Michael-Jackson-100-facts-about-the-king-of-pop.html), ( https://www.liveabout.com/michael-jackson-biography-p2-1007070), ( https://www.biographyonline.net/music/michael-jackson.html). TruthGuardians ( talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Posthumous releases and productions": It says "Later that year, Queen released three duets recorded with Jackson and Freddie Mercury...". When in fact it was one song, not three. Also a bit below that line it says that "pre-Broadway run in Chicago was canceled in the wake of the renewed claims..." and that the National Football museum statue was removed because of the allegations. There is no source for these claims that that was the reason why it was removed and therefore that line and the Broadway line should be edited out. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Its removal comes as sexual abuse allegations against the singer are detailed in a new documentary film.-- qedk ( t 桜 c) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I have already said why I think Taraborrelli is unreliable. I have said it multiple times on multiple articles. Now, Flyer22 Reborn keeps edit warring without explaining herself. The burden of proof is on her. She has not refuted any of the arguments I've made. She has not even tried to. Instead, she keeps reverting my edits on the grounds that I didn't prove anything which blatantly untrue.
Again, Flyer22 Reborn is the one who needs to do the proving. If this continues, I will consider submitting a notice on ANI. —Partytemple ( talk) 20:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit proposal consensus: As per these edits on "1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films."
The original sentence on Bubbles was misrepresented. The Rolling Stone article didn't say anything about the chimp (or Jackson; I don't know which "he" referred to) being "detached from reality." I fixed the vitiligo sentence to something more reliable than Taraborrelli, as other users have discussed his unreliability before above. Flyer22 Reborn should state her reasons rather than edit warring, dismissing my reasons as "personal beliefs," or that she "doesn't know any doctor..." because her claims are not sourced to anyone but herself. —Partytemple ( talk) 23:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn Your edits are not 100% clear or truthful. You are editing information without causation and will be reported if you do not stop. Jackson’s autopsy report proves that Jackson’s pigmentation was destroyed via vitiligo, NOT bleaching creams. I can assure you, as Jackson has said on many occasions, that he was a proud African American. You’re attempting to change the narrative by suggesting the opposite based on expressed opinion and not facts. Creams like Benoquin are ONLY prescribed to patients only after being diagnosed with a pigmentation destroying disease like vitiligo. Its a cream prescribed by a doctor for such conditions, NOT purchased over-the-counter. Have a look at the autopsy report again if you are in need of a reminder: http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson,%20michael_report.pdf TruthGuardians ( talk) 01:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
A "rabid Jackson fan?" Hardly. Everyone that presents real facts or have factual opposing views aren't "rabid Jackson fans." You present only failed talking points, no evidence. I can tell for certain that there is no amount of bleaching that will make you allergic to the sun and turn you the pale porcelain color that Michael Jackson and others like Winnie Harlow. To suggest otherwise is incredibly racist and insulting for others suffering from Vitiligo. Again, I said what I said. You will abide by Wikipedia's terms and conditions and suggest and make edits as required. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Flyer22_Reborn's behaviour is problematic, going as far as calling other editors "rabid" the minute she does not agree w/ them. Now, per his autopsy report, Jackson did make use of hydroquinone (HYDROQUINONE LIQUID 8% LOTION IN TUBE), and the same autopsy report confirms he had vitiligo. Jackson did use makeup and bleaching (or lightening or whitening) agents in order to even out his tone due to his vitiligo. Israell ( talk) 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The topic hits home. When your 13-year-old nephew is accused of wanting to be white, like mine, because of his vitiligo, it's disheartening to see someone playing a tune to that narrative. Flyer22_Reborn has broken many of Wikipedia's codes of conduct in this thread alone like, but not limited to the following: 1) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Civility 2) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 3) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks There have been many occasions where the user also broke the following rules: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Verifiability I smell an agenda here. TruthGuardians ( talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Bringing this topic back to the edit in question. This is what is currently written and what Flyer22 is trying to defend:
According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984, which causes white patches on the skin, and had also been skin bleaching.
The only citation Taraborrelli has for the claim "[Jackson] had also been skin bleaching" is "one employee" (who's not even named) who saw Jackson "rub cream on his face." And then he has a few some doctors (some named, some anonymous) talking about if "skin bleaching" is possible. This is very speculative. Other sources, on the other hand, have explained very thoroughly that it's common for vitiligo patients to use "skin bleaching" creams to even out their blotches. For those who know this tabloid rumor well, Jackson was accused of being a self-hating black man, so he used plastic surgery and skin creams to turn himself white. The current sentence seems imply the same tabloid rumor. That's the primary issue with this, and it's even in the section that talks about how the tabloids were smearing Jackson. —Partytemple ( talk) 05:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22_Reborn, get off your high horse! All editors, incl. newbies, are welcome here, and you're not superior in any way. I've been on Wiki for years, and I never belittled an editor because they were new. I fail to see how TruthGuardians is turning this topic into a forum. He's on topic and rightfully addressing your insolence and impertinence. Israell ( talk) 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Michael Jackson, like others, was bullied about his skin condition. The word "bleach(ed) is triggering to those bullied about the condition as they are accused of showering or bathing in bleach ( https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/vitiligo-skin-condition-self-love-body-art) As I said, the edits are insulting. There are many other examples of racism and bullying that comes with touching this topic as non-medical professionals as you can find in these articles as well: 1) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-vitiligo-skin-art-health-beauty-ashley-soto-a7635111.html 2) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/vitiligo-model-iomikoe-johnson-winnie-harlow-instagram-a8744566.html 3) https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/06/man-bullied-vitiligo-now-model-sees-skin-art-10125140/ 4) https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/tv/news/i-had-a-knife-in-my-hand-woman-29-with-vitiligo-who-was-driven-to-the-brink-of-suicide-by-bullies-now-appears-on-billboards-in-new-york-after-being-scouted-for-modelling-campaigns/ar-BBQpATG
My suggestion: Michael Jackson's vitiligo is mentioned and that's it. There is no purpose to assume or get into details over hearsay about what products he used, when he used it, and why. It serves no purpose. People can learn more about vitiligo and treatment for it via research into the medical condition, not Michael Jackson. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding relevant information on a topic without offending a group of people is absolutely how Wikipedia works! Perhaps we should start talking about what toothpaste Michael Jackson used to keep his teeth so white? Maybe his hair products? His hair was always on fleek! Again, let's stick to relevant information without offending anyone. TruthGuardians ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. You're only proving others right about you. Israell ( talk) 06:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, WP:GOODFAITH. Quit breaking Wikipedia rules. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, WP:GOODFAITH. TruthGuardians ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
See below for revised proposal.
The source articles from AP/Japan Times states:
The documentary “Leaving Neverland” presented a disturbing depiction of Michael Jackson as a child molester, but the initial wave of negative publicity hasn’t greatly diminished the King of Pop’s image or the enduring popularity of his music.
Many believe Jackson’s musical legacy is still going strong as Tuesday’s 10th anniversary of his death approaches. Backlash to the documentary that aired in March on HBO and Britain’s Channel 4 prompted radio stations in Canada to stop playing his music and the producers of “The Simpsons” to remove an episode that featured Jackson’s voice.
But that has been the most visible extent of the backlash.
The source from The Independent states:
Following the broadcast of Leaving Neverland on Channel 4, Michael Jackson’s albums have climbed the UK album charts.... Despite the controversy, Jackson's music has surged up the UK iTunes charts.
I propose this sentence to represent the above statement:
The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity but ultimately did not diminish his music's popularity or his image.
And replace this (current) sentence:
The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity though did not fully diminish his music's popularity.
It's clear that his music gained popularity among consumers instead of "diminishing" in direct response to the documentary. It's also clear that the backlash happened primarily on the radio stations, since they are directly involved in the music industry; and only a few music stations have stopped playing his music indefinitely. We also know that industry professionals were vindicated in believing Jackson would survive the controversy. I think it's obvious that this backlash have a very limited effect. WP:DUE. I also think Flyer22 is trying very hard with the speculations about Jackson being less popular now than he was before, which is completely contrary to evidence we cited. We should not write WP articles based on speculation into the future and personal opinions and what not. —Partytemple ( talk) 20:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Revised proposal to this statement: "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity, though it did not diminish his music's popularity or image—outside of a few radio stations that banned his music indefinitely."
Popularity refers to the people's tastes, not the decisions of a few music stations. And I'm sorry to say that Flyer22 is still not reading carefully. I have not cited the Billboard senior editor's opinions as facts. I have repeatedly cited album sales as the reason for his enduring popularity. It is the same for all the other articles concerning this statement. And stop bringing up more accusations WP:ASPERSIONS or I will report you again, this time for "meatpuppetry." —Partytemple ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if this sentence:
"[Jordan Chandler] also drew accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when it was lifted.{{sfn|Orth|2005|p=331}"
can be restored to this article with this reference?
Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Partytemple, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, BudapestJoe, Popcornduff, General Ization, Tataral, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpgordon, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No, Hammelsmith, I wouldn't use it neither for the reason SNUGGUMS has just given, and as already mentioned in the article, the jury found Jordan Chandler's description not to be a match. Besides, Chandler stated Jackson was circumcised when he was not circumcised (per his official autopsy report I've already repeatedly linked us to), and Jackson had vitiligo. Chandler's father, Evan, knew of Jackson's vitiligo and used that to lie, cheat and steal:
In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:
“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
“Why?”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”
“Ha!”
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
“That’s very good.”
“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203] [1] Israell ( talk) 04:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
‘’’NO’’’ There is no accurate description of Michael Jackson’s penis anywhere. Far too speculative. That Chandler accurately described Mj's body is one of the myths about the 1993 case. SIX anti-Jackson sources gave SEVEN different reports about what the photos showed and what Chandler described. Jackson suffered from vitilgo which destroyed pigmentation in some areas while others remained brown. Evan Chandlers knew this, Jackson talked about his skin disease on Oprah in February 1993 and Evan Chandler even saw Jackson's left gluteus when he injected a painkiller while Jackson was a guest in his house. Chandler described this scene in his book All that Glitters. So Chandler knew that Jackson's skin had brown splotches except he didn't know the details. Jordan's description was nothing but his father's speculation based on what he saw, the fact that Jackson had vitilgo. If Jordan's description had been accurate there would not be so many contradictory reports about what was so accurate about it coming from those who did their best to prove to the public that the photos and the description matched.
Which version should we accept as accurate?
Government's photographer Gary Spiegel version: one dark spot on the lower left side - supposedly exactly where Chandler put it or Tom Sneddon 2005 declaration version: one dark blemish on the right side - only at about the same relative location where Chandler put it, not exactly where he put it or Dimond version number 1: pinkish splotches on the underside of the penis or Dimond verions number 2: mottled pink spots on scrotum and buttocks and one dark spot at the base of the penis, underneath or Ray Chandler version: numerous distinctive markings and discolorations, different sizes and shapes and locations which took two hours to describe and which then exactly matched the photos or Smoking Gun version: distinctive splotches on his buttocks and one dark splotch on a white penis, the splotch changes location during erection – supposedly precisely where Chandler put it or Victor Gutierrez version: pink and brown marks on testicles, brown patches on buttocks. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Editing is broken for this article, but this statement in the introduction needs a good citation, if one exists:
" he is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century"
Really? By whom? According to what standard?
It's a little hard, really, to imagine Jackson on the same list as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Alexander Fleming, etc. Or even with Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung, for that matter.
Certainly he didn't make Time's list of the 100 most important people of the 20th Century. Of course, neither did Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, so go figure.
Controversy on MJ has become a huge discussion recently and for a number of years from his trials to the sexual abuse accusations. Shouldn't there be a section on this as I'm fairly certain a lot of readers come to this article to become enlightened on them. Lokii192 ( talk) 16:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It" there is a spelling error, so "In 2007, Jackson and Sony bought another music publishing company, Famous Music LLC], formerly owned by Viacom." needs to be "In 2007, Jackson and Sony bought another music publishing company, Famous Music LLC, formerly owned by Viacom." There is a end bracket after Famous Music LLC likely from where someone copied and pasted it, Mario talk 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Michael Jackson was Giannis's father. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
100.11.164.181 (
talk •
contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Taraborrelli a good source for the Michael Jackson article? He is a published biographer but his appropriateness for this article has been questioned. Partytemple ( talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No, but I would leave it unless there is another source that contradicts his claims; and replace his sources with something less gossip-sounding. Here are some issues.
There are several reasons for Michael’s extremely pale skin, especially on his face. First, he used to bleach his skin with different chemicals. Is it possible for a black person to make his skin lighter? ‘Yes,’ said Robert Kotler. ‘You can’t make it white, but you can make it lighter. There are classic bleaching compounds that are commonly found in over-the-counter bleaching creams like Porcelana. Also, there are known bleaching agents, a class of compounds called Hydroquinones, that will make a black person’s skin lighter.’
One employee of Michael’s recalled, ‘He used to rub a cream on his face and neck in the morning and, again, at night. He had all of these little tubes in his makeup kit. I asked him what it was, thinking it was some kind of skin nutrient. He told me it was ‘medicine’. I left it at that. I then noticed that whenever Michael would go out into the sun, he would cover his face with his hand or wear a big hat. He seemed petrified of sunlight, as if he was afraid he would burn.’ ...
In the 1980s, he was diagnosed with the skin disease Vitiligo. (Some doctors have speculated that the Vitiligo is not as much hereditary as it is the consequence of damage done by bleaching chemicals over the years. Vitiligo makes the sufferer sensitive to sunlight.)
In October 1994, about six months after Michael and Lisa were married, the two of them and some friends were invited to dine with Elizabeth Taylor at her Bel Air home. Sixty-two-year-old Elizabeth took twenty-six-year-old Lisa aside to offer some hints as to how she might keep her husband happy. ‘Always look your best,’ she told Lisa. ‘He’s into glamour, and you must be into it, too. And if you don’t like the jewellery he gives you, fake it; act like you do. And keep separate bedrooms to keep him guessing. Also,’ she said, ‘find the right colours and wear the hell out of them.’
Later, when Elizabeth was out of ear shot, Lisa asked Michael, ‘What era is she living in? No wonder she’s been divorced seven times!’
‘Now, Lisa,’ Michael said, with a wag of his finger. ‘Be nice.’
No I too would say that it is possible to use some parts of a source and not all, but not all sources a biographer, author, or editor uses is created equally. That's the case with JRT. What is the source of a lot of his sources if one even exists? Then the credibility of his sources draws questions as almost everything and almost everyone surrounding Jackson was shady at best. How many times have we heard various authors and journalists say that publications and news outlets chose to turn the other cheek when it came to pro and positive Jackson news? Whose to say that JRT's publisher, Pan Macmillan, said that his draft wasn't salacious enough for publication, so things were exaggerated and fabricated? JRT doesn't have the most honest reputation. An example of this dishonesty was how he fabricated the story about Emmanual Lewis and his Mother in his book. Emmanuel Lewis recently took to Twitter to set the record straight: https://twitter.com/TheReal_ELewis/status/1150599110501818368 TruthGuardians ( talk) 02:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
More material from the book in question. Taraborrelli writes a very detailed scene of the strip search that happened in 1993. He was definitely not present at the scene; he would not be allowed in the strip search, and the authorities would not allow details to leak like this. He also does not say where he got this info to write this scene.
Finally, an anguished Michael was told to stand on a platform in the middle of the room as if about to have his pants hemmed by a tailor. He was still wearing a bathrobe. ‘Please don’t make me do this,’ he said, his doe-like eyes watery. ‘This is terrible. Don’t make me.’
‘Sir, we have no choice,’ said one of the detectives.
Then, while standing on that platform and staring at a picture of Elizabeth Taylor on the wall, Michael took off the bathrobe. Under it, he wore a bathing suit.
The scene goes on for awhile, but the issues here are already notable. Other than the fact that Taraborrelli wasn't there and didn't cite who told him about this story, why would Jackson say, "Please don't make me do this"? He had to comply with the search warrant otherwise he would be arrested. If he wanted to refuse, I don't think he would refuse right when he is about to be searched but before it. And why is there a photograph of Elizabeth Taylor in the scene? —Partytemple ( talk) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No Too gossipy, and some details are inaccurate. Israell ( talk) 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Partytemple, I'll bring our conversation down to this section so everyone can weigh in. I understand your argument to be that Taraborrelli didn't first cite vitiligo as the primary reason for Jackson's changing skin colour. I'm not certain that Taraborrelli meant his writing to be interpreted that way. Perhaps he raises the speculation issues first because the public and the media had already been speculating about that for years, so Taraborrelli may have wanted to address that matter first. I think that many accredited authors and journalists are allowed to use unnamed sources, as long as the sources are verified. There is also a section at the end of his book where he lists his contacts and resources. I do think the sensationalism argument is a matter of opinion, depending on what others think. He does write about celebrities, but does that automatically mean he also writes false gossip? Just my take. Good faith comrades. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith ( talk) 06:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No Many parts of his work regarding Jackson are inaccurate. I think his claims could be included in the article only if they are supported by more reliable sources. GiuliaZB ( talk) 10:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of some clarity and getting out of that toxic conversation above. I am restating my edit proposal. Currently, we have this written:
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 had been bleaching his skin.[100][101][102] According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984, which causes white patches on the skin, and had also been skin bleaching.
The speculation or rumor: that Jackson was lightening his skin on purpose, because no one knew about his skin condition until he disclosed it on Oprah Winfrey's interview. Some people thought Jackson was a self-hating black man who wanted to be white, hence Jackson used cosmetic surgery and "skin bleaching" (which people didn't know what this was at the time) to make his skin white.
The fact: Jackson had vitiligo. His autopsy vindicated him that he had vitiligo. He also used skin bleaching creams to conceal his vitiligo, not to purposely make himself white.
The current sentence sourced to Taraborrelli wants to have it both ways, that Jackson wanted to pale himself on purpose and had vitiligo. That's what Taraborrelli implied in his book, because at the time people didn't know much about vitiligo. But as far as I know, there is no solid evidence that Jackson wanted to become a white person and used "skin bleaching" (whatever this means) to achieve his white-person dreams.
I propose changing the above statement to this:
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 rumors that he had been bleaching his skin on purpose. [1] [2] [3] Jackson later revealed on an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993 that he suffered from a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale. His dermatologist Arnold Klein disclosed in an official statement requested by Jackson that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness which causes the loss of pigmentation of the skin and sensitivity to sunlight. Its drastic effects on the patient's body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. [4] [5]
Support or Oppose? —Partytemple ( talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
—Partytemple ( talk) 08:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Is it possible for a black person to make his skin lighter? ‘Yes,’ said Robert Kotler. ‘You can’t make it white, but you can make it lighter. There are classic bleaching compounds that are commonly found in over-the-counter bleaching creams like Porcelana. Also, there are known bleaching agents, a class of compounds called Hydroquinones, that will make a black person’s skin lighter.’
Source by Steve Knopper, another biographer of Jackson. [1] This is what he says about Jackson's skin:
In 1987, after “Thriller” made Jackson the biggest star in the world, he put out his smash follow-up, “Bad” — and was all over MTV with its hit singles. But he looked whiter than he had appeared in “Thriller.” Many fans assumed that Jackson, who had become a star through Motown Records in the early ’70s, was turning his back on his race to continue his quest for crossover success and adoration from a white audience. Greg Tate, an African American cultural critic for the Village Voice and other publications, called him “another Negro gone mad because his mirror reports that his face does not conform to the Nordic ideal.” Steven Shaviro, a white author and academic, said, “In a white supremacist society he wanted to become white.” But Jackson insisted otherwise, and there has never been any evidence to contradict him. He told Winfrey in the 1993 interview that he lightened his skin with makeup because of vitiligo, a disease that gave him blotchy, light-and-dark patches, and an autopsy verified the diagnosis after he died in June 2009. His brother Jermaine Jackson also acknowledged the condition as vitiligo and wrote, “He looks like a white man splashed with coffee.” As for Michael Jackson himself, he told Winfrey: “I’m a black American, I’m proud to be a black American, I am proud of my race. . . . I have a lot of pride in who I am, and dignity.”
—Partytemple ( talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In light of #RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?, I made this edit. Like I stated with it, the "Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984" aspect is only supported by Taraborrelli. I've looked on Google Books and regular Google. Other sources say that Arnold Klein said that Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1986. I left a hidden note about it. I incorporated Partytemple's following wording: "Vitiligo's drastic effects on the body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." But I feel that it's important to continue to note that these treatments further lightened his skin; so I left that in. I also added a quote from Jackson that includes him saying that he wasn't trying to be something he wasn't -- white. I didn't include the word "white" in this regard or word it as "He said he wasn't trying to be white." because the source doesn't explicitly state this even though Jackson is implying it. We would need a different source of him saying he wasn't trying to be white. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Followup tweaks here, here, here, here and here. If we are to re-add that his lupus was in remission, we should look to see if a non-Taraborrelli source states this. I briefly looked. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Changed to this because the two proposed sources for "Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." don't say that. They don't say he used creams to lighten his skin; they speak of makeup. I replaced one source with this Rolling Stone source, which mentions that the skin-bleaching creams found in his home after his death were likely used to treat his vitiligo. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
_____
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Partytemple, I am sick to the teeth of you constantly accusing me of pushing an agenda. I've been editing Wikipedia for about a decade, I understand the need for neutrality, I am not even particularly a fan of Michael Jackson and have no opinion on his guilt or innocence. Please take my edits in WP:GOODFAITH.
I stand by the edit: "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is not relevant for the lead, and reads like damage control. Of course Jackson's fans and associates defended MJ - that's not remarkable or informative. The event is that a documentary was released and had an effect on the subject of the article. Popcornduff ( talk) 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I too would agree that the film's impact has been greatly exaggerated. If you believe that Michael was a victim of false accusations prior to the film, you still believe that. If you believe that the accusations may have some merit, you believed that prior to watching the film. Evidence that supports these claims comes in the form of the increase of Jackson's streams and sales shortly after ( https://fortune.com/2019/03/11/michael-jackson-music-sales-hbo-documentary/) the film failed to garner the viewership HBO was really aiming for ( https://www.showbiz41 1.com/2019/03/05/urgent-leaving-neverland-second-night-was-a-bust-with-fewer-than-1-million-viewers). Even months after Leaving Neverland, radio stations started playing his music even more according to soundcharts.com where you have to create an account to view the global airplay data (though there was a dip in radio rotation in the month of March) and streams showed no signs of slowing down ( https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/07/29/michael-jackson-album-2019-sales-streams-up-significantly-despite-documentary-scandal-and-calls-for-bans-on-his-music). As far as "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is concerned, I believe that is putting it vaguely. Criticism came beyond just Jackson's fans and associates. It came in the form of the black community, other celebrities, and even civil rights and religious leaders ( https://variety.com/2019/music/news/southern-christian-leadership-conference-defends-michael-jackson-slams-leaving-neverland-1203152598/). I don't mind the comment being there as is, as it reveals the neutral truth. TruthGuardians ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Linked here.
Experienced voices welcomed. —Partytemple ( talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It is suggested that Jackson's philanthropy in the lead since it forms an important aspect of his life and legacy ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-jacksons-forgotten-humanitarian-legacy_b_59c7c8d3e4b08d661550436a).
Suggested edit: Jackson is also remembered for his philanthropy and pioneering efforts in charitable fundraising. In 2000, the Guinness World Records recognized him for supporting 39 charities, more than any other entertainer. Or to keep the section shorter we can go with 'His other achievements include Guinness world records (including the Most Successful Entertainer of All Time and most charities supported by an entertainer)
Links: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/105188-most-charities-supported-by-a-pop-star/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jul-08-et-cause8-story.html https://hiphopwired.com/98495/remembering-michael-jackson-the-global-humanitarian/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.83 ( talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Dubbed the King of Pop' should now be 'Dubbed the God of Pop' DaSpencerHere ( talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change it so that michael sounds better from he way the sexual assault section sounds it makes it seem like he is a criminal which he is not Ppanda626 ( talk) 15:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Michael Jackson voice in space channel 5 part 2 so they should credit him for that. Please add that to the biography. Space Michael jackson ( talk) 03:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Deletion of dead persons official website. DrTazz ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that https://www.michaeljackson.com/ must remain on the article. The brand still exists, and new (posthumous) material is released or re-released, and the website features biographical information. Israell ( talk) 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I too would recommend keeping https://www.michaeljackson.com/ for all of Popcornduff’s findings and Israell’s reasons. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References
Eggishorn, SNUGGUMS For many years here on this article, the length of Jackson’s career was listed as 1964-2009. It was well sourced as you can see here. TrackerMercurial136 replaced the source and changed the year. Jackson publicly sang his first song live in 1963 (Climb every mountain) at the age of 5. He joined the band with his brothers that following year in 1964. Before motown they had small local radio releases from 1964-67. They signed with Motown in 1968 to released their first motown material in 1969. This information is well documented in many sources like these [1], [2], [3], [4] and autobiography of Jackson itself.- Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you actually read the source, you can see that it states that it was written by The Jacksons and close friend, Fred Bronson. That alone shows you extreme credibility. Also, in the book it states that they were first billed as the Jackson 5 in august 1965 in which they also performed live for the first time at a shopping mall in Gary, Indiana. TrackerMercurial136 ( talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the edit should be reverted back to the year 1964, per the Jacksons' own website ( https://www.thejacksons.com/history/) Michael's active work-life started when he started rehearsing as a member of the band in 1964, not when they first performed publicly as a group. Even if we are going to go off of first public performances, that will still be 1964 when he performed "Climb Every Mountain" in the school's auditorium. Being billed as "Jackson 5" is not a criterion that determines when his work life started. TruthGuardians ( talk) 06:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. He performed "Climb Every Mountain" in 1965. It's stated in the book, "Michael Jackson: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track". Here's a link to it: ( https://books.google.com/books?id=CbVgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT407&lpg) TrackerMercurial136 ( talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not true. Every legitimate source ever written about Jackson states that Jackson performed the song when he was 5 years old, which would have been from 1963-1964. He would have been 6-7 years old in 1965. His mom has said it to Oprah, he said it to Martin Bashir and in his autobiography, his brothers are saying it on there website, it was said in the movie “Jackson: An American Dream,” and said in the following links: ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5649814/Michael-Jackson-100-facts-about-the-king-of-pop.html), ( https://www.liveabout.com/michael-jackson-biography-p2-1007070), ( https://www.biographyonline.net/music/michael-jackson.html). TruthGuardians ( talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Posthumous releases and productions": It says "Later that year, Queen released three duets recorded with Jackson and Freddie Mercury...". When in fact it was one song, not three. Also a bit below that line it says that "pre-Broadway run in Chicago was canceled in the wake of the renewed claims..." and that the National Football museum statue was removed because of the allegations. There is no source for these claims that that was the reason why it was removed and therefore that line and the Broadway line should be edited out. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Its removal comes as sexual abuse allegations against the singer are detailed in a new documentary film.-- qedk ( t 桜 c) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)