Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 36

Flyer22 Reborn is edit warring without good reason.
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)
 * I replied/refuted at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson and above. Read WP:Bold and WP:BRD. You are not new. You know the deal. You made a bold edit; I challenged it since you removed material on the belief that Taraborrelli is unreliable. You reverted my revert and also reverted my edit summary. If I am edit warring, so are you. I took the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. In addition to needing to read WP:TALKNEW about headings, you need to read WP:Burden and WP:ONUS, especially WP:ONUS. If you think you have a valid case against me, do take it to WP:ANI. But they often don't take well to content disputes, and your behavior will be under scrutiny as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP is a collaborative effort. You haven't proved why Taraborrelli is reliable. Other users have already pointed out his inconsistency. So you are reverting those edits in defensive of him, but you are not providing an argued reason. The burden of proof is on you. And you're still casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me being "not new." —Partytemple (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As if I need to be told that "WP is a collaborative effort." You haven't proven why Taraborrelli is unreliable. It is your personal opinion. It is not based on anything at the WP:Reliable sources guideline. You are using "The burden of proof is on you" wrongly, as far as Wikipedia goes. And, again, you need to read WP:ONUS. I disputed your changes. Discussion is supposed to follow. Not you just reverting back to your edit. I am awaiting other opinions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. And after how you acted at WP:ANI, I don't want to read anything from you about "casting WP:ASPERSIONS." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that you're replying to just attack me now. I can't be "not new" and not know the policies at the same time, which you seem to believe I am. None of what you say makes even the remotest sense. —Partytemple (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We have and have had many editors who are not new and yet are not as familiar with certain policies and guidelines as they should be. Some are sporadic editors. Some are non-sporadic editors who just aren't as well-versed in our policies guidelines as other editors are. For others, they edit without any thought to whatever rules the site may have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever your definition of "new" is, you keep changing it. First, you accused me of being a sockpuppet without proof. Then you kept saying I'm "not new" like I'm hiding the fact that I'm a sockpuppet. You're very toxic and you haven't even proved why Taraborrelli is reliable before reverting my edits. You also didn't read what I edited because no one has claimed anything of what you believe people are claiming. One of my edits was fixing a sentence that doesn't even represent the article cited. You're defending misinformation. —Partytemple (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sighs. I'm not doing this with you again. At WP:ANI, I stated that you are not new. You are not, and any significantly experienced editor analyzing your account would state the same thing, just like they do about various other new accounts at WP:ANI. Do you think our deductive reasoning is impaired? Stating that you are not new is not the same thing as stating that you are using a registered account in some illegitimate way. I clearly pointed to people editing as IPs first and to WP:LEGITSOCK. You are the one who acted like you were already familiar with me. I'm "very toxic," you say again. You are very POV-leaning in your editing, and you are not good for Wikipedia. I've proven that I'm good for Wikipedia times over. I will wait for you to be indefinitely blocked one day, and I have no doubt that it will happen. I'm "defending misinformation"? According to you because you don't believe Taraborrelli. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 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)
 * I'm fine with actual corrections, such as the Bubbles matter, being made. I'm against you removing Taraborrelli simply because you consider him unreliable. Your "Flyer22 Reborn should state her reasons rather than edit warring" commentary is disingenuous. Obviously. I've already pointed to how our WP:Reliable sources guideline works. You have yet to point to a Wikipedia rule about why we shouldn't use Taraborrelli in this case or at all. Editors simply expressing concern that Taraborrelli is or may be unreliable is not based on a Wikipedia rule. You removed the following: "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. He said that Jackson was diagnosed with lupus, which was in remission. Both conditions made Jackson's skin sensitive to sunlight. The treatments for his condition further lightened his skin, and, with the application of pancake makeup to even out blotches, he could appear even paler." The piece is clearly attributed to Taraborrelli via text, per WP:In-text attribution. Removing that was not a fix. You also added an unnecessary blockquote. Instead of being in a rush to re-remove the long-standing piece attributed to Taraborrelli via text and trying to throw shade on me, you should be pointing to a rule that supports the removal. You should wait and see if more people weigh in at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. And, yes, that means waiting more than a day or two. And by "more people," I don't mean Jackson fans from this talk page who will agree with you. I mean uninvolved editors who very likely are not concerned with all of the latest Jackson developments. If you re-remove the piece without this matter being resolved, you will be continuing the edit war and your behavior will scrutinized for that...should this go to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd rather deescalate the tensions between us. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to read your attacks anymore. And I'm seriously considering reporting you. For the record, that so-called "skin bleaching" is him putting on makeup and prescription creams for his vitiligo. —Partytemple (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in reading anymore of your personal attacks; I've been clear about that. And do report me, and see what happens. Like I just stated elsewhere, in the aforementioned "Taraborrelli a good source?" discussion, we can see that Taraborrelli is questioned as reliable because this The Independent source states that Taraborrelli and Jackson were friends. The source says "his long-term friend and biographer, J Randy Taraborrelli." And then we have the other view that Taraborrelli is unreliable because he's biased against Jackson. This is what I mean about personal opinion regarding the reliability of Taraborrelli. And, for the record, why don't you quote exactly what Taraborrelli stated? Did he or did he not state that Jackson was using the over-the-counter skin-bleaching cream Porcelana to achieve the lighter skin? How are you defining skin bleaching? We can see that our very own Wikipedia article states, "Skin whitening, also known as skin lightening and skin bleaching, refer to the practice of using chemical substances in an attempt to lighten the skin or provide an even skin color by reducing the melanin concentration in the skin." And it's edited by Doc James; so it's accuracy is solid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 19 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)
 * Oh, goodness. Another rabid Jackson fan. Do report me at WP:ANI right now, where you just might be called a WP:Sock by different editors and get a WP:BOOMERANG. I haven't been untruthful in any way. No one stated that Jackson didn't have vitiligo. And his autopsy report does not prove that his pigmentation "was destroyed via vitiligo." And anyone can get Porcelana, which is what I focused on above, without a prescription. Prescription-strength versions are a different matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And crafting the section so that it seems that the only reason that Jackson's skin was so light was due to vitiligo and makeup, and that the skin lightening (also called skin bleaching per our very own Wikipedia article on skin whitening) was just a matter of rumors, like this version did, is what is dishonest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who gets past the tabloid rumors and does some factual research is a 'fan'. You are in denial of almost everything unless it's negative about Jackson. By the same token, you're a rabid 'hater' and you're not neutral or objective either when it comes to him. To deny the obvious fact that Michael Jackson did suffer from vitiligo which was indeed mentioning in his autopsy. Also, it's clearly stated that his skin had a reduced amount of melanocytes and pathcy discoloration around the chest and other parts. He used Benoquin to even out the pathches until they got chronic. He used makeup initially to hide the pathces but had to go for the lighter part of the skin when it was spread over his body as explained by his long time makeup artist Karen Faye. Benoquin is the only FDA APPROVED MEDICATION FOR VITILIGO PATIENTS and can only be used by VITILIGO patients. It's not a simple bleaching agent that simply alters your polygenes. Denying this obvious truth is being ignorant on your part. Sorry to say. Also, please get past this concept of'rabid fans'. It's extremely inane. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who gets past the tabloid rumors and does some factual research is a 'fan'. You are in denial of almost everything unless it's negative about Jackson. By the same token, you're a rabid 'hater' and you're not neutral or objective either when it comes to him. To deny the obvious fact that Michael Jackson did suffer from vitiligo which was indeed mentioning in his autopsy. Also, it's clearly stated that his skin had a reduced amount of melanocytes and pathcy discoloration around the chest and other parts. He used Benoquin to even out the pathches until they got chronic. He used makeup initially to hide the pathces but had to go for the lighter part of the skin when it was spread over his body as explained by his long time makeup artist Karen Faye. Benoquin is the only FDA APPROVED MEDICATION FOR VITILIGO PATIENTS and can only be used by VITILIGO patients. It's not a simple bleaching agent that simply alters your polygenes. Denying this obvious truth is being ignorant on your part. Sorry to say. Also, please get past this concept of'rabid fans'. It's extremely inane. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's it. I queried below about getting a WP:CheckUser on this. I'm going to do that now. These new accounts popping up to this matter is not a coincidence. I'm not interested in your WP:Not a forum commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 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)


 * Even if Flyer's "rabid Jackson fan" remark was unwarranted, patronizing her with the "Time to grow up, Little one" comment is definitely not appropriate. She's not some young child with close-minded views. Disputing claims doesn't mean her goal is to maintain false details in the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I see the insult has thankfully been removed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a "rabid Jackson fan?" Your commentary speaks otherwise. And "incredibly racist and insulting for others suffering from vitiligo"? So wrong that I'm not even going to address it beyond stating that I'm sure I know more about vitiligo than you do. And, predictaby, here comes Israell, who is undoutedly a Jackson fan. I'm not interetested in either of your comments about Jackson. Countering your claims is fruitless, as the Jackson ideology in you is strong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks There have been many occasions where the user also broke the following rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I smell an agenda here. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More of the same from "TruthGuardians." Do not try to spread your "truth" on Wikipedia. The agenda you are smelling is your own, "newbie." I wonder if I should have a WP:CheckUser investigate. And how are you going to speak to me about WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, given your antics? Many occasions where I broke the following rules? Sighs. And to repeat: No one said that Jackson didn't have vitiligo. His skin being as light as it became was very likely due to a combination of vitiligo and skin lightening, as a number of reliable sources state. I did state, "As for whether or not he wanted to be white? It's discussed in a number of reliable sources that look at his changing facial appearance in addition to his skin being lightened." I don't need to point you to sources, like this 2011 "Circuits of Visibility: Gender and Transnational Media Cultures" source (from NYU Press) that is used in the article, as though they are not easy enough to find from Googling on your own, and as though I'm currently proposing an addition. And just so you know, if you don't already, Wikipedia is not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 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)
 * Do you believe that Taraborrelli wrote wrote that segment in his book to enforce tabloid rumour? To my knowledge, Taraborrelli really liked Jackson as a person. Hammelsmith (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is what he wrote: 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. Yes, he was enforcing a tabloid rumor. If he wasn't and actually cared about researching the subject, he should be writing: First, Michael Jackson had vitiligo. —Partytemple (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are trying to distinguish skin bleaching from skin lightening in ways that reliable sources do not. It's why you keep putting "skin bleaching" in scare quotes. As for "it's common for vitiligo patients to use skin bleaching creams to even out their blotches," I mentioned in the RfC you started below that "many people with vitiligo are clear that they use those creams so that their skin is uniform in color." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I used quotes because there are people who don't know what skin bleaching entails. What are you even trying to suggest? So what if I used quotes? The logic doesn't even follow in your argument. You're still defending a speculation written as fact. —Partytemple (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your logic makes not a bit of sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Taraborrelli does write later in the same chapter "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)." Taraborrelli also wrote of Dr. Arnold Klein's testimony at the 1994 Grand Jury, where Klein testified to diagnosing Jackson with Vitiligo in 1986. So there is some amount of speculation, but some balance too. As long as these sources are reported accurately on Wiki, readers may then judge reliability for themselves. Hammelsmith (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Yes, he did write that. But he doesn't cite vitiligo as the primary reason, which it was. Again, the rumor was that Jackson didn't have vitiligo and that he was turning white on purpose. This also doesn't resolve a lot of WP:RS and WP:SENSATIONAL problems in Taraborrelli's work, like no footnotes, few named sources, no citations, nothing. —Partytemple (talk) 06:40, 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)
 * Not interested in your biased, inaccurate commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 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)
 * Not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 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)


 * You're telling me -- a significantly experienced Wikipedia editor -- how Wikipedia should work? You are suggesting that we forego a widely discussed aspect that is WP:Due. No, that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. WP:Summary style, with regard to summarizing a subtopic (a topic that has its own Wikipedia article, is a spin-off of the parent article), is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Also see WP:NOTCENSORED. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. You're only proving others right about you. Israell (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny how about half of "these others" are new accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE, WP:GOODFAITH —Partytemple (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE and WP:GOODFAITH don't mean playing dumb. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I also find it hilarious that, as seen here and here, I was considered a Jackson fan trying to obscure child sexual abuse material. And now I'm considered a Jackson hater, with all types of accusations thrown my way. In both cases, each side came after me. Sorry, people, I'm just not for your type of editing. It's that simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, WP:GOODFAITH. Quit breaking Wikipedia rules. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, a big sigh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See what the closer of that previous RfC stated? Yeah, I was soooo breaking the rules. Not. Any focus on me is not going to help a thing, just like it didn't help the other side. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, WP:GOODFAITH.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want the last word on that, which you clearly do, I'll let you have it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit consensus: lead sentence describing Jackson's legacy after Leaving Neverland
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)
 * Adding on, the problem with the current sentence is that it implies the backlash did have a some profound (but "not full") effect on Jackson's popularity and image. I argue that his music in fact gained popularity in response to the documentary, which indicates that it didn't have a negative effect on consumers, at all. —Partytemple (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because even if the effect was limited and there was as a spike in music consumption, being banned on radio stations DOES count for at least some decrease in popularity and image, so I went with "did not fully diminish" instead of the oversimplified "did not diminish". Flyer22 isn't "trying very hard" to do anything other than get the content accurate and neutral. You might not agree with all of her suggestions, but she ultimately wants this to be presented fairly. For what it's worth, I do realize you also have that goal, regardless of any content disputes. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP shouldn't be a place to "push" opinions. It should state facts and accurately as possible. If you believe I'm POV-pushing, please show me where exactly. I have contributed to both sides of the controversy in the abuse allegations articles and Leaving Neverland. Jackson's legacy can be separated into radio stations and consumers. We can say "a few radio stations banned his music indefinitely, while his music gained popularity among consumers." This is not a controversial statement to make. It is a statement of facts. What I am seeing here is people trying to obscure one side or another. This is a distortion of facts. —Partytemple (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you're trying to push any POV, and even specifically said that you and Flyer share a goal of wanting the content to be accurate and neutral (even if you disagree on certain matters). When discussing popularity, my interpretation at least was that it combined radio stations and consumers. Gaining popularity among consumers would be more accurate than outright saying "did not diminish his music's popularity". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Like I stated here and here, a source saying "believed Jackson's legacy could withstand the Leaving Neverland controversy" is not the same thing as saying his legacy or image was not diminished. Reliable sources talk about his legacy and image being diminished. We will have to wait years to see the full impact. And like I stated here, the japantimes.co.jp source is mainly about his music, and also includes opinions -- not facts -- on his legacy. And it's WP:OR/faulty to say that his image has not been diminished, especially when there are reliable sources that state the opposite. I'm not interested in Partytemple's comments about what I am "trying very hard to do." But I do know that, per what I stated at WP:ANI, I will be looking to get WP:Discretionary sanctions placed on the Jackson articles if the POV-pushing continues in ways that clearly require discretionary sanctions. Popcornduff should not have to keep dealing with stuff like this at the Leaving Neverland article. And despite what the closing admin (who I don't have a good history with) stated at WP:ANI, we absolutely should be worried about violations of the WP:Canvassing guideline and WP:Meatpuppetry policy. No true dispute resolution/consensus comes when those violations are happening. If the only way to deal with that is via discretionary sanctions, so be it. And since Partytemple likes to keep focusing on the editor -- me -- I will also state that, unlike SNUGGUMS, I do not believe that Partytemple is going for fairness. Not in the way Wikipedia defines it. Partytemple stated, "What I am seeing here is people trying to obscure one side or another. This is a distortion of facts." My thoughts, exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 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)
 * Nope. What reliable sources state that his image was was not diminished? What reliable sources state "a few radio stations"? His music still being popular is not the same thing as "his popularity was not diminished." It's not the same thing as "his legacy was not diminished." It's not the same thing as "his image was not diminished." It is clear that it's you who is not reading carefully. Or rather it's just about your needing to engage in WP:Synthesis. Either way, it's you engaging in WP:Synthesis. As for WP:ASPERSIONS, meatpuppetry is going on at the Jackson articles; admins I have talked this matter over with have stated the same thing. A few are now observing these Jackson pages. You reporting me for stating that meatpuppetry is going on would be fruitless, as others would just agree with me when looking at the accounts. It certainly didn't take the CheckUser I contacted long to suspect that the accounts are coming from a forum. And, clearly, you learned nothing from your last ANI report on me. What do you really think is going to happen? You would be wasting your time...again. It's also rich of you to talk about WP:ASPERSIONS, given your same "Flyer is being bad" nonsense above in this section. Nonsense that SNUGGUMS had to address you on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The source does mention the radio stations in Canada, but it doesn't say the complied and it definitely does not say "indefinitely" -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 1 This article suggests that the stations are "monitoring the situation" and "for the time being" which implies indefiniteness. —Partytemple (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Suggest" and "Implies" are personal opinions, not reliable sources. Sorry, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "For the time being" is the definition of "indefinitely" or "undecidedly." I can change it to directly quoting "for the time being." —Partytemple (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're engaging in the same synthesis at Leaving Neverland. Taking this to the WP:Original research noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Stop distorting facts please. Here's another article on this subject. The banning of his music isn't definite nor fully decisive. —Partytemple (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop distorting what facts? Before the word fully was added, you wanted the "did not diminish his music's popularity or his image" text in the article. No doubt you still want that text in the article. You added the "his image has not diminished" text to the Leaving Neverland article. I repeat: "What reliable sources state that his image was was not diminished?" And "fully" could be a compromise if you hadn't added "outside of a few radio stations that banned his music indefinitely." Either way, I've taken the matter to No original research/Noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Can "The Importance of Being Famous: Behind the Scenes of the Celebrity" be restored as a reference w/ sentence?
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)


 * I wouldn't use that when Orth is known for libel. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't realize that. Well, that puts paid to this discussion. Sorry, guys. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:23, 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]'' 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)
 * Hi Israell & TruthGuardians, Thank you for responding. I did read conflicting opinions about Maureen Orth on the talk pages, so I wanted to ask for more input. I do accept that the source can't be used. I believe Jordan Chandler's uncle wrote All That Glitters, so that probably can't be used either. Of course, I know full well why Victor Gutierrez's book could not be referenced. From the recent experiences I've had here, I do know that sources can be removed inadvertently, so when that happens, I simply want to ask why. I do thank you both for sharing other sources since it piques my curiosity to look for other material. Again, thank you for discussing, Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed
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.


 * First of all, editing isn't "broken", it just is protected from IPs as well as accounts less that are less than a month old and/or have under 500 edits. This was due to prior disruption from them. Secondly, the "most significant cultural figures of the 20th century" bit is attributed to the New York Public Library. We could highlight the name of this publication in article prose if you'd like. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversy
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)


 * The article already deals with this extensively, and there are several spinoff articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that there should be a section titled controversy to make it easier for readers as the information would be compiled into one place. Lokii192 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That would create undue negative weight for a biography article. See WP:Criticism for more. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 16:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, sections titled Criticism/Controversy or similar are discouraged, as they can lead to a range of problems.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2019
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, Mariotalk 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done : Thank you for catching this minor error. I've removed the stray end bracket and tweaked the link presentation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2019
Michael Jackson was Giannis's father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.164.181 (talk • contribs)
 * no he wasn't. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 11:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?
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)


 * Is a decent source. Not sure about "good." Like I stated at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, our guideline on reliable sources is at WP:Reliable sources. And we also have a WP:BIASEDSOURCES section. We have the WP:Reliable sources guideline to guide us, and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to ask about a source's reliability when we question it. A lot of what Taraborrelli has stated can be supported by reliable sources, which is why it has been relatively easy to replace him as a source with other sources in the Michael Jackson article. J. Randy Taraborrelli is a notable biographer and is used on Wikipedia for more than just the Michael Jackson articles. If he should not be used for the Jackson articles, he should not be used for any other biography articles. Of course, Wikipedia also has a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section with regard to sources. Reviews of Taraborrelli's biographies trend toward the positive side in reliable sources. Like I also stated at the the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, we can see that "Taraborrelli a good source?" discussion questions Taraborrelli as reliable because this The Independent source states that Taraborrelli and Jackson were friends. The source says "his long-term friend and biographer, J Randy Taraborrelli." And then we have the other view that Taraborrelli is unreliable because he's biased against Jackson. This is what I mean about personal opinion regarding the reliability of Taraborrelli. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 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.


 * WP:BLP: He was sued for defamation by Berry Gordy, who is still alive, and surrendered certain parts of the book.[1 ] Jackson tried to stop Taraborrelli from publishing his book.[2 ] Jackson felt upset that the book was published and told his friend Glenda Stein about how he cried. (This is a rather invasive recording of Jackson's private phone calls, but it really is him talking.) [3 ] Starts around 1:28. More discussion here at the RS Noticeboard.

''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.’
 * Taraborrelli makes conjectures about Jackson's skin condition and how he remedies it. Here is the exact quote from the book that's cited in this article:

''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.)''


 * Taraborrelli never considered the fact that those "medicines" are drugs to conceal the blotches caused by vitiligo. Instead, he framed it so it sounds like Jackson was purposely "lightening" his skin to look white. Here are different sources on this subject (and I find these media outlets more vigorous in fact-checking than Taraborrelli, who only interviewed various doctors but not Jackson personally.): [1 ], [2 ], [3 ]. "Using make-up to even out the blotchy skin" is basically what a prescription "skin-bleaching" cream does. Jackson's autopsy report vindicated him, when tabloids kept saying he purposely lightened his skin because he harbored some self-hatred about being black.


 * Taraborrelli does not have footnotes or sometimes not even direct references (like names of people for anecdotes). As one can see from the example above, he sometimes just uses "Some doctors" as though that's credible. I know that this article isn't academic, but it shouldn't be left vulnerable to gossip either. WP:RS. Certain parts of the book also read like a gossip column. WP:SENSATIONAL —Partytemple (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Using a skin bleaching cream is purposely lightening the skin. Many people with vitiligo are clear that they use those creams so that their skin is uniform in color. Jackson used them/topical drugs extensively. He used them so extensively that his skin was eventually the very light complexion he ended up with; that was not mostly makeup. As for whether or not he wanted to be white? It's discussed in a number of reliable sources that look at his changing facial appearance in addition to his skin being lightened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited the sources you claim to be true. —Partytemple (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You implied that you know sources that corroborate what Taraborrelli wrote, that Jackson used creams to purposely lighten his skin. The issue here is that he wasn't lightening his skin because he wanted to be white, which was what the tabloids claim and what Taraborrelli tried to imply. Jackson was using prescription creams that was given to him for his vitiligo to even out his blotches. He didn't have any self-hatred about being black, that's why he explained that vitiligo was something he couldn't control. I don't know the proportion of "make-up" (as in cosmetics you buy at the cosmetics store) to prescription cream he used; but you sound convinced that it was most cream, and this needs to be sourced, too. —Partytemple (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat: "Using a skin bleaching cream is purposely lightening the skin." I don't know what definition you are using. Evening out the skin tone via a skin bleaching cream is not about darkening the skin. As for "and what Taraborrelli tried to imply"? Your view. And "he didn't have any self-hatred about being black"? That is your opinion, and it's one a number of reliable sources disagree with you on since Jackson's features changed along with his skin color, and those features are what reliable sources have characterized as European features. And I don't need to point you to sources, like this 2011 "Circuits of Visibility: Gender and Transnational Media Cultures" source (from NYU Press) that is used in the article, as though they are not easy enough to find from Googling on your own, and as though I'm currently proposing an addition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source you cited doesn't even talk about Michael Jackson. It's speculation that you think it would apply to him, or that the author even wants to associate their material with him. It's a complete non sequitur. It's actually bordering on WP:FRINGE theories. —Partytemple (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Edit: Oh, I see where it talks about Michael Jackson. But it's dubious sourcing. Because it claims that he wants to lighten his skin as a fact.
 * Adding more to this, that person is speculating on why Jackson lightened his skin. —Partytemple (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Says "doesn't even talk about Michael Jackson" when it does. Proceeds to correct oneself. Then proceeds to call a reliable source dubious. Then proceeds to cite WP:FRINGE in an inaccurate way. My point is that Jackson's changing appearance and how/why it changed is discussed in various reliable sources and is a notable topic; it's why we have an entire Wikipedia article on it. We discuss it in this article as well, and should. That it's a speculative matter, in part, doesn't mean we don't discuss it. That's not how WP:Due weight works. And we have WP:In-text attribution for a reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But you're not defending a "discussion" or a debate on Jackson. The section in question isn't even about discussion or debate; it's not how it's suppose to be written. The article currently claims speculation as fact, and you're defending that. And I corrected myself because at least I'm not arrogant enough to cite myself as "knowledgeable about vitiligo" like you do. —Partytemple (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't making any sense. And you clearly have no grasp on WP:In-text attribution and why it's used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Question is it possible that certain parts of his book are usable while others aren't? Just a thought that came to mind as sources can contain a mixture of true claims and false ones. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "A mixture of true claims and false claims" is by definition an unreliable source. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible. But if Taraborrelli made claims that were true, another RS should be able to verify it. Nothing in the Taraborrelli book is particularly exceptional, except how he paints every personal moment of Jackson as though he was a fly on the wall, which he wasn't. For example, this excerpt: ''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.’"
 * How could Taraborrelli possibly know these conversation details when he wasn't even close to Jackson? It must've been based on hearsay, or he made it up, and he doesn't even provide footnotes or direct references. —Partytemple (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * SNUGGUMS, with regard to your question, I brought up WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If editors want Taraborrelli banned as a source on Wikipedia, like the Daily Mail is per WP:DAILYMAIL, they are going to have to try harder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a useful link. Not sure how I didn't properly catch it at first. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We're not asking if Taraborrelli should be banned like the Daily Mail, which is basically banned across WP. We're asking if Taraborrelli is "appropriate for the Michael Jackson article(s)." —Partytemple (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your RfC question is as follows: "Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?" And if you go back and change it now, that will be misrepresenting what people voted on thus far. The words good and appropriate are obviously not the same thing. And the RfC is focused on this article, not all Jackson articles. If this RfC closes as "it's not a good source for this article," it doesn't mean that an editor can then apply that to all Jackson articles. I also point out that you didn't ask: "Should Tarraborrelli be used as a source for this article?" So the RfC decision won't mean "can't or shouldn't be used." And since, above, you stated that you "would leave it unless there is another source that contradicts his claims," it may be that you aren't looking to entirely block the source's use in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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)


 * No but as per UNDUE and SLANDER... basically if secondary reliable published sources do not include the information that is found at some third rate news paper and is not covered/analyzed by others media organizations  or  academic publications then that information may—by definition not be important enough to include and may cause to much weight given to a specific topic or allegation.-- Moxy 🍁 02:56, 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)


 * Undecided I do think some portions of his book are useful to this article since he seems to be very familiar with Jackson's family, for example. There are also other periods where Taraborrelli is unsure how Michael Jackson is occupying himself and why, although Taraborrelli is honest about that. Hammelsmith (talk) 05:11, 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)
 * He didn't name that "one employee" or the "some doctors." It also sounds like he was speculating that the primary reason was Jackson lightening his skin on purpose, because Taraborrelli was piecing together unrelated facts. He was basically playing both ways, to both the rumor and the fact that Jackson used creams for his vitiligo. So it's still supporting a rumor. I understand your argument, and I see the source explanations at the back. But still that doesn't explain how detailed he could be, like the strip search scene, unless he had someone leak it. Berry Gordy also sued him for defamation, and he was willing to surrender parts of his book. Even if we are to consider Taraborrelli to be reliable, the current sentence written in the article is still reinforcing the skin bleaching rumor, so it needs to be rewritten. It's also clear that vitiligo patients used prescribed skin bleaching creams to even out the blotches, so Jackson who was a vitiligo patient was using the creams in that way, not to purposely turn himself white. —Partytemple (talk) 07:17, 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)

Taraborrelli, rumor enforcer?
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. 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." Support or Oppose? —Partytemple (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * More sources on the rumor back in the '90s. Chicago Tribune on the speculation [1 ]: "Though the market for lightening procedures has never been big, doctors say it does exist. In addition to the dermabrasion and chemical peels, doctors can prescribe strong doses of an agent called hydroquinone, which inhibits the production of pigment-causing melanin." This rumor about hydroquinone is repeated in Taraborrelli's book. "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.’" —Partytemple (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I think it could also be added that the cream that had been prescribed for him was Benoquin, which is the FDA approved treatment for extensive vitiligo. It was found among his medications. GiuliaZB (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The proposed change makes clear that Jackson bleached his skin with a clear purpose: not to become white, but to hide or soften the visual effects of his illness.Mcouzijn (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose use of "on purpose." Makes no sense, considering that knowingly using skin whitening products to lighten the skin (areas or in total) is on purpose. And oppose "a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale." That is not an accurate description of vitiligo. This is why it's not the description we use as the lead sentence in the Vitiligo article. The "a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale" text should be replaced with "a rare, long-term skin condition characterized by patches of the skin losing their pigment." And the "that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness which causes the loss of pigmentation of the skin and sensitivity to sunlight" part should be changed to "that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness that also makes the person sensitive to sunlight." Also, "rumors" should simply be "speculation." The matter was not just a feature of tabloids and it's still not, and "rumors" can imply that it was/is simply a tabloid matter. And as for "you can't make it white," from the Chicago Tribune source back in the 90s (before we had the medical advancements we have today), that seems to depend on what the person means by "white." Sammy Sosa bleached his skin, and it is what many people would call "white," just like many people called Jackson's super light skin "white." I'm fine with the rest of the proposed text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to explain the difference, any further, between Jackson's freewill to use creams and people speculating whether or not Jackson was lightening his skin because of self-hatred and not because of vitiligo. —Partytemple (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain. Use of "on purpose" in the above proposed text is not needed and makes no sense, for the reason I stated in my "19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)" post. He did not unintentionally lighten his skin. Your proposed text ties the skin-lightening products to vitiligo. Use of "on purpose" is not telling readers "Jackson was not lightening his skin because of self-hatred." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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, 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)


 * Suggested edit to the following: ″The creams would have further lightened his skin, and, with the application of makeup, he could appear very pale." Change the word "pale" to "translucent″ as that is how medical professionals typically describe the settling results of vitiligo. Also, Taj, one of Michael Jackson siblings, and producer Rodney Jerkins have all recently described being able to "see through" his skin. Keep the rest of what is there, but change that one word.


 * Furthermore, if we are going to mention his lupus, perhaps we should also mention the ravaging effects that lupus have on soft tissue in humans and how having lupus can alter one's appearance because of it. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that changing "very pale" to "translucent″ would be an improvement. I think it would confuse readers because of the common understanding of "translucent″ and the fact that they couldn't literally see through Jackson's skin. To the general public, he appeared very pale, not translucent, and Jackson having been very pale is supported by numerous reliable sources. I also don't see the need to mention those closest to him saying that they could see through his skin, at least in this article. Their description could go in the main article about his appearance and health, since that's the article for extensive detail on those topics. Also, just Googling "vitiligo translucent," I'm seeing references to Jackson on regular Google, but no solid medical sources about it. Looking at this Healthline source, which is a low-quality medical source, it states, "Some people are born with naturally translucent or porcelain skin. This means that the skin is very pale or see-through. You may be able to see blue or purple veins through the skin." It lists vitiligo as a cause of translucent skin.


 * If we state more on his lupus, it should be with sources focused on Jackson's lupus, not lupus in general. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

_____

Revert: "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates"
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)
 * The event is the controversy not just the film. You have been literally just deleting opposition voices in both the LN article and this one. It's obvious POV-pushing.
 * Exhibit A: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/14/europe/france-michael-jackson-case-intl/index.html
 * Exhibit B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations
 * I could show you more, but what you're doing is obvious. —Partytemple (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so your response, once again, is to accuse me of maliciously manipulating the encyclopaedia. If that's your attitude we'll never be able to have a constructive conversation. Popcornduff (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the question be, what is the relative size of the two reactions, the backlash against Jackson and the criticism of the documentary? If they were roughly equal, they should probably both be mentioned. How extensive was the "international backlash"? A few DJs in a few countries refusing to play his records for a bit, or something more substantial?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am one of the editors who disagree with "international backlash" for this reason. There has never been more than a few radio stations/DJ's who took Jackson's music off the air for awhile until the controversy faded. As for the "international" part, there is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value as easily as the US or UK.—Partytemple (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The backlash/legacy and "radio stations" aspect was addressed at the WP:OR noticeboard: No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 42. The consensus from that is clear -- we are not going to judge the extent of the backlash ourselves.


 * And, Partytemple, cease making bad-faith assumptions. You've gone on about me making bad-faith assumptions against you. And yet this is what you've done to me, Popcornduff, and others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, criticism with regard to Jackson after the documentary also came in the form of critical reviews of the film, media articles considering or believing that the accusers are being truthful, and criticism of Jackson fans (for example, here).


 * On a side note: Popcornduff, I expanded the title of this section to include "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" so that it's clearer what this section is about. Feel free to revert the expanded heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The current attribution of "international" is exaggerating the film's impact. WP:DUEWEIGHT. The film is not as successful outside the US and UK. Critical reviews of the film is a non sequitur. Both streams and radio plays have returned to normal frequency since the controversy faded. —Partytemple (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "International" is accurate, per the previous discussion that took place on this talk page. What reliable sources are there for "The film is not as successful outside the US and UK."? I mentioned critical reviews of the film because that also concerns backlash. Not a non sequitur. You stated, "Both streams and radio plays have returned to normal frequency since the controversy faded." What reliable source states that the stations that stopped playing his songs are playing them again? What reliable source states that the controversy has faded? Again, we do not asses these things ourselves. We rely on reliable sources, and we avoid recentism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the media doesn't report on this topic as they are more interested in promoting the film. Soundcharts.com has all the streaming and airplay information. There is no credible report that it was successful outside of the US and UK. In fact, it wasn't even that successful within the US and UK, as numbers have shown. So it would still be dubious to claim it had an international impact. —Partytemple (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Best to stick to what reliable sources state on the matter. There will be reliable sources assessing or reassessing the impact in the future; we just have to wait for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There won't be, because the media aren't interested in discussing this. It was clear propaganda from the get-go. There is no article assessing the aftermath. Most articles promoting the film were published around the same week in March. Jackson's airplay reverted back to normal in about a month after the film's premiere on HBO in March. Some major music markets like France, Germany, and Brazil were completely unaffected. The ones that were affected reverted back to normal. I hate to say it, but at this point, whoever still believes that film is a sap. The film also stole material from a child pornography book that was deemed libelous and criminal before. —Partytemple (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I stated above. There will eventually be sources, including academic sources, assessing the impact of Leaving Neverland with regard to Jackson's legacy. There always are eventually such sources when it comes to a big controversy. I've seen this happen over and over again, and Wikipedia updates accordingly. And this film is very controversial, having received a lot of media attention. I'm not interested in editors' claims of "was clear propaganda from the get-go" or the common Jackson fan claim that the film "stole material from a child pornography book." That has no place on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And editors should remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. So no ill talk of the two men who allege that they are victims should be had on this talk page, unless directly relevant to what reliable sources have stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The film has already violated WP:BLP. They included Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin into the controversy. Barnes threatened to sue. —Partytemple (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the film has not violated WP:BLP. That is not how WP:BLP is applied. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has. And there are academic sources for it. Moreover, there are academic sources that say "Robson and Safechuck are proven frauds" verbatim. —Partytemple (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it hasn't. Do I need to take this matter to the BLP talk page or the WP:BLP noticeboard so that you better understand how our WP:BLP policy works? It seems so. What academic sources say "Robson and Safechuck are proven frauds" verbatim? You were just going on about "there is no article assessing the aftermath", and now you are saying this? Furthermore, even if there are such sources, we would not use them to state such in Wikipedia's voice. It would also be questionable to include such at all. This is per BLP. And it's not the same as sources assessing Jackson's legacy after Leaving Neverland. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You just explained why I didn't use those sources. They argue that the two accusers are likely frauds and slanderers, the genre of the film can be interpreted as either pedophilia fiction or "fake news" depending on your sexual orientation, and the target audience are various species of Ovis and Povertus ironicus, not to be confused with their close cousins Extremis autismus. It's very intelligent and highly vulgar, totally unfit for WP. —Partytemple (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Partytemple, it's pretty rich to accuse others of POV-pushing and then declare that you think accusations about Jackson are "propaganda". That makes it harder to take your edits around the subject in good faith. Our personal opinions about the events described in reliable sources aren't relevant. And no, the film is not a violation of the Biographies of living persons policy... because Wikipedia did not make the film. Popcornduff (talk) 11:08, 4 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)

Discussion of "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" at NPOV noticeboard
Linked here.

Experienced voices welcomed. —Partytemple (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of philanthropy work in lead
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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2019
'Dubbed the King of Pop' should now be 'Dubbed the God of Pop' DaSpencerHere (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * he isn't known to be called that very often, at least compared to "King of Pop". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2019
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Space Michael Jackson
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)


 * Space Channel 5 is a video game and Michael Jackson has a brief cameo role as a voice artist. This is quite obscure and I'd never heard of this before. It is mentioned in the article Space Channel 5 as you would expect, but it may not be notable enough for a mention here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019
Deletion of dead persons official website. DrTazz (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The official website at https://www.michaeljackson.com/ is still online, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to remove it. As you might expect, the MJ website is selling a ton of MJ merchandise, and some people might find this a bit tasteless. Elvis Presley died in 1977, long before the web came along, but he still has a similar website at http://elvis.com/ which is largely devoted to merchandise. That's life, I suppose . The http://elvis.com/ link in his article's infobox redirects to https://www.shopelvis.com/store and probably fails WP:EL guidelines because there is nothing remotely of value that is about Elvis as a person.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm troubled by sites like these. Obviously a commercial entity has purchased rights to the the "brand" and sites like these exist to make money from the brand, not to disseminate information about the artist. In that case, I don't know why we're helping them along. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, I went to the site and read the FAQ. To my surprise, there is actually some interesting stuff from the estate there, and it's less brand-managed than I was expecting. They have quite a fair and interesting explanation for the policy on releasing unreleased material, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know! Thanks for digging deeper. I'm significantly less troubled... -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:29, 19 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

 * 1) Court findings of Jackson's death should be re-added to the lead page. It was not too long ago removed for whatever reason and is no longer found in the edit history. It is just as important for this to be mentioned on the lead as his birth. The Los Angeles County Coroner ruled his death a homicide,    and his personal physician, Conrad Murray, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and incarcerated for the crime and this is well-sourced.
 * 2) Posthumous Allegation section should be corrected to show that Jackson's music is back in rotation. New Zealand radio stations eventually re-added his music to their playlists, citing "positive listener survey results". . Candana radio stations did the same.
 * 3) The day Jackson died, June 25th, has been observed as World Vitiligo Day since 2011 in remembrance of Michael Jackson and should be recognized on both body and lead as it use to be.  TruthGuardians (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:


 * 1. ❌ The article Death of Michael Jackson is already linked from the article and extensively covers these issues.
 * 2. ✔️
 * 3. ✅ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Year of active
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, , , 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)
 * Multiple reliable sources like Telegraph (two articles), Ebony Magazine and MJ's older brothers autobiography You Are Not Alone: Michael: Through a Brother's Eyes that i gave you above clearly say MJ performed "Climb Every Mountain" in 1963.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:38, 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 only reason I changed 1964 in the lead to 1965 was to keep it consistent with the article body's prose and infobox. Whichever year we go with should be the same in each location. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2019
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)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: First change made. Please provide reliable sources for the rest. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 10:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello qedk. The sources in the article does not say that the allegations are the reason why this or that was removed. Which makes it unsourced speculation and for that reason should be removed. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources do state it's because of the allegations, excerpt from BBC: Its removal comes as sexual abuse allegations against the singer are detailed in a new documentary film. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey qedk. It says "comes after". It does not say that is the reason. They are merely speculating. They have also denied the rumors that the pre broadway show cancelled because of a doc that came 6 months before. For example where it says "Producers and the Michael Jackson estate cite the reason for cancellation as scheduling difficulties brought about by the recent Actors Equity strike" Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "comes after" specifically implies it has no relation to the sexual assault allegations. The article states "cancelled in the wake of..." and "following renewed sexual allegations", which is an accurate reflection of the statements in the references. Furthermore, the statement of the estate is opinionated and should definitely not be taken into account, thought it can be added as a counter-view. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence that is the reason why. The estate are the ones behind the project. They decide what they want to do with the project and they said it was because of the recent strike. Since we can't prove this to be true we should remove it all togheter. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Citing sources to see how Wikipedia works with sourcing. We would remove it if the statement was redacted from the article, no other reason to remove it, you seem to have an one-sided interest in this article, please also read WP:NPOV. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * qedk, Here is a Forbes article from August 2018 before the premiere of Leaving Neverland in early 2019 saying that the musical will hit Broadway in 2020. There is no reason in saying that Leaving Neverland caused the delay of the Broadway musical, and it should be removed from the article.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what it says, it says "in the wake of", multiple sources including BroadwayWorld and NYT have stated it was following the documentary and that's what the article states. I'm sorry but I'm not making any changes, I recommend you let it be or find reliable sources that counter the statement. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 19:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * qedk, why is "in the wake of" a necessary thing to add? How is that relevant? You either list every possible reason why for example that pre broadway show was cancelled or you mention no possible reasons. You can't have it one way. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it, I just don't see any reason to remove it. As long as the information is NPOV and reliably sourced, it makes no sense to remove it because you think it should not be in an article, please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV pages first. If you want to add all the possible reasons, make another request and state exactly what you want added and someone will do it (probably). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "The same BBC that you cited above, Forbes and many other reliable sources reported back in july 2018 that the musical is going to hit Broadway in 2020. But during the premiere of Leaving Neverland (2019) the media including the BBC said it's delayed. And according to the latest report from last month it's on schedule, and you still think it should be there?".- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source BWW was referencing in NYT states that a development lab was delayed (not the musical itself), the current wording makes it seem otherwise, will change that accordingly. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 20:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are THREE reliable sources that pre-date "Leaving Neverland" that revealed the Broadway show was always going to come out in 2020. To suggest that "Leaving Neverland" was the reason for the 2020 release date is only speculative and can not be proven. The Michael Jackson Estate even released a press statement clarifying as much. These sources can be found here: Source 1, Source 2, and Source 3. So now with this proof, the change can now happen. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I already altered the statement to reflect the correct delay information. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)