Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson

Deletion of See also section

I deleeted the only link in that section, puer aeternus, because of the information I added before in the child abuse allegations section.Quaffel (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Report and testimony of Stan Katz

The article I used as a source was obviously written during the trial in 2005. However, the publishing date states 2009. Maybe it was originally published in the print version and online in 2009. I used 2009 in the refs because that’s the date stated in the article. Quaffel (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Traborelli was dealing with what the accuser’s family told Katz who made a report to authorities. Actually Taraborelli just states:”Katz wrote in his report: ’He doesn’t really qualify as a pedophile. He’s just a regressed 10-year-old’“. He doesn’t say Katz examined Jackson’s profile. He spent hours with the accuser not with Jackson. In court he said he conducted 2 cursory mental examinations oft he the accuser. He didn‘t say he examined Jackson. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/us/at-jackson-trial-psychologist-testifies-briefly-about-interview.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-31-me-jackson31-story.html

Latest edition

I removed the old edition of Aphrodite Jones' book in the sources and the further reading section and added the latest edition (2019). We won't get into trouble is sth. is added that hasn't been stated in the previous editions and we don't have to use different editions in the further reading section.Quaffel (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

1993 body examination

Some might think this artcle should not deal with the body examination in 1993. But I think it has to. Health issues can play a role in various parts of somebody’s life. The examination and the sworn declaration in the drug addiction section should be mentioned here.Quaffel (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Lewis book

The part about the vitligo discussion had the same source as the part about what he said about being abused as a child (p. 165-168). There's a transcript of the interview that is longer. I deleted the part aut the discussions and rewrote the part about the abuse because there are no descriptions in it. Lewis Jones was more detailed than Taraborelli so I used him as a source and deleted Taraborelli. Google books is the new source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Lewis book page 165 -168 was also used for the second part of this: In an interview with Martin Bashir for the 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson, tears came to Jackson's eyes when he spoke about his childhood abuse,[96] recalling that Joe often sat in a chair with a belt in his hand as he and his siblings rehearsed, and that "if you didn't do it the right way, he would tear you up, really get you. The first part is sourced by Taraborelli. There's no hint that these statements belong together. There's one chapter for the Winfrey interview in the book and one for the Bashir interview. They can't be both on p. 165-168 Quaffel (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Lupus

I removed lupus from the autopsy report. I couldn’t find anything about it in the report. It doesn’t state: ”He might have had it“. No doubt he had had lupus. Klein said he diagnosed it but I think if the had it in 2009 the report would tell as it did with vitiligo. Maybe Taraborelli’s information about the remission hasn’t been updated. I removed that part as well. Klein doesn’t state a year he just said it was during Jackson’s first visit. I use it as the oly date and removed 1983.Quaffel (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Alfredo Bowman

I removed the part about Alfredo Bowman some weeks ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1048368283 because I couldn’t find it in the 2003 edition which usually used here. It is mentioned in the later edition, but that hasn’t been mentioned in the ref. However, it remains deleted. Jackson’s camp said he has neither been treated by Bowman nor was he an addict in 2004. The case was dismissed in 2015. https://blackhistory.fandom.com/wiki/Alfredo_Bowman Quaffel (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead edits

Quaffel I'm undoing your edit because some of it simply doesn't read correctly in English, I'm sorry. Here's a modified version merging the two with your language in italics, let me know what you think:

Michael Jackson was an African-American[1] entertainer who spent over four decades in the public eye, first as a child star with the Jackson 5 and later as a solo artist. Jackson had multiple health issues that became the topic of public and media discussion. In 1984, Jackson suffered severe burns during a commercial shooting. He underwent two surgeries on his scalp. After the second surgery in 1993 he developed a dependency on painkillers. He was also hospitalized several times for dehydration and a back injury. Some concerts had to be canceled due to viral infections. His health deteriorated, and he went into rehabilitation in 1993.

From the mid-1980s, Jackson's appearance began to change, triggering speculation in the media that he wanted to look more white. He was diagnosed with the skin disorder vitiligo, which results in white patches on the skin and sensitivity to sunlight. To treat the condition, he used fair-colored makeup to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. As Jackson's vitiligo became more severe, he is believed to have used skin whitening prescription creams to depigment his skin. The lighter skin resulted in criticism that he was trying to appear white. Jackson said he had not purposely bleached his skin and that he was not trying to be anything he was not.

Jackson said he had been physically abused by his father, and that he had never had a normal childhood due to his early fame. In 2003, Joe admitted to whipping them as children, but he emphatically rejected the longstanding abuse allegations.

While preparing for a series of London comeback concerts scheduled to begin in July 2009, Jackson died of acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication after suffering cardiac arrest on June 25, 2009. His personal physician was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in his death and sentenced to four years in prison.

Alyo (chat·edits) at 15:09, 4 November 2021‎

Alyo, you are arrogant. No, it wasn't perfect. And there's nothing wrong with improving it. But you should deal with the subjekt first. I'll restore my lead, feel free to improve it. Quaffel (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, Quaffel, but I also feel your edit wasn't an overall improvement and contains some strange wording. I do think the lead (and article) needs quite a bit of rewriting, so I'll see if I can help in the coming days. Popcornfud (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud I never claimed it was. Apologies, but I think some of the minor edits you made here in the recent months haven't been an overall improvement too. Quaffel (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think your edit was an overall improvement, why did you make it? Popcornfud (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm arrogant Quaffel, but again, some of the language you used just isn't appropriate. I'm doing my best to integrate some of your concerns, but I'm genuinely struggling to understand what those concerns are. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, Alyo "Jackson said he had been physically abused by his father. In 2003, Joe admitted to whipping them as children, but he emphatically rejected the longstanding abuse allegations." I think this should be corrected him and them doesn't fit.Quaffel (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud,Alyo Which part of the souce supports the claim that had become dependant at "some point in the 1990's"?Quaffel (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud,Alyo "Jackson gradually became dependent on these drugs, and his health deteriorated". Please xplain the part about his deteriorating health. I can't find it in the source. Some of the health issues are not mentioned. I think they should. If you think they should not explain it. Thanks!Quaffel (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud,Alyo I think you should add that "Joe" was his father. I know he was, but maybe some people don't know his father's name. The lead that was used here before I published another one did give an explaination.Quaffel (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "Jackson died of acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication after suffering cardiac arrest on June 25, 2009.[1] His personal physician was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in his death and sentenced to four years in prison." I think the intoxication caused the cardiac arrest. You should add more about the physician. Somebody who doesn't know what happened might not understand.Quaffel (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The source states: "From available pictures of Michael Jackson, his skin color seemed to change significantly sometime in the late 1980’s" not From the mid-1980s,

"Jackson's appearance began to change, triggering speculation in the media that he wanted to look more white." "The lighter skin resulted in criticism that he was trying to appear white." It's doubled. Quaffel (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud,Alyo: "to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. Seriously?? The blotches are white. You 2 rocket scientists should deal with the subject before editing. You have no idea what you are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Quaffel, stop insulting us. To be completely blunt, your use of the English language isn't perfect and some of what you wrote was just off grammatically. I only reverted because of that, not because I thought you were wrong. I'm sure you know more than me, and I'm happy to work with you to better the prose in the article. However, it doesn't help to think you're an expert but then say things that no one understands. In this edit, the main source does indeed say "drugs had been prescribed", so I think "...Jackson had become dependent on prescription drugs, mainly painkillers..." is appropriate and verifiable. In this edit, the source clearly links the drug use to the burns suffered during the tv commercial filming, and we can look at others sources (for example, page 283 of Taraborrelli) to confirm that. I agree that none of the sources currently used in the article say second-degree, so lets add that. (So: {{cite book|first=J. Randy|last=Taraborrelli|author-link=J. Randy Taraborrelli|year=2009|title=Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story, 1958–2009|publisher=Grand Central Publishing, 2009|isbn=978-0-446-56474-8|url=https://archive.org/details/michaeljacksonma0000tara|pages=283}}) To look at a couple of your suggestions, "From the mid-1980s" just means starting there, which would include the late 80s. Additionally, the source says the change was "significant" in the late 80s, but not that it wasn't visible in the mid 80s. White is a color, so I'm just letting you know that as a native english speaker, that sentence is entirely understandable. You can say "blotches of depigmented skin" but I think this is simply an issue of you reading differently. Agree with removing "health deteriorated". Agree with "Joe admitted to whipping him". We can probably adjust the language on the "some point in the 1990's" but I provided a source above that says that Jackson admitted to a dependency. What else do you want to say about the doctor? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Taraborelli isn't used in the lead, is he? Quaffel (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC) You are the native speaker, you should know if it's better now.Quaffel (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So just so you now, per MOS:CITELEAD we don't need to have citations on statements in the lead as long as the citation is attached to the statement in the body of the article. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Are talking about Taraborelli? About addiction?Quaffel (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You added Taraborelli p. 283 as a source. For what?Quaffel (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I might be wrong. The second source doesn't state second- and third-degree scalp burns. Do you use it for that part?Quaffel (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In which paragraph does Taraborelli make that statement? Please quote the full sentence. Thanks! Quaffel (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Alyo you made the same edit with the Taraborelli source on the Main article and you have been reverted because Taraborelli is not a reliable source. By the way, Taraborelli doesn't state that on p. 283. Quaffel (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please calm down and stop asking the same question in four different replies haha. We'll figure this out, but you trying to hurry me isn't going to solve anything. And to be clear, in the version on the Internet Archive, Taraborelli does indeed say second and third degree burns on pg283. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I literally just linked you to the source that says prescription drugs. Why do you keep telling me to read it? What source are you talking about, because the source in the body that talks about Jackson admitting to a dependency says "drugs had been prescribed". Alyo (chat·edits) 19:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

1. You didn't the online version. If you rely on it use it. You should know that. 2. Have you read it? I don't think so. Read it and you may understand. I'm not wasting my time being your babysitter because you don't know what you are talking about! I don't like make statements like that but you are a pain in the ... Quaffel (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't what the online version? Please proofread your statements before you save them because I don't understand what you're saying. And yes, I read the source that I have now linked to you three times. If you have an issue with it, you're gonna need to say what it is instead of throwing around vague insults and choosing to ignore standard wikipedia policies. I'm really, really trying to help you but you're basically asking to get blocked here. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on the Michael Jackson Talk Page hasn't been addressed yet. Maybe they don't understand you.Quaffel (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we are talking about this: Your lead text stated: During the 1990s, Jackson admitted he had become dependent on prescription drugs, mainly painkillers.

Source

Michael Jackson's lawyers said today that the embattled star will undergo six to eight weeks of treatment for addiction to painkillers at a location outside the United States that they would not reveal. Elaborating today on the statement, Fields said the singer had received "heavy-duty" painkillers, which he would not name, after surgery on his scalp in July.

The article is datet November 16, 1993 I hope you understand me.Quaffel (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This is now the fourth time I am linking the same source, and you are not reading it. Please, read this link because you are either not reading my comments, or you're trolling me. As I type this comment, this New York Times source is citation 37 in the current version of the article. It says "Mr. Jackson, 35, said the drugs had been prescribed after recent reconstructive surgery on his scalp". I have linked the exact same source to you four different times. In case you think this source doesn't matter because it's in the body and not the lead, I already linked you to the policy that says that we don't have to have footnotes on text in the lead as long as the same statement is sourced in the body. Your response appears to be quoting this source, but that's not the source I'm talking about. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay. So, what is the source you are talking about?Quaffel (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but you don't speak English well enough for me to continue this conversation. I would highly recommend that you try to contribute to a project in your native language. Take care, Alyo (chat·edits) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, you understood me when I told me that "blotches of color" isn't correct. Maybe you don't have a source. Maybe it's Taraborrelli. That's why you are starting your discussion about English. It's annoying. Won't work in court. Quaffel (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Jetzt kannst Du sehen, wie Du fertig wirst. Quaffel (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Taraborrelli

I removed Taraborrelli‘s claims about the nose jobs. Some might not be happy with that. I’ll explain why I removed it. He contradicts himself. As I had stated in the artcle he said in the first edition (pp. 533 – 534, 419-420) Jackson only had 6 nose jobs (4 primary and 2 secondary). PP. 419-420 even states his fourth nose job in June 1986 was his „most recently“. On p. 434 (chapter ”Losing Count of the Plastic Surgeries“) in the 2009 edition he claims Jackson had 10 nose jobe by the end of 1990. In the same edition on p. 346 (”More Plastic Surgery“) he claims Jackson had his fourth nose jobs in June 1986. On p. 445 in the 1992 edition he states ”The [Bad] album was finally mastered on July 10,1987“ He was on tour overseas from April to December 1988. The tour ended in January 1989 (p 490) with a total of 123 shows. He doesn’t state when Jackson had nose jobs #5 - #10. Why not? I don’t think he had nose surgeries then. I think he made a mistake when he edited his book and actually he doesn’t really know what happened.Quaffel (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Public handling of Jackson's appearance

I brought back something I had written here a few years ago (Urban Myths). I was reverted. Jackson's appearance was discussed in public for decades and it was far beyond the criticism that is stated in the lead. Jackson was also mocked for his appearance for decades and that should be mentioned here. Other articles do mention it (see linked articles) and I see no reason why this article should not. It's part of Jackson's life just like the body examination in 1993Quaffel (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename the article to "Health of Michael Jackson"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been thinking about the articles subject for a while. Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson sounds odd and it doesn't really make sense. His light skin was a health issue and I think some of the surgery on his nose was due to collapsed cartillage. I thought of splitting up the article but I think an Appearance of Michael Jackson article would be too small. The main article mentions he admitted he had 2 nose jobs and a chin cleft. They can cover that part. The wrinkle treatment is mentioned in the demerol section and the Mental Health sections deals with extensively. If more on Jackson's needed we should create a new article. I don't rule out that option, if it makes sense. I'd like to rename the article Health of Michael Jackson . Quaffel (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Not only are the two intrinsically connected, but Jackson's change in physical appearance is a central part of research and writing about him. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also odd to say "This article covers subject X, but if we put X in another article than that proves this article doesn't need to cover X". Alyo (chat·edits) 18:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Degree of burns

I found a source published in January 1984 that clearly states Jackson suffered second-degree burns and not second and third degree burns as it is stated by Taraborrelli. The source quotes the hospital's spokesman. I think that's a reliable source.Quaffel (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC) I need to correct myself. Jackson mentioned third degree burns in his memoir (p. 237). I just added that information.Quaffel (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Occupational safety

The bombs just exploded only two feet away from his head. The Rust shooting icident article uses the category as well. I think it's justified.Quaffel (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC) I don't think Pepsi wouldn't have paid 1,500,00$ if there hadn't been an issue. The main article mentions it. Quaffel (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point of categories. Categories are not added just because they are tangentially related to an article--please see WP:NONDEF. "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." Just because his appearance was affected in part due to a workplace accident does not mean this article belongs in that category. Reliable sources do not say "the health of Michael Jackson is relevant to occupational safety and health studies" and occupational safety and health as a concept is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Look at the other items in that category--MJ is completely different from all of them. He's not someone who changed the field, and his health or appearance would not be studied by someone who is interested in the field. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Rust shooting incident has that category because the article is about the specific incident. This article is not about an occupational safety incident. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Jackson’s children

I addd the third child in the sexuality section because it stated "2 of Jackson’s children" before. So I Think it makes sense to talk about all of them in order to avoid questions.Quaffel (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple past of to cast

Arjayay, Ser! I used "casted" when I wrote that part and Arjayay corrected me. Ser! reverted it to casted again and was corrected by Arjayay again. I don't want this to go on. From what I found out now "casted is non-standard. https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/casted How do we proceed? I'm not the native speaker here. Tell me. Quaffel (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple, as per WP:COMMONALITY we don't use "non-standard" English - so it should be left as "cast" - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the main reason why I edited it was because of the lack of a space between two words when I encountered the page - since it seems my edit isn't the grammatically correct way, I'm happy to leave it as "cast". ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, decision is made. Thanks! Quaffel (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Conrad Murray trial

Well, I stand by my comment about the wikilink. If it doesn't matter you can remove the template. And I don't think we can leave out the trial. Jackson suffered from insomnia and received propofol. It has to be mentioned.Quaffel (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Alyo You wrote that part. Maybe you want to comment.Quaffel (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud is right about the wikilink--if editors removed all links to pages that were tagged with some sort of problem, the majority of pages would have to be unlinked. But I have no strong feeling about the physician's trial. It's not absolutely necessary to an article about MJ's health--as Popcorn says, the death is explained in the sentence before--but it could be relevant to a larger point about his health being affected by others. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

a) If it's a commonly known term I mustn't link it but if the the linked article has issues almost from the beginning and doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards I can't remove the link? b) Is gross neglicence enough? Or the coroner's ruling? c)What about this: "In 2003, Joe admitted to whipping his children, but he emphatically rejected the other longstanding abuse allegations."? Quaffel (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A) Those are separate issues, yes. If you read through MOS:LINK, you'll see there is no requirement that the target of a link be a well-written article--in fact, linking to other articles is often used to flag that a topic needs to be improved (see WP:REDLINK).

B) I'm not sure what the question is, but remember to ask yourself--how is the coroner's ruling relevant to the "health and appearance of Michael Jackson"? Is there information in the ruling that adds to a reader's understanding of MJ's health? Then that is what should be in the article.

C) Again, I'm not sure what the question is. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

B) Well, I think it is. But if there's a different opinion you must tell me what about his death should not be in the article. (Trial section). C) You said the trial might not be relevant in a health section. Why is this: "In 2003, Joe admitted to whipping his children, but he emphatically rejected the other longstanding abuse allegations." relevant here? Quaffel (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Jackson said he had been physically abused by his father, Joe Jackson.[7] In 2003, Joe admitted to whipping his children, but he emphatically rejected the other longstanding abuse allegations.[8]" You said his death was covered in the sentence before and we don't need the trial sentence. The abuse is also covered in the sentence before so why do we need 2 sentences here? Quaffel (talk) 16:54—, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond here, but I think those edits are good. I agree with what you're saying, that Joe's comments aren't as relevant as the other info in that section. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The trial rmains? Happy new year!Quaffel (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year! And as I said, I don't really have a strong feeling about that--I think maybe you and Popcornfud should talk about that one, and I would agree with whatever outcome is decided. I can see the argument both ways. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Popcornfud Happy New Year! I think it must be mentioned here. As I said Jackson suffered from insomnia and that played a role in his death. Murray played a role in his death and he didn’t act the way he should have. Everything I wrote here about the trial or Murray has to do with Jackson’s health. I didn’t write in detail about the phone calls, his background, the call he made when they drove to UCLA. These are just some examples. I think other articles must deal with it, e.g. Death of Michael Jackson or Trial of Conrad Murray. They have to deal with it but they cover other aspects as well. You are right, it is mentioned in several articles, the two I mentioned above and the Main article. If we leave out the trial in the health article, we leave out an important aspect. As I said already some weeks ago some readers might not know what happened because they were too young. You know and I know. But in a few years people will read this who weren’t even born then. You can’t expect them to read all the articles. That’s also why we need it. Quaffel (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Alyo Yo u said I cloesd to quickly. Well, I don't get answers. That's how it works here. How long do I have to wait?Quaffel (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC) I'd like to add a few things related to the trial- not much- if the trial remains. But we need a decision and not a long standstill.Quaffel (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to mentioning it in the lead. I suggested removing it because I don't see it as essential and I thought it would resolve your objection to wikilinking pages that have problems. And no, we don't need to formally close every discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't suggest it you deleted it. I think that's a strong a objection. The part about the trial is extensive enough to justify 1 sentence in the lead. How should deleting the sentence resolve my objection with the wikilink? Makes no sense. Quaffel (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Because if we mention the trial then we need to wikilink it - you are mistaken about how we handle wikilinks on Wikipedia. Instead of just reverting you and putting the wikilink back, I attempted to find a third path that would 1) erase your concern about the wikilink by removing the mention entirely 2) potentially improve the lead overall by removing an unnecessary element. It was a WP:BOLD edit, I've already told you I don't feel strongly about keeping it, and I think you need to chill out a bit. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The link is back. No rule violating. Quaffel (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel, please remember that there is no deadline for discussions, and discussions often attract comments weeks or even months later. Also, I think I've mentioned this before, but the proper way to format discussions on wikipedia talk pages is to add a colon (like :) to the beginning of your reply so that it indents, and if you reply to indented comments you should add one more colon than they have. So your reply to this comment should start with two colons. It makes it easier to later follow the flow of conversations. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I din't end the discussion. Do you want me to revert the edit? Quaffel (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just generally referring to when you did this, I think the article edit is fine. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought that discussion was over. I understood the comment when you reverted me. I understood Popcornfud when he was referring to it. I understood what you wrote and I understood the image of the turtle. Can we end this discussion?

My edit

Lukebechtel You undid my edit without xplaination. Quaffel (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this edit, and they likely undid it because it wasn't gramatically correct ("his skin became light. triggering speculation") and worsened the flow of the lede by removing line breaks and transitions. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't correct. I didn't know that Grammar and removing line breaks and transitions is enough to remove a sentence without a comment.Quaffel (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Quaffel, apologies for removing it without an explanation but Alyo's above comment is exactly why I removed it. It was perhaps a bit rude of me to delete it without comment, so for that I'm sorry. Best to you! Lukebechtel (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It's okay. But I don't agree with your last edit. This article is called "Health and appearance of Michael Jackson" so I wouldn't say the information about the nose jobs is not needed. Maybe you guys can put it somewhere where it doesn't interrupt the flow? Quaffel (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I made another attempt to add cosmetic surgery to the lead. I'm not saying it's perfect. We can discuss it here but just removing it isn't helpfull.Quaffel (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good edit. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.Quaffel (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1073981213 I din't want remove all edits. I just wanted to remove jackson. I did it manually but it reverted the rest too. Do you you really want Jackson to be repeatred in 3 sentences in a row? And by the way how is it possible that you usually show up within minutes when i make an edit Alyo?Quaffel (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel You may have not been editing the most recent version of the page. It sounds like you went into the article's history, clicked edit on an old version, and then saved that--that undoes all the edits that have been done since then. Just make sure you're editing the most recent version of thge page? As far as the use of "Jackson" goes, we generally prefer using the person's name to saying "the singer" or other pronouns. Look at a Featured Article like Ben Affleck. The article only uses "the actor" six times, but it calls him "Affleck" hundreds of times. I understand why you wouldn't want to use "Jackson" three times in the same sentence, but as a general rule using the person's name is preferred because then it's always perfectly clear who you're talking about. We want to be as clear as possible when we write. But I do think that this edit for example is fine. As for why I show up, I just frequently have my Watchlist open even when I'm not actively editing :) Alyo (chat·edits) 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that this article doesn't refer to Dr Klein as "the singer". I think the only singer mentioned here is Jackson. I assume Ben Affleck's article mentions other actors as well because he has co-stars and was married to Jennifer Garner. That user was removing the word singer everywhere they could find it. And having their stupid summaries in mind I think these edits weren't made to improve the article.Quaffel (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an essay about this subject - The problem with elegant variation. Popcornfud (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Try to assume a little more good faith in your fellow editors: The Blade of the Northern Lights is a very experienced editor whose edits all improved the article. I have told you repeatedly that there are issues with the grammar in this article, so don't be offended when someone comes by and fixes it. And I think you're misunderstanding my point about Affleck--the point is that in a well-written article, it will almost never refer to the subject of the article as anything other than his or her name. Pick a different FA, it will be the same. As the essay that Popcornfud linked, there are a variety of reasons why we shouldn't refer to Jackson as "the singer". That's what Blade's edit summary refers when it mentions "elegant variation"--by and large that's not considered good writing. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I will certainly not read a Wikipedia essay about how to write a text. Who wrote that? Do The user's idea of a good text seems to be to use commas. I wouldn't talk And I have repeatedly told you that it's absolutly impossible to clean up that horroble mess that I found here without a mistake. None of Wikipedia's great editors great lifted a finger but now you all have a big mouth. Wikipedia's excellent editors couldn't have done half of it. You will mess it up again.Quaffel (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel, I'm trying to work with you and you're making it very difficult. I know you're probably going to take what I'm about to say as a threat, but it isn't--it's a straightforward statement about how Wikipedia functions: Wikipedia requires editors to work with each other, and your refusal to collaborate or take criticism will lead to you being blocked or banned. Again, I am not threatening you with a block, I'm simply telling you that if you do not change your behavior, you will end up blocked. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Alyo you are the one who keeps telling "Quaffel's English is bad" over and over again. But when I say something about user's edits it is not allowed. I#ll take a wikibreak but don't expect me to clean this article up again. You guys are responsible now.Quaffel (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not that you're not allowed, it's that you're wrong. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

The botched surgery causing hypersensitivity was on his nose. Can I move the sensitivity part there? Can I rename the section "Nose surgery and hypersensitivity or should I create a subsection?Quaffel (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, the "Hypersensitivity" sensitivity section is only three sentences and doesn't really seem like it needs its own header? Why don't you just move those three sentences into the most relevant section and remove the header? Alyo (chat·edits) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But because of the sensitivity he used demerol and anesthesia for smaller surgeries that normally don't require these drugs. I made the header because of the impact the sensitivity had. Quaffel (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't formulate headings/sections based on impact, they're for organization. Popcornfud (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but it actually effects the drug seczion too and needs to be mentioned there. If somebody reads the drug section first and needs more information the reader will know where to go because of the heading. But there also other options.Quaffel (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Or if sb. is looking specifically for that information without reding the drug section at all. That's a better example.Quaffel (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dependence vs. addiction

Sources usually refer to Jackson as an addict but he said he had been dependent. Obviously there's a diifferent between these two. I decided to use dependent because that's what he said in the sources. But what do we do if a source says "addict"? Quaffel (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Go with dependent there’s no evidence that Jackson was addicted to anything beyond 1993. The evidence that exist suggest that Jackson was only dependent after that and wasn’t dependent full time, was only dependent here and there.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Treacy (drug section)

I’m not sure if the link for the interview still works. In his book Treacy states Jackson returned to the US in December 2006 (pp. 315-316). There were plans for a treatment in 2009 but Jackson died before going back to Europe (pp. 320-321). I couldn’t find a statement about other physicians and insomnia while Treacy treated Jackson in 2006. He just states he hadn’t known Jackson had suffered from insomnia and hadn’t known that Murray was supposed to go to London with the singer until Jackson had died (pp.322, 324). I removed those parts until we have a source. Quaffel (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have made a lot of edits here and a lot of people aren't happy with those edits. I request a review.Quaffel (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've been meaning to do an individual GAR but this community review will do as well. I have been one of the editors following the expansion of the page over the last few months. The article was promoted in 2008 looking like this. It is now 3.5x larger by wordcount with what I would argue is an unclear scope and unfocused coverage. Quaffel has been extremely thorough in sourcing any possibly relevant information, but I believe they are also not a native english speaker and so, though they've done the best they can, the prose isn't at GA level. We've had some issues where in trying to stay true to sources, Quaffel has written prose that either isn't grammatically correct or doesn't flow (see the current Sexuality section). The lack of defined scope and structure can be seen in paragraphs that don't work together well and have just been given their own section header as a makeshift solution (see the entire Mental health section). There's also a lot of crossover duplicated material with Death of Michael Jackson in the final content section. Quaffel has worked really hard to expand the article and carefully follow sources, but in doing so the article is no longer one that "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" with "clear, concise, and understandable" prose. I'm not a subject matter expert, but given the massive expansion over the years and changes in sourcing standards, this article would also need to undergo a pretty exhaustive fact/source check were it to go to GAN today. I think it quick-fails on WP:GACR 1 and 3. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment here but Alyo seems to have a problem with me. No, I'm not a native speaker. As you can see on my User Page I'm German. Alyo and I had a conflict when I rewrote the lead. It wasn't good and needed improvement. Alyo offered me a "corrected" version on the Talk Page stating things that I had never mentioned in my version. Then Alyo wrote and published a new lead claiming e.g. vitiligo would cause "blotches of color". No doubt Alyo doesn't know a lot about the subject. We had a heated discussion and finally he said: "I would highly recommend that you try to contribute to a project in your native language. Take care" Later we had a discussion that was also about crossover. Alyo stated that wouldn't have strong feelings about it and wanted me to discuss it with another user.I did and we found a solution. I thought everyone was happy with it.I started editing here a few years after the article GA status. I didn't edit it for several years. Whe I came back last year I restructured the article because I thought the old structure wasn't good. Some of the claims made in the article weren't supported by the source and I spent a lot of time time to correct them. Is that Wikipedia's standard for good articles? I also removed all sources from Taraborrelli's book which is nolonger considered a reliable source and tried to find new sourcesor made clear why the claim should be removed. I'm not saying it's a good article now but I did a lot of improvement.Quaffel (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now we are talking about dublicated material. Alyo changed the word. I'm surprised Alyo understood me. Back to the dublicated material. I explained what I did and why I did that on the Talk Page. I just wrote about the physician's actions and that belongs to a health article. I think I also emphasized some things more than the other articles that deal more general with Jackson's health. I think that's a positive aspect.Quaffel (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I will at least say that I have no problem with you personally, everything else you describe here could be true and it still wouldn't answer any of the substance of my criticisms. Again, I really appreciate your hard work and I can see you're extremely passionate about the topic. But sourcing isn't the only requirement of a GA and I just don't know how else to say that some of your writing in english is....off. I'll leave it to others to judge. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel, it's clear from the talk page discussions that you're prone to leaping to weird conclusions. I think Alyo's assessment of the article is fair, clearly expressed and neutral. Popcornfud (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please bold that part saying that I think sourcing is the only requirement of a GA. Which of the things I described here aren't true? What weird conclusion?Quaffel (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I think the level of discussion used by Alyo and Popcornfud is poor and they use personal attacks instead of arguments. Popcornfud didn't provide an own argument at all.Quaffel (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Close this discussio I don't think any other editor wants to join it. And don't forget to mention the victory in this great dicussion on yor Wall of Fame.Quaffel (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel has reverted to a version of the page from June 2021. I'm sorry that you feel so personally attacked in all this--it really isn't anything personal and I would prefer to just keep the content you added and then trim it down a little. That said, I don't think we can call this page stable at the moment, as this sort of mass revert has happened a couple times. Unless there's any objection, I think GA status should be removed for now. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose you'll try it with the structure of the version of the restored version. And make sure you do not make any mistake. No need to keep my content. You don't understand what I wrote (my English is so bad) and I doubt you have the books. You would have to check it all. That's a lot of work. I think it's best to start with the version of June 13 2021.Quaffel (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course my weird conclusions. There's still some of my content left and still a lot to do but it's much easier now. Few things might be right an it will be easy to find better sources for it.Quaffel (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I think the best we can do is to delete the article. I won't start an AFD because some people might think it's just because I was attacked. But I'd like to state my POV.I have been editing this article a lot and I made mistakes. I found some myself and some were found by others. I think I can judge how hard it is to edit this article. Taraborrelli and other sources have been mistated and these mistakes haven't been corrected. I might be wrong but I believe that some people editing this article do not have direct access to the sources. Alyo said sourcing is not everything. No, it's not but it's basic. Some years ago I read the Wiki's instructions for beginners and it said sth. like "Don't use a source that you haven't read." But that apparantly happens. When I ask questions I rarely get a response. The projects that list this article haven't responded here. I can't help but think that Wikipedians don't know enough about the topic or they don't care. I'm not an expert for this myself. There are a lot of vitiligans out there and I don't think it's fair to spread missinformation here. None of the protections Wiki has to offer ever helped. THe article has been degenerating for many years and nobody looked after it appropriatly. I'm sure this will never change. Whatever consensus we may reach here it just can be poor. Wikipedia is not the right place for this article. Let's treat the vitiligans fair and pull the trigger.Quaffel (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Taraborrelli and other sources have been mistated and these mistakes haven't been corrected -- This is actually the reason why I think your version of the page, the one you've most recently reverted, should stay. I think you've done a better job of adding references to the article and making sure what is in the article matches what sources say. The other issues I have are only issues as they relate to the official Good Article requirements. Articles with GA-status have to be well-written and properly represent the overall scope of the topic. In that respect, this article falls short. But that doesn't mean that your work was bad or not valuable. Other editors can rewrite some of the odd language and restructure the article so it flows better later, in part because you've arguably done the harder job of comprehensively sourcing everything. Don't you notice that I don't revert the vast majority of your edits? The spirit of those edits is good, and on the whole you're doing necessary work, even if in the process there's been some weird phrases added. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not about my odd English, okay? You know What I find odd? That wikipedians think they are expert for everything once they have they have an account. Wikipedia makes its own rules on wording and I think some are stupid and not always used the way they are supposed to. To be honest I think this article has never been a good article. Wikipedia's one of the poorest sources for information about Michael Jackson. If you want to spend the rest of your life here to watch this article to make sure everything is okay do so. My "odd" English has been corrected several times and I never objected or complained. But I noted that the users who made stupid comments don't create a lot content themselves. Not difficult to find errors. Now they can try it themselves. Find a source, write a perfect sentence and put it in the perfect position. Good luck! But not here. This is a health topic and editors should know what they do. This is not a topic you should edit just because Wikipedia is your hobby or you don't know what else to do. It has been a "hobby" far too long.

You completely missed my point. It's unfortunate that this happens over and over, because you could be a great editor. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not miss your point. You are the one who keeps talking about my English. Let's drop this now. I know you reverted my edit but I don't think it will work. That's allQuaffel (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Eventually "singer" is another word that is not allowed to be used for Michael Jackson (the list includes singer-songwriter and entertainer) because somebody thinks it's clunky. Certainly it won't be clunky to use commas throughout the article. Wikipedia's stylistic means are pretty limited. Make sure the other articles about Jackson or any other person doing that job doesn't use the word.Quaffel (talk)

Please make sure that concerns about my English won't be used es an excuse to remove (unwanted?) content about sexuality as it happened here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1073386883

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1071082471 Sexuality is a health matter and theinvestigation was also related to the disorder. Of course, they eren't looking for spots on his feet and vitiligo effects all parts of the body.Quaffel (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

English is not my primary language either. I do hope that I am not belittled because of it. My problem with this page is that there’s a lot of unnecessary detail in parts, like the part discussing Jackson’s vitiligo. All that needs to be know is that he had it. I also have a problem with the entire section labeled “Child Sex abuse Allegations.” For one of the section is going to exist it should be re-labeled something that is more fitting for a “health an appearance” article, or added to an already existing section. The content of the section does it even really serve a purpose so it’ll be quite frank the entire section can be deleted and the article will benefit from a better flow. And to be quite frank I’ll find this entire article to be dehumanizing. Why does one’s health and appearance become an entire article? TruthGuardians (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does one’s health and appearance become an entire article? For better or worse, Jackson's appearance was a constantly discussed part of his life and it's worth having an article about given the media coverage. However your criticism about unnecessary detail is valid--as I noted above, the article originally looked like this and was much more narrowly defined. Once this GAR is over I plan on going through the article and trimming it down. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delist I have to agree with the first comment by Alyo. The expansion, while warranted on some levels, has not maintained the Good Article quality. In particular the prose has degraded and it is straying to much from the focus of the topic. I think there is a middle ground between the two versions, but it will take a lot of work. Aircorn (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delist The prose has definitely degraded. Fails the GA criteria of clarity, conciseness, and words to watch. The article does have a place on Wikipedia, but it should not have GA status at this current time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delist Let's end this. I request to restore the version of June 13, 2021 before I started editing. The last good version is a good point to start with. Or rewrite the article completly. If you can do it better, please do so. I don't want Wikipedia to use my poor version. That would make me think Wikipediams just let do others the dirty work, fix some typos and finally marry well. That's not what Wikipedians do, right?Quaffel (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Quaffel on the contrary, I think the article will eventually be much better because of your edits. You added a lot of good sources and content, and I don't think we need to revert all your additions at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's normal for other people to improve on what you add. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bridge Accident

MJ had no accident on 1997, rather in 1999 during MJ&FRIENDS in Munich, the stage collapsed and him got injured. However ended the exhibition. 151.57.209.9 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Main photo

I don't have any particular ideas for a correction, but could the main picture (first photo of 1984/1993 comparison) be changed to one were he isn't wearing sunglasses in both? It defeats the whole point of the article; it would more apt to have a comparison were the difference is wider. 190.190.207.193 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Death Investigation Grammar

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson

Just wondering if someone could change the beginning of paragraph 2 in "Death Investigation" from

"Two days after, Jackson had died Murray told the police that he had arrived at Jackson's residence at 12:50 a.m. on June 25."

to

"Two days after Jackson had died, Murray told the police that he had arrived at Jackson's residence at 12:50 a.m. on June 25."

Still learning the basics of Wikipedia, if I did anything wrong or something needs to be changed, let me know!

(Small grammar change that was bugging me) Amhedgehog (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for flagging. Don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD and make edits in future, if they're incorrect they can be easily changed back or discussed. Popcornfud (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was "had" removed? The user didn't propose that. Obviously Jackson had died before Murray had that conversation.

For the record I had added the word "had" again. Popcornfud removed it again without any comment here or in the edit summary. Obviously the tense can be used in other sentences in that paragraph. I'm not going to spend more time on this any further.Quaffel (talk)

I didn't see this question, or the edit reinstating "had". I removed it because it was grammatically unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)