Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of material based on objection to speculation and offensiveness and/or gruesome details

Transported from user talk pages by 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC). Edits in question, seen here.

User talk page discussion This page is completely bias and ridiculous. It makes no mention of the vast amount of medical professionals that acknowledge, using their professional knowledge, that Michael Jackson was a victim of his disease vitiligo, and had no other choice but to manage it by making his skin color lighter. I would highly recommend that anyone reading this do further research on the subject of vitiligo and look up pictures of Michaels condition. It was serious and debilitating to say the least. Unfortunately, the article about Jackson's health and appearance is anything but serious. Most sources refer to yellow press reports. It is a shame to ignore the orinigal autopsy report, court documents etc. and to propagate hearsay and rebuttable rumors instead. However, nobody can really edit this article - if someone tries to replace speculation with proven facts and primary sources, this is be deleted/undone in a second!!! Wikipedia should really do something against such a behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.52.158 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Health and Appearance article contains some old source material with lots of speculation about plastic surgery. The only surgery he is known to have is on his nose and chin. The rest is not factually based. Other material sourced were taken out of context improperly. I noticed there is no health and appearance page for anyone else on Wiki, except for King Tut? I do feel accuracy is needed, a fresh factual rewrite actually. Also, is there any need to disclose private personal details about his autopsy (bald, tattoed, etc.)? I think not. He was defamed over and over in life. He was a man, not a science experiment. People just need to know the basic facts about his autopsy. Please keep article, respectful, accurate, and current if you are the author. Thank you very much. Melmerme (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Melmerme, you don't understand. You are removing sourced material based on your WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and are inserting unsourced material. Wikipedia goes on WP:Verifiability, not what you personally believe or don't like. The Michael Jackson's health and appearance article is WP:GA for a reason. There is no article like this for anyone else because there is no WP:Notability, or not as much WP:Notability, for anyone else's health and appearance. I suggest you take this issue to the article's talk page. And if not enough people comment on it there to form WP:CONSENSUS for your removals, then you choose some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Engaging in a WP:Edit war will solve nothing unless you or the one who opposes you (me in this case so far) gives up, and it can get you temporarily blocked from editing this site.

I believe I added one unsourced comment that I was going to source, but you reverted my edits before I could add it. What in my changes do you personally object to? I would like to raise the issue that the public was pretty much brainwashed by the media concerning many things about Michael Jackson during his life. The only known surgery he definately had done on his face was his nose and chin clef. Other is just speculation and still is mentioned in the article. Tabarorelli's book contains much speculation, and that is not verifiable proof even if it has been read by many for years cementing certain ideas in people's heads. I left in that he may have had body dismorphic disorder, but that too is only speculation. Please let me know what you object to specifically and maybe we can come to agreement as I do not want to have a reversion war either. I deleted some gruesome/private details about his autopsy. I added some info about drugs from the exact source and page it was taken from. You can't pluck something from a book and not keep it in it's proper context. The changes I made, were to correct for accuracy. Other minor details, like deleting that he was tattooed and bald from his autopsy is just gross privacy invasion, and not important. I understand your arguments and the rules of Wiki, but I don't feel the changes I made are anything more than for accuracy and to rid the article of crude findings. Melmerme (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2012

Melmerme, it is your opinion that "the public was pretty much brainwashed by the media concerning many things about Michael Jackson during his life." And as for his surgeries, various plastic surgeons agree that he had a lot of work done on his face. Speculation or not, that is notable information to include in an article about Jackson's physical appearance. If this were a WP:BLP article, you woild have some justification for removing what you have. But Jackson is deceased, and therefore WP:BLP no longer applies to him. Again, you are removing sourced material based on your WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and are inserting unsourced material. Wikipedia goes on WP:Verifiability, not what you personally believe or don't like. Removing "gruesome/private details about his autopsy" is personal POV. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. And, again, "take this issue to the article's talk page. And if not enough people comment on it there to form WP:CONSENSUS for your removals, then you choose some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Engaging in a WP:Edit war will solve nothing unless you or the one who opposes you (me in this case so far) gives up, and it can get you temporarily blocked from editing this site." It's better to discuss this on the article's talk page so that there is a higher chance that others will weigh in, and because we are not going to agree. I don't/won't agree with the way you are going about removing material. Please read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT if you haven't and the policies I linked to above. And please keep this discussion in one place -- on the article's talk page. In fact, I'll go ahead and copy and paste our dicussion there. 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I will also go ahead and ask editors of the Michael Jackson article to weigh in here about this. 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Current discussion

I think we should be as respectful as possible and not add private details about his autopsy just to embarrass him, however I also don't think we should just be stenographers for his publicists reporting whatever a celebrity wants us to believe. If reliable sources dispute some of the claims he made about plastic surgery (like when he claimed that he only had two surgeries) we have an obligation to disclose that to our readers, otherwise we look like a gullible fan page and wont be taken seriously. It's essential that wikipedia maintains its credibility and in order to do so, all credible view points have to be represented. Moneytruthy (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Moneytruthy. Although, since Jackson is dead, we can't embarrass him and I don't believe that the aforementioned details were added to harm his image. Further, they aren't private details. And like I stated, this article is different than a BLP issue. However, despite not agreeing with Melmerme on his or her removals, I do undestand his or her concerns. The recent edits by "new user" Janetrocks are a bit troubling, for example. Let's look at a few of Janetrocks's edits:[1]][2][3] Janetrocks states that they are neutral edits, but they are more on the non-neutral side to me -- more about casting doubt on Jackson's claims. And speaking of claims, we are generally supposed to avoid that word ("claimed" or some variation of it) and those like it (such as "denied"), per WP:CLAIM, precisely because they do cast doubt. 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I corrected Janetrocks' use of the term "claimed" and "denied" as per WP:CLAIM. I agree it's very disturbing and offensive to me personally to call Jackson's vitiligo into question, but on the other hand, there are credible sources who dispute many of the claims he made about skin bleaching and surgeries, and so in order to be balanced, we have to call both sides into question; no one sided narrative should ever monopolize any wikipedia article when credible alternatives exist. Moneytruthy (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this discussion to this talk page for me since I am new here and a bit overwhelmed. I wasn't sure how to do that and hadn't gotten back here to tackle it. I did read the Wiki rules, and I understand your concerns. I also understand that MJ is deceased and so some of these items can be publicly disclosed now. However, I think it's gruesome and unecessary to include certain autopsy details. He does have living family and children. Remember, besides MJ, only King Tut has such a page outlining his health and appearance. While it can be done, it's crude to do so in my opinion. There is no speculation about MJ having rhinoplasties and a chin clef added, only other work done. This is so noteworthy why? ...only because it's Michael Jackson. I don't feel the article is balanced when in the opening paragraph you have that speculative quote from Deepak Chopra. Since this article does contain some real facts, it should remain, but be updated and salicious speculative statements removed at a minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmerme (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review everything, but what it boils down to is that since he is no longer living, discretion used for biographies of living persons no longer applies, even if he has living relatives (I'm sure every person who is deceased has living relatives, The Jacksons are not exempt simply because they are in the public eye). While I don't particularly care for this sort of tabloid drivel, the fact that is about Michael Jackson factors into why its notable in the first place - too many people in every profession have weighed in their two cents which makes it unavoidable. That being said, any revisions or additions at this point should be done taking into the consideration of the source and if the source itself is actually notable or reliable. Remember: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bookeeper and all for your thoughts. I don't think autopsy details of a gruesome or private nature are appropriate to list for anyone who has died recently, as relatives can be hurt for one reason. Just because it's legal and within Wiki's guidelines, does not make it ethical. If it's here just for other's morbid curiosity, then I say it's not necessary and wrong. I would still very much like to delete the last sentence in the "death" section. You don't want this article reading as "tabloid drivel" as Bookkeeper noted. Just so you know, there is photographic evidence that Michael began with vitiligo at around age 13. This is also confirmed by his father. It's really wrong to have this info incorrect and still speculated about on this page based on Taraborrelli's book. Mind you, he was NOT a close confident of Michael's. He knew him as a friend for a short period of time in his younger days and only interviewed him after that. You could say I'm an expert on MJ. Please, this article needs to be updated and corrected on this subject. Supporting ancient and false media speculation is not good practice for Wiki. I don't know what to say to anyone who at this point in time doesn't recognize how the media and certain authors wrote about "anything" Michael to make lots of money. Article truly needs updating. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmerme (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There's pretty strong evidence that Jackson did not have vitiligo, at least not at the time he and his entourage claimed it started. Note this photograph of Jackson coming out of a pool[4]. Black people with vitiligo look like they have white paint splashed all over them. Trust me I know. I have relatives with the condition. Jackson's skin just got lighter and lighter. That's not the way it works, and you can't claim he hid it with makeup because makeup, especially in the 1980s fades especially when you sweat as much as Jackson did at concerts. He was probably the most photographed man in the world. If he had vitiligo, I'm sure we would have known LONG before 1993 when he finally claimed to have it after years of silence over speculation that he was bleaching. Now it's possible he developed vitiligo from all the damage bleach does to your skin. Those treatments simulate vitiligo in a lot of ways. Janetrocks (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am jumping in this conversation a year later, but it was confirmed during MJ's autopsy that he had vitiligo, any speculation to the contrary is ridiculous. The only source in my opinion you should be able to use for a page like this is the person themselves, everything else is just speculation and opinion.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What is going on??

Seriously, what is going on with this "article"?? Michael had vitiligo, it's a proven fact, right there in the autopsy and I'm sorry to whoever is editing it to add this nonsense but you can not get vitiligo through bleaching. It's an inherited disease.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a trusted source of information, NOT a gossip site for rumors and speculation. This is absolutely shameful, the "contributors" adding all of this junk shouldn't be allowed on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're suggesting entry removal? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

Yes, Hinustan, she is. Wiki, on this topic of vitiligo is not reliable anymore. It's ridiculous to site sources from someone's speculation who didn't know or ever examine Michael. He had vitiligo, it's common knowledge and has been for a long time. People have fallen prey to years of old tabloid rubbish. You do not get vitiligo from skin bleaching. Michael had vitilgo in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmerme (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article that can be cited and included about Michael having vitiligo. It is from Deepok Chopra, someone who actually knew Michael. http://www.twirlit.com/2009/07/09/deepak-chopra-confirms-michael-jackson-had-lupus-and-vitiligo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmerme (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's great that you're such a loyal fan that you believe everything that Michael Jackson, and his loyal friends and media people told the public, but wikipedia has to take a neutral point of view. We have to look to reliable sources, and not just repeat everything that celebrities and their entourage and fans expect the gullible public to swallow. Remember the job of a celebrity is to enhance his public image, and it's better for one's image to tell the public they were the victim of a disease than to admit that they were skin bleaching (which is offensive to a lot of fans, especially African Americans). And vitiligo is a vaguely defined poorly understood condition with multiple causes. Janetrocks (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Have the editors here noticed that this article has less than 50% approval in it's ratings? I think it's up for question as to whether it should still be considered a "good article". When old unreliable sources are referenced, I have to question this page's integrity. Making assumptions based from those who did not examine him or even know him, is not presenting trusted and verifiable facts. Janetrocks edits are not neutral, but are based in her personal belief that Michael bleached his skin and only got vitilgo later when it's clearly visable on him in the 70s. I'm stunned that such ignorance on this subject still exists 3 years after his death. I could also find information that people still think Michael had an alien landing pad at Neverland. Does that make it true? Of course not. I think the public's rating of this article is important. Janetrocks seems to be pushing her personal opinion and spreading it throughout this article. I thought that was discouraged on Wiki? Melmerme (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing YOUR personal opinion that MJ had vitiligo, that he had it since the 1970s and did not cause it by bleaching, so who are you to accuse other editors of not being neutral? Every editor has a personal opinion, but the difference is I'm citing excellent sources such as a prominent cosmetic doctor interviewed by ABC News, a biographer and Jackson historian who devoted his whole career to chronicling Michael Jackson, and superstar music producer Quincy Jones who launched Jackson's career into the stratosphere and worked with him intimately on the best selling album of all time. These three people bring an enormous level of expertise to the table. Janetrocks (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

These people are not experts, I'm sorry but your edits are absolute nonsense. A doctor interviewed by ABC who did not once examine Michael personally, a biographer who is not a medical professional and a music producer. They are not great sources. Michael was being treated for his vitiligo in the early 80's, proven fact, Michael is not the first Jackson family member to have it, you can not bleach your skin until you are almost translucent. It turns you ashy and dry looking, almost like you have patches of rash all over. Numerous doctor's over the years who actually had contact with and treated Michael have gone on record about his skin disease, it is in his autopsy report, again examined by more than one coroner. Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual place, not somewhere you can interject your own claims and "sources" which, yes you are doing, there is nothing neutral about your edits, it's embarrassing and shameful that people will use your claims as supposed facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The numerous doctors who treated Jackson over the years were not always the most ethical or competent people in the world we have learned since his death at the hands of a doctor. I don't believe a word they have to say. These doctors just tell the media and gullible fans whatever talking points Jackson's PR machine wants to feed them. And saying Jackson had vitiligo proves nothing. The question is how did he get it. And yes you most certainly can bleach yourself to the point of being translucent if you have doctors in your pocket the way Jackson did and have access to the most potent bleaching creams denied to people who can't get a prescription. You're entitled to uncritically accept all the Jackson spin and propaganda you want to but you're not entitled to turn wikipedia into yet another fan page. We have to be objective here. Janetrocks (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as a "contributor" you are absolutely terrible. It's ok for you to put forth ridiculous "sources" like Quincy Jones and a doctor who never treated Michael, but doctors who actually did treat him are unreliable liars to you? Wikipedia should be embarrassed to have such a biased person editing for them. You are doing nothing more than taking stories from the tabloids are trying to claim them as facts. As someone who is supposed the post factual information and unbiased information it is extremely clear you have an agenda. You and the other contributors who are letting you get away with such nonsense should be ashamed, you are ruining a once decent site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, if you think wanting this page to be factual and not use nonsense "sources" such as the ones you are using means we want a fan page, then you have zero idea of what a contributor on here is supposed to be. You are biased, using rumors and tabloid interviews, the most ridiculous "sources" possible and dismissing actual ones as part of Michael's propaganda/PR machine. You should never be allowed to edit another page on here. It's pretty clear what your agenda is, you can keep your nonsense views all you want but when you try to push them as fact on a place that is supposed to be based on actual, authorized information then you you are supposed to put your own beliefs aside, something you clearly can not do. You should be banned, your behavior and edits are disgraceful. Wikipedia's reputation was already questionable to a lot of people, it will be even more so now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the user "Janetrocks" have some other agenda at play here? What is the purpose of including sources like Taraborrelli's from his 1991 book before the confirmation of Michael's vitiligo became public? Why use Taraborrelli as a source for this skin bleaching cream he and LaToya supposedly used, when in his book he does not use a named source himself? So why is that deemed credible information? Why is the diagnosis of vitiligo and lupus attributed to Taraborrelli, as though he were an unbiased factual source, and not a better source like one of Michael's doctors or doctors who have had access to his medical files?

Why are doctors who never met Michael or looked at his medical records considered credible? Why are they less unbiased than his own doctors and doctors appointed by the DA?

Why is Quincy cited when he never even says Michael bleached his skin?

Why is nothing about Michael's lupus specific lung damage, pleurisy, mentioned?

That this user has chosen to disbelieve numerous medical accounts:

Michael Jackson suffered from vitiligo, as confirmed by: his autopsy report, Dr Klein, Dr Strick, Dr Dan Wallace, Dr James Nordlund, Dr Len Horovitz, Nurse Debbie Rowe, Cicely Tyson, LaToya, Jermaine, Janet, Tito, Joe, Katherine, Paris and Prince Jackson, Gino Brando, David Nordahl, Karen Faye, Deepak Chopra, Gotham Chopra. Prince Jackson also suffers from it.

Michael suffered from lupus, as confirmed by: Dr Klein, Debbie Rowe, Dr Richard Strick, Dr Wallace, Dr Deepak Chopra, LaToya and Jermaine Jackson, Michael told author Taraborrelli he had it, Michael attended and gave speech at Lupus fund raiser in 2003 with his lupus specialist rheumatologist, Dr Alan Metzger.

Those two skin diseases were also testified to in 1994 on the witness stand during the Grand juries.

Also, they reveal poor medical knowledge in discussion of his lupus and vitiligo, by claiming Michael wasn't found to be suffering from lupus in his autopsy report, this is untrue, they did not perform an ANA test, discoid lupus does not always reveal itself in ANA tests, many tests are involved to determine the disorder. Also, the fact that Michael had reduced melanocytes in his skin is absolutely consistent with a vitiligo sufferer and to say otherwise is absurd and reveals very poor medical insight; the skin cells continually renew and destroy the pigment as it is created, there have been studies which show there are reduced amounts of these cells still present in vitiligo sufferers. I've now cited a study which reflects this about vitiligo sufferers, if the user was acting in good faith they should read that and try to gather an understanding about the medical knowledge they seemed to want to present as facts. If you note above, this article is supposed to be edited and discussed in "good faith", and the article at the moment has been sorely lacking all of that and seems strangely unbalanced and agendered. Is there some other issue at play here?

---

Please use the talk page as a place to engage in construction civil discussion on how to improve the article. This is not the place to try to convince people Michael Jackson had vitiligo and it's certainly not the place to accuse other users of having an agenda. We're here to improve the article, and that's it. Moneytruthy (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the users here attempting to convince others Michael did not have vitiligo and using unproven sources to do so? The article was vandalized from its original form where it had substantiated articles to back up its assertions, now it's just tabloid gossip.

It's interesting seeing your edits MoneyTruthy, including repeated citations to an anti-Michael Jackson blog. What is that about?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.136.82 (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find we have been trying to improve the article, however Janetrocks clearly does have an agenda and has been vandalizing a once truthful, fact based page. See we don't need to convince anyone of anything, because unlike Janetrocks we actually have proper sources and not just tabloid interviews. Although it is interesting that you, Moneytruthy have chosen to comment here, seeing as you too have an obvious dislike for Michael. This article is a disgrace and we aren't going to let this go. Your "sources" and your own interjections of what you believe are not fact, never will be fact and will not be left on a supposed factual, informative website. Things could be made very simple, revert the article back to before Janetrocks got her hands on it and that's it, but as long as it keeps being changed to fit her own beliefs, we'll stay here to stop her nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding Michael's vitiligo and lupus had to be posted on this page, because it seems there's been a focused attempt to try to erase that information from this site. So it would seem as though it's necessary to post basic information back on this page again, in confusion as to how it was not here to begin with.

There's no neutrality involved when sources who go in depth into Michael's medical conditions such as his doctors, nurses, friends, family are not included and instead tabloids are. I'm confused as to how a doctor who never treated Michael is given such precedence that every other doctor and statement has been erased, the person who did that claimed neutrality, and yet that is patently not a neutral objective thing to do. Or why a celebrity biographer is apparently an expert on Michael's medical conditions without any sources for these claims, but other doctors are not.

Would it be possible to have this page looked over by someone from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntanapixies (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I reported this article at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring,[5] where I also mentioned that you are a very likely WP:SOCKPUPPET of Melmerme. Having mostly Jackson's family and friends cover the disputed material? Inappropriate. 220.255.2.106 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it. No, I'm not a sock puppet, seems strange you'd need to believe I am. Like I said, there's some odd agenda here and there's no neutrality.

Jackson's doctors, family, friends are sources of info about his medical conditions; tabloids are not.

Unless you can prove they have lied about his vitiligo or lupus, or that the information concerning melanocytes is incorrect, or information concerning his Prednisone is incorrect, it seems as though you are being entirely one sided, and that is very curious considering you insist I must be a sock puppet of some kind, as though I am an invalid source of info, instead of the other people here seeking to edit out swathes of relevant information because they disagree with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntanapixies (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has been destabilized intentionally a long time ago. It seems some concerted effort in order to remove all information regarding his vitiligo/lupus has been maintained here, to the point that even suggesting he had it riles people up.

The idea Michael's doctors and friends and family are involved in a conspiracy over this is absurd, as is the idea that they need to all be dismissed for being linked to Michael.

Also, I am not another user, I don't know who that user is; I am someone who saw this page and decided to properly add citations that were solely missing. I was shocked in fact that this page was allowed to progress to this state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

It seems the policies and guidelines only apply to the people who seek to maintain this page with the info they want, everyone else is accused of being biased, posting biased sources because they state he had vitiligo, regardless of who they are, and even misinformation about the very nature of vitiligo or lupus is allowed, or they are accused of being a sock puppet and people attempt to have them banned. That seems odd to me. I don't feel any of this is being done in good faith. Especially these strange ad hominem attacks.

Suntanapixies (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not strange at all that I would think that you are a sockpuppet. And it's not a "need" either. Like I stated at the noticeboard, this article is not a high-traffic article and Melmerme was previously the only recent editor making such arguments/making such edits. The IP (and other IP above, 86.11.242.59, commenting with the same rationale as Melmerme) showed up when Melmerme didn't get his or her way. Then you, someone with very few edits under your Suntanapixies account, shows up to make the same revert the IP was making. WP:DUCK definitely applies here. It's highly suspicious that all these "new" editors would suddenly pop up at this article. 220.255.2.98 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not this other user, sorry to disappoint you. Insisting I am is reflective I feel of the issues going on with this page.

Being a sock puppet just for having "rationale" that includes posting relevant information that has been systematically wiped off this site to the point that anyone who counters it is now being put up for a banning in order that this information can not be seen. Why is that?

I find it interesting that the edits of these other users who you seem to have no concerns about their neutrality with, seem to have linked to an anti-Michael Jackson fansite too, as well as why it appears you are posting from a Proxy IP address. Also that none of those other users ideas about vitiligo/lupus or his doctors, family, friends seem to have been checked, as apparently the idea there's some great conspiracy among all of them, including court documents and autopsy reports, is deemed valid and neutral because Michael turned out to have had more than 2 nose jobs.

I have no concern about your suspicions, they can check my history if they want. I am concerned with why this page is allowed to deteriorate to this point and nothing is being done about it besides accusations of sock puppetry because you disagree with my edits.

Suntanapixies (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read about sock puppet on Wiki. I'm not using 2 accounts to access Wiki? I barely have time to even post here, much less find my way around. I think this article is being almost vandalized at this point in time, and it's not being done by me. I was told to go to the talk page to discuss some issues for a concensus, and that is what I had done. Janetrocks has made some inappropriate edits to this article, and another poster/editor agreed with me. So now I'm being told I'm a sock puppet for someone else? I think there are some editors here that have an intent to not post accurate information and disguise it under the rules of Wiki however they can. Even though Wiki allows you to write this stuff about a deceased individual, there is no page for anyone else like it except King Tut. I think it's disrespectful and just tabloid garbage if it's not factual. If done right, it could at least be educational. I thought Wiki was a more trusted source that it appears. How can this be rated a "good" article anymore? Can that rating be changed? Thank you. Melmerme (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand that not all of our readers are Michael Jackson fans, so what is factual to you is not factual to them. The article you want would have credibility with the Michael Jackson fan club, but we need an article that has credibility with the general public, so we have to present both sides. Our readers are very smart, so if we just repeat everything said by Michael's family and doctors (both of whom got money from him) as the gospel truth, people will think this is a fan page and no take us seriously. Michael's appearance is something historians will debate for decades, so as an encyclopedia we have to report on that debate accurately. We can't just say one side is factual and the other side is tabloid coverage. That would be very biased and unprofessional. We have to be fair. Historyhorror (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What does correct information on Michael Jackson have to do with being a fan? HistoryHorror says "Michael's appearance is something historians will debate for decades, so as an encyclopedia we have to report on that debate accurately." Well, you are not debating, you are just accepting garbage on the page. There is nothing to debate on this issue. He had vitiligo in the 70s. Period. I'm getting the feeling there are many editors here that have an subtle agenda beyond correct information. That is what's biased and unprofessional. You are harming Wiki's credibilty. Melmerme (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Stating that all of Michael's doctors and family members are involved in a lupus/vitiligo conspiracy cover up is absurd and reflects incredibly badly on Wikipedia. The information being deliberately ignored, avoided, omitted out because it seems people here have a personal agenda against these doctors, nurses, family, friends, is ludicrous. That to me is indicative of the real problem with this Wikipedia page, not the fans but people like yourself who have linked to anti-Michael Jackson websites as non partial sources of information.

Not only that but intentional misinformation about the very basic medical facts about vitiligo and lupus have been intentionally misstated, in an apparent attempt to try and downplay the idea Michael could suffer from them. Lupus is not a simple thing to diagnose, and there was no ANA attempt performed on him at death; he was on the drug Prednisone, which is widely regarded as a "life saver" with regards to lupus treatment. Melanacoytes being present in Jackson's skin in reduced amounts is consistent with real vitiligo sufferers. These are medical facts. Except, bizarrely, ideas found in non-Michael Jackson websites which have been linked by some of the users here are now being entered here as facts over that. Is this now an anti-Michael Jackson fan page? An anti-Michael Jackson's doctors fanpage? Is that a neutral objective perspective? It's certainly not a mature one, and it's a suspect one.

Oh and this "Found excellent source on his skin changes, vanity fair, known for being the best fact checkers in media", an article from a tabloid which slates Michael by quoting someone who had been found to have lied about him in court and stolen property from him is now regarded above his own doctors, nurses, etc, and this is considered unbiased? It's laughable.

I also thought only changes could be made when a "consensus" had been made? Apparently not for user Historyhorrors and Moneytruthy (odd you both have linked to anti-MJ fansites) who can edit and include biased sources of information, and delete everything else and attempt to report them for sock puppetry, whenever they see fit.

Suntanapixies (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of the supposed contributors on here is despicable. Protecting the page and leaving up utter lies like Michael saying he didn't want to be black, whilst plainly ignoring actual facts then claiming there is no agenda, it's disgusting. This is supposed to be a factual website, not a place for tabloid nonsense which is what this article is. You're ruining a decent site with your antics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.59 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some facts regarding this which seem to be intentionally omitted from this page.

Dr Richard Strick, who was appointed and paid for by the DA (Tom Sneddon) performed the court ordered examination of him in December 1993 and had viewed his medical records:

“Michael had a disease vitiligo in which the pigment is lost and attempts had been made to bring that pigment back which had been unsuccessful so he tried to bleach it out so it would be one colour. Lupus is also an autoimmune disease and he also had skin involvement, which had destroyed part of the skin of his nose and his nasal surgeries and all were really reconstructive, to try and look normal."

Interviewer: "So all these nose reconstructions you’re saying was as a result of him treating his lupus?"

Strick: “The first one was to try and reconstruct from some scar tissue and obstruction that had happened with the skin there. It didn’t work out very well and all subsequent attempts were to make it right. I think he was trying to look like a normal guy as best as that he could.” Jackson suffered from pleurisy, also known as "blisters in lungs", a remark which has oddly been edited out of Quincy Jone's included comments here:

Michael Jackson Okay After Lung Collapse, Jet, Aug 25, 1977

''Michael Jackson is feeling his old energetic self again after suffering a lung collapse recently that forced a month’s cancellation of The Jackson family concerts. Explaining his son’s uncomfortable condition, Joseph W. Jackson, president of Ivory Tower Records, explained to Jet, “Michael’s lung collapse came as a result of overwork from the family’s television series and other projects. Essentially what happened is that over a period of time a bubble appears on the lung and eventually bursts. Each time it does, a fraction of the lung is destroyed. People don’t realize how the grind of television can affect you, even during just a 30- minute show.” Restricted to total rest for a month, Michael bounced back on his feet to begin filming his role as the Scarecrow in the upcoming movie version of The Wiz in New York City.

Said his father, “He’s feeling all right now. If he weren’t I certainly wouldn’t have let him go to New York.”

“The Wiz,” by Mark Bego published in 1983

However, before principal filming began, Michael had a real physical health scare. As he tells it, “I had a lung attack on the beach on the Fourth of July. I couldn’t breathe. They had to rush me to the emergency hospital. The doctor said it was pneumothorax; bubbles on the lungs, and the bubbles burst and you can’t breathe. Mostly slim people have it, the doctor said. He said there was a little bit of pleurisy there too. It reminded me that Buddy Ebsen was supposed to be the Tin Man in the original Wizard of Oz and he broke down sick before the thing.”

"[Pleurisy] is the most common pulmonary manifestation of lupus."

His autopsy report confirmed the problems with his lungs, which were reported as being chronically inflamed with a reduced capacity:

Marked respiratory bronchiolitis, histiocytic desquamation, and multifocal chronic interstitial pneumonitis, and Suggestive focal desquamation of respiratory lining with squamous metaplasia

In Dr Conrad Murray’s medical notes for Michael entered into his 2011 trial he makes note of the pleurisy and says that MJ was coughing up blood in March 2007.

If Taraborrelli is going to be used as a source, here is an interview from him in 1995: On June 16th, 1995 author Randy Taraborrelli claims Michael wanted to bring up his Lupus and Vitiligo in a discussion with Diane Sawyer and specifically the drug “Hydroxychloroquine”

Michael Jackson biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli claims the performer wanted to talk more about the color of his skin during his “PrimeTime Live” interview with Diane Sawyer.

The writer says Jackson told him he now has discoid lupus, a nonfatal form of the disease, which requires him to take a medication called hydroxychloroquine. And, according to Jackson, the drug causes vitiligo loss of pigmentation. N.Y. skin expert Dr. Howard Sobel tells us, “It is possible for chloroquine to cause hypopigmentation, but whether it’s the cause of his problem is hard to tell you. The chloroquine binds to melanin, which is responsible for the pigment of our skin. If that happens, it’s possible to have a whitish area of skin.”'

In his autopsy report it was stated that they found the drug Prednisone in his house.

   Drug: Prednisone
   Prescribed: 4/25/2009, Dr Klein
   No. of pills: 10
   Pills remaining: 0
   Directions: 6 now, 4 tomorrow

Prednisone is one of the most common drugs used in the treatment of lupus. Lupus Canada says of the drug,, "it is usually effective in bringing lupus under control and it saves lives."

Jackson would donate to lupus charities and would attempt to hold a symposium on Vitiligo at his home in Neverland, but these plans fell through.

There's misinformation currently in the article about melanocytes present in the skin of vitiligo sufferers. This is normal.

"Recent reports suggest that vitiligo lesions are not totally devoid of melanocytes. We report an interesting observation made in the vitiliginous skin of an Indian patient being treated for pemphigus vulgaris with dexamethasone cyclophosphamide pulse therapy. Our observations indicate that melanocytes are never completely absent in the depigmented epidermis and that these melanocytes can recover their functionality in vivo and in vitro under an appropriate stimulus."

Suntanapixies (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your research. I think your last source is both excellent and relevant so I have added it to the article. Historyhorror (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Vitiligo is not albinism, the skin constantly regenerates and produces more melanocytes, these are then killed off by the body, as they are regarded as outsiders. But the skin is an organ which regenerates and will continue to produce these. It's autoimmune in nature, which is why the people who have such trouble accepting his vitiligo also work vigilantly to come up with new theories to explain and deny his lupus, including referencing an autopsy report which does not reference any ANA tests. Dr Wallace who worked with him at UCLA did state after the autopsy that though Jackson's death had not been caused by lupus, Jackson did suffer from the disorder, and that it was skin specific.

It is not possible to stimulate this response in a person, you cannot induce vitiligo in a person. Excessive use of depimgentation creams can strip isolated areas of skin of pigment, and can thusly be called "vitiligo" patches, but they cannot induce the innate body's response to melanocytes, nor can they induce lupus.

The theories on this page belong on the fringe fanatic circle of conspiracy forums, and not on a page claiming to be interested in non partisan facts and medical information. Suntanapixies (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to commend the user Historyhorror for further illustrating the problems with the issues on this page:

1) Information regarding the drug Prednisone, which is prescribed according to all medical textbooks as a drug in the treatment of Lupus, is being edited out because "Lupus websites aren't credible sources of information." That's correct, charities designed to aid in the treatment and cure of Lupus are biased sources of information, should I seek a tabloid source to confirm it first?

2) Blanca Francia's quote was added as "Vanity Fair is a very reliable source"; except information regarding the credibility of that source has been deliberately deleted in order that people aren't allowed to make objective decisions as to the veracity of this "credible source" as the user has deemed it credible (Vanity Fair is a tabloid, of course), therefore it must be conceded that it is credible.

3) Information about the cream "Porcelana" which an unnamed source according to a biographer claims Jackson used to bleach his skin has been deleted, because it's a link to the actual website of the makers themselves, which reflects that it is not an actual bleaching cream but one used to smoothen out uneven pigmentation such as that involved with acne, etc. The actual description and link to the source was removed as for some reason the manufacturer themselves cannot be relied upon to give an accurate summation of their own cream, but an unknown source according to a celebrity biographer about a cream which is being deliberately misconstrued must be kept in.

To quote this user, "and so in order to be balanced, we have to call both sides into question; no one sided narrative should ever monopolize any wikipedia article when credible alternatives exist"; just felt that was worth stating again.

Suntanapixies (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Suntanpixies. Thank you for your feedback on my recent edits. I removed your prednisone info because not only was the source self-published, it was original research. If you have a reliable source saying Jackson took prednisone for lupus, then that would be a great addition to the article, however synthesizing a link between Jackson's drug and a disease some claim he had, is imposing a POV into the article. For example, I could just as easily claim the prednisone was for prostate problems by citing the autopsy claim of an enlarged prostrate with research showing prednisone fights prostate problems[6]. That's why original research is discouraged in wikipedia.

Your porcelana info was also original research. If you have a reliable source (not a web page designed to sell a product) that actually says that Jackson used porcelana to even his skin, then that would be useful here, but just general information about porcelana unrelated to Jackson's specific use of it is counterproductive and belongs in the porcelana article.

Now with respect to Blanca Francia, if you have a reliable source where someone specifically claimed she lied about his skin, that belongs in this article, but just a general attempt to discredit her gets the article off topic. And then some other editor who believes Blanca will add all kinds of facts that build up her credibility like that she once saved a puppy from drowning, and pretty soon it's the Blanca Francia article not the Jackson health and appearance article. The key to writing a good article is to stay focused.

I know you think your sources are being deliberately deleted to hide the truth, but I assure we are simply trying to create a focused balanced article. Please assume good faith Historyhorror (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Historyhorror, if you claim you're attempting to make a balanced article with a Neutral Point of View you are doing a terrible job. Your edits have led to a very biased article. A source isn't credible merely because it's published. Any old joe can write a book or an article and publish dubious claims about a celebrity - and many do. This doesn't mean that the source is a credible one. Furthermore, loading a wikipedia article on Michael Jackson's health with sources claiming he bleached his skin and had countless surgeries isn't exactly reflecting the Neutral Point of View that we're supposed to be reflecting here. This article should be based on hard facts like those from the autopsies. The way the article is currently written it seems to be slanted towards the notion that a) Michael never really had any illness and b) "hated being black". You have also removed vital information cited directly from the autopsy report showing that Michael was in possession of prednisone, a drug used for treating lupus. It isn't required that the source say he "took it for lupus per se, but the article should note that he was taking it as the autopsy report confirms. To remove prednisone from the article completely reflects intellectual dishonesty on your part. This is vital information, and it is actually from a credible source - the autopsy report - unlike a range of sources that are nowhere near credible, such as the maid claiming Michael was racist. The article needs to mention Michael was a user of prednisone as found in the autopsy report, and that among other conditions, it is used to treat lupus. These are facts and to omit them is simply letting a bias creep into the article.

Furthermore, you are not a warden of this article nor are you an administrator, so I suggest you should quit pretending like you get the final say on everything and drop the condescending attitude towards other users such as Suntanapixies.Yazman (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yazman. Thank you so much for your great feedback. As I explained above, the prednisone information was removed because it violates wikipidea's ban on original research. I understand the Jackson fan community is committed to proving to the world that Jackson had lupus, and I sympathize with those concerns, but the autopsy does not say the prednisone was used for lupus, so implying that it was is original research. Now we can have a separate section where we list all the drugs Jackson had in a neutral way, but we're not allowed to imply what he was using the drug for unless we have a reliable source confirming his purpose. Following wikipedia policy is not intellectually dishonest. Please assume good faith. If you feel the article is unbalanced, please help us improve it by finding additional sources to balance it, but please stick to what the sources actually say. Historyhorror (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to convince anyone of anything, the fact that he had vitiligo and lupus are both matters of medical and court records. It would require "original research" to disprove this idea. In reality, stating that melanacytes are entirely absent in sufferers of vitiligo is original research, it is not something medically stated. Stating that Jackson was not diagnosed with lupus in his autopsy report is also original research as there were no lupus diagnostic tests performed on him at death. Claiming vitiligo can be induced is original research as there is no evidence anyone can achieve universal vitiligo through Porcelana; yet here on Wikipedia according to you, and not any actual document evidence, it is something which is possible.

I'd hope people observing this page would consider that when they listen to you attempt to prove you are neutral, because it shows you are not.

This is not "original research"; using cited medical evidence - that lupus is treated with Prednisone, is not original or new on my end, and to say as such reveals once again the huge agenda at play here, as well as letting this page once again reject any actual medically cited information, like that from lupus activist groups, which are according to you, a slanted source of information about Jackson. You removed the citation using those websites claiming they are not credible as they are lupus groups, as though they held some secret agenda reflecting the use of Prednisone for that illness. Now I see you're trying to find new ways to keep that info away, by claiming it's original research, though it is not. Prednisone was something Jackson had been prescribed just 2 months before his death, it is a factually medically cited drug used in the treatment of Lupus, a condition all his doctors and those doctors who merely looked at his records, have confirmed he suffered from. These are facts. It's obvious as I stated that because lupus would confirm he suffered autoimmune diseases without his choosing, you need to suppress that information as it contradicts all your induced vitiligo claims from bleaching you've insisted are factual, from anyone who sold stories to National Enquirer.

Using Porcelana as evidence of Jackson's bleaching (from an unnamed source no less), but then ensuring nobody actually knows what that cream is according to the manufacturer's themselves, once again reveals your agenda. Actually doing any research at all on an issue you seem to be invested in, seems to be "original research" to you. Please, don't disrespect the users here as there is no "good faith" as you have completely removed it, nobody here finds you neutral or credible, just incredibly invested in suppressing information regarding Jackson, as the history of your account reveals.

Here's some further confirmation about his discoid lupus, according to medical records from 1984 released on Auction today, read the noting in the papers:

https://www.pristineauction.com/auctions/index/details/id/72650

It also shows he was on the medications, Atabrine and Plaquenil, again drugs used to treat lupus, which the medical documents confirm that he suffered from.

I'm not posting this here for your benefit, I understand you hate Jackson and his fans, and are engaged in a strange campaign off this site to discredit him (you have linked to the anti-Jackson fansites that you are a member of which also seek to pursue these bizarre medically unsound ideas you have about the two disorders), I'm posting this information for any real neutral outsiders who are curious as to what has been happening with this page.

Suntanapixies (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Suntanpixies. Thank you so much for even more excellent feedback! Once you find a reliable source (i.e. book published by a major publisher, a major newspaper or magazine) that says Jackson used prednisone for lupus, then wikipedia policy permits us to add the prednisone info to the lupus discussion. Until then, it's just your opinion that he was using it for lupus instead of one of the many other applications prednisone has. Please no original research. I see no evidence that anyone here owns any Jackson hate blogs and there are no links here to any Hate blogs. Please assume good faith! I'm not seeing a lot of hate for Jackson. Just mostly an outpouring of love for an incredibly talented and philanthropic superstar. However sometimes we can love him so much, that we falsely accuse those who are just being objective of being haters with an agenda. Please assume good faith and maintain a neutral point of view. I think you're a wonderful editor who has much knowledge and passion to invest in wikipedia. Now just take the time to acquaint yourself with wikipedia policy and you'll be on your way.Historyhorror (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fan page

As much as we all love Michael Jackson, we have to remember this is an encyclopedia not a fan page. Since the new year I noticed a lot of fans removing referenced material because it wasn't flattering enough to MJ. Although I agree with the fans that MJ had vitiligo, we have to present both sides of the debate to keep wikipedia credible. 208.87.23.188 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: When I cleaned up this article on January 10, 2013‎, I returned and added neutrality to this article and removed crap. Your edit undid that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And there was no WP:CONSENSUS for that version you restored. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

According to the medical examiner, Michael Jackson's cause of death was "acute propofol intoxication", administered by the hand of another. In other words, a homicide. Conrad Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison. Citing "cardiac arrest" as the cause of death is inaccurate.71.201.66.107 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Prescription Drug Usage

Michael Jackson's usage of painkillers should be put into context. He suffered severe and painful burns during the filming of a commercial for Pepsi, and he also injured his back when a stage bridge he was standing on collapsed in Germany. He used pain medications to treat severe pain from these mishaps, and developed a dependency on them, which he later overcame. Without this information, the article implies that the drug use was recreational.71.201.66.107 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

web.archive.org

Biographer Claims Michael Jackson Seriously Ill, MJ’s Reps Deny It : Rolling Stone : Rock and Roll Daily 12/22/08, 2:15 pm EST Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This has to be the most POORLY put together article I have ever read.

Full of old sensational, UN-founded waffle about who assumed and presumed this and that (Same ole BS) about Michel Jackson.

I would hope future readers are intelligent enough to further research the background of all the dribble presented here.

Disgraceful and ONE-sided attempt to try and portray Michael Jackson in a negative light. You people are DESTROYING Wikipedia credibility.

I smell an Anti-Michael Jackson agenda going on here.

Intelligent people, you have been warned.

Go and do your OWN research!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.81.144 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See the sections before the "Cause of death" section above for how this article got this way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede

That entire lede is terrible, it writes like a gossip column rather than an article about his health and appearance.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what the lead looked like at the time it was promoted to WP:GA status in 2008, compared to what it looks like now. As is clear above on this talk page and as I've noted in the article's latest edit history, this article is likely not WP:GA level anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem with "drug addiction" references

Just noticed while looking through that the references to canceling the last shows of Dangerous tour link to an article that only mentions a few shows cancelled for a sore throat. I don't know if maybe this is common knowledge and just a bad link, or if this is false (I am not a Michael Jackson expert) but it seems to me that there is a problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.146.83 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article constantly using J. Randy Taraborelli as a source?

It is a confirmed fact that Taraborelli has tried to destroy Jackson's image with negative tabloid bias and unsourced "proof". Just because he knew Michael for a bit and was an aquantinance does not mean he is credible whatsoever.

Michael personally offered Taraborelli $2 million to not publish his 1991 book, but he declined it. It is rumored that Taraborelli made much more than $2 million from selling the book after being published.

Taraborelli has attacked Jackson, even years after the book was published, on the tabloid site Dailymail. Taraborelli also did not accurately portray Michael Jackson during the 2005 People v. Michael Jackson trial, and was accused by several prominent journalists of using "yellow journalism", much like Michael Jackson former aquantinance Martin Bashir. Don2datop (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Don2datop, Taraborelli is also used as a source in the Michael Jackson article. As for your accusations toward Taraborelli, do you have any reliable sources to verify them? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Height discrepancy

At one point in this article it is stated that Jackson was 5'11, a few paragraphs later it states that he was 5'9.

2601:586:4801:9D90:8569:E577:6798:8075 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

The source doesn’t say he was 5'9. Actually it doesn’t state any height. However it does state his weight but this could be an estimate because Taraborelli relies on observations made by other people (pp312- 313). I edited it. Quaffel —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Taraborrelli on anorexia nervosa

Hi everybody,

In the section "Weight and Addiction" it says: "Witnesses reported that Jackson was often dizzy and speculated that he was suffering from anorexia nervosa." citing Taraborrelli's book on p. 312-313. But it says "Wittnesses to these kinds of scenes began whispering that Michael was suffering from anorexia nervosa, which wasn't truebut certainly seemed plausible the way he looked and acted. Taraborrelli himself says it's not true, so in my opinion this speculation should not be mentioned here.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) I deleted this part e few hours ago. Quaffel(UTC)

Taraborrelli on Debbie Rowe

Hello,

This article states: "In 1996, during the Australian leg of the HIStory World Tour, Jackson married his dermatologist's nurse, Debbie Rowe. The pair first met in the mid-1980s, when Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo. She spent many years treating his illness as well as providing emotional support, and they built a strong friendship before their marriage. The couple divorced in 1999 and remained friends thereafter." citing pp. 580-581, 597, 570, 590-600. Taraborrelli does not state they remained friends after their divorce. In my opinion their marriage is off topic in this article. The only usefull source for this article is p. 570: Michael Jackson called her to ask medical questions and they became friends. Their wedding date is not needed here. This should be discussed. Thanks, Quaffel —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC) I just edited this part. I think this is a good compromise. Quaffel(UTC)

Taraborelli on weight loss

Hi,

It starts saying "The changes to his face were, in part, due to periods of significant weight loss." citing Taraborrelli on pp. 138 -144. Taraborelli is actually dealing with The Jackson 5 leaving Motown, their dispute over the name "The Jackson 5" and Jermaine staying with Motown. It needs to be corrected. Thanks, Quaffel (UTC)

Taraborrelli on weight loss in summer 1993

"Following accusations of child molestation in 1993, Jackson stopped eating, losing even more weight." Taraborrelli does not state that Jackson stopped eating. He states Jackson met Taylor for lunch and initially refused to eat at that particular lunch but then decided to eat. He does state Jackson lostweight. That's on p.514 i.e there's no need to cite pp.514 - 516. I changed it. Quaffel —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in "cosmetic procedure an diet". I'll delete it. Quaffel (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Taraborrelli on what causes vitiligo

Hi,

"According to Jackson's biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli, in 1984, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo, which Taraborrelli stated was sometimes considered by doctors to be a consequence of damage done by bleaching chemicals over the years." citing pp.434-436. Taraborrelli actualy states: (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...)" p. 436 A speculation made by some doctors is not a good source to rely on in this article. I'll remove it.

Quaffel (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer I didn't bring back the part you deleted, but you removed the ref which also belongs to the sentence before that you hadn't removed. The sentence was deleted because it wasn't sourced anymore. I just undid that edit not yours as you can clearly see and added the ref. That's all. Ant I really think that part is important. It's some background information from a medical source. Quaffel (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC) You are right the link just lead t o an overview, but the Vitiligo part on that site supports the text in the article. I used that as a source yesterday.Quaffel (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Taraborrelli on physical abuse

Hi,

"Jackson recalled that Joseph sat in a chair as the group rehearsed, saying, "He had this belt in his hand. If you didn't do it the right way, he would tear you up, really get you. It was bad. Real bad." (p. 602)

On p. 602 Taraborrelli is actually dealing with Bashir's documentary. Will be removed.

Quaffel (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

The link for this: Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon have also said that their father was not abusive and that the whippings, which were harder on Michael because he was younger, kept them disciplined and out of trouble.

leads to an overview. Couldn't find the article so I'll delete it for now. Quaffel (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What about this:

Although it had been reported for a number of years that Jackson had an abusive childhood, he first spoke openly about it in his 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey.? As I mentioned yesterday Jackson already dealt with abuse in his book, but the comment was obviously overlooked. Quaffel (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Quaffel, regarding this, if it's a WP:Dead link (I haven't looked yet), it is easily replaced. Just replace the source. I don't see why that bit should be removed.

Regarding this, you stated, "Jackson also talked about abuse in his book published in 1988 5 yrs before he talked to O." The text begins by stating, "By the early 1980s, Jackson was deeply unhappy." The edit I reverted to is in chronological order. And, regardless, your edit doesn't remove the "first spoke openly about it in his 1993" part. Also, if sources state "first spoke openly about it in his 1993," we should go by that, regardless of what was stated in his book. If source state that, they are clearly defining "openly" differently. Either way, the content should be in chronological order. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer I wasn't dealing with the edit about loneliness here as you can se. You reverted it and I accepted it. I understood you yesterday, no need to instruct me again. Thank you. I just put the comment about the book in the comment line because you don't want me to use the Talk Page too often. These are 2 different things. Quaffel (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Quaffel, but you still removed sourced content. Why not add that content back with a different source?

And as for this, you asked about it above. That's why I replied to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record: I asked for opinions regarding when Jackson first spoke about physical abuse. It's a biography project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Health_and_Appearance_of_Michael_Jackson I gave my opinion and I am aware of the opinions that have been given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Taraborrelli on addiction

"A biographer states that in 1993, the entertainer admitted taking Valium, Xanax, and Ativan to deal with the stress of the child sexual abuse allegations made against him."(pp. 518 - 520).

Taraborrelli only states he took those drugs, but he does not say Jackson admitted doing it. There's also no conclusion he took them because of the allegations (p. 518) There's no need to cite pp.519 & 520. Will be edited. Quaffel (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In late 1995, Jackson was rushed to a hospital after collapsing during rehearsals for a televised performance (which was subsequently cancelled); a non-related writer claims that the incident was caused by a stress-related panic attack,... citing pp. 576 - 577

Well, Taraborrelli actually says Lisa Marie suspected Jackson not to suffer from exhaustion or dehyhdration and thought it's a panic attack. He does not use the term "stress related". There's no "mysterious writer". Presley's suspicions are not reliable because she's not a physician. The concert was cancelled but he does not say that. I'll delete it.

Quaffel (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Quaffel, regarding this, there is nothing wrong with including doctor speculation on this matter. If they are experts, or close to it, on this particular issue, it is fine to include their expert opinion. It is hardly any different than you having included "but a range of genetic, auto-immune, and environmental factors are suspected to play a role in this disease." The source you included for that material is poor, by the way, and appears to be a WP:Dead link now. It doesn't appear to support what you added. And it does not pass WP:MEDRS (our standard for sourcing medical information). By this, I do not mean that every piece of medical information needs to supported by WP:MEDRS. For example, sources specifically about Jackson's health do not need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Information about what may or may not cause vitiligo does need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant, unless we are specifically citing it as speculation in relation to Jackson. All that stated, I am fine with you having removed the speculation since it is best not to state or imply that skin bleaching causes vitiligo. Because of that, I removed this piece from the Michael Jackson article earlier this year

As for this, you stated in your edit summary that the "source doesn't say that." Above on the talk page, you stated, "On p. 602 Taraborrelli is actually dealing with Bashir's documentary." What does that have to do with whether or not this statement is true? The section is already clear about the fact that Jackson and his brothers were regularly whipped and so on. If Jackson made the statement, and the source is supporting that statement, why shouldn't the material be retained? Also keep in mind that this bit is also in the Michael Jackson article. It is supported by Taraborrelli and Lewis Jones at that article.

When removing material at this article, make sure that you are not removing it simply because you do not like it.

And I ask that you stop creating a section for every new edit you make. One section, like this one, is all that it takes until the section becomes too big. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here, I attributed the "602 Taraborrelli" source to Bashir's documentary using WP:In-text attribution. The Michael Jackson article also does this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Flyer Reverting my edit (Undid revision 812169802 by Quaffel (talk) Reverting until I address this. We are not going to keep out the fact that Jackson was indeed whipped.)"

Flyer I was not trying to leave it out. All I said was that the cited page doesn't say that. This quote is not used there. Taraborrelli is not dealing with what was said in the interview. Maybe it's another edition. Quaffel (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Quaffel, you also stated, like I quoted above, "On p. 602 Taraborrelli is actually dealing with Bashir's documentary."

The Michael Jackson article states, "In an interview with Martin Bashir for the 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson." Because I added material from that article to this one, this one now states that as well. Are you distinguishing the interview from the documentary? If so, keep in mind that the documentary includes interviews with Jackson. It is one big interview, really.

As for the quote, even though the quote may not be in the source, it seems that you were acknowledging that the Taraborrelli source is pointing to where Jackson made the comment. If that's the case, the source supports the fact that Jackson talked with Bashir for the documentary about the abuse he endured at the hands of his father. Here on the talk page, why don't you go ahead and quote exactly what the source states so that I know what you are talking about?

Either way, like I noted above, there are two sources given for that material in the Michael Jackson article. I just added the second source. So if the Taraborrelli source, or at least the page given for it, does not support that quote, we can simply remove the Taraborrelli source and let the second source stand for the quote.

And, again, there is no need to create a separate section just to reply. To reply, just reply in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I thought you have a copy. As I said there's no quote on this page. T. deals with interviews B. had done before, he tried to convince Jackson to do an interview, Geller introduced them, Jackson did the interview because Diana did before and Branca thought it would never happen.

Another thing I would like to stress is that when T. is talking about scalp injections he's reffering to lupus but the article puts it into context with vitiligo. That must be corrected.

I said I don't try to leave out he was whipped and I explained my reasons for deleting it. But let me ask you one thing: Do we need all the examples? Which statement do we include and which one not? This is my proposal: The artcle says "...he and some of his siblings stated that they were physically and mentally abused by Joseph from a young age through incessant rehearsals, whippings, and the use of derogatory names such as "big nose" for Michael; this abuse affected Michael throughout his life." I think there's all in it. Maybe we could make the sources of most of these examples references to this statement and one example remains text.

One last thing: I think "Skin colors" is not an appropriate title. "Skin disorders" or "Skin deseases" that would be better because that's what we are talking about. Quaffel (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Quaffel, other than "there's no quote on this page," I do not quite grasp what you mean by "T. deals with interviews B. had done before, he tried to convince Jackson to do an interview, Geller introduced them, Jackson did the interview because Diana did before and Branca thought it would never happen." Like I stated, even if the page does not include the quote, the source can still be used if the source supports the fact that Jackson talked with Bashir for the documentary about the abuse he endured at the hands of his father. We have another source for the quote. Either way, I went ahead removed the Taraborrelli source for that quote.

You stated, "when T. is talking about scalp injections he's reffering to lupus but the article puts it into context with vitiligo. That must be corrected." If you are right, then the wording "Jackson also had hydroxychloroquine injected directly into his scalp regularly." could be changed to "Taraborrelli stated that Jackson also had hydroxychloroquine injected directly into his scalp regularly to treat lupus."

Regarding his abuse, you asked, "Do we need all the examples?" The section in question is fine. It is not big and it documents the extensive abuse. This is the "Health and appearance of Michael Jackson" article. It is specifically about his health throughout his life. This is meant to be briefly covered at the Michael Jackson article. But at this article, it is meant to be in-depth. Your proposal is too brief and leaves out details of the emotional and physical abuse, Jackson's own commentary, the fact that Joe acknowledged whipping him, and Katherine's and the siblings' comments on it.

As for the Skin color title, the section is about his skin color. It is not solely about whatever disorder he might have had. I know that you think that Jackon's light skin was solely due to vitiligo and makeup, but many others, including many skin disorder experts, think otherwise. And the section is about what may have caused his skin to lighten so much and not have indications of patches (as is typical of vitiligo). And, yeah, the autopsy report sheds some light on the patches aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I don't think we have to change the wording regarding the injections. There's a part dealing with lupus in this article. It could be mentioned there. Quaffel (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then. Mention it there. If I have an issue with it, I will tweak it and/or reply here on the talk page. If the current injections piece is likely to cause confusion for readers, though, it should be reworded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Those close to the singer estimated that, by 1990, he had undergone around ten procedures" "By 1990, the full extent of Jackson's surgery was widely debated; those close to him estimated he had undergone ten operations on his face up to this point" Same information based on the same source. I'll delete one. Quaffel (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Taraborrelli on lupus

"Taraborrelli stated that Jackson was diagnosed with lupus, that the vitiligo partially lightened his skin, and the lupus was in remission, and both illnesses made him sensitive to sunlight, which could have caused his lupus condition to recur."

1. I think we need to distinguish between lupus and vitiligo. 2. Yes, Taraborrelli states both diseases made Jackson sensitive to sunlight, but he's not drawing the conclusion that this could have caused lupus to recur. He states the injections to treat lupus were recurring treatments (p. 436). Quaffel (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I put all the information about lupus in a new paragraph. I changed the wording as little as possible. I left out the conclusion I mentioned above and added the correct diagnosis and corrected the link. Taraborrelli doesn’t state Jackson Tretinoin. If you take a look at the Wikipedia article about Tretinoin you’ll see it doesn’t make sense. Taraborrelli said he used Retin A. Quaffel (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Structure

I think we need to discuss the structure of this article. There are several issues.

1. His light skin color was due to a skin disorder, i.e. it was a health concern and belongs to that section

2. Why is 3.3 called "Weight and Addiction"? It sounds odd and doesn' make any sense. His weight loss has nothing to do with addiction. The weight loss is already mentioned in the category "Cosmetic procedure and diet". Why do we need it twice?

3.I think the weight loss in 2005 is a health concern and the weight loss in 1993 might be a health problem, too. Quaffel (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We discussed the skin color stuff above. I stated, "As for the Skin color title, the section is about his skin color. It is not solely about whatever disorder he might have had. I know that you think that Jackon's light skin was solely due to vitiligo and makeup, but many others, including many skin disorder experts, think otherwise. And the section is about what may have caused his skin to lighten so much and not have indications of patches (as is typical of vitiligo). And, yeah, the autopsy report sheds some light on the patches aspect."

As for the "Weight and addiction" section, it is obviously called that because it is about both his fluctuating weight and his drug addition.

As for this and this edit you made, I don't mind the edits, but when one loses significant weight, there are also changes to the face. Drug addition absolutely does impact weight loss. But if the sources do not tie Jackson's weight loss to his drug addition, we can move the weight loss material to the "Cosmetic procedures and diet" section and retitle the section "Cosmetic procedures, diet and weight loss," and remove any unnecessary redundancy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Quaffel, regarding this, see what I stated above in this section. The section being titled "Weight and addiction" does not necessarily mean that weight loss material concerns addiction. It can simply mean that the section is about both weight loss and drug addition. See the re-formatting I also suggested. But if his weight was a health concern, which I think it was, a "Weight" subsection should be in the "Health concerns section." It wouldn't be redundant to the "Cosmetic procedures and diet" section since that section is specifically about Jackson's cosmetic procedures and Jackson attributing the changes in the structure of his face to puberty, a strict vegetarian diet, weight loss, a change in hair style and stage lighting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Flyer, I wrote on December 22 (see above) the weight loss might be a health concern. And regarding the statement about the 2005 in weight and addiction (published June 6, 2005) there's also a paragraph about it in the health concern section. I wanted to move it there. I don't know if we need an own subsection for it because "General" features multiple health problems. If "Weight" gets an own subsection "dehydration" e.g. should also have one. No matter how we do it the piece about the problems during trial should be moved and "Addiction" should be only about addiction.Quaffel (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quaffel, "Weight" getting its own subsection doesn't mean that "dehydration" and other stuff needs its own subsection. Anyway, it was just a suggestion, just like simply having an "Addiction" section is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Flyer, my comment was also only a suggestion. Just say how we do it.Quaffel (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is fine for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style for medicine-related articles advises against a "See also" section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#%22See_also%22_section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Writing_style Quaffel (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:MED is for medical articles. This obviously is not a medical article. And despite what MOS:MED states, many of our medical articles include a See also section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer, it says medical-related articles. That's Wikipedia's statement not mine. We are talking about Jackson's health, right? And you were the one who put in a summary taken from a medical wikipage (Vitiligo). That summary includes medical terms medical lays don't understand. I think your statement contradicts that. Quaffel (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a WP:Med editor. Do ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and see what other WP:Med editors have to state on this matter if you think that this article classifies as a medical article and that MOS:MED is talking about articles like this one. A simple look at WP:MEDSECTIONS shows that MOS:MED is not talking about articles like this one. This is a biography article. Because it is a biography article, WP:MEDRS does not apply to medical and health detail that is specifically about Michael Jackson. The reason that I cited WP:MEDRS with regard to the vitiligo material is because your material was about vitiligo in general; it was not about Jackson having vitiligo. We've already been over this. Why have you not taken the time to truly understand Wikipedia's rules? You go away for months, then come back months later, and pretty much do the same thing over and over again, which is mainly concern yourself with this article and in sketchy ways. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And to be clearer... If a celebrity is having health issues, it is fine to source that material with sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Sourcing the content with news sources is fine. If, for example, the content in that celebrity's article goes into cancer causes that are not specific to that celebrity and are rather about what causes cancer in general, that is different; that content should ideally be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay Flyer. Why is a see also section not apropriate in a medical article? Quaffel (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No one stated that they are inappropriate in medical articles. I already stated above that "despite what MOS:MED states, many of our medical articles include a See also section." Go ask about the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. I have only known one medical editor to routinely oppose see also sections, and that editor is Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

Please take a look at the discussion above. I am aware that professional medical articles look different. I think this article is not exclusively a biographic one because it is focused somebody’s health. I think it’s a "hybrid“ featuring biographical and – on a low level –medical information. I think the reasons that advise against a „see also“ section could also work in this case. Please tell me if a "see also“ section is advisable in this case. Thank you!Quaffel (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The "see alsos" are better covered within the text of the article in question rather than listed in a separate section. We often have that section well the article is being developed. When fully developed the first should apply IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. I rementioned the Vitiligo section because I was surprised by Flyer's statement that this is a biographical article. I didn't want to start that discussion again. So, you think it would be better to cover it in the text of this article? This section is in this article for quite a long time without developing it. How do we deal with it? Quaffel (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why in the world are you surprised that this is a biography article? Why in the world are you opposing the See also section? It is Doc James's preference not to use see also sections, as I've already stated. Doc James mainly works on medical articles, not on articles like this one. Since you want other opinions but refuse to do as advised, I will post a message about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And let me make this clear: WP:See also notes that "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." It is not always the case that what is linked in a See also section needs a mention in the main text. Some of things we include in a See also section are related, but are not about the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the See also section and only seeing Puer aeternus there, I don't feel strongly about whether it should stay or go. Peter Pan syndrome being associated with Jackson is already well-known and that aspect can be easily mentioned in this article if not already mentioned. But the Puer aeternus article does cover Jackson, and there is no need for this article to go into detail about that topic when it's covered there. What I object to is stating that this article should exclude See also sections and/or that what to do with this article's See also section should be based on WP:MEDMOS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, why do you think Doc James needs to weigh in again? He's already given his opinion. Since there is no misunderstanding, despite what you claimed, I suppose you want him to comment again because he agrees with trying to incorporate that link into the article. Per what I stated above, why does the puer aeternus aspect need to be covered in this article? What sources do you have tying it to the health and appearance of Michael Jackson? If you present sources about Jackson's psychological health being stunted due to wanting to forever remain a child or child-like, likely as a result of the abuse he endured, then there is a case for adding Peter Pan syndrome material to this article. If you just want the link removed, you have not given a solid reason for removal...given its relevance to Michael Jackson (as made clear in the Puer aeternus article). Do you want me to start a WP:RfC on this silly matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer Doc James stated that it looks like the vitiligo matter is solved and i just said i did not want topen it again. That's the missunderstanding I was talking about. Quaffel (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a misunderstanding since I didn't state that you wanted to pursue it. All I was stating by use of "if" is that I hope you understand why WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are not needed to report on the health of a celebrity or other well-known figure. It is not like medical authors are creating sources on the health of celebrities or other well-known figures. Well, they usually aren't examining such. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the lack of interest I think this discussion should be closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#See_also_sections_in_articles_--_the_Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson_article Quaffel (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like these don't need to be closed. All that needs to be done is to stop responding in them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Taraborelli on rhinoplasties

"Katherine Jackson, though, has said in a recent interview that Michael intentionally got his first procedure on his nose from Steven Hoefflin." The source doesn't say that. It's not an interview with Katherine Jackson. It's a series Taraborrelli wrote for a newspaper to promote his book. I'll delete it. Quaffel (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Taraborrelli on Porcelana

He said that Jackson's sister La Toya used Porcelana too, and that they had crates of this cream stored at their family home Hayvenhurst, "hoarding it as the most valuable beauty product ever produced." IMO opininion this is pure sensationalism and should not be mentioned here. In the edition of 1991 he was way more factual when he was dealing with Porcelana (pp. 424, 535). I'll delete it. I will not delete the part saying he used it to achieve a lighter look. Quaffel (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it was sensationalism. I considered removing it before as well.

Also, Quaffel, keep in mind what I stated about not needing to create a separate section for each new edit you make. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn back in May you have been very upset with my edits and you even wanted to delete the article or at least a lot of my contribs. You said I have to go to the Talk Page. Well, that's what I did. I want to avoid misunderstandings. Besides a lot of my arguments were too long for the usual comment line. I'll limit my Talk Page contribs. Quaffel (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to my edit summaries in May. I was not very upset. I was frustrated. As for the article, I never stated that it should be deleted. But it is not a WP:Good article anymore. Should it be de-listed (not deleted)? Yes. As for you taking matters to the talk page, per my request, using the talk page properly is another aspect. See WP:Talk. A new section is not needed for every new edit. It is unnecessary clutter. Simply titling a section "Latest edits" and continuing to comment in that section, with subsections created when necessary, is enough. And when you WP:Ping someone, you need to put "User:" in front of the name. But, again, since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need for you to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer the article is still listed as a natural science good article (see top).Quaffel (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It is, but it should be de-listed. See WP:Good article review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, if you think think this must be de-listed you should request for a review. Quaffel (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Vitiligo: Appropriate Sources

Flyer you said about this: "Vitiligo is a rare non-contagious disease; the causes are not known, but a range of genetic, auto-immune, and environmental factors are suspected to play a role in this disease."

No, I removed it because I don't see that the source supports this and it's a poor medical source

You also deleted this: "Vitiligo is probably an autoimmune disease that is caused by the destructuction of melanocytes." without any comment. I assume World Health Organization is also a poor source.

I'd like to know what a good, reliable source is that can support statements in this article. We can't certainly go on including pieces from other articles here (We have already 2: abuse and vitiligo). Thank you! Quaffel (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than what I stated with this edit, I do not have anything more to state on the vitiligo matter. I stand by that edit and the edit summary. Nothing more needs to or should be added about the medical aspects of vitiligo to this article. My deleting the second piece you added was not about sourcing. It was about better summarizing the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to add more about vitiligo, I just want to know what a good source is. Quaffel (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2018(UTC)

"Some medical professionals have publicly stated their belief that Jackson also had body dysmorphic disorder, a psychological condition whereby the sufferer has no concept of how his or her physical appearance is perceived by others." Taraborrelli's book is used as a source here. He's a journalist and biographer. Would you say this is a good source to explain body dysmorphic disorder?Quaffel (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS explains what a good medical source is. You added the World Health Organization (WHO) source. Again, I did not take issue with that source. I aimed to add a better summary. As for statements concerning what medical professionals believe about Jackson, that does not require medical sourcing. It is no different than non-medical sources being used for historical/society and cultural material in medical articles. As you know, there is a lot of speculation about what surgeries Jackson may have had as well. That doesn't require medical sourcing either. If the text is solely talking about a mental disorder or other health topic and what its entails, like the vitiligo text was, yes, that needs a good medical source. If the topic is not focused on the health issue itself, but rather what Jackson might have been suffering from, as discussed in numerous media sources, the media sources are fine for that content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like things are resolved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per above. And what I stated here. If Quaffel still does not understand, I will notify WP:Med, WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability editors to this topic. When editors were sourcing medical content about Aretha Franklin, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources were not needed and they still are not. If the Aretha Franklin article goes into causes on the type of cancer she had (meaning it's not specifically about her, but rather about the topic in general), then, yes, the sources should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. But as it stands, the "Health problems" section and the "Final illness and death" section of the Aretha Franklin article do not need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. If editors are going to misunderstand WP:MEDRS like this, then I might propose clearer wording to that guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer I explained it in my structure comment. IT IS FINISHED! I'm sorry for the rude tone, but I want to be understood.Quaffel (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet now you are going on about applying WP:MEDMOS to this article with regard to the See also section. As we can see by the lack of a response from others in that discussion after I alerted Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to the matter, that lone "see also" section link is nothing to make a big deal about. There is nothing wrong with it. As for rude, I should be the one shouting, given how you have gone about matters at this article and talk page, and that you still haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with this site's rules and protocols. Reading and misunderstanding a rule is not the same as being familiar with a rule. But given that you misunderstand WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS and almost exclusively focus on this article, that is not surprising. I do appreciate that you are now continually responding in sections rather than starting a new section just to respond. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You want me to start a new section? What do you think is missing? Quaffel (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

given how you have gone about matters at this article and talk page Okay. Let'talk about it. Did I acuse you of shouting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk about what? I've already been over issues I've had with you at this article/talk page. I see no need to continue a discussion in this section or to start a new section about whatever it is you are suggesting we talk about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

_____

References

Images

Regarding this and this, read MOS:IMAGES. WP:Sandwiching is an issue. If the image is not sandwiched in that section, and both images are placed on the right, then the second image will bleed into the next section. Beyond that, the image is not needed. And there is nothing wrong with including it in the section about his childhood, which speaks of his insecurity about his nose. It does not need to be in the section about his cosmetic procedures, which is mainly about how he looked post-procedures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to add a pohoto showing Jackson before surgery, with a wide nose. All photos in the article show him after surgery. That's all. If you are worried about sandwching we can find a solution. Pecently placed a picture below another one and you placed it on the other side. So I put it on the other side this time.Quaffel (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I know why you added the image. But like I stated, I do not agree that the image needs to be in that section or is better placed in that section than in the childhood section. As for sandwiching, I already stated that even if we place both images in that section on the right, then the second image will bleed into the next section. The cosmetic procedures section is small, which is why more than one image overcrowds the section. And I definitely do not think that we should remove the adult image from that section and instead have the child image there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Vertical placement An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. An image causes a paragraph break (i.e. the current paragraph ends and a new one begins) so it is not possible to place an image within a paragraph. (This applies to thumb images; small inline images are an exception (see § Inline images, below).) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images Well I don't agree with you based on this. The relevant section in this case is cosmetic procedure, so I think it should be placed there or near that section. By the way I never said the other image should be moved or deleted or whatever. I was just mentioning there might be another solution.Quaffel (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see why you quoted that part of the guideline, but I disagree with you per what I stated above. I know that you never stated that the other image should be moved or deleted. I was explaining matters to you since you were talking about options. With regard to placing images in that small section, the only other option to avoid sandwiching would be placing both images on the same side. The childhood image would bleed into the next section, like this or like this. Not that bad, since the image is mostly in the section you want it in. But I still fail to see why it needs to be in that section, or how it's best suited for that section, as opposed to being in the childhood section. In fact, after having thought the placements over, I think it's best suited in the childhood section, and I'm willing to bet most editors would agree with me if we polled this matter. I understand that you want to show what Jackson looked like before and after, but Jackson's face changed numerous times, and the lead image shows him with his darker complexion but with the altered nose. So it's not like readers are starting off with the childhood image at this article anyway. But if you really want it in the cosmetic procedures section (you obviously do), go ahead. And make sure you place it on the right. I hope you do not plan to keep adding images to this article. More additions are not needed at this article. This is not the main biography article for Jackson (obviously), and it has enough images. There are no free images to show Jackson's physical progression. All we can do is show him as a child, teenager and at different points in his adult life. But, again, this article has enough images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say we need more images. The version of 7:46 is good. I would put the black & white pic first (closer to puberty), and the pic of 1997 second (closer to androgyny), but that's just a thought.Quaffel (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Category

Undoing Flyers edit. This is an article about a person with a disability and parts of it it deals with his disability. I see no reason why the category "Disability articles needing help should be deleted. Disability has a lot of articles (and categories) dealing with all parts of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Categories&offset=Disability&limit=500  I think they have good reasons to offer help. If they are not interested they won't react.  Regarding the comment "He's dead": I know that. If you mean the category "Burn survivors":  Jackson C. Frank is in the same category and he died in 1999. Quaffel (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Just look at the othe other disability categories I added. They all listed this article. I don't think there is any doubt that this is a disability article.Quaffel (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Most of your other category additions should be removed as well. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:Categorization, especially its "Articles" section which addresses Wikipedia:Overcategorization. But, of course, you won't. And if you do, you won't understand it. I am done wasting my time debating you on things you clearly have no clue on. This has been going on for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "Just look at the othe[r] other disability categories [you] added. They all listed this article." But the fact that you don't see Jackson in the disability categories at the Michael Jackson article should be a big hint for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Still being disruptive and a pain. I will leave a message about this at WP:Categorization and Wikipedia:Overcategorization. If no help comes from those places, I will start an RfC on Quaffel's category additions. I am not interested in discussing anything else with Quaffel. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add one thing: I have no idea why all disability categoiers have been removed (I won't undo it): Category:People with Vitiligo is a subcategory of Category:People with disabilities. Michael Jackson uses Category:People with Vitiligo and Sammy Davis Jr. uses Category:American people with disabilities. Both edit and reasoning don't make sense. I might not know all Wiki functions an I#M not a Vitiligo expert, but I might know more about vitiligo than other users. That's one adventage if you focus on one topic and there is nothing wrong with it.Quaffel (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute Flyer. The categories no longer reflect the article's contents? I am afraid you are the one being disruptive here. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, as seen by the edit history and Roger (Dodger67)'s comment below, no, I was not the one being disruptive. Reverting can be disruptive, but, while reverting, I was clearly telling Quaffel that he was wrong, and I took the matter to the aforementioned talk pages for others to weigh in. Dodger67 removed the categories without commenting here on the talk page. As for my frustration with Quaffel, one only need to look at the the previous discussions on this talk page for why. I stated more on Quaffel's talk page, and I stand by all of it. Yes, Quaffel has the experience of a new editor, but that has been Quaffel's choice. Quaffel has had years, beginning from the time I politely guided him to now, to become familiarize with how Wikipedia works. It's not like Quaffel needs to know all the rules, but Quaffel should definitely know more than Quaffel knows. Quaffel chose to mainly confine his Wikipedia editing to this article and to make it so that interacting with and trying to inform him of the site's rules is a pain because of a lack of understanding and/or stubbornness on Quaffel's part. Again, I've dealt with this from Quaffel for years, since 2013. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like I've unwittingly stepped into a minefield when I removed the disability categories as I was not aware of this ongoing discussion. Anyway, I removed the categories per WP:EGRS which requires that categories about disability (and other personal features) only be applied when the subject has reliably and with some consistently been described as disabled and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability. I've never seen or heard MJ being described as disabled, by any source, reliable or otherwise. Vitiligo is a medical diagnosis, it is not per se a disability, though it probably could be the cause of disability, depending on the person's circumstances. (See Social model of disability.) That's my 2c, I'll just be watching this discussion now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability" Which is why we have a category for Category:Musicians with physical disabilities. These categories are ways to locate articles on people with relatively common disabilities. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We can easily settle this with an RfC if you agree with Quaffel to include all those categories. If you just want "Category:Musicians with physical disabilities" included, I'll start an RfC on that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please do so. I think Quaffel is a conscientious editor who is doing much needed work. Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, mind pointing to this much needed work Quaffel has been doing? I've seen his work (which overwhelmingly pertains to this article that should lose its WP:GA status) since 2013, and I disagree with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

He/she had attempted to categorize an article with too few categories (undercategorization is one of Wikipedia's major problems), to add available images from Wikimedia, to fix dead links, and to provide medical sources. I was quite impressed by their edit history. Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't pointed to any much needed work done by Quaffel or what is at all impressive about Quaffel's edit history, which, again, is primarily limited to this article (where his edits have been problematic time and time again). So we will most certainly have to agree to disagree. For example, as I noted in the #Vitiligo: Appropriate Sources section above, I was the one who added a proper summary with medical sources (after Quaffel added a poor source and then the World Health Organization source with an inadequate summary), and I added them because the text is about vitiligo in general. Medical sources are not needed for commentary on Jackson's vitiligo, unless the text is making general statements about vitiligo rather than what Jackson had or suffered from. WP:MEDRS is not meant to cover health reports on celebrities or other well-known people. I stated, "When editors were sourcing medical content about Aretha Franklin, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources were not needed and they still are not. If the Aretha Franklin article goes into causes on the type of cancer she had (meaning it's not specifically about her, but rather about the topic in general), then, yes, the sources should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. But as it stands, the 'Health problems' section and the 'Final illness and death' section of the Aretha Franklin article do not need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. If editors are going to misunderstand WP:MEDRS like this, then I might propose clearer wording to that guideline." There are no medical authorities publishing on health issues concerning these celebrities. No one can validly remove all of the health material in the Aretha Franklin article on the basis that it's not MEDRS-compliant. Same goes for this article. If you think I am wrong about that, feel free to leave a message about it at the WP:MEDRS talk page where I visit fellow medical editors. From what I see, you, without having the history or facts on the matter, simply want to stand up for an editor you think I'm being unfair to. No doubt you don't like the tone I've used. You also probably dislike that I stated "damn" in the edit summary. Well, nothing I can do about it. I won't be apologizing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also specify what RfC you want. One concerning all the categories that Dodger67 removed? Or the one you suggested? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The ones responding to medical conditions or disabilities. Ethnicity categories are out of this article's scope anyway, and Jackson's ethnic background does not seem to be covered in its sources. Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So you want me to start an RfC on whether to retain all the categories that Dodger67 removed. Got it. Done below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Should the disability categories be retained?

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.

---

There is disagreement on whether Category:American people with disabilities, Category:Artists with disabilities, Category:Disability media and Category:Disability articles needing expert attention‏‎ should be retained in this article. One view is that the categories should be retained because Jackson had vitiligo. The other view is that per WP:EGRS, "which requires that categories about disability (and other personal features) only be applied when the subject has reliably and with some consistently been described as disabled and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability," the categories don't belong. Also, Category:Musicians with physical disabilities has been proposed as a replacement for the aforementioned categories. And, additionally, it has been noted that these categories are not in the Michael Jackson article, which is the main biography article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No, per Roger (Dodger67). Like Dodger67 stated, "I've never seen or heard MJ being described as disabled, by any source, reliable or otherwise. Vitiligo is a medical diagnosis, it is not per se a disability, though it probably could be the cause of disability, depending on the person's circumstances." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• No per my post above. (BTW the "disability media" category is unconditionaly irrelevant, this article is about a person, not a publication or other media work.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• No per above - Genuinely cannot believe there's an RFC on it!, Vitiligo is a medical thing not a disabled thing!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes on adding Category:People with vitiligo, and other conditions specifically mentioned in the article. Category:Disability articles needing expert attention is actually a call for attention from other editors. Whether we add it or not, readers will not receive additional information. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick please clarify whether this is in fact a "No" !vote to the question as actually asked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes on Category:American people with disabilities and Category:Artists with disabilities. No on Category:Disability media (which is about works, not people). The "expert attention" is a category for increased attention by editors, and bears no reflection on the content. I am indifferent to whether it is added or not. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• No - per WP:CATV - Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I see no information in the article whatsoever that verifies he had any sort of disability. None. And I researched as well and found zero reliable sources that say he had a disability. Flyer22, you wrote up above that "this article is likely not WP:GA level anymore" (5 years ago) with a link to an old revision of this page from 2008, I agree, and I'm so sorry you've had to put up with this nonsense for the last 5 years (or longer). Isaidnoway (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes on Category:Disability articles needing attention to verify categorizations per WP:CATV. I didn't create that subcategory. Based on expert opinion you can decide if Category:American people with disabilities and/or Category:Artists with disabilities should be used. Quaffel (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I accept that. I just want to give my reasons because I was presented like sb. who doesn't know anythging abou all this, also on my Talk Page. When I added this I had Disability in the media in mind which is the category's main article. I know it's about fictional characters and this article is not.Quaffel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if Dimadick really proposed to use the Musicians with physical disabilities. I chose more general categories because I don't know if vitiligo really is a physical disability. Which physical function is affected? By the way that would be a great example for a question we could ask an expert for vitiligo: "Is vitiligo a physical disability?" Does anybody know?Quaffel (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Disability is a possible consequence of an impairment caused by a medical issue, if (and only if) it results in significant difficulty in performing everyday activities. See Social model of disability. (I'm not an expert on vitiligo, but I am an expert on disability.) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The main article on vitiligo states that the people affected by it, tend to suffer from depression and other mood disorders. Largely due to the social stigma associated with the condition. Pathologically, some of these people also exhibit signs of other autoimmune diseases, such as as Addison's disease. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I was surprised to learn that some sleeping disorders are also considered to be physical disabilities according to Wikipedia. Wouldn't have thought of that. I googled "vitiligo disability" and found this study which supports Dimadick's statement: http://www.pigmentinternational.com/article.asp?issn=2349-5847;year=2014;volume=1;issue=2;spage=81;epage=89;aulast=Garg IMO a physical disability category cannot be used here. Quaffel (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is not a discussion about vitiligo in general, it is specifically about whether Michael Jackson has reliably been described as having a disability, that is all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it depends on if you think that vitiligo is a disability. We have his autopsy report saying he had vitiligo (p. 39). I think an autopsy report is a reliable source. It has been used as a source for this artcle for a few years (source 28 & 29). http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson,%20michael_report.pdf I thought the question is if vitiligo is a disability, but maybe I missunderstood that. Quaffel (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

[[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)] The Department of Veteran Affairs rates it as a disabibility and people can get benefit: "Code 7823: Vitiligo is a condition where the cells that give the skin color die. The skin then becomes a bleached, lighter color. If the exposed divisions are affected, it is rated 10%. If they are not affected, it is rated 0%."

"Exposed Divisions: The “exposed” divisions include the head, neck, and hands, both front and back. These are the areas that are not routinely covered by clothes." The skin ratings were updated in August 2018.

http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/theskin.html#prepare

In Jackson's case the face was affected. 

I also ound this: https://www.va.gov/vetapp11/files1/1106105.txt I think we should use the Disablity article needing expert help. I agree with Dimadick statement below. If Category:People with vitiligo wasn't a subcategory of Category:People with disabilities why hasn't it been questioned before? None of us is an expert and the best and easiest way is to ask an expert. Quaffel (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The main category Category:People with vitiligo has been a subcategory of Category:People with disabilities since 2017. We don't have to invent a new categorization scheme here. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a page concerning disability law and autoimmune diseases, by The Bishop Law Firm.:

• "This post discusses Social Security Disability for Autoimmune Disorders. If an autoimmune disorder is preventing you or someone you care for from working read on for how Social Security will evaluate your claim for disability benefits."
• "According to the AARDA, autoimmune diseases affect the lives of up to 50 million Americans. There are several types of autoimmune disorders. The most common are: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, celiac sprue disease, pernicious anemia, vitiligo, scleroderma, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, Hashimoto’s disease, Addison’s disease, Graves’ disease, reactive arthritis, Sjögren’s syndrome and type 1 diabetes."
• "Autoimmune disorders can cause low activity or over activity of the immune system. In cases of immune system over activity, the body attacks and damages its own tissues. Immune deficiency diseases decrease the body’s ability to fight invaders, causing vulnerability to infections. Treatment for autoimmune diseases generally focuses on reducing immune system activity."
• "Simply being diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder is not enough to be found disabled. The real question is how severe is your autoimmune disorder? If your autoimmune disorder is preventing you from working due to pain, loss of function, fatigue, medication side effects, etc. you may be found disabled." ... "Being treated by a specialist (i.e. rheumatologist) for your impairment with medical records confirming your diagnosis, treatments and symptoms can help your case. Also, obtaining an opinion from your doctor about your inability to work may help your case a great deal." Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, but I was surprised to learn that some sleeping disorders are also considered to be physical disabilities" Try living with a person that has such a disorder, such as my (deceased) mother. Inability to sleep for several days at a time, followed by days of drowsiness and fatigue; constant mood swings (from feeling elated to constantly crying, from being overly affectionate to picking fights with anyone around her), frequent irritability, and plenty of medication in (failed) attempts to regulate the problem. Do you think that patients have the ability to function normally or maintain a steady occupation? Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I never intended to play it down Dimadick. I'm sorry I hurted your feelings. I just meant I didn't know that some sleeping disorders have such effects. I knew they were a disorders and I admit I don't know more about it. When I said I was surprised I didn't mean I have doubted it, I just haven't known before. That's what I meant when I said I haven't thought of it. Before reading the article I have connected all the other examples in the article with physical disabilities. Physical disabilities are often connected with accidents or birth defects, but not with sleeping disorders. I hope you read this Dimadick, I really want to straighten it out. Quaffel (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: German Wikipedia states that Vitiligo is a disability (Behinderung). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo#Behinderung Quaffel (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2018 (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.

Supposed grammar fixes

GrammarDamner, regarding this and this, those are not grammar fixes. It's you POV-editing. You keep changing material supported by academic sources and you are WP:Editorializing. You also keep adding a source as if that justifies your changes. It does not. Stop it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn, with all due respect, you appear to be mistaken. Those are your edits that you've highlighted, not mine. The edits that I had made just before you either had a different edit summary or were in fact grammar fixes, such as removing a comma that you keep replacing, which I'll address later. Looking back, on March 25th, I did make an edit with the wrong summary, and I'm sorry for that. It was a mistake made since I'm constantly making grammar fixes, but I've been very careful and haven't made that mistake since. I'm not POV-editing. I'm simply adding information that is relevant, accurate, and properly sourced. This article seems to downplay Jackson's use of skin bleaching cream. If we are to be neutral, we need to include all relevant information. Downplaying his use of skin cream is just as bad as downplaying his vitiligo. With regards to that comma before "but emphatically rejected...", this type of comma should only be used to separate a compound sentence, which we don't have. I'll go ahead and fix it in a way that is grammatically correct and leaves the comma intact. Thank you for your contributions and help! GrammarDamner (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Addressed on your talk page. Since Levivich (Leviv) addressed the matter there, I decided to reply further there. Best not to have the discussion in two different places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the skin color aspect, I changed the material to this (followup edit here), per this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And then changed to this (followup edits here and here), per this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not make an edit like this again, GrammarDamner. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)