Talk:Michael Jackson

		This article was nominated for deletion on March 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

The Great Divide

Perhaps the article should be divided into two articles, Michael Jackson(Black) and Michael Jackson(White) anyone?

If the main theme is the author is a "crazy fan in denial," that isn't very apparent. 95% fact mixed with 5% apology doesn't make for a funny read. I'd rather see a strikethrough frenzy, an original article written by the mainstream view of Michael (crazy/glad he died) struckthrough and re-written by a crazy fan (obsessive/apologetic). (i.e. Satan himself A chorus of angels welcomed Michael to hell heaven as God took his revenge he slipped the bonds of earthly life... etc.)Condemned 12:29, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Before you all kill me

I'm sure I'm formatting this wrong but whatever. This page was SO much funnier before every bit of it was rewritten, regardless if you're going for the fanboy/girl thing, it's obvious that someone just wants to be PC. You can all undo my massive revert and or block me if you want, but seriously most people I know laughed at this a hell of a lot more back in the day.

• edit* So apparently you're all just going to keep it PC and tasteful. I guess Uncyclopedia is losing its charm.

Pathetic

This page has very little humour thanks to the three Jackson fans that go around the internet removing anything that they don't like about him. Their idea of a joke is the comment "you can't deny he is the greatest entertainer"... SAD!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.11.205.152 (talk • contribs)

The article was DELIBERATELY written from the perspective of a fanboy/girl exaggerating his accomplishments, and minimizing his sins. The humor is subtle, perhaps too subtle for you. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:55, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Tossing my random two cents in, I think the article fails to live up to that theme. I seriously doubt even his most ardent fan would say pedophilia is normal and acceptable. That's where the article falls short, IMO... Extreme fan denial can be far funnier, but less classy. Condemned 12:20, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is far too subtle to be funny. My usual rule of thumb is; if you have to think too long about it, it's not funny. I appreciate someone took a long time to write it. It is evident by the way the author approached humour as an academic device. I feel that most people on this talk page has a fear of causing offense if someone fundamentally changes it. Many articles on Uncyclopedia are written in a slapstick, sarcastic and dark humoured way. Having to take on board that the author is 'serious' about what they write on Michael Jackson in this article is a departure from the style of approximately 99% of Uncyclopedia. Although this page could be made about 70% better, this Michael Jackson page seems more true to Uncyclopedia. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&oldid=3509627 .--Olliewasabi (talk) 23:51, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

I always thought he was talented and don't agree with mocking the dead but this article is just too positive D:< Griddles 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

I fucking hate this article. It's stupid. It's not funny AT ALL. You say it's subtle, intelligent humor? Jay Leno and Tina Fey-- that's intelligent humor. This is just plain bullshit! I thought this was Uncyclopedia? No, it's Wikipedia mixed with Michael Jackson-ass kissing! Why do these cranky over-obsessed zombie pedo fans have to invade EVERY fucking corner of the internet? 15.211.153.75 03:13, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Btw, he isn't really dead. Heard he's had another plastic surgery and is now living as the woman named Courtney Love. 15.211.153.75 03:13, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Meant to be written from fanboy perspective - and in fact it was more positive while he was alive. I have to admit though that the humour is being lost on a substantial percentage of the audience, and I'm seriously beginning to think that it's time for a substantial (but funny) rewrite, but given that this is post-colonisation I'd hate to mess up what they did so well first time around. Why are we adding comments to the top of the page? Pup TIME 03:15, 17/07/2009

P.O.S

Wow... this is one major piece of shit page. This website was made to be FUNNY not to talk about your precious Michael Crackson, that's what http://www.wikipedia.org/michaeljackson is for! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katiestarz1213 (talk • contribs)

Wow, "Michael Crackson" - now that's comedy. --UU - natter 16:47, Jan 29

It's sure better than what your sorry ass is throwing out there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katiestarz1213 (talk • contribs)

Yes indeed. Michael Crackson. I'll enjoy the subtlety of that for the rest of the day. Mmm hmm. --UU - natter 17:00, Jan 29

He's dead

They took him to the hospital on wednesday. Two days later they found him in the children's ward having a stroke.

I heard that he died of shock after finding out that Boyz 2 Men was a band not a delivery service.--TheChurchofScientology 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He really is dead. Heart attack. The way I hear it, he strangely died seconds after meeting Boy George for a blind date.--Dark September 22:01, 26 June 2009.

Ahh

MUCH better.Saberwolf116 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter oif opinion. Why is the FILMOGRAPHY being/is deleted? :-0 --The Odious Wasp 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

it contradicts the article's concept, it is ridiculously long, it is unfunny as hell, it is a bunch of poopy random humour put together, it doesnt satirize anything, it kills the article.. etc, etc. Sorry, no personal offence meant. Please read HTBFANJS. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 09:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From Colonization

Ahoy, Colonizers!

Today we put behind us the clusterfuck of suck that was Jew and move on to a smaller, less quagmire-y project: Michael Jackson. I've done some thinking about why the Jew colonization took so long and one of my suspicions is that we never had a real central idea. There were a few good ideas floating around that we sort of tried to include all of in some weird literary shotgun marriage and it all kinda went to shit. So here's what I'm proposing.

I'm including a template for a table in the form of an HTML comment. This table should be used from now on whenever you want to propose a new idea. Then, vote for or against that idea in usual Uncyc fashion. Vote on each idea once, vote on as many ideas as you like. I think this will make it much easier to tell which ideas are getting support and which are not.

Use these tables for ANY proposals, not just article ideas. For example, if you want to combine two ideas, make a separate table for that proposal.

Let's try this again, folks. Thanks for sticking with me! —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if votes are the right way to go about this... don't they usually just make things take longer? Also, I have no ideas for a good concept about this article. Maybe just go straight encyclopedic and see what happens? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:45, Mar 22

Well, the previous method clearly muddled things for many users when we didn't have an idea as clearly awesome as Al Gore. If you have a better idea for idea proposals, please let me know. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ahem... Hi there. Well, I -in my finite wisdom and vast inexperience- suggest writing it from a 12-year old kid's point of view, a good way to show Jackson's pedophilia.. What do you say? SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I say for now you should read my above post and propose your idea properly. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

idea proposals

TIME IS UP

THE WINNER

Proposal	The whole article will be encyclopedic, but biased as if written by a fan of Michael Jackson trying to defend his actions. Example: "Michael Jackson has made many seemingly eccentric purchases with his vast fortune, such as the Elephant Man's bones. However, this is actually very normal behavior. The nickname 'Wacko Jacko' is actually very hurtful to Michael and it is unfair to call him that." Score: 3
For	For. I got this idea after reading Wikipedia's article on Michael, which to me seems rather biased in its defense of him. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) for. biased defense. perfect. come on everybody, hop on the bandwagon. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC) obvious for SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Against
Comments	The outline for this will be very similar to Mahmoosha's only with satirical elements. Use Wikipedia's article as a guide, since that's what we're satirizing to some extent. But a decision needs to be reached and, due to some dirty underhanded vote manipulation on my part, we're getting close to decision time and we have some tie ups even though this is the only real idea that I feel real passionate about. It seems doable and so unless someone wants to delay the process for the sake of democracy, I say with all my super executive FAD powers that this is the jam. If you wanna start then it's officially writing time as of five minutes ago. Any dispute should go here. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) yea, lets get started, no need for delay SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) One more thing: no more of this replacing the real article with a work in progress. Do all the work on the Colonization page. Outline goes on the talk page. I don't know how much of this I'll actually get to do, unfortunately third quarter ends Friday and I have to really crunch. But Friday should be good for me, I'll see where you guys are at by then and do what I can to bring it together. I may be able to help out tomorrow too, but that's a big maybe. Like I said, work on the Colonization page, not on the main article. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

General discussion

Alright, now that we have our concept, let's discuss stuff here. For one, I want to make it clear that there will be absolutely no quotes at all. Good job on getting the outline up there though, everything else looks quite spiffy. —Sir SysRq (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the "absolutely no quotes" part. We could have a "famous quotes" section at the begining or the end of the article, for quotes of MJ, ie. no oscar wilde, chuck norris, russian reversals or captain <insert adjective here> quotes. A man like that must have at least a couple of quotes worth parody-ing. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

no quotes: seconded. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If somebody can come up with a good quote: one quote. Else: none. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Mahmoosha, trust us. As experienced editors who are sick of looking at inane quotes on every article added by some random ass noob that has no idea what they're doing, we feel much more comfortable just saying no quotes. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, I see what you mean.. Ok SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The first thing we need to do

Is deleting everything that's currently in the article and forever forget that crappy shit was ever there. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I say we leave the page intact, til we finish our job, and work on Michael Jackson/Colonization, section by section til its done SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything in it we could use for our colonization? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

nope SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Socky, as per my instructions we are writing the whole thing in the Colonization page. The other way we were doing it didn't make much sense. Sure, I was the one responsible for it, but whatever. My mistake. Let's try it this way. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

when are we going to start writing and shit? SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now. —Sir SysRq (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

colonization started

C'mon guys, I wont do the whole thing alone, I need your help and experience. Click here and start writing. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I will get to it, probably gonna do some stuff here in the next 30 minutes or so. Please don't be offended if I rewrite your introduction. As great as it is, it's not quite the direction I think we need to be going in. Satire is a subtle art, my friend. We're going to have to be much more subtle with this. —Sir SysRq (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

no offence at all. I know I am still a noob with bad humour and I know my introduction isnt great. I hastly wrote it earlier today in public transport, just to jump start the article, you know, its better for other colonizers to see anything written in the page.. That will make them edit.. I am good at psychology, I know :) SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Having done the collaboration thing a few times before in my Uncyc career, I can safely say that you're right. People will edit if they see something on the page and not just a blank screen. And good on you for being italic. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll help. Trying to be a good noob! » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

thy help is much appreciated Zheliel, but note that we hath voted for writing the article with a defensive bias. thou shalt rewrite "rise to fame" accordingly. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Hey, just did the Pedophilia section beceause I wanted to get that over with first so we could concentrate on his music. I tried to make it as brief as I can so that it doesn't take too much attention away from everything else. Is it any good? I cut out LOTS of my ideas and if I should add more or less just tell me. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just threw a picture in. Not necesarrily my first choice so feel free to replace it. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

you should add moar, the article neads moar. And you, sir, just set the style template we all should follow in this colonization, you did the defensive bias thing right. Now go add moar (and be sure to leave an "Intro 3" if you dont like 1 and 2) SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I am glad to hear you liked it. but the thing is I am not too impressed with what I am seeing so far. One intro is very rambly and doesn't do what an intro is supposed to. It is supposed to present the way you are taking the idea. I understand that is yours and would only suggest you trim down some of the random parts (about God, and peeps). The second is Sysrq's and that is just a wikipedia copy and paste. I hope he is doing something with that. If you want I can throw together a quick little intro to see if you guys like it. And are you saying I should add more to the pedophile section or to the article altogether. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to bash on your idea just want the article to have a solid theme. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags, the reason that my intro looks so much like wikipedia is because it is supposed to. The joke is that the Wikipedia article does a good job of defending this poor, poor man from the evil media that has torn him apart. He's just misunderstood, you see? He didn't have a good, normal childhood. Just a privileged one. I wanted to set the scene with that to make it known that that's what we're satirizing, that's the angle we're going for. I'm trying to be up front with the reader as to what kind of article this is. If you don't like it, I'm open to criticism. But there's my defense. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright I wasn't criticizing just thought the theme should be stronger in the opening. Sorry about the picture. Just threw something in there. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point, and I do need to make the theme a bit more apparent, yes. I will work on it more. And don't apologize, you were just being italic and there's nothing wrong with that. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a picture to the section. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. --^Dame 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well my opinion as the writer of the section feels it fits in perfectly and much better than the first one we had up. But SysRq's opinion is needed first I think. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already given my opinion on my talk page. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we are all hunky dory. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Amongst other things... --^Dame 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we change the caption on the 'Jesus' picture from "He wants the little children to come to him" to "I jizzed in my pants"? (Unsigned by ConnorORLY 22:34, 29 June 2009)

"Jizz in pants" is not as funny as "little children come" - I just re-read what I wwrote... ewww Pup

Whoa

There's plenty of real life crap to parody with Micheal Jackson; there's no need to make shit up. Let's try and keep this grounded in reality shall we? No time travel or references to Jesus or any other random tack ons please. Just try and keep it as official sounding as possible. I think (though I'm probably wrong) we're going for a sort of dry humor here. Try passing off his pedophilia as a completely natural phenomena and subtley defend him from that angle. Keep his backstory as close to the truth as possible; there's plenty of humor in the Jackson Five and his crazy dad. Just my two cents on what I'm seeing so far. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:36, 26 Mar

Couldn't have put it any better than that but that is exactly how I feel about this. The rise to fame is just random as it is right now and I don't want the rest of this to go that way. With that being said I would like some opinions on the Pedophilia section I just added. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a step in the right direction, but the tone is still too conversational IMO. Try reworking it to sound more like an actual Wiki article. Add some references to how "common" pedophilia is. Give some clinical sounding definition of pedophilia. Maybe work in a distinction that MJ's a gay pedophile, not just a regular pedo and therefore is deserving of even more sympathy. Overall I'd say SUBTLE is the key word to keep in mind for this article (someone correct me if I'm wrong). -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:24, 26 Mar

Alright all excellent advice I will get to it in a bit. Thanks alot ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 18:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, he slept with the children, not raped them. There's nothing wrong with that. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Word. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:14, 26 Mar

Yes, I'd like to express my concerns too. This is looking a lot like what's already in place. Our theme is set, we need to follow it. We're going encyclopedic with limited but obvious bias in support of MJ, none of this time travel nonsense. I'm going to cut out anything that does not follow our concept now. If there is an issue, defend your content here. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhinoplasty and vitiligo

There is no section defending his whitening/plastic surgery. Are we eschewing that completely? I think we should at least have a short section promoting all the excuses for why he looks like a hideous space creature today. Or is that overdone, maybe? Was this already discussed, and I missed it? Are there rocks in my head?

My ideas, for what they're worth:
- a semi-detailed description of vitiligo with oblique references to the fact that Jackson fans (like our author) would otherwise know nothing about this dubious condition, let alone the word itself. Plus, it's mostly changes in stage lighting making him look so pale.
- He only had two surgeries on his nose. Most of the appearance changes are due to his vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets have been known to radically change people. For example, look at Charlize Theron before she became a vegetarian: (normal Theron pic) and after: (Theron pic from Monster).
OK, he did do the chin. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we need a section on that. Get to it. Just remember to keep it encyclopedia-like and make him seem as normal as possible. We also need a section about the bones of the elephant man and how normal it is MJ keeps them in his basement. Also; doesn't everyone sleep in an hyperbaric chamber? -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:23, 26 Mar

Brilliant, brilliant. This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. This is satire. Tom, Chris, make it so. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Give it a look-see so far and kill or adjust at will. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it, I'm just making a few spelling corrections. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did say a small section, didn't I? I'm such a fckin' windbag. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also also; chimpanzees: I know my pet store can't keep them in stock! And why shouldn't MJ own all the Beatles songs? Get going! As per usual, I won't have much time for anything beyond advice till Sat. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:04, 26 Mar

Intro

I am going to try to consolodate the good ideas from both intro ideas and get us settled on one. One thinig, I think we lose the opening (bold, accidental radio show conversation) section of Intro 1 entirely, because our overriding concern here is to make this article encyclopedic.

Let me know if there are objections. Thanks. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at that and, while I like some of the content of the first intro, the tone is much too enthusiastic and conceptual. We're looking for something encyclopedic but biased, very Conservapedia style but with a different slant of course. Consolidate at will, I would work on this more but sadly I have English homework to do. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my feeling about it. I have provided a starting point for what I think lines up with exactly how you put it - Encyclopedic, Conservapedia-bias style. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mental instability section

I'm starting to think that the way we're (I'm) doing the mental instability section is actually not appropriate. A true biased fan would not include large sections about these things all underthat heading. He would defend against the accusations, and move on.

A Neverland ranch section would be two things - overly enthusiastic about it (obviously) and lamenting its apparent demise and pleading for saving it as an amusement park. In fact, if Sonje or someone could photochop a pic of a small "SAVE Neverland Ranch!" demonstration, that would be epic funny, I think.

But all of that does not fit under "Allegations of mental instabiltiy". What do you guys think? --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, on second thought, maybe he would spend an inordinate amount of time on this. Being a sort of crusader defending MJ's honor. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We could have this Neverland stuff and possible other notable subjects elaborated on in their own section. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, a short section in the Mental instability section defending it as normal, then a longer section, with the "Save the ranch" theme in its own section? I really like the demonstration picture idea if it can be pulled off. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A man like MJ has some fatal flows, so a defense biased "crusader" must spend an exceptionally long time trying to defend him, IMO SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

rise to fame section

It is short and incoherent, we need a more encyclopedic one, detailing how he managed to become that famous in a short time. Do it quickly, we only have a couple of hours til the end of the phase, right? SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad if it's finished a day too late. It'd still be an immense improvement compared to our Jew colonization. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

if you say so... SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I added some crap to that section was because it was empty. I'm glad it got merged=) it's better than having an empty section.Saberwolf116 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did the MJ Rise to Fame section at the start. The Nostradamus random thing... » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mental Instability

I am finished with this section - please go over it and see if there are any adjustments that should be made. Thanks. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 21:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

maybe you should add a line saying that agenda bla bla, blame his mental instability on his abuse as a child, you know, contradicting themselves an so SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing though

Hyperlinks! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Go go go!!! —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A very tiny link dispute has arisen - to link "world's greatest singer" to Frank Sinatra expressly violates our intent. This is my view. What do you think? --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you add "Chairman of the Board" to the article, you can link it to Frank Sinatra. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not under "world's greatest singer" though. Our character is adamant about Michael being the greatest and would not install irony here. Also, we need a non-red link for "lesser man". The idea is great, but any ideas for a non-red link here? --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's commonly understood in most articles that links are not expressly linked (no pun intended) the the voice of the writing itself. We don't need to make the links go with the view of the writer, whose prose is, at present, admittedly poor, repetitive, and generally unfunny. We might as well add the irony in links to strengthen the article, tie it together, and distract readers from its weak points. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The prose in itself is "unfunny" because the writer is trying to be serious, but the behavior of the writer is where the humor is. I disagree about the common understanding of link usage - I believe the link usage must be consistent in this colonization with the choice of approach that we have made. This author is utterly humorless and would not tell a joke to save his life. And that's funny. I have included actual jokes, but they are statements that the author ostensibly does not realize are jokes. So I say no joke links. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, either we make all the links ironic or we keep them consistent with the article's content. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tom. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Thomas, and most people here don't know my real christian name, so just refer to me as GT or GlobalT or hey, you. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I call you late to dinner? —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you're cooking. I like steak medium rare, so I'll be on time for that. I mean, you don't even have to call me. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Solo career

I think our approach is factual like this, but in every section we need this humorous device: the guy is defensive and effusive, and completely unaware that his defenses are absurd and his effusiveness is unfounded. This section needs to incorporate this motif, and so far it's merely factual. Let's kick it up a notch. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 00:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

ok lets go SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like once again I have put in the framework and now someone else must fill in the funny. Like my alliteration there? No? Mmkay I'll shut up now. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour

The article needs moar lmao-grade homour. Please add moar. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 07:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I can give it a shot I suppose. But you should try yourself Mahm00sha. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 14:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

does random humour work here? If so, i'll give it a try SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

HELL NO! Please for the love of God no random humor. Just give themed humor a shot. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

well, the problem here is that I really don't know anything about Michael Jackson, I am a metalhead not a pophead :) Still, I DID contribute to the concept, the intro and the early days section. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know to much either. Not about his music anyways. I did the final section on his 2009 tour by looking up Wikipedia. Most of what is in there is direct facts, just the defense a bit stronger. It is actually quite an easy theme to contribute to even if you don't know about him. What I suggest though, is you just work on the theme. Don't add any more. But like in the beggining especially make it a bit stronger. Just add a few more phrases and this will really improve itself. And BY THE WAY! I did the entire pedophile section and ending section so don't say I haven't done anything. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope there was no misunderstanding; I didnt say you didnt do anything... I was just claiming my right for a point, saying that I did enough to be counted as a colonizer of MJ =) As for the theme-related lmao-grade humour, I said I couldnt contribute to it because I am not, like, "into the theme", and I thought you could do, but no problem anyway :) SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 17:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it looks great. I'm very happy with it. But we'll see what Pee Review has to say. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SysRq - even if I did write a lot of it myself. I don't think we need "lmao" humor here. The approach is a good one, and the satire is right on. The only really slow section is the "Solo career" section, but I haven't been able to help it, and I don't think it kills the whole article. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List

I just edited the list and gave points to those who participated. If you feel you deserve one for your effort, and have not recieved it, just ask me on my talk page and explain your arguement. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is simply non-uncyclopedic

What Jackson fan re-wrote this crap?

This is the older version that was TOTALLY Uncyclopedia:

linky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.124.161.238 (talk • contribs)

Did you read the article all the way through? I suggest you read it again, and have a bit more of a think about what's going on this time... MrN  Fork you! 10:04, Apr 3

We got one! Feels like a big one, pa! --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

yeah the old one was better this one is like the wiki page sorta

Michael is so sexy..

From switzerland

What is this?

I edited some bits and pieces, but this reads like Wikipedia meets Jackson promo. This needs more giggle-worthy writing.

Allyanncah 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. You will change your mind. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:29, 7 May '09

Feel free to add some giggle worthy things, just keep in mind the slant we're going with is to defend every retarded thing he's ever done as if it's completely normal. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:32, 7 May

Up For Deletion

I laughed harder at cancer than this rubbish. This is UNCYCLOPEDIA, not WIKIPEDIA. The humour presented in this article does not exist! I suggest you edit it within 7 days before I delete it. --92.21.174.14 18:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's cute that you think you can delete it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:26, 20 May

More like outright hilarious! Even if the article isn't laugh-out-loud funny, its talkpage certainly is. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is awful. It goes on to play on the controversies that surrounded Jackson (which is exactly what I expect from an uncyclopedia article), but then goes to defend it. I mean, come on... This is uncyclopedia. It's not made to be taken as seriously as this page is written.

Guess who's dead?

Google it :) 82.28.15.247 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to know that lots of small boys will be going to bed tonight secure in the knowledge that their little ani are safe at last.--TheChurchofScientology 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why's that, are their fathers, brothers and uncle's too emotional? ...77.169.93.128 05:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Chill dude! Go to an MJ fan site and pour out your grief there. Oh better yet, don't. Pup

Don't tell me what to do, and I am NOT ur dude. 77.169.93.128 05:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Excuse my my goo- no that won't work either... Cease Comr- nope, not that... Chill Broth- Nope, can't go there. Aye, don't mash yerself las- no, I don't know what your gender is.\

Okay, Please attempt to get a grip on yourself, you individual of indiscriminate gender. While you have every right to grieve - and in fact 5 out of 6 psychologists say that grieving is an important part of the grieving process - this site is a parody of other sites, including Wikipedia of course, but not limited to. If you feel that you need to express yourself, by all means do so, but out of my concern for your feelings, I would advise - no. I would urge you to find a more sympathetic outlet for your grief. Because frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn. Aah, that worked much better. Pup

I don't care about the fact that he's dead, even freaks die. I care about the fact that he probebly didn't use any ani, but a lot of UK men did or do, you even have special schools for that. Because frankly Sigmund, I couldn't give a damn either.77.169.93.128 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So, when is he expected to rise from his tomb, is it Saturday or Sunday?--TheChurchofScientology 10:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a life and play with your ani. 77.169.93.128 08:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've just been dissed by someone who can't spell, can't read my name, and thinks I'm from a completely different continent. However I'm concerned about UK men not using any ani. I just have to work out what that is. Pup

I think he was using "ani" as the plural for anus. And is concerned about the UK's somwhat laz laws concerning homosexuality. He's just an IP, bless.    Orian57    Talk   10:49 26 June 2009

I should point out that I used 'ani' purely for comic effect, being from the Greek (ironically) it would be anuses. But ani seemed funnier.--TheChurchofScientology 11:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you signed up! Awsome, good to see new users. Ani is a little funnier I suppose. Anyway I hope you settle in and have fun!    Orian57    Talk   11:09 26 June 2009

Hang on, is COS and 77.169.93.128 the same or not... Puppy is all confusled now... Pup

Famous pop star and singer Michael Jackson has died. The tragic event was furtherly explained by a close fan

Who cares if MJ is dead? Go ride his dead cock, you necrophile fanboys Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:57 June 26 '09

Ummm... if you didn't, then why are you here? Pup

I see dead paedophiles!

Maybe because it's on my watchlist?.. I (regretfully) participated in its IC rewrite... Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:22 June 27 '09

Really - so this has popped up in your watchlist about 503 times over the past few days. Poor you.

Although I'll go back to the point I was making - there really should be an antiundisambiguation page for MJ - One for the young black Motown singer with promise who was part of the Jackson 5, and the other for an older white guy who created generic pop and passed away recently... Pup

Dude! Didn't you read the article? The black dude had somekind of disease which turned him into that white dude! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I did, but whenever people support MJ against the later years allegations they say "Look at his earlier work." as though he was two different people. To be serious for 0.35 seconds, he has an amazing dichotomy and an ability to polarise people. Personally, his music has never influenced me and I haven't been affected by his actions, but I love to throw his name about and see how people react to him so dramatically. Going back to HTBFANJS for a second, Uncyclopedia is described as a satire and compared to Jon Stewart on Stephen Colbert, who while they are doing a parody they are also making you look at a real issue and say "Hang on a second, we are somewhat fouled up on our approach on this." MJ is another example of where we should be striving for a true satirical piece that makes people stop and think "Yeah, as a society we do act that way."

Of course if it doesn't happen I'm not going to be upset. I just don't want you saying "Hey, we colonised this and put effort into it so we're not letting anyone change it." without at least giving a nod toward thinking. Pup

Ow, serious hurts my head

MICHAEL JACKSON IS DEAD

He's dead. Ldude893 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

MICHAEL JACKSON DIED 3 HOURS AGO (as of Thursday 24th June 2009 at 23:40pm) FROM A HEART ATTACK, THIS IS NOT A LIE!!!

I'd still love to do this as a split article - one on MJ as a young performer up until Thriller, and the a second article about the white performer but the same name and the accusations of paedophilia and his marriage to Lisa-Maree. teeheehee - I mistyped marriage and right clicked on it to give alternate spellings and must have just missed the word as it came up with "udno" as the first option... teeheehee... divorce through right click. Of course it would be tastefully done and with no bias whatsoever. teeheehee. As everyone knows I'm far above juvenile humor. Pup

Because of his death...his name should be censored for the moment.MrCleveland 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of his death, the article is protected so only sysops can edit it. I'd be tempted to delete the part about 'W00t he's dead' otherwise...and make it about how he wasn't really dead but aliens abducted him, or he was replaced by a double and is hiding out somewhere - something similar to the Elvis is alive theories. Besides, that part at the beginning doesn't even fit with the point of view of the rest of the article..see colonization notes below.-- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

MICHAEL JACKSON IS DEAD

Michael Jackson is dead! Someone do something about it! Like moonwalking! 192.12.88.7 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson died

I herd he liekz mudkipz

Michael Jackson kicked the bucket!

Oh. Really?

Michael Jackson is dead!

OK, OK! We get the point! So he's kaput. Go and take a long walk off a short pier! 192.12.88.7 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some shite about conversion to Islam

• Nothing mentioned about him converting to Islam. --Dadadudi 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

he did not convert, one of his brothers did SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 06:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Back in the day..

..when Kennedy was assassinated, there was no such fuss about his death on the internets... Good ol' days Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 21:14 June 26 '09

Only cuz the internet wasn't in existence yet...anyone remember Gopher and Electronic BBS systems? You can bet it wouldve been all over anything that carried news in any form. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Al Gore invented the internets in 1945. Kennedy was skullfucked in 196something. There WAS an internets. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 21:30 June 26 '09

You're both wrong. Go onto google and search for "JFK assassination" and tell me how mnay hits you get... Pup

Actually I think moosh is half right, the internet existed at the time of the kenedy assisination, it was a militery thing, though, so it wasn't like it is now, nor was it available to the public. I could check my facts but I can't be fuched.    Orian57    Talk   21:51 27 June 2009

mumble mumble... yeah, the military would have done nothing about the Kennedy assassination... mumble mumble... not even going to do a full signature now... mumble mumble POTR... mumble

The American militery is a joke anyway. In fact the whole country is.    Orian57    Talk   21:57 27 June 2009

The military ? Maybe not.. The whole country? Yes... Michael Jackson? HELL YEA Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 22:01 June 27 '09

Michael Jackson to American military... Oh, I see the link now... obvious... Pup

We may be better off protecting this again...

As it's taken all of about 5 seconds for it to be vandalised 2 or 3 times (didn't bother checking all the intermediate stuff.) I think the article as it stands holds well so might be better off protected from here for at least a month and stopping the vandalism, and then have a look at it again then. Pup

I must tell you something. This is UNcyclopedia, and not Wikipedia!!! So YOU are the only one which are doing vandalizm!! :( 'NEVER WRITE THE TRUTH ON UNCYCLOPEDIA!!! Saccio102 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of re-protecting it for a month. Subtle humor is apparently totally lost on some people, who then insist on inserting something coarse, blunt and otherwise grotesque. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

08:39, 3 July 2009 MrN9000 (Talk | contribs | block) m (16,626 bytes) (Protected "Michael Jackson": Too many people want to vandalise this right now. Create an account if you want to edit it. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 08:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 08:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)))) (undo)

Get with the times man! Also, the page history. ;) MrN  Fork you! 23:59, Jul 6

I was actually trying to suggest a complete protection, as there are some people who believe that Uncyclopedia means that being coarse and blunt is the ideal, rather than the extreme. But as long as you're happy to keep jumping in and reverting, I'm happy. After all, one of the first things that in says in HTBFANJS which I'm sure we've all read is that the truth is often funnier than fiction. Pup 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Protecting this page would not stop that happening. When there is LOADS of vandalism then semi-protection can help, but... It's a wiki. People will edit it. Probably what we need is some kinda template up the top of this article informing the readers that "it's a joke" you plonkers? Well, maybe not worded like that... ;-) MrN  Fork you! 15:17, Jul 9

I heard a rumour

I heard a rumour the other day that Michael Jackson may be dead. Pup 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, had to do it once

He's dead, he's dead; he's dead - no he's not. He's just rehearsing and "getting into character" for revisions of Thriller and Ghost for a future performance. I'm betting it'll be out of this world :P 60.49.156.38 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

N00bs... *sigh* Griddles 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

drug use

I've done what I can to keep it within the existing tone of the article, and it means that it's acknowledged and defended along with the rest. Majority rules on that one. Pup 04:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) edit #1002

Remember

My friend lest us remember micheal jackson cus he knew how to beat it! GET IT BEAT!?!?!?!? HAAAA im a bitch

Bubbles

Can anyone edit the article so it says under 'Bubbles', "Michael Jackson invented the song 'For ever blowing bubbles' after his experiences with his pet" ? Just a suggestion. (Earl of Sheffield 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like something could be done to me! If you wait... I think it's 4 days, you will be able to edit this page yourself. Enjoy. MrN  Fork you! 21:34, Aug 9

The article sounds too "true"

And I thought this was Uncyclopedia. Where's the satire here? --70.179.162.64 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

read the rest of this talk page Pup t 13:45, 15/08/2009

Enough BS

Cut the BS already. He's dead. Big Deal. Does that mean that we should stop being funny and be stupid? Oh, look at what I read below "Please read the Beginner's Guide, and please be funny and not just stupid" I understand that many of you love MJ, however if you really want to write such an article, got at Wikipedia or at his page at wikia.com (if he even has one). So stop being stupid and try to make this article funny. Michael Jackson's article is no different from any of the other ones here. --TheTrueTruth 18:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading your "improvements" to this page, like, his hits were "Thriller" and "Pedo," I determined you must be only about nine or ten years old. And when a kid crashes a car into a tree, you don't blame the kid, you blame the parents who said, "Ya kid, go drive that car, I trust you." Therefore, I would like a word with your mommy.    Tagstit    talk    contribs    awards   18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is BullShit. What the hell are you doing with this article? Is this supposed to be on Uncyclopedia? You guys disgust me. Only because you were his fans, you are completely ruining the concept of Uncyclopedia and turning it into a Michael Jackson fanboy-pedia. Biggest disappointment was the admin. How can an admin behave like that? What kind of an admin goes against his own website just because he's an MJ fan? WHAT THE HELL?! Michael Jackson is not the only famous person who's dead. Does that mean that I can go on and screw up all the other articles just because there's some dead person I admire? Let me go to the scientology page and remove http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Chef-hayes.gif. Why? Because it's Isaac Hayes, he's dead right? But I'm not. Why? Because it's part of the fun of the article. So please why don't you stop being such pathetic fanboys and think about your website first, cause this article is the WORST article I've ever seen here, and it's not Funny, nor semi-funny nor any funny whatsoever. --Iamright 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here "loves MJ". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Learn the following words: subtlety; satire; irony. Now read the article again. What were you expecting, "lol omg MJ is teh pedofiles!!!11oneoneone"? --UU - natter 10:10, Aug 25

Our Paedophile article might be more to your taste. MrN  Fork you! 15:01, Aug 25

I love him. :-( -- Roman Dog Bird!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 04:01, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Then go have sex with his corpse. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:35, 15 September 2009

stop.......stop making me horny —RomanDogBird (Talk•Morgan Freeman•eat my shorts nigga•Hawkman•suck my balls) 04:38, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. This article has been co-opted by revisionist fans who would like to gloss over the most comedicly valid aspects of this weirdo's life! WE GET IT, YOU LOVE HIM! Go make objective and informative articles in some other venue! REVERANCE HAS NO PLACE ON UNCYCLOPEDIA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.225.48.167 (talk • contribs)

Yeah! The above IP is right! I'm a huge fan of the above IP, he is the greatest uncyclopedia commenter in the history of the wiki. In fact, he's known as the King of IPs. And it's all of the agenda-driven detractors that want to take him down that really upset me. He is being accused of not reading the article carefully enough, and at the same time he is accused of not understanding subtle satire. Well, which is it? The truth is, you can't have it both ways. Make up your mind if you are going to attack someone. Also, I have heard others make accusations of an inability to spell. Well, a lot of people can't spell "reverence", and many others don't bother looking at the spell-check red underscore to double-check their spelling. But he is the only one that gets strung up for it out of jealousy, because he is the most talented, greatest IP comment poster ever! -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 00:08, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

The Return of The King

Hope I didn't screw up the article, but there have been real reports of MJ being seen after death, a homicide investigation and his being seen after death really were predicted, and he really is the son of Joseph. So I added this section. In the section before, I changed his death due to cardiac arrest to it was reported that way and is alleged. There is a real investigation into homicide. Also I'm part of IC, which gives me Her Majesty's right to mess with this article. -- Binky The WonderSkull 18:30, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with it. (Also part of IC, but have more of an Her Majesty's left leaning.) I don't know that the intermittens bit really adds much to it humour wise. But isn't it a pain that we have to justify what we do to an uncyclopedia article by pointing out that it is factual? Pup t 23:56, 5/09/2009

Problem

This page has way too much real information for Uncyclopedia. Someone please get an Oscar Wilde quote ready and Photoshop a picture of him with Kanye West!

Flawed

This article is flawed. Little sheer humor and a lot, a LOT of bias. One of the worst articles on Uncyclopedia. Needs a major rewrite. It's got a few funny things here and there, but overall it sucks.--AnotherD++ 20:11, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well done for completely missing the point. Seriously. It was rewritten... Read the "bias" again, you might spot it makes a mockery of itself? Welcome to the wonderful world of subtlety, D++. --UU - natter 21:33, Jan 7

You're right.--AnotherD++ 22:12, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Completely original humour

Michael Jackson touched me he made me play games like "find me willy" and "lets moonwalk to your bed."We play peek a boo when he inserted his plastic dick into my tight little butthole. I would scream but nobody would help me and when he was caught he didnt even get in trouble. He would tell me to not tell anyone about his little games and he might let me go sometime. I think they need to melt down the plastic in him to legos so kids can play with him for a change. Whats the differences between mj and a grocery bag ones made of plastic and dangerous to children and the other carrys grocerys. fuck mj by Sterling G

Truly hilarious. You are the first person ever to make these astoundingly original jokes. I may never recover from the hilarity. --UU - natter 16:36, Feb 17

Something new should be added

I made a new article making a fake song, I Love Little Boys, by MJ, and I think it, along with other fake songs, should be added to the article to make it funnier... ChLaMa123

You mean this article hasn't been subtle enough about paedophilia? You're right! SEND IN MORE KIDDIE FIDDLER JOKES!!!!!! --nldr 02:57, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

The article is funny but the drug use part simply kills it. Damn: the guy's autopsy report confirmed there was no trace/sign of drug abuse and that he was clean and died of medical negligence (Dr. Murray administered 40x more Propofol than he should have). When there's an Official Coroner's autopsy report all over the internet claiming he was NOT a drug addict, it's stupid to mention drug use. Otherwise, the article's "funny credibility" will be lost. Aside from that, the article is great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.243.248.42 (talk • contribs)

Here's a fun fact: "The Jackson 5" which MJ was a part of in his younger years is translated to "Akautski" in Japanese.

Enough Naruto already. That show is so 2006, and it should stay so.

Am I interpreting this article the wrong way?

People have said that the humor of the Michael Jackson article comes from the fact that it sounds like it was written by his biggest fans. I thought it was funny because it makes fun of how the media has overreacted to what he's done. I'm thinking about this the wrong way, aren't I? 71.59.25.219 23:54, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you find it amusing, what does it matter why, in the end? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101030 - 23:59 (UTC)

Guys

Maybe it's because I didn't read this article when it was a mess but now.. now it's funny. It's really funny. It's so declious in subtle mockery it's wonderful. I find the Wikipedia article feel in it so great, it fits in the tone. My one complaint is that the subtle mockery may be too subtle, but it's still there, and I laughed a lot. Maybe Uncyclopedia is still classy somewhat?

Not funny

Cmon dudes, add some jokes or something, like about his being a black man, or the funny AAOOO! sound he makes, it looks more like the actual article.

HEE HEEEEEEE!!!!!!! --Roman Dog Bird 03:39, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Um, as a rabid MJ fan, I find it to be not too uncyclopedia standards, but I am just too sick and tired of people hating! Plus it isn't AAOOO! It's WHOOOOO! Plus he had vilitigito (lol can't spell) I don't remember faking his own death things in there I might add that though. (like the video of him jumping out of the coroners van even though it was fake)--Acyoshi 01:07, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Category add

Please add Michael Jackson to the following category (whoever can edit it -- I can't because I'm an "Anonymous Coward"): \[\[Category:Billionaires\]\]

Thanks. This site rules! I just can't stop laughing at just about every article (so it's difficult to read more than one each day).

Comment

This whole article is far too subtle to be funny. My usual rule of thumb is; if you have to think too long about it, it's not funny. I appreciate someone took a long time to write it. It is evident by the way the author approached humour as an academic device. I feel that most people on this talk page has a fear of causing offense if someone fundamentally changes it. Many articles on Uncyclopedia are written in a slapstick, sarcastic and dark humoured way. Having to take on board that the author is 'serious' about what they write on Michael Jackson in this article is a departure from the style of approximately 99% of Uncyclopedia. Although this page could be made about 70% better, this Michael Jackson page seems more true to Uncyclopedia. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&oldid=3509627 .--Olliewasabi (talk) 23:51, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

It is a featured article (check the corner stamp) which means that it can only be edited to correct typos or add some relevant detail (i.e. that MJ is now dead for example). The range of humour/humor here does embrace a wide breadth of subjects and ideas. Some articles are indeed written in a 'slapstick' way but others are very different. You are welcome to write or edit to improve articles here but as I said. featured articles are protected from drastic changes. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 19:12, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

Millinillion!

I just love this word milinillion! Or millinillion?? However it is (un)spelled, the usage of this gem of a (non)word really does it for me! Nomine Ex Nihilo (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)