Talk:Michael Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Michael Jackson.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should the article mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim? (No.)
A1: No. The article should not mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim. Jackson had not publicly spoken about his exact religion in a number of years and only spoke about spirituality in general terms. The specific reports of a conversion ceremony for Jackson have been denied by his New York lawyer Londell McMillan.[1] They were also denied by Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens[2] and Dawud Wharnsby[3] who were allegedly present at the ceremony. The Michael Jackson memorial service did not involve any Islamic rites. Without further details from his family or representatives, it will not be included in the article.
Q2: Should the "Jacko" nickname be mentioned in the lead? (No.)
A3: No. The "Jacko" nickname should not be mentioned in the lead. Past consensus goes against such inclusion. The name is a derogatory term used primarily by US/UK/Australian tabloids. The slogan is discussed in the relevant section of the article.
Q3: Should the article mention that Jackson made up the "King of Pop" nickname himself? (No.)
A5: No. Reports started referring to the nickname as "self-proclaimed" after a controversy over the marketing of the "Black or White" video in 1991. References to Jackson as a king of pop, or other music, appeared up to 7 years before that in non-promotional articles. You would need to come up with a reference (such as an admission from one of Jackson's publicists) that he requested the use of the nickname before reporters are known to have started using it.
Q4: Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer/blindness/liver disease/AIDS, etc.? (No.)
A6: No. The article should not mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer, blindness, liver disease, AIDS, etc. Until such claims are confirmed by a Jackson representative it will not go in the article at all. These claims are largely fabricated by tabloids.
Q5: Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had a secret child called Omer Bhatti? (No.)
A7: No. This claim was denied by Bhatti [4] and only a DNA test would resolve the matter.
Q6: Isn't Jackson the seventh child of the Jackson family, not the eighth? (No.)
A8: No. Marlon had a twin, Brandon, who died shortly after birth. This makes Michael the eighth child.
Featured articleMichael Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2010.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 25, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 22, 2004, and June 25, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Request for comments on restructuring the article[edit]

When considering the arguments presented and how they related to the polices and guidelines referenced, there is clear consensus against a single top-level section for the child abuse-related content, a (weaker) consensus against a dedicated section at a lower level and a corresponding rough consensus (albeit not the strongest) in favour of a structure that keeps the allegations in context with his life and career at the time. This should explicitly not be taken as a consensus against any changes to the article structure, merely against the specific changes mentioned. The comments referencing WP:NPOV and WP:CSECTION are particularly relevant and comments about disjointed flow are also worth noting. There were also far too many comments in this discussion that were focused on the editor making arguments (especially but not exclusively directed against Flyer22 Reborn) rather than on the content of those arugments that were not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article be restructured to group information about allegations of and charges for sexual abuse under one top level section? It is currently scattered through the article. Oska (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of the existing discussion above under heading "Top level section on allegations of and charges for sexual abuse/crimes?" Oska (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This RfC was re-opened. See the #RFC reopened section below for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support new top level section for these allegations, consistent with other biographies of famous people who have had allegations made (some proven some not yet) against them.Polyamorph (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable to detail all the allegations in one place, as it's one of the main things he is known for. The challenge will be how to avoid making the article too long and repetitive. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No that would be the opposite of what we should do and may cause the article to loos its FA status if we don't follow WP:STRUCTURE. (English Wikipedia policy.).."Folding debates into the narrative" is what we are looking for.--Moxy (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Even if brief there has to be a section on them. There have also been allegations which are lesser kown. See Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. deisenbe (talk)
  • Comment we have to ask ourselves whether this would be undue negative weight. I'm not sure what to say there at the moment. Maybe the answer will come to me later with some further thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If someone's willing to do, go for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The material is currently arbitrarily scattered around, partially under headings that don't mention the issue at all, and thus nearly inaccessible to most readers, who almost never read the article from start to finish. For example, Leaving Neverland and its impact are mentioned under the heading "Aftermath" which otherwise covers Jackson's will and a statue (without mentioning that it was removed in response to Leaving Neverland), complete with a particularly offensive (given the context) illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb on the first anniversary of his death". The abuse allegations are also linked to each other both chronologically and otherwise (for example Safechuck was identified as a victim by several witnesses already back in 1993), so chronologically it would be much better to cover them in the same top-level section than to cover some of the allegations in a section on his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley and some of them in a section on "Fan Tributes"(!) after his death. The abuse controversy has become so extensive that it needs its own section in order to remain accessible to readers; it's simply too unwieldy to be scattered around in other sections on "Fan Tributes"(!). 80% of the current readers come here specifically looking for material on the sexual abuse controversy, and most of them probably leave mostly empty-handed due to the article's confusing treatment of this issue where the material is notoriously hard to find. One well-structured section is also the same solution as the one found in Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein and all other comparable articles where the subject is also widely known for sexual abuse allegations. In general this article is very badly structured and in dire need of improvement, and partially comes across as fancruft for some of the reasons mentioned above. --Tataral (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Best we follow WP:STRUCTURE . "material is currently scattered around" meaning they are in the historical order as is preferred. Section making for one topic is the exact opposite of what we should be doing WP:STRUCTURE. Hopefully the closer will see policy bases arguments over "look what the other article has" . To pass FA review years ago we had to incorporate the sex scandal. -- Moxy (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we need to follow WP:STRUCTURE and thus do something with the current structure. This article can't be frozen the way it was "years ago" without taking into account recent developments. In fact it would be beneficial for the quality of this article to lose its FA status and go through the process again. Much has changed since last time, and more editors are also likely to take an interest in the article. Do you believe that the article's current treatment of Leaving Neverland and its impact (complete with its illustration of "Fan Tributes" and a heading that makes the material impossible to find) is appropriate? --Tataral (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes the article should be updated in the time line section that is already there.. Adding a section for it is simply undue...especially when the sources are made up of media crap. As per WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure"....one of our oldest policies. So far we have "I like it" and " look at the other article" votes vs the oldtimer pointing to a policy as to why don't do this....and how our FA articles are structured.--Moxy (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. We have thousands of very high-quality reliable sources discussing the new documentary on Jackson and its implications, and there is near-universal agreement among reliable sources that this is an important issue with profound implications for the assessment of Jackson, but you regard it as simply "media crap." I hope the closer will base her or his decision on Wikipedia policy such as WP:RS rather than fandom-based comments about RS being "media crap." The comment also hightlights why this article needs improvement and probably should lose its FA status until it is improved. Also, for the record, you haven't pointed to any "policy as to why don't do this" (only your dubious personal interpretation of a policy), and you being an "oldtimer" is not a valid argument (I've been a Wikipedian for a decade too, but that is not something I believe is a strong argument in a content discussion). --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok perhaps I am not being clear ...or the RfC is not clear. What I see being asked it to pull out all the controversy stuff from the article and make a new section with it and title that section in a non neutral manner....or make a section based on click bait media for a new controversy. So what our policy say is that stuff of this nature should not be cherry picked out of the article and a section made form it. It should be in the normal pros of the article. I have no problem using the media crap till we have real source that cover this in depth. I do have a problem making a new controversy section based on click bait media .....lets just add the stuff to the article. --Moxy (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not a question of pulling "all the controversy stuff", only the material specifically about sexual abuse, clearly a separate topic, in order to present it in a coherent and accessible manner, as also discussed above. I do not understand the comment about "click bait media"; that is quite frankly a very offensive comment if you are referring to the discussion centered on Leaving Neverland. --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Highlighting material specifically about sexual abuse 'allegations is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery."----Moxy (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's your proposal to bury it that is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. And just for the record: This is the kind of sources that you describe as "click bait media"; I think anyone can see that your description of those sources is without any merit whatsoever. Quite a number of very high-quality RS now also focus on the reaction online by Jackson superfans (including their "shouting down news outlets") as a phenomenon that is itself worthy of coverage in this saga, and that we in time will probably add to this article. --Tataral (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
What I am saying is we should not have a section that "highlights allegations" based on daily coverage of a an ongoing topic. Just add it to the timeline. Pls try and address the policies being shown...forget the sources (not in the policies being discussed)....we all agree they are good enough for inclusion...I just think is a bad idea to bases a section on daily coverage media......I am sure all understand the difference between journalism and reporting. WP:BALASP "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The sexual abuse issue is not a "minor aspect" of Jackson, as demonstrated by the fact that is has received more coverage in RS than any other aspect of Michael Jackson during the past decade. Sexual abuse is not a "minor aspect" of Jimmy Savile either. --Tataral (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
OK this is not productive....I quote policy and you give a POV. What policy do you belive merits inclusion of a sex allegation section? --Moxy (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You haven't quoted a policy in a way that advances your argument. It appears that there is near-unanimous support here for the proposed chapter restructuring. We'll leave it at that. --Tataral (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Tataral, the sexual abuse allegations are a major aspect of Jackson, this is fact not POV, backed up by extensive long-lasting coverage. Per WP:BALASP, the allegations must be covered extensively otherwise this article will be whitewashing the facts.Polyamorph (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The abuse allegations are not being given due weight and are not coherently presented. Fences&Windows 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I was surprised by the fact that, until two days ago, there was no mention in the lede as regards recent events in relation to the sexual abuse allegations. Yes, the past trials were mentioned, but now we have a new huge wave of negative news about Jackson, which were either underanalyzed or scattered around. Wether the editors of the article like it or not, Michael Jackson has at the time become more infamous due to the sexual abuse allegations than famous because of his music. Music stations around the world stop playing his songs, and almost all the (contunuous) media reports about him have to do with the sexual scandal. Therefore, it is inconceivable for me to argue that the current status of the article is satisfactory. Due weight should be given to the sexual abuse allegations with (a) an extensive and coherent paragraph in the lede, and (b) a seperate section focused on the matter, which, ideally, should be the synopsis of a separate coheherent and comprehensive thematic article.Yannismarou (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious work as it reframes the whole existance of Jackson, it is now the defining feature of his life. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The material is not scattered throughout the article. That is a non-neutral statement by the RfC. Like I argued above, this article, like other musician articles on Wikipedia, are set up with the album or song titles in the headings. For musician articles, we stay away from having controversy sections and instead keep the material aligned with the career aspects that coincided with the controversy. We also often do this for other types of biography articles. The Wikipedia:Criticism essay focuses on why having such a section is often not the best route. The article has been set up this way for years with no problem. The article already identifies the child sexual abuse content with headings. Before Leaving Neverland became the focus, we never got any complaints about the child sexual abuse material being hard to locate. The only reason there is a complaint now is because the Leaving Neverland content is currently in the Aftermath section, where many readers will use common sense to suspect that the content is there anyway. And a heading for the content can be easily added to it without restructuring this article so that all of the child sexual abuse material is in one section that will be constantly targeted and risks growing out of control. It is not like a lot about the Leaving Neverland documentary needs to be in this article. It has its own article. So, per WP:Summary style, all it needs is a paragraph, which it currently has. All of this restructuring talk is because of the Leaving Neverland documentary that doesn't even need much space in this article. Definitely a case of WP:Recentism to ask that we move this article away from a structure that has worked for it for years just to highlight Leaving Neverland. And as for those sex offender articles, most of those men were convicted. And there is a difference between WP:Featured articles and articles that are not WP:Featured and aren't even WP:Good articles. On a side note: I'll alert related WikiProjects and the WP:BLP and WP:STRUCTURE talk pages to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
> On a side note: I'll alert related WikiProjects and the WP:BLP and WP:STRUCTURE talk pages to this RfC.
Why BLP? This is not a biography of a living person. Oska (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oska:, even a non-BLP article can have implications for people still alive like (in this case) the victims. @Flyer22 Reborn:, there are many different structures permissible, and in fact WP:STRUCTURE makes this explicit. As you're aware, it's largely a matter of balance. The chronology approach works for some articles, and others demand a different approach. This one currently has a mix of (mainly) chronology (though as I highlighted and fixed a while ago, there used to be two sections on his death in the chronology), and some non-chrono sections. This has, as you point out, worked for a good while here. As the nature of our understanding of Jackson's life evolves, the article structure has to evolve too though. I wasn't totally happy with @Tataral:'s good-faith attempt to reorganize the article, as I felt the child abuse section was awkwardly placed. However, I do think our understanding has evolved, and while the recent documentary has catalyzed this, it isn't recentism to point out that Jackson may now be known primarily as a child abuser rather than as an artist. However unpalatable this may be to his fans, that seems to be the way perception is shifting. I think it's more a question of how we reorganize the article to reflect this, rather than whether we do it. Appeals to policy and MoS pages, or to the article's (slightly stale) FA status, or to longstanding consensus, or worse recentism, should be set aside. Instead we need someone skilled in these things to look with fresh eyes at the coverage of Jackson over (say) the last five years and measure how the perception of Jackson has changed. Because that, rather than the feelings of editors one way or the other, is how we decide NPOV here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and Flyer22 Reborn, you are factually mistaken in stating ...Leaving Neverland documentary needs to be in this article ... has its own article. So, per WP:Summary style, all it needs is a paragraph, which it currently has. It currently has three sentences, or one half of a paragraph. I'm not especially arguing it should get more or less than that, but let's be accurate on where we are right now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oska, I alerted WP:BLP per what MarchOrDie stated. MarchOrDie, I don't agree that we should give the child sexual abuse content its own section to highlight Leaving Neverland. And three sentences is a paragraph, just like single-sentence paragraphs exist and are discouraged on Wikipedia. More can obviously be added on Leaving Neverland. As for "Jackson may now be known primarily as a child abuser rather than as an artist," we need WP:Reliable sources for that. We can't go on assumptions, and especially not solely because of the impact of this documentary. Like I've stated before, there is no deadline. We can wait and see how this develops; that is part of what is meant by WP:Recentism. And we don't define what is neutral via our own POV. We go by what the WP:NPOV policy states. I have no idea what you mean by "someone skilled in these things." Moxy, for example, is skilled with our polices and guidelines; Moxy has contributed to enough of them. And Moxy has experience with featured articles. SNUGGUMS is skilled with what it takes to write a good or featured article. As for death mentions, what "two sections on his death" are you referring to as having been in the article? In the review section, I know you stated that the article twice stated that he died. You mentioned nothing about redundant sections.
No need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the relevant diff. Jackson used to die twice in the chronological section of this Featured Article. Once just before a sold out tour: Less than three weeks before the first show was due to begin in London, with all concerts sold out, Jackson died after suffering cardiac arrest, with the truly delicious Some time before his death, it was reported that he was starting a clothing line with Christian Audigier. Cause and effect, presumably? Then we had a few sentences on posthumous releases, then he died again in a standalone section on his death, starting On June 25, 2009, Jackson stopped breathing while attempting to sleep under the care of Conrad Murray, his personal physician. It's less than two weeks ago. Don't you remember? --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The material is scattered throughout the article as observed by many editors, and that is an objective fact and a neutral statement. Several editors have told you that this whole "musician" argument is nonsense. He isn't exempt from adequate coverage of sexual abuse (for which he is just as well known) just because he happens to also be a musician. Sexual abuse is not subordinate to his songs and his music. And the fact that this largely fan-written article has been a certain way "for years" isn't a reason not to update it now that Jackson is assessed very differently by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources – just like the fact that Jimmy Savile's article had been a certain way "for years" (when it was written by people who only knew him as a DJ) wouldn't have been a reason to ignore the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. --Tataral (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The material is in the relevant sections. And (with the exception of the Leaving Neverland material) has been for years with no issue. Many editors haven't stated that it's scattered. Neither have "several editors [told me] that this whole 'musician' argument is nonsense." This is because nowhere have I argued that Jackson is "exempt from adequate coverage of sexual abuse (for which he is just as well known) just because he happens to also be a musician." The child sexual abuse content is already in this article. Why are you acting like the Leaving Neverland material needs a lot of space in this article? As for the rest, I've addressed you on all of that. You calling this a "largely fan-written article" is a weak argument. I suggest you take the time to look at those similar articles you argued with Moxy about. They are written just like this one, and not because the editors are fans. If you have a problem with this style, I suggest you take it up with the broader community. But, really, you just want the child sexual abuse material to be as prominent as the material about Jackson's successes, at the expense of WP:Due. You've brought up Savile yet again, despite the fact that I've stated that there is a "joint report by the NSPCC and Metropolitan Police, Giving Victims a Voice, [that states] that 450 people had made complaints against Savile, with the period of alleged abuse stretching from 1955 to 2009 and the ages of the complainants at the time of the assaults ranging from 8 to 47." There are other matters documenting his abuse as well. With Jackson, we have the FBI investigation not deeming him a child sexual abuser (although one can argue that the investigation failed victims), and we have an acquittal, and a documentary. To repeat, that is a significant difference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I've already demonstrated exactly how much space I believe Leaving Neverland and its impact need in the article, namely a brief section on the renewed allegations, Leaving Neverland and its impact, a section that you deleted in favour of a section with the nonsensical title "Aftermath" (so that nobody will ever find the material) dealing with Jackson's will, a statue in his honour (conspicuously omitting that it was removed in response to Leaving Neverland) and complete with a very tasteless (given the context) illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb," and with no coverage whatsoever of the 2019 backlash against Jackson. There is no reason for you to pretend that I've ever advocated that Leaving Neverland should dominate the article in an undue manner. The article includes enormous amounts of material on his musical accomplishments and enormous amounts of praise, and there has been no proposal to remove that from anyone here as far as I can tell. You, on the other hand, are the editor who have made multiple edits that have more or less removed any meaningful mention of Leaving Neverland from the article, and multiple editors here on this talk page feel the article is being whitewashed and sexual abuse downplayed. --Tataral (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about. And you keep misrepresenting matters, such as your statement that "multiple editors here on this talk page feel the article is being whitewashed." Best that I don't even talk to you further. Per what I stated below in this section about your accusation toward me, you should be careful with that. Your reconstructing argument is weak; I've already noted that giving "Leaving Neverland" a subheading solves the issue of readers not being able to easily locate the material, although many will no doubt have the good sense to check the Aftermath section for that material anyway. I've noted that I have no issue with more on the documentary being added to the article. I have no issue with some 2019 coverage of the backlash against Jackson because of the documentary being added to the article. But none of that is enough for you...for obvious reasons. You stated, "The article includes enormous amounts of material on his musical accomplishments and enormous amounts of praise, and there has been no proposal to remove that from anyone here as far as I can tell." The #Needs review section, where you weighed in with silly demotion rationales, shows differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I've not "weighed in with silly demotion rationales" anywhere. However it is correct that I weighed in in that debate after I wrote the comment you are referring to, and after changing my opinion on that based on comments by other editors in that debate and after looking more closely at parts of the article identified as problematic. --Tataral (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You've indeed weighed in with silly demotion rationales. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The way the bio is currently structured, with the "1993-1994" and "2002-2005", did anything else happen to him during those years? (Obviously the marriage to Presley) It is odd that 5ish years of his life are titled under the allegations which had seemingly zero direct impact on his career at that point. That tells me that these are ripe to be moved to their own section regarding his personal life (as we normally separate career and personal life unless those are too intertwined to do so). As this is definitely no longer a BLP, grouping information related to the various child sexual abuse pieces to a latter section seems fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I observe that Flyer22 Reborn has now mentioned this RfC in the following places:
  • Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
  • Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
I note that Flyer22 Reborn didn't see fit to include in this fairly long list any place that deals with sexual abuse. Also, given Janet Jackson's prominent defence of her brother Michael, the mention of it on that project page could be perceived as wandering somewhat in the direction of canvassing. Oska (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Note whatever, but look at the WikiProjects this article is tagged with. I notified the most relevant ones. There was no need to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject California, for example. But feel free to contact them. And I decided not to post at the ones that are noted as semi-active. This article is not tagged with WP:SEX. And WP:SEX is barely active. I should know, since I am the main editor of sexual topic articles on Wikipedia. And per WP:Canvassing, there was no canvassing violation by me contacting the pages I contacted. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson is related. Yes, it should be contacted. Not that it's very active anyway. If you think that there is some Wikipedia page about sexuality that can be contacted to help out with this dispute, go contact it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I would hope that you understand the difference between sex/sexuality (all that you talked about in your reply above) and sexual abuse. It would be bizarre to post this to any sexuality page. Oska (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Ummmm, yeah, I have a clue on what sexual abuse is. "WP:SEX" is short for "WikiProject Sexology and sexuality." It covers all human sexuality topics, including human sexual behavior such as child sexual abuse and statutory rape, and mental disorders like pedophilia, which is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, which was recently suggested for a merge, is a subset of WP:SEX. Also read up on what sexology is. To repeat, if you think that there is some Wikipedia page about sexuality that can be contacted to help out with this dispute, go contact it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
My thinking is that it is best to draw attention to the RfC in more general ways, to better ensure neutrality of participants, rather than scattering it around more narrowly selected talk and project pages. Listing it under rfc:bio seemed eminently neutral to me. I perhaps should have listed it under rfc:soc as well. Oska (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I note that people have raised concerns over how you publicise rfcs before. See User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn#Your_RfC_notices. --Oska (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Contacting relevant WikiProjects is just as valid. I often do this for RfCs, especially if I started the RfC. If it's an RfC on a medical topic, contacting WP:Med is valid. They have more knowledge on medical topics. That laypeople, with their often uniformed views on medical issues, might feel that it's biased that WP:Med was contacted doesn't matter; it's not a solid reason to not contact WP:Med. That you are claiming that neutrality is better attained by not contacting people who may have more experience on biography matters and similar is ludicrous. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC states, "After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, by editors that watch the RfC lists, and by some editors subscribed to the Feedback Request Service (FRS), who will be automatically notified by Legobot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous, noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard, talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, talk pages of closely related articles or policies." As for that discussion on my talk page, that was because I was notifying a number of unrelated WikiProjects to draw them to policy or guideline matters. The ones I notified above are all related/all present at the top of this talk page and were contacted about an article. And not everyone agreed with those two editors about how I publicized RfCs, which indeed brought in a lot more people in. One in that very section clearly disagreed with those two editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this looks like unacceptable canvassing, particularly given the odd selection of venues of practically no relevance to the discussion we are having here on sexual abuse. It looks more like an attempt to mobilize ardent Jackson fans (what on earth has Janet Jackson got to do with this discussion?), as we also see elsewhere on the Internet right now. --Tataral (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If you do not stop your nonsense, I will report you at WP:ANI. To repeat, I am not a Jackson fan. I would state more about why I am not, but Wikipedia is not a forum and I think the implication as to why I am not a Jackson fan is clear from what I stated on my talk page...and from my reputation on child sexual abuse and pedophilia issues here at Wikipedia, including having to deal with pro-child sexual abuse and pro-pedophile editors. A number of editors would laugh you right out of ANI for even implying that I am a child sexual abuser apologist. And, yes, that is clearly what you have done. Again, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC states, "After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, by editors that watch the RfC lists, and by some editors subscribed to the Feedback Request Service (FRS), who will be automatically notified by Legobot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous, noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard, talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, talk pages of closely related articles or policies." WP:Canvassing, which you clearly have not read, states, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Editors known for expertise in the field. Editors who have asked to be kept informed."
I am not so blinded by POV that I am not going to contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson. You stated "the odd selection of venues of practically no relevance to the discussion we are having here on sexual abuse." The discussion has to do with article formatting. The discussion is not about child sexual abuse. It just so happens that the content you want to relocate is about child sexual abuse. The WikiProjects I contacted are all related to the topic of Jackson and those members have experience building articles. Covering the child sexual abuse aspect relates to some of our guidelines and policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The child sexual abuse content affected his career. There is no WikiProject for child sexual abuse, except for WP:SEX and WP:PAW. Again, WP:SEX is barely active. And WP:PAW is completely inactive. I've resigned to the fact that you are simply talking from passionate POV the vast majority of the time you weigh in on anything on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of making verbose and threatening comments that noone will take seriously, you should focus on how you can contribute to this project in a more collaborative manner than unilaterally discarding three days' work of multiple editors. That you accuse others of POV is laughable considering your own edits on this talk page and article over the past week. I don't really care that much about Jackson, but I recognise that he was a very innovative and important musician, in addition to being known for sexual abuse and other aspects of his lifestyle, and my main focus is that the article should include WP:DUE treatment of both these legacies. It seems that discussion with you is fruitless, but considering that you are clearly in the minority it probably won't matter much in the end. --Tataral (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Many editors take what I state seriously, and they certainly take my reports of personal attacks, other incivility, or harassment seriously. Instead of making silly claims, how about you actually take the time to learn what a featured article is? It's clear that all you are interested in regarding editing this article is to add false balance to it with regard to the child sexual abuse allegations. You speak of how other editors have voted in this RfC, which consists of a non-neutral statement in its original format, but we can see in the #Inclusion of Leaving Neverland (with resulting controversy) in lead and #Sexual abuse should be mentioned briefly in the first paragraph of the lead section discussons below that editors understand what I mean. You can accuse me of POV all you want to, but the aforementioned statement on my talk page about Jackson articles and their fans shows that I don't think the way you have characterized me as thinking. Edits like this one (followup note here), where I reverted Awardmaniac, also show that. It's not like I made that statement on my talk page for the hell of it. I barely edit this article. And as many know, I'm not fond of editors who can't keep their POV in check when editing articles. My reason for reverting that hasty implementation by you was explained well on this talk page. You are the one who made a big deal about it and accused me of being like Awardmaniac for reverting to the WP:Status quo version of the article before the flurry of edits. I didn't edit like Awardmaniac at all. From what I've seen, you are just as POV as Awardmaniac, except on the opposite end of the spectrum. And your sex controversy comparisons that don't compare well and your arguments for delisting the article prove that. The article already included WP:DUE treatment of the child sexual abuse cases. It did not need to be relocated to its own section for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have held off voting this far because I wanted to review any arguments made against this proposal. My review of the arguments made is below, ranked by quality of argument as I saw them.
Even though they have written in great volume here I still have trouble perceiving any coherent argument from Flyer22 Reborn. Their approach seems to be to throw as many quotes as possible from policy guidelines against the wall and hope something sticks. At one point in the original discussion Flyer22 was arguing that we should maintain consistency of structure across articles. I then compiled a list of 7 other individuals who have received a similar level of public interest in the matter of possible sexual abuse. All 7 had a top level section detailing the history of the allegations made against them. Flyer22 rejected my point that the Jackson article was the only inconsistent one by claiming he should be treated in some special way as a musician (2 out of my 7 examples were musicians). So I found their argumentation incoherent and, after giving it some initial attention, discounted it as worthy of regard.
Moxy was called on to enter the discussion by Flyer22. They are the only other person to !vote no. Their first argument was we shouldn't risk the featured article status by making changes. I can't find value in this argument when wikipedia operates as a dynamic encyclopedia. Their other argument was about structure and that we should 'fold debate into the narrative'. But we are not dealing with any debate here. We should not be debating the question of Jackson's guilt or innocence in an encyclopedia article. We should only be detailing the serious allegations made against him, how various parties have responded to the allegations and how the story of those allegations has developed. Seeing as this story of various sets of allegations now has a history of more than 25 years it makes much more sense to me to collate that information into one section to improve the reader's ability to follow the many twists and turns the story has taken. So I think such a move would only improve the structure of the article.
Two editors sounded notes of caution but did not !vote. Mcelite has not participated in this RfC but did participate in the original discussion that led to it. Snuggums left a comment in the RfC but has not !voted. Both raised questions of undue weight and Mcelite gave a thoughtful response on how to order the restructuring if it did go ahead. On the question of undue weight my response is that the other side of the coin is not giving a subject due weight. Others who have !voted yes in this RfC have made the same point - that an aspect of Jackson's life that has spanned more than 25 years was not getting due weight in the article. I note their caution but I also think such caution is less warranted when the subject of this article is no longer living. And of the 7 comparable people I listed, 6 are alive but still have top level sections about sexual abuse allegations in their articles.
There have been a good number of people !voting in support and their arguments for doing so have been in line with my initial reasons for proposing the top level section. So my !vote is
  • Support Oska (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have closed this RfC as participation had tapered off from new editors. I have not included a closing statement in the archive but will make my own comment here. The !tally was 9 in support and 2 opposing. My feeling is that the restructure should now go ahead. I won't participate in the restructure - that was never my intention and I have no interest in editing this article. I raised the question of creating a top level section because, as a user, I found the article failed me in not presenting the information about the history of allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson in one place and structured to be easy to assimilate. I think there would be many other readers who are finding the same thing and, due to the attention this article is currently experiencing, I think the creation of such a top level section should be expedited.

Thank you to everyone who participated. Oska (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have had trouble parcing your arguments as well, from needing a dedicated section for the child sexual abuse content because the Leaving Neverland content was "lost" in the article...when all one had to do was add a heading for the Leaving Neverland content, to your arguments about contacting WikiProjects. You stated, "At one point in the original discussion Flyer22 was arguing that we should maintain consistency of structure across articles. I then compiled a list of 7 other individuals who have received a similar level of public interest in the matter of possible sexual abuse. All 7 had a top level section detailing the history of the allegations made against them. Flyer22 rejected my point that the Jackson article was the only inconsistent one by claiming he should be treated in some special way as a musician (2 out of my 7 examples were musicians). So I found their argumentation incoherent and, after giving it some initial attention, discounted it as worthy of regard." Complete misrepresentation of my arguments in the #Top level section on allegations of and charges for sexual abuse/crimes? discussion. My argument was that we should remain consistent for musician articles and FA articles, like we generally do. Just like we usually remain consistent for the style we use for actor articles. I stated, "And there's also an argument for consistency -- so that editors don't look at this article or one like it and think that we usually include a controversy section in musician articles or that it's necessarily the best route." You then tried to define "musician" more narrowly than it's defined. And your list of articles mostly does not consist of musician articles. And none of them are featured or even WP:GA. I also made a valid case with regard to controversy or criticism sections. You argued, "Moxy was called on to enter the discussion by Flyer22. They are the only other person to !vote no. Their first argument was we shouldn't risk the featured article status by making changes. I can't find value in this argument when wikipedia operates as a dynamic encyclopedia." You don't have to find value in the argument. The WP:STEWARDSHIP policy does. I don't find your characterization of Moxy's argument as entirely accurate.
See below. Your close of this RfC, especially given your arguments with me, was completely inappropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current publicity for a film does not negate the responsibility of Wikipedia to use "due weight only" for contentious material. Nor should Wikipedia weigh in on guilt or innocence except as settled in a court of law as films are not "evidence" in themselves. Where a court has ruled, Wikipedia should assign significant weight to the court "findings of fact." By the way, a closer is basically forbidden to have taken a part in an RfC - the closer must be a fully-disinterested third party. Collect (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is case of the court deciding if the evidence in for guilt or innocence, as the man is dead. What will happen now is journalistic and police investigation. Looking at the jimmy savile case here in the UK, there was lots of suspicion before he died, just like the jackson case, and it took a TV programme to focus peoples minds and kick of an investigation. Like the saville case, there was argument whether to show the programme, and the parallels continue from there. Within a year in the saville case there was 400 lines of police investigation and have no doubt a similar investigation is underway in the states right now. Every single aspect of jacksons life will be examined in minute detail in the context of pedophilia. In this case in point, no waiting for supposed court decisions. (lowercase names intentional) scope_creepTalk 16:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually - deceased people can not be charged with crimes, and thus there is no possible criminal investigation going on. US Law holds on this. Yes - Charles II ordered the drawing and quartering of Cromwell's body - but that is not a precedent one can rationally use. My opinion on this stands. Collect (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, you would contend that the article on Jimmy Savile should not mention any of the allegations of abuse against him, as they were not tested in a court of law? Hmmm. Not sure that's a viable stance. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The way the information was presented on March 9th is better. The article previously placed the allegations into chronological context and allowed readers to understand these allegations as they unfolded over two decades and the effect they had on Jackson's life and broader culture. with the current changes these allegations are remarkably absent from his "Life and Career" section even though these were incredibly important developments in his life and career. For example, the 1993 allegations section describe the allegations as the trigger for of his addiction to painkillers which ultimately led to his overdose death, but which is described in the 1993 life section as if the addiction just suddenly appeared: " As child molestation accusations against Jackson became public, he became dependent on Presley for emotional support; she was concerned about his faltering health and addiction to drugs." Compare this to the far more causative statement in the allegations section: "Jackson began taking painkillers, Valium, Xanax and Ativan to cope with the stress of the allegations. By late 1993, he was addicted to the drugs." Similarly, despite allegations of sexual abuse and posthumous investigations and cultural reckoning, nothing is mentioned in the "Legacy" section about the posthumous cultural impact of these events, such as Leaving Neverland but instead only lists his awards and positive aspects of his legacy. With the current changes, rather than reading as a balanced piece, the article reads like a whitewashed biography of Jackson's positive achievements with negative publicity relegated to a hit piece in the middle. These events occurred in a particular chronology separated by over two decades of developments in his life and contemporary culture and should be presented as such, not as a disjointed lists of positives and negative aspects of the person. If this came up at WP:FAC I would not support it for failure to satisfy criterion 1d and WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I am not watching this page so ping me if you need me Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Two questions to you in response:
1. How then do you feel about the structure of the following articles: Jimmy Savile, R. Kelly, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby? All 7 articles have top level sections covering allegations of sexual abuse with only the last two going beyond allegations and/or charges to actual convictions. (I looked at these examples in some greater detail in the original discussion above). Do you then propose removing the top level section in all of those articles (or at least the first 5) as I think you would have to to retain consistency with the argument you have made here.
2. What do you say to the reader (not editor) who comes to the Michael Jackson article to be better informed on the 25+ years story of sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson and who isn't particularly interested in Jackson's career but is forced to wade through a very long history of it in order to try to assimilate all the details of the allegations story which is itself quite complex and involved? Do you think an article without the proposed top section is still serving those readers well? And do you appreciate that a very good proportion of readers (and currently a large majority) come to the article for that specific use-case? Oska (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
None of that addressed any of my points. This is a featured article; none of those are featured articles, and the first one in your lists has had a {{neutrality}} tag on it for 9 months. If you want to know how I feel then I'd suggest looking at that bright orange banner at the top of Jimmy Savile which links to the same policy I linked to above. I would also suggest responding to my actual points instead of making up strawmen arguments I didn't make. I am against a general policy on this. As can be seen from my arguments related specifically to this article, I speak with specificity to this article and not other stuff. I would like you to provide citations for your claims about readers before I ignore the second pillar of the encyclopedia. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: I don't have to address your points. They remain there for everyone to consider. I was asking questions in response to your stated position of opposition. I also can't see where I created any strawmen (an accusation people often reach for without considering properly whether it really applies).
I will take your answer to my first question as being that you only want to talk specifically about this article (while noting your reservations about the Savile article). I can't see where you've answered my second question, although of course, you're not obliged to. But that second question is, to my mind, the crucial one. Oska (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like you to provide citations for your claims about readers before I ignore the second pillar of the encyclopedia Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: We're not writing wikipedia here in the talk pages. I don't need to provide citations for my views or my assertions. I think it's very clear that many people come to this article to better understand the fuss around the sexual abuse allegations and why some radio stations are now choosing to no longer play his music. Click on the pageviews template at the top of this page to open the chart and you will see that article views have soared from 20,000 to 200,000. Do you think that suddenly all those extra people are coming here to bone up on Jackson's entertainment career?
I think what a lot of people (particularly fans) are missing is that no matter how famous Jackson was as a pop music entertainer, a great many people around the world still paid little attention to him. People who have little interest in music, or interested in music but not pop music, or even interested in pop music but not Jackson's type of pop music. But a lot of people who previously were uninterested in his entertainment career will now want to know more about him because he's a high profile (deceased) celebrity who is receiving very widespread attention for renewed abuse allegations. People who are concerned about social questions of child abuse are now wanting to be filled in on the story and its long history, want to know where the child protection agencies were when Jackson was openly sleeping with children, etc, etc. I think we fail those people when we force them to trawl through a long entertainment career section for this information rather than presenting it clearly in its own section. Oska (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
But you can see why I find your point uncompelling, yes? You're asking me to ignore what I believe to be a fundamental violation of one of our core policies because of what you imagine readers want without any proof other than your intuitions regarding page view trends. You're suggesting restructuring an article to accommodate an uptick in readership that's barely lasted a week and may be showing signs of flagging; this is a classic example of recentism. The page Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has also received this same uptick in views, as has Death of Michael Jackson. Even Thriller (Michael Jackson album) has seen the same uptick, so in fact, yes, I do think a large number of readers have come here to learn more than just allegations of his sexual abuse. If people are coming here only for allegations of sexual abuse and are not reading the rest of the article then the uptick should only coincide with articles about sexual abuse allegations. But clearly people are reading other parts of the article and are actually following links in other sections. In such a case putting these allegations into chronological context would better serve readers already looking through the biography because it gives them a summary they get on no other page. This is of a secondary concern to me, primarily I do not believe your hand-waving about the imagined goals of our readers should take precedence over WP:NPOV. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Thank you for your reply. I do not see the argument on how the restructure compromises the article's neutral point of view. Of course we only detail the allegations and their history in a neutral manner in the new section. The only question that I think applies with the restructure is one of due or undue weight. My judgement is that I think the allegations deserve due weight in having their own section and I think that that best suits the needs of the article's readers in making that information easily accessible and more easy for them to assimilate what is a complex story in its own right. This is an editorial judgement call. We had others making the same judgement in this RfC in supporting the restructure and interestingly one who was on the fence about it (I hope I am representing Snuggums' position properly). Oska (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "do not see the argument". If you're simply confused about where it is, WP:STRUCTURE is a specific clause in WP:NPOV and my original comment is in regards to how the organization of content whitewashes some aspects of his life by segregating negative coverage to a single section in just the way WP:STRUCTURE warns against. If you weren't confused but just don't agree, c'est la vie. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: It's my opinion that that section on structure is poorly written and not particularly coherent, particularly the second paragraph. It is not my nature to constantly run to policy guidelines documents for support and I think relying on them too much rather than making your own case results in lots of instances of mediocre 'wikilawyering' (not directing that charge at you here). I can only repeat that I don't see that the proposed restructure for this article jeopardises the article's neutrality. I would actually tend towards the opposite position - that the previous structure leant too much in the direction of being a fan-based article and with the sexual abuse allegations too buried in the (very long) text. Oska (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You're aware that they were linked from the table of contents and were actually higher up on the page than they are currently? If that's "buried in the (very long) text" you've literally just buried them more. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: I guess it depends on how you read an article and on how you scan a table of contents. My own personal experience was that jumping around in the text made the material hard to assimilate, coming as a new reader to the article and as someone who has not previously followed the Jackson story. Oska (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

() @Wugapodes: Can I say that I have found the discussion with you here very useful. There is certainly a link between how an article is structured and neutrality and it is always worth keeping in mind. What my discussion here with you has clarified for me is that I think the previous structure had neutrality problems and the new structure improves neutrality. The previous structure presented Jackson almost solely in his entertainer role. I think the new structure better presents the whole person (including the allegations) while still giving more due weight to the entertainer role. Now you probably disagree and that's fine. This is a judgement call for the whole editorial team to make and discussion is good and healthy. Oska (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, regarding Oska's first question, see my above statements on that if you haven't already. The Jackson child sexual abuse matter isn't close to the same as those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see you did fine, including by making the point I made about those other articles not being featured articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due weight is already given to the child abuse topic. It does seem like the recent documentary is prompting WP:RECENTISM. To be clear, I'm not arguing the sexual abuse issues aren't a major part of Jackson's bio. I'm arguing that the guy is such a notable person to begin with, that a even major story about him (like the one covered by the recent documentary) still should only occupy a small portion of his page. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose In almost every case, a WP:CSECTION is undue and this is no special case. As many alternative and appropriate options exists, they should be used. Separating and sectioning it as a top-level heading gives the allegations, no matter how ubiquitous the controversy, undue weight. For an example of an alternative see collapsed section below.
Just one of many alternatives to top-level heading

1 Early life and family 2 Career

2.1 1958–1975: Early life and the Jackson 5
2.2 1975–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
2.3 1982–1983: Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever
2.4 1984–1985: Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career
2.5 1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films
2.6 1987–1990: Bad, autobiography, and Neverland
2.7 1991–1993: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII
2.8 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse
2.9 1993–1995: Marriage to Lisa Marie Presley
2.10 1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood
2.11 1997–2005: Label dispute and Invincible
2.12 2002–2005: Second allegations and trial
2.13 2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It

3 Death

3.1 Memorial service
3.2 Criminal investigation and prosecution
3.3 Aftermath
3.4 Posthumous releases

4 Artistry

4.1 Influences
4.2 Musicianship
4.3 Themes and genres
4.4 Vocal style
4.5 Music videos and choreography

5 Legacy and influence

5.1 Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland

6 Honors and awards 7 Earnings 8 Discography 9 Filmography

  • Oppose - per NickCT Due weight is already given to the child abuse topic. It does seem like the recent documentary is prompting WP:RECENTISM. To be clear, I'm not arguing the sexual abuse issues aren't a major part of Jackson's bio. I'm arguing that the guy is such a notable person to begin with, that a even major story about him (like the one covered by the recent documentary) still should only occupy a small portion of his page. The wish to reorder seems intended to highlight in response to the recent documentary. Pincrete (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Another NPOV alternative is to create a Personal life section. There are many other options that make the information accessible but do not place undue weight on the allegations. The current version is unsustainable.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I could live with having the abuse allegations as a level-3 heading under a new personal life second-level section, as I suggested as a compromise on 8 March in the section just below. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for implementation of this proposal[edit]

Those interested in what this proposal might look like in practice might want to have a look at the previous implementation based on the previous discussion of this issue here: [5] Note that the section is work in progress at that point. Based on other discussion on this talk page, it is also proposed to move the section "Artistry" so that the chapter structure (tentatively) becomes:

  1. Life and career
    1. 1958–1975: Early life and the Jackson 5
    2. 1975–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
    3. 1982–1983: Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever
    4. 1984–1985: Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career
    5. 1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films
    6. 1987–1990: Bad, autobiography, and Neverland
    7. 1991–1993: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII
    8. Marriage to Lisa Marie Presley (might need a new chapter title)
    9. 1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood
    10. 1997–2002: Label dispute and Invincible
    11. 2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It
  2. Artistry
    1. Influences
    2. Musicianship
    3. Themes and genres
    4. Vocal style
    5. Music videos and choreography
  3. Allegations of child sexual abuse
    1. First allegations
    2. Second allegations and 2005 trial
    3. Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland
  4. Death, memorial service, and aftermath
  5. Etc.

--Tataral (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Good effort, and well done for being WP:BOLD, but I thought this structure wasn't quite right. Can I counter-propose, with thanks to Masem:
  1. Early life
  2. Career
  3. Personal life
    1. One of the subsections would be on the alleged child sex abuse
    2. Death the second last subsection, and includes burial, memorial etc
    3. Posthumous
  4. Artistry

etc. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the above proposal is for one top-level section on child sexual abuse, so a sub section (such as 3.1) of personal life wouldn't really be an implementation of that proposal. --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That's true. I prefer my scheme. Could you live with it as a compromise? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be an improvement to have the sexual abuse material moved to one section, but I also think it's best to concentrate here on solutions that are compatible with the specific proposal under this RfC in order to get any results at all (otherwise we would have to start the debate from scratch, since we are now !voting specifically on a top-level section). I also feel a top-level section is the best solution, partially because the sexual abuse issue is so extensive that it would need at least three sub sections of its own, maybe even a fourth section on the broader cultural impact of the issue now that radio stations around the world are dropping his music, statues removed and so on. Perhaps we could revisit this issue in the context of a broader debate on the entire chapter structure of the article once we have one coherent top-level section on sexual abuse. --Tataral (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the points made above by Tataral. But also, I think a Personal Life section really only suits a biography of a living person (and can work well in that context). Michael Jackson is dead and no longer has any personal life (not meaning to sound cruel, just a statement of fact). Oska (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In light of the result of the RfC, are there any other views on how it should be implemented? So far the proposal by myself above is the only proposal that is compatible with the proposal in the RfC. --Tataral (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest implementing your proposed structure, but putting death, memorial and aftermath at the end of the life and career section, to finish the chronology. I thought it looked awkward mixing chronological and thematic sections. His death was the end of his career, so put it there. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that makes sense. --Tataral (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Can I suggest that, assuming we are going to keep the new structure (and I do take seriously Wugapodes' points against it above), we should include a brief mention in the three places in the chronology of the sex abuse scandals? Having just done many hours of work dedicated in part to reducing redundancy and repetitions in the chronology (the dying twice being a glaring example), we could spare the space for three short mentions of this major area of his life in a section called Life and career? It was a significant part of his life and a major impact on his career, especially latterly. There would be an internal link in each case to the main subsection we now have. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think this is a solid compromise proposal, though ideally there'd be some coverage in the "Legacy" section as well which is currently devoid of things such as Leaving Neverland. I would not be opposed to this. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Good point. I think we should consider an approach that fuses thematic with chronological elements for the benefit of the reader, while keeping repetition to an absolute minimum. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't taken part in the restructure but I'd always assumed that this would be part of it - brief references left in the chronology at relevant points and, as Wugapodes says, in any other place where relevant such as Legacy. Oska (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, brief mentions in the chronology above and possibly other relevant sections are fine. The difference between that and the top-level section will be that the top-level section provides detailed, in-depth coverage of the sexual abuse issue in its own right, and not seen from the perspective of and subordinate to some other topic (his career), while the brief mentions above will mention the material more briefly and in the specific context of how sexual abuse allegations affected the events covered in the chronology section (his career and so on), and thus provide a bridge between the material in that section and the material in the abuse section. --Tataral (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I've done the first three. I am sure my summaries aren't perfect. I would welcome competent scrutiny and adjustment. We still probably need to add something to the Legacy section, but that's a bigger job. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If the closer closes this RfC as "no consensus" for the new structure, the article should default back to the long-standing structure. That is standard practice. And it doesn't mean that all of the changes since then should be reverted. It doesn't mean that wording changes that improved the child sexual material should be reverted. It only means that the previous structure should be re-added in place of the current structure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
And the current outline is poor. It is not good flow whatsoever to have the child sexual abuse content come after the "Artistry" section and before the "Legacy and influence" and "Honors and awards" sections. It's placed right in between content that is supposed to flow together. Right now, we have the reader learning about his artistry, then the article jumps to child sexual abuse material (most of which should be in the sections about his life and career), and then the article goes to legacy and influence, and honors and awards material. A mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Good stuff. Did you have anything to say about what we were talking about? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Since my above post is about the current structure in a section about the current structure, it's clear that I'm on-topic. I don't have to respond to your latest comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this this and this, I just see it as an unnecessary and redundant approach. It also speaks to the very reason that we had that content in the "Life and career" section to begin with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Result[edit]

I assume the RfC was closed in accordance with WP:RFCCLOSE #1? It seems fairly evident to me that we now have Wikipedia:Consensus for a coherent top-level section on the child sexual abuse allegations. --Tataral (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tataral, I think we were editing at the same time and while I was writing a remark under the closed RfC saying why I had closed it and my own observations after the closure. That remark is now visible. Oska (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
For neutrality purposes, Oska, we should have an uninvolved user close that RFC. See WP:Closing discussions for more. You were involved by not only starting that discussion, but also expressing support for the proposed changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I had expected the RfC to be closed in that manner too, but it seems Oska had a right to close it in accordance with WP:RFCCLOSE and there is no doubt that the community's response had become obvious. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS, I considered that option (requesting a closure by an uninvolved editor) but didn't see it as necessary. You're welcome to reopen the RfC and follow that process if you like. I think it would only be further delaying what appears to be a near consensus resolution to move on with the restructure. Oska (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It indeed is almost unanimous. To be fair, I doubt anyone else would've closed with any other resolution. At least you weren't just blindly closing it. That would've been worse. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: Just noticed how that page says that it isn't so bad for involved users to close during uncontentious circumstances (key distinction). When Flyer22 Reborn and Moxy were the only ones to voice oppositions, I'm not sure anyone would call it particularly contentious. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned before there no rush.....we will clean up the article after alk kerfuffle has passed over. We can fix the weight issues later.--Moxy (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
After glancing through the article following its rearrangement for sexual abuse allegations, there's one major problem I find: it jumps right from a 1997–2002 section to one covering 2006–2009. If not the trial, then what are we supposed to use in between these two periods? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Masem made a similar point a few days ago. What did he do, other than be tried for child abuse, in these years? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The first thing that came to mind was the release of his Number Ones compilation in 2003, so I've changed 1997–2002 into 1997–2003 (forgive the typo). 2004 and 2005 will require more digging. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it might be necessary to adjust the "Life and career" section following the removal of child sexual abuse from that section (such changes are strictly speaking outside the scope of the RfC, so any editor can go ahead and be bold in that regard). --Tataral (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason that the current 1997-2003 section cannot be from 1997-2005. Just because you have nothing else to document in 2004 and 2005 outside the accusations that have been moved, the fact that 2006 represents a significant career change means its fine to leave the 2004/2005 years "empty" but listed in headers for continuity purposes. The article appears to be structured by finding key events in his career that help split his career into significant sections, so it doesn't mean every year in those sections need events. --Masem (t) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it tends to be split by major events. While I've thought about having 1997–2005, it seems incomplete to have nothing for 2004 or 2005 there when the only known major content (sex abuse allegations and subsequent trial) were moved per the above RFC. Still better than a gap between years until 2006, though, so I'll go ahead and change 2003 into 2005 for now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why the allegations can't be mentioned in the context of his career here. It only needs a sentence to acknowledge that his career stopped due to these events. Something preventing the advancement of your career is stil notbable under a career section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation. I see that the proposed top level section has now been created and worked on. Thanks to Tataral, MarchOrDie and SNUGGUMS for working on that (hope I didn't miss anyone). I think it parses well and, as I've said before, I think this separation of the subject matter better suits both people who come to the article to read about Jackson's entertainment career and people who come only to read about the abuse allegations.

I think it's a credit to all involved editors that we have avoided an edit war over this change and I think the RfC worked well in helping develop consensus on the change. Thanks to Flyer22 for their suggestion on using that process. Tataral putting up the proposed framwework for the restructure here and requesting feedback before implementation was also a very good idea.

Although I haven't participated in any of the other discussions that are proceeding on changes to the article, from what I've seen there is good debate going on without too much drama creeping in. I think that's a real credit to the wikipedia community, especially when emotions are currently running quite high in other online forums over the subject of this article. Oska (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oska, I've reopened the RfC and added an argument/updated tag for it. You were completely involved in this RfC and RfCs "taper off" all the time, including early on. They remain open for 30 days for a reason. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs mentions "contentious." Yes, only two editors thus far had opposed, but the RfC had barely been open for any good length of time and "contentious" is defined as "tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome." Clearly, the topic of Jackson and child sexual abuse is contentious or we wouldn't have this RfC or sections like #Sexual abuse should be mentioned briefly in the first paragraph of the lead section on the talk page. Furthermore, your arguments with me in this RfC and ending on your words about me and my arguments made your close even more inappropriate. I won't revert the implementation of the restructuring, but I do think that the RfC should play out properly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I've restored Oska's original neutral wording as it was far clearer and you shouldn't change a question one people have started answering it. Flyer22 Reborn, if you want to post another opinion you are free to do so, but you risk misrepresenting people if you change the question and leave the original answers in place. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. I don't risk anything. I addressed exactly what the issues are and presented both sides neutrally and accurately. It's how the RfC should have been from the beginning, as is clear by Collect's vote. You keep making arguments not based on any guideline or policy. As Collect can make clear to you, it's not uncommon for an RfC to be extended with a fresh statement from someone who has relisted it. It makes not a bit of sense for me to start another RfC on the matter entirely separate from this one. It's not like I didn't explain that the RfC was previously closed inappropriately. In addition to how poorly worded the initial one was, it should never have been closed by Oska. And closing it so soon was also dubious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Er, no. I supported the question when it read one thing. By changing the question but leaving my support in place, you misrepresent my opinion. You absolutely can't do that. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Er, no. Presenting both sides clearly is not misrepresenting your opinion in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Every other editor was able to participate in the RfC in a constructive and civil manner without edit-warring over the RfC itself, so please don't do that, that's totally unacceptable. And, no, you are not allowed to change the wording of an RfC, especially an RfC that has essentially concluded after about a dozen editors have already participated. A new chapter structure was implemented based on discussion on this talk page, but you objected and reverted three days work of multiple editors. Now we've had an RfC that resulted in a very clear consensus and almost unanimous agreement on the new structure, so it seems to me that WP:STICK attempts aren't constructive or helpful. --Tataral (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comment that "Every other editor was able to participate in the RfC" is false, as is clear by the additional votes. Again, RfCs remain open for a month for a reason. Just like before, you rushed to implement the proposed change. This time you had help from the closer who should not have closed. This is not a WP:STICK matter whatsoever, as is clear by what the additional oppose votes have stated. As for the rest, I know what I am doing when it comes to RfCs. You do not. And I don't know why you are bringing up that "revert" mater again. Did I revert after the faulty RfC closing? No. And now the RfC is continuing as it should. WP:Consensus is clear that head counting is not how consensus is usually formed on Wikipedia. At least it's not usually supposed to be formed that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's clear that you don't, and RfC's don't need to remain open for a full month (WP:RFCCLOSE). And no, I didn't rush to implement anything at all, I implemented the consensus expressed on this talk page after the RfC had been correctly closed (I didn't expect or call for it to be closed early) and there was nothing more to discuss than implementation (the specific implementation had been discussed separately for days as well and didn't prove to be a contentious issue). And yes, it's correct that head counting is not how consensus is formed, and the additional comment after the RfC was closed seems to be based on the fact that he hasn't been convicted, which is not a valid rationale at all in a debate on the chapter structure (or the inclusion of Leaving Neverland and its impact), so that comment wouldn't have changed anything. As far as I'm concerned the RfC has been closed, the proposal has been implemented after receiving near-unanimous support and the matter is now closed, and I don't envision that attempts to reopen the RfC by pretty much the sole editor who has consistently opposed the new chapter structure will change that. --Tataral (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It is clear. If we did an RfC right now on whether or not Oska should have made that close, the vast majority of editors would state that Oska should not have done so. No one stated that RfCs need to remain open for a month. I stated that there is a reason they are opened for that long. Oska closing that RfC and closing it so soon was inappropriate. Plain and simple. As for that "and the additional comment after the RfC was closed seems to be based on the fact that he hasn't been convicted, which is not a valid rationale at all in a debate on the chapter structure," it is when keeping WP:Due weight in mind. WP:Due weight is clear that it refers to placement of text among other tings. And I'm not sure if you are referring to something I stated or something Collect stated. But I've argued beyond "he wasn't convicted". And Wugapodes laid out the issues very well. You stated "by pretty much the sole editor who has consistently opposed the new chapter structure." LOL. "Pretty much the sole editor" because of a partially biased original RfC wording that is inadequate in giving editors the informed information they need to properly assess the issue, and "pretty much the sole editor" because the RfC was left open for a short time. We see now that others beside Moxy agree with me. The current RfC wording there at the top might still do damage, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC reopened[edit]

This RfC was previously opened for only a few days. It has been reopened for more opinions and a proper close. One view is that the article should be structured so that it has a dedicated section for the child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson. As seen at Talk:Michael Jackson#Top level section on allegations of and charges for sexual abuse/crimes?, this was in the light of the Leaving Neverland documentary. It was felt that the Leaving Neverland material was buried in the article in this version, where it was located in the Aftermath section. It was felt that having the Leaving Neverland material covered with the other child sexual abuse material makes the material more accessible to readers. The other view is that, as noted at WP:Criticism, controversy or criticism sections can lend undue weight to a matter or draw too much negative attention to a section and therefore result in more POV editing. It was felt that, like WP:Criticism states, "The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." This style is reflected in a number of WP:Featured biographies. And it was suggested that adding a heading to the Leaving Neverland material would resolve the issue of editors not easily finding the Leaving Neverland content, and that restructuring the article for the Leaving Neverland content is or may be WP:Recentism.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'm not asking for thoughts on having re-opened the RfC. The above post was originally a part of the reopening of the RfC, but it was moved down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that exprecianced FA editors have chimed in ..and again with policy based arguments ...how are we going to cleanup all this? Wondering if the project page would be best to comeup with a draft.--Moxy (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2019 (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.

Inclusion of Aaron Carter[edit]

Someone named Aaron Carter, whom I've never heard of, has been added to the sentence that discussed the fact that five boys who knew Jackson very well, intimately and for long periods when they were very young (preteen and younger) have accused him of sexual abuse.

Safechuck and Robson were part of Jackson's entourage for years: they lived with him, travelled with him, dressed like him, slept with him and were literally "married" to him, and were practically like family members as the documentary discusses too. They occupied pretty much the same place in Jackson's life as Blanket and Paris and so on in later years, and Jackson treated them like his "mini-me's". They met Jackson when they were five and nine years old, and Jackson spent years grooming them and their families. Macaulay Culkin is also well known for spending much of his childhood at Neverland and his article has an entire section devoted to "Friendship with Michael Jackson." In fact, his "friendship with Michael Jackson" is the only thing Culkin is known for after his film career ended in 1994.

This Aaron Carter figure on the other hand doesn't seem to have any comparable relation to Jackson. His article doesn't once mention Jackson. The interview he gave seems mostly to be about baselessly attacking Safechuck and Robson, whom he doesn't know, and based on pure conjecture, and he actually says that he only met Jackson when he was 15 years old, nearly an adult and at a time that Jackson was already engulfed by scandal relating to sexual abuse allegations and could hardly be expected or afford to abuse some random 15-year old, and many years after Safechuck, Robson and even Culkin "left Neverland."

As the documentary and numerous sources discuss, Jackson is accused of molesting pre-teen and younger boys, and of losing interest once they reached puberty. That someone who was never part of Jackson's close entourage and who only knew him (barely) when he was much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on says he wasn't molested is of no value at all in a section that discusses allegations of molestation of preteen and younger boys who were part of Jackson's close circle, and only serves to mislead.

Quite frankly, the interview by Carter seems to be a publicity stunt merely to raise his public profile. --Tataral (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Your first four paragraphs make a good argument, well expressed. But your last paragraph is speculation and opinion. I'd suggest removing/retracting it. I see that it was a later edit anyway. Oska (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much point in removing it. It is indeed a personal observation/comment and not really part of the argument. --Tataral (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
> It is indeed a personal observation/comment
And thus doesn't belong here, especially when it is an attack on someone associated with the subject of the article. Not to be too dramatic but it's potentially libelous. Oska (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I can assure you that an assessment like that (he accuses Safechuck and Robson of "lying"; I comment that I view his comments as mainly a publicity stunt) wouldn't be regarded as libelous in any western country. --Tataral (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't even be straying in that direction. I'm not much of a fan of quoting policy guidelines but you've pushed me to go and find this one: WP:LIBEL. Quote: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Oska (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I've not posted any defamatory material anywhere. A (mildly) critical assessment of someone's public opinion or of a source has nothing at all to do with "libel" as that term is used in legal contexts and on WP:LIBEL. I'm not American, but in the US this would be a classic case of an assessment/expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment. You or anyone else are free to disagree with it, but this is really a distraction as I never claimed that my removal of the material was based on that brief comment (it was based on the preceding 96 % of my comment). In light of the distraction it caused I probably wouldn't have made it now – as a rather unimportant final, short comment – but I'm not willing to remove it based on a claim that it's libel when it's clearly not and when it's followed by a long discussion specifically on that sentence. --Tataral (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We cannot entertain the idea of making a list of boys, pre-pubescent or otherwise, who Jackson did not abuse. Presumably it would be a very long list. Let's stick to the ones who allege he did. Following the section above, I have now removed this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree that's a better solution. --Tataral (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm only now seeing this discussion... MarchOrDie, the article listed boys (or men) that alleged to have been abused by Jackson as well as boys (or men) that stated they were not abused by him; this showed balance. All I did was add Aaron Carter, a notable pop singer, to the list. He is well-known as the little brother of Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys, a famous boyband, and he has his own successful solo career as well, and he's gotten quite some press in recent years.

My point is, a proper Wikipedia article should be balanced and impartial. Yes, some boys alleged Jackson did molest them, but others who also slept in his bedroom stated they were not abused in any way. Why not inform the readers of that? That's how psychology works; if a reader only reads about boys who slept in his bedroom and made such allegations, it may very well give them the impression such allegations are true. Also reading about both boys who slept in his bedroom and declared they were not abused by him will leave a more balanced impression. Likewise, that section of the article should also list former employees of Jackson like nanny Grace Rwaramba or ex-bodyguard Bill Whitfield that stated not to have witnessed any such type of abuse in Jackson's home or insist that Jackson had no sexual interest in children. The list needs not be long or exhaustive; it's all about presenting a more fair and impartial view.

It's just like a trial; both the prosecution and the defence get to speak in front of the jurors so they get a balanced view of the situation. They may then make a decision and vote guilty or not guilty, and the judge renders his or her sentence. But what if the jurors only got to hear the prosecution? Would that be a fair trial? I think not, and the accused would be a lot more likely to be found guilty.

And that's the problem I have with removal of the list of boys/men supporting Jackson and that 'Leaving Neverland' film; I do not consider that film a documentary for it is very much one-sided (it only presents the perspective of accusers Robson, Safechuck and family members) and presents unproven accusations of emotional and sexual abuse and rape. Due research will show how many times have Robson and Safechuck lied or contradicted themselves.

Here's an article written by journalist and author Mike Smallcombe on the matter: https://www.mike-smallcombe.com/post/the-lies-of-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-accusers. From his website: "Mike has contributed to publications including Mirror Online, Mail Online, the Express, Metro, The Daily Record and more." Israell (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • And one more thing... Regarding Aaron Carter's age... Though he was 15, he was still a minor, and sexual relations with a minor does constitute child molestation, and I find it relevant to include that list of boys (including Aaron Carter) who support Jackson. Supposing one or more of all of Jackson's accusers were telling the truth (I don't believe, based on due research, any them to be truthful), he would likely have shown a carnal interest in Carter (a very handsome, baby-faced minor boy), even if 15, even if famous.

After all, a cook Phillip LeMarque alleged under oath during Jackson's 2005 trial that he saw Jackson grope Macaulay Culkin: "His left hand was inside the pants of the kid ... down into the pants ... in the crotch area,"[1] an allegation Culkin refuted. Therefore, according to Jackson's accusers, he'd definitely go after a famous kid...

And Wade Robson claims to have been abused and molested by Jackson until he was fourteen, which is very close to fifteen (not much of a difference). Israell (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Israell, thanks for your points.
  • a proper Wikipedia article should be balanced and impartial, yes, see WP:NPOV, but ...
  • reading about both boys who slept in his bedroom and declared they were not abused by him will leave a more balanced impression I don't agree; we need to be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • It's just like a trial; both the prosecution and the defence get to speak in front of the jurors Absolutely not, see FALSEBALANCE.
  • Due research will show how many times have Robson and Safechuck lied or contradicted themselves; it's actually pretty common for sex abuse survivors to defend their abuser, so this tells us nothing. On the other hand, we have suffered from a (now topic-banned) former editor trying to undermine the credibility of witnesses. We absolutely cannot go there, per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH.
  • journalist and author Mike Smallcombe Looking at the list of publications you provide, this sounds like a source to absolutely avoid. See WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:DAILYMAIL.
  • a very handsome, baby-faced minor boy... he'd definitely go after a famous kid... That is your own opinion and constitutes original research, which we cannot use. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote: "...according to Jackson's accusers, he'd definitely go after a famous kid.", citing the testimony Phillip LeMarque gave under oath (he claimed that he saw Michael Jackson molest Macaulay Culkin).

And a question... I haven't seen what that editor (now topic-banned) wrote exactly, but what if there are reliable evidence, sources, documentation that those accusers have lied about a number of things? I'm not talking about previous testimonies in defence of Jackson but various other things. Just a side note, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Donald Trump were in recent years accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women, and a lot of individuals incl. public figures labelled them as "attempted rapists" or "rapists", etc. There is that trend to deem an individual guilty as soon as an accusation is made, even if there is no trial and no evidence. False allegations often plague an individual for life! Israell (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Tataral, you wrote: "As the documentary and numerous sources discuss, Jackson is accused of molesting pre-teen and younger boys, and of losing interest once they reached puberty. That someone who was never part of Jackson's close entourage and who only knew him (barely) when he was much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on says he wasn't molested is of no value at all in a section that discusses allegations of molestation of preteen and younger boys who were part of Jackson's close circle, and only serves to mislead."

Well, according to Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed, Safechuck was now abused until he was... 16!

In his court filing[2], James Safechuck alleged to have been abused from age 10 to 14 (from 1988 to 1992). In Leaving Neverland, Safechuck clearly stated he'd "have sex" with Michael Jackson "above the train station" "every day." Michael Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe (and many others) revealed that the train station in question (referred to and shown in Leaving Neverland) was actually built from 1993 to 1994; James Safechuck, born on Feb. 28 1978, turned 16 in 1994.

Replying to Mr. Smallcombe (who provided legal proof of his findings), Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed tweeted: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."[3], to which Smallcombe responded: "So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14. It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story. This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly."[4]

Therefore, IF Reed's statement is true and the alleged abuse did take place, Jackson molested Safechuck until he was 16, which means Aaron Carter, at 15 years old of age, was NOT "much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on".

And according to Aaron, he did not barely know Jackson and they were close (even collaborating on music projects). Just because you had never heard of him before doesn't mean Carter was not well-known. Israell (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

In trying to look through the references to cull out the most dubious ones, it became apparent to me that it's difficult to do this because the sources aren't even organized properly. Book sources and web sources should be separated, if at all, properly. At the moment it's a mish-mash. If I was to look at fixing this, I'd prefer to move to Harvard referencing. But it really can't remain like it is. It's a mess. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In looking at this, I have uncovered a couple more poor references. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Specific question: what makes *Epps, Henry. Great African-American Women in America history Vol I. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1-30016-233-9., a self-published book, a good source for BLP material? --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what to say about this source specifically, but should note that being self-published doesn't automatically mean poor quality. However, the use of such material should be limited to non-contentious claims per WP:SELFPUB where there's no reasonable doubt of authenticity. BLP also doesn't apply here when Jackson has been dead for three months shy of a decade. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The source is being used to support a contentious claim about his mother who is I think still alive. Hence the question. MarchOrDie (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, we should opt for something else if available. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I have removed it pending a better source. MarchOrDie (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've implemented Harvard referencing, and sorted out the book references. I've also removed a couple of [text–source integrity?] tags; did you add them, SNUGGUMS? I don't remember doing so. I always hate messing with another editor's tags, but I felt that with over 70 instances of Template:Cite magazine, we'd either have to tag them all or none. I feel that a greater priority should be getting better sourcing; I've gotten rid of a handful of really poor and primary or self-published sources, and it would be good to reduce our dependency on Taraborrelli, as noted above, on link-rotted archived news sources from ten years ago, and on the remaining primary sources. In this regard, why is George, Nelson (2004). Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (booklet). Sony BMG. such a good source that we use it 36 times? I appreciate that Nelson George is a respected writer, but if I am correct in thinking that this is a booklet that came with a greatest hits collection, this becomes pretty much a primary source, and one which the average non-fan reader is unable to easily check as WP:V requires. Am I missing something? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I never added those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, we should stick to templates. And regarding this, our WP:Primary sources policy doesn't state that primary sources should never be used. For uncontroversial and/or straightforward material, such as "Following complaints that it featured scenes of violence and a sexually suggestive dance, some scenes were edited and Jackson apologized," I don't see that a secondary source is needed. It's not like the VHS/DVD is contesting the fact that there were complaints; it's acknowledging that there were complaints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That stated, I haven't seen the VHS/DVD source; so I don't know what it states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that the sources are a bit better organised, we can see that a large proportion of the article is sourced to a book by a writer known for trashy gossip, and the insert for one of Jackson's CDs. As Flyer22 Reborn acknowledges, not only is there a problem of WP:PRIMARY with the second source, it is difficult or impossible to verify material that is sourced this way. What do the regulars here want to do? It's not even a question of FAR any more, but basic adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:V we are talking about. I am not looking for procedural advice, but for well-thought-out suggestions on how we can improve the article. What would the article look like sans Taraborelli and the CD insert? Are there other, better sources we could sub in? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't state that the source being a primary source is a problem; I stated the opposite of that. As seen at WP:Citing sources, we do sometimes cite VHS or DVD videos as sources. And WP:PAYWALL states, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." As for better sources, I routinely go to Google Books for decent sources. But I usually edit academic topics (when I'm not patrolling via WP:Huggle, or WP:STiki whenever that starts working for me again). Still, checking Google Books is one option for the topic of Jackson. And, of course, looking for reliable media sources is another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Not for the first time, I am left wondering if you have even read the article you are commenting on, never mind the discussion we are trying to have here about how to improve it. The 40 references to George, Nelson (2004). Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (booklet). Sony BMG. are not to a VHS video or to a DVD, but to the booklet which accompanied an album. My point is not that we can never use such a source, but that a) this primary source is way over-used (40!), in some cases for non-straightforward claims, and that b) the nature of such a source is such that an ordinary, non-fan reader cannot check to see what the source actually says, other than by buying the album. In other words, anyone could claim the source said anything. This is not ideal. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There goes that attitude again. Cut it out. It makes responding to you/trying to interact with you a pain (well, other than other matters regarding your opinionated editing). This section is titled "Referencing." Do you think that a section on a Wikipedia talk page titled "Referencing" must only concern something you brought up because you started the section? If I wanted to comment on a source you initially brought up, or brought up later, I would. I mentioned "VHS/DVD" because this edit you made clearly points to a source titled "Michael Jackson Dangerous on Film VHS/DVD." You tagged the source with Template:Primary source inline. I clearly pointed to it above and noted that "I haven't seen the VHS/DVD source; so I don't know what it states." I noted that the source being a primary source is not a problem for that statement. And, clearly, the source would benefit from one of the citation styles at WP:Citing sources. Regarding your "way over used" argument, I am stating that uncontroversial and/or straightforward matters cited to the "Michael Jackson Dangerous on Film VHS/DVD" source or similar is not a valid reason to discard a source. If a primary source is being used with WP:In-text attribution for an opinion or other statement from Jackson, it's fine...as long as the source is WP:Reliable and is not a WP:Undue matter. Even if it's a self-published or questionable source as a source on him, the WP:About self policy applies. I have no issue with cutting down on the overuse of sources, but a source being overused does not mean that the content should automatically be removed. As you know, I've already mentioned WP:Preserve to you. Oops, there I go mentioning it yet again. I wouldn't have to mention it again if I felt you grasped how important that policy is. And regarding you not having access, I already pointed you to the WP:PAYWALL policy; it is clear. It doesn't care about what you consider ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah. So you were talking about something you mentioned on the 17th rather than responding to what I said on the 27th. You didn't actually say that but assumed I would telepathically know that. And because my telepathy was faulty, I have an "attitude". That's fine. Let's assume I am familiar with all the WP:ALPHABETSOUP links you are putting up. Let's actually think it through. Will we get around using the booklet that came with one of Jackson's albums as a reference 40 times by quoting WP:PAYWALL? No, I don't think so either. So, what do we do? That is the question. My first suggestion is that we examine them one by one and take out those we cannot find better sources for. My second suggestion is that we just take them all out and let someone who cares find better sources. What probably won't work is to have me do all the work, while you carp from the sidelines about my supposed "attitude". If you care about this article enough to comment here, go find some decent sources. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If someone's reading comprehension is off, that is not my fault. You are the one who titled this section "Referencing" and somehow expected editors to only address things you brought up. If a recent section on a talk page is titled "Referencing," there is no need for an editor to start another section addressing referencing. That is just cluttering the talk page. I would not have needed to go back to what I stated on the 19th (not the 17th) if you did not misrepresent what I stated on the 19th by stating, "As Flyer22 Reborn acknowledges, not only is there a problem of WP:PRIMARY with the second source, it is difficult or impossible to verify material that is sourced this way." Also, it is odd for you to expect me to address something you brought up when you did not address what I brought up. Everything I brought up is valid regardless of you referring to it as WP:ALPHABETSOUP. For example, you should not have tagged that reference with Template:Primary source inline. That the reference for that piece is a primary source absolutely does not matter. That the source is a primary source is absolutely fine. What does matter is the bad formatting of that source and lack of information regarding it. You have an attitude because you came at me with "Not for the first time, I am left wondering if you have even read the article you are commenting on, never mind the discussion we are trying to have here about how to improve it." Clearly an attack, no matter if one considers WP:Personal attacks stating, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." That comment by you that I just quoted was a completely unnecessary comment and clearly meant to provoke.
Moving on... WP:PAYWALL is a policy. Not merely a guideline. It is to be followed for a valid reason -- so that reliable sources and content that should be preserved are not thrown out. There have been various discussions involving editors arguing what you are arguing now -- to get rid of the source, reduce the source, or get rid of the content because they don't have access to the source or because the source is not in English. And consensus has repeatedly stated that it is not a good idea unless there is reasonable evidence that the source is being misrepresented or is falsified, or unless there are better sources. In the case of WP:Non-English sources, English sources are the better sources because they are preferred, but we don't automatically get rid of non-English sources. In the case of the "Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (booklet)" source, no solid reason has been given to get rid of the source. As for significantly decreasing our use of it, that might be a valid approach. But anyone removing content along with it should be trying to preserve that content unless it's clear that the content shouldn't be in this article or that the article is better off without it. "Better off without it" should not be a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. That is what the WP:Preserve policy is about. The editor should not be removing content that should be preserved and expecting others to come along and restore the material that they may not even know was removed unless they go edit history hunting.
You stated that you "appreciate that Nelson George is a respected writer, but if [you are] correct in thinking that this is a booklet that came with a greatest hits collection, this becomes pretty much a primary source, and one which the average non-fan reader is unable to easily check as WP:V requires." Per WP:Primary, all that it being a primary source means is that it should be used with care, without interpretation, and to only "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What it states about access does not mean that an editor who comes across the source must have access to it. It means that any editor with access to it should be able to see that the source is not being misrepresented. It being a "fan" source does not matter; like WP:BIASEDSOURCES states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I point to the rules because they matter, and, like many know, I follow them very well. This is not about complaining from the sidelines. And per WP:BURDEN, I do not need to go "find better sources." An editor has already satisfied WP:BURDEN by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that presumably directly supports the material. Like WP:BURDEN notes, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you think that the source is being misrepresented, you should provide proof of that. Removing the source because you don't have access to it is a no-go. I don't agree with removing all instances of the reference and leaving "citation needed" tags in their place, which is a route you would love since you have repeatedly tried to get this article delisted. And I clearly don't agree to removing all of the content attributed to the source. What would work, per WP:Preserve and WP:BURDEN, is you looking for better sources since you (not me or anyone else) are on this mission, and, if not finding them, accepting that this source may be the best source (or best available source) for the material. What would work is you removing the source from places that go beyond straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Again, the content does not need to be verified by you. Per WP:Verifiability, it only needs to be verifiable. WP:PAYWALL is an aspect of the WP:Verifiability policy. I realize that you will find this post by me too lengthy, but I feel that all of that needed to be stated. After all, your "unable to easily check as WP:V requires" belief (or former belief since I pointed to WP:PAYWALL) is incorrect. Also, from your "if [you are] correct in thinking" piece, it appears that you are not even sure that the source is a primary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's actually think it through. Will we get around using the booklet that came with one of Jackson's albums as a reference 40 times by quoting WP:PAYWALL? No, I don't think so either. So, what do we do? That is the question. Anybody feel like addressing this? By addressing it, I mean "make a positive and actionable suggestion that would make the article better". --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I told you above, "As for better sources, I routinely go to Google Books for decent sources. But I usually edit academic topics (when I'm not patrolling via WP:Huggle, or WP:STiki whenever that starts working for me again). Still, checking Google Books is one option for the topic of Jackson. And, of course, looking for reliable media sources is another." I was clearly suggesting that you look on Google Books and for reliable media sources. Those are clearly "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better." I told you above, "What would work, per WP:Preserve and WP:BURDEN, is you looking for better sources since you (not me or anyone else) are on this mission, and, if not finding them, accepting that this source may be the best source (or best available source) for the material. What would work is you removing the source from places that go beyond straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Again, the content does not need to be verified by you. Per WP:Verifiability, it only needs to be verifiable. WP:PAYWALL is an aspect of the WP:Verifiability policy." Those are clearly "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better." I see no indication that you are looking for supposed better sources. I do not see why I or anyone else should be looking for them when you have not demonstrated that we should not be using the aforementioned source...except for in cases where the statements are not straightforward, descriptive statements of facts or seem dubious and should have secondary sourcing instead. If you doubt that something is a fact, Googling is right there at the fingertips. If Googling doesn't work, I don't know what else to tell you. Like I noted, an editor has already satisfied WP:BURDEN by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that presumably directly supports the material. If you are just waiting for this discussion to go stale (or rather staler) and then go ahead and completely remove the source and material cited to it without any valid rationale and in ways that contradict the rules, I will object and revert you. If you cut down on the source in a careful way (replacing it with a better source, removing it as unneeded because it's redundant, removing it from places that it obviously shouldn't be used for, and/or removing the material it's cited to because it's dubious, or is truly trivial, or really doesn't improve the article), I will be fine with your edits and won't revert. I really don't see what else I need to state on this matter, except that I might look for other sources if I get a good chance to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There's no need for you to state or restate anything. What we need are better sources. If you do get a chance to find some, that would be useful. While there is no deadline, and while the writing quality of the article has improved, it really isn't satisfactory that this long into the discussion we still have an article so dependent on primary sourcing claiming to be FA. I certainly don't think we could go beyond the end of April without initiating an FAR. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Given your inaccurate comments above about sourcing and your clear implication that I hadn't made "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better," I clearly did need to repeat myself. I was right about the WP:Recentism you and others have engaged in (acting like I was just some Jackson fan), and the RfC on it shows that. I will revert this article back to its previous setup if that RfC closes against the current setup. And I am right about the referencing matter. Comments by SNUGGUMS indicate that. To repeat myself again: "I do not see why I or anyone else should be looking for [sources] when you have not demonstrated that we should not be using the aforementioned source...except for in cases where the statements are not straightforward, descriptive statements of facts or seem dubious and should have secondary sourcing instead." You keep going on about better sources without demonstrating that we need to get rid of or replace any of the reliable primary sources for material they are supporting. You can't just state that "we need better sources" without demonstrating that the sources we are using are not satisfactory. I've been over this above. It is only "unfair" because you are the only one concerned with that source and/or other sources. Stop telling others to start the work, especially when it's not clear that any work needs to be done. All I see is a person -- you -- hellbent on nitpicking at and unnecessarily delisting this article. And I can tell you right now that the article absolutely will not be delisted based on your weak arguments. You will be wasting your time. Do not edit this article in a way that does not align with the rules. I do not feel like starting an RfC on this or going to ANI about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Primary sources in themselves aren't as bad as you suggest with your "so dependent on primary sourcing" bit. We simply need to take caution with the ones that are in place and such use should be limited. When they are used, the most important things to ensure are they aren't being used for any contentious claims and we don't try to insert interpretations not easily inferred. What would help now is to list examples of text cited to primary sources that go against the aforementioned conditions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well yeah. Considering I raised this on 18 March, hasn't anybody even had time to look at this? Sheesh. Right. Let's start. Why can't anyone else do this? --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@MarchOrDie: "Why can't anyone else do this?" Because Wikipedia is volunteer work and no one has to do anything. That means you doing this is even more impressive. Remember you can dump it any time you want. Popcornduff (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. Duly struck. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear before, I meant you should list the contentious claims attributed to primary sources and instances that derive claims in unclear ways from such references, not simply anything cited to a primary source. Again, using primary sources isn't an inherently bad thing, contrary to what you've implied with "why aren't there better sources" remarks on non-contentious claims. Please stop making the idea sound worse than it truly is. As for the actually contentious remark and the bit from Nelson George, I'll look for alternative citations when I get the chance (probably within the next 72 hours) and use those if viable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your cluefulness, SNUGGUMS. Couple of things; obviously primary sources have their place, but this is a particularly awkward source as it is not merely primary but highly inaccessible for checking, and even non-contentious material should be capable of better sourcing on a featured article. Thanks for saying you would help find better sources; obviously this is merely the first tranche of work. There'a a lot more to do to make this a decent article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS didn't state anything that I hadn't already told you above. So your "cluefulness" compliment which doubles as an obvious jab at me is... Never mind. I've already been over inaccessibility and all of that, pointing to rules that support my views. SNUGGUMS's statements are just shorter. And given everything that I stated on the referencing matter, SNUGGUMS's comments on the matter didn't need to be long anyway. Because of how you have misrepresented how things are supposed to work, I was clear that my "02:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)" comment on the matter needed to be as long as it is for you to truly understand. If you don't want to listen to all of that, the way I clearly pointed you to the rules and why, oh well. It shouldn't take SNUGGUMS coming in and essentially repeating what I stated for you to want to listen (or act like you are listening), regardless of the fact that you and I haven't gotten along. And unless your arguments are supported by the rules, I don't see why we should see what you state about referencing or anything else as some serious matter that can or should lead to this article getting delisted. Like SNUGGUMS stated, "stop making [things] sound worse than [they] truly [are]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't take a compliment to another as a slight to you. This isn't predominantly about "rules", but about improving the article. Length doesn't equate to clarity or cluefulness, and you may need to think about that. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
For reference though, the "rule" the article aspires to follow is to be 1c well-researched ... a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
And as regards "Please stop making the idea sound worse than it truly is", SNUGGUMS, it's always a fair point and I'll try (as we all should) to keep emotions and feelings out of it, and to content over contributors, but I confess I am still internalizing my reaction to this being a FA the way it was written and sourced when I came across it and the pushback, to the degree that it is an issue, makes it slightly less satisfying than it ought to be sometimes. I will continue to try to refrain from being snarky, as I know it's a lot easier to criticize a work than to write it. Can we agree that finding and implementing better sourcing should be a medium-term priority that several of us with an interest in the article can all help out with? On the other hand I welcome, and need, scrupulous fellow editors to scour my work, so thanks for that. Now, to work on the sources... --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't take a compliment to another as a slight to me; I take an obvious slight to me as a slight to me. As for rules, this is very much about rules. You shouldn't expect editors to just go along with your arguments for getting rid of material when those arguments have no basis in the rules, and especially in cases where you are making it out like they have a basis in the rules and are grounds for delisting this article. Same goes for other things you personally think are improvements...but are really more so opinion. An article may be changed based on opinionated reasons that have nothing to do with the rules and doesn't violate the rules, but that obviously is a consensus matter. Nowhere did I state or imply that length equates to clarity or cluefulness. It absolutely is not something I have to think about. I've objected to you cutting, and possibly cutting, material that should be retained. I've objected to you cutting material based purely on your opinion of what a better source or better article is, when the rules and many GA and FA reviewers (including those of recent GAs and FAs) disagree with you. We've already been over this. As for "well-researched ... a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate," we have also already been over the fact that primary sources are not automatically a problem. Nowhere does FACR state that primary sources cannot be used in featured articles. And even if it did, it is not something followed in practice. And we've already been over the fact that you not being able to access the source is not what WP:Verifiability means. In any case, as long as you are working on the article appropriately, with or without SNUGGUMS, I have no issue with your edits to the article. Thanks for stating that you will drop the snarkiness and attempt to engage me as you would any other editor. I am certainly trying to treat you like any other editor I would discuss with on the talk page. I will also try to not escalate things when we disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yes, I can agree to help out with improving sourcing where feasible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Items only sourced to George[edit]

  1. Michael grew up with three sisters (Rebbie, La Toya, and Janet) and five brothers (Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, and Randy). Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources? There are.
  2. In 1965, Michael began sharing lead vocals with Jermaine, and the group's name was changed to the Jackson 5. Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
  3. The Jackson 5 ... signed with Motown in 1969. Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
  4. The group set a chart record when its first four singles—"I Want You Back" (1969), "ABC" (1970), "The Love You Save" (1970), and "I'll Be There" (1970)—peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100. Contentious. We need a better source or this will have to go. Reworked with a better citation
  5. [The Jackson 5] left Motown in 1975. Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
  6. In June 1975, the Jackson 5 signed with Epic Records, a subsidiary of CBS Records,... Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
  7. [Quincy Jones]... agreed to produce Jackson's next solo album. Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources? There are.
  8. Off the Wall was the first solo album to generate four top 10 entries in the US: "Off the Wall", "She's Out of My Life", and the chart-topping singles "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" and "Rock with You". Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Adjusted with more appropriate citation
  9. He also won Billboard Year-End awards for Top Black Artist and Top Black Album, and a Grammy Award for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance for 1979 with "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough". Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Easy to find reference for the latter, wasn't able to confirm the former. Adjusted accordingly.
  10. Captain EO ... debuted in 1986 at Disneyland and Epcot in Florida, and in 1987 at Tokyo Disneyland. It also featured at Euro Disneyland from 1992 to 1998. Non-contentious but why are the dates this important? If they're important there should be a better source. Quite easy to find a better source. It's still over-detailed but now it has a proper source.
  11. Moonwalker, which featured live footage and short films starring Jackson and Joe Pesci. Due to financial problems, the film was only released theatrically in Germany; in other markets it was released direct-to-video. It debuted at the top of the Billboard Top Music Video Cassette chart, and stayed there for 22 weeks, until it was displaced by Michael Jackson: The Legend Continues. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better sources found.
  12. Shortly afterwards, he became the first Westerner to appear in a television advertisement in the Soviet Union. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Found a better source, and a slightly different claim.
  13. The second single, "Remember the Time", spent eight weeks in the top five in the US, peaking at number three on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  14. In the UK, "Heal the World" sold 450,000 copies and spent five weeks at number two in 1992. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  15. In February, he won the "Living Legend Award" at the 35th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles. Dangerous was nominated for Best Vocal Performance (for "Black or White"), Best R&B Vocal Performance ("Jam") and Best R&B Song ("Jam"),... Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  16. HIStory received a Grammy nomination for Album of the Year. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  17. "Scream", a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet, protests the media's treatment of Jackson during the 1993 child abuse allegations. The single had the highest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 at number five, and received a Grammy nomination for "Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals". Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  18. "You Are Not Alone" ... sold well and received a Grammy nomination for "Best Pop Vocal Performance". Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
  19. "Earth Song" was the third single released from HIStory, and topped the UK Singles Chart for six weeks over Christmas 1995; it sold a million copies, making it Jackson's best-selling single in the UK. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Fixed; slightly modified but verifiable claims now.
  20. The show also featured artists including Mýa, Usher, Whitney Houston, NSYNC, Destiny's Child, Monica, Luther Vandross, and Slash. Non-contentious, but there should be better sources out there surely? There are.
  21. Jackson's song "Thriller", released as a single in 1984, uses cinematic sound effects, horror film motifs, and vocal trickery to convey a sense of danger. Fine, if attributed. Duly attributed.
  22. A single from the album Bad, released 1988, "Smooth Criminal" features digital drum sounds, keyboard bass, and other percussion elements designed to give the impression of a pulsing heart. Fine, if attributed. Duly attributed.
  23. Jackson did not use the technique fully until the recording of Off the Wall: it can be seen in full force in the "Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)" promotional video. Contentious; "in full force" is the language of fans. Duly removed.
  24. Nelson George wrote: "The grace, the aggression, the growling, the natural boyishness, the falsetto, the smoothness—that combination of elements mark him as a major vocalist". We can discuss this but I am not comfortable with an album insert by George being used as a source for a quote by George. Seems like promotion. I've removed this. As noted below, this quote does not appear to exist in secondary sources so we can do without it.
  25. The video for "Leave Me Alone" ... won a Grammy for Best Music Video, Short Form. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found, date corrected. This is mentioned twice.
  26. He received the MTV Video Vanguard Award in 1988 and the MTV Video Vanguard Artist of the Decade Award in 1990; in 1991 the first award was renamed in his honor. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found, date corrected by a decade.
  27. "In the Closet" featured Naomi Campbell in a courtship dance with Jackson. It was banned in South Africa because of its sexually provocative imagery. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. No better sources out there, so I've removed it.
  28. "Earth Song"'s video gained a Grammy nomination for Best Music Video, Short Form in 1997. The video has an environmental theme; using special effects, time is reversed so that life returns, wars end, and forests re-grow. First part is contentious and needs a better source. Better source found.
  29. In 1990, Vanity Fair called Jackson the most popular artist in the history of show business. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Removed this one as I see no evidence that it happened.
  30. Jackson was also inducted into the Vocal Group Hall of Fame (as a Jackson 5 member) in 1999, and the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2002. Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. No better source found, removed for now. Not sure it's a great loss.

Discussion[edit]

No problem at all with the first piece. Like you stated, "non-contentious." That it should have a "better" source is your opinion. What is a better source for the material? Why don't you go look for it since you want it? Same goes for the other non-contentious material.

The Nelson George quote is no different than a critic commenting. Some critics will be positive. Others will be negative. If a singer's voice was considered mediocre or bad, or has deteriorated, we should include material on that as well. When it comes to Jackson's voice, however, the vast majority of the critics' views are positive. The George content is sourced appropriately and has WP:In-text attribution. Nothing is wrong with it. If one wants to make the text look even more like an opinion, they can use "According to Nelson George" or "In Nelson George's opinion." The piece is not a bad piece simply because it compliments Jackson's voice. Just like a number of other Wikipedia articles on singers that have pieces complimenting the singer's voice, this one does as well. It's done because reception material such as that should be included. Of course, we don't need to, and shouldn't, include any and everyone who has complimented Jackson's voice. And we should try not to be redundant on the compliments we include. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Good to have your opinion. If I, or another editor or reader, wanted to verify that the George source was being correctly quoted, how would we do so? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Either do what WP:PAYWALL suggests doing. Or, like I suggested before (higher up), look for other sources (reliable, of course) that might verify the material. Looking at the recent changes to the article and what you stated below in this section, you've been doing the latter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. And I've asked, let's see what they come up with. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As I thought might happen, looking for better sources reveals a number of claims which don't add up. For example, regarding "In the Closet" featured Naomi Campbell in a courtship dance with Jackson. It was banned in South Africa because of its sexually provocative imagery., outside of the Jacksonverse and the (many) mirrors of this article, this factoid doesn't seem to have evidence behind it. Halstead, Craig; Cadman, Chris (2003). Michael Jackson the Solo Years. Authors On Line Ltd. ISBN 9780755200917. seems to be a self-published book by non-notable authors, and that's the best I can see. If this really happened, you'd expect to see multiple reliable sources discussing it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a source for Campbell being in the video, but no source for the supposed South African ban. I've restored what can be reliably sourced. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Good researching. Are you looking on Google Books as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Good. Regarding this, you stated, "less is more and it isn't in the article any more." If he was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, that is something we should mention somewhere in the article. I don't consider it trivial, especially since the text stated that he "is the only dancer from pop and rock to have been inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Dance Hall of Fame." Is there no reliable source confirming the Songwriters Hall of Fame aspect? Also, maybe the text meant "both," as in "both the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Dance Hall of Fame"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the Songwriters Hall of Fame one after finding a NYT source that discusses it. I do think we need to be a little careful about listing absolutely every award and recognition he received, as it could dominate the article if we are not careful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Vanity Fair as a source of facts[edit]

Ther lemma now states that "At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys". The source for this factual quote is an articla in 'Vanity Fair'. Does the Wikipedia community blindly accept ideas put forward by 'Vanity Fair' as unquestionable facts? Do the facts referred to in the article sufficiently prove that these seven people 'accuse him' of abuse or inappropriate behavior? In answering these questions, please bear in mind that 'to accuse' a person is a formal status. It does not inclulde to 'suspect' a person or to 'have second thoughts' on a person. Can we maintain the idea that 'At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys"? I wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcouzijn (talkcontribs) 06:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is a very large and very well established source on everything related to popular culture. Jackson and his entire family and all his acquintances belong exclusively to the realm of popular culture, so in the case of Michael Jackson Vanity Fair is a perfectly acceptable source. Of course these claims have been very extensively covered by many other sources too; it's not like Vanity Fair is the only source covering those claims, so this is pretty much a non-issue, as we could easily find a bunch of other sources that say the exact same thing. --Tataral (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Michael Jackson's autopsy report, he was uncircumcised. Pages 15 and 39: [5]

But Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair claims that Jordan Chandler, who stated that Jackson was circumcised, correctly described Jackson's penis... [6] [7]

That is one of the biggest media lies told over and over. There is a huge visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. If you are circumcised, you know what an uncircumcised penis looks like. The description did not match. https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1091741787398402048

Nicole's View Livestream: Exclusive Taj & Brandi Jackson Discuss "Leaving Neverland" (from 47:56 to 49:42) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8PUNP8FkA

My point is, Vanity Fair may be a reputable source, it doesn't mean it is devoid of errors. Errors can happen in any publication, but they should be corrected when pointed out. Israell (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What does MGM have to do with this? --Tataral (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sure there are places on the Internet where you can discuss your views of Michael Jackson's penis, and what it proves about the credibility of the sources. For here, it really doesn't get us anywhere in terms of improving the article. I'm trying to be polite, but if I don't respond to any more posts of yours that say things like There is a huge visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, please don't take it as agreement. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My views? MarchOrDie, instead of trying to ridicule other editors, I politely and respectfully suggest you learn how to read. This is the second time I quote somebody, and I am told it's "my views". I quoted Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew. Am I Taj Jackson? No! So why are you making it sound like it was my own statement? A Vanity Fair article claims Jordan Chandler correctly identified Michael Jackson's private parts when he did not. My point is, Vanity Fair articles are not always 100% factual. I provided sources incl. Taj Jackson's tweet, his interview and Michael Jackson's autopsy report. Is that clear enough for you or do you need a translator? Israell (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well, that's very interesting. This page is for discussing additions and corrections to the Wikipedia article on Michael Jackson. There are undoubtedly many, many others where you may discuss your views on Taj Jackson's views on his late uncle's genitalia. Unless you are suggesting an improvement to the article though, there is little point in bringing these points here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
So funny... You don't get it, do you? We are discussing the use of Vanity Fair as a source of facts! Am I off-topic? No! I've explained that that magazine is not always devoid of errors, and I've included sources. Is my point clear enough now or should we waste more time arguing? Israell (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a red herring, twice. Firstly as the contention that our standard for sources is that they always be 100% accurate is not a true one. Please read WP:IRS for more details. And secondly, the contention that something Jackson's nephew said in a Tweet about what he thinks about the reliability of the witnesses, outweighs what the courts said or what other sources say, is only your opinion, and not one that many unbiased observers would or could share. Please see WP:NOR for details. Now, as I said, this is a place where we discuss improvements to the article. If your suggestion is that we remove Vanity Fair as a source, because you think it has made an error, the answer is "no". If you intend to continue this conversation, please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Maureen Orth has always been a National Enquirer Level Journalist.[8] She only got to publish in more reputable outlets because of who her husband is.That people still use articles by this woman as a source for anything is ridiculous.There are multiple sources reported that the Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was not matched.[9][10][11][12][13] [14] If Jordan"s discription of MJ's penis was accurate he would have been handcuffed on the spot because they strip searched him, are yalll stupid? Saying the discription were matched..Thats like saying the police have a warrant to raid your house and they find drugs but they dont arrest you for it.why are the wikipedia editors are so stupid lol.--Funkof40000years (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Funkof40000years, please don't call people "stupid" on this site per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Objections over content are one thing, but it's not appropriate to insult others like that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Allright, SNUGGUMS. Does 'cognitively challenged' meet your requirement for a more 'civil' qualification? Or do you want a prohibition altogether on qualifications of people's known habits of acting in a less than intelligent way?Mcouzijn (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
No because that still blatantly demeans one's intellect. We should instead provide insight on what changes would benefit articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2019[edit]

Akshith Srinivas (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

please leave me to edit.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019[edit]

Regarded as one of the most significant cultural icons of the 20th century, he is often referred to as the "King of Pop" or simply "the King". Antavius (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If there's a certain change you'd like to make with this sentence, then please elaborate on how it should be edited. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2019[edit]

Block evasion by User:Keditz.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Michael Jackson sold 750 million records, not 350 million. There are many sources that have told this, including televised shows e.g This Is It press conference. Also, Chris Tucker told the audience at Michael Jackson Tribute On ‘Taking The Stage’ in 2017 that Michael Jackson had sold 1 billion records worldwide. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This is already covered in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Time, RIAA and Rolling Stone are highly reliable and held in high regard. One person against all these sources shouldn't dispute the claim that Michael Jackson sold 750 million records, the This Is It press conference was watched by millions and the introducer, Dermot O'Leary, says that Michael Jackson has sold 750 million records. Think about this, ABBA are said to have sold roughly 400 million records worldwide but Michael Jackson is apparently the 3rd best-selling artist. Also, there's barely any high regarded sources that state that the Beatles and Elvis sold the amount that is said on Wikipedia. So why should Michael Jackson's world record sales number be in need of more confirmation? 92.7.38.194 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Also, in the paragraph regarding Michael Jackson's best selling albums, Bad (1987) is missing. Bad should be there too. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not one person disputing it though, it's multiple reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, see Note 2. Inflated record sales are a feature of this topic, and we should be very careful in reporting the various claims and counter claims. My own feeling is that the article is still somewhat bogged down in immense detail about what sold what, what record it held, what it sold more than or less than, and so on. Where these are not sourced to strong secondary sources, they should be removed. Concerns about other articles are best addressed on those articles' talk pages, or at a project page. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Bad should be added in the 3rd paragraph of the article alongside Off the wall, Thriller and so on because it's also one of the best selling albums. Also, RIAA is the biggest/key source for albums sales in the United States. Wall street journal is not as knowledgeable with music than RIAA, Rolling Stone. Madonna sold 300 million records, you really think there's only a 50 million record gap between Madonna and Michael Jackson? 92.7.38.194 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion one way or the other, I go with the spread of numbers in the reliable sources, and note the contradictions and controversies. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh cool. Bad should be put among the best-selling albums too. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

Bad should also be put amongst the best-selling albums in the 3rd paragraph. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019[edit]

EmircanGULER1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Casn I edit this page please. Thank you

You first need to get extended confirmed rights by making 500 or more edits and having an account that's at least 30 days old. See WP:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection for more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Taraborrelli a good source?[edit]

I've previously noted my concerns about this book being used so extensively as a source in this article. I struggled to find good reviews of any of his work and got the impression that he was known for gossip rather than scholarly analysis. Now I've come across a source that says he and Jackson were friends. Here's the quote: 'His first wife, Lisa Marie Presley, according to testimony from his long-term friend and biographer, J Randy Taraborrelli, said that Jackson was "hot stuff in bed".' Why is Taraborrelli relied on so extensively? Isn't there a better book source on Jackson's life? That isn't a Socratic question, by the way, I'd just like to see a better spread of sources used. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I'll just pop this down as an interesting read. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know whether to classify Taraborrelli as a good source, a bad source, or a decent source. I've seen editors, including at Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, claim that Taraborrelli is biased against Jackson (see here, for example). Wikipedia-wise, I can only judge the source on what WP:Reliable sources states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure I've seen Bluesatellite and/or IndianBio use this author on Madonna-related works, so pinging them for input and potential comparisons on Madonna vs. Michael writings. They're more familiar with Taraborrelli than I am for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, having had a preliminary look, I reckon we could do similar to what we did with the album insert, if it turns out there are too many Taraborellis. Queering the Gothic. Manchester University Press. 2009. ISBN 978-0-7190-7815-6. Chapter 10, "Michael Jackson's Queer Funk" by Steven Bruhm. This is the academic source that Carman refers to in the link above. Some interesting commentary on Jackson's sexuality. It strikes me that other than his two short-lived marriages and the sex abuse allegations, we don't really discuss his sexuality at all. I think there might be room for a short mention of how Jackson forged a path for acceptance of "queer" lifestyles, in the modern sense of "ambiguous and non-restrictive". Depending on how we decide to structure the article in the future (remember my preference was to have a "Personal life" section with his marriages, children, sleepovers, allegations and so on all together), would depend how this is to be achieved. We could, my preference, mention some of his friendships as well; poor Elizabeth Taylor is only currently mentioned as having (possibly) crowned him the King of Pop, and Brooke Shields wasn't mentioned at all until I came along. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Having a "personal life" section for Jackson would basically be asking for trouble when it would be prone to trivia, fancruft, and gossip additions. Not at all a risk worth taking. When friendships tend to be superfluous unless they lead to professional collaborations or romantic/sexual relationships, I don't see how Shields or Taylor are worth mentioning. As for queer lifestyles, perhaps something could be added to "Legacy and influence" using Bruhm's book. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right about the section idea. I think Taylor is worth mentioning; didn't he get a lot of support from her after the first round of allegations? Yes, I was thinking of the "Legacy and influence" section under the current structure. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Items sourced to Taraborelli[edit]

  1. A sixth brother, Marlon's twin Brandon, died shortly after birth.
  2. He recalled that Joe often sat in a chair with a belt in his hand as he and his siblings rehearsed, ready to physically punish any mistakes.
  3. The following year, the group won a talent show; Michael performed the dance to Robert Parker's 1965 song "Barefootin'" and singing lead to The Temptations' "My Girl".
  4. relocated from Gary to Los Angeles.
  5. In May 1971, the Jackson family moved into a large house on a two-acre estate in Encino, California.
    1. They did live in Encino after leaving Gary. But I have yet to find a source the corroborate this statement precisely. Here’s Janet Jackson talking about her growing up in Encino.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. "Got to Be There" and "Ben", the title tracks from his first two solo albums, sold well as singles, as did a cover of Bobby Day's "Rockin' Robin".
  7. Their younger brother Randy joined the band around this time; Jermaine stayed with Motown and pursued a solo career.
  8. The film was a box-office failure.
  9. In 1979, Jackson broke his nose during a dance routine. A rhinoplasty led to breathing difficulties that later affected his career. He was referred to Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson's subsequent operations.
  10. Jackson felt Off the Wall should have made a bigger impact, and was determined to exceed expectations with his next release.
  11. In 1980, he secured the highest royalty rate in the music industry: 37 percent of wholesale album profit.
  12. Wearing a black-sequined jacket and a golf glove decorated with rhinestones, he debuted his moonwalk dance, which Jeffrey Daniel had taught him three years earlier.
  13. Jackson had originally turned down the invitation to the show, believing he had been doing too much television; at the request of Motown founder Berry Gordy, he performed in exchange for time to do a solo performance.
  14. Jackson's performance drew comparisons to Elvis Presley's and the Beatles' appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show.
  15. Jackson underwent treatment to hide the scars and had his third rhinoplasty shortly thereafter.
  16. Pepsi settled out of court, and Jackson donated the $1.5 million settlement to the Brotman Medical Center in Culver City, California; its Michael Jackson Burn Center is named in his honor.
    1. See #23 for Jackson’s explanation on Oprah.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  17. On May 14, 1984, President Ronald Reagan gave Jackson an award for his support of alcohol and drug abuse charities,....
  18. It was the last tour he did with his brothers.
  19. Jackson donated his share of the proceeds, an estimated $3 to 5 million, to charity.
  20. When Jackson and McCartney were unable to make a joint purchase, McCartney did not want to be the sole owner of the Beatles' songs, and did not pursue an offer on his own.
  21. The treatments for his condition further lightened his skin, and, with the application of pancake makeup to even out blotches, he could appear even paler.
  22. Witnesses reported that he was often dizzy, and speculated he was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Periods of weight loss became a recurring problem later in his life.
  23. It was reported that Jackson had offered to buy the bones of Joseph Merrick (the "Elephant Man") and, although the story was untrue, Jackson did not deny it.
    1. Jackson did deny it on Oprah’s interview. He also denied the “oxygen chamber” story and explained that the photograph came from something he did with Pepsi and the Michael Jackson Burn Center.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  24. ... all profits from his single "Man in the Mirror" went to charity.
  25. In 1993, he performed "Black or White" at the Soul Train Music Awards in a chair, saying he had suffered an injury in rehearsals.
    1. Jackson performed “Remember the Time” in a chair, not “Black or White.” He explained his injury during his award acceptance speech.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  26. He sold the broadcast rights to the tour to HBO for $20 million, a record-breaking deal that still stands.
  27. By late 1993, he was addicted to the drugs.
  28. He relied on Lisa Marie Presley, the daughter of Elvis and Priscilla Presley, for emotional support; she was concerned about his health and drug addictions.
  29. They had known each other since she was seven and attended one of Jackson's family engagements.
  30. Presley sympathized with Jackson and believed he was innocent; she persuaded him to settle out of court with the boy's family, and go into rehabilitation.
  31. Jackson proposed to Presley by phone in late 1993.
  32. The marriage ended less than two years later.
  33. In late 1995, Jackson was admitted to a hospital after collapsing during rehearsals for a televised performance, caused by a stress-related panic attack.
    1. CNN reported, “During a rehearsal at the Beacon Theater in New York in December 1995, the entertainer [Michael Jackson] collapsed onstage from apparent dehydration and low blood pressure and was hospitalized.” The headline makes it seem like Jackson was chronically ill, which he wasn’t according to the examiners on his autopsy. His vitiligo and lupus were his only chronic illnesses. Likewise, the article didn’t reflect the attention-greedy title. It only listed his most well-known injuries and illnesses.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  34. During the tour, in Sydney, Australia, Jackson married Debbie Rowe, a dermatology nurse, who was six months pregnant with his first child.
  35. Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (commonly known as Prince) was born on February 13, 1997; his sister Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson was born a year later on April 3, 1998.
  36. After 9/11, Jackson helped organize the United We Stand: What More Can I Give benefit concert at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. on October 21, 2001. Jackson performed "What More Can I Give" as the finale.
  37. Jackson had expected the licenses to the masters of his albums to revert to him in the early 2000s, after which he would be able to promote the material however he pleased and keep the profits, but clauses in the contract set the revert date years into the future. Jackson sought an early exit from his contract.
  38. Invincible was released on October 30, 2001. It was Jackson's first full-length album in six years, and the last album of original material he released in his lifetime.
  39. Later that year, an anonymous surrogate mother gave birth to his third child, Prince Michael Jackson II (nicknamed "Blanket"), who had been conceived by artificial insemination.
  40. Jackson alleged in July 2002 that Sony Music chairman Tommy Mottola was a "devil" and "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, and only used them for his own gain.
    1. Here’s Jackson making that speech at the National Action Network in Harlem. Maybe it happened in July 2002? Not sure, but it looks as though it happened around that time.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  41. Jackson's vocal technique was influenced by Diana Ross; his use of the oooh interjection from a young age was something Ross had used on many of her songs with the Supremes.
  42. He said he had learned a lot from watching how she moved and sang, and that she had encouraged him to have confidence in himself.
  43. In "Bad"'s 19-minute video—directed by Martin Scorsese—Jackson used sexual imagery and choreography, and touched his chest, torso and crotch. When asked by Winfrey in the 1993 interview about why he grabbed his crotch, he said it was spontaneously compelled by the music. Time magazine described the "Bad" video as "infamous". It featured Wesley Snipes; Jackson's later videos often featured famous cameo roles.
    1. Jackson explaining his crotch-grabbing dance move to Oprah.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  44. Jordan said he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex.
  45. Jordan's mother said that there had been no wrongdoing on Jackson's part.
  46. Evan was recorded discussing his intention to pursue charges, which Jackson used to argue that he was the victim of a jealous father trying to extort money.
  47. Jackson's older sister La Toya accused him of being a pedophile, which she later retracted.
    1. Yeah, she did. Here’s her explanation from 2011. It’s a report from The Daily Beast which has had some dubious items, but most of this was apparently in La Toya’s own words. Another from the Today show with Matt Lauer. La Toya is a dubious source herself, but the statement from the article is corroborated.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  48. Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Jackson's genitals; a strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles.
    1. Jordan Chandler did NOT describe Jackson’s genitals accurately. A simple deductive reasoning can disprove this (without resorting to talking about Jackson’s wiener): a strip search is authorized by a search warrant meaning Jackson was required to comply with authorities on the search, and if the descriptions matched, the sheriffs would’ve arrested him then and there. Liken this to a drug search in which a suspect’s home is searched, and if dope is found, the police will arrest him immediately on-the-spot instead of leaving the case. So it makes no sense if Jackson’s genitals were described correctly and with confidence but no one was arrested that day. Chandler also described Jackson as circumcised, which was later proven false according to his autopsy. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1994 that the descriptions did not match. That was why Katherine Jackson was called upon the grand jury to be questioned about Jackson's physical appearance. It is also important to note that almost all grand juries in California end in indictments (hence they are often no more than a part of protocol). Jackson went through two grand juries and neither found enough evidence to indict him. This myth of Chandler's "precise descriptions" of Jackson's genitalia perhaps came from District Attorney Tom Sneddon after he proclaimed to the media that the descriptions matched. Here's a predacious 1995 Vanity Fair hit-piece on this subject by Maureen Orth.Partytemple (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  49. In the film, Jackson is seen holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with a young boy.
  50. After the boy in the documentary and his mother told investigators that Jackson had behaved improperly, Jackson was arrested in November 2003 and charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of giving alcoholic drinks to the boy.

Comments[edit]

I've no intention of removing any material at the moment, but it would make sense to source some of these items more widely where it easy to do so. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2019[edit]

kindly add album ' Blood on the dance floor ' 1997 to discography section

thank you Hhafez2018 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The discography on this article is only including his six studio albums. Blood on the Dance Floor is a remix album and is included in his complete discography page. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
He actually had 10 studio albums, not just 6. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Michael Jackson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Michael Jackson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

1993 allegations[edit]

The section 1993 allegations is not accurate .It is loaded with wrong information by citing non reliable sources like Taraborrelli and Maureen Orth. Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was not a match.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Thats why Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers at that time filed a motion in court, demanding the photographs of Jackson's genitals and buttocks be barred from the civil trial. The motion also stated that the copies of the photograph be handed over to them and wanting Jackson to be stripped searched for the second time.[7] If Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was accurate why did the  Los Angeles County Grand Jury call his Mother Katherine Jackson to testify in front of them in the spring of 1994 ?? Why did the investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia??.[8] If Jordan"s discription of MJ's penis was accurate he would have been indicted and arrested and that is WP:COMMONSENSE .Not sure if this makes any sense: How citing factual evidence by providing reliable sources not improving any article??? .I know you guys are trying to shorten and simplify the article, But how can you ignore the factul evidence to shorten the article?  And how is adding factual evidence with support of reliable sources look like it was written by Jackson fans? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Such detail is probably better for 1993 allegations article. It's best not to overfill this one when we have that for extended details. What might make it look like fans wrote the section is if you make it look like you're trying to personally debunk allegations when that's not your job to do. We're supposed to let published material discuss such matters and use what they say. Your insertion looked (at least partially) like a personal analysis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between stating a claim is correct and a claim merely exists. The article currently has the former which is misleading and unproven. The most objective approach is to state some people, like Tom Sneddon and Maureen Orth, have made the claim that the descriptions of Jackson's genitals was a match; but this was refuted by news reports that said investigators did not find the descriptions matching therefore Katherine Jackson had to be questioned. —Partytemple (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree w/ Akhiljaxxn and have nothing more to add, really, but a few links incl. a link to Michael Jackson's autopsy.[9][10][11]

And why is it so pertinent to know if a text was written by a "fan" or not? The word "fan" itself is very vague. You have casual fans and listeners (that may listen to the artist once in awhile, possess select records of said artist), fans who are even more into the artist, may listen to them more often, possess even more of their material, and mega-fans who collect all the records and are more emotionally attached to the artist. And all those types of fans and listeners I've just listed may go to a concert of said artist—even non-fans may go to their concert, buy a tour programme, etc.

And Michael Jackson was such a huge artist and phenomenon that numerous people call themselves "fans". Should texts written by any of those people be proscribed on Wikipedia for supposed bias? It doesn't make sense. What matters is the content of the article and its sources. Don't you think a text written by a detractor (or a hater) of the artist (there are even hate sites out there) could be very much biased? It's no secret Tom Sneddon, Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, to name a few, were/are strong detractors of Jackson.

Maureen Orth also wrote that Jackson cleansed in sheep blood, and that he paid $150,000 to have 42 cows ritually sacrificed in Africa so he could curse his enemies and be blessed, and she stands by that! That outlandish claim is still on her official website![12][13] But only a "fan" could be biased... Israell (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There are already multiple credible citations regarding what actually happened during the strip search. To dismiss them as simply "fan" insertions is negligent and dishonest. How are all those news reports "personal analysis?" And to weigh a detractor's salacious, unproven claims as more credible or as equally credible as a news report negates the purpose of us cleaning up this article's sources. If there's anything that involved "personal analysis" or bias, it's those sensationalist pieces. —Partytemple (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
All these fascinating speculations and conspiracy theories about the dead singer's genitalia may possibly be useful on the daughter article. This one is pretty much fact-based and based on reliable sources. We are trying to make it better, not worse, so I don't think anything here is a useful addition. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The current article has this line from Taraborrelli which is not fact-based, "Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Jackson's genitals; a strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles." Can we at least reword this or add a source to dispute it? Chandler didn't correctly describe Jackson's genitalia, even the sub-article disputes this. It's misleading. —Partytemple (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to source. I don't object to finding a better source. We need to be careful and stay away from WP:FALSEBALANCE. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The "conspiracy theory" is what's written currently, that Chandler described Jackson's genitals perfectly but he wasn't indicted or arrested. This narrative makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying Bobby saw me fall off a cliff and died, but here I am writing on Wikipedia. Nor did the "strip search reveal that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles," because the Los Angeles Times reported that the strip search proved Chandler's description incorrect so Katherine Jackson had to testify before a grand jury.
Moreover, "easy to source" is different from "fact-based," which was how you described the source (Taraborrelli) initially. This complacency to equate "easy to source" and "fact-based" is what's dragging this article's quality down, and doing it at the risk of insulting readers' intelligence. Further sources have already been linked down below in the references section. They are also used in the sub-article regarding the strip search. All of them come from reputable news outlets—at least much more reputable than Taraborrelli and Maureen Orth whom you had, again, described as "fact-based." I think the people who need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE are the ones who believe Taraborrelli, Tom Sneddon, Marueen Orth, and Vanity Fair to be unbiased, infallible, credible, "fact-based," "easy-to-source," among other kindly adjectives. The burden of proof is on them.
And before someone accuses me of "fan bias," since this fallacy has been brought up so many times, I haven't stated my opinions of Jackson's music anywhere on this site, so no one knows what I think of the entertainer. Everything I've posted here can easily be posted by anyone with some critical thought, fan or not. —Partytemple (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
MarchorDie Hey your arguments are so lame. How is the content sourced by multiple reliable and reputed sources is fascinating speculations and conspiracy theories for you? The current version by you is based on non reliable sources like Taraborelli and Maureen Orth. How is an article by tabloid and sensational stuff make an encyclopedia article better?   You are trying to make the article  better by quantity wise by omitting the factual evidence by the police report and the findings of investigators and the grand jury. As long as '''a strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles.He also drew accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when it was lifted' this portion exist in the article by citing unrealiable sources ,the version that i added is an imporovement for the article.Hence the portion should be removed or I will go with my version If you oppose i have no way but take this issue to Wikipedia:DRN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ MarchOrDie and Akhiljaxxn. I actually already did discuss this matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Vanity_Fair_as_a_source_of_facts.

How is Michael Jackson's official autopsy report a "conspiracy theory" when it states he was NOT circumcised? And Black men (who have naturally nappy hair like Jackson did) do have naturally short, frizzy pubic hair (just like a natural redhead does have naturally red pubic hair). That's WP:COMMONSENSE. Jackson had vitiligo (he had publicly revealed it earlier in 1993 on The Oprah Winfrey Show), and one could easily guess his skin had dark and light patches. That's WP:COMMONSENSE. No one here is "fascinated by the dead singer's genitalia". Why such a tone? We just have an issue w/ the false notion that Jordan Chandler had correctly described his private parts when he clearly didn't! If there is a conspiracy theory, it's that false notion. Israell (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Autopsies aren't by any means conspiracy theories. The so-called "common sense" also isn't very common given the diversity of people's thought processes and perceptions, pretty rendering it much a meaningless term. See WP:Common sense is not common for more on its faults. Anyway, I admit there was too much detail on genitals here for Akhiljaxxn's initial addition to this section, but these changes on whether they matched Chandler's description are far better. No objections to finding better sources for claims when feasible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

____

References

Removing Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth as sources[edit]

As per WP:BESTSOURCES, both Taraborrelli and Orth have had their writings discredited repeatedly. We should be further cautious of articles pertaining to Michael Jackson; as Charles Thomson pointed out, Jackson was (and still is) a target for sensationalism, defamation, tabloid fodder, and even conspiracy theories. I suggest we restrict Taraborrelli’s and Orth’s citations by downgrading them with the word claim (“Taraborrelli claims,” “Maureen Orth claims,” etc.), or replace/remove them with more reliable sources.

For Taraborrelli, I have already disproved some of those passages and/or inserted alternative sources in the topic regarding Taraborrelli above. (Please edit them, I will rewrite the passages myself if needed, but the article is locked for me.) Some are easily disproven. Others seem too intimate to even find a different source, so they’re either fabrications or a result of Taraborrelli’s research. I’m inclined to go with the former because Taraborrelli’s book has dubious sourcing, many of which are anonymous and indirect hearsay.

Jackson did not approve of Taraborrelli’s biography back in 1991. According to this other biography on Jackson, Taraborrelli was offered $2 million by Jackson to not publish the book. Taraborrelli refused. While this doesn’t directly refute anything Taraborrelli wrote, it doesn’t make him much more than a gossip writer who exploited his friendship with Jackson either.

Berry Gordy, founder of Motown and close friend of Jackson, also disapproved of Taraborrelli and sued him for damages. Taraborrelli then removed all the lines associated with Gordy in his book.

As for Maureen Orth, she’s a complete hack and does not belong in Wikipedia. I have not read a single piece of hers on Michael Jackson that isn’t full of conjecture, speculation, conspiracy theory and gossip mongering. She is not a reporter but an op-ed writer who has an obsession with exposing Jackson as a child molester in some cover-up conspiracy in spite of actual evidence from verifiable news reports and police investigations. She doesn’t seem to know more about Jackson than the average tabloid reader.

Here’s one of the op-eds she wrote for Vanity Fair and it consists of nothing more than her opinion on various reports on Jackson’s life and behavior. She seems convinced that Jackson was gay, hated women, and attracted to young boys, and she regards various gossip writers as credible. I would categorize this as sensationalism.

Here’s another slanderous one saying things like “the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him,” which is laughable sensationalist nonsense. Jackson was in fact “deformed” by vitiligo and not “by his fame literally.” When does fame literally deform a person? No serious news reporter writes like this.

She also said, “I even found the business manager who told me on-the-record how he had had to wire $150,000 to a voodoo chief in Mali who had 42 cows ritually sacrificed in order to put a curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and 23 others on Jackson’s enemies list.” This sounds like a tabloid piece as it does not source the said business manager. Instead, she wrote the sentence referring to herself as the person who “found the business manager.” A news report wouldn’t be written in first-person, because the source would carry ownership of the facts. Whereas in an opinion piece the writer carries ownership of whatever is written.

We can go on and on arguing about Orth’s statements, but none of her articles for Vanity Fair qualify as a news piece. Under the description for the article “Losing His Grip,” Vanity Fair doesn’t even take ownership of Orth’s opinions, as it states, “Maureen Orth wonders if Jackson is as crazy as he seems—or a cool manipulator of his own fame.” Orth is the one who wonders, not the editors at Vanity Fair.

Vanity Fair is not known for investigative reporting but for their essays and op-eds. They are not The New York Times or The Washington Post, or any other news outlet that follows rules dividing opinion from facts.

As I have said before in previous topics, anyone who believes Orth’s article are credible or factual need to prove it, because I see nothing but sensationalism. —Partytemple (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. Israell (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Jackson's Usage of Musical Instruments[edit]

I couldn't help but ask why is the Instrument line blank within the infobox? Shouldn't MJJ's familiarity (despite if being of limited fluency at the time of his passing) of the Piano, Keyboards, Guitar, and Drums be considered notable within the infobox - especially given his large and timeless stature as a musician? Many thanks in advance to whoever will read and respond to this.(LonerXL (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC))

Nope. That field is only used for instruments the musician is particularly known for (for example, Phil Collins is notable as a drummer as well as a singer, pianist, etc). MJ wasn't famous for using any instruments. Popcornduff (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Leaving Neverland Summary in Article Lead[edit]

Consensus was oppose the suggested text with the opinion among editors that the current short sentence was sufficient for now with additional concerns that the backlash from Leaving Neverland was recentism and may not in the long term have the same impact. WP:BRD satisfied. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Moxy: as per WP:BRD. Propose adding the following to the article lead to discuss impacts of Leaving Neverland Documentary.

Since his death, Jackson's legacy has become mired in allegations of child sexual abuse, and the associated backlash from these allegations as several accusers have come forward with graphic descriptions of Jackson's conduct with them as underage boys. In 2019, the documentary Leaving Neverland detailed renewed allegations of child sexual abuse and led to an international backlash against Jackson.

Discussion[edit]

  • Support adding to the article lead as a summary. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose no need for a huge paragraph added to the lead about a topic that has only there paragraphs in the article. One sentence with a link to the main article ( as it is now ) like other allegations and trials mentioned in the lead is the best way to keep a balance. So keep status quo as per WP:MOSLEAD.--Moxy 🍁 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Raping and molesting little boys is a huge deal, and deserves more mention than a watered down paragraph, since these type of events completely foreshadow his many accomplishments. I dare say that mentions of record sales in the lead is too much detail as per your assessments as well, yet they remain. Please give some thought to what I just typed. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland Child sexual abuse is a serious issue, for sure but on what basis are you trying to include the topic in the lead  to Michael Jackson? Let's not forget that he was vindicated in a court of law on 14 counts!! Talking about leaving Neverland, it's grossly one sided and what evidence does it put forward? Nothing! Leaving Neverland is all about- 4 hours of descriptions but no evidence. It's highly manipulative. Child sexual abuse is a sensitive matter but accusations as such where the accused is defenseless must be dealt with more prudence and facts. What incriminating evidence does Leaving Neverland present? I sincerely put forth the question that we're conveniently bestowing the tag to a defenseless man of being a 'child rapist'? I'm sure we are all aware of the tarred credibility of LN unless we're living under a rock. What about the court cases that they've pursuing against the estate since 2013? Why do you suddenly feel the need to add it as the lead only now but not back in 2013? Because it's more sensational given the current hysteria? Sorry, it's not awareness but feeding the sensationalism. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree no need for stats....as there is no need to add a "second" paragraph on this aspect of the topic as per MOS:LEADREL. ONE paragraph with the three main links is very sufficient.--Moxy 🍁 03:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I totally agree w/ Deboleena on the matter. Israell (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I appreciate the principle, I believe the current sentence,

"In 2019, the documentary Leaving Neverland detailed renewed allegations of child sexual abuse and led to an international backlash against Jackson."

is sufficient at this time for the purposes of a lede. Hammelsmith (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2019 (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.

Terry George & Leif Garrett[edit]

I was wondering if I could add these sentences:

"Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old. Leif Garrett also claimed that Jackson once made an inappropriate sexual request of him in 1979 when Garrett was 17 years old."

by referencing News.com.au & Noise11.com ? Hammelsmith (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Hamelsmith To be honest, the part about Garrett is not reliable, specially the way you've interpreted it. Also, Terry George's claims were highly discredited because of no evidence. He could provide no recorded calls or tapes to prove his claim of having 'phone sex' with Michael Jackson. He never took it to authorities but to the tabloids and also later gave a statement that he was again friends with Jackson in a 2003 documentary by Louis Theroux. FBI monitored his claims, but there was no such evidence to be found and even the prosecution never considered him as credible. That says a lot about the credibility of the claims. Referencing: http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%201%20of%203/view One thing is for sure, the moderators have not looked into the depth of the accusations or have never followed the unusual pattern of the allegations made against Jackson. The media has always reported that he had an infatuation over prepubescent boys and is the reason why he didn't abuse Aaron Carter or Corey Feldman because they were teenagers when they had met him but again give a contradictory claim that he somehow tried to sexually incite a 17 year old Garret? Where's the logic or the credibility? Deboleena.ghy (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to say yet about Terry George, but the proposed bit on Leif Garrett seems like your personal interpretation of the event. The Noise11 link specifically states "Leif makes no judgement about what went down and explains in his book admitting that as Jackson is not around to defend himself he will make no assumptions on Michael's true intentions." Calling it "inappropriate" comes off as WP:SYNTH. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point. Could I just omit the word "inappropriate?" I have to say, I would argue that Jackson's alleged 1979 request of Garrett would be considered inappropriate in almost any context. But, yes, that is my opinion. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That would be better. However, we have to be careful with the phrase "sexual request" as that would imply Jackson requested for Garrett to perform a certain act with/on him. It would be safer to go into specifics by saying something along the lines of Garrett alleging "Jackson once requested for him to teach him how to masturbate". For what it's worth, I find the idea of such a request disturbing myself even if it isn't technically abuse, but we have to keep our opinions out of articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I see it's better to just be specific. Regards & Thank you. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason we have such bad sources for this? Has any major news organization published this stuff?--Moxy 🍁 03:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The links that Hammelsmith gave in this thread are actually from trustworthy publications. You could argue stronger sourcing should be used, Moxy, but "bad sources" isn't a fair description. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The same news link used for Terry links to a story about how MJ kids father is some other dude and links to a story about Russian leader Putin being gay. So yes real problem with the source.--Moxy 🍁 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I included a time-stamped reference of Terry George speaking about the alleged event himself to Louis Theroux in his 2003 documentary. These are all allegations of course. But each testimony deserves a voice. Hammelsmith (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"a voice"...could you read over WP:Advocacy pls.
I do appreciate everyone's efforts to improve the article. I did find (link removed) for the Louis Theroux documentary, played at a rapid rate. I can time stamp the Terry George interview at 29:48, so anyone can have a chance to see it. I noticed that Partytemple wanted a link to the actual documentary itself and Dailymotion has one under Theroux's profile. I hope that SNUGGUMS, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell, Partytemple - all of us and more - can make our contributions to improve the article. I may still need some advice on policy. Hammelsmith (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Pls see section bellow WP:CIRCULAR problems....ps his bio was purged of this years ago.--Moxy 🍁 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Partytemple, Thank you for watching it. Please know that I would never knowingly manipulate a source or write any half-truth for Wikipedia. Terry George also made the same allegation in 2005 to ABC's Primetime Live. Hammelsmith (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The documentary you linked features three people of dubious credibility: Maureen Orth (which I wrote about in this talk page), Diane Dimond, and Martin Bashir. All of whom engage in WP:SENSATIONAL. Terry George has also since refused to provide the exact story of his abuse to the FBI and rejected the tabloid headlines written about him. Again, if you want to include Terry George's allegations, you have to portray the whole story. Don't just write that he made allegations. You need to also write that he rejected the tabloid headlines, didn't give the FBI the abuse story when asked, and have nothing against Jackson. Anything less than this is a half-truth. WP:WEIGHT Same with the Vanity Fair article by Julie Miller. This very article discredited the allegations. This still needs to be fixed. —Partytemple (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an article about the dishonesty on ABC's part behind the documentary. I think it's about the same documentary. —Partytemple (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

→→I still strongly believe that Terry George's accusation of child abuse should be mentioned on this page. Partytemple wrote that there should be added context concerning how his story was first leaked by a friend without George's authority in 1993. I think that's a good idea too. But George did speak candidly about his allegation to Louis Theroux for his 2003 documentary, and again to ABC's Primetime Live 2005 special. The disclaimer before the 2005 TV special confirms that George was not financially compensated for his interview. Interviewees were compensated for the 2004 BBC Three special - Terry George was not in the 2004 special. This is another page about the 2004 BBC special. In 2009, Terry George spoke of his allegation again. In my opinion, his allegation can be mentioned on this Wiki page. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is included, then don't distort his words. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As can be seen by the post below and above his judgment and ability to evaluate sources is definitely a concern.....thus believeany edit should be post here first for evaluation. User:Hammelsmith@ pls join the talk in the last section of this talk page....some real concerns raised.--Moxy 🍁 01:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I think all of this can be added to the page since it reflects the statements, sources, and allegations accurately. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus?

"Terry George also accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old.[1] George stated that his abuse allegation was first press-leaked by his friend in 1993 without his permission. Yet, in the mid-2000s, George personally spoke of the alleged 1979 child abuse by Jackson.[2] Some people from Jackson's inner circle also spoke out against him, but were not deemed credible as they did not report to the police or stop the alleged abuse."[3]

Hammelsmith (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Again pls address the concernso raised bellow about your interpretation of the topic.--Moxy 🍁 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by my "interpretation." I have submitted what I believe should be added with careful wording and sources. Hammelsmith (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK then Opposes as per last section below.--Moxy 🍁 03:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Terry George was the first rumor noted by the FBI on Jackson's dossier, probably because his allegations were the earliest. If we are going to add Terry George, then I propose this:

In 1993, former disc jockey and nightclub owner Terry George alleged to British tabloids that Jackson made an indecent phone call with him when he was 13 years old. In light of the Chandler allegations, detectives from the FBI legal attaché in London contacted George about his story. The attaché decided not take any further action. George has since said he did not believe Jackson was a pedophile and was expecting to see Jackson at the first show of This Is It.[4][5][6][7]

By the way, none of these allegations recently included in that section is "new" or "renewed." Not even the allegations in the Vanity Fair article (Reference #330). We should remove them or move them somewhere else. —Partytemple (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as a 13-year-old is a teen, not a child, plus I'm struggling to figure out how one can sexually abuse someone through a phone when that term tends to imply unwanted physical contact. I might be missing something, though sexual harassment on the phone would regardless be easier to imagine when there's many ways one can verbally harass others. As for Partytemple's comment on the "renewed sexual abuse allegations" section, maybe "posthumous" would be a better fit than "renewed". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I meant that Terry George, Jacobshagen, and those "several people" from the Neverland staff who alleged they saw abuse were not new. They were all dealt with in the 1993 allegations or the 2005 trial. Some of the staff were also mentioned in the 2005 trial witnesses section. Both George and Jacobshagen are old news since the 90s, and they have nothing to do with Leaving Neverland. The only new allegations are the ones coming from Leaving Neverland, and as far as I know, no one other than Wade Robson and James Safechuck has claimed to be abused by Jackson since his death.—Partytemple (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I'm fine with moving the pre-Leaving Neverland allegations to earlier sections in the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I still think that Terry George's allegation is noteworthy, but since I've been outvoted I'll leave it alone. I will only say that if he is telling the truth, it is considered child abuse if someone pleasures himself over the phone to a 13-year-old. It is not that different than sexting a minor. Of course, I have been out-voted, so I will not longer write about it here. I really do appreciate everyone taking the time to leave their opinion and discussing this with me. Regards :) Hammelsmith (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Did Dan Reed really acknowledge that there was an "error" in the Safechuck timeline?[edit]

I think this might be misinterpreting what Reed actually wrote, regardless of the headlines in the given references. In the Leaving Neverland Wiki page, it states,

"Reed responded [to Mike Smallcombe], 'The two still photos of the station shown in [the film] were in fact taken by James,' inferring that Safechuck experienced sexual abuse at Neverland before and after the train station was constructed."

Since Reed also acknowledged the legitimacy of the permit dates, I personally take this to mean that he is still supporting Safechuck's testimony as told to him and established by the photos he saw. Therefore, I believe the above quoted sentence accurately represents the positions of Reed, Safechuck, and Smallcombe in this matter as now known to the public.

For the record again, these are Dan Reed's words:

March 31, 2019 → "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

April 4, 2019 → "1. James Safechuck was at Neverland both before and after the construction of the train station there. The two still photos of the station shown in #leavingneverland were in fact taken by James, who is very clear that he was abused by Jackson in multiple places over many years.

2. #leavingneverland also makes clear that sexual contact between James and #MichaelJackson continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years. The station at Neverland is just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place."

Let us discuss. Hammelsmith (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss. No Leaving Neverland clearly, very distinctly states that Safechuck's alleged abuse didn't last any longer than 1992. It's what Safechuck has even declared in his sworn declaration in support of his lawsuit against the MJ estate in 2014! Didn't you hear Safechuck lament that in 1993 MJ was distancing himself from him and that he was replaced by Brett Barnes, who till date is adamant that he was never abused by Jackson but the creators of LN implied him as a victim nevertheless? Dan Reed destroyed the whole narrative of his film that Jackson discarded boys on reaching puberty. I've always seen a pattern with haters that they don't apply logic at all. I hope you're not on a mission to create Wikipedia as a haters page? Be objective and at least have a fair and unbiased approach. It's undeniable, that the credibility of leaving Neverland has been immensely criticized and is full of inconsistencies. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but the sentence has since been removed. Regards & Best. Hammelsmith (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

theories 2009- Present[edit]

There are alot of theories if his alive --WikiuserSMH (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)SHOCK-PICTURE-MICHAEL-Jackson-still-alive-and-sitting-in-crowd-this-year

None of them are true; he even had an autopsy after dying. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC result[edit]

Per the RfC (currently seen high above), I will be restoring this article to its previous setup since no once has done so yet. Per the RfC result, Moxy added an undue tag. I replied, "we just need to re-incorporate the material into the respective sections." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We Should work on this - this weekend the "Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland" getting even more bloated speculative media again...exact opposite of the RfC outcome..--Moxy 🍁 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Have restored the page to what was there after the RfC ....now going to move what we have into main body as per RfC above. All that badly sourced martial was removed but is seen in all the sub that are just full of allegations with little merit should also be cleaned up a bunch....So going to move chunks with headers to still easy to navigate.--Moxy 🍁 03:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jacobshagen[edit]

There is a serious problem w/ this section of 'Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland':

"As of 2019, five boys who shared a bed with Jackson when they were preteens (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck) have alleged that he sexually abused them.[165][396] Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old.[397][398] Michael Jacobshagen also accused Jackson of child abuse, alleging Jackson had stripped naked before him in 1998 when he was 14 years old.[399][400][401] At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys.[402]"

What is known for certain is that Michael Jacobshagen met Michael Jackson once when 13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PouJliz3M. Jacobshagen, at the time, explained in an interview that, after taking him to the circus, Jackson took him to his hotel room where they played hide-and-seek. There is no evidence he truly did meet Jackson afterwards. Besides, he was reportedly caught selling fake Michael Jackson autographs, and he is not anywhere credible.[8]

That's the problem. It has come to a point basically any man in his 30s or 40s, especially if they've been around Michael Jackson just once, can come out to the media and accuse him of anything they want including inappropriate sexual behaviour (like stripping naked in front of them), child sex molestation, emotional abuse and grooming.

Now, I know that Wikipedia is about verifiability; Jacobshagen did make such accusations. But shouldn't that section of the article also mention Corey Feldman, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Emmanuel Lewis who all did spend quite some time w/ Michael Jackson, and who, for the most part, did sleep in his bedroom, in his bed even, and who all repeatedly stated Jackson did not sexually abuse them? That section of the article used to mention them; I simply added Aaron Carter to the list, and I was told he was outside the age group of accusers. I was also told that list of supporters was WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I disagree w/ both statements. Why? Because Dan Reed himself confirmed Safechuck got the time of the end of the alleged abuse wrong (and was allegedly abused until he was 16 or 17 years old after that Neverland train station opened).[9][10]

Therefore, Carter (who's admitted he slept in Jackson's bedroom when he was 15)[11] is not outside the age group of the accusers.

And considering the fact basically anybody can now come out to the media and falsely accuse Michael (and will be believed even w/ no actual evidence), it is only decent and sensical to balance the article w/ arguments from boys who did sleep in Michael's bedroom, were close to him, spent time w/ him, and insist he never sexually molested them. I was told list of supporters would be too long... 5 boys (now men) is not a long list, not any longer than the list of accusers. This article must be impartial, neutral and not unnecessarily make him appear to be guilty, which so many already believe because of all such allegations and tabloid stories that have been printed for the past 26 years. Israell (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad Israell brought this up, because I just noticed there are serious issues with the section he quoted ("Renewed allegations").
Reference #398 of "Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old" links to Wikipedia itself and not the BBC. WP:CIRCULAR Either fix the link to match the documentary (I have not seen it myself) or remove it. I suggest removing it unless someone here claims to have seen it and can cite it properly.
On Reference #397, this is what the source article actually says: when Terry George had a genuine opportunity to tell the FBI his whole story, he didn't do it. Why? (I'm going to conjecture just slightly here.) Because lying to the Fed's is a felony. It's probably the same reason why the FBI never found any convincing evidence against Jackson, because no one had an honest abuse story to tell and they wouldn't dare to lie to the FBI. Instead, most of them took it to the tabloids or some sort of rag-paper willing to sell these defamatory stories. If we are going to include his allegations in that section, please include that he refused to tell the same abuse story to the Fed's. WP:WEIGHT
The last sentence, "At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys" also has serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:INTEGRITY issues. The source article describes how every one of those accusers lost their credibility after their accusations were brought to court and scrutinized. Please read it and rewrite that line to give a more honest portrayal of the article and, of course, the allegations surrounding Jackson. —Partytemple (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Another improper citation: #399 on the line about Jacobshagen is a reproduction of an article from The Sun, not a reliable source but a tabloid. WP:RS It clearly states at the bottom of the article, "This article originally appeared on The Sun and was reproduced with permission." —Partytemple (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree to some extent. ...have trimmed some....we will have to look at this though....need some good sources. What should we change ? --Moxy 🍁 04:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I just watched the part of the documentary that Hammelsmith linked. It didn't reflect the original sentence written in the article. Terry George repudiated the tabloid headlines calling them sensationalism and vaguely describing them as part true, part false. He said the same thing in the news.au article that was improperly cited. When the FBI came to interview him, he didn't tell the alleged story of abuse, rejected the tabloid stories and said he didn't "hold a grudge against Jackson." Hammelsmith, please do not manipulate sources and write half-truths. You also did that on the Leaving Neverland article with the sentence about Corey Feldman. —Partytemple (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Israell. I think that including Jacobshagen allegations without some context about his character can be misleading for the readers, especially since he has serious credibility issues.[12] GiuliaZB (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I replaced: ""At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys." with "Some people from Jackson’s inner circle spoke out against Jackson, but they lacked credibility since none of them report Jackson to the police or tried to stop the alleged abuse." The article used as a source does not even mention "seven" or "at least seven", and it only says that "some people from Jackson's inner circle" "spoke out" against him.

The number "seven" and "sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys" is not what the article actually says. Why did that editor rewrite it that way on Wikipedia? And yes, the article specifies all those accusers lacked credibility.Israell (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence: "As of 2019, five boys who shared a bed with Jackson when they were preteens (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck) have alleged that he sexually abused them."

Jason Francia never stated he shared a bed w/ Michael, not even once![13][14][15]

As for Chandler, Robson and Safechuck, there is no evidence nor was there any admission by Michael Jackson that he did indeed share a bed with them. Israell (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) As of 2019, five individuals (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Wade Robson, and James Safechuck) have alleged that Jackson sexually abused them as children. This is WP:SYNTHESIS and should be removed. -Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree and removed.....we can't do the math. That said could we say "Numerous individuals blah blah blah..."--Moxy 🍁 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As of 2019, Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck have all alleged that Jackson sexually abused them[edit]

"As of 2019, Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck have all alleged that Jackson sexually abused them as children."[16]

I believe this sentence should still be on the Wiki page. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No objections to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTHESIS. It's misleading (half-truth), redundant and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. All of them are addressed in the 1993, 2005, and Leaving Neverland articles. Hammelsmith, why do you insist on focusing only on the allegations made and not how their stories played out? They all have a beginning, middle and end. The only goal achieved by adding this sentence is to mislead people into believing that all of these cases are open and unresolved. It exploits readers' practice of only spending a few minutes on Wikipedia and not read the entire article. Either explain the whole story in summary and do it justice, or don't include it at all. By the way, I think Chandler and Arvizo have moved on with their lives and refused to be associated with their allegations since their respective investigations ended. —Partytemple (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The sentence does not refer to cases, but allegations. They are all allegations. These individuals have not wavered since making each child sexual abuse accusation. I agree that Gavin Arvizo wants to go on with his life since he has turned down requests for interviews after the trial. Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia cannot discuss their experiences with Michael Jackson publicly since signing their non-disclosure agreements. Wade Robson and James Safechuck's claims are being appealed and they have publicly spoken their piece. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Chandler refused to testify in the 1993 investigation and the subsequent 2005 trial even when he had the chance to.[17] NDA's can't hide crimes, such as pedophilia. The police will continue investigating regardless of the existence of an NDA. The reason why the 1993 investigation didn't indict Jackson was because the police couldn't find enough evidence and Chandler ran away with the settlement money after refusing to testify on open court. It had nothing to do with an NDA, as though it was some sort of cover-up. WP:FRINGE
Robson testified in court in 2005 that he was not abused. Safechuck gave a sworn testimony in 1993 in support of Jackson.[18] He was also declared a non-entity by the judge in the 2005 trial, in contrast to his claim that he begged Jackson's assistant to appear on trial in 2005.[19] So why do you tell one side of the story and not the other? Why prefer to tell just the alleged side and not the legally binding and sensible one. Again, the only thing achieved by only writing the allegations is to mislead people in thinking they are open cases. WP:WEIGHTPartytemple (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I still believe this sentence should be on the Wiki page. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:ADVOCACY. You haven't made a strong point on why this sentence must exist. It has no place in the article because they are already addressed separately in their respective sections. The only new allegations are Robson and Safechuck, who are already mentioned. Chandler, Arvizo, and Francia are old news. They don't want to be questioned anymore about the allegations they made, and they never came forward on their own since Leaving Neverland. So none of them are "renewed." Stop distorting facts, please. And I'm beginning to question your own bias for this article. The NDA theory makes no sense, and it isn't sourced. —Partytemple (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree in principle that there should be some attempt to find references to a statistical analysis to see if the weight of the number of accusers might be significant -- for NPOV there are probably also sources analyzing the N number (the number of children who had various types of involvement in MJ's life). A statement like "Eight people alleged that Jackson had sexually abused them as children" isn't from a source, it is original research, not allowed. There might be some existing research about sexual abuse allegations which we could refer to. We can't make our own little statistical study here in Wikipedia. Also one has to be careful because although MJ is probably guilty, there are a few cases like Jerry Sandusky where you have factual innocence despite seven or eight adults generating various reports of childhood sexual abuse over the years. Prosecutors coalescing evidence gathered over many years can confound a jury but we don't need to be prosecutors, and we don't need to prove anything. Createangelos (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree w/ all the points made by Partytemple. The Chandler, Francia and Arvizo cases are all mentioned in the 1993 and the 2005 articles, and it's all old news (not "renewed allegations"). As for Robson and Safechuck, they are already mentioned. That sentence is not necessary to that section of the article about renewed allegations and 'Leaving Neverland'.
Oppose as the aforementioned names are already included in the articles dealing with the allegation. There's no additional need to include that extra insignificant sentence. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If we add Terry George, Star Arvizo and Michael Jacobshagen to the list of accusers, we'll get to eight accusers (they also all accused Jackson at some point, and there are sources). And if we add that unnamed Toronto boy that also accused Jackson and then recanted on camera (a Hard Copy story by Diane Dimond)[20], we'll get to nine accusers, and there may be other accusers we do not know of. Dimond herself admitted that 'Hard Copy' received "a constant stream of calls and letters from people making dubious claims". Therefore, it is not possible to even determine the precise number of people who accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse and related offences.

EDIT: Adding Leif Garrett, we'd get to ten accusers. He's recently accused Jackson of asking him to teach him how to masturbate when he was only 17, still a minor. But once again, it's still all allegations. Garrett waited 40 years (2019 at that) to tell his story.

Createangelos, I do not believe Jackson probably guilty 'cause each one of all nine accusers we know of were all challenged and deemed not credible due to refusal to testify, speak to the FBI, due to contradictory statements, inconsistencies (among others, those found in 'Leaving Neverland' and Jordan Chandler's inaccurate description of Jackson's private parts—he was not circumcised[21]), the demeanour of the parents of some of those accusers (esp. Evan Chandler, Blanca Francia and Janet Arvizo), the monetary gains sought after by many of those accusers and some of their parents, that unnamed accuser's confession to lying, etc. If anything, all of that tells me he was only "guilty" of being (innocently) too giving, too generous, too kind, too good to those kids and family members, and that he was an easy target. I have yet to see irrefutable damning evidence, and Jackson was never ever found guilty during his lifetime. There'd need to be newly uncovered substantial evidence that can be proven in a court of law (not just tabloid stories and films), but it still could be tainted/fabricated since Jackson passed away ten years ago already and can no longer defend himself.

Hammelsmith, yes, we could fill the MJ articles with allegations, but as Partytemple explained, they need to be inserted in the pertinent sections of the right articles, and the whole stories needs to be told, not just the alleged side. Yes, we could mention Michael Jacobshagen's claims, but we'd need to mention the fact there's only evidence he met Jackson once, that he never accused Jackson at the time (when he was 13), that he was in recent years caught selling fake Jackson autographs, that he once admitted to being offered money to accuse Jackson, etc. I have sources for everything I've just listed.

And what about Diane Dimond's outlandish claim (she still stands by) that law enforcement sources in California told her Jackson paid "more than $200 million" to silence victims and their families?[22][23] What victims? What families? Can she name them? Will she name her law enforcement sources? Is she telling the truth? If so, did her sources tell her the truth? Why wasn't Jackson ever found guilty, then?

At the end of the day, we do have a choice to make. Do we want to help improve MJ articles on Wiki or do we only want to focus on paedophilia/paedocriminality allegations and turn those articles into tabloids? Israell (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


The intention is not to focus on child molestation allegations, but we cannot pretend that they do not exist. I think a consensus has been reached and I do accept that, although I am heartbroken. Octoberwoodland first added the sentence, and that seemed appropriate to me. I suppose everything will be answered in the fullness of time. I also want to thank everyone who initiated and contributed to this thread for your passion and input. Regards & Best. Hammelsmith (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
We have not pretended the allegations do not exist. In fact, we have full articles for each of those scandals describing what occurred in meticulous detail and impartiality. I also agree with Israell that if we are only including the allegations and nothing else, this article could easily be turned into a tabloid. Hammelsmith please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. —Partytemple (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

True. We could even add Leif Garrett to the list of accusers—taking the count to a whopping ten— since he was only 17 when Jackson allegedly asked him to teach him how to masturbate. Garrett then allegedly gave Jackson a key to his room and directed Jackson to his stash of "naughty" magazines. Here's a link to the article posted by Hammelsmith earlier: http://www.noise11.com/news/michael-jackson-asked-leif-garrett-to-teach-him-how-to-masturbate-garrett-book-reveals-20190215.

Once again, it's all allegations, and Garrett waited 40 years (2019 at that) to tell his story. Israell (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, asking for masturbation instructions isn't technically a form of sexual abuse regardless of whether Garrett was telling the truth, so it's misleading to say he alleged MJ abused him. The Noise11 link used even specifically notes Leif makes no judgement about what went down and explains in his book admitting that as Jackson is not around to defend himself he will make no assumptions on Michael's true intentions. Sexual abuse would suggest Jackson touched him in an unwanted way. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jason Francia[edit]

Should we add.....

"That same year, 13-year-old Jason Francia also accused Jackson of molesting him on three occasions. Jackson quietly settled the allegation out of court for over $2 million."[24][25][26]

...under "1.7.1 Child sexual abuse accusations?"

--Moxy 🍁 23:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, I support the sentence. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus?
Oppose. WP:NPOV, WP:INTEGRITY. Misleading and factually incorrect, yet again. Here's the actual story: Jason Francia originally told detectives that Jackson did not molest him, even the source articles say it. That's why during the 2005 trial, Mesereau asked in cross-examination if the police pressured Francia to say that Jackson was a molester to explain why he changed his story.
Citation #1: "He also rebutted suggestions from Mr Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, that he had been pressured by police to make the allegation that Mr Jackson molested him. 'I didn't want to be embarrassed at school,' he said. 'I didn't want to be embarrassed anywhere. I was 13. The police were saying, if he did something then tell us, and I was like, no, I'm not gay."
Citation #2: "Under cross-examination today, he acknowledged that in his 1993 interview he initially said Jackson did not molest him."
Francia did not accuse Jackson of being a molester in 1993. If he told police Jackson did molest him, I think Jackson would have been indicted. I'm not sure when exactly Francia started giving a different story, but it wasn't 1993 and it wasn't his initial testimony. Francia came back to the allegations in 2005, when he was 24, and had to explain why he changed his story. As for the settlement money, I haven't heard this from anyone but Francia and his mother during the trial. Apparently, the first time he had ever talked about the molestation and settlement money in public was in the 2005 trial.[27][28][29][30]
Hammelsmith is not being honest with her/his citations. Literally every citation we fixed was because of integrity or NPOV issues. I am tossing out WP:AGF and suspecting s/he might be doing this deliberately. —Partytemple (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
All of my edits are done in good faith transcribed from the sources I read, and I assume the same with fellow editors. Francia's attorney, Kris Kallman, confirmed that a settlement was made. Summary of Kallman's testimony is in this source. Francia first made his accusation around 1994 and the settlement was "finalised in two stages, in 1996 and 1998" according to this source. Francia did admit that he initially told investigators in 1993 that he was not molested. I think it's fine and fair to include that fact as it is in this source I referenced. Anyone may also read this in the court transcripts. Good faith, comrades. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what's worse, that you read the articles and still preferred to write misleading sentences, or that you didn't read the articles and wrote sentences that didn't match the articles. Either way, you seem to believe every one of these accusers in spite of the fact that every article you cited disputes their credibility. Your thoughts are not reflecting what's written in the articles. And if your thoughts don't reflect what you cite, how could you possibly write anything with any integrity to the articles. —Partytemple (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It can certainly be argued that Jason Francia was not consistent and credible, but an accusation and a subsequent settlement out of court were indeed made. I certainly don't claim to have proof about the allegations either way and that would be against policy, of course, per original research. It is all in the transcripts. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pretty much everything Partytemple said. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I just thought that another accusation resulting in another settlement was relevant to this Wiki page, but if you all say it isn't, there's nothing I can do. Thank you for discussing. Regards & Best, as always. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Another request: Could this sentence be added under **2002–2005: Second sexual abuse allegations, trial and acquittal?**

→"During the trial, it was revealed that Jackson had made another out-of-court settlement in the mid-1990s responding to Jason Francia's child molestation allegation, although Francia's mother never filed charges. Jason Francia also acknowledged, during his 2005 testimony, that he initially denied being molested in 1993."

This is confirmed in Charles Thomson's article, Catherine Elsworth's article, the BreakingNews article, and this Q magazine article.

May I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I mean, allegations can be mentioned in appropriate sections of the right articles as long as the full story, the full context is given. When it's a single sentence that only focuses on the very allegation and briefly states there was a settlement, it causes a weight problem. Israell (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Undecided while that does at least show more than one side, I'm not quite sure how to place it within the section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Undecided (added June 23) All three references are very brief, such as the Guardian saying almost parenthetically, in discussing Meserau's cross-examination of Jason Francia, '...settled with his mother for a reported 2.4 million dollars.' But there is no reference in Guardian for who reported this. In the actual trial Francia describes money being put into his pants. It would be nice if someone can chase the details of this. Did Michael Jackson (or someone representing him) give 2.4 million dollars to Jason Francia's mom at some point? The proposed sentence '...quietly settled the allegation...' includes a lot of detail, implies that there was an allegation, implies that the settlement was done quietly -- which seems true since none of the sources describe it in more than one or two words, and include no source. It worries me to include the phrase 'settled quietly' based on how us editors can't find an original source. It's hard for us to find out about it, but are we then sure that the reason is because MJ wanted to make it hard for us to find out? Createangelos (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Israell & SNUGGUMS for your responses. Since the main objections seem to be weight and context, I suppose I'm content to leave the matter be for now, and be satisfied that the Francias story is just outlined on the Trial of Michael Jackson page. The trouble is, when it comes to the molestation allegations, a lot of the facts can be interpretive. I do know that a settlement "is in no way an admission of guilt," as Johnnie Cochran famously said. In other words, a settlement was made to the Francias, but because much is unknown about that situation, the public cannot definitively know why. I'm sure a lot of people on both sides of the innocence/guilt arguments are saying "I know why," but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Good faith, comrades & Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Createangelos. You made some good points about the sources. The best source is really the court transcript, but I think there is a Wiki policy disallowing that. The 2005 Francia cross-examination transcript and documentations would answer more of your questions. I've already accepted that my proposed sentences mentioning Francia cannot be added to this particular page due to issues of weight and context. The testimonies of both Jason Francia and his mother are appropriately outlined on the *Trial of Michael Jackson* page, since that was when the public first learned about his accusations. Thank you very much for discussing with us. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hammelsmith, so...as far as I could gather, what the Guardian is talking about is how defense attorney Mesereau suggested to Francia during cross-examination that his Mom had received a settlement, and Francia doesn't answer. It's confusing why the defense attorney thought it would be exculpatory, and presumably the prosecution witness too, who refuses to confirm it. I guess that was what was bothering me about saying Jackson "quietly" settled. His defense lawyer is *claiming* that the Mom settled and the only evidence we have of it is that Jackson's lawyer says it's so. So it's like if I told you "I stole a candy bar," and you were to tell someone "Createangelos quietly stole a candy bar without telling anyone." Knowing *only* that I told you..... How could a claim of having done something get reported in Wikipedia as having done it secretly? Createangelos (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Createangelos. May I refer you to a section from this source?

The housekeeper’s son received 2.4 million dollars from Jackson...but no criminal case was filed. The jury was told of the settlement but not the sum, and in brief testimony [from Jason Francia's] attorney, Kris Kallman, acknowledged the terms involved no admission of wrongdoing and specified it was intended to protect Jackson’s reputation.

The Francia's settlement from Jackson is also referred to in this article by Charles Thomson who is a proponent of Michael Jackson's innocence. I hope they help. Again, the best sources are the original court transcripts. I'm always happy to answer whatever questions I can. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2019[edit]

please add the by him in his book adressed plastic surgery to the part about the autobiography, change: and attributed his changing facial appearance to puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting to: and attributed his changing facial appearance to surgery, puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting I have had my nose alteres twice and I recently added a cleft to my chin (Moonwalker p.229 http://www.mtv.com/news/1623608/michael-jacksons-memoir-moonwalk-read-excerpts-here/) ProblemBesucher (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I hope that's alright. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2019[edit]

To clarify the last request: I meant the surgery should be included in the 1987–1990 section. I know it's mentioned in the section above that, but his autobiographie is mentioned in 1987-1990 the first time and it lists to what he attributed his changing appearance. The by him admitted surgeries should be included. He advertised this book afterall in his Oprah interview by saying he'll talk about his surgeries. 'and attributed his changing facial appearance to puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting' should be changed to: 'and attributed his changing facial appearance to three plastic surgeries, puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting' thanks! ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for not fully understanding your request the first time. I hope this change is better. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead Improvement[edit]

The lead features this sentence: "He was also known for his unorthodox lifestyle, residing in a private amusement park he called Neverland Ranch, and often becoming the focus of tabloid scrutiny."

I don't actually a problem w/ it, but it was brought to my attention that it may be misleading somehow. Israell (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the 'Renewed Allegations' section, it was brought to my attention the following sentence is not directly linked to 'Leaving Neverland': "Some people from Jackson's inner circle spoke out against Jackson, but were not deemed credible since none of them reported Jackson to the police or tried to stop the alleged abuse." Israell (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the accusers mentioned in that article has anything to do with Leaving Neverland except for the fact that people dig up old news for comparison to the new allegations. I agree that it should be removed. —Partytemple (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bauder, David (2005-02-22). "ABC's Jackson special included paid interviews". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2019-06-17.
  2. ^ Theroux, Louis (2003). Louis, Martin & Michael. BBC. Event occurs at 35:36.
  3. ^ Miller, Julie (March 4, 2019). "The Neverland Insiders Who Spoke Out Against Michael Jackson". Vanity Fair. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
  4. ^ "Michael Jackson Part 01 of 07". FBI Records: The Vault. Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help).
  5. ^ Sky News Interview Terry George about his Friendship with Michael Jackson, 2009-07-29, retrieved 2019-06-18
  6. ^ "Full Biography". TerryGeorge.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  7. ^ "'He spoke about masturbation': Michael Jackson victim the world forgot". NewsComAu. 2019-03-13. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  8. ^ https://twitter.com/juliejksn/status/1090304785763524608
  9. ^ https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1112364525922254850?
  10. ^ https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1113205222355210240
  11. ^ https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/11/aaron-carter-punch-wade-robson-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-claims/
  12. ^ https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/michael-jackson-signed-items-from-michael-jacobshagen-german-tv
  13. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jackson-defence-tries-to-undermine-fondling-claim-531325.html
  14. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/michael-jacksons-molestation-trial-10-bizarre-details-you-didnt-know-or-totally-forgot/
  15. ^ https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-565-1360651
  16. ^ McDonell-Parry, Amelia (2019-01-29). "Michael Jackson Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: A Timeline". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2019-06-16.
  17. ^ "Accusing Jackson of sex abuse ruined the life of Jordy Chandler". The Independent. 2003-11-22. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  18. ^ "A timeline of all the allegations against Michael Jackson". The Independent. 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  19. ^ Nicole's View (2019-03-03), Nicole's View Livestream: Interview With Private Investigator Scott Ross, retrieved 2019-06-18
  20. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maQ_PHeL6A4&t=79s
  21. ^ http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf
  22. ^ https://twitter.com/DiDimond/status/1126485302149812224
  23. ^ https://newspunch.com/michael-jackson-paid-200-million-hush-money-over-child-rape-claims/
  24. ^ Glaister, Dan (2005-04-05). "Jackson abused me and gave me money to keep silent, witness says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  25. ^ "Man who accused Jackson pleads poor memory". BreakingNews.ie. 2005-04-05. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  26. ^ Halperin, Ian (2009). Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson. p. 268. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  27. ^ Jun 2005, 10:57PM BST 13 (2005-06-13). "Key witnesses in Jackson trial". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  28. ^ "Half time at the Jackson trial". 2005-05-03. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  29. ^ "Reporter's log: Michael Jackson trial". 2005-05-05. Retrieved 2019-06-20.
  30. ^ Elsworth, Catherine (2005-04-04). "Jackson put his hand inside my trousers, says ex-maid's son". ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2019-06-20.