Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson/Archive 1

Same culprits making Jackson articles unbalanced and unstable
There are a couple of culprits who are going around every article about Jackson removing critical content that makes the article balanced. This content includes any content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers, while being unjustly critical to Jackson himself and adding content where consensus has been reached to not add. This behavior must stop. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy pasting issue?

 * Every search yields a copyright violation -- Moxy 🍁 05:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * can you take a look pls.-- Moxy 🍁 05:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=930973432&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fentertainment%2Ffbi-investigated-michael-jackson-for-10-years-1.853982

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=930973432&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2Farticles%2Fnews%2F266333%2Fmichael-jacksons-fbi-files-released

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=930973432&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fentertainment%2Ffbi-investigated-michael-jackson-for-10-years-1.853982

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=930973432&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2Farticles%2Fnews%2F266333%2Fmichael-jacksons-fbi-files-released

https://www.google.com/search?q=ones+was+arrested+on+June+22%2C+1992%2C+after+he+had+trespassed+in+the+driveway+of+the+Jackson+family+compound+in+Encino%2C+California.+According+to+a+1992+Associated+Press+story%2C+Jones+was+put+in+custody+on+June+22+and+held+on&oq=ones+was+arrested+on+June+22%2C+1992%2C+after+he+had+trespassed+in+the+driveway+of+the+Jackson+family+compound+in+Encino%2C+California.+According+to+a+1992+Associated+Press+story%2C+Jones+was+put+in+custody+on+June+22+and+held+on&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+because+they+feared+he+might+become+a+terrorist+target.+The+FBI+eventually+concluded+there+was+little+risk+of+terrorism%2C+although+they+noticed+that+a+New+Black+Panther+Party+member+and+a+Nation+of+Islam+follower%2C+both+unnamed+in+the+files+released%2C+sat+in+the+gallery&oq=FBI+because+they+feared+he+might+become+a+terrorist+target.+The+FBI+eventually+concluded+there+was+little+risk+of+terrorism%2C+although+they+noticed+that+a+New+Black+Panther+Party+member+and+a+Nation+of+Islam+follower%2C+both+unnamed+in+the+files+released%2C%C2%A0sat+in+the+gallery&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I rewrote part 6 in my own words. What's the matter? Israell (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You reinstated a copy vio and then did not come close to a rewrite of what was pasted source...pls review.Close paraphrasing  as changing a few words is not best practises. We will need many Revision deletions.-- Moxy 🍁 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is part 6 OK now? I rephrased it. castorbailey (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems good...but lot more.to go and we should keep it sourced-- Moxy 🍁 06:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * which sentence in part 6 do you think needs additional sources? castorbailey (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you ...know it was a lot of revision deletion...will keep an eye out for plagiarism when editors are unblocked.-- Moxy 🍁 03:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement because I've just rewritten parts of the article that were copied and pasted by other editors. Israell (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pls dont reinstate copyright violations ... Copying text from other sources and more so Close paraphrasing. Will ask a resident expert to look again....see ping above-- Moxy 🍁 05:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Editorial assistance for "Media reaction" section
I am in need of a little assistance from a more experienced editor or admin. For the "Media reaction" section I creates, I included quotes using the "blockquote" template. Most of what I know comes from existing articles, YouTube videos, and studying others who have done it before me. However, I am having difficulties understanding if it is necessary to even be used in this case, or if I used them correctly? Are the quotation marks still a requirement if I use the template. Please clarify. Thanks in advance.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Block quotes don't need quotation marks. It's clear block quotes are quotes. Popcornduff (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the contents of the FBI files
This page is about the content of the FBI files. The files themselves are simply a collection of documents and reports (although it is debatable if they need to be listed here at all to be honest). It is not appropriate to turn this page into an investigative or editorial article. The FBI were not investigating Jackson, and so did not make any conclusions in their files. They were simply assisting other law enforcement agencies. WikiMane11 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is about the content of the FBI file. You are vandalizing sourced content in regards to the FBI files. When I stated this was my article, I authored this article and it does meet Wikipedia guidelines as already approved on this talk page. Your edit are not in line with [WP:OR]] by not sticking to the sources. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This does not fall under WP:OR. I am removing any original research, not adding to it. You are editorialising instead of documenting. The FBI's own page on the files states the following about the file's contents:


 * "Michael Jackson (1958-2009) was a famous singer and entertainer. Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Mr. Jackson and others by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005."

- FBI


 * The files do not show an investigation by the FBI in relation to child molestation allegations, but rather assistance to an investigation. There are no conclusions by the FBI in the document related to those cases. You should not be trying to refute or comment on the contents of news clippings or documented allegations that comprise the contents of this file. They are simply reports for law enforcement agencies, often very technical in nature. The focus of this page is the FBI file itself, not the contents of articles which make up sections of the file.


 * Sentences like this: "Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson. Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed." Are completely out of place in this article. WikiMane11 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no. Nothing here has been editorialized. Everything here is sticking to the sources and is sourced by media outlets that extensively covered the release of these files. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to comment in this way. You are essentially recreating the news articles you are attempting to cite, commenting on the wider story of Michael Jackson, rather than the contents of the FBI file. The whole page whiffs of an attempt to use the FBI file to push examples of Jackson's innocence, rather than actually document the contents of the file. You yourself have commented below that not having these comments make this page "unbalanced", complaining that people are removing "content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers". That suggests you are trying to push a narrative by responding to the newspaper articles that the FBI collected, rather than the file itself. The FBI file itself is not in any need of "balancing". WikiMane11 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your claims are literally the exact opposite of what I’m doing. The act of combing through hard drives, interviewing witnesses, and much more (all of which is claimed by the FBI in these files) is the act of investigating. They are investigating tapes for possible child pornography. They are investigating possible witnesses, and much more. That’s not editorializing. Also any conclusion spoke about in this article is taken word for word from the FBI Files. Such conclusions as “there are no outstanding leads or evidence items,” and “no outstanding leads or evidence items.” are not my conclusions. They are the FBI’s as quoted from the files. If you see a line item that you believe to be unbalanced, let’s take it one line at a time. I’m not opposed to working with anyone. Like whoever changed the lead, I like it for the most part. There is some content in section one that can probably be eliminated, but if that’s the case, let’s reach a consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Statements like "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items" are not "conclusions". It is the FBI saying they have completed the tasks that were assigned to them, and there are no leads or evidence items left to process. Whereas sections in your article like:


 * "In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, Louis, Martin & Michael. When asked about the accusation he said “it came out really without my authority” and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux “parts of it are true yeah...parts of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalized really.""


 * Are clearly focussed on the contents of one particular newspaper clipping that comprises a 300+ page FBI file. Such comments are relevant on a page about the accusations themselves, but not a page about the FBI file. (And the inclusion of the word "cheerfully" further acknowledges your bias.)


 * Furthermore, I flagged this page as "unbalanced", and you have removed that flag. That is not your place to do. Additionally, your frequent claims that this is "your" page are not appropriate either. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * the page is not unbalanced. Also, some edits I did not make. Such as the “cheerful” one, but I will agree that there are some issues there. I also agree there may be some issues with the tabloid sections. Finally, statements like "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items" are conclusions as this is how a specific part of the FBI files ended. Let me see your what your previous edit was for the tabloid section. Will return. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My edits are all available in the history of the article page, right before you reverted them. There should be no newspaper quotes on this page at all, unless their articles directly refer to the FBI files being released. This is not the place to debate the contents of newspaper clippings from decades ago. Finally you still misunderstand "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items". "Outstanding" means "not yet dealt with". The sentence means "there are no leads to evidence items left to be dealt with". It is an acknowledgement that they have reached the end of the work tasked to them by the law enforcement agencies they were assisting. WikiMane11 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Anything the FBI does to collect information related to a criminal case is an investigation even if they themselves did not initiate it. Why do you think other sources cannot be used to contextualize what is in the FBI files or what came out or rather what did not come out of the FBI's investigation of Terry George's claims? Sounds like that's your POV not any actual wiki rule. The source is provided to prove that Terry George did cheerfully recall his 1979 interview with Jackson. It's not bias when it a proven fact and it's one of those facts which explain why the FBI did not find anything local law enforcement could use against Jackson castorbailey (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're asking questions like, "why the FBI did not find anything local law enforcement could use against Jackson?" shows that you're focussed on the allegations against Michael Jackson, and have a bias towards pushing the narrative that's he's innocent. This article is about the FBI files, not the allegations. There several other pages (Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc.) where discussions of the allegations are completely appropriate, but this is not one, as the FBI file does not contain any direct allegations made by the FBI -- only reports of allegations which are addressed on other pages elsewhere. WikiMane11 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I authored this article from beginning to end. It has been edited and improved here and there. As the author of this article, I can tell you that while it is indeed about the FBI Files, the FBI files are partially about the allegation. The sources used to discuss these files also discussed the various parts of the files in a similar fashion. No one here has agreed that there is a bias because it doesn't exist. If Jackson appears to be innocent after reading this article, that's probably because the FBI did not find any incriminating evidence to suggest that Jackson was guilty of any criminal activity. I just presented the information in the article from approved sources. Plain and simple as that. The narrtitive is not mine. Its the FBI's.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this be a separate article?
It strikes me that this is simply an article created by fans of Michael Jackson to give their own point of view, to avoid the scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him. It is about primary sources and nearly all cited to the same sources. Is this really a notable topic or just a list of sources that should, if anything, be included in other topics? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "It strikes me that this is simply an article created by fans of Michael Jackson to give their own point of view, to avoid the scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him." It does indeed appear that way. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not the same sources. The main source has 7 different parts. If this article goes, then so does the one on Elvis and others. There is no bias. It is a notable topic as referenced in the media reaction section. It certainly is notable. Very reputable media companies reported on it. Israell (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would this article prevent scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him? The main source, obviously, is the FBI's own website which have those files. Jackson's FBI files were extensively reported in the media, it is definitely a notably topic, not less than the FBI files on Elvis Presley, which also has its own page too. And there is way too much information in those files to be embedded into another article. What exactly do you think is POV in this article? castorbailey (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

, what do you think? I see no actual issue w/ the article. Part one may be improved some more, but I do not see any reasonable grounds for deletion. Israell (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To begin with, there is only one other article in Wikipedia on the FBI files on a specific subject, which is FBI files on Elvis Presley. There are other subjects who have FBI files without having an article on it, but nothing prohibits that if there is sufficient coverage of the existence and nature of those files to support the existence of a separate article. Notably, there are incidents in the article that have nothing to do with allegations against the subject, so this is something distinct from anything encompassed by articles on that topic. Assuming the body of the article is accurate, the lede should also reflect that in each allegation investigated against Jackson the FBI found no evidence of criminal conduct by him. Otherwise, less careful readers might take from the lede that the investigations themselves are proof of guilt. BD2412  T 03:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Elvis article is a perfect example. It documents the contents of the FBI files, and does not comment on them. For example, there are rumours within the files that his "Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies" and that Elvis was "a drug addict and a sexual pervert". Nowhere else in the article does it try to refute or counter these collated opinions about him or his fans. Nor does it go into detail as to whether they're true. The article simply reports the contents of the files. What's more, just as with Jackson's files, there are no actual allegations made by the FBI within them. The files are comprised of "copies of letters from members of the public commenting on his performances, newspaper clippings, and documents reporting that Presley was the target of extortion attempts", very similar to Jackson's file. It is wholly inappropriate to turn this page into yet another deep-dive into the allegations about him when other pages already exist for that express purpose (Eg. Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc.). If this page can remain as impartial as the Elvis article, then I see no harm in its existence. WikiMane11 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Elvis article is the way that it is because the topic was not as notable as the FBI files released on Michael Jackson. Wikipedia encourages to contextualize articles with supporting and approved primary and secondary sources that span a few months to years apart from one another. That’s what this article does. There is no example of POV, there is no example of it being unbalanced, all quotes and content sticks to the sources used. This page is is not a deep dive into the allegations. This page is a deep dive into the FBI files that mentions many allegations beyond the sexual abuse ones you seemed to be stuck on. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The FBI files on Elvis were highly notable because they reflected a touchstone of the fact that the FBI was maintaining files on a lot of people, with no obvious criminal connection. To the extent that the article is structured differently, that is more a reflection of how sources covered the existence of those files. BD2412  T 16:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And this article is structured based on the notable and approved sources all about this topic. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Unbalanced tag
I consider this article to be lacking in neutrality (as discussed in-depth elsewhere on this talk page) and have attempted to flag it with unbalanced in order to attract more Wikieditors to the conversation. Both User:TruthGuardians and User:Israell have removed this tag on several occasions. This is an attempt to open a conversation about its removal, and avoid another edit war. WikiMane11 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and it looks like more than one person has reviewed the article and disagree with your assessment. So it was apparently removed. By the way, I only removed it once. It was removed because I disagree. I’m not seeing anyone else in agree lament with you. One person doesn’t get to determine if a tag is added or not. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There are allegations being made of certain editors having an agenda, when the same allegations may be made about you, but yet no one has done so. I’ve thoroughly sorted through the sources, which are more than appropriate for this article, and found this article to be completely balanced. Your view of how the article should be written does not mean that it is unbalanced, it’s clearly not.Factlibrary1 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No article on an aspect of a human life can be 100% absolutely balanced. The best we can do is reflect the most reliable sources with the greatest possible accuracy. If editors are believed to have an agenda, I'd like to know what that agenda is believed to be. BD2412  T 16:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The agenda is discussed in great detail on this page, and has been referenced already in conversation with you earlier. WikiMane11 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree that this page should not become a content fork of allegations thoroughly examined in existing articles. However, the files cover what they cover, and conclude what they conclude. BD2412  T 18:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. My edits, if you look at them, simply removed content that was not relating the files, and were focussed on the allegations. Also I don't know how many times this needs to be mentioned, but there are no "conclusions" in the FBI files. If someone insists there is one, I would like a page number, but I've looked and there is nothing approaching one that I could see. WikiMane11 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I added the quote from the source, which ties things up, and which would be ideal to have in each instance. The FBI, of course, does not conduct investigations for their own entertainment, but to determine whether a crime has been committed that can be charged. The resolution of an FBI investigation is a binary determination of whether to file charges or not; we have reporting of the absence of any charges filed. However, it is also important to remember that the FBI does not investigate any matter unless either they are asked to help by a local law enforcement agency, or the matter involves a violation of federal law (which includes a fairly wide variety of crimes involving crossing state lines). BD2412  T 20:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work BD2412. I’ve never known an admin to be so hands on. I admire the job you’ve done. ThunderPeel2001, I believe that your edits are in good faith, but your edits are based on “you must see it my way as it is the only way.” Everything in the article is about the files. They were always about the FBI files and will continue to be as such. I’m not seeing where there is much consensus, quite frankly any consensus as to what you are saying. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding that tag, the rules state discussion must take place before its addition, and what exactly were the NPOV violatons was not made clear. Now that the discussion was initiated, I do agree with BD2412 that the files cover what they cover, and conclude what they conclude. If those parameters are maintained and nothing is off-topic, I see no reason for the presence of that Unbalanced template. I was unblocked on appeal and will assuredly steer clear of edit-warring; I hope that other editors will also do the same so there are no more disruptions. Israell (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BD2412 as you acknowledge, the FBI were assisting California enforcement agencies in their investigation. They did not conduct an investigation of their own, but offered their services when asked. Also, as you are probably aware, the FBI are not in a position to force local law enforcement agencies to initiate legal proceedings against anyone. That is up to the state's agencies to decide for themselves, based on evidence they have collected. In this instance those authorities took their own investigative work, and the work done by the FBI, and did decide to attempt to prosecute Jackson. With this in mind, it would seem that in both instances (1993 and 2005) the FBI's work was partially responsible for the state believing they had enough evidence to successfully prosecute Jackson in a court of law. WikiMane11 (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They certainly did investigate Jackson. They investigated death threats into him, they investigated hard drives, they investigated extortion attempts, and they investigated allegations among other things. They may not have initiated an investigation for some of these things, but they did at the very least join an ongoing investigation to investigate. Hence their name the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Either way, that has nothing to do with this article being unbalanced.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have CBC News source which specifically states that the FBI "made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". To suggest otherwise contravenes this source, so we would need a reliable source saying that the investigations undertaken by the FBI in any sense "led to charges". Note, also, that the FBI definitely does have the power to bring federal charges, independently of any state action, where evidence of a federal crime is found. BD2412  T 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The FBI themselves say this isn't true. As has been quoted above. I believe the FBI would know better than CBC News. I have opened a dispute resolution in an attempt to get this issue resolved. Please engage with it and all agree not to edit the page until it is resolved. Thanks. WikiMane11 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The FBI has not said that they did not investigate Jackson anywhere. It’s your interpretation of what their investigatory description of their jobs are. It’s clear they investigated Jackson on many things. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you contend that the FBI investigation led to charges, please provide the charging document referencing the FBI to this end. BD2412  T 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution request
Because there seems to be no way to resolve this through talk (although we have all tried), I have opened a dispute resolution and ask that all who have been involved with this discussion engage with it. Thanks. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of some of the major problems with this article
In order to aid the dispute resolution I have decided to try and list the major problems with the article in one place. All of the below revolve around what I believe to be one central falsehood: '''The FBI files show a lengthly investigation into Jackson which comes to the conclusion that Jackson was innocent/that nothing incriminating was found. '''

Nothing in the FBI files supports this narrative. There are no conclusions in these files, one way or another. It is this unsupported false narrative that I feel should be eradicated from this page.

I will address each argument that has been presented that seems to perpetuate this myth:

Argument: The FBI investigated Jackson for 10 years

It is an apparently commonly repeated myth that the FBI investigated Jackson for "10 years" in relation to the child molestation allegations. Perhaps the FBI updated their own page after the files were released in order to clear up this confusion, but they clearly state on their website:

"Michael Jackson (1958-2009) was a famous singer and entertainer. Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Mr. Jackson and others by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005."

- FBI

The two periods noted for the child molestation allegations coincided directly with the two separate court cases brought about by the California law enforcement agencies (1993 and 2005). This is corroborated by the contents of the files themselves and the dates on the documents.

There are seven sections in the FBI files, and each relate in the following ways:

Relating to the 1993 trial:
 * Part 01 - All documents dated 1993.
 * Part 03 - All documents dated 1993 or 1994.
 * Part 07 - All documents dated 1993.

Relating to the 2005 trial:
 * Part 02 - All documents dated 2003 or 2004.
 * Part 05 - All documents dated 2004 or 2005.

Independent issues:
 * Part 04 - Relating to a VHS of suspected child pornography that was seized by US customs in 1995.
 * Part 06 - Relating to threats made to Jackson by a fan in 1992.

This clearly supports the FBI's statement that the only time Jackson was investigated by the FBI in regards to child molestation was in 1993 to assist California law enforcement agencies, again in relation to the 2005 trial.

And then separately in two incidents in 1992 and 1995.

There was no on-going "10 year" investigation into Jackson by the FBI.

For further explanation, heres's Brad Garrett, former FBI special agent, clarifying this specific issue to ABC news in December 2009:

"When you look at the files that have become available, they are files where the FBI has been asked by the police to help them with certain aspects of the case. They're really not operational FBI cases. For example, coming to the FBI because they have a forensic capability with computers to mirror-image hard-drives so they can look at evidence inside a computer. Or asking for investigative strategies, or interview strategies, that they may ask to profile at Quantico. So these are really support functions where the FBI was involved in the case."

Argument: The FBI didn't prosecute Jackson, so therefore the files did not contain anything incriminating

A commonly presented argument is that the FBI didn't decide to prosecute Jackson, so therefore nothing incriminating was found in their investigations. This is another distortion of the truth.

As has been established, the FBI were assisting California law enforcements agencies in their investigation. Those agencies were the recipients of the FBI's work and they did decide to prosecute Jackson.

The fact that the FBI didn't do this themselves is a moot point.

Part 07 of the FBI files shows that the FBI did attempt to open a Federal prosecution against Jackson in 2004, but failed to do so because the 1993 accuser did not want to testify against Jackson, feeling that they had already "done their part".

The California law enforcement agencies, and the FBI themselves, would not decide to pursue prosecution of Jackson if they did not feel there was sufficient evidence.

Argument: The files conclude Jackson was guilty or did not find anything incriminating either way

There is another false narrative that these files contain conclusions that the FBI found Jackson innocent, or at least did not find anything incriminating. There are no such conclusions found in 330+ pages that have been released.

The released files are the collation of support documents and technical analysis of evidence. There are no definitive conclusions mentioned anywhere in them.

And it's worth repeating the above point again, as the argument usually becomes circular about now: the recipients of these files (the law enforcement agencies) did decide to prosecute Jackson, twice. And the FBI did believe they could pursue Jackson in a Federal prosecution, but their key witness decided not to cooperate further.

My view: This isn't the place to explore the allegations

Importantly, this is an article about the contents of the FBI files, not a wider discussion about the allegations against Jackson.

I would draw a parallel to a similar article: FBI files on Elvis Presley. This article documents the contents of the FBI files relating to the late singer, Elvis Presley, and it does not comment on them. For example, there are rumours within the files that his "Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies" and that Elvis was "a drug addict and a sexual pervert". Nowhere else in the article does it try to refute or counter these collated opinions about him or his fans. Nor does it go into detail as to whether they're true. The article simply reports the contents of the files.

Where's more, for information relating the allegations about Jackson, there are already several appropriate articles: Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc. We don't need another one.

Sanctions are in place on this topic

Finally, sanctions are in place for the topic of Michael Jackson. This is partially because there is a contingent of dedicated Jackson fans who wish to push the narrative that Jackson is completely innocent. There are many books, websites and social media accounts dedicated to trying to exonerate Jackson in the public eye. These fans have even gone so far as to |purchase paid advertisements in major cities to push this message and |attempt to sue the alleged victims of sexual assault.

I'm not accusing anyone of this bias here, I simply want to acknowledge this fact: There are some fans who will use any attempt to push an "innocent" narrative, whether deliberately or unconsciously.

It's important to note that whether Jackson was innocent or not is besides the point. Discussions about his guilt or innocence, or criticism of his accusers, are not appropriate content for this article.

Specific issues within the article

To recap the above points:


 * 1) The FBI files did not conduct a 10 year investigation into Jackson
 * 2) Their investigation did not come to any conclusions
 * 3) Their investigation did not comment on any of the evidence
 * 4) This isn't the place to discuss the allegations or criticise accusers
 * 5) There is a fan contingent known to push an "innocent" narrative wherever they can

With the above in mind, I believe the many issues within this article become apparent.

- Part one

For example, in the article section marked "Part One", which relates to Part 01 of the FBI files. It correctly summarises the contents of the file (it mostly contains British tabloid newspaper reports from 1993 about the alleged phone sex that occurred between Jackson and a 13 year old). There are no conclusions about these newspaper reports made by the FBI within the file, they are merely collated.

The article however attempts to refute the contents of the tabloid articles, offering critical comments towards the accuser. For example: "[the accuser] pursued contact with Jackson and not the other way around".

And:

"In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, Louis, Martin & Michael.

When asked about the accusation he said “it came out really without my authority” and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux “parts of it are true yeah...parts of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalised really.""

The above documentary aired years before the FBI files had even been released. The conversation was about the tabloid clippings, not about the FBI files. The FBI files do not make any claims or conclusions about the tabloid articles. So why is this quote included here? It seemingly serves no purpose than to try and refute any claims against Jackson.

- Part two

The section marked "Part Two" follows a similar pattern. This relates to Part 02 of the FBI files, which contains forensic analysis of computers seized by California law enforcement in 1993.

The articles states: "The FBI meticulously went through all 16 hard drives and found nothing incriminating on them. The hard drives contained no form of illegal material, and the computer's history contained no record of accessing or searching for such material."

The above statement is not supported by the FBI files at all, and indeed an op-ed piece from the Huffington Post is used as a citation instead. Within that article, the primary source for the above quote is a letter from Jackson's lawyer.

The article concludes the "Part Two" with the following: "Sometime after the conversion, it was noted that 'there are no outstanding leads or evidence items.'"

From the extended Talk on this page, it has become clear that some people believe this is the FBI stating that "nothing incriminating was found".

Given that the FBI had been tasked with exploring these computers by the California law enforcement agencies, it becomes clear that this is actually a statement that there are no more pieces of evidence left to examine, and so their work is concluding. "There are no outstanding leads or evidence items."

- Part three

"Part three" continues the pattern of using any possible opportunity to be critical of Jackson’s accusers, none of which is in the FBI files themselves: "Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson.Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed."

The FBI files did not "dismiss" these claims, instead an LA Times Article from 1993 is cited.

Despite this section of the FBI files containing 57 pages, with many other documents and allegations, one is singled out, seemingly only because it went nowhere (regarding the molestation of "2 Mexican boys"). Again it appears to be selective and biased editorialising.

- Part four

"Part four" continues to make bold claims about the evidence that were not supported by the FBI files themselves. It revolves around Part 04 of the FBI files and a VHS cassette seized by US Customs. According to the article: "The tape was analyzed and nothing incriminating or illegal was found on the poor quality cassette".

The above claim is not supported by the FBI files in any way. The files simply document the FBI doing an "authenticity examination" and are highly technical in nature. There are no conclusions or discussion about the contents of the video, other than on page two, where the words "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" can be seen. No citation is offered for this statement at all.

The article also states: "The VHS was not in Jackson's possession; or is even known to belong to Jackson". Again, this is not supported by the FBI files. And the only citation for this claim is a Guardian article on the release of the FBI file which states: "It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere." In other words, it does not support the above quote at all.

In conclusion

I hope this lays bare some of the biases I believe are present within this article, and which I feel need to be removed. Attempting to mark this article as Unbalanced, and bring other Wikieditors into the conversation, has been met with reversion. Other voices are desperately needed. Thanks for reading. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no where in the article has it ever said the FBI investigated Jackson for 10 consecutive years. No one really knows that as there are still 275 in read pages. The FBI did investigate Jackson, that is determined in the files and the supporting resources. Also, the last time that sanctions were placed on Michael Jackson topic was not because of what one would consider a fan, but the exact opposite.


 * Argument: The files conclude Jackson was guilty or did not find anything incriminating either way


 * It’s been said once and will be said again, the FBI concluded what they concluded. If criminal behavior was found during their investigation, it would have been turned over to the LAPD and Santa Barbara sheriff’s department. A case closing indicates that a conclusion was in fact reached. Opened cases are those with no conclusion. These cases were all closed. The following are all examples of their conclusions and sourced through the FBI files and other sources.


 * - Part one


 * Part One conclusion is reached on page 1, which is why the case was closed. Opened cases are those with no conclusion. Closed cases are those that have been concluded. With no proof, no recorded phone call, and nothing reported to law enforcement or lawsuits filed, nothing ever materialized over George's allegation and Legat London and the FBI took no further action.


 * - Part two


 * The Huffington post is an approved source. There aren’t any opposing sources to counter it. Furthermore, like in part one, a conclusion was reached as the case was closed. That conclusion is found on page 39 in part 2 of the FBI files which says, “there are no outstanding leads or evidence items.”
 * - Part three


 * There 59 pages in this section. Many of the pages were about the Mann Act being sought and the Philippines and Writer’s allegations about the Mexican boys. The others were exact replicas of Part One, already covered in Part One. All topics in this part were covered and supported with primary and secondary resources as suggested by Wikipedia. Like the first to parts the case was closed as stated on page 56 in this part of the FBI section when the FBI concluded that they had no more leads for the LAPD.


 * - Part four


 * This part is thoroughly sourced using approved primary and secondary sources. This case was officially closed in 1997 indicating a conclusion had been reached as criminal charges were never filed, because there was nothing incriminating. People don’t get away with child pornography. Charges are pressed. And like one of the sources in this section says, “ "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology"—Label on a VHS tape "connected with Jackson," per the FBI's account. In 1995, the agency was called in by U.S. Customs to analyze the tape. Its findings: The tracking was, like, totally super-sucky. No charges were filed.
 * “Nothing.” What the FBI found over and over again when it did a forensic search of Jackson's computers for the 2003-05 child-molestation case that resulted in Jackson's acquittal.”


 * In conclusion


 * The burden of proof is to prove this article as bias or what the FBI did or did not do is not with the content of this article. The burden of proof is funding resources that debunk or counters the sources used here, as sticking to the sources is what this article does from beginning to end. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Quote from the article: "These investigations occurred between 1993 and 2005. The FBI found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's part." This is deeply misleading. It reads as though the FBI investigated Jackson from 1993 to 2005 (a period of 12 years). The FBI did NOT investigate Jackson, they assisted in an LAPD investigation (with technology and manpower). That wider investigation directly concluded with the prosecution of Jackson by the LAPD in 1993 and 2005.WikiMane11 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I see no “major” issues. It appears as though the complaints are with the fact that there are no counter sources to refute the contents of this well sourced and well edited article. I look forward to the day this becomes one of Good articles Factlibrary1 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it problematic that comments on this talk page suggest that editors are "pushing a narrative" regarding Jackson's innocence. As is well-established, Michael Jackson was charged, tried, and acquitted of all criminal charges brought against him. Nothing in this article overturns that outcome, and asserting that there is a "narrative" being pushed suggests a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, premised on a presumption of guilt. BD2412  T 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Looking at the edits made on the main article, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS does seem to be present. There's a few diffs that I will use when the dispute resolution begins. From my side, however, I only looking for remove narrative altogether and keep the article focussed on its core subject. But it's good to be aware of the correct WP terminology for the behaviour evident here. Thanks! WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m also concerned that WP:ADVOCACY could be in violation as well. I’m not making accusations here and now, but I am deeply concerned. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Great. Another excellent resource. There are so many examples of this in the diffs, where wording has been toned down, or obscure references have been sought to push a narrative. I've amassed quite a few already, but it's good to know there are specific guidelines being violated. Thanks again! WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)