Talk:Leaving Neverland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


References to use

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Beware of Awardmaniac

@Awardmaniac is systematically removing anything negative about Jackson, and amplifying the estate's responses. deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have responded but you have refused to talk and just revert with out giving any reason. Awardmaniac (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Deisenbe: and others involved, your statements are welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Awardmaniac again --SI 23:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential overuse of quoting

Obviously this is a fluid situation as the documentary has only recently been presented and thus new information is coming up fairly often, but I'd like a more experienced editor to pare down the section under "Response from the Jackson Estate" as I believe the extensive block quoting from the Jackson estate is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, at least by my reading of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse. The opinion of the Jackson estate is clearly not positive, and particularly the last paragraph seems to be content that should be restated in a more neutral tone, or something like that. Princess Audrey of Ixelles (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Popcornduff seems to have done what I was trying to say just as I was saying it, so this is no longer relevant. Princess Audrey of Ixelles (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I did this previously and @Awardmaniac (who put it in to begin with) promptly reversd me. deisenbe (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The long quote was so clumsily inserted into the article I didn't even realise it was a quote. In any case it's far too long and undue weight. The other quote from one of the accusers was also inappropriate. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Which quote? deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I deleted a long, two-paragraph quote from the Jackson estate, plus a quote in a side box from Johnson saying "His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever." We could include this quote somewhere in the article, given proper sources, context, and notability, but its previous placement was irrelevant and likely meant to discredit the documentary. Popcornduff (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, I previously deleted the same quotes, but they were put back in. deisenbe (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the quote should have been shortened(which i did a bit) instead of completely just linked somewhere else. But obviously cut down way more than it originally is. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

Add: Both Robson and Safechuck were caught on video laughing as the interviewer at the Q&A asked a question on how the documentary has affected their family, to them (family) to see the truest-. 7moonwalker7 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't an edit request. Popcornduff (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is written like C Wright Mills Power Elite propaganda and is not exactly neutral

I'm afraid it's best to still to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and not promote New Left propaganda by hyping things like "standing ovation" from the Sundance crowd and certain critical praise without noting more. Even Slate acknowledges that both Robson and Safechunk testified for Jackson's defense and that they is also denying what he testified in this documentary.[1] This propaganda cannot save the New Left.2601:447:4101:5780:D091:25CA:6ACF:95B2 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific about what you think is biased about the article and why. Popcornduff (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I already typed don't hype things like "standing ovation." Slate even stated "The greatest hurdle Leaving Neverland has to clear is explaining why Robson and Safechuck are coming forward now and alleging acts that they have previously denied, including during their testimonies in defense of Jackson against other accusers."[2] The defense testimonies where also under oath as well.[3][4] This is not included in the article either. Please make it neutral. For somehow who also knows about what C. Wright Mills encouraged for journalism in The Sociological Imagination, the neutrality of the film's hype is really hard shake off. [5][6][7]2601:447:4101:5780:CCCB:66F0:536A:997F (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would state the opposite and say there is way too much about how much the Jackson family has criticised the film in this article which is barely relevant and really laboured on. In addition "Standing Ovation" is simply a fact if people stood to clap it's purely a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Standing ovation is a proven fact if they all stood up and clapped. Unlike comments about the "New Left" which isn't even relevant at all since this wasn't a political film in any way. The article already reads as very biased against the film in the first paragraph with the long rant about Taj Jackson producing other films to somehow debunk the film which really isn't relevant and certainly shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph at all. If it needs to added at all it could come under the "credibility" section. The fact it's in the introductory paragraph shows bias. 

Also the documentary went into in depth explanations for why James and Wade changed their statements from their testimony in Gavin's trial. The first paragraph on the film should not be a bunch of ranting about the people who are upset by the film and the fact that it is is clearly biased pandering to the Jackson family and the fans. //House Tools//  — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

Thirteen quotes on a little article like this are way too many. We need to summarise, shorten, and remove some. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in pretty poor shape overall - it currently has broken English, ffs - but improving it has so far been a painful war of attrition. Popcornduff (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The reception section has quotes, true. But usually, when you look at many other similar article. This part is filled with quotes. But It could be trimmed down. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That isn't a good argument. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The quotes aint even that long. The article barely has any quotes. So I dont think its "to many". Awardmaniac (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename

The film and article should be renamed "Four Hours of Lies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.63.163 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Credibility and contradictions

The fact that Michael Jackson fans hate the film because they are Micheal Jackson fans is of very little relevance to the film itself which is what the Wikipedia article is supposed to be about and shouldn't really rate much more than a sentence or two instead it's laboured on extensively in this article in place of discussion of the film itself and talked about more than facts about the film itself showing a lot of bias.

Stuff about Taj's hatred of the film and stuff about other documentaries he's making doesn't really belong in the top paragraph about the film either. //House Tules//

The dreadful writing quality isn't the worst thing about this new section. Why do we even have such a section? See WP:NPOV. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Why is it not relevant? I hope you're not on the mission to create Wikipedia into another MJ hate page cuz listing all accusations without stating the doubts over it is simply not fair and should not be a reflection of the moderator's personal biases. Leaving Neverland has actually been brought under the microscope for it's obvious credibility issues. Safechuck claims to have been abused at a train station that turned out to have not even been built during the period of his alleged abuse. Robson claims to have been abused by Jackson in Neverland in absence of his family when his own mother stated in a deposition that Robson accompanied his family and wasn't alone with Jackson at any point of time. The men claim to have no financial interest but are suing the estate for millions of dollars? Why is it not relevant? Because you don't want the readers to have a fair view of the facts? Why don't you provide a specific reason to support your conviction? Deboleena.ghy (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Whats wrong with it? It does not pick any sides, but just writes stuff that has happened. Im sure the wording can be improved to better show that. Its clearly a relevant topic, since the credibility has been a huge issue, been well documented and been a talking point by many. Its very relevant. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It does not pick any sides, but just writes stuff that has happened. Gosh. Really? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, really.. How do you not want the train station discrepancy or the Grand Canyon discrepancy to be added to the page? What's wrong in letting the readers know about it? Are you engaging yourself in some sort of confirmation bias? Deboleena.ghy (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean? What part of that section is wrong? We can discuss an improvement if there is need of one. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I've wiped the section. Poorly written and outrageously biased. We don't need a dedicated section to cover holes in the accusers' story. If notable sources accuse the film of being biased/flawed in their reviews we can cover it in the Reception section. Popcornduff (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the reception of the movie, its not giving an opinion of the movie but of the accusers history and credibility. But as you said, the holes in the story that has been very much discussed and criticized. I provided the sources necessary. The content is well sourced and only mentions the facts and what Brandi said. Nothing more. There is no reason for it to be removed. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You can help improving the section. I like to know exactly what you think is the problem with it and work on improving the problem you feel there is. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Lets talk about each part step by step. Lets start with the Brandi Jackson part. Do you find something wrong with it and if so what? Her testimony contradicts what was said in the film. Also if you still do not think this section is not needed. I don't know why you would think that and if you do you point out what exactly is wrong, so we work on getting it improved. There credibility has been a very big topic of conversation. Just some minute ago, the biggest radio show in America(The Breakfast Club) criticized the credibility of the two accusers and some of the stuff mentioned in this section. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the section right now should be included. This is not the place to dissect the accusations made by the people in the film. Popcornduff (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you cant discuss and give any reason why it should not be included. I will put it back on. You did not even answer any of the questions I asked. These are arguments and criticism of the film. Making it totally relevant. Awardmaniac (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've also removed the section; on reflection it was in breach of WP:BLP as well. Please don't restore it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You are failing to make any argument. What exactly is wrong. Give an example. Just one sentence. Awardmaniac (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As it's a BLP issue, the onus is on you to justify it here, before adding it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Its not a BLP issue. You have to point out how it is a BLP issue. What part of it and can it be worked on. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories about the train station and the grand cannon and other conspiracy theories the Michael Jackson fans have come up with don't prove anything and aren't relevant to the film they're only relevant to the fans rage about the film which has certainly been covered in the article. There are all kinds of kooky conspiracy theories the fans have come up with including also a lot of lies about the alleged victims and they aren't all going to be included in a Wikipedia article. //House Tools//

"Conspiracy theory" is a wild claim, and you're stating it without evidence. You should at least prove what you say, as per WP:ASPERSIONS. —Partytemple (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The simple factual refutation of Safechuck's factual claim about the train station has nothing to do with any 'conspiracy theory'. Neither has the refutation by Robson's mother's testimony of Robson's claim about having been left alone in Neverland to do with any 'conspiracy theory'. Qualifying these simple refutations as 'conspiracy theories' is a fallacious way to discredit these factual counter-arguments.Mcouzijn (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Starring

Should Michael Jacksons name be in the staring or cast section, since it is archive footage only. I dont know the Wiki rule for this. So, what do we thing? Awardmaniac (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Section: Reception

The citations for the sentences “Many people who spend time with Jackson as children, have also spoken out against the film. Among them are Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman and Emmanuel Lewis.[10][11][12]“ all lead to articles discussing the above persons’ support of Michael Jackson (and sometimes criticism of previous allegations), but refer to statements made before this film and not in relation to this film. There is no reference to Leaving Neverland made by any of the above names in any of the citations. So either change citations to relevant articles or remove the sentences as they currently have nothing to do with the reception of the film Leaving Neverland.

Awardmaniac...

@Awardmaniac: Regarding your most recent revert, you have restored:

  • overlong quotes (the section already has a WP:QUOTEFARM tag)
  • poor formatting and spelling, such as "contraction" instead of "contradictions"
  • non-neutral writing, such as "The Michael Jackson estate sent a letter to HBO to address the many problems and contraction in the film", which presupposes that the film has "many problems"
  • non-sourced content, such as the claim that Culkin has criticised the film - he says nothing about the film in the source
  • extensive waffle about Jackson's extended family's feelings about the film

You have also removed an account of exactly how the Jackson estate is suing HBO. This is neutral, sourced, appropriate content.

Over the last couple of weeks, you have made editing anything related to Michael Jackson a constant battle, even when multiple editors oppose you. You repeatedly restore poorly written prose (often incorporating broken English), non-neutral content, and unreliable sources - and remove good content. I'm begging you: give it a rest. Popcornduff (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. I'd also like to distinguish (as I have at Awardmaniac's talk) between the very poor standard of writing, (which is moderately easy to fix) and the completely unfixable addition of BLP and SYNTH-busting sections like the one we were discussing above. I've got some ideas:
  • Don't add quotes, at all. Summarise them.
  • Don't revert when others remove your work. They're probably right.
  • Try "writing for the enemy" - you're a big fan of Jackson, right? What would someone who wasn't think about some of the stories? Try to write for them as well. Articles written by fans turn into hagiographies, which are dreadful articles. People read Wikipedia to get information; they are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions, or at least we write better when we make that assumption.
Please have a think about it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
These are all sourced content that you removed. Why did you remove the Brandi Jackson quote or the Taj doc. What Brandi says contradicts what is said in the film. Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman and Emmanuel Lewis have all been against the film, why where they removed? Culkin also called it ridiculous in a podcast. The rest of stuff you deleted is stuff that happened and was said during these weeks. I will revert it back or most of it. If you do not give any valid reason why it was deleted. Poor spelling is not an reason. That can be fixed. If something is not "neutral" than change it, don't delete it. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I know you want to help, but these additions are not helpful and it's tedious to have to remove them. Have you read WP:SYNTH? What about WP:BLP? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If we are gonna remove all the quotes, then we should remove the Dan Reed quote to. We cant pick and chose. Also explain how the Brandi Jackson one is not needed?. When she said something very game changing and relevant to the story said in the film. Awardmaniac (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with removing the Brandi quote. Whether he did or did not cheat on her isn't relevant to the film. It seems most like character assassination. The part about it "ruin[ing] his entire timeline" could be relevant except she doesn't explain how. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to remove all quotes, just ones we agree are excessive. Please see WP:POINT; I have a terrible feeling that's where your next block is coming from. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use WP:SELFPUB sources for WP:BLP material

We have a lot of content sourced to Joe Vogel's article, What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary, including contentious WP:BLP material. This article is not a normal Forbes article. Anything published under the "sites" directory is not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. This is basically a self-published article and we're not supposed to use a WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties. SELFPUB states, " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis not mine). Unless I'm missing something, this is a BLP violation. Therefore, I've removed the content sourced to Joe Vogel.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is Forbes. And every thing published in it links to the court papers, lawsuits and so on. You cant get more official and reliable than that. Since it is taken directly from testimony, transcripts and documents. Awardmaniac (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you read what I said? It's not a normal Forbes article. Anything written under the "sites" directory is not written by a Forbes journalist, is not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It is still Forbes. Would it be better if it sourced the court papers directly? Awardmaniac (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Also you need to prove what you say is true. I see that all the articles in Forbes is under "site". Awardmaniac (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No, using court papers is also a WP:BLP violation. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Hover your mouse over the 'I' towards the top of the page. There's a disclaimer that says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." You're right about the "sites" directory. It looks like they've rearranged the site. But you can tell the difference between a regular Forbes article and a Forbes contributor article because the contributor article says "contributor" and has the disclaimer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources covers the difference between regular Forbes articles and contributor articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Awardmaniac, as per the section above, I request that you stay away from adding or restoring any more material to this article or related ones. It's clear you don't have the ability to tell what is and isn't ok to use, and that you have an agenda you are pursuing. I'll follow this up with a note on your talk page, but basically what we are telling you is true. Please stop. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough With the C. Wright Mills Propaganda

You shouldn't erase reliable sources like Forbes or Slate, which point better the lack of scientific credibility of the documentary. This is not a proper place for either the advertisement of the movie or the promotion of New Left propaganda. Even the Wikipedia Power Elite article notes what Mills described as a "powerless society". A group of sociologists have also acknowledged how The Sociological Imagination, which I had either noted promoted manipulative journalism, was ranked the second most influential sociology book of the entire 20th Century.[9] Please stick to the NPOV policy for a change.2601:447:4101:5780:4502:CE70:BA9:F19D (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"New Left propaganda"? What a crazy thought... You clearly did not read "The Sociological Imagination" LOL.--87.170.199.44 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article on reactions to the movie (even though they haven't seen it)

"'Leaving Neverland’ and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers" Kevin Fallon 3/1/2019

https://elink.thedailybeast.com/click/16168498.26900/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZGFpbHliZWFzdC5jb20vbGVhdmluZy1uZXZlcmxhbmQtYW5kLXRoZS10d2lzdGVkLWN1bHQtb2YtbWljaGFlbC1qYWNrc29uLXRydXRoZXJzP3ZpYT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnNvdXJjZT1XZWVrZW5k/58969e9cfc238301648b50f6C53a9cf8b

If you think it should be added to further reading, please put it in. I'm kind of burned out. deisenbe (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a new NY Times about much the same (actions of MJ defenders): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/arts/music/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-fans.html deisenbe (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Further reading should be removed

It just a bunch of opinion pieces linked in the page. This is wikipedia. Not some blog. Awardmaniac (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

On an undeveloped article like this it can help to have a further reading. I say leave it in for now. When it reaches FA status we can remove them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
We should strive for the best quality possible. For that the opinion pieces should be removed. Awardmaniac (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm just looking through the further reading section now. The first link is not an opinion article.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the Vox article because I don't think it's a particularly good piece of journalism.[11] Specifically, it claims that previous allegations were dismissed because of Jackson's star power. There may be some truth to that, but it's far more complicated than that. For example, in one instance, an accuser was asked where Jackson was circumsized or not - something the accuser got wrong. The journalist either deliberately omitted this fact from their article, or they didn't do their homework. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Also there is three "New York Times" article. I think all should be deleted, but if not. Then more than one opinion piece from the same source should not be there, One article from the same source is enough. Awardmaniac (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed WP:BLP violations (WordPress blogs are not reliable sources)

I removed a bunch of material which was sourced to a WordPress blog. [12]We need to do a better job with our sourcing. We cannot use WordPress blogs or primary documents for contentious WP:BLP material. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Reach consensus first before you remove. I reverted back. You can tag it with bad source while new source can be added as soon as possible. Awardmaniac (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
example of some source
1.(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jackson-estate-wants-hbo-meeting-leaving-neverland-will-become-hbos-greatest-shame-10-page-l-1184415)

2.(https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#7e665ac2640f)
3.(https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/brandi-jackson-says-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-accuser-is-her-ex-bf-news.71811.html%7Ctitle=Brandi Jackson Says Michael Jackson "Leaving Neverland" Accuser Is Her Ex-BF)(https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-niece-brandi-reveals-leaving-neverland-accuser-ex-boyfriend-2447374)
4.(https://slate.com/culture/2019/02/leaving-neverland-lawsuit-michael-jackson-estate.html)

No, WP:BLP violations should be removed immediately and without waiting for concenus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid A Quest For Knowledge is correct, Awardmaniac. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for the additions here, something you are extremely unlikely to achieve. Also coming back from a block which you clearly did not understand and repeating the same behaviour you got blocked for is extremely unwise if you want to continue editing here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I did one revert and took the discussion to the talk page. Awardmaniac (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bbc

Popcornduff I can confirm that BBC Radio are not banning Michael Jackson. More fakenews being put about by the tabloids. [1]. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The source says BBC Radio 2 have stopped playing Jackson. You've linked to a show on BBC Radio Oxford. Popcornduff (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
If Radio 2 were banning him, it would be a blanket ban across all stations, like they did with Gary Glitter. Plus, they are still playing him in promos. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources say BBC Radio 2 has dropped Jackson, so that's what we'll say until reliable sources say otherwise. Popcornduff (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That article you sourced says it "appears" it is poorly speculation and rumors and do not belong here. also i gave you a source where they said it is not true. so i have deleted it. Awardmaniac (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW her i a source(https://variety.com/2019/music/news/michael-jackson-music-not-banned-bbc-1203154258/) Awardmaniac (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0715zfd

US title vs UK title

Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me is the UK title only. Opening sentence should be "Leaving Neverland (titled Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me in the UK) is a..." 90.249.60.194 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

POV problems

Not going to continue this edit war... but this addition is not going to last.

Apart from the fact that it contains poor English, it's an obvious POV violation. Yes, the director said he saw the film as being about the accusers' stories and not about Michael Jackson. But this revision frames this as if to discredit the film and the director. "He also admitted that he didn’t really have any knowledge of or engagement with Jackson’s story prior to working on the documentary" is laughable - it presumes he should have had knowledge. As for the verb "admit" specifically, please read WP:SAID: Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

Indeed we do have POV problems by also not including film critics who were less favorable to the film.24.118.246.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes and explanations

MarchOrDie I disagree with this edit,[13] not necessarily because I want the quotes, but because I think we need to explain what their rationale is. If you want to paraphrase the quotes so we keep the meaning, that's fine, but I think we need better explanations beyond saying, for example, Feldman defended Jackson. I hope this makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think I agree. This sort of thing is awful recentism, and is unlikely to be part of the story in five years. There are other problems too. But I'm happy to talk it out here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Recentism doesn't really apply to current event articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It will soon cease to be a current event. Another reason not to include this quote in particular is similar to why we shouldn't have things in the main MJ article like his lawyer denying he had bought anybody's silence, except this one is worse. If you went onto a public bus or train wearing a T-shirt with I AM NOT A CHILD MOLESTER on it in big letters, I think people would look at you funny. A denial may have the opposite effect to that (presumably) intended by the fans who add stuff like this. For the sake of argument, just because Jackson didn't molest a particular person, doesn't carry any wider implications about the truth of the allegations in the documentary. Presumably, even a very active child molester does not molest every single child he comes in contact with. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This C Wright Mills propaganda isn't helping

If you also want to hack me for a message which I stated on YouTube, then go ahead, because I will use it to report to the police. This article clearly doesn't represent the NPOV policy by citing only critics who showing favoritism towards the accusers words. The video which you also cited also has not shown much criticism towards Jackson and I suggest you stick to the NPOV policy by allowing other reliable articles which were less favorable to return and not show nepotism.23:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 24.118.246.181 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits deleted

I have deleted what I put here as I realized they had been moved, not deleted. Sorry. deisenbe (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

New articles

deisenbe (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

More:

deisenbe (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Award Maniac's disruptive edits.

Since Awardmaniac is now indefinitely blocked, someone(s) needs to go over all his edits on all the MJ pages and see which need to be undone. This is not a trivial chore as not all can be undone with a click and each has to be considered individually. It requires reviewing Awardmaniac's Contribs page. I'm doing some but help is most cordially invited. deisenbe (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Viewership

I don't think this section is helpful. Who cares what its ratings were, or with some demographic? Anyone agree with me? deisenbe (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really care but I checked Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Reception and it appears that we are supposed to include viewership numbers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Too many publications in the Further reading section

There are far too many publications (20+) listed under § Further reading. Could use {{Further reading cleanup|date=March 2019}}. Or, better yet, move almost all of them to the top of this Talk page, in a suggested references section, using {{Refideas}}. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have put it in a "References to use" section at the top. This can be changed as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, stop violating WP:LINKFARM. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." The dump of external links is a classic violation of this policy. The links should be incorporated into the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Impact

Talk about impact: https://www.news18.com/news/movies/leaving-neverland-impact-the-simpsons-remove-michael-jackson-voiceover-british-museum-takes-down-statue-2060739.html --87.170.203.111 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The section "Jackson estate and supporters"

The section "Jackson estate and supporters" includes lengthy quotes from rather peripheral figures who don't represent Jackson directly and who have no particular knowledge of the material covered by Leaving Neverland, e.g. one Denise Fergus who "has said she does not believe the documentary", based on nothing of substance at all, no rationale, no expertise, no direct knowledge of the material. The same really goes for Mark Lester (the Jackson family has lately been keen to stress that he wasn't that close with Jackson), who also has no direct knowledge of the material covered by Leaving Neverland and who didn't know Jackson as a child.

I think it would be sufficient for that section to cover the direct response by the Jackson estate (lawsuit etc.) and the broader phenomenon of fans campaigning against the documentary as discussed e.g. here and here. --Tataral (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m the one who added those quotes and I do agree that it would be better if they were on a different section of the page. Do you agree? --Bob3458 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

In the last paragraph (the discussion between the biographer Smallchuck and Dan Reed), I'd put in some of the references that are now there. I'd also put in the relevant quote by Safechuck about the train station from the documentary, "At the train station.....when you're first dating someone, you do it a lot." A subsequent editor deleted the quote in the interest of brevity. For context, though, the fact Safechuck said "first dating" about a time after the station was built seems to be the substance of the biographer's concern about it. Any way to put in some context w/o making this fairly inessential paragraph too long?Createangelos (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly interesting articles

I will leave to you who are more knowledgeable than I if there is any value in these reactions to the movie. It's not like these were in the New York Times:

deisenbe (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Both the Mirror and Daily Mail are unreliable sources and should not be used. See WP:RSP. Don't know anything about the reliability of perthnow.com. Popcornduff (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Russian broadcast cancelled, moved to channel's website

Russian sources: https://meduza.io/news/2019/03/14/pervyy-kanal-pokazal-v-internete-film-o-domogatelstvah-maykla-dzheksona-k-detyam https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3909775 Original message: https://www.facebook.com/1tvru/posts/2446531788699056 Originally scheduled for broadcast on Channel One Russia on March 15, the channel decided to cancel the broadcast and move it to their website due to mixed public reaction, speculations, and aggression from both supporters and protesters of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.109.106 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the Russian source. I will insert this in the article. —Partytemple (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Original USA length (236 min.) vs. UK and other countries (182 min.)

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the total length of the documentary in its original form as broadcast in the USA, with a 236 minutes running time, and its broadcast in the UK and other countries, with a running time of 182 minutes (in France it's been broadcast in two parts on the same evening, with a total running time of 187 minutes). That's 54 minutes of footage which has been removed. Has there been an official explanation given as to which particular sections were deemed "expendable" and why, or has there been an attempt by a commentator to determine precisely which are the missing scenes, and their significance, or lack thereof ? I've read several comments on YouTube which mention this discrepancy and point to the alleged fact that some people mentioned in the original version of the movie have requested that any footage referring to them should be removed, which, according to those comments, contributes to undermine the credibility of the documentary. Is it indeed the reason behind those edits, or is it merely for reasons of marketability outside of the USA ?--Abolibibelot (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree this ought to be explained somewhere in the article. 54 minutes of footage are significant enough to warrant more attention to the film's production and distribution. —Partytemple (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No Dan Reed article?

How come the movie's director Dan Reed still does not have a dedicated article? Considering the level of coverage he got over the last few months, I would say that he is now notable enough to get one. I was thinking of something along those lines, as a starting point:
"After producing several documentaries dealing mostly with the themes of crime and terrorism, Dan Reed became widely known in early 2019 following the broadcast of Leaving Neverland, focusing on the testimonies of two men who claim to have been sexually abused as children at the hands of Michael Jackson and other parts of him.
He's is bald. He's really really bald. He is the baldest human being that's ever been. He is grade 11 on the 1 to 10 Captain Picard scale of baldness, and his scalp is shinier than the full moon on a midsummer night. He shaves twice a day for about two hours while looking intensely at the man in the mirror, and doesn't stop until he gets enough unless he's got to be starting something."
--Abolibibelot (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh really? This page is solely dedicated to Leaving Neverland. We're not entitled to promote Dan Reed's entire body of work here. Moreover, he has been found to engage himself in several illicit activities online such as creating troll accounts and also creating further rumors regarding the allegations that directly contradict the testimony of his own subjects in the film. He has very meagre knowledge about the accusations and its evident given the recent discrepancies being uncovered in these recent months. Not a really good idea. In fact, a very futile one! Deboleena.ghy (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Neverland Firsthand

Shouldn't there be at least one mention to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4trDbeFWTY ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.174.187 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Quincy Jones concert newsworthy

I previously added this factoid to the Public Response section: "A June 2019 London concert of Quincy Jones' produced music (Quincy Jones: Presents Soundtrack of the 80s) removed Jackson's name and album titles from its advertisements." https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48185956 I respectfully believe that this is newsworthy and can be a part of this Wiki page. --Hammelsmith (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added. The BBC reference cited connects the retraction to the documentary. Popcornduff (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Popcornduff https://www.newsweek.com/quincy-jones-concert-removes-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-1418046?amp=1& this article saying whether the name change has anything to do with longstanding sexual abuse allegations against Jackson is unclear.Jones never made any comments about this name changing issue and bbc article is nothing but mere speculation. Funkof40000years (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

More Description of Jackson's Conduct in Synopsis

I noticed that the article does not describe the actual sex acts engaged in by Jackson or the grooming of the two boys parents which allowed the abuse to happen in the first place. I have watched both films Neverland 1 and Neverland 2 and what was described is both shocking and disgusting given the ages of the young boys when this abuse occurred. It also clearly establishes that Jackson was most probably bisexual based on the description of the actual sex acts which include Jackson performing oral sex, rimming, and masturbating both boys, and in the case of Wade Robson, anal penetration when he was 14 years old. I realize that a lot of this content is totally tasteless, but I am wondering if at least some of the content should be described in the article so readers get a clear picture as to Jackson's conduct here. His estate claims emphatically none of this went one, but the similarities in both Robson's and Safechuck's stories lend weight that these things did in fact happen. Both boys state in the documentary that Jackson would ask both boys to expose their anus to him while he masturbated then performed rimming on them. I apologize in advance for the shocking nature of this content. Wikipedia is not censored but what if any of this do folks think belongs in the Synopsis of the film description. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If people want to know more about the documentary, they can go watch it themselves. It's not necessary for us to describe the details, however pivotal to the documentary, in an article. Partytemple (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there is a fair amount of description already. Anyone can read about its Sundance premiere to learn of the film's reputation as shocking. I myself read some articles about the film's shocking elements before I watched it. It didn't help to ease the film's impact on me, but I and anyone else have to choice to stop watching at any time. So it is an issue of choice, really. Hammelsmith (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Please notice that you present all kinds of allegations as if they were factual. 'Description of Jackson's Conduct' in the title as a good example. There is a good reason for the use of the word 'alleged'. Wikipedia is not a platform to present your personal beliefs about the allegations, nor to present mine. If you write about 'the actual sex acts engaged in by Jackson' or about 'when this abuse occurred' or when you qualify 'the actual sex acts which include Jackson', you repeatedly provoke and mislead Wikipedia users by presenting allegations for facts - which they are not, and I guess that also to your standards they are not to be taken as such. More examples: 'a clear picture as to Jackson's conduct here'; 'this did in fact happen'.
So to answer your question: no, I don't think any of this belongs in the Synopsis of the file description, most certainly not in the way you present it here.Mcouzijn (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate providing links to fan blogs and James H. Fetzer?

I'm just wondering if it's appropriate giving links to theMichaelJacksonAllegations.com site, a James Fetzer site, and a VindicateMJ site on this Wiki page?

As I understand it, any specific rebuttal can be written in the *Response from Estate & Supporters* section, as long as it doesn't violate the WP:BLOGS or WP:SELFPUBLISH policies. Hammelsmith (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If the sites are blogs they most probably are not suitable. I looked at the sites and they seem to be link aggregation sites for pro-Jackson content from various blogs. Not an easy call on this one. If you feel strongly about it include some content and let the rest of us read it and decide. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It is totally appropriate for an article filled with such grave allegations to also include rebuttals, especially when the accused (now deceased) was never found guilty in any court of law. If the information provided is correct and accurate, I see no problem at all. Some sources (such as MJFacts or Perez Hilton) are clearly anti-Jackson. Other sources (such as TheSun.co.uk) may be "neutral" and publish slanderous headlines saying "JACKO SICKO Michael Jackson ‘molested his maid’s son three times in sickening attacks then paid her $2million not to tell anyone’"[1] as well as rebuttal articles in Jackson's defense (such as those written by Mike Smallcombe). Sources such as Billboard.com seem more neutral (both sides have a chance to speak, and headlines won't be too sensational). And some sources may effectively be pro-Jackson, but it doesn't mean the information contained is false.

That TheSun.co.uk. article linked above pertains to the Jason Francia case (Jason Francia is one of Jackson's accusers). The article and vlog entry below from pro-Jackson sources also pertain to the Francia case, the tone is much different, but nothing is concealed, all of Francia's allegations are revealed. Everything in this article and vlog entry is sourced, clearly explained, and the reader/viewer is then free to make up their own mind.

Jason Francia (summary version) https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2018/09/23/jason-francia-summary-version/

The Hunt Part One - Jason Francia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc-8IQrSY30 Israell (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ thesun.co.uk/news/8581571/michael-jackson-molested-his-maids-son-three-times-in-sickening-attacks-then-paid-her-2million-not-to-tell-anyone/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leaving_Neverland/Archive_1&oldid=1104401588"