Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 32

Update
Philanthropist should be added, and also hasn't he sold over 700million records rather than 350million? - Keditz (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2018
The hawklover 51 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Done, technically. You didn't specify what you wanted changed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jackson live in Lisbon 2.jpg

Michael Jackson converted to Islam!
Michael Jackson converted to Islam!Add this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That needs a citation talking about when this conversion took place. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Until his death. He took the Islamic name Mikaeel.His Muslim brother Jermaine Jackson persuaded him to accept Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I meant when he converted to Islam, not how long he practiced that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Converted/accepted=practiced & practiced=converted/accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the first item in the FAQ list for this page. Eman  235 / talk  02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam.
 * An overview of the topic is covered at wikiislam... ...that is essentially an amalgamation of the sources from old  talks  here.--Moxy (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * wikiislam is a non-authoritative biased Islamophobic site. ( unsigned )
 * I agree it is not an authoritative source in any way.....but it does outline the topic and list a slue of sources. That said perhaps we should mention this in passing....I like the wording found in the source below. We  should confront the controversy and put it to rest as most bios do nowadays
 * .... --Moxy (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my language is Russian and I cannot read without Google Translate. In any case, the article should mention that at the present time it is not precisely known whether Michael Jackson accepted Islam or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been raised many times in the talk page archive. Since it involves a claim made by The Sun in November 2008, it is about as reliable as Freddie Starr ate my hamster.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I did not mention "The Sun"; secondly, there is no evidence that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam; thirdly, at the present time it is not precisely known whether Michael Jackson accepted Islam or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every other news source was basically repeating what The Sun said. The problem is that Michael Jackson said nothing and the "conversion" was denied by key people supposed to have been involved in it. The consensus of past discussions is not to mention this, because it lacks any form of reliable sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me)
 * You cannot deny these facts:firstly, I did not mention "The Sun"; secondly, there is no evidence that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam; thirdly, at the present time it is not precisely known whether Michael Jackson accepted Islam or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael Jackson did not discuss his religious beliefs in public during this period. It is not for others to say what religious beliefs he did or did not accept.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Proved that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam? Yes or no? Is it currently known for certain that Michael Jackson did not embrace Islam? Yes or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In an interview with Dubai-based pan-Arab news channel Al-Arabiya in January 2010, Michael's brother Jermaine Jackson confirmed that Jackson had not converted to Islam:

Again, during an interview with the BBC World Service that aired in June 2010:

Marlon Jackson
On July the 24th, 2009, an article was published about Marlon Jackson's visit to Lagos, Nigeria. During a Q&A session in Lagos, Marlon was asked whether or not his brother Michael had converted to Islam. Here is his response as per the article:

.So the answer is yes. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At first it was necessary to answer my question and only then quote!In the above quotes, there is no unequivocal and consistent evidence that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam before he died. The quotes simply say that Marlon believes that Michael remained a Christian until his death, but did not say that Michael Jackson did not accept Islam.Also in quotes, Jermaine Jackson says how it would be nice if Michael accepted Islam, but Jermaine does not say that Michael did not accept Islam at all until his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.60 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All wonderfully guess work...but at this point the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for inclusion. Non proof of anything is not proof at all... we don't write in double negatives.--Moxy (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moxy is correct; the burden of proof is on those who want information included, otherwise one could simply add any information they wished with the edit summary "no evidence that this isn't true". I could say he was a Rastafarian; it wouldn't make him so. There is ample quotations, video sources and secondhand accounts of Jackson being a Christian, or a Jehovah’s Witness etc. BBX118 23:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles about sexual abuse allegations need major work
(Apologies if this isn't the right place for this discussion.)

Right now, we have two main articles covering the various allegations of sexual abuse against MJ:
 * 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson
 * Trial of Michael Jackson

I've been doing extensive work on both articles, and in my opinion both still need major work - especially the Trial article, which was in an appalling state when I came to it. If anyone wants to help improve them, please, go ahead.

I have one point in particular I'd like thoughts on. In recent years, there has been another set of allegations which have received a fair amount of coverage. A documentary about these newer allegations, Leaving Neverland, has recently premiered, and has been discussed by numerous sources. Right now, these allegations are covered differently in both the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and Trial of Michael Jackson articles (under Further allegations).

Are these newer allegations deserving of a third article? If not, how should we cover them across the existing articles?

Alternatively, perhaps we should create a generic "Allegations of sexual assault against Michael Jackson" article that serves to summarise all the cases, leaving the existing articles to cover specific allegations in depth. Popcornduff (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need another Michael Jackson article, especially another one with overlapping material. Since the "1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson" article is about the 1993 case, it can be solely about that. It's also WP:GA; so one might want to delist it if it's not going to return to a quality article. As long as fan-editing and hater-editing do not plague the Jackson articles, as they have in the past, improving them shouldn't be hard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1993 article certainly isn't a GA in my book.
 * Since the "1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson" article is about the 1993 case, it can be solely about that. But we could make the same argument for the other article: it's about the 2005 trial. The information about the later allegations has to go somewhere. If you oppose creating a new article, how do you think we should cover it? Popcornduff (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a lot of material. I know you cut a lot, but still .It does not appear that much needs to be stated about accusations that are not about the 1993 one and the one that resulted in a 2005 trial. Covering the other accusations at this article -- the Michael Jackson article -- only and in the Wade Robson article for the material pertaining to Robson is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, unless anyone has any better ideas, I'll trim the information about the later allegations from the 1993 article. No use in both articles doing the same work. Popcornduff (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. - Awardmaniac (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson
Per this, it's apparent that whether or not a Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article should exist needs further discussion. Please weigh in at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should exist. It has enough information, sources and so on. I dont see why it would redirect to this article. Also I could work on the page to expand it. Awardmaniac (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See Excelse's arguments at Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson and at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. One reason for not keeping the article is that it's not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it says "The result was no consensus". The article has improved since then and is still being improved. Awardmaniac (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know how the deletion discussion closed, of course. Excelse's argument was still valid. And although the deletion discussion closed as no consensus, the discussion continued on the talk page. I stand by my argument in the deletion discussion. How is that article needed? How? The aricle s very clearly an unnecessary fork and a WP:No page matter. And again, it's best to continue this discussion at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one user was for the redirect in the talk page and that person reverted with out getting any consensus. So it should be reverted back and then discussed. How is it needed? It talks about the cultural impact of one if the most impactful artist of all time. Its needed the same reason the cultural impact of Madonna or THE beatles are needed. Awardmaniac (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no argument to why that article was reverted to this one after "The result was no consensus". Than I think we should revert it back. No? Its more than enought for its own article, it has sources and is notable. Awardmaniac (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, two editors argued from a fan perspective, much like you are doing now. Excelse was the only one arguing from the encyclopedia's perspective -- meaning how it's supposed to work. WP:No page is an encyclopedic argument. The article is not needed per the solid arguments made about why it is not needed. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not a solid argument. Like I stated in the Afd, "This article is not needed since it is a fork (significant aspects of it anyway) of what is already covered in the Michael Jackson article; I don't see that we should delete a lot of the content there and add it to this article instead. Since that article is WP:FA, good care should be taken with it anyway, and that means discussing breaking out any of its content. Furthermore, the cultural impact of Michael Jackson (I mean the topic, not this article) covers the less savory aspects of his life as well, including his child sexual abuse cases and the death trial concerning him, and we already have articles for those." If you want to keep pressing this, which it seems you do, I can start a WP:RfC on the matter at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. But that RfC will not dictate what is done with the Michael Jackson article. We are not going to split things away from the Michael Jackson article just to try and justify having a Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has now been improved(2 times the size). More will be added later. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted again. You are completely missing the point. And you went and resurrected another article that is yet another redundant fork. Like Moxy stated years back, it was "just a copy and paste from other articles." How in the world do you think that a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" article could differentiate itself from a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" article? I am in the process of starting an RfC at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Editors can also refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 37. Excelse took the matter there after the Afd to get more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

MJ Singles Template
Why is it that this is not in this page? Looking at every other page of an artist, they all have that in there first page. There are not many templates in this page, so obviously its not crowded or anything. I think it should be there as this is probably the second most important template about this subject. BTW This is a response to revert. - Awardmaniac (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Every other page of an artist" is exaggerating, and it's overstuffing this page because we already have the main MJ navbox template in his bio. No need for both. Keep Template: Michael Jackson songs in the song articles instead. This article also already has plenty of templates listed. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Slash
Slash should be in the associates acts.89.241.108.216 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We cant add every single person Michael worked with. Only the most significant. - Awardmaniac (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael's association with Slash lasted many years. I'm a little curious why his association with Janet, Lionel Richie or Stevie Wonder is considered more significant.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Slash was never credited as a featuring artist. He played guitar on some of his songs and some times on stage. But so did some other people. Janet and Michael did a hit song together and have worked together few times with other stuff. Stevie wonder has done some duets together. Lionel Richie and Michael wrote one of the best selling songs of all time. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox caption
The caption should give the date but not re-state his name. It's obvious it's a picture of Michael Jackson, because his name is directly above the photograph, and also the title of the article, and he's the only person in the picture. Who else would it be? Nobody would be confused by this. For readers who do not get pictures, they don't need a description of a picture they don't see. "Michael Jackson performing in 2006" does not assist the reader in any way. The reader would see "Michael Jackson [image not shown] (in 2006)" instead of "Michael Jackson [image not shown] Michael Jackson performing in 2006". I'd be ok with "Performing in 2006" as a compromise, but that is also bloody obvious from the fact that it's a picture of him singing into a microphone. WP:YOUDONTSAY, and this should be the rule for all captions everywhere on the project. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about including a specific event/place if known? For the current pic (File:Michael Jackson in 1988.jpg), there could be something on the Wiener Stadion in Austria within its caption. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would feel great about that. Location and date are both information that would be useful to the reader. Even the name of the tour if that were known. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, a good caption for that picture would be something that gives useful (non-obvious) information to the reader, like this: At Weiner Stadion in Vienna, June 2, 1988, during the second leg of the Bad World Tour. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The leg part is a bit much, and its file source doesn't specify a tour (though I personally wouldn't be surprised if it was from that one). I'm still fine with including stadium and location. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like "At Weiner Stadion in Vienna, June 2, 1988, during the Bad World Tour". Is that good or is it to long? Awardmaniac (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Too long; we're better off just using a tour name (if it can be found for certain) or just a location. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad World Tour lists the June 2, 1988 show in Vienna. At the time it was called the Praterstadion and I guess now it's the Ernst-Happel-Stadion aka Weiner Stadion. I'm good with any combination of city/venue/date/tour. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe just "At Weiner Stadion in Vienna, June 2, 1988" Awardmaniac (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "At the Weiner Stadion in Vienna, Austria on June 2, 1988" here. Let's not presume everyone who understands the English language automatically knows where Vienna is. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. I like it. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks! Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael's middle name is Joe. It's misleading to say it's Joseph.
His birth/legal name had always been Joe. It's been on his FBI file. I know he has written "Joseph" a few times but that doesn't mean it's his birth name. Joe has been used more than Joseph throughout his life and in documents that demand a legal name. His marriage certificate with Lisa Marie Presley is riddled with errors so it's not reliable, therefore its legality is in question, too.

Wikipedia shouldn't mislead people or produce falsehoods. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partytemple (talk • contribs)


 * Can you provide links to prove this? <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * FBI files used Michael Joe Jackson:
 * https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20Part%2003%20of%2007/view
 * It also states his true name was Michael Joe Jackson on page 47 of the files.


 * 2004 Indictment used Michael Joe Jackson:
 * https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20indictment.pdf


 * Autopsy report used Michael Joseph Jackson:
 * http://www.thetruthaboutmj.com/Autopsy_Full_Report_0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf


 * 1994 Deposition; Michael referred to himself as Michael Joseph Jackson.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTo8M_V_Oh4


 * Further citations and explanations of name usage and laws on this blog: http://mjjinfo.blogspot.com/2012/04/michael-jacksons-birth-name-truelegal.html


 * It appears he used Joe and Joseph interchangeably, but his true name has Joe as his middle name. He probably used Joseph because it was derived from his father's name which is Joseph, but also uses Joe.


 * Here is a video disputing Michael and Lisa Marie's marriage's legality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxOv-Ap0_4
 * The title sounds like a click-bait conspiracy video, but the actual content came from an investigative report.


 * The marriage certificate in question (ignore the forum comments if you'd like but the image of the marriage certificate appears to be real): http://mjwc.proboards.com/thread/947/michael-lmp-marriage
 * Priscilla Presley and Katherine Jackson are spelled incorrectly. The location of the ceremony is questionable.


 * Also, Michael's article uses Taraborrelli's book a lot. I find Taraborrelli's research of his subjects scant, as if he would pick up tid-bits of statements from relatively reliable sources and then put in his own uncorroborated material for parts he can't complete with what he found, or fictionalize his subjects into caricatures. In other words, his biographies could be filled with his own fluff.
 * For example, he wrote a story about Michael and Madonna's date in which he claimed Michael told him that Madonna took Michael's sunglasses off and threw it out of the car they were in. Madonna inadvertently disputed this story by stating in her VMAs tribute to Michael in 2009 (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/read-madonnas-vmas-speech-dedicated-to-michael-jackson-82857/) that Michael willingly tossed his glasses.
 * I think Taraborrelli's materials require cross-examination, if possible. Michael Jackson was an extremely private person who had a retinue of bodyguards, PR people, and managers, many of whom would be willing to protect his image even unto their deaths. It may be impossible to know Michael's private life to its full extent, so I would refrain from using Taraborrelli's books especially when they're replete with personal details. Court documents and FBI investigations, on the other hand, are much more reliable since perjury, or lying to the Fed's, is a felony. Partytemple (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's quite some digging! As for spelling errors on the marriage certificate (presuming that's the real thing), I could be wrong, but my guess is that the document not being in English had something to do with it. I would however like to get input from other users before changing things because "Michael Joe Jackson" has for quite some time been listed as an alternate name while "Michael Joseph Jackson" has been accepted as the main identity. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is Joe. since that name is being used in all legal situation. But then again the death certificate say it's Joseph. If we change to "Michael Joe Jackson". I think we should mention Joseph to, somewhere. Since that is what he called himself and etc. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated "Associated acts"
I think we should discuss what artist deserves to be named in that list. Like, Michael only did one song with Lionel Richie. Does he really deserve a spot? Awardmaniac (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, he doesn't. The list isn't for one-off collaborations. Off the top of my head I'd say only the Jacksons should be in that list. Popcornduff (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would leave Quincy Jones and Teddy Riley as well, though I hesitate to call a producer an "act". Eman  235 / talk  04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did consider that, but as both Riley and Jones served as producers with MJ, I'm not sure they served in capacity as "acts" either. Popcornduff (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given Michael's multiple collaborations with his sister Janet, I'd say she qualifies along with Jackson 5. Definitely not supposed to be a list of one-song-only collaborations. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael has a couple of songs with Paul, stevie and diana ross. I think they qualify. right? Awardmaniac (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Would need to be an act he worked with pretty extensively or regularly, like he did with the Jacksons, or an act that he's particularly notable for working with. MJ isn't most noted because of his work with Stevie Wonder. Popcornduff (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So. Only the Jacksons?. Is everyone on board with this? Awardmaniac (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just Janet and Jackson 5. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other names have done multiple collaborations with Michael. Have they not? I dont understand how Janet is any different other then being his sister. Is it because they have worked together for a longer period of time? Awardmaniac (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's valid, I guess. Since the work together has been for many many years, unlike the other ones. What does popcornduff think? Awardmaniac (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite having done extensive work on MJ-related articles I'm not the biggest MJ fan. I know he did a duet with Janet on Scream. What else? I did a quick google but it didn't produce anything obvious. Popcornduff (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

HBO
Any thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. what about it? Awardmaniac (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? How will this article cover it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It already has its own article: Leaving Neverland. If it gets enough coverage to become super-notable it might be worth mentioning briefly in the main Michael Jackson article, but right now it isn't. Popcornduff (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is negative? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Because MJ is a huge topic, the article on him is already huge, and this single documentary hasn't yet established enough attention to be mentioned here. See WP:UNDUE. If it gets more attention and coverage after it's released next month that might change. Popcornduff (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It has already been covered in this article and in Leaving Neverland. Awardmaniac (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Do we need to have a verbatim quote rubbishing it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a respond from the family, both sides should and are being used. Awardmaniac (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A "respond"? This isn't how Wikipedia articles are written. It certainly isn't how Featured Articles are written. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant, it shows both sides. As bth sides should and is being written about. That is how Wikipedia works. Awardmaniac (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I didn't realise the article already mentions the documentary. I agree that the current inclusion isn't right - there's too much emphasis on the family reaction. I'm not convinced the doc is even notable enough to be mentioned here at all, as I said earlier.
 * The job of Wikipedia is not always, necessarily, to report both sides. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Popcornduff (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is literally just one quote, nothing more. Also I do agree that the film is not notable enough to be mentioned. There are hundreds of movies and docs about him, that gets released every few months, non get even mentioned. So we can remove it from this article. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need for any quote here. In my opinion there is a need to mention the documentary. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it, since we all seem to agree. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree to that. As I just said. MarchOrDie (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You just said "there is a need to mention the documentary" and popcornfuff said the doc is not notable enough to be mentioned. No? Awardmaniac (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. I think there is a need to mention the documentary. So I do not agree to its removal. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I accidentally read a as no. lol. Still at this moment two people say, there is no need and one say there is a need. You are welcome to argue your point. But I think we can not and should not mention every single film made about him in this page, this is not IMDB. "Leaving Neverland" is not mentioned, the same reason "Michael Jackson: Life of an Icon" is not mentioned. Its not relevant. Awardmaniac (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL indeed. Twice. Consensus is not a voting process. Coverage in significant quality sources. Guardian, NME, Esquire, Variety, etc etc. And that's before it has even screened. I think this line you are taking will be very hard to justify. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well those coverage is significant for the Leaving Neverland article. Many other stuff that is about him has also received significant coverage. Does not mean they are fit for the main page about the subject. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it will depend on how much, if at all, the documentary affects Jackson's legacy. As Awardmaniac says, there have been a trillion documentaries about Michael Jackson over the years, and while some (including Leaving Neverland) are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, not all are notable enough to add to the main Michael Jackson article, especially considering its length.
 * Right now the film is being discussed because it was screened at Sundance so the reviews are out there. My inclination is to wait for the documentary to receive the major release (next month, right?) and see how important it ends up being to the article subject in terms of the big picture.
 * That said, I don't feel strongly about this. I would not oppose summarising the documentary in a single sentence if others felt it were necessary. Popcornduff (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly reasonable. The length of the article is another problem that can be dealt with separately; see section below. The article is not currently of Featured Article quality, and a lot of the problem is fluff that has been added since the subject's death. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus for this removal. There should at least be a "See also" link in the section pointing to that page. Jackson documentaries that are notable enough for their own articles should be linked from this main article in some way, just like we link other subarticles in some way.


 * I also see no valid rationale for stating that the article "is not currently of Featured Article quality." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia audio file available
I have created an and uploaded it to the Commons, but am unable to edit the article to add it to the External Links. Could someone do that for me? (FYI it's my first time doing this.) Thanks. — TeragR disc./con. 09:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson "plan b"
It should be noted that it was unknowingly by Michael that Jermaine had apparently planned this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=885810817&oldid=885810418). Awardmaniac (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems of doubtful relevance. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is different if someone knows or dont know. It should be added or all of it should be deleted. Awardmaniac (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says it is important? Do we have a decent reference that says it makes a difference to the story? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is called misinformation. The source says one thing. But wikipedia says another. Awardmaniac (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Can Someone Edit this Part
At the end of the 3rd paragraph under the section "1993–1994: First child sexual abuse allegations and first marriage" there is this sentence:

"Feldman denied that anybody's silence had been bought."

However, there is no mention of anyone named "Feldman" anywhere in the preceding paragraph, or in the entire article for that matter. According to the citation after that sentence, it seems that the "Feldman" in question is "Larry R. Feldman", the lawyer for Jordan Chandler, who is talked about in the paragraph. That needs to be clarified. I don't yet have 500 edits, so can someone who does please edit this? Thanks Bzzzing (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I'd actually favour taking this out; it's the sort of thing that a highly paid defence lawyer would say, and it would be more surprising if he hadn't said that. In my opinion it actually works against the article having that in. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban for Awardmaniac
is now under a topic ban for articles related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This ban was placed after Special:Diff/886454322 and so that edit is not considered to violate the topic ban. I make no statement as to the appropriateness of the contents of the edit, only that the edit itself does not violate the topic ban. Note that the ban extends to this discussion page, too, so please be extra careful about personal attacks here, against an editor who would not be able to respond. --Yamla (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After being informed of his topic ban, Awardmaniac immediately continued making Michael Jackson-related (article and talk page) edits, mainly related to the sexual abuse allegations (an issue that hardcore Jackson fans have particular difficulty with when it comes to neutral and encyclopedic editing):, , . --Tataral (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I just say the topic ban now? Awardmaniac (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have followed up. Awardmaniac will not edit the article any further and will not edit this talk page any further. Any further violations of their topic ban or 1RR restriction will result in immediate sanction. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Quote boxes
I see a bit of back-and-forth on the presence of the two quote boxes. We have one that starts: "Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. ..." Then we have the later one that's been removed and restored, that starts: ""The attention and fortune showered on an individual celebrity is often times immensely disproportionate to his or her achievements.... " Now, without declaring a position for or against either one, why are they there? Jackson said a lot of things during his life. Why those particular quotes? And "its part of big speech, one of the famous quote he addressed on humanity" probably won't be sufficient to keep it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Drop quotes..as per MOS:Quote.--Moxy (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Drop them both? I'd be fine with that. Anybody else? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Get rid of them both. They're just needless filler. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've removed them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the first quote but not the second. Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the first quote is OK too. The wild media reports about Jackson's behaviour (before all the sexual abuse allegations even) are a notable part of the subject and his response to it is relevant. Popcornduff (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't about whether it is "OK". It's about whether we need it. Did other sources highlight this quote as being a significant one? Or is it just some Wikipedia editor's choice? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We make editorial decisions about what to put in articles. Do we need it? It's not as essential as other elements - for example, we need to cover Michael Jackson's death - but I feel the article is improved for it and it illuminates the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with the removals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Extensive changes to the article
Ilovetopaint, Tataral and Awardmaniac, at the end of the day, this is still a WP:Featured article. I'm not stating that changes should not be made to it, but per WP:CAREFUL and WP:STEWARDSHIP, extensive changes, especially of a controversial nature, should be discussed first. Can we try to work toward WP:Consensus when it comes to article setup and what to include or not to include? I reverted the extensive changes for a number of reasons. First, I saw editors removing content with WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationales or similar. For example, here, Awardmaniac removed material stating that it "does not belong here but in the article itself. along with the interview." And here we see Tataral reverting Awardmaniac for POV reasons. Here, we have Ilovetopaint trimming the lead while pointing to MOS:INTRO, but, arguably, a bit of the material should remain. The article, like other musician articles on Wikipedia, are set up with the album or song titles in the headings, after all. And this setup is another reason I reverted. For musician articles, we usually stay away from having controversy sections and instead keep the material aligned with the career aspects that coincided with the controversy. The Criticism essay focuses on why having such a section is often not the best route. Yeah, it's an essay, but it has solid points. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Per above, I see that Awardmaniac is topic-banned. That makes things easier. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "A bit of that material should remain ..." What material exactly? The only information I removed from the lead was two specific Grammy awards and the singles mentioned (10). It's enough to simply mention the albums they originate from. Is it really necessary to include half of the Bad track listing in the lead? Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, why remove the Grammy awards? As for the songs, the lead is focused on the more notable ones. Some of the songs more notable than the others (as made clear lower in the article). Regarding what you cut, we should discuss which songs make the most sense to mention in the lead, given the article's content. As for this, I agree that the big quote doesn't improve the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (re: Grammy) It's unclear why those particular awards matter. The lead already states that he has more awards than any other pop entertainer in history, so mentioning specifics with titles like "Legend" seem like a bit of a resumé jerkoff. (re: singles) The most notable came from Thriller and Bad, but the thing that made Jackson special was the fact that those albums were like hits collections, so listing every hit that came off them is kinda redundant. Can you imagine if The Beatles lead went through all the best-known tracks from Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, Revolver ...? Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we list every one, but mentioning a few with respect to the article's content seems like something we should do. Are you okay with mentioning a few? If so, which ones do you think we should mention? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably just the "Black and White" video and maybe the Thriller songs. Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not make blanket reverts to a several days old version of an article after several editors have worked on the article for days, reflecting current consensus here. That is both disruptive and disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and quite frankly unacceptable behaviour. The edits you are referring to have been discussed on this talk page and reflect the current consensus, e.g. on moving sexual abuse allegations to a single section. Your edits appear to be an attempt to remove almost entirely any mention of Leaving Neverland. If you have an issue with any particular edits, take part in the debate here on the talk page instead (e.g. in the debate on the structure of the abuse section above). --Tataral (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tataral, it's better to not talk to me like I am some vandal or a newbie. It's also best that you don't demand that I don't revert for more discussion. You and I also define "several days old" differently. But, anyway, WP:Consensus-wise, how about you not make extensive changes to a featured article without waiting at least two or three days for all involved editors to weigh in? An editor proposed your changes on March 6th (Wikipedia time). I showed up to contest the changes hours later on March 6th. It's a standard WP:Bold, revert, discuss matter, despite the intermediate edits that got caught up in my revert. As made clear above, I was also focused on lead changes, not just changes to article structure. I pointed to guidelines and the way that articles like this are formatted for my reasons for reverting to the WP:Status quo version. WP:Consensus is policy. Notice that it states, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Emphasis on the bolded "all." It does not state "some." You were quick to implement the proposed article format even though others, like myself and Moxy, hadn't yet weighed in. You speak of being disruptive and disrespectful, and yet Popcornduff pinged me above with regard to the discussion about rearranging the article. Popcornduff was more respectful than you were on this matter. Just because I hadn't yet weighed in...it doesn't mean that my view should be discounted or ignored. Some of us are not on this site 24/7. As for your claim that "[my] edits appear to be an attempt to remove almost entirely any mention of Leaving Neverland," do not mistake me for Awardmaniac or some Jackson apologist. I clearly am not. There is nothing disruptive and disrespectful about reverting to the status quo version of an article for more discussion, especially in the case of a featured article. Discussion on restructuring the article is still being had above. There is no deadline; there is no valid reason to rush a different structure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Making a blanket revert to a several days old version of an article after several editors have worked in a consensus-oriented manner for several days just because you erroneously believe yourself to have a personal veto over any edit to the article is not acceptable editing, and not in the spirit of Consensus. Such blanket reverts are also generally disruptive. If you had just disagreed with e.g. the restructuring of the abuse material and called for more discussion on that, that would have been fine and unproblematic, but you instead chose to indiscriminately discard several days' work by several editors while insisting that even other, unrelated and/or small edits made during the past week need your personal permission. That is not what consensus means, at least not on this project.


 * I also had no reason to ping you, in a discussion started by another editor, because I had never heard of you and I didn't know that you considered yourself to WP:OWN the article. Based on the discussion at the time, I had no reason to expect any significant opposition to the restructuring that was proposed by another editor.


 * Whether you consider yourself to be fundamentally different from Awardmaniac or not, the fact remains that you are making the exact same edits as Awardmaniac, hours after he was topic-banned, reducing coverage of Leaving Neverland and its impact to a single almost meaningless sentence buried at the end of a section otherwise devoted to Jackson's will and a statue in his honour (conspicuously omitting the fact that the statue was removed in response to Leaving Neverland), with a section title that makes the material impossible to find, and (quite inappropriately given the context) an illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb" --Tataral (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I state or imply that "unrelated and/or small edits made during the past week need [my] personal permission." Nowhere have I insisted that any edit needs my personal permission. I've insisted that substantive changes were hastily made without consideration for opinons from other editors (including me) who would have likely objected to the changes. You may not like it, but there are certain rules to follow with regard to featured articles. That you are claiming WP:OWN after I pointed to WP:CAREFUL and WP:STEWARDSHIP is ridiculous. WP:CAREFUL states, "Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." WP:STEWARDSHIP, a section of WP:OWN states, "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit, but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an 'ownership' problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. This is in keeping with the BRD cycle, which stands for bold, revert, discuss. Though not an official policy or guideline, it is a dependable method for dispute resolution."


 * My revert was not a violation of any policy or guideline. My years of watching and occasionally editing this article show that this is not a matter of me owning the article. When an editor suggested a review above, I listened and engaged that editor. That editor took the time to listen and reply. That editor didn't hastily make changes. And I didn't revert that editor's changes. You speak of WP:Consensus, but your quick implementation of the structure didn't consider the WP:CAREFUL guideline or the WP:STEWARDSHIP policy. You alone decided that there was consensus and then went off and stuck the structure in, after a little discussion and little bit of time had passed. You speak of WP:Consensus, and yet here I am objecting. If you had waited even a reasonable amount of time, this dispute between us wouldn't exist. This is the exact thing that WP:CAREFUL and WP:STEWARDSHIP speaks of. We can see that Moxy is a long-time contributor to this article. Your rush to add the new structure completely disregard any comment Moxy might have made on the matter. It certainly disregarded mine. Like me, Moxy is not on this site 24-7 either. And WP:Silent consensus is not always a valid consensus to go with. I have no issue with more on Leaving Neverland being added to the article, or if you want to add a subheading for the material in that section. What I objected to was the article structure, and I've noted why. As for not knowing who I was and therefore not pinging me, it was enough that Popcornduff mentioned/pinged me. Why else would I be mentioned with regard to the article's content if I was not involved? Why assume that the editors who weighed in are the only editors who watch and/or edit article? In fact, most of the editors currently in that discussion are editors who don't regularly edit the article. And many editors, including me, check an article's edit history to get a sense of how many active editors of an article there are. I definitely do this when wanting to gauge consensus. If I see an active editor who has not weighed in, I am likely to ping that editor.


 * You comparing me to Awardmaniac is ludicrous, per the very discussion on my talk page I pointed to and the fact that reverting to the 5:46, 4 March 2019‎ version of the article is not at all the exact same edits as Awardmaniac. The article was like that before you showed up to it. And the setup (minus the Leaving Neverland content) has been the way it is for years with no issue. The only reason editors are now discussing having the child sexual abuse content be its own section is due to the aforementioned documentary. Popcornduff and other editors can attest to the fact that I don't edit like Awardmaniac. Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 32 shows that I don't edit like Awardmaniac. But, hey, if you think I'm just like Awardmaniac, then feel free to report me at WP:ANI or to Yamla and see what happens. To save you the trip, though, I'll go ahead and note that I won't be getting topic-banned from this article. It would be best if you stop treating me like the enemy and instead continue the format discussion. I'm still waiting for Moxy to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a question of whether the new chapter structure should be implemented. It was implemented based on discussion on this talk page with no significant opposition, and I've already pointed out that it would have been ok for you to revert that particular edit if you had explained yourself on this page page and said this particular change needed more discussion. This, however, is not what you did. You made a blanket, indiscriminate revert to a several days old version of the article. The main effect of your edit was downplaying coverage of the sexual abuse issue and almost erasing coverage of Leaving Neverland (including making the material virtually impossible to find in the article) and updates made during the past week that reflected significant developments relating to Jackson. Those edits weren't "extensive edits" or anything of the kind, but normal, mostly small edits that added a couple of sentences to the article. That you show up late is frankly not anyone else's problem. This is not an article just on some musician of interest only to a select audience of fans, but on an individual who is the focus of intense media attention and ongoing developments right now. Readership of the article has increased fivefold as a result of that. In such articles changes are likely to happen faster. It's unacceptable for the article not to cover Leaving Neverland and its impact, the reason why 80% of the current readers look up the article, in an appropriate manner. As another editor argued above, "this article is not dealing with Leaving Neverland appropriately, and it's starting to feel like we are whitewashing the article." The version of the section that covers Leaving Neverland that you are insisting on is both inappropriate and even offensive in its treatment of the issue for the reasons I mentioned above. That is my main objection (not the chapter structure), in addition to the fact that indiscriminate blanket reverts to days-old versions are very bad form in general.


 * You keep insisting that the article is a "featured article;" that status was awarded before the recent developments and by editors mostly concerned with his music (many of them avowed fans), and the article is arguably now out of date based on how RS cover Jackson; if Jimmy Savile had been a featured article before his death, that wouldn't have been a reason not to cover the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal in an appropriate manner. The recents edits aimed at updating and improving the article to reflect recent developments and coverage of Jackson in RS were clearly the first step as listed in Featured article review, but given the opposition by yourself to any changes to the article the article might be a candidate for a more formal review. The article isn't very well written or structured either (as discussed by several editors), so it's clearly in need of improvement. --Tataral (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You argue that "It was implemented based on discussion on this talk page with no significant opposition." I've already been over this; I'm not repeating myself on that. I think you were in the wrong to implement those changes so quickly. You think I was wrong to make that revert (both times). Enough stated on that. There is no "downplaying coverage of the sexual abuse issue." It's there. There's you and some others thinking that the Leaving Neverland content needs to be prominent. Others disagree with you and those editors. You keep talking about current readers. And that is exactly what editors mean when they point you and others to WP:Recentism.


 * You argued that I "keep insisting that the article is a 'featured article;' that status was awarded before the recent developments and by editors mostly concerned with his music (many of them avowed fans), and the article is arguably now out of date based on how RS cover Jackson." You have no idea if it was mainly fans that elevated the article to FA status. I'm no Jackson fan, but I watch and occasionally edit this article. The article is still featured. Recent developments with regard to the topic and other editors coming along to edit the article does not negate what the WP:STEWARDSHIP policy states. In fact, it makes what it states that more important. You keep bringing up Jimmy Savile. With Saville, 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. That's a significant difference. As for your argument that "given the opposition by [myself] to any changes to the article the article might be a candidate for a more formal review." Wrong. I've clearly noted that MarchOrDie didn't point to any big reasons for why the article should go under an official review or needs delisting. MarchOrDie pointed to easily fixable issues, and easily fixable issues should be fixed before taking an article through a possible delisting review. And I commended MarchOrDie for tweaking and cutting parts of the article. As for the article not being very well-written or structured, that is your opinion and everyone knows that you are making that claim because you want the Leaving Neverland content to be prominent. Several editors have not stated the article is not well-written. That was MarchOrDie stating that. Several editors have been talking about the structure because some, like you, want the Leaving Neverland content to be more prominent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok i am here...will review whats going on...little disappointed to see click bait used as of late...but will see what we can cleanup.--Moxy (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer for some lead restoration. It simply is incomplete to not mention any singles at all, and I especially object to removing the 5 US #1's from Bad as that was the first album to have that many songs top the country's chart. While I'm not sure if I'd treat sexual abuse allegations the same as a general controversy/criticism section, though, being a musician isn't by itself a good reason to avoid lumping them all into one section. A better basis is whether it would create undue negative weight. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. And I am looking at everything from a WP:Due weight perspective as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

1994 « out of court settlement »
In the introduction, regarding the first accusation of sexual abuse, it is said that “the case led to an investigation but was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in 1994”. Then in the dedicated section, it is said that “On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million”. This statement doesn't seem to be sourced (I haven't checked the sources provided for the following sentences of that paragraph). So where does this information come from, and how reliable is it ?--Abolibibelot (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed to "an undisclosed amount" for now, since the source makes no mention of 22 million. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm allowed to change it but I heard the amount was $25 million, with $18 million alone to the accuser. I can source it but I fear they may just revert it. I think "undisclosed" is good for now but whatever it was, it was definitely in the $20-25 million range. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if we can get a decent source for the amount, we should use it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Easily found, duly added. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Time to update the FAQ?
The FAQ for this Featured Article is substantially the same as it was 10 years ago. Why is that? Why, for example, are we enjoined to add new pictures of someone who died ten years ago? But only if they are free? Why are we told that this long article cannot be shortened, when it is much longer than it was ten years ago? It's just embarrassing to think that thousands of readers are seeing this out-of-date advice. --MarchOrDie (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updating that would be fine. Its most recent major change was when I added another question and its accompanying answer two years ago. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the two most ridiculous ones. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Full support. Obviously we can't have a ban on shortening the article. --Tataral (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Top level section on allegations of and charges for sexual abuse/crimes?
I note that there is no top level section discussing the various allegations and charges made against Jackson of sexual abuse/crimes during his lifetime and after. Instead, this information is scattered through the article. In contrast, to take two examples, both the articles on Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile have top level sections on this subject. I am not pushing for this to happen, just raising the matter and would be interested in seeing pro/con arguments for a re-structuring of the article to group most of the relevant information in such a top level section. Oska (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is unfortunate that this material is scattered around the article in a rather arbitrary manner. One editor (the one currently discussed on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) even removed the heading of the section discussing the most recent allegations so that the material was virtually impossible to find, because it was buried at the end of a section discussing Jackson's will and a statue(!) with a very vague heading. One top-level section section on the abuse controversies would seem like a much better solution.


 * For example James Safechuck had been named as a victim by Chandler and various witnesses already back in 1993, so chronologically it's unfortunate to discuss his case in a top-level section mainly on Jackson's death, will etc. just because he himself came forward in 2019. --Tataral (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there's perhaps enough material about the allegations to warrant its own section - but at the same time, we can't leave them out of the chronological biography, because they're major events. If we can pull this off without too much duplicating it could be a good move. Popcornduff (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough material it's not as in depth or as consistently brought as much as for example R. Kelly to deserve it's own section. This has to be handled carefully because these are allegations that do go against court hearings, the FBI investigation, and past interviews with both accusers stating as adults that nothing happened.Mcelite (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To add some context on why I opened this section/discussion: I am approaching this from a user's point of view, not as an editor. I have no personal interest in editing this particular article as I have little interest in Michael Jackson (his music or career). However I did read an article about the new documentary Leaving Neverland and afterward looked up Jackson's wiki article to get more context on the allegations made in the documentary and detail on any further abuse allegations over his lifetime. As a user I then found I had to trawl through the article to find this information - it wasn't gathered in one place. (And to be honest, that was too much work and I gave up). So for me, the article failed as an encylopedic reference in providing a subset of information on a subject in an accessible way. I don't think I would be alone in looking up the article for this particular use. Oska (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's all reasonable.
 * Another solution might be to have an article dedicated to summarising all the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson. I don't know if this is a good idea. I suggested this recently, but I think the notion filled Flyer22 Reborn with dread. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether we have an article summarizing all the abuse allegations (we already have more specific articles like 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson), the abuse allegations would need to be covered (summarized) in this article, and I agree that one top-level section would be the best solution, because it makes the material easier to find and also because it's not a good solution chronologically to scatter the material around based on when the allegations became (most) widely known (many of the allegations in Leaving Neverland had been around since 1993, and are closely linked to the other allegations from that period). --Tataral (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If a section is decided I guess that would be more functional as an encyclopedic page, but it will have to be watched closely. We must maker sure this stays in neutral standpoint.Mcelite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there is general support for moving the material on the abuse allegations to a separate top-level section, so I will go ahead and implement that solution. --Tataral (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per what I stated in the section below, I reverted. Like I noted there, "The article, like other musician articles on Wikipedia, are set up with the album or song titles in the headings, after all. And this setup is another reason I reverted. For musician articles, we usually stay away from having controversy sections and instead keep the material aligned with the career aspects that coincided with the controversy. The Criticism essay focuses on why having such a section is often not the best route." I'm not big on the idea of the article being set up this way. And it's clear that Mcelite isn't either. That stated, I understand the points that Oska and Tataral have made. We might need a WP:RfC on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea that we can't have a section on sexual abuse because he's a musician seems rather odd, and also characteristic of an in-universe perspective (within the field of music), as opposed to a broader societal perspective. The structure used in many musician biographies isn't necessarily something we need to follow slavishly, in part because most musicians aren't also widely known for sexual abuse allegations. To many people today Jackson is just as well known for the sexual abuse allegations; I estimated that 80% of the current readers come here because of that. A separate section on the abuse allegations is the exact same solution as the one used in Jimmy Savile's article. There comes a point when the material/controversy becomes so extensive that it needs a separate section in order to remain accessible to readers; this isn't some footnote in his life. --Tataral (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not state "can't." And I fail to see how it is a WP:In-universe perspective since it doesn't violate that guideline at all. All I stated is that this chronological and "coincides with" approach is the approach we use for most of our musician articles. The featured Mariah Carey article is another example. And I noted that WP:Criticism addresses issues with having a standalone controvesy section. And Mcelite also noted issues with having standalone controversy section. And as for "widely known for sexual abuse allegations," Jackson is also widely known for his music. I'm not a Jackson fan, though. And, like many others, I am likely to first think of him in terms of the child sexual abuse allegations. As for you "estimat[ing] that 80% of the current readers come here because of [the child sexual abuse allegations]," we obviously can't go by your estimations. And it hasn't always been the case that that's why most readers are coming to this article. I agree that most are coming to the article lately because of the child sexual abuse allegations, mainly due to the Leaving Neverland documentary, but we can see editors citing WP:Recentism in the "Inclusion of Leaving Neverland (with resulting controversy) in lead" section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 3 point response to Flyer22 Reborn:
 * 1. I think Michael Jackson is better understood as an entertainer rather than as just a musician. He built his fame and large fan base on the basis of his performances (often as I understand it of songs not written by him), his dancing and his video clips. Entertainers have (necessarily) large public profiles and any controversy in their lives attracts a lot of attention, rightly or wrongly.
 * 2. In terms of "rightly or wrongly" it is true that some controversy should not attract undue weight in an encylopedic article. I remember there being some controversy about whether Jackson had plastic surgery and skin lightening and the extent of it/reasons for it. That's really mostly his own business and I don't think it's something that would deserve its own section or really much coverage in his wiki article. However, allegations and charges made against him of sexual abuse are another matter entirely. Yes, they can be controversial but they are also matters of genuine public interest. This is why we have visitors' galleries in courtrooms, court reporters, etc. This is also why we have mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse (in my own country of Australia anyway). So I think the reference to the page Criticism misses the point in that this aspect of Jackson's life has received much interest (including official interest) and that interest is mostly valid. Yes, there are cases of people being smeared unjustly over allegations of abuse but that is why we try to maintain neutrality and reliance on good sources. (Mcelite's point)
 * 3. Finally, I think the restructuring of the article benefits this article's two main audiences. One, the audience I described myself being part of, that of those who come to the article not to read about his entertainment career but specifically to read about the sexual abuse allegations/charges. But I think the restructuring also benefits those who mostly want to read about his entertainment career and aren't really interested in the abuse allegations (or discount them). They can just skip over that section. So in other words, the restructuring helps people better access the information they want in this article rather than having to read about abuse allegations when you're really mostly only interested in his entertainment career or vice versa, having to read about his career when you're really only interested in the alleged abuse. (Of course, there's also people interested in both). Oska (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I think the restructuring will also help editors better maintain the article too and help them improve its quality. I think it would be hard for an editor to keep across the abuse topic when it was so scattered through the article. Oska (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest making the allegation a subsection in a personal life section, but just realized this one isn't structured that way. I believe the section should be pushed down after his artistry and legacy section. That way the allegations are not a major distraction in my opinion, but more importantly it certainly helps the article remain neutral. Once the protection is lifted this section will have to be watched like a hawk to maintain it's neutrality. Pushing the section down beneath the artistry section and legacy section may also help us especially because he was found not guilty with the allegations.Mcelite (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the abuse section appearing below the artistry section. It does seem a little odd for it to be the second section in the article as presently configured. Probably deserves to be before the death/memorial service section though as the allegations predate his death. Oska (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oska, I meant "entertainer" in the same sense as "musician." WP:MUSICIAN does not distinguish, and our Musician Wikipedia article states, "A musician is a person who plays a musical instrument or is musically talented. Anyone who composes, conducts, or performs music is referred to as a musician. Whether the person is more so an an entertainer or not, we usually go with the aforementioned structure that I mentioned for these types of articles. As for Wikipedia:Criticism, in its "Approaches to presenting criticism" section, it does state "This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint." And its "Controversy" subsection notes that "For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic." And in its "Criticism" subsection, it states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." So it gets your point.


 * I understand your point about including the section separately from the career stuff, and I'm not strongly opposed to doing that. I'm just not 100% sold on it. 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.


 * I think we need to discuss this more, as is clear by the additional thoughts from you and Mcelite, and see if we can all agree on a setup. Or if we need to start an RfC on it. Moxy, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Flyer22 Reborn's argument on consistency, I have looked up articles on other entertainers who have had allegations or charges for sexual abuse made against them to see how their articles were structured. In the list below I have classified them as living or deceased and whether it went as far as allegations or charges or convictions. These are people who came to mind for me; I don't think I have cherry picked these examples but anyone is welcome to provide other examples.


 * Jimmy Savile (deceased, allegations). Top level section : "Allegations of sexual abuse"


 * R. Kelly (living, allegations). Top level section : "Sex scandals and allegations"


 * Kevin Spacey (living, allegations). Top level section : "Sexual misconduct allegations"


 * Harvey Weinstein (living, charges). Top level section : "Allegations of and charges for sexual crimes"


 * Roman Polanski (living, charges). Top level section : "Legal history"


 * Rolf Harris (living, convicted). Top level section : "Arrest and trial"


 * Bill Cosby (living, convicted). Top level section : "Sexual assault conviction"

I'm seeing a clear consistent pattern of grouping this subject matter in a top level section. So this article lacking a top level section appears to be the inconsistent one. Again, if people can think of other examples I would welcome them being referenced. Oska (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of those articles aren't musician articles. I spoke of consistency of musician articles, particularly articles about singers. We treat our actor articles differently, but we are cautious of creating a controversy section even for those. This article has had the child sexual abuse content the way it is for yeas with no problem. The only reason there is even a suggestion to create a section grouping all of the child sexual abuse material together now is because of the Leaving Neverland material. But we can see that editors have wondered just how much space it should get in this article. And Popcornduff stated, "I think there's perhaps enough material about the allegations to warrant its own section - but at the same time, we can't leave them out of the chronological biography, because they're major events. If we can pull this off without too much duplicating it could be a good move." Right after that, Mcelite stated, "I don't think there's enough material it's not as in depth or as consistently brought as much as for example R. Kelly to deserve it's own section. This has to be handled carefully because these are allegations that do go against court hearings, the FBI investigation, and past interviews with both accusers stating as adults that nothing happened."


 * I definitely now think we need an RfC on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Flyer22 Reborn. Sorry, but frankly I find this whole 'musician' angle a canard. Firstly, I think entertainer is a better description of Jackson (short argument why given above) and secondly, even if you go with the musician categorisation I fail to see why musicians should be treated differently. Oska (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I answered your musician vs. entertainer argument above, with the inclusion of sources from the Musician article. As for why these articles are formatted differently, that's a discussion for the broader community. But at this point in time they are. It is the case that these articles are usually set up with the album or song titles in the headings, the album or song material in those sections and any controversies that coincided with those moments in those sections. With actor articles, the setup might be to have the television show or film in the heading. Either way, even for actor articles, the controversy material often goes in one of those sections instead of having its own section. I recognize that you are stating that cases like Jackson's case are different. But notice that none of the articles you pointed to are WP:Good or WP:Featured articles. And that conviction cases are different. There's also the fact that this article already identifies the child sexual abuse content with headings. We haven't gotten any complaints about that material being hard to locate. You've made a complaint, but it's about the 'Leaving Neverland'' content being difficult to locate, although I think some readers will naturally know to check the "Aftermath" section for that material. And adding a subsection heading for the material would make it easy to find. Above, you stated that you are "not pushing for this to happen, just raising the matter and would be interested in seeing pro/con arguments for a re-structuring of the article to group most of the relevant information in such a top level section." Well, now you are pushing for it. And I've suggested an RfC. If no one else is willing to start it, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of opinion of whether or not Michael is considered a musician or an entertainer the amount of popularity of the sex abuse allegations makes it notable forcing us to have to mention it. Overall, I believe the sex allegations section should be moved beneath the aforementioned sections that way we are helping keep the article as a whole neutral, and decreasing the distraction of the allegations so readers capture more of why he is notable. Like I said earlier after protection is lifted we might see quite a circus for the next month until things calm down on both ends. I say can we move to a vote to at least move the section itself and then focus on the content as a whole to maintain it's neutrality.Mcelite (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the child sexual abuse stuff is already mentioned, with clear headings that identify it. It is only the documentary that currently isn't identified by a subheading, which is easily fixed. Also pinging Synthwave.94 for their thoughts; Synthwave.94, see the RfC on this below if you weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

____


 * Yes Looking at everyone's comments I am voting yes to moving the sex allegations below his artistry and legacy sections to help maintain the article's neutrality overall.Mcelite (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Check source?
His deep dissatisfaction with his appearance, his nightmares and chronic sleep problems, his tendency to remain hyper-compliant, especially with his father, and to remain childlike in adulthood are consistent with the effects of the maltreatment he endured as a child.

Does anyone have this source? Does it discuss these symptoms in relation to Michael Jackson? If not, I fear this sentence (eminently true though it no doubt is) is synthesis and cannot remain in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending clarification. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead refer to the five chart-topping Bad singles by name?
Should "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", "Bad", "The Way You Make Me Feel", "Man in the Mirror", and "Dirty Diana" be removed from the lead, or is it enough to simply state that the Bad album had a record-breaking five number-one singles? Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove per WP:DETAIL and MOS:Provide an accessible overview – Excepting the music video for "Bad" (for reasons documented under #Music videos and choreography), there is nothing particularly notable about those songs in and of themselves. It could also be argued that they aren't even as well-known as (and certainly not better known than) many of Jackson's other songs. Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep in lead such removals are misuse of WP:DETAIL and MOS:INTRO. The claim that "there is nothing particularly notable about those songs in and of themselves" is quite frankly absurd when they all topped the US Billboard Hot 100 (meaning they were at one point the country's most popular songs). With them reaching the top, Bad is one of only two albums along with Katy Perry's Teenage Dream to ever have five of its singles reach that feat. Having them listed keeps it perfectly accessible. Regardless of whether other tracks are more widely known, it honestly is a glaring omission to not mention these by name. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should rephrase that, for the purposes of your argument, they are only notable in the context of Bad, which is already covered in the lead. Michael Jackson had 13 number-one singles in total. If they're so notable for being number-one hits, then shouldn't we also be naming the other 8? Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with also naming those. As for your "only notable in the context of Bad" assertion, my previous comments debunk that. It's not like being part of the album was the key factor in their chart success. If one mentions that somebody had a record with songs from an album, then people will expect a subsequent elaboration on that, which is another reason why these should be listed by name. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If an artist has had an extraordinary number of smash hits it's absurd to suggest that we have to name every single one of them. Especially when the lead is already exceeding 3000 characters and 600 words. It's not something we do for Elvis Presley, The Beatles, or Led Zeppelin. Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 13 isn't "an extraordinary number" when there are "smash hits" that don't go all the way to #1 (that term can be used for anything that reaches the top 5 or perhaps even top 10). Listing all tracks that top a chart isn't entirely out of the question unlike, say, all of his top 5s or all of his top 10s would be. I'm not outright saying we should list every single smash hit, only that when something is part of a big record, people will want an elaboration on said record. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that, as a self-contained work, the global cachet of a song like "Dirty Diana" is nowhere near that of "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Be My Baby"", "Satisfaction", or even Jackson's own "Thriller". The presumption is that, if we're naming names, then the reader is supposed to feel like they're going to learn more extraordinary things about these singles if they click their articles. They won't (sans "Bad"). They're notable in the context of Bad, which is notable in the context of Michael Jackson, but the songs themselves are not notable in the context of Michael Jackson. We know this because being one of the five number-ones from Bad is the only thing that the main MJ article says about them. And so we run into a bit of WP:UNDUE. Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They won't "learn more extraordinary things" by clicking them!? Saying that and the other songs aside from its title track "are not notable in the context of Michael Jackson" is ridiculous! One would also see other various high charting positions, especially for "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", along with a Record of the Year Grammy nomination for "Man in the Mirror". While "Dirty Diana" might not have had as much worldwide chart success as the other four mentioned, its US placement is by no means the only important thing you'd find there. Whether we should include chart positions from other nations is debatable. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion This might work better as a note. It isn't the worst instance in the article of pointless lists, but if it was removed it would be an incremental improvement. A note might satisfy both sides. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mean using the "efn" template for a note, though fail to see how removing a record's elaboration in any way improves things when simply saying it had an unprecedented five US number ones is vague and doesn't tell readers as much. They'd think "what songs helped reach that achievement?" or something along those lines. Giving five names most certainly wouldn't be out of the question. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove It seems like excessive detail to list the 5 songs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep in lead per SNUGGUMS, who has ample experience in what it means to write a good article on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove, though I don't feel strongly. I agree with Ilovetopaint's argument about undue weight. The world record is more important here than the singles themselves. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I was BOLD and implemented my suggestion to move this detail into a footnote. Does anybody strenuously disagree with this? Or could we live with it as a compromise? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I would prefer having them shown more clearly and it's nonsense to call such a listing undue weight or excessive detail, your footnote compromise is much better than not mentioning these in the lead at all and is something I could live with. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pageviews
Normally this article has some 20,000 daily readers. Now the article has nearly 200,000 daily readers. In other words readership has increased almost tenfold over the last few weeks and days and the vast majority of the readers clearly come here looking specifically for material about sexual abuse. --Tataral (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And "pageviews" is not a valid criterion for any material in any article at all.  Collect (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTUSA
, we do not abbreviate the United States as U.S. if there are other abbreviations like UK in the same article, see WP:NOTUSA. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Allegations
, the latest round of sex abuse allegations were renewed allegations about behavior from the past. They were made in the 2010s but do not relate to the 2010s. I feel it is potentially misleading to refer to them as 2010s allegations. What is your issue with renewed? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential perception of canvassing by editor Flyer22 Reborn on this page
There have been a number of debates going on on this page as well as some RfCs and Flyer22 has been heavily involved in many (all?) of them. During these discussions Flyer22 has been mentioning (so they are notified) a number of other editors who were not previously involved in the debate underway. I am not accusing Flyer22 of doing this to canvas people with opinions similar to her own but such a perception is possible and it is almost as important to avoid a perception of canvassing as actually doing it.

One example from this page:

> Moxy, any thoughts?

and

> You were quick to implement the proposed article format even though others, like myself and Moxy, hadn't yet weighed in.

and again later (this time without an explicit mention)

> I'm still waiting for Moxy to weigh in.

Moxy did then show up and their first comment was

> Ok i am here...will review whats going on

And 7 minutes after that comment they then participated in the RfC on the restructure, taking a position similar to Flyer22's.

Please note I am not accusing Moxy of any wrong doing. Just highlighting how they were brought into the discussion by Flyer22 and what flowed from that.

Another example:

> They (except for Casliber, who didn't really give an opinion on the article's status) -- Xover, Laser_brain, Ritchie333, SandyGeorgia, Pstoller, SNUGGUMS, DannyMusicEditor, DrKay, and AGK -- saw it as needing some tweaking and likely cuts, but none of them stated that it didn't still meet WP:FA status.

All the names above were mentioned by Flyer22 except SNUGGUMS who was already participating on the page. We then had DannyMusicEditor showing up who said:

> Brought here by mention. Flyer22 Reborn is really hitting the nail on the head for this one.

Oska (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as canvassing as it isn't like she was urging anybody to say they agree with her. An attempt to canvass would be more like asking people "come support/oppose ______". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What you describe would be blatant canvassing. What I am describing is the possible perception of canvassing of people with similar opinions. 2 out of 2 of the people who came onto this talk page after she name-mentioned them took positions similar to or supportive of hers. (Again, that is not to criticise either of those two people). Oska (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not "canvassed" at all and charging other editors with being "canvassed" is about the worst concept available on any talk page. If you feel you have evidence of "canvassing" post it on a proper noticeboard - not here. Collect (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is not the proper forum for discussing allegations of canvassing (or the potential perception). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I repeatedly stressed that there was absolutely no blame being put on anyone who was name-mentioned by Flyer22 and who later showed up (of whom you were not one). Oska (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really shouldn't even respond to this thread. Do you not understand the WP:Canvassing guideline? First, you tried to get me on a canvassing violation above in the RfC, where I thoroughly rebutted your nonsense. Then, you and one of your cohorts tried to get me on canvassing at WP:ANI, where I rebutted the nonsense again. Now you try again? To repeat: WP:Canvassing 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."


 * Clearly, pinging Moxy, who has been involved in this article for years, was fine. Oops, I just pinged Moxy again. Oh my goodness. I also pinged ‎Synthwave.94, another regular contributor to this article. But Synthwave.94 did not weigh in. The editors I pinged from the Elvis Presley FA review (WP:FAR) were pinged because I was talking about that review and I felt like pinging them. They are experienced editors when it comes to matters such as these. Some or most, such as SNUGGUMS, are essentially experts on creating GAs and FAs; so they pass the "expert" aspect of what WP:Canvassing allows. Out of those editors (with the exception of SNUGGUMS, who was already involved with this article), DannyMusicEditor is the only one who has weighed in thus far. I noted that "the editors who weighed in on the Presley review might feel differently about this article." I had no idea that DannyMusicEditor was going to state "Flyer22 Reborn is really hitting the nail on the head for this one." I have no relation to DannyMusicEditor outside of this. He is not a Wikipedia friend of mine. None of the editors I mentioned/pinged are, although Moxy, SNUGGUMS, Ritchie333, SandyGeorgia and I have interacted positively on matters and I have the same mutual respect for them as they have for me. And as has been discussed at the WP:Canvassing talk page, editors are reluctant to list pinging as a form of canvassing. No doubt in part because of nonsense like this.


 * You and your cohorts need to stop trying to get me topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing this article. It's not going to happen. I am not the problem at this article that I barely edit or this talk page. And, no, I haven't been involved in all of the current discussions on this talk page, which are subject to much WP:Recentism. You also need to read WP:TALK. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Outstanding issues
Well, the article is coming along. I've just reread it and it is much less bad than it was. It still needs: Glad you feel the article has improved. As for cutting down material, that'll take some more examination to determine what should or shouldn't be kept. I also think we can maintain enough quality to not need a formal FAR. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be a little shorter. Most of it is now material that does belong on an encyclopedia, but not all of it belongs on this article.
 * To check for proper attribution in references. At the moment the article employs a scatter-gun approach, blasting the reader with literally hundreds of references in the hope that they assume everything is as it should be. I need more competent and neutral editors to go through the article, and check that material is correctly and fairly referenced. I've found a few instances where material has not been honestly summarized, and many where it has been lazily quoted. Primary references should be cut to a minimum. Strings of references in the same sentence need to be bundled, not just for neatness and ease of reading, but for proper adherence to verifiability. In a multi-referenced sentence, the reader needs to be able to know which statements are sourced to which references. At the moment we don't have that.
 * We need to sort out how we deal with the sex abuse allegations. We know this already and we are dealing with it. It will also evolve over time. We need to be open to that.
 * Continuing vigilance for fan-fiction in the article. It looks breathless and comprehensive. We need to be dispassionate and neutral, follow the sources, and use summary style.
 * Prose still isn't anything like as good as it should be; we need good writers with an ear for language who can make it into a competent piece of writing. A lot of it is currently just a chronological account of events, like an edited version of the subject's diary.
 * To try and keep our tempers. This is clearly an emotive subject for some editors. The article should be improved here in the first instance. We can hold FAR in reserve but we should at least try to save it here first. I think we can do it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Jackson
Due to his fame and the coverage of his personal life, Jackson was "a global figure in popular culture" as the lead notes. The article currently includes detailed coverage of his own professional and personal life, and his own work, but it seems to me that it possibly should have a section or sub section on "cultural depictions of Jackson", corresponding to the (fairly extensive) Category:Cultural depictions of Michael Jackson. Perhaps as a sub section of "Legacy and influence" or as a separate top-level section immediately below "Legacy and influence." --Tataral (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse should be mentioned briefly in the first paragraph of the lead section
The first paragraph of the lead section is an overall summary of the entire article. Until a day ago the paragraph looked like this:
 * Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter and dancer. Dubbed the "King of Pop", he is regarded as one of the most significant cultural icons of the 20th century and one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Jackson's contributions to music, dance, and fashion, along with his publicized personal life—including allegations of child sexual abuse—made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades.

Now sexual abuse has been removed. Based on the coverage of Jackson in reliable sources, the sexual abuse allegations are clearly important enough to be mentioned in that sentence, together with his contributions to fashion and so on. The sexual abuse allegations are also mentioned in a similar manner in the lead section of Jimmy Savile. --Tataral (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't ok. This needs to be restored. It is one of the main things he is known for. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. Allegations of child sexual abuse are not what made him a global figure. Plus, mention of the child sexual abuse material is included lower in the lead. If we are to include mention of child sexual abuse in the first paragraph, it should be added differently. And the Jimmy Savile article is not a featured article. And to repeat on the Jimmy Savile matter... With Saville, 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. That's a significant difference. Moved the child sexual abuse part in the first paragraph. Yeah, it likely needs tweaking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with . This smacks of WP:RECENTISM, and we have no way of knowing whether the current furore will be reflected in the long-term view taken of Jackson.  The allegations are quite correctly mentioned further down in the lede - but they should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all.  (That is, I disagree with this edit - they should be removed, not merely moved.)  They have nothing to do with his notability.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? "Nothing"? Are you suggesting all mention of his various child abuse allegations be removed? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They have nothing to do with the reasons he became notable. And, no, I'm not suggesting at all that the allegations be removed from the article - and I'm not even necessarily opposed to mentioning them in the lede section.  But at this stage I don't support mentioning them in the very first paragraph. - see MOS:OPENPARABIO.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that isn't the point. The subject probably first passed our standard for notability in about 1968 as the lead singer in The Jackson 5 when they charted for the first time. Nobody is suggesting he was abusing children at that time. But as I have said in the RfC, the nature of a subject's notability can change. I see nothing in OPENPARABIO that would preclude reflecting in the first paragraph that one of the things he is known for is the many allegations of criminal activities with children that were made during and after his life. This old revision of the Jimmy Savile article contains no mention of the allegations against him, because they were not yet in the public domain. The article now, quite properly, covers the allegations in some depth. Indeed, these are probably now his main reason for notability. Things can change, and acknowledging that isn't recentism. Unless you're surmising that all the reappraisal of his reputation is going to be rolled back? In such a case, we could adjust the article again I suppose. Pixels are cheap. The Savile article isn't Featured, but a FA should be more compliant with NPOV coverage, not less. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "... these are probably now his main reason for notability..."    Considering that Jackson's notability as a performer has been evident for the last 50 years or so, and the current allegations have been widely publicised for, at most, one-hundredth of that time (that is, no more than the last few months), it would be undue weight - and, yes, "recentist" - to mention them in the opening paragraph.  That may change over time, but hasn't changed to that extent yet.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. Yes I got that you think that. But as you were saying regarding Savile's reputation, . It's not what you or I think, it's what the sources say. What do they say? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any comment about Savile. We should be using the best and most reliable sources, which tend not to include recent media coverage.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood what I said then, as the text I wrote and you quoted and expressed doubt about, was about Savile. You may wish to reread my post and yours, and adjust your response. So, what degree of weight do the best and most reliable sources give to the sex abuse allegations? Is it zero, or is it a larger number? If it's the latter, policy dictates that our article as a whole, and the lead and within that the opening paragraph should adopt similar weighting. I do not think it is zero, do you? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake re Savile - now struck.  So, even if - hypothetically - some aspect of a person's notability amounts to even a small part - more than zero - of their overall notability, you think it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph?   "Policy dictates" nothing of the sort.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Thanks.  Incidentally, the Savile comparison with Jackson doesn't really work.  Jackson was far more notable, globally, than Savile ever was, and the number of his reported crimes / transgressions was far less.  So, the balance should not be the same.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But the balance should be assessed fairly, and perhaps reassessed in light of ongoing events. My own judgment is that it should be slightly greater than it is. As says above, in a way there is no hurry. But the longer this article appears to understate the significance of the allegations to Jackson's reputation, the longer it will be until this article truly meets FA standards. Right now it fails on several grounds, and nobody wants to see it delisted. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the allegations should be given greater weight in the article as a whole. But, at present, that doesn't justify a sentence in the very first paragraph.  And it's really no big deal if the article is "delisted" - that is what would be expected at a time when his whole reputation is under radical re-examination.  The very wide range of opinions makes achieving a long-term and balanced view through consensus very unlikely.  That will change, eventually.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with including the sexual allegations like that because that has nothing to do with his notability. That is not what made renown in any respects all of is notability came from his music, his dancing, and film. That's like saying hey Elvis married his wife when she was 14 that's a fact, but even though in that time it was looked down on it's not mentioned in his opening paragraphs. In Michael's case these are allegations and I think including allegations in that paragraph threatens it's neutrality as a whole.Mcelite (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good to have your opinion, but unfortunately this isn't an opinion-based discussion. We use editorial judgment to distill the best sources out there into a tertiary source. Our policies dictate that we follow the weight the best sources give. I'm afraid that's not up for grabs. We're talking about what weight to give it. Right now it has very little. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I was the one who originally added "including allegations of child sexual abuse" and I'm not certain that this was a good addition. I think that "publicized personal life" is too vague and that, instead of centering on any specific allegation, the opening paragraph should instead acknowledge that Jackson had a very strange lifestyle that sparked many allegations, some of which were proven false or manufactured by tabloids. Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite this section and the section above, Tataral re-added the material to the lead, claiming that it "received more support than opposition. The continuing coverage since then has also probably made the inclusion of the third phase here less contentious (especially given the detailed treatment of the first and second phases of allegations), so I'm trying the slightly bold approach here." StraussInTheHouse, User:Ilovetopaint, Mcelite and   Ghmyrtle all opposed the addition to the lead. And I questioned the addition. And that is not an insignificant number compared to the number who supported. Per WP:Consensus, WP:Consensus is not "the result of a vote." We might need an RfC on this as well.  Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is (yet another) inaccurate statement (at best) or blatant falsehood (at worst) from User:Flyer22 Reborn, but quite frankly what we've come to expect from him here. This section is concerned with the sentence "including allegations of child sexual abuse" in the first paragraph. It has nothing at all to do with (a completely different sentence at the end of) the fourth paragraph, which is discussed elsewhere on this talk page (the fourth paragraph has included detailed coverage of sexual abuse for years). I've not reinstated anything discussed in this section. If you object to an edit that is utterly unrelated to this section, I suggest that you bring it up in the relevant section instead of trying to conflate it with something else and make it seem like I've "re-added" something I haven't "re-added" at all. I don't see any clear agreement on adding sexual abuse to the summary in the first paragraph at this point, which is why I haven't reinstated it, only brought it up for debate here when I saw that it was removed. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate? Eh. We have two sections where editors have objected to engaging in recentism and/or undue by adding "including allegations of child sexual abuse" in the first paragraph and mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead, respectively. Editors in the section above clearly objected, and yet you added the material anyway, as though there was a lot more support for your view and that consensus had been formed. Stop basing consensus on a headcount.


 * And I'm a her, not a he, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've not based consensus on a headcount, rather the contrary, but I'm not going to continue a discussion on an issue that has its own section on this talk page here in this completely unrelated section. I've simply addressed your false claim that I "re-added" the material discussed in this section which I haven't "re-added" at all. --Tataral (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given what you stated in your edit summary, I can't agree that you did not add that piece based on headcount. If you want to argue that your "received more support than opposition" statement is not about you perceiving consensus, it is still you going by a headcount. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The opening paragraph is missing something.. It's easy to notice. "his publicized personal life" is indeed vague. I don't know how to word it, but it shouldn't just be ignored there.. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to discern the future, but I think it's clear enough that the child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson will have a lasting impact on his legacy that I don't find WP:Recentism persuasive, and I think it would be appropriate to include them in the first paragraph. One other way to highlight what User:Ilovetopaint was talking about would be to add the word "unusual" (or "strange" or "unorthodox") before "lifestyle". - Sdkb (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be clear: When we're talking about briefly mentioning sexual abuse in general terms with just three words here, we're not talking just about the 2019 controversy, but the whole thing spanning a quarter of a century including the 1990s controversy, his criminal trial and so on, that led him to leave Neverland, "flee the country" and practically end his career for the last decade of his life. Clearly the sexual abuse issue was a major one already in his lifetime, even if we leave the devastating blow to his reputation in 2019 out of the equation. I find it impossible to see how this has anything to do with recentism at all.

The first paragraph has become even more detailed than it was before, so it seems quite puzzling that it doesn't mention sexual abuse. It even includes "charitable fundraising", as if that is more important than sexual abuse. --Tataral (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. He was not principally notable for his (very considerable) charity gifts and benefits. I've removed that and added "unorthodox" for his lifestyle. Hey, did you know he had the Michael Jackson International Institute for Research On Child Abuse named for him? I wonder if it is still operating.... --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What degree of weight should the article give to the sex abuse allegations?
In a way this belongs in at least two of the discussions above. In a way it's a shame that essentially the same argument is distributed across the page. Never mind. In full knowledge that looking at Ghits is a very crude metric, Michael Jackson sex abuse is getting me 109,000,000, and Michel Jackson singer 433,000,000. That's about 25% which seems a fair starting point. Looking in Google books, we get 9,130 vs 808,000, or about 1%. I am sure that there are others here who can make a more sophisticated estimate of the coverage. I don't think anyone can claim it is zero. At the moment, for reference (and again I know that word count is a very crude metric) the percentages are Lead para 0%, lead as a whole 8.5%, article as a whole 1.7%. (My estimates, and they may be pretty crude. Somebody with more time and better tools should make a better one.) --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main book source for the article is with 68 (!) references. I don't own the book, but looking in preview on Amazon, the index contains 34 instances of "Martin Bashir" (not all of which will relate to these allegations of course), 37 of "Evan Chandler", and 42 of "Jordie Chandler". It's safe to say that a proportion of these refer to the matter we are discussing. Again, even a book that appeared ten years ago seems to have substantial coverage of this. Obviously it would be ideal if somebody with a copy of the book could provide a more accurate estimate. But it isn't zero. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost a week on, I am disappointed by the lack of response here. We have seen that, unsurprisingly, there are many varied opinions on this, some passionately held. Yet it appears that mine is a lone voice looking to survey the sources in a way that our policy demands. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is this isn't under the RfC header so a lot of people don't notice it. You may want to refactor and add it as a third level header under the main RfC because I only just noticed this section. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'm not inclined to do that for now I think. But what this article desperately needs is input from people who are expert at finding good sources and evenhandedly summarizing them accurately and dispassionately. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google results are only estimates, not hard numbers. When I click on the "808,000" link, for example, Google (Books) only tells me there are "about 188,000 results" for michael jackson singer. If I search for michael jackson abuse, Google tells me there are "about 101,000 results" in Google Books. It's difficult to use Google search results (numbers) in this manner, so they need to be taken with many grains of salt. My feeling, though, is that 25% is a good starting point for the discussion, and that it wouldn't be reasonable to exceed about 25% in this article, but that there is little danger of approaching anything near that percentage. Currently 6.3 % of the body of the article is devoted to sexual abuse (excluding the references). If we take into account the possible need for a fourth sub section (e.g. on the broader cultural impact of the sexual abuse allegations), the sexual abuse section still would barely approach 10% of the article. This shows that we have some room for expansion, especially in the coverage of the third phase of the abuse allegations. However, due to concerns relating to recentism we will probably have to wait for some time before we expand that coverage much beyond its current length. In other words, this is room for that section to grow in the coming couple of years. --Tataral (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Corey Feldman update needed
Somebody with relevant access needs to update the section referring to Corey Feldman, to reflect the fact he has "dramatically pull[ed] back his support for embattled friend Michael Jackson in light of "horrendous" child sexual abuse allegations... [and] can "no longer" speak in support of Jackson", in the aftermath of the 'Leaving Neverland' documentary. Source is the TV interview held with Feldman on HLN, link: https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/111175455/leaving-neverland-corey-feldman-can-no-longer-defend-michael-jackson 213.165.180.198 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of this stuff belongs, even those who have not changed their stories. Even a highly active child abuser presumably doesn't molest every child they meet. So a bunch of people saying "Well, he didn't molest me!" doesn't really make much difference to the story, in my view. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's no objection to removing this, I'm going to remove it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Identifying a dollar figure attached to the 2013 lawsuit
The first line of the "Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland" section read (until my recent edit): "In 2013, choreographer Wade Robson and James Safechuck filed a $1.5 billion-dollar [e.m.] civil lawsuit claiming Jackson had sexually abused them as children." Now, that's a lot. It's also conspicuously absent from contemporary reports and non-tabloid articles.

Our own source, mentioning the figure in a bullet point, is a Forbes.com contributor which Wikipedia generally does not consider usable as sources, so let's see if there's a better one anywhere. The Forbes.com one was published on January 29 – a search limited to things before this date finds, among other unusable stuff, a blog in defence of Jackson which investigates "why we should believe that Wade Robson is demanding the sum of $1.62 billion for the alleged abuse from MJ if this news is reported by almost no one, was published in some tabloid and is not mentioned in the court documents available to us." The $1.5 billion figure is likely a rounding of this number. The blog post is mostly off-topic but despite characterising Robson as a "greedy liar" and a tool in the "project" to "grab all the money the Michael Jackson Estate has," ultimately concludes "You don’t have to believe it" but "if Robson’s sum were untrue at least some lawyers would have spoken up and disclaimed it," suggesting it may have been "a draft" leaked by Robson's lawyers (for some reason) to a site called Radar Online and/or the Daily Mail. They provide some links, all published on August 5, 2014, including the Daily Mail one. It turns out that's as far back as it goes. For anyone in doubt, the Daily Mail is the lowest of the low when it comes to reliability. My money says they made it up.

In conclusion, given that none of the legal cases made it very far, I doubt that there ever was a requested amount made known to the public. If anyone has one that doesn't come from a tabloid, I'd be interested to know about it. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 04:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)