Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34

Referencing
In trying to look through the references to cull out the most dubious ones, it became apparent to me that it's difficult to do this because the sources aren't even organized properly. Book sources and web sources should be separated, if at all, properly. At the moment it's a mish-mash. If I was to look at fixing this, I'd prefer to move to Harvard referencing. But it really can't remain like it is. It's a mess. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In looking at this, I have uncovered a couple more poor references. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Specific question: what makes *, a self-published book, a good source for BLP material? --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say about this source specifically, but should note that being self-published doesn't automatically mean poor quality. However, the use of such material should be limited to non-contentious claims per WP:SELFPUB where there's no reasonable doubt of authenticity. BLP also doesn't apply here when Jackson has been dead for three months shy of a decade. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is being used to support a contentious claim about his mother who is I think still alive. Hence the question. MarchOrDie (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should opt for something else if available. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have removed it pending a better source. MarchOrDie (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've implemented Harvard referencing, and sorted out the book references. I've also removed a couple of tags; did you add them, ? I don't remember doing so. I always hate messing with another editor's tags, but I felt that with over 70 instances of Template:Cite magazine, we'd either have to tag them all or none. I feel that a greater priority should be getting better sourcing; I've gotten rid of a handful of really poor and primary or self-published sources, and it would be good to reduce our dependency on Taraborrelli, as noted above, on link-rotted archived news sources from ten years ago, and on the remaining primary sources. In this regard, why is  such a good source that we use it 36 times? I appreciate that Nelson George is a respected writer, but if I am correct in thinking that this is a booklet that came with a greatest hits collection, this becomes pretty much a primary source, and one which the average non-fan reader is unable to easily check as WP:V requires. Am I missing something? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I never added those. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, we should stick to templates. And regarding this, our WP:Primary sources policy doesn't state that primary sources should never be used. For uncontroversial and/or straightforward material, such as "Following complaints that it featured scenes of violence and a sexually suggestive dance, some scenes were edited and Jackson apologized," I don't see that a secondary source is needed. It's not like the VHS/DVD is contesting the fact that there were complaints; it's acknowledging that there were complaints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That stated, I haven't seen the VHS/DVD source; so I don't know what it states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now that the sources are a bit better organised, we can see that a large proportion of the article is sourced to a book by a writer known for trashy gossip, and the insert for one of Jackson's CDs. As Flyer22 Reborn acknowledges, not only is there a problem of WP:PRIMARY with the second source, it is difficult or impossible to verify material that is sourced this way. What do the regulars here want to do? It's not even a question of FAR any more, but basic adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:V we are talking about. I am not looking for procedural advice, but for well-thought-out suggestions on how we can improve the article. What would the article look like sans Taraborelli and the CD insert? Are there other, better sources we could sub in? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that the source being a primary source is a problem; I stated the opposite of that. As seen at WP:Citing sources, we do sometimes cite VHS or DVD videos as sources. And WP:PAYWALL states, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." As for better sources, I routinely go to Google Books for decent sources. But I usually edit academic topics (when I'm not patrolling via WP:Huggle, or WP:STiki whenever that starts working for me again). Still, checking Google Books is one option for the topic of Jackson. And, of course, looking for reliable media sources is another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not for the first time, I am left wondering if you have even read the article you are commenting on, never mind the discussion we are trying to have here about how to improve it. The 40 references to are not to a VHS video or to a DVD, but to the booklet which accompanied an album. My point is not that we can never use such a source, but that a) this primary source is way over-used (40!), in some cases for non-straightforward claims, and that b) the nature of such a source is such that an ordinary, non-fan reader cannot check to see what the source actually says, other than by buying the album. In other words, anyone could claim the source said anything. This is not ideal. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There goes that attitude again. Cut it out. It makes responding to you/trying to interact with you a pain (well, other than other matters regarding your opinionated editing). This section is titled "Referencing." Do you think that a section on a Wikipedia talk page titled "Referencing" must only concern something you brought up because you started the section? If I wanted to comment on a source you initially brought up, or brought up later, I would. I mentioned "VHS/DVD" because this edit you made clearly points to a source titled "Michael Jackson Dangerous on Film VHS/DVD." You tagged the source with Template:Primary source inline. I clearly pointed to it above and noted that "I haven't seen the VHS/DVD source; so I don't know what it states." I noted that the source being a primary source is not a problem for that statement. And, clearly, the source would benefit from one of the citation styles at WP:Citing sources. Regarding your "way over used" argument, I am stating that uncontroversial and/or straightforward matters cited to the "Michael Jackson Dangerous on Film VHS/DVD" source or similar is not a valid reason to discard a source. If a primary source is being used with WP:In-text attribution for an opinion or other statement from Jackson, it's fine...as long as the source is WP:Reliable and is not a WP:Undue matter. Even if it's a self-published or questionable source as a source on him, the WP:About self policy applies. I have no issue with cutting down on the overuse of sources, but a source being overused does not mean that the content should automatically be removed. As you know, I've already mentioned WP:Preserve to you. Oops, there I go mentioning it yet again. I wouldn't have to mention it again if I felt you grasped how important that policy is. And regarding you not having access, I already pointed you to the WP:PAYWALL policy; it is clear. It doesn't care about what you consider ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you were talking about something you mentioned on the 17th rather than responding to what I said on the 27th. You didn't actually say that but assumed I would telepathically know that. And because my telepathy was faulty, I have an "attitude". That's fine. Let's assume I am familiar with all the WP:ALPHABETSOUP links you are putting up. Let's actually think it through. Will we get around using the booklet that came with one of Jackson's albums as a reference 40 times by quoting WP:PAYWALL? No, I don't think so either. So, what do we do? That is the question. My first suggestion is that we examine them one by one and take out those we cannot find better sources for. My second suggestion is that we just take them all out and let someone who cares find better sources. What probably won't work is to have me do all the work, while you carp from the sidelines about my supposed "attitude". If you care about this article enough to comment here, go find some decent sources. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone's reading comprehension is off, that is not my fault. You are the one who titled this section "Referencing" and somehow expected editors to only address things you brought up. If a recent section on a talk page is titled "Referencing," there is no need for an editor to start another section addressing referencing. That is just cluttering the talk page. I would not have needed to go back to what I stated on the 19th (not the 17th) if you did not misrepresent what I stated on the 19th by stating, "As Flyer22 Reborn acknowledges, not only is there a problem of WP:PRIMARY with the second source, it is difficult or impossible to verify material that is sourced this way." Also, it is odd for you to expect me to address something you brought up when you did not address what I brought up. Everything I brought up is valid regardless of you referring to it as WP:ALPHABETSOUP. For example, you should not have tagged that reference with Template:Primary source inline. That the reference for that piece is a primary source absolutely does not matter. That the source is a primary source is absolutely fine. What does matter is the bad formatting of that source and lack of information regarding it. You have an attitude because you came at me with "Not for the first time, I am left wondering if you have even read the article you are commenting on, never mind the discussion we are trying to have here about how to improve it." Clearly an attack, no matter if one considers WP:Personal attacks stating, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done . When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." That comment by you that I just quoted was a completely unnecessary comment and clearly meant to provoke.


 * Moving on... WP:PAYWALL is a policy. Not merely a guideline. It is to be followed for a valid reason -- so that reliable sources and content that should be preserved are not thrown out. There have been various discussions involving editors arguing what you are arguing now -- to get rid of the source, reduce the source, or get rid of the content because they don't have access to the source or because the source is not in English. And consensus has repeatedly stated that it is not a good idea unless there is reasonable evidence that the source is being misrepresented or is falsified, or unless there are better sources. In the case of WP:Non-English sources, English sources are the better sources because they are preferred, but we don't automatically get rid of non-English sources. In the case of the "Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (booklet)" source, no solid reason has been given to get rid of the source. As for significantly decreasing our use of it, that might be a valid approach. But anyone removing content along with it should be trying to preserve that content unless it's clear that the content shouldn't be in this article or that the article is better off without it. "Better off without it" should not be a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. That is what the WP:Preserve policy is about. The editor should not be removing content that should be preserved and expecting others to come along and restore the material that they may not even know was removed unless they go edit history hunting.


 * You stated that you "appreciate that Nelson George is a respected writer, but if [you are] correct in thinking that this is a booklet that came with a greatest hits collection, this becomes pretty much a primary source, and one which the average non-fan reader is unable to easily check as WP:V requires." Per WP:Primary, all that it being a primary source means is that it should be used with care, without interpretation, and to only "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What it states about access does not mean that an editor who comes across the source must have access to it. It means that any editor with access to it should be able to see that the source is not being misrepresented. It being a "fan" source does not matter; like WP:BIASEDSOURCES states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I point to the rules because they matter, and, like many know, I follow them very well. This is not about complaining from the sidelines. And per WP:BURDEN, I do not need to go "find better sources." An editor has already satisfied WP:BURDEN by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that presumably directly supports the material. Like WP:BURDEN notes, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you think that the source is being misrepresented, you should provide proof of that. Removing the source because you don't have access to it is a no-go. I don't agree with removing all instances of the reference and leaving "citation needed" tags in their place, which is a route you would love since you have repeatedly tried to get this article delisted. And I clearly don't agree to removing all of the content attributed to the source. What would work, per WP:Preserve and WP:BURDEN, is you looking for better sources since you (not me or anyone else) are on this mission, and, if not finding them, accepting that this source may be the best source (or best available source) for the material. What would work is you removing the source from places that go beyond straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Again, the content does not need to be verified by you. Per WP:Verifiability, it only needs to be verifiable. WP:PAYWALL is an aspect of the WP:Verifiability policy. I realize that you will find this post by me too lengthy, but I feel that all of that needed to be stated. After all, your "unable to easily check as WP:V requires" belief (or former belief since I pointed to WP:PAYWALL) is incorrect. Also, from your "if [you are] correct in thinking" piece, it appears that you are not even sure that the source is a primary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's actually think it through. Will we get around using the booklet that came with one of Jackson's albums as a reference 40 times by quoting WP:PAYWALL? No, I don't think so either. So, what do we do? That is the question. Anybody feel like addressing this? By addressing it, I mean "make a positive and actionable suggestion that would make the article better". --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you above, "As for better sources, I routinely go to Google Books for decent sources. But I usually edit academic topics (when I'm not patrolling via WP:Huggle, or WP:STiki whenever that starts working for me again). Still, checking Google Books is one option for the topic of Jackson. And, of course, looking for reliable media sources is another." I was clearly suggesting that you look on Google Books and for reliable media sources. Those are clearly "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better." I told you above, "What would work, per WP:Preserve and WP:BURDEN, is you looking for better sources since you (not me or anyone else) are on this mission, and, if not finding them, accepting that this source may be the best source (or best available source) for the material. What would work is you removing the source from places that go beyond straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Again, the content does not need to be verified by you. Per WP:Verifiability, it only needs to be verifiable. WP:PAYWALL is an aspect of the WP:Verifiability policy." Those are clearly "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better." I see no indication that you are looking for supposed better sources. I do not see why I or anyone else should be looking for them when you have not demonstrated that we should not be using the aforementioned source...except for in cases where the statements are not straightforward, descriptive statements of facts or seem dubious and should have secondary sourcing instead. If you doubt that something is a fact, Googling is right there at the fingertips. If Googling doesn't work, I don't know what else to tell you. Like I noted, an editor has already satisfied WP:BURDEN by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that presumably directly supports the material. If you are just waiting for this discussion to go stale (or rather staler) and then go ahead and completely remove the source and material cited to it without any valid rationale and in ways that contradict the rules, I will object and revert you. If you cut down on the source in a careful way (replacing it with a better source, removing it as unneeded because it's redundant, removing it from places that it obviously shouldn't be used for, and/or removing the material it's cited to because it's dubious, or is truly trivial, or really doesn't improve the article), I will be fine with your edits and won't revert. I really don't see what else I need to state on this matter, except that I might look for other sources if I get a good chance to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need for you to state or restate anything. What we need are better sources. If you do get a chance to find some, that would be useful. While there is no deadline, and while the writing quality of the article has improved, it really isn't satisfactory that this long into the discussion we still have an article so dependent on primary sourcing claiming to be FA. I certainly don't think we could go beyond the end of April without initiating an FAR. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given your inaccurate comments above about sourcing and your clear implication that I hadn't made "positive and actionable suggestion[s] that would make the article better," I clearly did need to repeat myself. I was right about the WP:Recentism you and others have engaged in (acting like I was just some Jackson fan), and the RfC on it shows that. I will revert this article back to its previous setup if that RfC closes against the current setup. And I am right about the referencing matter. Comments by SNUGGUMS indicate that. To repeat myself again: "I do not see why I or anyone else should be looking for [sources] when you have not demonstrated that we should not be using the aforementioned source...except for in cases where the statements are not straightforward, descriptive statements of facts or seem dubious and should have secondary sourcing instead." You keep going on about better sources without demonstrating that we need to get rid of or replace any of the reliable primary sources for material they are supporting. You can't just state that "we need better sources" without demonstrating that the sources we are using are not satisfactory. I've been over this above. It is only "unfair" because you are the only one concerned with that source and/or other sources. Stop telling others to start the work, especially when it's not clear that any work needs to be done. All I see is a person -- you -- hellbent on nitpicking at and unnecessarily delisting this article. And I can tell you right now that the article absolutely will not be delisted based on your weak arguments. You will be wasting your time. Do not edit this article in a way that does not align with the rules. I do not feel like starting an RfC on this or going to ANI about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources in themselves aren't as bad as you suggest with your "so dependent on primary sourcing" bit. We simply need to take caution with the ones that are in place and such use should be limited. When they are used, the most important things to ensure are they aren't being used for any contentious claims and we don't try to insert interpretations not easily inferred. What would help now is to list examples of text cited to primary sources that go against the aforementioned conditions. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 11:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yeah. Considering I raised this on 18 March, hasn't anybody even had time to look at this? Sheesh. Right. Let's start. Why can't anyone else do this? --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Why can't anyone else do this?" Because Wikipedia is volunteer work and no one has to do anything. That means you doing this is even more impressive. Remember you can dump it any time you want. Popcornduff (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Duly struck. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear before, I meant you should list the contentious claims attributed to primary sources and instances that derive claims in unclear ways from such references, not simply anything cited to a primary source. Again, using primary sources isn't an inherently bad thing, contrary to what you've implied with "why aren't there better sources" remarks on non-contentious claims. Please stop making the idea sound worse than it truly is. As for the actually contentious remark and the bit from Nelson George, I'll look for alternative citations when I get the chance (probably within the next 72 hours) and use those if viable. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 16:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cluefulness, SNUGGUMS. Couple of things; obviously primary sources have their place, but this is a particularly awkward source as it is not merely primary but highly inaccessible for checking, and even non-contentious material should be capable of better sourcing on a featured article. Thanks for saying you would help find better sources; obviously this is merely the first tranche of work. There'a a lot more to do to make this a decent article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS didn't state anything that I hadn't already told you above. So your "cluefulness" compliment which doubles as an obvious jab at me is... Never mind. I've already been over inaccessibility and all of that, pointing to rules that support my views. SNUGGUMS's statements are just shorter. And given everything that I stated on the referencing matter, SNUGGUMS's comments on the matter didn't need to be long anyway. Because of how you have misrepresented how things are supposed to work, I was clear that my "02:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)" comment on the matter needed to be as long as it is for you to truly understand. If you don't want to listen to all of that, the way I clearly pointed you to the rules and why, oh well. It shouldn't take SNUGGUMS coming in and essentially repeating what I stated for you to want to listen (or act like you are listening), regardless of the fact that you and I haven't gotten along. And unless your arguments are supported by the rules, I don't see why we should see what you state about referencing or anything else as some serious matter that can or should lead to this article getting delisted. Like SNUGGUMS stated, "stop making [things] sound worse than [they] truly [are]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take a compliment to another as a slight to you. This isn't predominantly about "rules", but about improving the article. Length doesn't equate to clarity or cluefulness, and you may need to think about that. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference though, the "rule" the article aspires to follow is to be --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And as regards "Please stop making the idea sound worse than it truly is",, it's always a fair point and I'll try (as we all should) to keep emotions and feelings out of it, and to content over contributors, but I confess I am still internalizing my reaction to this being a FA the way it was written and sourced when I came across it and the pushback, to the degree that it is an issue, makes it slightly less satisfying than it ought to be sometimes. I will continue to try to refrain from being snarky, as I know it's a lot easier to criticize a work than to write it. Can we agree that finding and implementing better sourcing should be a medium-term priority that several of us with an interest in the article can all help out with? On the other hand I welcome, and need, scrupulous fellow editors to scour my work, so thanks for that. Now, to work on the sources... --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't take a compliment to another as a slight to me; I take an obvious slight to me as a slight to me. As for rules, this is very much about rules. You shouldn't expect editors to just go along with your arguments for getting rid of material when those arguments have no basis in the rules, and especially in cases where you are making it out like they have a basis in the rules and are grounds for delisting this article. Same goes for other things you personally think are improvements...but are really more so opinion. An article may be changed based on opinionated reasons that have nothing to do with the rules and doesn't violate the rules, but that obviously is a consensus matter. Nowhere did I state or imply that length equates to clarity or cluefulness. It absolutely is not something I have to think about. I've objected to you cutting, and possibly cutting, material that should be retained. I've objected to you cutting material based purely on your opinion of what a better source or better article is, when the rules and many GA and FA reviewers (including those of recent GAs and FAs) disagree with you. We've already been over this. As for "well-researched ... a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate," we have also already been over the fact that primary sources are not automatically a problem. Nowhere does FACR state that primary sources cannot be used in featured articles. And even if it did, it is not something followed in practice. And we've already been over the fact that you not being able to access the source is not what WP:Verifiability means. In any case, as long as you are working on the article appropriately, with or without SNUGGUMS, I have no issue with your edits to the article. Thanks for stating that you will drop the snarkiness and attempt to engage me as you would any other editor. I am certainly trying to treat you like any other editor I would discuss with on the talk page. I will also try to not escalate things when we disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree to help out with improving sourcing where feasible. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Items only sourced to George

 * 1)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources? There are.
 * 2)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
 * 3)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
 * 4)  Contentious. We need a better source or this will have to go. Reworked with a better citation
 * 5)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
 * 6)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources?
 * 7)  Non-contentious but why aren't there better sources? There are.
 * 8)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Adjusted with more appropriate citation
 * 9)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Easy to find reference for the latter, wasn't able to confirm the former. Adjusted accordingly.
 * 10)  Non-contentious but why are the dates this important? If they're important there should be a better source. Quite easy to find a better source. It's still over-detailed but now it has a proper source.
 * 11)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better sources found.
 * 12)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Found a better source, and a slightly different claim.
 * 13)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 14)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 15)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 16)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 17)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 18)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 19)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Fixed; slightly modified but verifiable claims now.
 * 20)  Non-contentious, but there should be better sources out there surely? There are.
 * 21)  Fine, if attributed. Duly attributed.
 * 22)  Fine, if attributed. Duly attributed.
 * 23)  Contentious; "in full force" is the language of fans. Duly removed.
 * 24)  We can discuss this but I am not comfortable with an album insert by George being used as a source for a quote by George. Seems like promotion. I've removed this. As noted below, this quote does not appear to exist in secondary sources so we can do without it.
 * 25)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found, date corrected. This is mentioned twice.
 * 26)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Better source found, date corrected by a decade.
 * 27)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. No better sources out there, so I've removed it.
 * 28)  First part is contentious and needs a better source. Better source found.
 * 29)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. Removed this one as I see no evidence that it happened.
 * 30)  Contentious, and definitely needs a better source. No better source found, removed for now. Not sure it's a great loss.

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

The Nelson George quote is no different than a critic commenting. Some critics will be positive. Others will be negative. If a singer's voice was considered mediocre or bad, or has deteriorated, we should include material on that as well. When it comes to Jackson's voice, however, the vast majority of the critics' views are positive. The George content is sourced appropriately and has WP:In-text attribution. Nothing is wrong with it. If one wants to make the text look even more like an opinion, they can use "According to Nelson George" or "In Nelson George's opinion." The piece is not a bad piece simply because it compliments Jackson's voice. Just like a number of other Wikipedia articles on singers that have pieces complimenting the singer's voice, this one does as well. It's done because reception material such as that should be included. Of course, we don't need to, and shouldn't, include any and everyone who has complimented Jackson's voice. And we should try not to be redundant on the compliments we include. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to have your opinion. If I, or another editor or reader, wanted to verify that the George source was being correctly quoted, how would we do so? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Either do what WP:PAYWALL suggests doing. Or, like I suggested before (higher up), look for other sources (reliable, of course) that might verify the material. Looking at the recent changes to the article and what you stated below in this section, you've been doing the latter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I've asked, let's see what they come up with. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As I thought might happen, looking for better sources reveals a number of claims which don't add up. For example, regarding, outside of the Jacksonverse and the (many) mirrors of this article, this factoid doesn't seem to have evidence behind it. seems to be a self-published book by non-notable authors, and that's the best I can see. If this really happened, you'd expect to see multiple reliable sources discussing it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a source for Campbell being in the video, but no source for the supposed South African ban. I've restored what can be reliably sourced. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good researching. Are you looking on Google Books as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. Regarding this, you stated, "less is more and it isn't in the article any more." If he was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, that is something we should mention somewhere in the article. I don't consider it trivial, especially since the text stated that he "is the only dancer from pop and rock to have been inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Dance Hall of Fame." Is there no reliable source confirming the Songwriters Hall of Fame aspect? Also, maybe the text meant "both," as in "both the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Dance Hall of Fame"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the Songwriters Hall of Fame one after finding a NYT source that discusses it. I do think we need to be a little careful about listing absolutely every award and recognition he received, as it could dominate the article if we are not careful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.ultimatequeen.co.uk/freddie-mercury/songs/collaborations.htm a good source for this article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. It's gone. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Support new top level section for these allegations, consistent with other biographies of famous people who have had allegations made (some proven some not yet) against them.Polyamorph (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Seems reasonable to detail all the allegations in one place, as it's one of the main things he is known for. The challenge will be how to avoid making the article too long and repetitive. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No that would be the opposite of what we should do and may cause the article to loos its FA status if we don't follow WP:STRUCTURE. (English Wikipedia policy.).."Folding debates into the narrative" is what we are looking for.--Moxy (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Even if brief there has to be a section on them. There have also been allegations which are lesser kown. See Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. deisenbe (talk)
 * Comment we have to ask ourselves whether this would be undue negative weight. I'm not sure what to say there at the moment. Maybe the answer will come to me later with some further thought. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If someone's willing to do, go for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The material is currently arbitrarily scattered around, partially under headings that don't mention the issue at all, and thus nearly inaccessible to most readers, who almost never read the article from start to finish. For example, Leaving Neverland and its impact are mentioned under the heading "Aftermath" which otherwise covers Jackson's will and a statue (without mentioning that it was removed in response to Leaving Neverland), complete with a particularly offensive (given the context) illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb on the first anniversary of his death". The abuse allegations are also linked to each other both chronologically and otherwise (for example Safechuck was identified as a victim by several witnesses already back in 1993), so chronologically it would be much better to cover them in the same top-level section than to cover some of the allegations in a section on his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley and some of them in a section on "Fan Tributes"(!) after his death. The abuse controversy has become so extensive that it needs its own section in order to remain accessible to readers; it's simply too unwieldy to be scattered around in other sections on "Fan Tributes"(!). 80% of the current readers come here specifically looking for material on the sexual abuse controversy, and most of them probably leave mostly empty-handed due to the article's confusing treatment of this issue where the material is notoriously hard to find. One well-structured section is also the same solution as the one found in Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein and all other comparable articles where the subject is also widely known for sexual abuse allegations. In general this article is very badly structured and in dire need of improvement, and partially comes across as fancruft for some of the reasons mentioned above. --Tataral (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Best we follow WP:STRUCTURE . "material is currently scattered around" meaning they are in the historical order as is preferred. Section making for one topic  is the exact  opposite of what we should be doing WP:STRUCTURE. Hopefully the closer will see policy bases arguments over  "look what the other article has" . To pass FA review years ago we had to incorporate the sex scandal.  -- Moxy (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to follow WP:STRUCTURE and thus do something with the current structure. This article can't be frozen the way it was "years ago" without taking into account recent developments. In fact it would be beneficial for the quality of this article to lose its FA status and go through the process again. Much has changed since last time, and more editors are also likely to take an interest in the article. Do you believe that the article's current treatment of Leaving Neverland and its impact (complete with its illustration of "Fan Tributes" and a heading that makes the material impossible to find) is appropriate? --Tataral (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the article should be updated in the time line section that is already there.. Adding a section for it is simply undue...especially when the sources are made up of media crap. As per  WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure"....one of our oldest policies. So far we have "I like it" and " look at the other article" votes vs the oldtimer pointing to a policy as to why  don't do this....and how our FA articles are structured.--Moxy (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. We have thousands of very high-quality reliable sources discussing the new documentary on Jackson and its implications, and there is near-universal agreement among reliable sources that this is an important issue with profound implications for the assessment of Jackson, but you regard it as simply "media crap." I hope the closer will base her or his decision on Wikipedia policy such as WP:RS rather than fandom-based comments about RS being "media crap." The comment also hightlights why this article needs improvement and probably should lose its FA status until it is improved. Also, for the record, you haven't pointed to any "policy as to why don't do this" (only your dubious personal interpretation of a policy), and you being an "oldtimer" is not a valid argument (I've been a Wikipedian for a decade too, but that is not something I believe is a strong argument in a content discussion). --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok perhaps I am not being clear ...or the RfC is not clear. What I see being asked it to pull out all the controversy stuff from the article and make a new section with it and title that section in a non neutral manner....or make a section based on click bait media for a new controversy. So what our policy say is that stuff of this nature should not be cherry picked out of the article and a section made form it. It should be in the normal pros of the article. I have no problem using the media crap till we have real source that cover this in depth. I do have a problem making a new controversy section based on click bait media .....lets just add the stuff to the article. --Moxy (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of pulling "all the controversy stuff", only the material specifically about sexual abuse, clearly a separate topic, in order to present it in a coherent and accessible manner, as also discussed above. I do not understand the comment about "click bait media"; that is quite frankly a very offensive comment if you are referring to the discussion centered on Leaving Neverland. --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Highlighting material specifically about sexual abuse  'allegations  is a clear violation of  WP:WEIGHT "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery."Moxy (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's your proposal to bury it that is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. And just for the record: This is the kind of sources that you describe as "click bait media"; I think anyone can see that your description of those sources is without any merit whatsoever. Quite a number of very high-quality RS now also focus on the reaction online by Jackson superfans (including their "shouting down news outlets") as a phenomenon that is itself worthy of coverage in this saga, and that we in time will probably add to this article. --Tataral (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is we should not have a section that "highlights allegations" based on daily coverage of a an ongoing topic. Just add it to the timeline. Pls try and address the policies being shown...forget the sources (not in the policies being discussed)....we all agree they are good enough for inclusion...I just think is a bad idea to bases a section on daily coverage media......I am sure all understand the difference between journalism and reporting. WP:BALASP "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sexual abuse issue is not a "minor aspect" of Jackson, as demonstrated by the fact that is has received more coverage in RS than any other aspect of Michael Jackson during the past decade. Sexual abuse is not a "minor aspect" of Jimmy Savile either. --Tataral (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK this is not productive....I quote policy and you give a POV. What policy do you belive merits inclusion of a sex allegation section? --Moxy (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't quoted a policy in a way that advances your argument. It appears that there is near-unanimous support here for the proposed chapter restructuring. We'll leave it at that. --Tataral (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with, the sexual abuse allegations are a major aspect of Jackson, this is fact not POV, backed up by extensive long-lasting coverage. Per WP:BALASP, the allegations must be covered extensively otherwise this article will be whitewashing the facts.Polyamorph (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The abuse allegations are not being given due weight and are not coherently presented. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I was surprised by the fact that, until two days ago, there was no mention in the lede as regards recent events in relation to the sexual abuse allegations. Yes, the past trials were mentioned, but now we have a new huge wave of negative news about Jackson, which were either underanalyzed or scattered around. Wether the editors of the article like it or not, Michael Jackson has at the time become more infamous due to the sexual abuse allegations than famous because of his music. Music stations around the world stop playing his songs, and almost all the (contunuous) media reports about him have to do with the sexual scandal. Therefore, it is inconceivable for me to argue that the current status of the article is satisfactory. Due weight should be given to the sexual abuse allegations with (a) an extensive and coherent paragraph in the lede, and (b) a seperate section focused on the matter, which, ideally, should be the synopsis of a separate coheherent and comprehensive thematic article.Yannismarou (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious work as it reframes the whole existance of Jackson, it is now the defining feature of his life.   scope_creep Talk  11:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The material is not scattered throughout the article. That is a non-neutral statement by the RfC. Like I argued above, this article, like other musician articles on Wikipedia, are set up with the album or song titles in the headings. For musician articles, we stay away from having controversy sections and instead keep the material aligned with the career aspects that coincided with the controversy. We also often do this for other types of biography articles. The Criticism essay focuses on why having such a section is often not the best route. The article has been set up this way for years with no problem. The article already identifies the child sexual abuse content with headings. Before Leaving Neverland became the focus, we never got any complaints about the child sexual abuse material being hard to locate. The only reason there is a complaint now is because the Leaving Neverland content is currently in the Aftermath section, where many readers will use common sense to suspect that the content is there anyway. And a heading for the content can be easily added to it without restructuring this article so that all of the child sexual abuse material is in one section that will be constantly targeted and risks growing out of control. It is not like a lot about the Leaving Neverland documentary needs to be in this article. It has its own article. So, per WP:Summary style, all it needs is a paragraph, which it currently has. All of this restructuring talk is because of the Leaving Neverland documentary that doesn't even need much space in this article. Definitely a case of WP:Recentism to ask that we move this article away from a structure that has worked for it for years just to highlight Leaving Neverland. And as for those sex offender articles, most of those men were convicted. And there is a difference between WP:Featured articles and articles that are not WP:Featured and aren't even WP:Good articles. On a side note: I'll alert related WikiProjects and the WP:BLP and WP:STRUCTURE talk pages to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * > On a side note: I'll alert related WikiProjects and the WP:BLP and WP:STRUCTURE talk pages to this RfC.
 * Why BLP? This is not a biography of a living person. Oska (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , even a non-BLP article can have implications for people still alive like (in this case) the victims., there are many different structures permissible, and in fact WP:STRUCTURE makes this explicit. As you're aware, it's largely a matter of balance. The chronology approach works for some articles, and others demand a different approach. This one currently has a mix of (mainly) chronology (though as I highlighted and fixed a while ago, there used to be two sections on his death in the chronology), and some non-chrono sections. This has, as you point out, worked for a good while here. As the nature of our understanding of Jackson's life evolves, the article structure has to evolve too though. I wasn't totally happy with 's good-faith attempt to reorganize the article, as I felt the child abuse section was awkwardly placed. However, I do think our understanding has evolved, and while the recent documentary has catalyzed this, it isn't recentism to point out that Jackson may now be known primarily as a child abuser rather than as an artist. However unpalatable this may be to his fans, that seems to be the way perception is shifting. I think it's more a question of how we reorganize the article to reflect this, rather than whether we do it. Appeals to policy and MoS pages, or to the article's (slightly stale) FA status, or to longstanding consensus, or worse recentism, should be set aside. Instead we need someone skilled in these things to look with fresh eyes at the coverage of Jackson over (say) the last five years and measure how the perception of Jackson has changed. Because that, rather than the feelings of editors one way or the other, is how we decide NPOV here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Flyer22 Reborn, you are factually mistaken in stating It currently has three sentences, or one half of a paragraph. I'm not especially arguing it should get more or less than that, but let's be accurate on where we are right now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oska, I alerted WP:BLP per what MarchOrDie stated. MarchOrDie, I don't agree that we should give the child sexual abuse content its own section to highlight Leaving Neverland. And three sentences is a paragraph, just like single-sentence paragraphs exist and are discouraged on Wikipedia. More can obviously be added on Leaving Neverland. As for "Jackson may now be known primarily as a child abuser rather than as an artist," we need WP:Reliable sources for that. We can't go on assumptions, and especially not solely because of the impact of this documentary. Like I've stated before, there is no deadline. We can wait and see how this develops; that is part of what is meant by WP:Recentism. And we don't define what is neutral via our own POV. We go by what the WP:NPOV policy states. I have no idea what you mean by "someone skilled in these things." Moxy, for example, is skilled with our polices and guidelines; Moxy has contributed to enough of them. And Moxy has experience with featured articles. SNUGGUMS is skilled with what it takes to write a good or featured article. As for death mentions, what "two sections on his death" are you referring to as having been in the article? In the review section, I know you stated that the article twice stated that he died. You mentioned nothing about redundant sections.


 * No need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the relevant diff. Jackson used to die twice in the chronological section of this Featured Article. Once just before a sold out tour:, with the truly delicious Cause and effect, presumably? Then we had a few sentences on posthumous releases, then he died again in a standalone section on his death, starting  It's less than two weeks ago. Don't you remember? --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The material is scattered throughout the article as observed by many editors, and that is an objective fact and a neutral statement. Several editors have told you that this whole "musician" argument is nonsense. He isn't exempt from adequate coverage of sexual abuse (for which he is just as well known) just because he happens to also be a musician. Sexual abuse is not subordinate to his songs and his music. And the fact that this largely fan-written article has been a certain way "for years" isn't a reason not to update it now that Jackson is assessed very differently by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources – just like the fact that Jimmy Savile's article had been a certain way "for years" (when it was written by people who only knew him as a DJ) wouldn't have been a reason to ignore the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. --Tataral (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The material is in the relevant sections. And (with the exception of the Leaving Neverland material) has been for years with no issue. Many editors haven't stated that it's scattered. Neither have "several editors [told me] that this whole 'musician' argument is nonsense." This is because nowhere have I argued that Jackson is "exempt from adequate coverage of sexual abuse (for which he is just as well known) just because he happens to also be a musician." The child sexual abuse content is already in this article. Why are you acting like the Leaving Neverland material needs a lot of space in this article? As for the rest, I've addressed you on all of that. You calling this a "largely fan-written article" is a weak argument. I suggest you take the time to look at those similar articles you argued with Moxy about. They are written just like this one, and not because the editors are fans. If you have a problem with this style, I suggest you take it up with the broader community. But, really, you just want the child sexual abuse material to be as prominent as the material about Jackson's successes, at the expense of WP:Due. You've brought up Savile yet again, despite the fact that I've stated that there is a "joint report by the NSPCC and Metropolitan Police, Giving Victims a Voice, [that states] that 450 people had made complaints against Savile, with the period of alleged abuse stretching from 1955 to 2009 and the ages of the complainants at the time of the assaults ranging from 8 to 47." There are other matters documenting his abuse as well. With Jackson, we have the FBI investigation not deeming him a child sexual abuser (although one can argue that the investigation failed victims), and we have an acquittal, and a documentary. To repeat, that is a significant difference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already demonstrated exactly how much space I believe Leaving Neverland and its impact need in the article, namely a brief section on the renewed allegations, Leaving Neverland and its impact, a section that you deleted in favour of a section with the nonsensical title "Aftermath" (so that nobody will ever find the material) dealing with Jackson's will, a statue in his honour (conspicuously omitting that it was removed in response to Leaving Neverland) and complete with a very tasteless (given the context) illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb," and with no coverage whatsoever of the 2019 backlash against Jackson. There is no reason for you to pretend that I've ever advocated that Leaving Neverland should dominate the article in an undue manner. The article includes enormous amounts of material on his musical accomplishments and enormous amounts of praise, and there has been no proposal to remove that from anyone here as far as I can tell. You, on the other hand, are the editor who have made multiple edits that have more or less removed any meaningful mention of Leaving Neverland from the article, and multiple editors here on this talk page feel the article is being whitewashed and sexual abuse downplayed. --Tataral (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you are talking about. And you keep misrepresenting matters, such as your statement that "multiple editors here on this talk page feel the article is being whitewashed." Best that I don't even talk to you further. Per what I stated below in this section about your accusation toward me, you should be careful with that. Your reconstructing argument is weak; I've already noted that giving "Leaving Neverland" a subheading solves the issue of readers not being able to easily locate the material, although many will no doubt have the good sense to check the Aftermath section for that material anyway. I've noted that I have no issue with more on the documentary being added to the article. I have no issue with some 2019 coverage of the backlash against Jackson because of the documentary being added to the article. But none of that is enough for you...for obvious reasons. You stated, "The article includes enormous amounts of material on his musical accomplishments and enormous amounts of praise, and there has been no proposal to remove that from anyone here as far as I can tell." The section, where you weighed in with silly demotion rationales, shows differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not "weighed in with silly demotion rationales" anywhere. However it is correct that I weighed in in that debate after I wrote the comment you are referring to, and after changing my opinion on that based on comments by other editors in that debate and after looking more closely at parts of the article identified as problematic. --Tataral (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've indeed weighed in with silly demotion rationales. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The way the bio is currently structured, with the "1993-1994" and "2002-2005", did anything else happen to him during those years? (Obviously the marriage to Presley) It is odd that 5ish years of his life are titled under the allegations which had seemingly zero direct impact on his career at that point. That tells me that these are ripe to be moved to their own section regarding his personal life (as we normally separate career and personal life unless those are too intertwined to do so). As this is definitely no longer a BLP, grouping information related to the various child sexual abuse pieces to a latter section seems fully appropriate. --M asem (t) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I observe that Flyer22 Reborn has now mentioned this RfC in the following places:
 * Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
 * Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
 * I note that Flyer22 Reborn didn't see fit to include in this fairly long list any place that deals with sexual abuse. Also, given Janet Jackson's prominent defence of her brother Michael, the mention of it on that project page could be perceived as wandering somewhat in the direction of canvassing. Oska (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note whatever, but look at the WikiProjects this article is tagged with. I notified the most relevant ones. There was no need to contact WikiProject California, for example. But feel free to contact them. And I decided not to post at the ones that are noted as semi-active. This article is not tagged with WP:SEX. And WP:SEX is barely active. I should know, since I am the main editor of sexual topic articles on Wikipedia. And per WP:Canvassing, there was no canvassing violation by me contacting the pages I contacted. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson is related. Yes, it should be contacted. Not that it's very active anyway. If you think that there is some Wikipedia page about sexuality that can be contacted to help out with this dispute, go contact it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would hope that you understand the difference between sex/sexuality (all that you talked about in your reply above) and sexual abuse. It would be bizarre to post this to any sexuality page. Oska (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, yeah, I have a clue on what sexual abuse is. "WP:SEX" is short for "WikiProject Sexology and sexuality." It covers all human sexuality topics, including human sexual behavior such as child sexual abuse and statutory rape, and mental disorders like pedophilia, which is why WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, which was recently suggested for a merge, is a subset of WP:SEX. Also read up on what sexology is. To repeat, if you think that there is some Wikipedia page about sexuality that can be contacted to help out with this dispute, go contact it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that it is best to draw attention to the RfC in more general ways, to better ensure neutrality of participants, rather than scattering it around more narrowly selected talk and project pages. Listing it under rfc:bio seemed eminently neutral to me. I perhaps should have listed it under rfc:soc as well. Oska (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that people have raised concerns over how you publicise rfcs before. See User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn. --Oska (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Contacting relevant WikiProjects is just as valid. I often do this for RfCs, especially if I started the RfC. If it's an RfC on a medical topic, contacting WP:Med is valid. They have more knowledge on medical topics. That laypeople, with their often uniformed views on medical issues, might feel that it's biased that WP:Med was contacted doesn't matter; it's not a solid reason to not contact WP:Med. That you are claiming that neutrality is better attained by not contacting people who may have more experience on biography matters and similar is ludicrous. Requests for comment states, "After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, by editors that watch the RfC lists, and by some editors subscribed to the Feedback Request Service (FRS), who will be automatically notified by Legobot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous, noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard, talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, talk pages of closely related articles or policies." As for that discussion on my talk page, that was because I was notifying a number of unrelated WikiProjects to draw them to policy or guideline matters. The ones I notified above are all related/all present at the top of this talk page and were contacted about an article. And not everyone agreed with those two editors about how I publicized RfCs, which indeed brought in a lot more people in. One in that very section clearly disagreed with those two editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks like unacceptable canvassing, particularly given the odd selection of venues of practically no relevance to the discussion we are having here on sexual abuse. It looks more like an attempt to mobilize ardent Jackson fans (what on earth has Janet Jackson got to do with this discussion?), as we also see elsewhere on the Internet right now. --Tataral (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do not stop your nonsense, I will report you at WP:ANI. To repeat, I am not a Jackson fan. I would state more about why I am not, but Wikipedia is not a forum and I think the implication as to why I am not a Jackson fan is clear from what I stated on my talk page...and from my reputation on child sexual abuse and pedophilia  issues here at Wikipedia, including having to deal with pro-child sexual abuse and pro-pedophile editors. A number of editors would laugh you right out of ANI for even implying that I am a child sexual abuser apologist. And, yes, that is clearly what you have done. Again, Requests for comment states, "After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, by editors that watch the RfC lists, and by some editors subscribed to the  Feedback Request Service (FRS), who will be automatically notified by Legobot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous, noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard, talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, talk pages of closely related articles or policies." WP:Canvassing, which you clearly have not read, states, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Editors known for expertise in the field. Editors who have asked to be kept informed."


 * I am not so blinded by POV that I am not going to contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Janet Jackson. You stated "the odd selection of venues of practically no relevance to the discussion we are having here on sexual abuse." The discussion has to do with article formatting. The discussion is not about child sexual abuse. It just so happens that the content you want to relocate is about child sexual abuse. The WikiProjects I contacted are all related to the topic of Jackson and those members have experience building articles. Covering the child sexual abuse aspect relates to some of our guidelines and policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The child sexual abuse content affected his career. There is no WikiProject for child sexual abuse, except for WP:SEX and WP:PAW. Again, WP:SEX is barely active. And 	WP:PAW is completely inactive. I've resigned to the fact that you are simply talking from passionate POV the vast majority of the time you weigh in on anything on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of making verbose and threatening comments that noone will take seriously, you should focus on how you can contribute to this project in a more collaborative manner than unilaterally discarding three days' work of multiple editors. That you accuse others of POV is laughable considering your own edits on this talk page and article over the past week. I don't really care that much about Jackson, but I recognise that he was a very innovative and important musician, in addition to being known for sexual abuse and other aspects of his lifestyle, and my main focus is that the article should include WP:DUE treatment of both these legacies. It seems that discussion with you is fruitless, but considering that you are clearly in the minority it probably won't matter much in the end. --Tataral (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many editors take what I state seriously, and they certainly take my reports of personal attacks, other incivility, or harassment seriously. Instead of making silly claims, how about you actually take the time to learn what a featured article is? It's clear that all you are interested in regarding editing this article is to add false balance to it with regard to the child sexual abuse allegations. You speak of how other editors have voted in this RfC, which consists of a non-neutral statement in its original format, but we can see in the and  discussons below that editors understand what I mean. You can accuse me of POV all you want to, but the aforementioned statement on my talk page about Jackson articles and their fans shows that I don't think the way you have characterized me as thinking. Edits like this one (followup note here), where I reverted Awardmaniac, also show that. It's not like I made that statement on my talk page for the hell of it. I barely edit this article. And as many know, I'm not fond of editors who can't keep their POV in check when editing articles. My reason for reverting that hasty implementation by you was explained well on this talk page. You are the one who made a big deal about it and accused me of being like Awardmaniac for reverting to the WP:Status quo version of the article before the flurry of edits. I didn't edit like Awardmaniac at all. From what I've seen, you are just as POV as Awardmaniac, except on the opposite end of the spectrum. And your sex controversy comparisons that don't compare well and your arguments for delisting the article prove that. The article already included WP:DUE treatment of the child sexual abuse cases. It did not need to be relocated to its own section for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have held off voting this far because I wanted to review any arguments made against this proposal. My review of the arguments made is below, ranked by quality of argument as I saw them.


 * Even though they have written in great volume here I still have trouble perceiving any coherent argument from Flyer22 Reborn. Their approach seems to be to throw as many quotes as possible from policy guidelines against the wall and hope something sticks. At one point in the original discussion Flyer22 was arguing that we should maintain consistency of structure across articles. I then compiled a list of 7 other individuals who have received a similar level of public interest in the matter of possible sexual abuse. All 7 had a top level section detailing the history of the allegations made against them. Flyer22 rejected my point that the Jackson article was the only inconsistent one by claiming he should be treated in some special way as a musician (2 out of my 7 examples were musicians). So I found their argumentation incoherent and, after giving it some initial attention, discounted it as worthy of regard.


 * Moxy was called on to enter the discussion by Flyer22. They are the only other person to !vote no. Their first argument was we shouldn't risk the featured article status by making changes. I can't find value in this argument when wikipedia operates as a dynamic encyclopedia. Their other argument was about structure and that we should 'fold debate into the narrative'. But we are not dealing with any debate here. We should not be debating the question of Jackson's guilt or innocence in an encyclopedia article. We should only be detailing the serious allegations made against him, how various parties have responded to the allegations and how the story of those allegations has developed. Seeing as this story of various sets of allegations now has a history of more than 25 years it makes much more sense to me to collate that information into one section to improve the reader's ability to follow the many twists and turns the story has taken. So I think such a move would only improve the structure of the article.


 * Two editors sounded notes of caution but did not !vote. Mcelite has not participated in this RfC but did participate in the original discussion that led to it. Snuggums left a comment in the RfC but has not !voted. Both raised questions of undue weight and Mcelite gave a thoughtful response on how to order the restructuring if it did go ahead. On the question of undue weight my response is that the other side of the coin is not giving a subject due weight. Others who have !voted yes in this RfC have made the same point - that an aspect of Jackson's life that has spanned more than 25 years was not getting due weight in the article. I note their caution but I also think such caution is less warranted when the subject of this article is no longer living. And of the 7 comparable people I listed, 6 are alive but still have  top level sections about sexual abuse allegations in their articles.


 * There have been a good number of people !voting in support and their arguments for doing so have been in line with my initial reasons for proposing the top level section. So my !vote is

I have closed this RfC as participation had tapered off from new editors. I have not included a closing statement in the archive but will make my own comment here. The !tally was 9 in support and 2 opposing. My feeling is that the restructure should now go ahead. I won't participate in the restructure - that was never my intention and I have no interest in editing this article. I raised the question of creating a top level section because, as a user, I found the article failed me in not presenting the information about the history of allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson in one place and structured to be easy to assimilate. I think there would be many other readers who are finding the same thing and, due to the attention this article is currently experiencing, I think the creation of such a top level section should be expedited.
 * Support Oska (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * And I have had trouble parcing your arguments as well, from needing a dedicated section for the child sexual abuse content because the Leaving Neverland content was "lost" in the article...when all one had to do was add a heading for the Leaving Neverland content, to your arguments about contacting WikiProjects. You stated, "At one point in the original discussion Flyer22 was arguing that we should maintain consistency of structure across articles. I then compiled a list of 7 other individuals who have received a similar level of public interest in the matter of possible sexual abuse. All 7 had a top level section detailing the history of the allegations made against them. Flyer22 rejected my point that the Jackson article was the only inconsistent one by claiming he should be treated in some special way as a musician (2 out of my 7 examples were musicians). So I found their argumentation incoherent and, after giving it some initial attention, discounted it as worthy of regard." Complete misrepresentation of my arguments in the discussion. My argument was that we should remain consistent for musician articles and FA articles, like we generally do. Just like we usually remain consistent for the style we use for actor articles. I stated, "And there's also an argument for consistency -- so that editors don't look at this article or one like it and think that we usually include a controversy section in musician articles or that it's necessarily the best route." You then tried to define "musician" more narrowly than it's defined. And your list of articles mostly does not consist of musician articles. And none of them are featured or even WP:GA. I also made a valid case with regard to controversy or criticism sections. You argued, "Moxy was called on to enter the discussion by Flyer22. They are the only other person to !vote no. Their first argument was we shouldn't risk the featured article status by making changes. I can't find value in this argument when wikipedia operates as a dynamic encyclopedia." You don't have to find value in the argument. The WP:STEWARDSHIP policy does. I don't find your characterization of Moxy's argument as entirely accurate.


 * See below. Your close of this RfC, especially given your arguments with me, was completely inappropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current publicity for a film does not negate the responsibility of Wikipedia to use "due weight only" for contentious material. Nor should Wikipedia weigh in on guilt or innocence except as settled in a court of law as films are not "evidence" in themselves. Where a court has ruled, Wikipedia should assign significant weight to the court "findings of fact." By the way, a closer is basically forbidden to have taken a part in an RfC - the closer must be a fully-disinterested third party. Collect (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is case of the court deciding if the evidence in for guilt or innocence, as the man is dead. What will happen now is journalistic and police investigation. Looking at the jimmy savile case here in the UK, there was lots of suspicion before he died, just like the jackson case, and it took a TV programme to focus peoples minds and kick of an investigation. Like the saville case, there was argument whether to show the programme, and the parallels continue from there. Within a year in the saville case there was 400 lines of police investigation and have no doubt a similar investigation is underway in the states right now. Every single aspect of jacksons life will be examined in minute detail in the context of pedophilia. In this case in point, no waiting for supposed court decisions. (lowercase names intentional)   scope_creep Talk  16:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually - deceased people can not be charged with crimes, and thus there is no possible criminal investigation going on. US Law holds on this.  Yes - Charles II ordered the drawing and quartering of Cromwell's body - but that is not a precedent one can rationally use. My opinion on this stands. Collect (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, you would contend that the article on Jimmy Savile should not mention any of the allegations of abuse against him, as they were not tested in a court of law? Hmmm. Not sure that's a viable stance. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The way the information was presented on March 9th is better. The article previously placed the allegations into chronological context and allowed readers to understand these allegations as they unfolded over two decades and the effect they had on Jackson's life and broader culture. with the current changes these allegations are remarkably absent from his "Life and Career" section even though these were incredibly important developments in his life and career. For example, the 1993 allegations section describe the allegations as the trigger for of his addiction to painkillers which ultimately led to his overdose death, but which is described in the 1993 life section as if the addiction just suddenly appeared: " As child molestation accusations against Jackson became public, he became dependent on Presley for emotional support; she was concerned about his faltering health and addiction to drugs." Compare this to the far more causative statement in the allegations section: "Jackson began taking painkillers, Valium, Xanax and Ativan to cope with the stress of the allegations. By late 1993, he was addicted to the drugs." Similarly, despite allegations of sexual abuse and posthumous investigations and cultural reckoning, nothing is mentioned in the "Legacy" section about the posthumous cultural impact of these events, such as Leaving Neverland but instead only lists his awards and positive aspects of his legacy. With the current changes, rather than reading as a balanced piece, the article reads like a whitewashed biography of Jackson's positive achievements with negative publicity relegated to a hit piece in the middle. These events occurred in a particular chronology separated by over two decades of developments in his life and contemporary culture and should be presented as such, not as a disjointed lists of positives and negative aspects of the person. If this came up at WP:FAC I would not support it for failure to satisfy criterion 1d and WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I am not watching this page so ping me if you need me Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Two questions to you in response:
 * 1. How then do you feel about the structure of the following articles: Jimmy Savile, R. Kelly, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby? All 7 articles have top level sections covering allegations of sexual abuse with only the last two going beyond allegations and/or charges to actual convictions. (I looked at these examples in some greater detail in the original discussion above). Do you then propose removing the top level section in all of those articles (or at least the first 5) as I think you would have to to retain consistency with the argument you have made here.
 * 2. What do you say to the reader (not editor) who comes to the Michael Jackson article to be better informed on the 25+ years story of sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson and who isn't particularly interested in Jackson's career but is forced to wade through a very long history of it in order to try to assimilate all the details of the allegations story which is itself quite complex and involved? Do you think an article without the proposed top section is still serving those readers well? And do you appreciate that a very good proportion of readers (and currently a large majority) come to the article for that specific use-case? Oska (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that addressed any of my points. This is a featured article; none of those are featured articles, and the first one in your lists has had a neutrality tag on it for 9 months. If you want to know how I feel then I'd suggest looking at that bright orange banner at the top of Jimmy Savile which links to the same policy I linked to above. I would also suggest responding to my actual points instead of making up strawmen arguments I didn't make. I am against a general policy on this. As can be seen from my arguments related specifically to this article, I speak with specificity to this article and not other stuff. I would like you to provide citations for your claims about readers before I ignore the second pillar of the encyclopedia. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have to address your points. They remain there for everyone to consider. I was asking questions in response to your stated position of opposition. I also can't see where I created any strawmen (an accusation people often reach for without considering properly whether it really applies).
 * I will take your answer to my first question as being that you only want to talk specifically about this article (while noting your reservations about the Savile article). I can't see where you've answered my second question, although of course, you're not obliged to. But that second question is, to my mind, the crucial one. Oska (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like you to provide citations for your claims about readers before I ignore the second pillar of the encyclopedia Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not writing wikipedia here in the talk pages. I don't need to provide citations for my views or my assertions. I think it's very clear that many people come to this article to better understand the fuss around the sexual abuse allegations and why some radio stations are now choosing to no longer play his music. Click on the pageviews template at the top of this page to open the chart and you will see that article views have soared from 20,000 to 200,000. Do you think that suddenly all those extra people are coming here to bone up on Jackson's entertainment career?
 * I think what a lot of people (particularly fans) are missing is that no matter how famous Jackson was as a pop music entertainer, a great many people around the world still paid little attention to him. People who have little interest in music, or interested in music but not pop music, or even interested in pop music but not Jackson's type of pop music. But a lot of people who previously were uninterested in his entertainment career will now want to know more about him because he's a high profile (deceased) celebrity who is receiving very widespread attention for renewed abuse allegations. People who are concerned about social questions of child abuse are now wanting to be filled in on the story and its long history, want to know where the child protection agencies were when Jackson was openly sleeping with children, etc, etc. I think we fail those people when we force them to trawl through a long entertainment career section for this information rather than presenting it clearly in its own section. Oska (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But you can see why I find your point uncompelling, yes? You're asking me to ignore what I believe to be a fundamental violation of one of our core policies because of what you imagine readers want without any proof other than your intuitions regarding page view trends. You're suggesting restructuring an article to accommodate an uptick in readership that's barely lasted a week and may be showing signs of flagging; this is a classic example of recentism. The page Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has also received this same uptick in views, as has Death of Michael Jackson. Even Thriller (Michael Jackson album) has seen the same uptick, so in fact, yes, I do think a large number of readers have come here to learn more than just allegations of his sexual abuse. If people are coming here only for allegations of sexual abuse and are not reading the rest of the article then the uptick should only coincide with articles about sexual abuse allegations. But clearly people are reading other parts of the article and are actually following links in other sections. In such a case putting these allegations into chronological context would better serve readers already looking through the biography because it gives them a summary they get on no other page. This is of a secondary concern to me, primarily I do not believe your hand-waving about the imagined goals of our readers should take precedence over WP:NPOV. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I do not see the argument on how the restructure compromises the article's neutral point of view. Of course we only detail the allegations and their history in a neutral manner in the new section. The only question that I think applies with the restructure is one of due or undue weight. My judgement is that I think the allegations deserve due weight in having their own section and I think that that best suits the needs of the article's readers in making that information easily accessible and more easy for them to assimilate what is a complex story in its own right. This is an editorial judgement call. We had others making the same judgement in this RfC in supporting the restructure and interestingly one who was on the fence about it (I hope I am representing Snuggums' position properly). Oska (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "do not see the argument". If you're simply confused about where it is, WP:STRUCTURE is a specific clause in WP:NPOV and my original comment is in regards to how the organization of content whitewashes some aspects of his life by segregating negative coverage to a single section in just the way WP:STRUCTURE warns against. If you weren't confused but just don't agree, c'est la vie. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that that section on structure is poorly written and not particularly coherent, particularly the second paragraph. It is not my nature to constantly run to policy guidelines documents for support and I think relying on them too much rather than making your own case results in lots of instances of mediocre 'wikilawyering' (not directing that charge at you here). I can only repeat that I don't see that the proposed restructure for this article jeopardises the article's neutrality. I would actually tend towards the opposite position - that the previous structure leant too much in the direction of being a fan-based article and with the sexual abuse allegations too buried in the (very long) text. Oska (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're aware that they were linked from the table of contents and were actually higher up on the page than they are currently? If that's "buried in the (very long) text" you've literally just buried them more. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how you read an article and on how you scan a table of contents. My own personal experience was that jumping around in the text made the material hard to assimilate, coming as a new reader to the article and as someone who has not previously followed the Jackson story. Oska (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Wugapodes, regarding Oska's first question, see my above statements on that if you haven't already. The Jackson child sexual abuse matter isn't close to the same as those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you did fine, including by making the point I made about those other articles not being featured articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Due weight is already given to the child abuse topic. It does seem like the recent documentary is prompting WP:RECENTISM. To be clear, I'm not arguing the sexual abuse issues aren't a major part of Jackson's bio. I'm arguing that the guy is such a notable person to begin with, that a even major story about him (like the one covered by the recent documentary) still should only occupy a small portion of his page. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose In almost every case, a WP:CSECTION is undue and this is no special case. As many alternative and appropriate options exists, they should be used. Separating and sectioning it as a top-level heading gives the allegations, no matter how ubiquitous the controversy, undue weight. For an example of an alternative see collapsed section below.

1	Early life and family 2	Career
 * 2.1	1958–1975: Early life and the Jackson 5
 * 2.2	1975–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
 * 2.3	1982–1983: Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever
 * 2.4	1984–1985: Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career
 * 2.5	1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films
 * 2.6	1987–1990: Bad, autobiography, and Neverland
 * 2.7	1991–1993: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII
 * 2.8	1993 allegations of child sexual abuse
 * 2.9	1993–1995: Marriage to Lisa Marie Presley
 * 2.10	1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood
 * 2.11	1997–2005: Label dispute and Invincible
 * 2.12	2002–2005: Second allegations and trial
 * 2.13	2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It

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

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

5	Legacy and influence
 * 5.1	Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland

6	Honors and awards 7	Earnings 8	Discography 9	Filmography


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

A proposal for implementation of this proposal
Those interested in what this proposal might look like in practice might want to have a look at the previous implementation based on the previous discussion of this issue here: Note that the section is work in progress at that point. Based on other discussion on this talk page, it is also proposed to move the section "Artistry" so that the chapter structure (tentatively) becomes: --Tataral (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Life and career
 * 2) 1958–1975: Early life and the Jackson 5
 * 3) 1975–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
 * 4) 1982–1983: Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever
 * 5) 1984–1985: Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career
 * 6) 1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films
 * 7) 1987–1990: Bad, autobiography, and Neverland
 * 8) 1991–1993: Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation, and Super Bowl XXVII
 * 9) Marriage to Lisa Marie Presley (might need a new chapter title)
 * 10) 1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood
 * 11) 1997–2002: Label dispute and Invincible
 * 12) 2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It
 * 13) Artistry
 * 14) Influences
 * 15) Musicianship
 * 16) Themes and genres
 * 17) Vocal style
 * 18) Music videos and choreography
 * 19) Allegations of child sexual abuse
 * 20) First allegations
 * 21) Second allegations and 2005 trial
 * 22) Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland
 * 23) Death, memorial service, and aftermath
 * 24) Etc.

etc. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good effort, and well done for being WP:BOLD, but I thought this structure wasn't quite right. Can I counter-propose, with thanks to :
 * 1) Early life
 * 2) Career
 * 3) Personal life
 * 4) One of the subsections would be on the alleged child sex abuse
 * 5) Death the second last subsection, and includes burial, memorial etc
 * 6) Posthumous
 * 7) Artistry


 * Well, the above proposal is for one top-level section on child sexual abuse, so a sub section (such as 3.1) of personal life wouldn't really be an implementation of that proposal. --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true. I prefer my scheme. Could you live with it as a compromise? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it would be an improvement to have the sexual abuse material moved to one section, but I also think it's best to concentrate here on solutions that are compatible with the specific proposal under this RfC in order to get any results at all (otherwise we would have to start the debate from scratch, since we are now !voting specifically on a top-level section). I also feel a top-level section is the best solution, partially because the sexual abuse issue is so extensive that it would need at least three sub sections of its own, maybe even a fourth section on the broader cultural impact of the issue now that radio stations around the world are dropping his music, statues removed and so on. Perhaps we could revisit this issue in the context of a broader debate on the entire chapter structure of the article once we have one coherent top-level section on sexual abuse. --Tataral (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points made above by Tataral. But also, I think a Personal Life section really only suits a biography of a living person (and can work well in that context). Michael Jackson is dead and no longer has any personal life (not meaning to sound cruel, just a statement of fact). Oska (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * I suggest implementing your proposed structure, but putting death, memorial and aftermath at the end of the life and career section, to finish the chronology. I thought it looked awkward mixing chronological and thematic sections. His death was the end of his career, so put it there. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that makes sense. --Tataral (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Can I suggest that, assuming we are going to keep the new structure (and I do take seriously ' points against it above), we should include a brief mention in the three places in the chronology of the sex abuse scandals? Having just done many hours of work dedicated in part to reducing redundancy and repetitions in the chronology (the dying twice being a glaring example), we could spare the space for three short mentions of this major area of his life in a section called Life and career? It was a significant part of his life and a major impact on his career, especially latterly. There would be an internal link in each case to the main subsection we now have. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a solid compromise proposal, though ideally there'd be some coverage in the "Legacy" section as well which is currently devoid of things such as Leaving Neverland. I would not be opposed to this. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think we should consider an approach that fuses thematic with chronological elements for the benefit of the reader, while keeping repetition to an absolute minimum. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken part in the restructure but I'd always assumed that this would be part of it - brief references left in the chronology at relevant points and, as Wugapodes says, in any other place where relevant such as Legacy. Oska (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, brief mentions in the chronology above and possibly other relevant sections are fine. The difference between that and the top-level section will be that the top-level section provides detailed, in-depth coverage of the sexual abuse issue in its own right, and not seen from the perspective of and subordinate to some other topic (his career), while the brief mentions above will mention the material more briefly and in the specific context of how sexual abuse allegations affected the events covered in the chronology section (his career and so on), and thus provide a bridge between the material in that section and the material in the abuse section. --Tataral (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done the first three. I am sure my summaries aren't perfect. I would welcome competent scrutiny and adjustment. We still probably need to add something to the Legacy section, but that's a bigger job. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If the closer closes this RfC as "no consensus" for the new structure, the article should default back to the long-standing structure. That is standard practice. And it doesn't mean that all of the changes since then should be reverted. It doesn't mean that wording changes that improved the child sexual material should be reverted. It only means that the previous structure should be re-added in place of the current structure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And the current outline is poor. It is not good flow whatsoever to have the child sexual abuse content come after the "Artistry" section and before the "Legacy and influence" and "Honors and awards" sections. It's placed right in between content that is supposed to flow together. Right now, we have the reader learning about his artistry, then the article jumps to child sexual abuse material (most of which should be in the sections about his life and career), and then the article goes to legacy and influence, and honors and awards material. A mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. Did you have anything to say about what we were talking about? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Since my above post is about the current structure in a section about the current structure, it's clear that I'm on-topic. I don't have to respond to your latest comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at this this and this, I just see it as an unnecessary and redundant approach. It also speaks to the very reason that we had that content in the "Life and career" section to begin with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Result
I assume the RfC was closed in accordance with WP:RFCCLOSE #1? It seems fairly evident to me that we now have Consensus for a coherent top-level section on the child sexual abuse allegations. --Tataral (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tataral, I think we were editing at the same time and while I was writing a remark under the closed RfC saying why I had closed it and my own observations after the closure. That remark is now visible. Oska (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For neutrality purposes,, we should have an uninvolved user close that RFC. See WP:Closing discussions for more. You were involved by not only starting that discussion, but also expressing support for the proposed changes. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had expected the RfC to be closed in that manner too, but it seems Oska had a right to close it in accordance with WP:RFCCLOSE and there is no doubt that the community's response had become obvious. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @SNUGGUMS, I considered that option (requesting a closure by an uninvolved editor) but didn't see it as necessary. You're welcome to reopen the RfC and follow that process if you like. I think it would only be further delaying what appears to be a near consensus resolution to move on with the restructure. Oska (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It indeed is almost unanimous. To be fair, I doubt anyone else would've closed with any other resolution. At least you weren't just blindly closing it. That would've been worse. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Just noticed how that page says that it isn't so bad for involved users to close during uncontentious circumstances (key distinction). When Flyer22 Reborn and Moxy were the only ones to voice oppositions, I'm not sure anyone would call it particularly contentious. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before there no rush.....we will clean up the article after alk kerfuffle has passed over. We can fix the weight issues later.--Moxy (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After glancing through the article following its rearrangement for sexual abuse allegations, there's one major problem I find: it jumps right from a 1997–2002 section to one covering 2006–2009. If not the trial, then what are we supposed to use in between these two periods? <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * made a similar point a few days ago. What did he do, other than be tried for child abuse, in these years? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first thing that came to mind was the release of his Number Ones compilation in 2003, so I've changed 1997–2002 into 1997–2003 (forgive the typo). 2004 and 2005 will require more digging. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it might be necessary to adjust the "Life and career" section following the removal of child sexual abuse from that section (such changes are strictly speaking outside the scope of the RfC, so any editor can go ahead and be bold in that regard). --Tataral (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the current 1997-2003 section cannot be from 1997-2005. Just because you have nothing else to document in 2004 and 2005 outside the accusations that have been moved, the fact that 2006 represents a significant career change means its fine to leave the 2004/2005 years "empty" but listed in headers for continuity purposes. The article appears to be structured by finding key events in his career that help split his career into significant sections, so it doesn't mean every year in those sections need events. --M asem (t) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it tends to be split by major events. While I've thought about having 1997–2005, it seems incomplete to have nothing for 2004 or 2005 there when the only known major content (sex abuse allegations and subsequent trial) were moved per the above RFC. Still better than a gap between years until 2006, though, so I'll go ahead and change 2003 into 2005 for now. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the allegations can't be mentioned in the context of his career here. It only needs a sentence to acknowledge that his career stopped due to these events. Something preventing the advancement of your career is stil notbable under a career section. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Although I haven't participated in any of the other discussions that are proceeding on changes to the article, from what I've seen there is good debate going on without too much drama creeping in. I think that's a real credit to the wikipedia community, especially when emotions are currently running quite high in other online forums over the subject of this article. Oska (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oska, I've reopened the RfC and added an argument/updated tag for it. You were completely involved in this RfC and RfCs "taper off" all the time, including early on. They remain open for 30 days for a reason. Requests for comment mentions "contentious." Yes, only two editors thus far had opposed, but the RfC had barely been open for any good length of time and "contentious" is defined as "tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome." Clearly, the topic of Jackson and child sexual abuse is contentious or we wouldn't have this RfC or sections like on the talk page. Furthermore, your arguments with me in this RfC and ending on your words about me and my arguments made your close even more inappropriate. I won't revert the implementation of the restructuring, but I do think that the RfC should play out properly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored Oska's original neutral wording as it was far clearer and you shouldn't change a question one people have started answering it. Flyer22 Reborn, if you want to post another opinion you are free to do so, but you risk misrepresenting people if you change the question and leave the original answers in place. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. I don't risk anything. I addressed exactly what the issues are and presented both sides neutrally and accurately. It's how the RfC should have been from the beginning, as is clear by Collect's vote. You keep making arguments not based on any guideline or policy. As Collect can make clear to you, it's not uncommon for an RfC to be extended with a fresh statement from someone who has relisted it. It makes not a bit of sense for me to start another RfC on the matter entirely separate from this one. It's not like I didn't explain that the RfC was previously closed inappropriately. In addition to how poorly worded the initial one was, it should never have been closed by Oska. And closing it so soon was also dubious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, no. I supported the question when it read one thing. By changing the question but leaving my support in place, you misrepresent my opinion. You absolutely can't do that. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Presenting both sides clearly is not misrepresenting your opinion in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Every other editor was able to participate in the RfC in a constructive and civil manner without edit-warring over the RfC itself, so please don't do that, that's totally unacceptable. And, no, you are not allowed to change the wording of an RfC, especially an RfC that has essentially concluded after about a dozen editors have already participated. A new chapter structure was implemented based on discussion on this talk page, but you objected and reverted three days work of multiple editors. Now we've had an RfC that resulted in a very clear consensus and almost unanimous agreement on the new structure, so it seems to me that WP:STICK attempts aren't constructive or helpful. --Tataral (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment that "Every other editor was able to participate in the RfC" is false, as is clear by the additional votes. Again, RfCs remain open for a month for a reason. Just like before, you rushed to implement the proposed change. This time you had help from the closer who should not have closed. This is not a WP:STICK matter whatsoever, as is clear by what the additional oppose votes have stated. As for the rest, I know what I am doing when it comes to RfCs. You do not. And I don't know why you are bringing up that "revert" mater again. Did I revert after the faulty RfC closing? No. And now the RfC is continuing as it should. WP:Consensus is clear that head counting is not how consensus is usually formed on Wikipedia. At least it's not usually supposed to be formed that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's clear that you don't, and RfC's don't need to remain open for a full month (WP:RFCCLOSE). And no, I didn't rush to implement anything at all, I implemented the consensus expressed on this talk page after the RfC had been correctly closed (I didn't expect or call for it to be closed early) and there was nothing more to discuss than implementation (the specific implementation had been discussed separately for days as well and didn't prove to be a contentious issue). And yes, it's correct that head counting is not how consensus is formed, and the additional comment after the RfC was closed seems to be based on the fact that he hasn't been convicted, which is not a valid rationale at all in a debate on the chapter structure (or the inclusion of Leaving Neverland and its impact), so that comment wouldn't have changed anything. As far as I'm concerned the RfC has been closed, the proposal has been implemented after receiving near-unanimous support and the matter is now closed, and I don't envision that attempts to reopen the RfC by pretty much the sole editor who has consistently opposed the new chapter structure will change that. --Tataral (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clear. If we did an RfC right now on whether or not Oska should have made that close, the vast majority of editors would state that Oska should not have done so. No one stated that RfCs need to remain open for a month. I stated that there is a reason they are opened for that long. Oska closing that RfC and closing it so soon was inappropriate. Plain and simple. As for that "and the additional comment after the RfC was closed seems to be based on the fact that he hasn't been convicted, which is not a valid rationale at all in a debate on the chapter structure," it is when keeping WP:Due weight in mind. WP:Due weight is clear that it refers to placement of text among other tings. And I'm not sure if you are referring to something I stated or something Collect stated. But I've argued beyond "he wasn't convicted". And Wugapodes laid out the issues very well. You stated "by pretty much the sole editor who has consistently opposed the new chapter structure." LOL. "Pretty much the sole editor" because of a partially biased original RfC wording that is inadequate in giving editors the informed information they need to properly assess the issue, and "pretty much the sole editor" because the RfC was left open for a short time. We see now that others beside Moxy agree with me. The current RfC wording there at the top might still do damage, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Note: I'm not asking for thoughts on having re-opened the RfC. The above post was originally a part of the reopening of the RfC, but it was moved down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that exprecianced FA editors have chimed in ..and again with policy based arguments ...how are we going to cleanup all this? Wondering if the project page would be best to comeup with a draft.--Moxy (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)