Talk:Wade Robson

Peacock Tag
OK, the problems start with "prodigy" and "acclaimed" and move on from there. The whole thing reads like a pr puff piece, not gonna argue notability atm but there's no NPOV and very little cite-able info here that I could find on a simple search (news search on his name came up with 4 articles - all associated with so you think you can dance contestants and 1 happy birthday wish.)The stuff about his childhood, education, success at 6 years old - couldn't find any of that. Michael Jackson testimony and awards can be verified, but again the cites need sifting thru - this was all written from info off subject's personal site and who knows where. The Spears/Timberlake stuff is pure gossip, couldn't find a single real cite and what is its relevance? Needs scrubbing. EBY (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wade Robson was teaching choreography classes to pop stars at age 11 the word prodigy is not over the top. People are only removing these things from his page because they don't like the allegations. That's not right. House Tules (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The household staff member did not testify that she saw Michael Jackson showering with Wade Robson, or any other child. She glimpsed Jackson's form through a steam-clouded door, alone,  and under cross-examination,  admitted that she did not see anyone else. There is no testimony that Wade Robson slept in "Michael Jackson's bed" with Macaulay Culkin and other boys. That is pure media spin. 71.201.66.107 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He is suing Jackson's estate. In an interview on Today, he told Matt Lauer: He sexually abused me from seven years old until 14. He performed sexual acts on me, and forced me to perform sexual acts on him, and he was a pedophile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.116.209 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment on the Jackson stuff, but I would like to chime in in agreement that some of the sections are unsupported and sound like they were written by his publicist. The section reading: "The show, "Believe" starring famed illusionist and magician, Criss Angel (Mindfreak tv series), debuted in 2008 to rave reviews at the Luxor Hotel. "Believe" which combined Robson's award-winning choreography perfectly paired with Angel's mindblowing illusions, continues to be one of the most exciting and successful shows on the Vegas strip to this day" just doesn't sound like encyclopedia writing. It sounds more like a review or a Variety ad. That might be fine if it was a quote from such a publication, but there is no reference/attribution. 2620:79:0:145:21F:29FF:FE05:3383 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC) ianw

Emails Rule Against Robson's Credibility
Please don't look for an excuse to discredit what was revealed in court. The emails revealed how he and his mother conspired to bring the lawsuit forward and how she filled in his "memory" to bring claims forward.2601:447:4101:5780:6C83:42A9:AB42:F90 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , - little help please? We may need to get this article protected. Popcornduff (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why cover up a direct source? Scribd is most certainly not unreliable and is used as a library where these documents can be made public.2601:447:4101:5780:6C83:42A9:AB42:F90 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is covering anything up, but to use a source on an article like this we need a) for it to pass WP:BLPSOURCES, a pretty high bar, and b) to agree here that the material is WP:DUE in the article. If you have any suggestions for material to include, please raise them here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the source is a court document. BLP is also a lame excuse, as the source is neutral, verifiable, and not original research which was added by my own words. The due policy also refers to material with weight, which this edit was light with.2601:447:4101:5780:807F:49FF:5B6F:D6C9 (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A court document is a primary source and we would prefer a secondary one, especially on a BLP. Is there one? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At least one source, People Magazine, discussing how the Jackson estate's lawyers asked Robson to surrender the emails. As Jackson also fits in with the Power Elite of C. Wright Mills, it is hard to trust the mainstream media criticism. Even step 4 of Mills' Sociological imagination, which was ranked as the second most influential sociology book of the entire twentieth century, states "Know that journalism can be a great intellectual endeavor, but know also that yours is greater."2601:447:4101:5780:D4A6:22CF:881A:88 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well People is a source, albeit not the best one. All we need now is a bunch of people here giving policy-based reasons why we should use this material. You could start us off if you wanted. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Was away. Yes, I agree with reverts by Popcornduff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

/////////////////////////////

Whoa! This article (sooner or later) will have to give more balance / detail. As in:


 * Robson's continued praise for MJ (both verbal and in writing) after MJ's passing - and his desire to stay connected and pay tribute to him


 * Robson's attempt to work as choreographer on Michael Jackson's ONE - But the Estate ultimately chose another choreographer.


 * How Robson then tried to flog a Tell All book about MJ (and to which he basically denied during hearing), but nobody seemed interested in it.


 * And, sometime after these rejections, Robson goes on to sue the Michael Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions.


 * There was also a lot of suspicious (to say the least) carry-on regarding chip, chop and changing in parts of his deposition and not being forthright with the court regarding his personal email activities. However, I won't go into all the details at this time, on here.


 * And, of course, after the case is dismissed, he appeals the case, and also becomes engrossed (along with a few others) in the making of LN. Hmm!?!

These behind the scenes facts should be included in this article (in Wikipedia-style writing, of course, but either way, these are facts that SHOULD be acknowledged and documented for the readers; especially for those who are still not aware of the FULLER context of this). At the moment, the article is tipping to one side... Where is the factually fuller picture? Where is the balance?

At some stage, others will come along and it may well have to be balanced out. As it stands, this only scratches on the surface of it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.231.132 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Jackson estate denies allegations
Shouldn't that be mentioned? Chaptagai (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

^^I agree. Michael Jackson's estate has vehemently denied the allegations in several very public statements. This seems like an important mention. Jackson has also never been convicted of any sexual abuse allegations in any civil or criminal proceeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.58.157.183 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Early life
Not sure if this trivia is worth mentioning, but Wade went to Bancroft Middle School in Hollywood, California. It's a performing arts magnet. Dance & choreography are among the courses. 144.178.0.146 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Darwin

I discovered that Wade's father ended his life in 2002. Should that be included in the article? I feel torn. Wikipedia is not TMZ and we're not here to sensationalize such events, but on the other hand the story has been on the web for years, so it's not classified information. Do other editors have any thoughts on this? 144.178.0.204 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin

Not a leaked deposition video
The addition made by user Funkof40000years at the end of the Allegations against Michael Jackson section about a leaked deposition video is incorrect and misleading. He wrote the following.



If you follow the citations, they both refer to the same article; the first citation points to a copy of the article posted on Yahoo! Entertainment, and the second points directly to the original article at The Blast! website. The article in turn links to a web page titled Lies of Leaving Neverland that contains an embedded YouTube video with the same title. The video is clearly not Robson's deposition video. It's a 33-minute tabloid TV style hit piece on the Leaving Neverland documentary and its participants and contains only a few very short clips of Robson's and his mother's deposition videos. I'm removing the addition and leaving this Talk Page section to explain my reasoning. I think that if we're going to start listing all the videos and documentaries rebutting Leaving Neverland, it should be done on the page for Leaving Neverland. Metrowestjp (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

_____

14 shows a week?? Really?
The sentence "Robson was in a talent troupe called Johnny Young's Talent School, and the group did 14 shows a week..." There are seven days in a week, which means the troupe was performing twice a day. Is that even possible? Were there multiple troupes that did one mall while the other troupe performed at a different mall? Or did the same group of kids in fact travel to two different malls, every single day, every week? Or maybe three malls in one day and then take a break the next day? I found the talent school's website here with no further information: http://talentschool.mightygoodentertainment.com/school-history.html

Changing and evolving abuse allegations
Why edit out the fact that Robson’s story has changed and evolved since 2013? It’s in many articles, it’s in current lawsuits and the story is different than once being told in Leaving Neverland. Which version of the story do we add in this article? Leaving Neverland’s? 2013 version? Or one thereafter? TruthGuardians (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where he has made different, contradictory claims we should report them all (assuming they are covered by reliable sources). There's no need to add extra analysis along the lines of "He has changed his story several times" or anything like that. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Like I stated here, I reverted this material not only because most of it was unsourced, but because it was inappropriate in tone. If Jackson were still alive and it was some claim from Robson or Robson's family about why Jackson lost some deal or whatever, editors would object to it being there. And given what WP:BLP states, I don't see that there is a strong argument to include "but according to Jackson's family, his change of story was provoked by his failure to secure a job as lead choreographer of a Cirque du Soleil Michael Jackson show." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How many lawsuits?
I'm having trouble following the narrative presented in this article, and looking at sources isn't helping much. I can't figure out how many lawsuits Robson has filed. According to sources, he filed at least one in 2013; a judge dismissed one in 2015; and a probate court dismissed one in 2017. I can't figure out which case is which or how to present this in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)