Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Such as with other musical artists like Paul McCartney and Brandon Flowers, Michael's discography with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons should be listed under his Discography section, under subtitles of the respective band, as seen below:

Discography

Main articles: Michael Jackson albums discography and Michael Jackson singles discography

See also: The Jackson 5 discography

The Jackson 5

• Diana Ross Presents The Jackson 5 (1969)
• ABC (1970)
• Third Album (1970)
• Jackson 5 Christmas Album (1970)
• Maybe Tomorrow (1971)
• Lookin' Through the Windows (1972)
• Skywriter (1973)
• G.I.T.: Get It Together (1973)
• Dancing Machine (1974)
• Moving Violation (1975)

The Jacksons

• The Jacksons (1976)
• Goin' Places (1977)
• Destiny (1978)
• Triumph (1980)
• Victory (1984)

Solo

• Got to Be There (1972)
• Ben (1972)
• Music & Me (1973)
• Forever, Michael (1975)
• Off the Wall (1979)
• Thriller (1982)
• Bad (1987)
• Dangerous (1991)
• HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I (1995)
• Invincible (2001)

Billyanderson9 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done only his solo albums should be listed here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

File:Michael Jackson Dangerous World Tour 1993 cropped.png

My proposal

I believe we should change the lead image to this. Here are it’s advantages:

It’s in color.

It’s much clearer than the current image.

It has him in a more recognizable outfit.

We don’t need to remove the lead image from the article as my proposal is being used later in the article so we can swap the lead image with my proposal.

My proposal (or at least the original version of the image) is used more widely on Wikipedia.

It’s in higher resolution.

These are my reasons for changing the lead image. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this one doesn't grab me. It is one of the less flattering images of Jackson and there would probably be complaints if it was used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yeah, this photo isn't good in my opinion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see that proposal as an improvement. As has been discussed before, the current image seems to be the best image out of the options that have been presented thus far. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate or not?

Category:American sex offenders

Just asking (personally, I got tired of the MJ controversies before Leaving Neverland) Espngeek (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

He was never convicted, so it is inappropriate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. From a legal perspective, "offender" typically implies a conviction. BD2412 T 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible category addition

I was wondering if Michael Jackson should be placed into the category Inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, since he was inducted twice as a member of the Jackson 5 in 1997 and as a solo artist in 2001. 2001:569:78BA:4A00:25AC:1EBE:C497:426A (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P-K3 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

please fix the grammar in this sentence:In January 1970, "I Want You Back" became the first Jackson 5 song to reach number one the US Billboard Hot 100

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MichaelJackson outside GoodTimeTheatre 1984.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

I am requesting to edit Michael Jackson page to update some pictures, so there more relevant and so there's more to view. Pavelmarin2006 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Prolix 💬 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Holmby hills place of death

I was wondering If I could change his place of death to the exact neighborhood of his place of death, Holmby Hills. Usually when a celebrity's exact location of death is specifically known, it is usually placed instead of the larger city. Like for example Wilt Chamberlain's page has his place of death as Bel-Air, a neighborhood of Los Angeles. And for another analogy is the page of singer Frankie Lymon has his place of death as Harlem, New York, A neighborhood of Manhattan which is a borough of New York. So this logically this exact location status quo should apply here. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The infobox says Los Angeles and this is enough because the infobox is a summary. The text of the article says that paramedics were called to his home in Holmby Hills. While Jackson was probably dead at the time that paramedics arrived, he was pronounced dead at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and this is his official death place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Add “Video Games” section after the “Filmography” section. Michael Jackson appeared and voiced in the first two Space Channel 5 video games (Space Channel 5 and Space Channel 5 Part 2). Daniel.Nemitz (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_36#Space_Michael_Jackson. This is correct, but since it is a relatively minor part of his career it may not be worth mentioning here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

Add parentheses () after Cardiac Arrest (to denote cause of death, then (way of cardiac arrest) Mocbazgi96 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The current wording in the infobox is "Cardiac arrest induced by acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication". The brackets aren't really necessary. Jackson's death was caused by improper use of prescription medication, it was not a straightforward heart attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

change Joseph to Joe 95.168.251.21 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times in the talk page archive. It's a bit like the Elvis Aron/Aaron Presley debate. Jackson's death certificate says Joseph which gives it legal standing, although the infobox points out that he was often known as Joe. He also appears to have had a driver's license and passport with Joe.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this before in the discussion regarding Michael's middle name but Jermaine Jackson writes in his book "You Are Not Alone: Michael, Through a Brother’s Eyes":"I was forever curious as a child about how two people’s taste could go from the exotic-sounding ‘Jermaine LaJuane’ to ‘Michael Joe’. From somewhere, and especially after Michael’s death, a rumour began that his middle name was Joseph. Maybe this myth prefers the echo with our father’s name because the crossover reads better about a father and son who struggled to see eye to eye. ‘Joe’ was his middle name, as recorded on his birth certificate."On the court transcripts from the 2005 trial is also written "Michael Joe Jackson". 95.168.251.21 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The birth certificate of Paris Jackson from 1998 gives Michael Joseph Jackson as the father. This is a lot like the Elvis Aron/Aaron Presley situation, because both names appear to have been used on legal documents. I'm not sure if we'll ever get a definitive answer on this one, but the text of the article is clear that both names were used during his lifetime. It probably doesn't help to say that one is absolutely right, and the other is absolutely wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A parent's name on the birth certificate of their child is less definitive than the person's own birth records. I know one case where a parent lied about their age on the child's birth certificate. Nobody is checking that stuff; they only check the baby's information. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

46.240.186.77 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson did most certainly not die, since, if you check his YouTube channel, you can see he posted a song 5 moths ago, so please change this, it is not ok to say that somebody died when they're still alive. Thank you for your time.

 Not done Unlikely. Popcornfud (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

New uploads from the channel don't necessarily have to be posted by the man himself. After somebody dies, another party (such as a label employee or manager) can control his accounts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is referring to the song Michael Jackson – They Don’t Care About Us (2020) which was posted five months ago. "They Don't Care About Us" is a song from HIStory released in 1995. The video by Spike Lee is new, the song isn't.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of statements by people that Michael Jackson did not molest them

I deleted this sentence

Close associates of Jackson, such as Corey Feldman, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin, said that Jackson had not molested them.

on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the section. @BD2412: suggested this change should be discussed. So let's discuss! What's the argument for including it?

BrightVamp (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The obvious point is that some people have made claims about the subject that contravenes the experience of other similarly situated people. BD2412 T 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There are probably plenty more children than those four who have hung out with Michael Jackson and never made claims that he molested them. Not sure how that could be relevant? If this were mentioned, it should also include that Corey Feldman said that when Michael Jackson bought him a gold watch from Disneyland and other gifts, it could have been grooming. Without that it seems to be illogically positioned as counter evidence. With the extra Feldman information, it's too much space on this, and should be relegated to the Leaving Neverland article, which currently has a thorough discussion in the context of "celebrity reactions to the documentary". 24.218.57.154 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s not how WP:Balance work, but agree with you that it should be there too, if it’s not already. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not about celebrity reactions, Brett Barnes is not a celebrity. This is about men who were in the same situation with Jackson as the accusers consistently stating that Jackson never did anything sexual. This is highly relevant since the accusers and the media depict Jackson as a serial preferential molester attracted to boys who used sleepovers to molest and in fact Robson Safechuck and their lawyers are on the record depicting these men and in fact many others as victims. As for Feldman's supposed statement, that was contradicted by Feldman himself in a recorded video where he said he was taken out of context. If anything this sentence under WP:Balance should be expanded to include all men who came forward to contradict Robson's Safechuck's allegation that there are many other victims out there and Jackson did not have boys around for any other reason but to molest them.castorbailey (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that comment, for some reason the login didn't work BrightVamp (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I think it's right to delete this. We don't need to bend over backwards in the name of "balance" in this section - what's important is to concisely summarise the accusations, anything else should be covered in the full article. Popcornfud (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

One sentence isn't "bending over backwards."-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter; even a single word can be WP:UNDUE. Popcornfud (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It matters. Full balance always matter on the most trafficked celebrity Wikipedia featured article in the word. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this response is silly on several levels.

First, you've missed the point of my message above, which suggested that this text is harmless as it's short. I am saying it doesn't matter whether we are including a single word or an entire section - if something is WP:UNDUE, then it's undue - length doesn't come into it.

Second, there is no policy that says Wikipedia articles have to be more or less balanced, fair or neutral than others based on traffic. Again, if something is WP:UNDUE, then it's undue.

Third, you are begging the question by saying we must have "full balance". Of course articles must be balanced, that's not the disagreement. The disagreement is about to what extent it aids or diminishes balance. Popcornfud (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The summary of the accusation is that Jackson was a serial preferential molester attracted to boys. That is directly contradicted by the testimonies of dozens of men who were close to him as boys. It's in no way bending over backward when Robson's Safechuck's allegations is that Jackson did molest Culkin, Barnes, Feldman, Spence, Whaley, Cascio, Lewis and many others. castorbailey (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with admin BD2412 that changes like this cannot be made to a featured article without first discussing it here. The inclusion for this is simple. WP:Balance. Removing the sentence will make this section unbalanced. Furthermore, these are living people who have time after time been falsely accused of being abused by someone who did not abuse them, per their own words. It is relevant for a balanced topic. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that for reasons of balance it is better for the sentence to remain.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that keeping the sentence in the article is useful because the public still speculates about whether those men were abused or not so it's fair to include their denials. I agree with those who have motivated the inclusion of the sentence to give a more balanced view on the topic and it's also a very short and concise sentence so it doesn't really burden or unnecessarily prolong the article too much. GiuliaZB (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Each sentence no matter how short in this section tips the implication one way or another, there's no objective way to say if it's balanced as a whole, but this sentence in this placement falsely implies that people saying Michael Jackson spent time with them and did not molest them help to prove he didn't molest others. If it's not doing that job, it's irrelevant. (and if those are responses to allegations/speculation that he molested Corey Feldman etc, they would belong in a section about those allegations, not here). It should be left to the longer article that gets into the nuance. BrightVamp (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that their assertions were reported in reliable sources is what makes it relevant. By including it, we merely reflect the balance that sources with editorial oversight consider to be appropriately informative with respect to the subject. BD2412 T 01:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask: how does the statements of people who weren't molested bear on the veracity of people who say they were? It's only balance if you think it counters Robson and Safechuck's claims. But if the accusation was murder, would people coming forward to say that person never tried to murder me, even though there were plenty of opportunities, be persuasive? BrightVamp (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It counters Robson's Safechuck's allegation that those men were in fact molested. Culkin and Barnes are especially relevant since they are outright depicted as victims in Leaving Neverland despite the fact they are not. Their statement goes right to the credibility of Robson and Safechuck. If they are lying about those two what else are they lying about? Culkin's and Barnes's testimonies would impeach the two accusers in a courtroom, you would not question how it's relevant there. So why do you question it here? If Robson Safechuck accused Jackson of murdering XYZ and witnesses who saw the actual murders went on the record no it was not Jackson it would be absolutely relevant. It's not just Robson or Safechuck who deserve to be heard. castorbailey (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources chose to report those accounts in this context, which reflects their editorial judgment that it is information significant for readers to have a complete picture of the situation. Perhaps you should contact The Daily Telegraph and USA Today and Vibe and try to convince them that it was a mistake for them to report these statements. BD2412 T 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, public statements in response to the claims might be relevant on that basis, but the placement of the sentence, between his estate's response and discussion of rebuttal documentaries, incorrectly presents it as counterevidence. Also, in reporting of their statements, you will read that Corey Feldman speculated that Michael Jackson's behavior towards him could have been grooming (citation above), and that Aaron carter said there was "one thing that (Jackson) did that was a little bit inappropriate". That information would also be important for a complete picture of the situation (and so the whole thing should go on the Leaving Neverland page) BrightVamp (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I follow this conversation the more I am persuaded that BrightVamp is making sense here. The point of this section is to summarise the accusations. What MJ didn't do says nothing about the things he is accused of doing. I find BrightVamp's murder analogy pretty persuasive there.

Arguments such as "Culkin and Barnes are especially relevant since they are outright depicted as victims in Leaving Neverland despite the fact they are not" miss the point - if this section detailed how Culkin and Barnes were depicted as victims (assuming this is the case), then including their response would be appropriate. But that's not what this section is about.

reliable sources chose to report those accounts in this context, which reflects their editorial judgment that it is information significant for readers to have a complete picture of the situation Reliable sources covered many, many things on this subject - that doesn't mean we should include all of them in this summary section. Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Then why cover Robson or Safechuck in this article at all? Their claims are no more significant to the locus of the subject's notability as an entertainer than are the claims of people more notably associated with them. BD2412 T 15:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the case, Leaving Neverland did depict the two as victims and Robson even told Gayle King all the boys around Jackson are victims. This is a very significant allegations those two made which is directly contradicted by Culkin Barnes and many others. Balance requires that not only Robson's and Safechuck's baseless allegations are included but the evidence that those allegations are false too. castorbailey (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Corey Feldman explained that his comments pertaining to grooming were taken out of context and that he'll never take part of a trend that consists in accusing Jackson: "And I'm never gonna be that guy that's all of a sudden gonna jump on the bandwagon and try and say something happened. That's not gonna happen, so please stop thinking that, stop saying that; that's not gonna happen."[2] As for that sentence in question, there is absolutely nothing improper to it in regards to this article. The article mentions accusers, and the article mentions supporters. It is perfectly proper, due balance, and removing it will precisely give undue weight to the accusers. Besides, this is an article on Michael Jackson, not a trial case. It is not about countering "Robson and Safechuck's claims" per se, but providing sourced information to the readers. If the accusation was murder, some of those close to Michael may have come forward and explained how his character was atypical of a murderer or a physically violent person, but that is not what the accusation is about, so that is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. Israell (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As for that statement by Aaron Carter published in People Magazine, he shortly afterwards clarified his words and repeatedly stated it was not sexual. One of the things he wrote: “My story VALIDATES in MY OPINION that Michael didn’t do anything sexual to others.” People Magazine then covered his clarification.[3]. A few more of Carter's clarifications: “I in no way shape or form accused him of being a child molester.” “I’m sorry but where in the definition ‘inappropriate’ does it mention sexual misconduct?” “everyone having my back I appreciate you. My reasoning for even speaking on this subject is to tell my truth, be real and to also have his back based on my experiences with Michael. he was an amazing guy, I stand by that. So I ask u not to turn this into something it isn’t.” Israell (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the accusers alleged Culkin and Barnes and other boys were also victims, these men's statements are relevant to provide balance. Their description of Jackson's behavior drastically contradicts the description of the accusers. TwoShots30 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Their statements actually do not contradict the statements of the accusers. The accusers say Jackson abused them. Culkin and Barnes don't contradict that. They just say it didn't happen to them. Popcornfud (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the sources that covered the accusations found it important to also provide the statements of the other individuals in that context. That by itself indicates the importance of those statements in the same context here. BD2412 T 18:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud is wrong. The accusers did in fact allege that Jackson abused other boys, including Culkin and Barnes. castorbailey (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Popcorn is definitely wrong here. That is a revision of documented events and reality. Either way, WP:STICKTOSOURCE would apply here like BD2412 has mentioned. The article was stable stable before the attempted change, thus should remain as it was.

The accusers say Jackson abused them AND Culkin and Barnes too. Culkin Barnes definitely contradict that. PinkSlippers (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case my position changes, as their denial directly responds to the accusations. To make this relevance clear, the article should say something like "A and B accused Jackson of molesting them and C and D. C and D denied that Jackson had molested them." Can someone provide a reliable secondary source with that information? Popcornfud (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland is the source as well as Robson's and Safechuck's interview on CBS and Robson's and Safechuck's complaints. Barnes did not just deny that Jackson molested him. He denounced Leaving Neverland as a whole as BS and fiction. Aaron Carter also said "As I've said my story validates in my opinion that Michael didn't do anything sexual to others." and Corey Feldman recently liked a tweet declaring Jackson innocent. Culkin also said "I've never seen anything. He never did anything." This is relevant because Robson alleged Jackson was abused him every single night he was with Jackson and Robson also alleged he spent the night with Jackson and Culkin in Neverland. Sources, Robson's Inside Edition interview, Leaving Neverland, 2005 Robson testimony.castorbailey (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK you've swerved quickly here. Let's keep this focused on what we can use. Leaving Neverland is the source as well as Robson's and Safechuck's interview on CBS and Robson's and Safechuck's complaints. Can you provide specific secondary reliable sources we can cite in the article for this please? Like a URL, we only need one good source. Popcornfud (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Robson and Safechuck accused Jackson of abusing Culkin, Barnes as well as other boys, it is also pertinent to mention statements by others such as Carter and Barnes. Also, one editor a few years ago stated that Carter should be removed since he was outside of the age group of the boys supposedly molested by Jackson. Carter was 15 at the time when he was sleeping in Jackson's room. In 'Leaving Neverland', Safechuck stated: "At the train station, there's a room upstairs, and we would have sex up there too. It would happen every day." That train station did not exist at the time Safechuck claimed (in LN and court documents) the abuse occurred (from 1988 to 1992), and LN director Dan Reed asserted that Safechuck was simply mistaken about the date of the end of the alleged abuse.[4] Safechuck was 16 when that station was completed in 1994; Jackson was seldom at Neverland in 1994, and by February 1995, Safechuck had turned 17. Carter was therefore not outside the age group of the alleged victims. Israell (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Robson and Safechuck accused Jackson of abusing Culkin, Feldman as well as other boys, Can we have a source for that please? Popcornfud (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No source is needed since it's all in the film, but since you asked: "Allegation No. 9: Robson and Safechuck say they were ‘replaced’ by Macaulay Culkin and other kids Jordan Chandler is one of three boys mentioned by Robson and Safechuck. The other two are Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes, who both deny that they were ever raped by Jackson."[5] Note: I meant Barnes earlier. Israell (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nah, that's not good enough. They say they were "replaced" by other kids, and obviously the insinuation is clear, but that's all it is: insinuation. That isn't the same as them saying "And Jackson abused Culkin too." Popcornfud (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Like most editors here, I believe it bears the same weight. Insinuation or accusation, the allegation was clearly made by Robson and Safechuck. Brett Barnes thought so too and threatened to sue HBO over this.[6] "Leaving Neverland" does include Barnes' denial that Jackson did anything inappropriate, but only for a few seconds in writing on the screen. Brett's camp doesn't think that's nearly enough to "cure such a despicable allegation." Israell (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Robson did tell Gayle King that he can't imagine Jackson having boys around for anything else but to molest them so with that he did allege that all those boys around him, which obviously would include Culkin and Barnes who spent more time with Jackson than Robson ever did, were molested. Also, in his complaint he says in plain English Jackson molested many boys. It's not just insinuation. Besides there is no question that in the film Robson Safechuck both depicted Barnes and Culkin as victims, Robson saying he saw the same grooming with Culkin as Jackson did with him and Safechuck saying that Barnes slept with Jackson while he was left on the couch. castorbailey (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

One more thing regarding Aaron Carter. In this interview[7] given last July, Aaron Carter defends Jackson even more. He believes Wade & James are only in it for the money, and he insists Jackson never molested him. Israell (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This sentence should remain right were it is, and maybe even expanded upon. For years I heard of Culkin and Feldman being abused and didn’t know who Brett Barns was until Leaving Neverland. The film attempted to paint them as being abused and to my surprise they all defended Jackson even after Leaving Neverland. This is important balance. Fancypants786 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Since the accusers alleged Culkin and Barnes and other boys were also victims, the contradicting statements from Culkin and Barnes are relevant and the attempt to omit this statement will further prove the concerns over the overwhelming amount of editors in the previous RFC who opposed to having a dedicated section to cover the posthumous abuse allegations in accordance with WP:Criticism and WP:undue weight.- TheWikiholic (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

It is suggested that '..26 American Music Awards' in the lead be edited as '26 American Music Awards (more than any other male artist)' given that Jackson significantly leads over the next male artist, Kenny Rogers who has 19 AMAs. https://www.theamas.com/winners-database/top-winners-leaderboard/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik.vignesh (talk • contribs) 14:59, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

The musicianship section says: ”Engineer Robert Hoffman recalled Jackson dictating a guitar chord note by note…”

IMHO this is a misquote of Hoffman, who clearly states that MJ was dictating every single note of every single chord of an entire song. https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-incredible-way-michael-jackson-wrote-music-16799 Readers who don’t follow the link to the original source will think: ”So what, MJ could dictate the three notes of one guitar chord; that’s not very newsworthy.”

Please modify to: ”Engineer Robert Hoffman recalled Jackson dictating all of a song’s guitar chords note by note…” 93.160.84.113 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021 (2)

69.84.121.219 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Hi, I would like to fix some grammatical issues with this article.

Thank you.

Please point them out, and they can be fixed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

MICHAEL JACKSON WAS A RENOWNED PHILANTHROPIST AND HUMANITARIAN WHO SUPPORTED MORE CHARITIES THAN ANY OTHER ARTIST. HE WAS AS MUCH HUMANITARIAN AS HE WAS A SINGER AND THIS LACED THE BACKBONE OF MOST OF HIS ARTISTRY. THIS SHOULD BE LISTED CLEARLY AND DECISIVELY AS A CATEGORY OF ITS OWN AND SHOULD ALSO APPEAR CLEARLY WITHIN THE LIST OF TALENTS/ACHIEVEMENTS MADE IN THE OPENING LINE 2A01:4C8:493:18A3:315F:5BD5:DB4A:FB48 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please try again, with a request and sources rather than a list of demands in all capitals. You may have better luck that way, but as you are dealing with hard to define abstractions I doubt it.Britmax (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of "media backlash" in the header

May I suggest "another media backlash against Jackson" be replaced with "further media scrutiny of Jackson". The former is a more specific claim and there's no reference for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Debbie Rowe

Ms. Rowe is identified at least twice in the article as a nurse. She was a dermatology assistant, not a nurse, big difference. It’s against the law for anyone to claim a nursing license if they don’t have one. I assume this is not due to any error of Ms. Rowe, but rather a Wiki author mistake. Needs to be corrected. Mofitz101 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I checked the Debbie Rowe article, and it identifies her as an assistant, not a nurse. I've revised this article accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Guitar chord stuff

Regarding this edit, I believe it adds irrelevant information and bloat to the section.

The value of the Hoffman anecdote is that it demonstrates how Jackson composed for instruments and worked with players. That’s interesting and relevant to a section about Jackson's musicianship.

The fact that Jackson "came in with a new song" is not relevant for this section. Nor is how long he took to write the song - we don't even know what the song is.

I understand this is all in the source, that's not the objection. Popcornfud (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree I believe the opposite. Also, you can’t revert sourced content that is making an article more robust, especially when that content follows WP:STICKTOSOURCES and your revert follows or cite zero WP policy or rules. I would agree that some information could be redundant though, but this addition does not in any fashion violates WP:REDUNDANTESSAY as this is not a new page or topic, rather an addition to an existing topic. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to have responded to a single objection I've raised. Popcornfud (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree The section is about musicianship which means skill as a musician. How fast someone can write a song is part of his skills as a musician. But more importantly, your edit says "dictated guitar chords note by note" and that's not what Hoffman said. He said he sang "every note of every chord". It's relatively easy to dictate the notes of two or three chords. It's far more difficult to do that with 20-30-50. Beat it verse and chorus have 56 chords. WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication". Your edit changes the meaning and implication of Hoffman's words. castorbailey (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Jackson wrote some unidentified song in a single night" is so vague - and, frankly, unremarkable - as to be not worth mentioning.

  Saying Jackson "dictated guitar chords note by note" is not untrue or misleading. That's what the source said he did. The fact that he did it for "every chord" of a song is not significantly more interesting to note when, again, we don't even know what song he was talking about. Popcornfud (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not what the source said. The source said he said "sang every note of every chord" and there is a reason why he chose that wording. As I explained above singing a few chords is no big deal. Singing 20-30-50 is. And it's not vague that he wrote a song overnight. The point there is that he could compose a song in a short time. castorbailey (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree True. It is a section about musicianship, not just the anecdote per se. Those details reveal the extent of Jackson's musicianship, and it's all very short and to the point. Israell (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

As a non-account Wikipedian I guess I don’t have a lot to say, but may I suggest we revert to my March 4th proposal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2021 Engineer Robert Hoffman recalled Jackson dictating all of a song’s guitar chords note by note

This is precise without being bloated. It also doesn’t suggest that Jackson was just singing ”random” chords, as did the previous wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.192.53 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with this wording regarding the chords but why do you think we should exclude what Hoffman said about Jackson writing a song overnight? castorbailey (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re right. The fact that he wrote a song overnight is worth mentioning, as this illuminates the range of his skills. True, we do not know the length of the song, but Hoffman would not have mentioned it had it been just a snippet (and a guitar player would not have been brought in for that). On a sidenote, to me it seems like there is a war going on between editors who want to downplay vs accentuate Jackson’s brilliance. Words are rarely 100% neutral, and the same fact can be worded in a way that makes it seem impressive OR not that much of a deal. Clearly, in the quoted article, Hoffman is impressed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to quote him AND keep an encyclopaedic detachment from the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.192.53 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree.-- castorbailey (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is not bloated neither (the paragraph is quite short) and is a better description of Jackson's musicianship. As castorbailey explained, how fast can an artist write a song is part of their skills, and singing string arrangements part by part is a relevant detail as well, just as relevant as singing every note of every chord. The paragraph being so short and the information being pertinent, I honestly do not see material for debate here. Israell (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree if a specific song was named, then maybe it could be of value here and on the track's own article, but without that it's just vague filler. Popcornfud's reduction suffices in this case. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How would naming a specific song change anything? The disagreement here is over whether we should include every note of every chord and that Jackson wrote a song overnight, as the source actually states, or minimize that to just that he sang guitar chords note by note, which is vague as it makes it sound Jackson dictated only some chords. Hoffman emphasized it was every chord. castorbailey (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If singing every note of every (guitar) chord is mentioned, why would we not also mention singing string arrangements part by part? The latter is just as pertinent as the former, and fast songwriting is a noteworthy skill. The title of the song is irrelevant; the purpose of that sentence is to give readers information on Jackson's musicianship, on how exactly he composed music and at what pace. And it is such a short paragraph, I sincerely fail to see the bloating. I believe it is relevant information and far from "vague filler" material. BD2412, any insight? Israell (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I generally think you can't go wrong if you quote the exact language of the source. BD2412 T 02:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the "string arrangement" part was never deleted. However, when it comes to other elements, I agree it is better in this case to quote the exact language of the source. Israell (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree Clear case of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Popcornfud's argument is that it's not relevant that Hoffmans said he wrote a song overnight and he sang every note of every chord because he thinks it's not relevant. That does not mean it's not relevant to anyone else and if the source thought it was relevant we should not rewrite it. PinkSlippers (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree The source says every note of every chord not just chords. Agree with BD2412, there is nothing wrong with quoting the exact language of the source. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael jackson

Michael jackson had talent that they don't talk about like his beatboxing skills, compose and choreography some of his videos arranging videos, his drawing a d painting skills. Ddawkins256 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 09:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Agree that there is too little on his page about his actual talents. There should be a section dedicated to his drawings. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this sentence violate any of these -- WP:MOSBio ,WP: RECENTISM , WP:LEAD , WP: Summary -- and therefore should it be removed from the lead:
"Seven years later, the documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child sexual abuse, led to another media backlash against Jackson"
and should section 2.5 be renamed to "Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations"? castorbailey (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes

1. WP:MOSBio "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. "

Leaving Neverland is in no way part of Jackson's life and work. It's a posthumous film like This is it, which is also not mentioned in the lead. Big impact TV events like Motown 25, Superbowl 1993, Oprah 1993 interview or Living with Michael Jackson are not mentioned either.

2. WP: RECENTISM "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective."

The backslash after Living with Michael Jackson had drastic effects on Jackson's life, still not mentioned in the lead. The media backslash after Leaving Neverland was included in the lead simply because it was recent.

3. WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents"

WP: Summary "the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points"

Leaving Neverland is not among the most important contents in the article. More consequential TV programs which had a direct effect on Jackson's career and life are not mentioned in the lead.

4. The title of section 2.5 "Leaving Neverland and posthumous child sex abuse allegations" is misleading as it makes it sounds the posthumous child sex abuse allegations were introduced with Leaving :Neverland, they were not. Also posthumous allegations include Jane Doe's, Jacobshagen's and Orlando Brown's allegations too, which have nothing to do with Leaving Neverland castorbailey (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes nothing justifies mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead or in the subsection title when Living with Michael Jackson does not get the same prominence. The film is also not part of Jackson's life or work, as required by WP:MOSBio and I can't find another artist biography on wiki where the lead includes reference to any posthumous film, regardless of how famous the film is.PinkSlippers (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes - Pretty clear example of recentism and one that definitely doesn't belong in the lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes I agree with the points discussed in the question, especially regarding the violation of WP:MOSBio since it clearly says that the lead has to summarise the parts of a subject's life and Leaving Neverland wasn't one. I also support the decision of removing it for Recentism because the documentary and the long term consequences that it had weren't as big as it was perceived when it came out, so it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. GiuliaZB (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to removing undue promotion of the documentary from the lede; no opinion on the section title. BD2412 T 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes There is no Wikipedia policy that supports the inclusion of this sentence. However, WP:Recentism, among other points mentioned above, support removing it. Also, WP:Summary states that “the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points.” The film mention in this sentence is hardly a blimp here. It’s been over two years since this film premiered to a small worldwide audience, and nothing of grave importance emerged from its airing. Section 2.5 should consequently be renamed "Posthumous abuse allegations" once this line is removed. Israell (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. How this sentence manage to make it in the lead is beyond comprehension. The hoopla that surrounded the film outweighed the actual airing of it, which outweighed its impact. This film is given undue weight in this article. WP:RECENCY says to Consider the ten-year test as a thought experiment to determine the importance of a topic. It’s only a little over two years since this film was released and it’s already failing the test. I also support renaming section 2.5 for this reason as well. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. Castorbaily seems to have nailed it. Zatsugaku (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• No and yes. Looks like this is a WP:SNOWBALL situation but I'll say my piece anyway.

The abuse allegations against Jackson - all of them, I mean, not just the ones before or after his death - are a critical part of the article subject and I don't see why we should omit the later ones. I don't think the Leaving Neverland stuff is WP:UNDUE when compared to the other allegations or controversies we mention in the lead, and I don't think people will stop talking about them.

Regarding to the second question, I don't think mentioning Leaving Neverland in the section heading is critical and think just "Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations" covers it. Popcornfud (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That people won't stop talking about something hardly justifies inclusion in the lead. People won't stop talking about the paternity of his kids, or the Superbowl performance or his drug use and many others things part of his life , they are still not mentioned in the lead. The abuse allegations in general should be mentioned but singling out this particular film, when they have been countless others talking about the allegations, is WP: UNDUE and WP: RECENTISM. castorbailey (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There are, of course, no allegations that he abused anyone after he died. That some people waited until an opportune time to make allegations relating to an earlier period does not make the substance of the allegations any different, or put them at a different time. BD2412 T 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing what that has to do with anything here. Popcornfud (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, if some new allegation were made every fifteen years for the next half century, and each one had a brief period of repercussion before fading into obscurity, would we then need separate lede coverage of allegations being made forty, fifty-five, or seventy years after the claimed occurrence? I don't see posthumous allegations being of any separate significance at all unless they address some sphere of conduct never alleged before. BD2412 T 22:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, if some new allegation were made every fifteen years for the next half century, and each one had a brief period of repercussion before fading into obscurity, would we then need separate lede coverage of allegations being made forty, fifty-five, or seventy years after the claimed occurrence?

Probably not; I'd likely summarise as something like "In the decades since Jackson's death, further allegations have been made" etc. That doesn't reveal anything about our current situation that I can see. Popcornfud (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But that sentence does not summarize the posthumous allegations. Rather it talks about the media backslash a film about a particular version of two posthumous allegations triggered castorbailey (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• No to lead removal, yes to the proposed section renaming of "Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations". I concur with pretty much all of what Popcornfud said. Furthermore, even when Leaving Neverland didn't take place during Michael's lifetime and might not have had as much influence as Living with Michael Jackson or the allegations made against him while alive, nobody could reasonably deny it made an impact given the radio station bans (regardless of whether they remain in effect) and how "Stark Raving Dad" (an episode of The Simpsons where he had a guest role) got pulled following the movie's release. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that overall radio play of his songs went down, and ignoring the temporary nature of bans is precisely what WP: RECENTISM is about. The Simpsons episode is a tiny part of Jackson's work, hardly justifies promoting Leaving Neverland in the lead. Streaming data shows interest in Jackson's music and videos have gone up since Leaving Neverland aired, not down. castorbailey (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm confused by the amount of weight other editors are giving to the fact that the allegations are posthumous. What difference does that make to the article subject? They 1) are allegations about what Jackson did while he was alive and 2) have had an impact on his lasting legacy. Popcornfud (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, whether he was dead or alive when the allegations were made is irrelevant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Imagine if we included post death documentaries about historical figures in every lead. There is a reason why WP: MOSBIO dictates the lead summarize the life and work with due weight. Putting aside that it's impossible to prove that Leaving Neverland accurately portrays Jackson's life there are other programs which provably show Jackson's real actions and triggered significant reaction but they are still excluded from the lead. therefore including Leaving Neverland WP: UNDUE and WP: RECENTISM.PinkSlippers (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That contradicts WP: MOSBIO. Those allegations were not in any way part of his life and work. In fact by Robson's Safechuck's own admission if he was alive those allegation would not even exist. As they in fact did not exist while he was alive even though both men had plenty of opportunity to make them. Also, Leaving Neverland is not the allegations, it came about long after Robson Safechuck and Jane Doe accused him already and is actually inconsistent with what Robson Safechuck alleged before the film was made. castorbailey (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic. It's an allegation about something Jackson allegedly did during his life. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A film about allegations about what someone did is not the same as what someone actually did i.e. his life and work. castorbailey (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes I recall months ago that this topic came up for discussion on the talk page but not as an RFC. WP:Recentism is clearly being violated here. Leaving Neverland came out 2 years ago and was a ratings disappointment. Though it was heavily reported on in the media, there was no long term impact on Jackson. A couple of radio stations removed his songs for a couple of months to only quietly add them back in rotation. Instead, since it’s airing, Jackson has topped Forbes list twice for the highest earning dead celebrity. Furthermore, his radio airplay and streams increased making him the most listened to solo legacy artist in the world. But along with all of the violations listed here, I want to compound these with WP:FALSEBALANCE. False balance can sometimes originate from similar motives as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful than a more accurate account of the issue. Let’s face it, including mention of Leaving Neverland in the lead is giving it false balance. Leaving Neverland received the coverage that it did because of the sensationalism that followed it. The film was portrayed as factual truth that would cancel Jackson. It didn’t. The more accurate account of the aftermath of Leaving Neverland is that his streaming went up, was highest earning dead celebrity for last 2 years since its airing, and radio plays are increased.

With the rightful removal of this sentence from the lead of this article, we would have to rename section 2.5 to reflect this change. There are far more projects that received far more media attention and far more viewership than what Leaving Neverland ever had. Martin Bashir’s 'Living with Michael Jackson' received approximately 30 times more worldwide viewers. Wh isn’t there a section called 'Living With Michael Jackson'? Or how about Oprah’s 1993 interview which is still the most watched interview of all time? How about naming a section after that? I agree with the suggested name change. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. There appears to be opponents against the removal of the sentence because “allegations were made.” Well, that’s not a Wikipedia policy that supports its inclusion. However, every single policy above is being violated by its inclusion, and to me, the one that sticks out the most is WP:RECENTISM. It’s also very clear that these posthumous allegations contradict WP: MOSBIO. This sets a disturbing precedence for Wikipedia. Simply put, it’s not fair to use Jackson’s article as a billboard for a film that in itself did not and does not draw attention on its own. I too definitely support renaming the section, but quite honestly, I am not opposed to removing all mention of the film from that section, as the film tells a different story than what is in their lawsuits. Their lawsuits (one of which was recently dismissed because of lack of evidence to prove their case) are the allegations, not Leaving Neverland. Factlibrary1 (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• No and yes. Looking at the article, the sexual abuse allegations are a significant part of Jackson's biography, and given how substantial the backlash was over Leaving Neverland, it seems DUE enough for the lede. It's just a sentence, too, so I don't get what the fuss is about. JOEBRO64 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

read above and you will. You present no Wikipedia policy for its inclusion. Only an opinion. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• No and Yes. The allegations in Leaving Neverland made a significant impact on his legacy. The coverage of the movie alone warrants its inclusion here. BrightVamp (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)BrightVamp (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s not. Only than your opinion, which WP policy supports its inclusion? TruthGuardians (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes First and foremost, it should be recognized that Leaving Neverland is not the posthumous allegations, the 2013-2014 court filings(completely different versions of the story told in the tv show) are the posthumous allegations. For this reason, section 2.5 should be retitled. For a couple of weeks straight, articles were published on the show, television news gave it attention, and after its airing, it was virtual silence about the show. This is the very reason WP:Recentism is a policy, and it’s a policy that applies here.Fancypants786 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes and yes The addition of Leaving Neverland on the lead was on March 6th, 2019, the same day of its UK premier. And the ILIL removed it on the same day by citing WP:RECENTISM, which I believe still applies. And it was reinstated again on March 10th for no known good reason.

Leaving Neverland did not, and does not, get the media coverage in much of Asia, Africa, and other countries as it did in SOME western countries. Arguments saying that the documentary had an impact on Jackson's career are not true. The phrase “international backlash” is highly exaggerated. A few radio stations from a couple of countries took Jackson’s music off the air for a short while (shorter than when some of them took this action in 2005), which doesn't make it an international backlash. There is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value. That's why France, Russia, China, South Korea, and other Arabian and Asian countries said no to this film. There is no “Mute Michael Jackson” campaign since the airing of “Leaving Neverland” like the “Mute R. Kelly” campaign after the airing of “Surviving R. Kelly.” There was no "Weinstein effect" also that took place either. Jackson’s awards and honors are still intact. However, the other side presented a campaign that made headlines worldwide. Many people, including celebrities and influencers, defended Jackson, his streaming numbers are higher than they were pre-Leaving Neverland, physical album sales also much higher than the previous year’s as well. If it somehow turns out to have any major impact on his legacy in the future, that may be included in coming years, since we have no deadline. but as of now, two years after the release of the film, there is none.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a very valid point. The addition of Leaving Neverland in the lead was on March 6th, 2019, the same day of its UK premier. This means the content was added there even when there was no fanfare or media coverage and an obvious case of WP:PROMO. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes — The lead is in dire need of a trim. Many of the tedious details concerning his awards and honors should be moved to List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson. ili (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• No on removing sentence from lead and no opinion on the heading. These allegations are a major part of the topic and have their own section. Per WP:LEAD, we summarize the whole article, including relevant controversies. We do not whitewash topics, per WP:NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not support the inclusion of this addition. WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.” This sentence is contradictory to that so yeah. Also, you can’t “whitewash” allegations told for a movie when they contradict their own legal depositions.” Allegations aren’t fact and “whitewash” is not a Wikipedia rule.TruthGuardians (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Truthguardians’ response above. But I like to expand on the “whitewashing” part, which I believe is a stretch. WP: LEAD does not summarize the whole article. It’s pretty transparent in what it says. The lead is the summary of its most important contents and there is no wiki policy under which every section should have its reference in the lead (which this article proves). The section which mentions Leaving Neverland is not even about Leaving Neverland itself but the posthumous allegations. Fixing the lead per WP:Lead is not “whitewashing” when it’s policy supports its exclusion. “Whitewashing” would be erasing Leaving Neverland’s Wikipedia article. That’s not the request. The request is to remove mention of the show where it hadn't proven to belong to begin with.Fancypants786 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note quite, and yes, respectively. I agree with the section rename idea, but I'm in the middle on the lead: I think the lead should briefly cover these allegations and mention both films (at least that there are films, if not going into they by name) but not dwell on either of them or on the allegations, since they remain just allegations. The coverage level makes the issue significant, but it has to be given WP:DUE weight. The WP:RECENTISM argument isn't incorrect, that a bunch of focus on this recent film and short-term "cancel Michael Jackson" antics at some radio stations and one TV show, aren't lead material. But the lead will be faulty if it is whitewashed of any mention of this controversy and the fact that it's still ongoing posthumously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only one film. Also, the controversy isn’t the films. It’s the allegations levied against a dead man 4 years after his death, and 6 years before the film. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So you think we should mention every TV program which had major media reaction and had an effect on Jackson or his legacy? Then why not mention This is it, Motown 25 , the Oprah 1993 interview or the Superbowl 1993? All those had huge audiences, major lasting impact. WP:LEAD says the lead should include the most important contents. How is Leaving Neverland among the most important contents especially if you agree to rename the section? Other sections are not even mentioned in the lead. castorbailey (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:BLUDGEON. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." and "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." and " it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." castorbailey (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nor does WP:BLUDGEON apply here and there is still no explanation as to why the HBO special should be in the lead while other high impact TV shows should not, but okay.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. Oprah Winfrey interview, Diane Sawyer interview, Bashir’s “Living with Michael Jackson” documentary, the 1993 Super Bowl performance, Motown 25 performance, release of the short films Thriller, Bad, Black or White, and Remember the Time are not mentioned in the lead, but all had a much larger viewing audience, were all subjected to far more media coverage, was far more impactful for Jackson’s legacy. WP:RECENTISM poses the ten-year test as a thought experiment to determine the importance of a topic. Every single project above holds up decades later. Leaving Neverland does not. Leaving Neverland is another person’s project, not a Jackson project. The controversy is not this project, it’s the allegations that led to the project, but even these allegations fails in comparison to the Chandler’s and Arvizo’s allegations. If Leaving Neverland makes the cut for the lead, then we must include far more impactful projects. Must! .Supermodelsonya (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not here to degrade your vote like the editor above, I think it was well thought out and I agree with your assessment. Thanks for your contribution and keep on editing. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That editor can believe what he wants to believe, however, I thought that this was neutral ground where all are welcomed to share their views? This is why I hesitate to contribute on Wikipedia. I seriously have to think at times is it even worth the trouble that you get for just expressing a view. It's annoying. (talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• No and no opinion. Including the documentary does seem in line with WP:DUE, and the policy that Wiki follows stories rather than leads them. I found another policy quotation: "In determining proper weight, consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among the general public." Certainly, there are so many opinions, but Wiki can only be bound by the sources. As well, since Robson's lawsuit claims may still go to trial, that also makes the documentary part of a developing story and noteworthy enough for a lede. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Then why mention the film not the allegation itself? Robson's lawsuit contradicts the film in many ways and if it will go to trial it won't be because of the film. (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jimcastor, I'll try to answer your questions. The documentary is part of summarizing the allegations for public consumption, as I understand it. The director stated that he found the lawsuit claims while doing research, approached Robson's and Safechuck's lawyers, then asked the two men if they wanted to further detail their claims for a documentary and so on and so forth... I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lawsuits contradict the film since I read through the claims and can't find an example of that. Certainly, if any claims go to trial it will be on its own merits within legislative stipulations. You've also mentioned the ITV Granada documentary, AEG concert film, and the '83 Motown TV special - how those are included in the article is a MOS:AT issue, I believe: "Titles should be recognizable, describing topics in a way that's natural, sufficiently precise, concise, & consistent with related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced." If you believe they are included in a way that's unbalanced, that's another argument to be made, I suppose. I think that the 2019 documentary may be included because of WP:DUE & MOS:LEADNO which states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject. Harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." "Relative importance" I take to mean as decidedly associated with the subject, the extent of which to be determined within the fullness of time. The association does not comment on the various viewpoints and rebuttals attached to the documentary itself. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The film does not summarize the allegations for public consumption, it presents a particular version of their allegations and the other versions have been available for public consumption long before the film. For example, in court they accused numerous other people not just Jackson, in the film only Jackson. In fact a possible trial would be about that not Jackson himself. Robson told on Inside Edition that every night he was with Jackson he was abused. In Leaving Neverland he tells a different story that abuse only started after his family left, after already spending two nights with Jackson. Robson tells a completely different story in the film about why he testified in 2005 than what he said in his court documents, or in his deposition. There are numerous additions in the film which are not part of the allegations in the documents to make the claims more shocking and salacious and claims which contradict the Robsons emails. The director saying what you mentioned does not change these facts. MOS:AT is about article titles not about article leads. As for MOS:LEADNO, how is the relative importance of Leaving Neverland bigger than Living with Michael Jackson, Motown 25 or This is it, when all those were widely covered in reliable sources and had lasting impact on Jackson and his legacy. "Harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." And there is a lot in the body the article which is not mentioned in the lead. So why should Leaving Neverland? The because it is mentioned in many reliable sources argument does not fly as This is it got even more reviews, Motown 25 was massively covered so was Living with Michael Jackson. How are those less decidedly associated with Jackson? castorbailey (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Much of what you wrote about is resolved by the judgment of Wiki policy-makers and more experienced editors. I don't pretend to comprehend all of it. With respect, I will choose to WP:LETITGO and say no more. Best anyway, Hammelsmith (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Additional edits by Hammelsmith (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I hoped that I would finally get an answer to the core question here: how is the relative importance of Leaving Neverland bigger than Living with Michael Jackson, Motown 25 or This is it but apparently nobody who wants to keep that sentence in the lead can explain that. castorbailey (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jimcastor, I'm probably foolish for wading back into this, but actually, there's one thing I want to say quite plainly. To not include a high-profile film making child abuse allegations does seem to suggest a level of sanitization, which is not in line with WP:CENSOR - "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content". I know you have made your arguments, yet this is important to consider too. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

sanitization is about removing negative material from an article itself not the lead, special rules apply to the lead and leads of biographies in particular. LN is included in the article with a link to its own page it's not sanitized. Your logic would make including Living with Michael Jackson in the lead a must as it was very high profile and depicted Jackson as an abuser too. WP:CENSOR does not apply here as nobody argued LN should not be in the lead because it's offensive or objectionable..PinkSlippers (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi PinkSlippers, thank you for responding. If that's your viewpoint, that's fine. I just meant it as a general comment. Regarding the ITV Granada documentary, that seems to already be included in a way that's "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, consistently balanced & weighted in proportion with related articles." I suppose the 2019 documentary supersedes the one in 2003 because the allegations are more detailed and graphic. This may also be a WP:STRUCTURE issue, stating that we should avoid "an apparent hierarchy of fact where details appear 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', 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. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral." I have read everyone's arguments, yet this policy is very helpful too. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

LWMJ is not included in the lead at all so I don't know what you mean by "that seems to already be included". The way LWMJ is included is the way LN should be included. Neither of them belong in the lead. There is no wiki policy that says something becomes "one of the most imporant content" because it's detailed or graphic. A TV show can be made more graphic to get more eyeballs thus make more money but LWMJ had a far bigger viewership than LN and was "prevalent in reliable sources". By pure logic including LN in the lead does exactly this: it creates 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. Keeping LN in the lead actually violates WP: STRUCTURE.PinkSlippers (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi PinkSlippers, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for the response. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This isn’t about the sources being reliable or not. That’s not the argument. The sources are no doubt reliable sources. Leaving Neverland isn’t even a reliable source for their actual allegations sitting in court records. So why not make it about the allegations? Perhaps it’s because in 2013 when Wade told his first version of the story first in public, he was dismissed and ignored. Story goes through a number of other changes and then they make a one sided movie. But sources though. Okay. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, yet I think that whether the documentary itself can be thought of as "a reliable" source for the allegations is a matter of opinion. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• No and yes. We are all here to summarize the literature about MJ. That's our purpose as Wikipedians. Leaving Neverland is now an important part of the literature about MJ, having been the subject of dozens of news and opinion pieces in mainstream media, and having received multiple strong denials from the Jackson family. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize the literature about MJ WP:LEAD clearly says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Most important. castorbailey (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re right about why we are here, but wrong about Leaving Neverland. Now if you were talking about Martin Bashir’s Living with MJ or maybe any other of the much more impactful projects mentioned here, the okay. But you’re not. Your’re talking about a television ratings flop. And less than 2 million viewers. What you aren’t talking about is the tens of millions of views from these other projects. A ratings extravaganza for not just the networks that it aired on, but all of media. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimcastor and TruthGuardians, you've been warned about violating WP:BLUDGEON, but here you are pounding away again. I want to emphasize the previous warning by pointing to an editor who was recently topic banned for bludgeoning others in a discussion much like this one. Take a look at User talk:Bavio the Benighted#Topic Ban (bludgeoning discussions) who was banned from the topic he deemed most important, solely because of his bludgeoning behavior. This is a real thing. You might want to dial back the pounding down of opposing voices. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For WP:BLUDGEON to apply one has to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their vote and ignore any evidence that is counter to a certain point of view. I did neither. Rather I repeatedly asked for evidence that Leaving Neverland somehow trumps all other highly covered above mentioned projects and that it's somehow among the most important contents of the article, even while there is consensus that no section should be named after it. So far no editor could explain those. I will delete those which went without a response for a while as it's unlikely I will get a reply from those editors castorbailey (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Show me that warning, please. I certainly have not seen that warning from an ADMIN! And Bludgeon is not being violated as I’m replying to deferent editors in a debate not the same editor with the same argument as the last, but an opposing view of their argument. Again, I would like to see this warning that I have NEVER received, fellow editor(non-Admin).TruthGuardians (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed about why you would deny being warned. You and Jimcastor acknowledged the BLUDGEON warning that you received yesterday from Crossroads by replying here and here, respectively, so you both already know about the warning. On Wikipedia, serious and consequential warnings come from anybody, not just admins. I could list all the times that my warnings to fellow editors were the last thing they saw before they got blocked by an administrator, but I would be here for hours typing up the list. It's in the hundreds at least. So don't try to disempower me by calling me a non-admin. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You’ll get un-flummoxed one day. Was addressed to me, and was not by an admin. Get at me with a real policy being violated because Bludgeon ain’t one of them. I’m also a non-admin. I’m not “disempowering you and myself am I? Facts are facts. Your empty threats about rules not being broken does not even make me flinch. TruthGuardians (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a warning it's an accusation which I reject based on what WP:BLUDGEON actually is. See above. castorbailey (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You can reject it all you want but outside observers will see the truth, with your relentless "attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." You are even bludgeoning the bludgeoning warnings you have received. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You have made four comments regarding WP:BLUDGEON Jimcastor made three. Should I warn you about bludgeoning then? Your example, Bavio the Benighted, is off the mark. Bavio posted like a whole essay and more, that did not happen here. The contradicting posts, aside from that repetitious question, seem pretty factual and succinct I don't see that as WP:BLUDGEON PinkSlippers (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not contradict every viewpoint that is different from mine and did not force my point of view by the sheer volume of comments I asked the editors to answer a critical question multiple times because none of them was willing to answer, you included. I did not know that is against the rules. I deleted those questions. It looks like you call any and all objection to what you say bludgeoning. castorbailey (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've been an admin for fifteen years, and I know bludgeoning when I see it. I also know inflated claims of bludgeoning when I see them. This is more towards the latter. The two editors in question have made roughly a dozen responses to comments each, many in extended (but polite) continuing exchanges, in response to a proposal that has drawn two dozen responses. BD2412 T 19:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the objectivity. I'll lay off. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Binkernet, You are not supposed to attack users when they are responding to you or other users. They do have the right to reply to any supporting or opposing comment. If you have an opinion that Leaving Neverland is now an important part of the literature about Jackson, then you need to explain how it is different or more significant from the other more significant event that transpired before and after Jackson’s death as the WP: BURDEN is on you.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. I’m not seeing any supporting evidence for the sentence to remain in the lead. Per WP:LEAD “It is not a news-style.” That’s exactly what this inclusion is. If the counter argument is to include it because allegations made after someone has died is that important, then why is the argument not about the allegations themselves, but rather a movie where over 60 lies and inaccuracies were uncovered, many contradicting the remaining ongoing lawsuits? Why not rewrite it to read “4 years after Jackson’s death, Wade Robson changed his previous position that he was not abused. James Safechuck saw Robson on TV and said “me too” and both filed lawsuits.” Or something similar (this is the documented and reported account of what happened). Even more of an obvious violation is WP:RECENTISM. The many reasons for this egregious violation has been covered by other editors above. Also, “impactful to Jackson’s legacy” is a gross exaggeration of the aftermath of the events following the movie. All of these are legitimate reasons to rename section in question 2.Timericon (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Timericon (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. I believe it violates WP:MOSBio and WP:LEAD. I feel that that specific paragraph already describes the allegations clearly enough, and is also described well enough in the posthumous allegation section. MaJic (comments go here) 19:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. Saw a similar RFC regarding Woody Allen's lead. No mention of the HBO documentary there either even though it got significant coverage. As per WP:MOSBIO and WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the most important elements of someone's life and work. Promos for dubious documentaries especially made after the person died have no place in the lead. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing concerns

I've been meaning to post this for some time, but real life has gotten in the way so I haven't had the time until now. I have been watching this RfC and I'm very concerned that there is a considerable amount of off-wiki canvassing that is tainting the results. This is not an accusation I make lightly. General sanctions have already been authorized on Jackson-related articles due to off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry, and there is abnormal, suspicious behavior surrounding this RfC.

• Firstly, RfCs normally emerge when there is a disagreement and all other venues have been exhausted. This RfC emerged fully-formed out of nowhere.
• Numerous editors involved in this RfC have come out of months, or even year-long periods of inactivity just to vote in this RfC. This is in spite of the fact that outside this page, there has been no notifications that this RfC is a thing anywhere else on-wiki. Factlibrary1 ([8]), Deboleena.ghy ([9]), PinkSlippers ([10]), MaJic ([11]), Supermodelsonya ([12]), and Timericon ([13]) all had not edited in a while prior to this and randomly came out of inactivity just to comment.
• Timericon posted his response to the RfC on the wrong page. To me, this indicates that this RfC was made off-wiki, and Timericon had written his response off-wiki and accidentally posted it on the page he thought the RfC would be on.
• One participant in this discussion, Israell, has been outed as having coordinated and canvassed off-wiki in a previous Jackson-related AfD.
• I also find this comment by TruthGuardians quite troubling. Firstly, not only is the accusation of Popcornfud being a "known anti-MJ editor" childish and preposterous, this implies that there's a "pro-MJ" side here... which adds to the notion that this RfC was coordinated off-wiki by Jackson fans. Also, it shows a lack of assuming good faith, as if they have a bone to pick with people who disagree with them or are noting concerns.

I wanted to bring this up before this RfC gets closed, so the closer knows that there are signs of shady stuff going on behind-the-scenes. JOEBRO64 13:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What I said is the absolute truth. There are neutrals, pro-topic, and anti-topic editors to every topic on Wikipedia and beyond. Popcorn once said that pro-MJ content caused him illness(rough paraphrase). We have never agreed to anything on this topic, but have many times in the past found common ground on the subject. Again, a violation of WP:Goodfaith isn’t me pointing out the obvious here. However, a violation is making baseless accusations of canvassing. It reminds me of the bullying I was subjected to at the hands of another editor. We would later avoid conflict with one another simply by ignoring each other. Anyway, this is about canvassing, and other than my one little concern, I have certainly not accused everyone who disagrees with me of being canvassed. Why? I have Good faith. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, what do you make of such concerns? Regardless of this accusation (an allegation of current, ongoing canvassing that cannot be proven), the fact is that votes are usually followed by arguments, and it is mostly such arguments, the validity thereof and Wiki policies that determine the outcome of an RfC. TruthGuardians' statement is based on certain observations of his he previously did explain (incl. an edit summary once made by Popcornfud: "the biased language in this article is beginning to cause me physical pain."). Certain editors (incl. late Flyer22, a proficient editor) had no problem repeatedly accusing other editors of being "MJ fans," "rabid fans" and what not, so why would the opposite observation be irrefutably objectionable and lack of assuming good faith? That observation is in no way an admission of a "pro-MJ" side. Truth be told, editors may have their personal views on certain topics, but they are asked to edit Wiki in a fair, neutral and unbiased manner.

It is a fact that users Bananasasas [14], Hugsruing [15] (sockpuppet of Bananasasas), Uranarse/Universelike [16], Jude1313 [17], ThunderPeel2001/WikiMane [18] and Excelse [19] were all blocked (indefinitely, for six months or less) due to their actions (edit-warring, flaming, sockpuppetry, etc.) pertaining to Michael Jackson-related articles and discussions, and they were definitely, observably not "MJ fans" or admirers by any means. Flyer22 herself admitted she had seen POV-pushing on both sides, so it is preposterous to only suspect "MJ fans" of currently indulging in off-Wiki canvassing. Besides, an RfC will attract those who watch the article but may not edit often as well as anyone who has an interest in the topic (not necessarily a partisan interest) plus those who see the RfC on the general Request for Comments page. Israell (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Great to see my old complaint about biased writing in MJ articles is still being trotted out as evidence of my bias. I should put it on a banner on my user page. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

And here I am again smeared as a "known anti-MJ editor". Please don't cast aspersions, TruthGuardians; as you know, there are sanctions on this page. Popcornfud (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Show me a pro MJ edit. Yes there are sanctions, and it’s obvious who is breaking them and who is not.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think a "pro-MJ edit" would be evidence in my favor betrays a misunderstanding of how POV works. Edits shouldn't be made to support or attack a given subject. We're supposed to be neutral.

And no, me complaining about POV issues in another Michael Jackson article is not evidence of me being "anti-MJ". The fact that people keep trotting this out is frankly amazing to me.

One editor has already been banned for casting aspersions on MJ topics. If you truly think I'm editing in bad faith, please go and raise it with an administrator. If you're not willing to do that, I'm politely asking you to stop smearing me. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusation of canvassing
I edited 10 days before this RFC even appeared, not months let alone a year earlier and it was an edit on this very page. How is that inactivity? On 26 February 2021 I came here to comment on another issue. I already explained when I removed your note that I voted as soon as I saw the RFC on the talk page which I monitored since 26 February 2021 precisely because I was part of that other discussion. Nobody canvassed me. I was aware of the previous talk page vote on this issue too.PinkSlippers (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• TheJoeBro64 appears shortly after a known anti-MJ editor. Anti-MJ editor makes complaint on Check User page. Then editor who normally does not edit MJ content all of a sudden starts adding canvassing tags to other editors page while violating WP:Goodfaith. Editor claims that they always follow other editor’s edit history and while that may be true, the anti-MJ editor, always edits MJ pages non-stop and this is just so happens to be the first time that TheJoeBro64 edits about Michael Jackson. Discussions related to MJ articles have a history of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing. This votes seem highly suspicious given that it is from an editor who haven't been active at all to any MJ topics prior to this discussion and considering the last time any meatpuppetry or socking that has been found has been from the anti-MJ camp.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "No u" is an excellent argument.

I've actually edited Jackson-related articles in the past and I really have no opinion on him at all other than he made some pretty good music. The reason I've been concerned about canvassing was because I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and I know suspicious behavior when I see it. I've seen RfCs/discussions tainted by off-wiki canvassing and meat/sockpuppetry in the past and looking at this, I saw striking similarities. Also, don't preach about AGF when you're the one who's not assuming good faith in the slightest by making the childish assumption that there are "pro-" and "anti-" Jackson editors, especially since I'm merely stating that I find behavior here highly suspicious. JOEBRO64 14:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair deal. We share the same concerns. Admittedly I have no proof to back up my concerns. I have no screenshot, no ongoing discussion on a social media platform, or anything. Only concerns.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, your last Jackson related edit was about a year ago so by your own logic I should wonder how you found this particular RFC "in spite of the fact that outside this page, there has been no notifications that this RfC is a thing anywhere else on-wiki", then showed up with a No vote just a day after Popcornfud, whose history of anti-Jackson editing speaks for itself, and with whom you've had numerous provable interactions. All these coincidences are highly suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkSlippers (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

JoeBro and I both regularly contribute to WP:VIDEOGAMES. We stalk each others' talk pages. We have probably both edited dozens or hundreds of the same articles - including, incidentally, Sonic the Hedgehog 3, which contains an extensive section about Michael Jackson. Popcornfud (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, stalking your talk page would not inform anyone about this RFC since there is nothing there about it. Your history of collaboration with JoeBro certainly does not dispel suspicion about canvassing given that JoeBro's last Jackson related edit was about a year ago. If I had a history of collabs with another editor here with a full year without Jackson-related edits then just showed up a day after him and vote the same way as he does wouldn't you and JoeBro bring that up as cause for suspicion? PinkSlippers (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why am I still being harassed about canvassing?! This has been the most unpleasant experience possibly ever on Wikipedia so far! And for what? Because the opposing side is losing an RFC by the numbers and on merit? 1) I don’t know a single Wikipedia editor in my real life. I do this just because. 2) I would like to know how to report this harassment. Surely this isn’t how things are done. This can’t be normal. People have lives beyond Wikipedia... the very idea of “canvassing” is, to be quite frank, pathetic to me.Factlibrary1 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is legitimately the most I've ever even *heard* the word canvassing in my life lol. restating my argument from before, i have this page on my watch list and haven't been logged in for months (I did so much editing just from my plain IP address alone that Wikipedia has blocked it), so to login, do edits on things I'm interested in, and then to be met with these accusations that i, honestly, don't fully understand, is a bit insulting. MaJic (comments go here) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• To see the accusing editor falsely accuse me of canvassing after being told numerous times, by not just me, but other editors here, talk about WP:GOODFAITH is condescending. You can’t in Good faith make baseless accusations and claim that it is in good faith. I really wasn’t going to comment at first because I owe no one here an explanation, but this behavior is unacceptable. I. Have. Not. Been. Canvassed. How does me composing a fairly long comment in a text editor, which I always do with longer comments, and copypasting it on the wrong talk page indicates that this RfC was made off-wiki is beyond me. I pasted it to the Leaving Neverland talk page because I voted 3 days after I first read the RFC and forgot it was on Jackson's talk page not the film's page. This is called human error, not canvassing. Don't you think if I had been canvassed the canvassing editor would have made it clear where to post my vote? Your theory is that s/he told me and gave me the text and I still managed to post it on the wrong page? Make it make sense, please.Timericon (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is it normal that I have to defend myself 3-4 times about the same false unfounded “concerns” of canvassing. This isn’t just harassment this is downright disrespectful and disruptive editing. All this because one editor looked at another editor’s Talk Page to an admin about canvassing who already made clear that there was no course of action to take or something like that? Come on! To the harassing editor, stop. To anyone reading this, how can I make this end? To whom it concerns, yes, I follow Jackson articles and like to partake in various edits and talk page discussions. For the final time, I have not been canvassed, I have not canvassed others, and I will continue to edit to make my edits count and meaningful to myself and Wikipedia, not please editors who disagree with my view point. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I am sorry I even edited anything with Wikipedia. I didn't even know what canvassing was and had to look it up. Disgusting. (talk)Supermodelsonya 4/3/2021 (UTC)

• Unrelated comment. Am I the only one that finds it weird that everyone in this subsection is practically saying "This is not the first time someone accuses me of canvassing"? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch That's because TheJoebro64 posted notes to each of those users' votes previously accusing them of canvassing. You can't see them now because they removed them and explained in the edit summary why. JoeBro ignored them and came back with the same accusations here in this subsection. castorbailey (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t weird at all if you’ve been following along JoeBro has accused these editors of canvassing 2 time or more and each time they have defended themselves. Then there was a break for a little while then weeks later the editor came back with the exact same baseless accusations. I’ve never witness this type of editing ever. Now I’ve only been editing for 2 years or so, but it’s an alarming behavior that should not go unchecked. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I do find that odd as well. Another thing that seems odd is a lot of the subsection's comments have non-straight apostropes and quote marks—which may be a sign that they were written in a different text editor and then pasted into Wikipedia. JOEBRO64 01:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You can hardly find that odd when you were the one who accused them of canvassing on this very page. I found Popcornfud's complaint to NinjaRobotPirate because I looked at why Majic removed his vote which you labeled canvassed. As for the non-straight apostrophes and quote marks iPhones and Macs have a feature called smart punctuation by default and there are hundreds of millions iPhone and Mac users so I don't think this proves anything. -- castorbailey (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

For someone to say that I hadn't edited in "a while" when I had quite a few edits under my belt before I even wrote what I did. It's just completely false. What I find disgusting is that these editors can just make baseless accusations about 'canvassing' something I never heard of and had to look up to find out what the definition meant on Wikipedia, but that these "editors" claim to have NO evidence, but can just throw names out and repeatedly accuse people pf canvassing based on nothing. What are you using? Tarot cards? Crystal balls? Did the Devil suggest it? None of it makes any sense. (talk)Supermodelsonya 4/7/2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

• The RfC was not out of nowhere. We had a talk page discussion in Dec 2019. I waited more than a year to see more of the effects of the film before doing the RfC.
• Looking at their history every accused editor did previous Jackson-related editing, sometimes months or even a year going by without editing. I myself edited here on Sept 7 2020 and Jan 26 2021 and very little in between those two. Should we assume each of those edits was canvassed?
• There is no wiki policy which excludes fans from editing and naturally they will watch this page most often. Obviously there will be pro-Jackson editors just like there are anti-Jackson editors.
• I fail to see how Timericon posting on the wrong page indicates this RfC was made off-wiki. I made the RfC and I have no idea who Timericon is.
• Isreal telling one user, not involved in this vote, that a page was under attack by another user is hardly evidence that he canvassed six users here who don't seem to have any connection to him at all.
• I find it odd that JOEBRO64 repeats Popcornfud's provably false accusation, almost verbatim.

Popcornfud: First: where has this RfC sprung from? Usually editors make RfCs after some sort of disagreement, like "OK let’s put it to a vote". This appears to have appeared fully formed out of nowhere

JOEBRO64: Firstly, RfCs normally emerge when there is a disagreement and all other venues have been exhausted. This RfC emerged fully-formed out of nowhere.

Based on this should we assume JOEBRO64 was canvassed by Popcornfud, especially since his vote showed up just a day after Popcornduf's and otherwise he has no history of paying attention to Michael Jackson's page but as admitted above has a history of talking to Popcornfud? Should we assume Popcornfud asked JOEBRO64 to post this here to undermine the result because Popcornfud does not like the result? Especially since Popcornfud actively participated in that talk page discussion in 2019 so he has to know this RfC is not out of the blue and JOEBRO64 just happened to make the same provably false claim. Looks like the pot calls the kettle black.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"MJ (singer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MJ (singer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#MJ (singer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

May you please delete the Michael Jackson mugshot pic in the trial section? It is really annoying to see that in Wikipedia, and that creates wiki audience to feel frightened towards MJ because that mugshot pic does not truly resemble Michael. Please delete that...I just don't want to see that in Wikipedia... WAKANDAEDITNBA (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Instruments that Michael Jackson played

Michael Jackson could play the guitar, keyboards and drums, but he was not proficient at these instruments. contribs) 14:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Park132!, that is correct and is sourced in this article. However, that doesn't mean we should include them as categories, as he wasn't notable for using those instruments. See WP:NONDEF, which explains when we use and don't use categories. Popcornfud (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I already read this policy, Popcornfud. Park132! (talk)

Good stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

After a month, Can I re-add these categories to the Michael Jackson page, just dancer and singer? Park132! (talk)

Dancing and singing categories are already included on this page. Popcornfud (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I already re-added funk and African American male dancers to the category list. Park132! (talk)

After two months, can I re-add these categories to the Michael Jackson page, just instruments? I saw that Michael Jackson playing instruments at home videos, photos and recordings, but not on stage. Park132! (talk)

I can see that he played instruments in photos and home videos and recordings, Popcornfud. Park132! (talk)

That's correct, Michael Jackson played musical instruments. However, that doesn't mean we should include them as categories, as he wasn't notable for using those instruments. See WP:NONDEF, which explains when we use and don't use categories. Popcornfud (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I will remember the WP:NONDEF policy, Popcornfud. Park132! (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Other Names

Why is Michael Joe Jackson the only 'other name' mentioned in 'other names'? What about 'MJ', 'The Gloved One', or 'Wacko Jacko'?

Because unlike the others you've mentioned, "Michael Joe Jackson" is an alternate name that was used for legal purposes. One's own initials aren't legal aliases to begin with, "Wacko Jacko" is merely a term used for mocking him, and "The Gloved One" is just a vague description supposedly based on his use of a singular glove. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

On the "Children" section

What is "3, including Paris" supposed to mean? Why would this need to be specified? Is there public belief that Paris shouldn't be included? Fergie the Bitter (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, her paternity isn't in question, and that was more of a "she is one of his 3 kids" ordeal. Nevertheless, it feels awkward to only single out one child when he had multiple, so I've revised the infobox to include her brothers. I firmly believe we should go with either that or simply a total number, not a mixture of the styles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

I would like to add that Michael Jackson was also a record producer. He produced Aaron Hall and Quo's remake of Yarbrough and People's Don't Stop The Music. 82.3.57.137 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Crotch grab" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crotch grab. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Crotch grab until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Record Producer

Michael Jackson was also a record producer. It was already mentioned by another user here, but it 100% should be added as one of the occupations. He has produced music for other musicians (mentioned above by another user) as well as produced or co-produced many of his own songs as well. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Jackson was an all around musician that is not credited as such because he didn’t publicly play any instruments. But there’s more that goes behind being a musician. And not all musicians play instruments. Jackson, who was inducted into the song writer’s hall of fame, was a sons writer, composer, producer, and dancer, being the only pop entertainer to be inducted into the Dance Hall of fame. If you can provide enough reliable resources to support him being a producer, I don’t see why that would not be added.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

According to David Gest and Lisa Minneli, long time friends of Michael, n even by Michael himself chemical castration is just a tabloid rumour one of many lies that always were there in media through out his life to tarnish his image. Further, his voice changed from his teens to this is it. Some of them can be 2006 Diamond awards n in the closet history tour performances, 2000 watts song and the recording of sedated Michael talking to the very so called Doctor Conrad Murray during This is It. Tiara Moonlight (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) In 2018, Jackson's physician Conrad Murray said that Joe had chemically castrated Michael and forced him to undergo hormone treatment as a child to stop his voice changing.[28]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 13:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

Below the fourth picture, I suggest "Randy Jackson" is changed to Randy Jackson, since all other siblings in that picture is written with a link to their respective articles. Olympicbandy (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

In the section, Move to Epic and Off the Wall, the following image is shown:

• Jacksonstvshow.jpg

It was an image of the Jackson siblings on their show The Jacksons; and today the image was cropped to only show Michael; making the caption in the section not really make sense. I request that either the image is reverted back to the previous edit of the image, or the caption in the article be changed from the current caption to something like "Jackson on the television program The Jacksons, in 1977."; to fit with the recent change. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Error on Reference 318

Out of boredom I decided to read MJ's article today and I came across a "Cite Error" on reference 318 in the "Posthumous Sales" subsection. May anyone please fix it so that the proper source can be displayed? Here's the error message:

Cite error: The named reference Swift-Boyle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Should be fixed now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for “Adding Philanthropy”

So I’m moving discussion about the philanthropy changes here. Here’s my official edit request though there’s things I think should be discussed first, like whether to use the term “philanthropist” or “humanitarian” in the lede.

This is the proposed change for the lede:

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer and philanthropist.

I also propose that philanthropy is re-added into this sentence:

Over a four-decade career, his contributions to music, dance, fashion and philanthropy, along with his publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture

This is an additional paragraph I propose to summarize his philanthropy to justify having “philanthropist” in the lede. This paragraph can be added as the final paragraph in the lead section:

Jackson has been known for his philanthropic ventures, donating an estimated $500 million throughout his lifetime , although true figures may be higher as Jackson often donated anonymously. Jackson’s charitable work and activism involved multiple tracks, including We are the World(which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie), Man in the Mirror, and Heal the World. From 1992 until it’s disbandment in 2002, Jackson’s Heal the World Foundation raised millions to help improve living conditions for children around the world. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Album era

Can this link in "See also" be removed? We don't need links to that article on every artist that made music during the album era.--InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I agree, and it above all else came off as an arbitrary inclusion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it! And I agree with your point. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Addition to lede

I was thinking we could add "often referred to by his initials MJ", ala other historical figures who were also frequently known by their initials, e.g. JFK and FDR, who have it mentioned in the lede of their articles. Jackson also qualifies as he was often referred to by his initials as well. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)