| Revision as of 15:11, 6 March 2021 editJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors377,921 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2021: Responded to edit requestTag: editProtectedHelper← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:05, 9 March 2021 edit undoJimcastor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,770 edits RfC: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?Next edit → | ||
| Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
| :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.] (]) 15:00, 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.] (]) 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 ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] (]) 15:11, 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 ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] (]) 15:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == RfC: Should this sentence be removed from the lead? == | |||
| {{rfc|bio}} | |||
| Does this sentence violate any of these -- WP:MOSBio ,WP: RECENTISM , WP:LEAD , WP: Summary -- and therefore should it be removed from the lead: <br> | |||
| "Seven years later, the documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child sexual abuse, led to another media backlash against Jackson" <br> | |||
| and should section 2.5 be renamed to "Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations"? ] (]) 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. "<br> | |||
| 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. | |||
| 2. WP: RECENTISM "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective."<br> | |||
| 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"<br> | |||
| WP: Summary "the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points"<br> | |||
| 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 ] (]) 01:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:05, 9 March 2021
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Michael Jackson, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Michael Jackson.
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Michael Jackson's religion was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 November 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Michael Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2019. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Justinesim.
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- It matters. Full balance always matter on the most trafficked celebrity Misplaced Pages featured article in the word. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:32, 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)
- It doesn't really matter; even a single word can be WP:UNDUE. Popcornfud (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- One sentence isn't "bending over backwards."-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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." 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.. 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.
- 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)
- 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. 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." 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. "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)
- 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)
- 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." Note: I meant Barnes earlier. Israell (talk) 05:34, 27 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. 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)
- 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
One more thing regarding Aaron Carter. In this interview 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
- Respers, Lisa (2019-04-26). "Corey Feldman wonders if Michael Jackson was grooming him". CNN. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
- https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/1122235150190829568
- https://people.com/music/aaron-carter-clarifies-michael-jackson-claim/
- https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1112364525922254850
- https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-allegations.html
- https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/02/michael-jackson-brett-barnes-hbo-leaving-neverland-molestation-threat/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrOZL7_NkI&t=2s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7mGw1hGRE
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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♦ 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♦ 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
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:30, 27 February 2021 (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 Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021 (2)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
RfC: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?
 |
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Afrodias_logo.svg){kind=link}
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.
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)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Selected anniversaries (August 2019)
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Michael Jackson articles
- Top-importance Michael Jackson articles
- WikiProject Michael Jackson articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Pop music articles
- Top-importance Pop music articles
- Pop music articles
- FA-Class R&B and Soul Music articles
- High-importance R&B and Soul Music articles
- WikiProject R&B and Soul Music articles
- FA-Class Rock music articles
- Top-importance Rock music articles
- WikiProject Rock music articles
- WikiProject Dance articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- High-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- FA-Class Janet Jackson articles
- Mid-importance Janet Jackson articles
- WikiProject Janet Jackson articles
- FA-Class California articles
- Mid-importance California articles
- FA-Class Southern California articles
- Mid-importance Southern California articles
- Southern California task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- FA-Class American music articles
- Top-importance American music articles
- WikiProject American music articles
- FA-Class American television articles
- Mid-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- FA-Class Indiana articles
- Mid-importance Indiana articles
- WikiProject Indiana articles
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment