Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:58, 1 November 2021

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.

	1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed August 23, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 28, 2021 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 25 to July 1, 2017 (14th)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Michael Jackson GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Meeting in the shop

Regarding this edit: the information about Chandler and Evan meeting in the shop was sourced to Consequence of Sound, which says: Dave Schwartz, Jordie Chandler’s step-father and June Chandler-Schwartz’s husband, met with Evan Chandler at Schwartz’s Rent-A-Wreck shop. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Jordie’s relationship with Jackson. Unbeknownst to Evan Chandler, Dave Schwartz taped the phone call. (This is confusing, of course - what phone call?)

This Consequence of Article article is also used to cite the transcripts of the conversation. But it seems we think the article is mistaken so we're not using it for the "meet in the shop" claim. So we're cherrypicking claims in this source, using it for some things (the transcript quotes) but not others. This is getting really messy. Popcornfud (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For both, we could just used the longer more detail conversation from Fisher’s book which has everything above and then more. It too also talks about the recorded phone call between Evan and David.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Such blatant bias

This article is so hilariously biased in Jackson's favour. Almost every sentence is followed up with an attempt at exoneration, a "but...". What an utter joke. It's so obvious that this page was written by Jackson's supporters. Misplaced Pages isn't about presenting arguments or defending certain positions.

Isn't it convenient that almost every source that speaks against him is labelled as "disreputable" or "unreliable", while those that proclaim his innocence are welcomed indiscriminately. If you want to know the actual, objective truth about Jackson, search for the "MJfacts" website.

The simple fact is that only a child molesterer would own books full of nude young boys, and the fact is that such books WERE found in Jackson's home, some of them were even signed by him. There is nothing "artistic" about such filth, that's such a pathetically transparent excuse. The fact that said books are somehow "legal" to possess doesn't change anything. 139.168.130.225 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

This article is one of the most neutral and balanced articles on Misplaced Pages that uses actual reliable sources. The facts fall the way the do because this is how they are presented in reliable sources. This article has been worked on by many, many editors, few pro-MJ, most neutral, and some anti-Jackson editors. It’s a GA!

The website you mention above is a blog that has been narrated in such a way that doesn’t present the facts but an author’s very own fantasies. The website is twisted and horribly unbalanced. It will never be used as a source because it’s the exact opposite of objective.” For that matter, fan blogs aren’t used as sources for some of the same reasons why anti-fan blogs are ignored.

Jackson was not a child molester. There is no court verdict, intelligence agency conclusion, or evidence to suggest that he was. The legal artistic books you reference are in the United States Library of Congress and also shown to the jurors. One of which is actually owned by my best friend’s grandmother. I’m sure she doesn’t care that you think she is a child molester.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is balanced adhering to WP:NEUTRAL. The reason why sources referring to exculpatory evidence are included is that such evidence exists. That MJFacts website does not qualify as a reliable source and looking at it, it is - let's just say - hilariously biased against Jackson. The books you are referring to were presented in court by the prosecution and the inscription you referred to was actually exculpatory evidence. Hard to see why he would even sign a book if he knows it's incriminating. It was never clarified how and why the books ended up in Jackson's place, who send them to him and why, but merely owning a book does not mean someone knows its content let alone all photos in it. Jackson's side of the story is that he didn't remember those books, which is plausible given how many he got and it was more than 10 years earlier they were sent to him. He also had books with photos of nude males and females alike ranging from babies to elderly people. Taken together the context of those books is not pedophilia but general interest in art photography otherwise we should argue, as the prosecutor did, that Jackson owning a gay adult book must mean he was gay, but that contradicts the prosecution's other argument that he replaced boys once they reached puberty. So we should be careful to jump to conclusions about what books in a home full of books indicate. What does a book like Poo-Chi by Mayumi Lake say about Jackson's sexual interest, for example? PinkSlippers (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It is most certainly not true that only a child molester can have those books. One can receive books from various sources and not even open them. Jackson's book collection hardly proves his sexual taste, one way or the other, as he had everything from a gay adult sex book to sadomaso art featuring women, photography books with nude pictures of both genders yound and old. If he signed one of those books that would suggest he did not notice the questionable pictures which were a few among hundreds in that book. Unless you believe he wanted people like you to be able to say: you see? He signed it so he had to look through that book and enjoyed the pictures.castorbailey (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Leaving Neverland

I agree that the further allegations section may be fitting for this article. I agree that maybe Wade’s and Jame’s allegations should at least be mention. What I don’t agree with is Leaving Neverland being their allegations. It’s not. Their legal allegations, which completely contradicts a lot of what they say in the film, is what should be mentioned. When some one mentions allegations levied against someone now, do we start using films or do we stick to the legal facts? TruthGuardians (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of a further allegations section at all. This page is about the 1993 case only. If we include a further allegation section then why just cherry-pick the Robson Safechuck and Arvizo allegations? By the same token we could include the 1995 Canadian boy, Terry George, Jane Doe's allegations, Jacobshagen's allegations, Daniel Kapon, Joe Bartucci, Eddie Reynoza, Michelle Flower.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• GA-Class Michael Jackson articles
• High-importance Michael Jackson articles
• WikiProject Michael Jackson articles