| Revision as of 00:45, 10 July 2020 editJimcastor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,770 edits →Should this be a separate article?← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:02, 10 July 2020 edit undoJimcastor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,770 edits →This article is about the contents of the FBI filesNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ::::::: Are clearly focussed on the contents of one particular newspaper clipping that comprises a 300+ page FBI file. Such comments are relevant on a page about the accusations themselves, but not a page about the FBI file. (And the inclusion of the word "cheerfully" further acknowledges your bias.) | ::::::: Are clearly focussed on the contents of one particular newspaper clipping that comprises a 300+ page FBI file. Such comments are relevant on a page about the accusations themselves, but not a page about the FBI file. (And the inclusion of the word "cheerfully" further acknowledges your bias.) | ||
| :::::::: Anything the FBI does to collect information related to a criminal case is an investigation even if they themselves did not initiate it. Why do you think other sources cannot be used to contextualize what is in the FBI files or what came out or rather what did not come out of the FBI's investigation of Terry George's claims? Sounds like it's your POV not any actual wiki rule. The source is provided to prove that Terry George did cheerfully recall his 1979 interview with Jackson. It's not bias when it a proven fact and it's one of those facts which explain why the FBI did not find anything local law enforcement could use against Jackson ] (]) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Furthermore, I flagged this page as "unbalanced", and you have removed that flag. That is not your place to do. Additionally, your frequent claims that this is "your" page are not appropriate either. ] (]) 21:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | ::::::: Furthermore, I flagged this page as "unbalanced", and you have removed that flag. That is not your place to do. Additionally, your frequent claims that this is "your" page are not appropriate either. ] (]) 21:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:02, 10 July 2020
 | United States: FBI B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Michael Jackson C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Same culprits making Jackson articles unbalanced and unstable
There are a couple of culprits who are going around every article about Jackson removing critical content that makes the article balanced. This content includes any content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers, while being unjustly critical to Jackson himself and adding content where consensus has been reached to not add. This behavior must stop. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Copy pasting issue?
- Every search yields a copyright violation --Moxy 🍁 05:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: can you take a look pls.--Moxy 🍁 05:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: I rewrote part 6 in my own words. What's the matter? Israell (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- You reinstated a copy vio and then did not come close to a rewrite of what was pasted source...pls review.Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing as changing a few words is not best practises. We will need many Misplaced Pages:Revision deletions.--Moxy 🍁 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: Is part 6 OK now? I rephrased it. castorbailey (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Seems good...but lot more.to go and we should keep it sourced--Moxy 🍁 06
- 42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- which sentence in part 6 do you think needs additional sources? castorbailey (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you @Diannaa:...know it was a lot of revision deletion...will keep an eye out for plagiarism when editors are unblocked.--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement because I've just rewritten parts of the article that were copied and pasted by other editors. Israell (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pls dont reinstate copyright violations ... Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources and more so Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. Will ask a resident expert to look again....see ping above--Moxy 🍁 05:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Editorial assistance for "Media reaction" section
I am in need of a little assistance from a more experienced editor or admin. For the "Media reaction" section I creates, I included quotes using the "blockquote" template. Most of what I know comes from existing articles, YouTube videos, and studying others who have done it before me. However, I am having difficulties understanding if it is necessary to even be used in this case, or if I used them correctly? Are the quotation marks still a requirement if I use the template. Please clarify. Thanks in advance.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Block quotes don't need quotation marks. It's clear block quotes are quotes. Popcornduff (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the contents of the FBI files
This page is about the content of the FBI files. The files themselves are simply a collection of documents and reports (although it is debatable if they need to be listed here at all to be honest). It is not appropriate to turn this page into an investigative or editorial article. The FBI were not investigating Jackson, and so did not make any conclusions in their files. They were simply assisting other law enforcement agencies. WikiMane11 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- This article is about the content of the FBI file. You are vandalizing sourced content in regards to the FBI files. When I stated this was my article, I authored this article and it does meet Misplaced Pages guidelines as already approved on this talk page. Your edit are not in line with ] by not sticking to the sources. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- This does not fall under WP:OR. I am removing any original research, not adding to it. You are editorialising instead of documenting. The FBI's own page on the files states the following about the file's contents:
Michael Jackson (1958-2009) was a famous singer and entertainer. Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Mr. Jackson and others by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005.
— FBI, FBI Records: Michael Jackson, https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson
- The files do not show an investigation by the FBI in relation to child molestation allegations, but rather assistance to an investigation. There are no conclusions by the FBI in the document related to those cases. You should not be trying to refute or comment on the contents of news clippings or documented allegations that comprise the contents of this file. They are simply reports for law enforcement agencies, often very technical in nature. The focus of this page is the FBI file itself, not the contents of articles which make up sections of the file.
- Sentences like this: "Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson. Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed." Are completely out of place in this article. WikiMane11 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, no. Nothing here has been editorialized. Everything here is sticking to the sources and is sourced by media outlets that extensively covered the release of these files. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to comment in this way. You are essentially recreating the news articles you are attempting to cite, commenting on the wider story of Michael Jackson, rather than the contents of the FBI file. The whole page whiffs of an attempt to use the FBI file to push examples of Jackson's innocence, rather than actually document the contents of the file. You yourself have commented below that not having these comments make this page "unbalanced", complaining that people are removing "content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers". That suggests you are trying to push a narrative by responding to the newspaper articles that the FBI collected, rather than the file itself. The FBI file itself is not in any need of "balancing". WikiMane11 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your claims are literally the exact opposite of what I’m doing. The act of combing through hard drives, interviewing witnesses, and much more (all of which is claimed by the FBI in these files) is the act of investigating. They are investigating tapes for possible child pornography. They are investigating possible witnesses, and much more. That’s not editorializing. Also any conclusion spoke about in this article is taken word for word from the FBI Files. Such conclusions as “there are no outstanding leads or evidence items,” and “no outstanding leads or evidence items.” are not my conclusions. They are the FBI’s as quoted from the files. If you see a line item that you believe to be unbalanced, let’s take it one line at a time. I’m not opposed to working with anyone. Like whoever changed the lead, I like it for the most part. There is some content in section one that can probably be eliminated, but if that’s the case, let’s reach a consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Statements like "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items" are not "conclusions". It is the FBI saying they are completed the tasks that were assigned to them, and there are no leads or evidence items left to process. Whereas sections in your article like:
In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, Louis, Martin & Michael. When asked about the accusation he said “it came out really without my authority” and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux “parts of it are true yeah...parts of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalized really."
- Are clearly focussed on the contents of one particular newspaper clipping that comprises a 300+ page FBI file. Such comments are relevant on a page about the accusations themselves, but not a page about the FBI file. (And the inclusion of the word "cheerfully" further acknowledges your bias.)
- Anything the FBI does to collect information related to a criminal case is an investigation even if they themselves did not initiate it. Why do you think other sources cannot be used to contextualize what is in the FBI files or what came out or rather what did not come out of the FBI's investigation of Terry George's claims? Sounds like it's your POV not any actual wiki rule. The source is provided to prove that Terry George did cheerfully recall his 1979 interview with Jackson. It's not bias when it a proven fact and it's one of those facts which explain why the FBI did not find anything local law enforcement could use against Jackson castorbailey (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I flagged this page as "unbalanced", and you have removed that flag. That is not your place to do. Additionally, your frequent claims that this is "your" page are not appropriate either. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- the page is not unbalanced. Also, some edits I did not make. Such as the “cheerful” one, but I will agree that there are some issues there. I also agree there may be some issues with the tabloid sections. Finally, statements like "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items" are conclusions as this is how a specific part of the FBI files ended. Let me see your what your previous edit was for the tabloid section. Will return. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- My edits are all available in the history of the article page, right before you reverted them. There should be no newspaper quotes on this page at all, unless their articles directly refer to the FBI files being released. This is not the place to debate the contents of newspaper clippings from decades ago. Finally you still misunderstand "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items". "Outstanding" means "not yet dealt with". The sentence means "there are no leads to evidence items left to be dealt with". It is an acknowledgement that they have reached the end of the work tasked to them by the law enforcement agencies they were assisting. WikiMane11 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Should this be a separate article?
It strikes me that this is simply an article created by fans of Michael Jackson to give their own point of view, to avoid the scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him. It is about primary sources and nearly all cited to the same sources. Is this really a notable topic or just a list of sources that should, if anything, be included in other topics? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- "It strikes me that this is simply an article created by fans of Michael Jackson to give their own point of view, to avoid the scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him." It does indeed appear that way. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- It’s not the same sources. The main source has 7 different parts. If this article goes, then so does the one on Elvis and others. There is no bias. It is a notable topic as referenced in the media reaction section. It certainly is notable. Very reputable media companies reported on it. Israell (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why would this article prevent scrutiny that would be given to edits on articles about the singer and the abuse allegations against him? The main source, obviously, is the FBI's own website which have those files. Jackson's FBI files were extensively reported in the media, it is definitely a notably topic, not less than the FBI files on Elvis Presley, which also has its own page too. And there is way too much information in those files to be embedded into another article. What exactly do you think is POV in this article? castorbailey (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class FBI articles
- Low-importance FBI articles
- WikiProject FBI articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Michael Jackson articles
- Low-importance Michael Jackson articles
- WikiProject Michael Jackson articles