Michael Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 1, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed November 23, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 11, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed January 24, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 25, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 28, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2009 Peer review Reviewed News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 22, 2004, and June 25, 2009. A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 29, 2019. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Michael Jackson FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Pop music FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. R&B and Soul Music FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Rock music FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Dance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles WikiProject Dance To-do list: To nominate at WP:FAC: To improve to Featured standard: To nominate as a Good article: To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow To unbias: To check for copyvios: To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images African diaspora FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Janet Jackson FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Southern California FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Music / Television / Indiana FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles Template:Vital article Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

	Other talk page banners
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.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 ([5]), Deboleena.ghy ([6]), PinkSlippers ([7]), MaJic ([8]), Supermodelsonya ([9]), and Timericon ([10]) 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)[reply]

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 when Flyer22 was around. 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)[reply]

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 [11], Hugsruing [12] (sockpuppet of Bananasasas), Uranarse/Universelike [13], Jude1313 [14], ThunderPeel2001/WikiMane [15] and Excelse [16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

This is a 2008 FA promotion whose nominator is no longer editing and that has not been maintained to current WP:WIAFA standards. Some issues (not a comprehensive list) are:

• The promoted version was before Jackson's death and had 9,800 words of readable prose, and no evidence of excessive WP:PROSELINE or listiness. The current version has 12,900 words of readable prose, so along with considerable changes in article content, at least a quarter of the current content has never been vetted in a content review process.
• There is considerable proseline everywhere and prose that is not at FA standard. For example (there are others):
  • Every paragraph in "2006–2009: Closure of Neverland, final years, and This Is It" starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Earnings" section starts with "In date ... "
  • Every paragraph in the "Honors and awards" section starts with "Jackson".
  • The end of the "Posthumous releases and productions" section appears to be content tacked on ala proseline.
• There is unencyclopedic trivia throughout bloating the article size, sample: On June 25, 2010, the first anniversary of Jackson's death, fans, family and friends visited Jackson's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, his family home, and Forest Lawn Memorial Park. Many left tributes at the sites. (Also, Proseline)
• There are quite a few sources highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script (red or yellow) that should be checked. As one example, WP:FORBES contributors should be reviewed per WP:SPS relative to high-quality sources required for Featured articles.
• Throwaway statement that says nothing (sample only, there are others): In 2010, two university librarians found that there were references to Jackson in academic writing on music, popular culture, chemistry and other topics.
• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review WP:OVERLINKing (some duplicate links can be justified).
• There are over 20 instances of also and also is almost always redundant; see User:Tony1 writing exercises to help reduce redundancies. Sample: Meanwhile, it was also reported ...
• WP:NBSP review may be needed.

This is a brief start at items that could be looked at to begin a tune-up to bring the article to current FA standards. If these can be addressed, then a more indepth look at sourcing and prose issues could be done, so that a Featured article review can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]