Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Needs review

I was just reading the 2008 discussion to make this a FA. Standards were lower in those days and/or the article has deteriorated. I think it now needs to be reviewed. My preference would be to do that here. Any thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The article looks fine. Well written and well sourced. And it seems to follow all the standards by the looks of it. Awardmaniac (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. Any thoughts on the question I asked? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You can review it if you want. I have no problem with that. Im all for any kind of improvement if necessary. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about WP:FAR. It'd be better to discuss here first I think. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. You can do that if you want. I dont think that is needed at the moment. But that is just me. Let see what other people think. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No indeed, it is not up to you. If we can't talk out the problems with the article here, we will have to involve others. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I just gave my opinion. That's it. Please don't be hostile or anything. We are all here to help. Thank you. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, a number of experienced editors have kept this article in good shape. The edit history shows this. The article has expanded over the years, but it has also been trimmed and tweaked over the years where needed. I don't see that it isn't FA anymore or needs to be demoted. If you could make a valid case for why it's not of FA quality anymore, I'd be inclined to agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, seems like we have some overdetails and images in this article. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a sample of some problems that I see on reading the article:

Lead

• Los Angeles, California, U.S. is overlinking
• Dubbed the "King of Pop"... but then we link the same article under see also. WP:SEEALSO says not to do this.
• Cites in lead; why? Doesn't seem to conform to WP:LEADCITE.
• In 1993, he was accused of sexually abusing the child of a family friend; the case led to an investigation but was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in 1994. Why "but"?
• In 2005, he was tried and acquitted of further child sexual abuse allegations and several other charges after the jury found him not guilty on all counts. So he was acquitted and found not guilty? Hmm.

I also notice that he dies twice (three times including the lead). Like I say, standards have risen and the quality of the article has fallen away since the version that was promoted. There's a lot that needs to be improved in the article for it to meet FA standards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Some good copyediting points there. Would you be interested in doing a ce sweep of the article or does that inspire dread? Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, you are talking about minor issues that are easily and quickly fixed. You have not pointed to one major issue. You ask "why" use "but." Why not? It seems to me that the editor used "but" because the investigation did not lead to a trial. If you want to add "and" in place of "but," do so. You stated that you "notice that he dies twice (three times including the lead)." Huh? The lead states "Jackson died of acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication, after suffering from cardiac arrest." It also mentions that the Coroner "ruled his death a homicide." And it states "Jackson's death triggered a global outpouring of grief, and a live broadcast of his public memorial service was viewed around the world." Are we not supposed to use the word death again in the lead after initially noting he died? I'm not sure what you mean about dying twice, with regard to the lead or elsewhere in the article. As for cites in the lead, WP:LEADCITE is clear that it's a case-by-case matter. So I don't see why you think having cites in the lead of this article doesn't conform to WP:LEADCITE. WP:FAR, in the "Nominating an article" part of the text, states, "Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article." Well, that is what we are doing. You are free to copyedit, obviously. Popcornduff is always copyediting the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the article needs more than a "copyedit", it is so bad.

• What and where is the "Weiner Stadion"?
• About half of the Aftermath section needs to go.
• Overall, the article reads like it was written by fans, and that's not a good read. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 90% of the stuff about Wade Robson can go, for a start. Popcornduff (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. This section isn't NPOV to the degree required for FA. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Still nothing substantial pointing to a need to delist the article. About half of the Aftermath section needs to go? Why? The article reads like it was written by fans? I'm not seeing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to look at more celebrity WP:GA and WP:FA articles, ranging from musician articles to actor articles, to get a sense of what is acceptable. And especially the ones that reached WP:GA and WP:FA relatively recently. I state this because comparing this article to the various WP:GA and WP:FA celebrity articles I see any day, including ones that have reached WP:GA and WP:FA relatively recently, I cannot at all see what you mean by "it is so bad." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So you consider the Aftermath section currently meets standards? Other articles need not concern us here. MarchOrDie (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That parts of an article need improvement does not automatically equate to "this article needs to be delisted." "FA" does not automatically equate to "perfect." More from me below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Here's another beauty: It was reported that Jackson had offered to buy the bones of Joseph Merrick (the "Elephant Man") and, although untrue, Jackson did not deny the story. So, Jackson was untrue? A lot of this is poorly written, it suffers from too positive a tone; for example, there are 13 instances of the word "successful". I know Jackson was a very successful entertainer, but 13 is too many. Here's the worst instance: HIStory was promoted with the successful HIStory World Tour, beginning on September 7, 1996, and ending on October 15, 1997. Jackson performed 82 concerts in five continents, 35 countries and 58 cities to over 4.5 million fans, and grossed a total of $165 million, becoming Jackson's most successful tour in terms of audience figures. (my emphasis); the article is riddled with stuff like this. The prose is not, in my considered opinion, "engaging and of a professional standard". --MarchOrDie (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've reworked that tour bit here. Something to keep in mind is that multiple instances of "successful" are part of a distinction, namely "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" Guinness World Record, and one of them is contained within a citation title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I reduced the count by 9, which I think is another step forwards.--MarchOrDie (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm well aware of that and well done for changing that one word. Here's another cracker; this is from the first of the two times he dies: Less than three weeks before the first show was due to begin in London, with all concerts sold out, Jackson died after suffering cardiac arrest. Some time before his death, it was reported that he was starting a clothing line with Christian Audigier. Textbook non sequitur. And I see we still have the "Weiner Stadion". On the plus side, we also have an article improvement tag. That's good, because this article could do with some improvements. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is best remembered for Jackson's solo performance of "Billie Jean", which earned Jackson his first Emmy nomination. Why say the name twice? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• His subsequent rhinoplasty was not a complete success; he complained of breathing difficulties that would affect his career. "Would"? Meaning he was worried that it might? Or meaning that it did? It's almost every sentence. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And as I've already suggested to you before, copyedit the article. Beyond sentences that can do with better wording, which is something that also applies to a number of articles that recently reached FA standard, and beyond material that should be trimmed, you have yet to make a strong case that we should delist this article. A case to review it? Yes. That is happening now. Like WP:FAR notes, an official review is not necessarily needed to improve an article. I've also noted above that WP:FAR is partly about attempting to fix matters before trying to delist an article. The goal isn't even to delist the article. The goal is improvement. Consistently pointing out wording issues, or issues you consider to be wording issues, on this talk page instead of fixing the matters yourself prolongs the improvement process. Expecting us to make changes per things you've identified as problems isn't the best route to take unless it's clear that we (or at least one of us) are following your lead. I don't mean any offense by this, but some of the things you've identified seem like nitpicking to me. For example, I did not get "So, Jackson was untrue?" from the text you pointed to above. You keep talking about FA standards, but I don't see that you have brought articles to FA status. If you brought one more articles to FA status, pointing to one or more of them as indicators of your experience and examples of good prose might be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to have it delisted, but I do want it to be greatly improved. I hope we can agree on the need for this from the examples I have given, and the editors who have agreed with me. I wasn't aware we had to prove our credentials like this to have our opinions taken seriously, but since you ask, I was co-nom on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Moreton Hall/archive1 and had a fair bit of input on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maus/archive2. Both articles were considerably better written than this one. I hope we can work together to sort out the problems under discussion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: I agree with the points you raise here about the prose problems. (BTW, I think Flyer is missing the problem with the "Jackson was untrue" part.) I've personally removed hundreds of words from the article over the years, but it still needs more work. I don't even think the biography part is the worst part.

That said - having written and reviewed a few FAs, and being dismayed at the quality of prose, I've stopped caring about FA. Without wanting to lecture, I do feel a bit of WP:SOFIXIT coming here. You've taken the time to identify several prose problems - so fix them! Popcornduff (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair comment and you're not the first to suggest it. I think there will be quite major cuts from the post-death stuff (and elsewhere) and I don't want to go to a lot of work then for it to be reverted using the article's FA status as a reason. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"This article passed FA, therefore no change can be an improvement" is the thing that takes me from neutral to furious in the fastest time on Wikipedia. Just go for it. Popcornduff (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, regarding credentials, there have been editors going on about what is good or featured article material with no experience on what is good or featured article material. The comments are often based on their personal preference rather than on what is an acceptable GA or FA article. Sometimes they simply want the article delisted because they don't like that the article is GA or FA. Yes, they may sometimes have a valid case about the prose needing work or that something should be cut, but anyone who has seen or actually been involved in an FA discussion knows that it's not uncommon for editors to disagree on what is better prose or on what should be included or excluded. All I was stating is that I don't see anything that screams "Shouldn't be an FA article anymore" when I look at the article. That things need improvement doesn't automatically mean "Shouldn't be an FA article" to me. I see that you have been copyediting and making some cuts. That's a start toward improvement. If you remove something that you think an editor is likely to object to, it's likely best that you address the matter on the talk page first.

Popcornduff, LOL. I understand what you mean regarding the "This article passed FA, therefore no change can be an improvement" argument. Obviously, besides some articles being able to be improved even after passing FA, some FA articles do lose their FA quality. And, as made clear by MarchOrDie, the FA standards might have changed since the article passed FA. But I also understand WP:STEWARDSHIP. Its section about featured article states, "While Featured articles [...] are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." And WP:CAREFUL advises similarly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Aftermath section is a problem. It needs trimming, and probably also needs to be split into smaller sections, unless we're going to consider everything that happens for the rest of time to be the "aftermath" of Jackson's death. Popcornduff (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Articles tend to look like this when they have been written by fans. We don't need every single thing about him recorded. The article is more powerful and more readable if we can be discriminating and use editorial judgement about what, in the big scheme of things, he will be remembered for. I've started to whittle away at it over the last two days (thanks to the three other editors who contributed to that diff). He only dies once now, and some of the worst ambiguity, repetition and fanspeak has been toned down. The data tables were out of place; it'd be nice if there was some place on Wikipedia to keep them, but this article wasn't it. There's more of course, but I thought I'd pause and give others a chance to chip in. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You made a lot of good changes to the article. Regarding this, though, I'd avoid "denied" per WP:Claim. And like I noted before, there was no need at all to remove the references out of the lead; in this case, it's a personal preference matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed it; I couldn't live with "adamant" on an encyclopedia article. Regarding cites in the lead, you're right that it's a matter of choice; but two points. First, I always see dozens of superscripts in the lead as a terrible sign of a "controversial" article which is under constant dispute. A stable article can show this by just citing things in the body. Second, in sifting through the lead, I found quite a few things that weren't mentioned anywhere else. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section tells us "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Whether we need all these factoids is another question, of course, but they shouldn't be in the lead and nowhere else. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about citations in the lead indicating that the topic is controversial, but I don't often get that impression when I see citations in the lead unless I know it's a controversial topic. Yes, Jackson is a controversial topic in part, but he's no longer alive and the child sexual abuses cases are well-known. So, other than the occasional editor who might wonder if something in the lead is cited lower in the article or the newbie who thinks that something in the lead isn't cited at all because they don't see a reference for it there, I don't much mind that you moved the references out of the lead. But again, WP:CITELEAD does note when sources should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I put hidden text in for the newbie. Speaking for referencing, don't you think a lot of it is over-referenced? I can't see how we would need more than two references for most things. On the other hand, I think we should be very careful with primary sources. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I think it's untenable to have the note on the controversy about his actual sales only appear in the lead. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's fine either way to have citations in the lead, I say remove them. Why include something we don't need?

MarchOrDie, your work on this article has been stellar. Keep up the good work. By the way, you know that, strictly speaking, a factoid is a false statement presented as fact, right? I assume when you say "factoid" here you mean in the newer sense of "trivia" but just checking... I don't mean to be pedantic, just trying to figure out what your stance on this info is. Popcornduff (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Popcornduff for the recognition and for your help in trimming and honing the article. Speaking as a pedant myself, I love that you zoom in on my use of language like that. I mean it in the second sense, but of course, in most cases truth is subjective and consensual, so the two meanings are probably two ends of a continuum rather than separate concepts.

Here's another reference-related issue. At present we have:

Jackson explored genres including pop, soul, rhythm and blues, funk, rock, disco, post-disco, dance-pop and new jack swing.

I think on an important peer-reviewed high-traffic article like this those references should be bundled so there is one superscript in the running text (neater) but also, importantly, they should be attributed in the bundled reference. So we know who said "pop", who said "soul", and so on. I don't regard this as controversial and I would have done it myself, but I don't know how. Does anybody here know how to do that? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine Template:Refn would be involved, but I can't for the life of me figure it out. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, yes, I saw the hidden note. Some newbies might comment before attempting to edit the article, though. And readers who are not editors won't see the hidden note. But it's not a big deal that you moved the references out of the lead. As for this, why did you remove the Paul McCartney material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As for WP:BUNDLING, yes, I know how to do it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you show me? Or direct me to an intelligible instruction set? As for Macca, you're referring to According to Paul McCartney, he contacted Yoko Ono about making a joint purchase by splitting the cost at £10 million each, but Ono thought they could buy it for £5 million each. and An attorney for McCartney assured Branca that McCartney was not interested in bidding. McCartney felt it was too expensive, but several other companies and investors were interested in bidding. I thought, and still do think, that this is an excessive degree of detail on an article about Michael Jackson. The article suffers from over-comprehensiveness, which is one of three reasons it is so long (although I think it's better than it was a week ago). The others are over-referencing and (although I've tried to tone it down somewhat) a slight air of having been written by fans, for whom every word and action of Jackson needs to be recorded. It doesn't, and what person C thought person D thought about a business deal doesn't belong either. In my opinion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding bundling, do you mean what I did with this reference (reference 164) at the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article? If so, this edit shows how I did it. As for McCartney, that material seems relevant because McCartney felt the need to comment on that. If it wasn't important that he clarified, why did he? That stated, we can leave that to the Sony/ATV Music Publishing article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article doesn't meet the current criteria for FA status, that it appears to be a largely fan-written article, and that it should lose its FA status for now. The main reasons are that the FA criteria are stricter now, and that Jackson's entire legacy is "under radical re-examination" as one editor put it and as discussed by an enourmous amount of reliable sources[1]. That means the article is necessarily quite out of date and in need of significant improvements and updates to reflect how RS view Jackson now – much in the same way as Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein and other comparable figures who had their legacies and reputations fundamentally changed. The assessment a decade ago is simply of little relevance for how Jackson is viewed today. The decade-old FA status is also used as an argument against updating the article, so it's counterproductive to cling to it. It would be better for the quality of this article to go through the FA process again after the necessary improvements, than to cling to a decade-old status reflecting both lower FA standards and an entirely different situation as far as the assessment of Jackson is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course you would agree. You are making all of this fuss because you want the Leaving Neverland documentary to be prominent in the article. And if not that, you want it to prominently show in the article by giving it its own section. Your "it appears to be a largely fan-written article" claim is a POV claim that has no merit. And from what I can see, you have no experience with writing FA articles, or watching them be built. And, yes, that experience matters if one is going to go on about what is or isn't an FA article unless the article is clearly a B or C level article. It cannot be helped that Jackson had a lot of successes and we call those successes per WP:Reliable sources, and give the successes their WP:Due weight. The child sexual abuse content has its WP:Due weight in the article. The article is not "quite out of date" because of the documentary. You are viewing this matter from a WP:Recentism point of view. And as for comparing this to Jimmy Savile, I've addressed you on that. And now you bring up Harvey Weinstein? Not the same either. More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

___

Are you sure it can't be salvaged now even with MarchOrDie's changes? We should opt to improve the article before going to FAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

My general feeling is that it isn't desirable for this article to be a featured article right now with all the debate on and reassessment of Jackson going on – it was given that status under very different conditions when Jackson was viewed very differently. It will probably take some time before we have a clearer view of Jackson's legacy. For example, Jackson defenders are increasingly compared to 9/11 truthers[2], while a new broad consensus on Jackson is emerging among most RS, and it will take some time before the dust settles. It would be better for this article to lose its FA status so that we can work on it with a view to renominate it in a year or so, based on current FA standards and the current assessment of Jackson among RS. There are many other problems with the article, such as the chapter structure that is currently under discussion. --Tataral (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Stability is a definite issue, yes, but I wouldn't say it should be demoted now simply for that or section structure. It's best to list specific issues here for people to work upon. You could also WP:Be bold and make some improvements yourself (as long as they aren't too contentious). As Flyer22 Reborn noted above, one of the WP:Featured article review instructions is to list issues on the talk page and try to get them resolved before formally starting up any FAR page. MarchOrDie outlined specific problems with prose which have since been mostly (if not entirely) addressed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already tried the bold approach, only to see several days worth of my and other editors' work reverted in an indiscriminate manner by a certain editor who used the excuse that that the article holds this FA status. The fact that the FA status is used to prevent/impede/complicate updates and to argue that the article should stay more or less frozen the way it was "years ago", is another reason why I don't think the article should retain a decade-old FA status under these radically changed conditions and in a situation where some significant changes are necessary. --Tataral (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Article status definitely isn't a free pass to prevent changes/updates. If your bold edits got reverted, then it's now best to outline here ways to improve it and point out specific issues. I'm sure they'll at least generate some discussion on what to do/not do as a result. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that Tataral doesn't have any solid reasons for wanting the article demoted. For example, he states, "My general feeling is that it isn't desirable for this article to be a featured article right now with all the debate on and reassessment of Jackson going on." We don't delist articles based on any sort of rationale as that. He also states, "It would be better for this article to lose its FA status so that we can work on it with a view to renominate it in a year or so, based on current FA standards and the current assessment of Jackson among RS." Huh? Tataral goes on about Awardmaniac's POV without recognizing his own. In addition to relocating the child sexual abuse material to its own section, which is now being discussed on this talk page, Tataral's bold edits consisted of adding child sexual abuse material to the lead, which others have rejected because it's already covered in the lead and because of WP:Recentism.

SNUGGUMS is an experienced GA and FA reviewer. SNUGGUMS is a solid voice to listen to on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That is simply not true. This is the section on Leaving Neverland and its impact before your blanket revert of three days' work by several editors, a section I was working on at the time. It's not an undue or very long section, but I have added a couple of sentences on the impact of Leaving Neverland. And this is the version of the same section that you edit-warred to replace it with, thus preventing any further edits by myself to that section. The only coverage of Leaving Neverland after your removal of the material in the former section is "The documentary Leaving Neverland (2019) covers Jackson's alleged sexual abuse of Robson and Safechuck.[322] The Jackson family issued a statement condemning the film." The illustration of Neverland Ranch has been replaced with an illustration of "Fan Tributes at Jackson's tomb on the first anniversary of his death." These are your edits, that you made more than once, as anyone can see from the article history. Because of your behaviour that included blanket reverts of several days worth of multiple editors' edits (for the specific reason that "this is still a WP:Featured article"), I found it impossible to continue working on that section or any other part of the article until these issues under debate have been resolved here on the talk page (right now I'm waiting for the result of the RfC on the chapter structure until work on the Leaving Neverland section can be resumed). I can hardly be blamed for not making more bold edits. In general, it hasn't been possible to make any meaningful updates or improvements. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It is true. What argument have you made for delisting the article that is actually based on delisting criteria? As for the rest of your arguments, we already went over this below. I'm not going over all of it again with you. You could have easily re-added the Leaving Neverland material I removed. My focus was on your hasty restructuring of the article. Nowhere did I state that I objected to what you added. And I reverted you twice for reasons I made clear below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I could hardly have "easily re-added the Leaving Neverland material" after you had edit-warred repeatedly to remove it. I did also explain to you, clearly, that it was ok for you to revert the new chapter structure if you felt more discussion was needed on that (the chapter structure edit was clearly indicated through an edit summary), but that a blanket revert of all other edits during the past three days was not ok, and that I particularly objected to your removal of the material from the part of the article that covered Leaving Neverland. If you didn't intend to remove that material, after doing so repeatedly and after I had explained that to you clearly, it would be your responsibility to reinstate it at that point. If I had reinstated it at that point that would have been edit-warring on my part, something I don't engage in. In general, you are responsible for all changes you make to the article, which is one of the reasons that blanket reverts are almost always a very bad idea unless you are prepared to take responsibility for every comma you change. --Tataral (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You want the last word that bad, huh? More faulty claims. More talking about a revert that was well-justified despite your claims to the contrary. You insisted that your restructuring of the article was fine and dandy. It was hardly about the other content that got reverted. And I was clear that I objected to the lead changes as well and why I objected. And it's clear that others object to the lead changes too. I'm not going to keep arguing the same thing with you over and over again. You state that you don't engage in WP:Edit warring, and yet you reverted me. Clearly, you think that just reverting me once wasn't WP:Edit warring when there was just the two of us. This is where WP:Gaming the system comes in. It takes two to edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't justified at all, and that you're apparently saying here that you weren't even aware of which edits you were making nor prepared to correct them after being made aware of them only serves to illustrate that. You claim it was all about the chapter structure after I have repeatedly told you that I didn't object to you reverting the chapter structure changes, only to the indiscriminate blanket reverts of three days of edits by multiple editors, and especially the coverage of Leaving Neverland in the body of the article. It's also quite telling that you received practically no support and that the RfC resulted in near-unanimous consensus on the new chapter structure. No, reverting you a single time a week ago when you repeatedly reverted three days of work of multiple editors (edits you now seem to admit that you hadn't reviewed carefully) isn't edit-warring. You could easily have stopped reverting after your first initial revert was rejected by others, and continued the discussion on the talk page. That would have been far more constructive, and it would probably have been easy to agree on reverting just the chapter structure and/or lead changes for the time being, until these issues could be resolved through more informal discussion and/or an RfC. --Tataral (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You keep stating the same thing over and over again, and you are wrong. I'm not repeating myself yet again. No, I'm not "apparently saying here that [I wasn't] even aware of which edits [I was] making nor prepared to correct them after being made aware of them." No, I haven't "admit[ted] that [I] hadn't reviewed carefully." There you go again acting like I'm in such the minority. Clearly, the minority is not that small. Multiple editors object to mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead and to your restructuring of the article. You speaking of it being telling that I "practically [had] no support" (notice your use of "practically") is a vice versa matter. No one else jumped up to revert me. Only you. And we can see from the lead discussions and now the RfC where other oppose votes have formed that the content added to the lead should not have been in the lead without consensus and that the structure of the article should never have been changed without giving time for more people to weigh in. And as for edit warring, admins will tell you that it takes two to edit war. And do stop acting like I reverted you multiple times; I reverted you twice, and I don't regret it. Hopefully, if I disappear for two days or close to two days again, I don't come back to the RfC having been abruptly closed by yet another involved editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You keep going on and on about the restructuring and lead changes after I've said nearly half a dozen times that there was no objection to reverting those changes at that time. The initial restructuring was correct and based on discussion, but reverting it would have been totally fine at the time if that had been what you actually did. In closing I'm just going to quote the humorous page that you linked to: If your opponent attempts to seize the last word for themselves, be careful to point out the folly of this strategy, perhaps citing this project page. With that in mind, this discussion has reached its end as far as I'm concerned. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead addition was not the best course of action. The restructuring was not correct. Maybe we both want the last word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources?

I see a few things cited to things on the Smoking Gun website. Opinion is divided on whether this constitutes a primary or a secondary source for Wikipedia's purposes. A fair summary is "use with care". What makes this a high-quality source for a Featured article? If there is material there that can be better sourced, maybe we should keep it. But we are drowning in material and the article might be better for removal of some of the dubiously sourced stuff. Thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

When I was hacking my way through the (once godawful, now hopefully slightly less so) Trial of Michael Jackson article, I threw out any reference to the Smoking Gun. It looks dubious to me and there seems to be uncertainty about exactly how great a source it is. We should do better. Popcornduff (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bloat and fancruft

Here is the version that got promoted. There are already problems with overinclusiveness and fanspeak in that version, but you can see just how much worse the article became as it doubled in size again in the 10 years after the subject's death. Fans hold it as a matter of faith that everything the great man did or said should be recorded. Apart from anything that may reflect poorly on the great man's "legacy", in which case we need to have a long verbatim quote from his lawyers or family members saying how unfair it is. Until an hour ago the talk page had an FAQ forbidding anybody from trying to cut the article down in size, yet that is what it desperately needs. After the work and study of the problem I have put in, I can say that both factors are at work; the FA standards have risen (the version I posted would not pass nowadays) and the article has also become much worse. I almost feel like we need to start from scratch; it might be easier to build a new article than to trim this monster down. What do others think? --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's crazy talk. The article is not the wreck you say it is, and I consider myself to have higher standards than most, even when it comes to FAs.

Nonetheless, starting again might well improve the article, because starting things again often does. In which case: good luck! Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, as you well know, improving the article is not mainly a matter of diligent research or good writing and copyediting (though both are required) but of teamwork. Its current state has been arrived at by years of dedicated work from Jackson fans. To achieve a decent article we will need to patiently achieve consensus for every major change. Look at the struggles we are having further down to restructure the article and to include proportionate coverage of his numerous sex abuse scandals. Luck isn't a factor here, and no one editor can achieve very much. We need to work together to improve this thing. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Flyer22, I have no qualms about a slash-and-burn approach to rewriting articles, and I'm not precious about FA. If you continue to go to town on this article I will support that. If you want to take a particular section or even the whole article and rewrite it from scratch I'll support that too, though I think that's less necessary. Either way, I'll be lurking in the background to delete unnecessary words. Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything MarchOrDie says here. I think it would be much better for this article to lose its FA status, then go through some solid work aimed at trimming it down, reducing fancruft, updating it, and restructuring it in a more appropriate way, and then go through a new FA procedure based on current standards and the current assessment of Jackson. --Tataral (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie continues to blow things out of proportion when it comes to this article's content. Some of the complaints are valid; others are pure opinion that don't align with even witnessing an FA review today. For example, MarchOrDie has an issue with "success." Jackson's enormous success, and that many sources use the term success to describe matters relating to his career, cannot be helped. "Success" shouldn't be overused, but it's not a dirty word, and it's not surprising that it would be used a lot in an article on Jackson. And, like I stated here (followup note here), there is no valid reason to replace "he credited his father's strict discipline with playing a large role in his success" with the less specific "he credited his father's strict discipline with playing a large role in his career." So I reverted that. And if a reliable source states that a song of his was the most successful of all-time, we should state that. Not make the song seem like any other song. Simply giving the number for the sales doesn't tell readers that the song was the most successful of all-time. With this edit, we can see MarchOrDie complaining about the word hardships being used. MarchOrDie replaced "Its content focuses on the hardships and public struggles Jackson went through prior to its production." with "Its content focuses on Jackson's emotional traumas." Like I stated, hardships is a valid term that reliable sources use. And we probably shouldn't call a matter a trauma unless the source does, even if emotional trauma is seen as the same thing as hardships by some people. "Public struggles" is also more specific than "emotional trauma."

MarchOrDie stated, "Until an hour ago the talk page had an FAQ forbidding anybody from trying to cut the article down in size, yet that is what it desperately needs." Not if it means cutting valid material that should be in the article. Per WP:Preserve, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Including commentary on the success of Jackson's songs, albums, or legacy that happens to be positive is not fancruft. If there are any negative things to state on those matters, then include it with WP:Due weight. We do this in all Wikipedia biography articles. Reception material is important. If anything is excessive, we cut it. WP:Fancruft (an essay, mind you) doesn't suggest cutting reception material simply because a lot of it is positive.

MarchOrDie stated, "Its current state has been arrived at by years of dedicated work from Jackson fans. To achieve a decent article we will need to patiently achieve consensus for every major change. Look at the struggles we are having further down to restructure the article and to include proportionate coverage of his numerous sex abuse scandals." Sigh. I am not a Jackson fan. I would state more about why I am not, but Wikipedia is not a forum and I think the implication as to why I am not a Jackson fan is clear from what I stated on my talk page...and from my reputation on child sexual abuse and pedophilia issues here at Wikipedia, including having to deal with pro-child sexual abuse and pro-pedophilie editors. And it's dismissive of you to state that your fellow editors who oppose restructuring this article all because of a documentary, which, yes, should not have a lot of space in this article (but rather just enough space per WP:Due weight), are all Jackson fans. A WP:Recentism argument is a valid argument in this case. Noting that the child sexual abuse content is right there in the article for everyone to see, with headings identifying the topics, is a valid argument. And you do not know if every editor who has spent years watching and editing this article is a Jackson fan. You don't know if most editors were/are. I certainly am not. You don't know if most editors who popped in to edit the article are Jackson fans. And let me be very clear: Jackson haters editing this article are not any better if they can't keep their POV in check. I try to be objective on the articles I edit at this site.

Above we have SNUGGUMS, an editor experienced with reviewing GAs and FAs, stating, "I wouldn't say it should be demoted now." I don't think Moxy, another editor experienced with what are FA-quality articles, would agree that the article should be demoted at this point in time either. And as for Tataral, well, I responded to Tataral above. Tataral's arguments are pure POV, not based on anything solid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any "Jackson haters" here at all. However, I see many editors who argue that the article should include balanced coverage of Jackson and his legacy, both his music and sexual abuse controversies. --Tataral (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

With the way you argue, it is hard to tell that "there aren't 'Jackson haters' here at all." And certainly those passionate in their belief that Jackson committed child sexual abuse dislike Jackson. Those who are aware of how I feel about child sexual abusers and believing child sexual abuse victims know or have an inkling of how I feel about Jackson, but most at this site also know that I am usually able to keep my POV in check on the articles that I edit. And as for balance, WP:Due weight does not like false balance. We do not yet know what Jackson's legacy will be regarding the child sexual abuse matters, which is why a number of editors have spoken of WP:Recentism. A reviewer included in the Leaving Neverland article states that the documentary presents "a devastating case against Michael Jackson" that "may forever change the legacy of the pop icon." May is the keyword. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who added that quote I can tell you that "may" is not the "keyword". As for his legacy, the whole point is that his legacy is under "radical re-examination" as one of the editors that you frequently invoke in your comments put it. The debate on his legacy is highly notable in itself, due to the massive commentary and coverage it has received in reliable sources. That we can't know for sure exactly how people will view him in 20 or 50 years is not the point. It is beyond doubt that the 2019 controversy will be notable in the history of Jackson's legacy. We also have numerous sources that phrase it without words like "may" and that state unequivocally that the documentary has serious consequences for his legacy. --Tataral (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What does you adding the quote have to do with anything? The quote states "may forever change the legacy of the pop icon." Not "has forever changed the legacy of the pop icon." A Quest For Knowledge tried to explain this (meaning this type of thing) to you in the #Inclusion of Leaving Neverland (with resulting controversy) in lead section below...to no avail. "That we can't know for sure exactly how people will view him in 20 or 50 years is not the point." is exactly the point when it comes to WP:Recentism and WP:Due weight. And when it comes to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hardships" and "struggles" are definitely not the right tone to take in the context of a billionaire pop star who slept with little boys and then received a media and legal backlash when some of them complained he had molested them. We don't extend this sympathetic language to the alleged victims. More NPOV language is required. And apart from POV, the continual repetition of "success" is jarring in an encyclopedia article. This is the language of fancruft, and it needs to be written more dispassionately. Rather than say dozens of Jackson's ventures were "successful", we should mention what they did that is considered a success. In most cases this means they sold well or received an award or favorable reviews. If the article's historical FA status is holding back improvements to the article it should be removed. It currently fails on stability, neutrality and length. As I said a while ago, it'd be better to talk out the problems here, but if that isn't possible it will have to be removed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not using "hardships" or "struggles" is all your opinion, an opinion that doesn't align with the many WP:Good and WP:Featured articles, old and new, at this site. There is nothing at WP:Words to watch, a page I'm active at, arguing against those words. I can see avoiding "hardships." But avoiding "struggles"? No. As for your statement that it's "not the right tone to take in the context of a billionaire pop star who slept with little boys and then received a media and legal backlash when some of them complained he had molested them," who other than you states that the piece in question is about the child sexual abuse allegations or solely about them? And how is you referring to the matter as "emotional traumas" any better and not lending sympathy to Jackson? "Success" is not "the language of fancruft" at all. It's language we use in numerous WP:GA and WP:FA articles about singers, songs, shows, films, etc. I stand by what I stated about "success" above. On a side note: "Slept with little boys" made me cringe. I realize that you might mean "slept with" literally, but, given it's euphemism for "had sex with," it made me cringe because I don't view adults being sexual with little children as "sleeping with them/having sex with them"; I view it as child sexual abuse.

This article became a featured article on July 28, 2008. You speak of the standards for FA having changed. But we can see that the Elvis Presley article, which was written in a similar style to this one, became a featured article on February 23, 2010 (just two years later), and, when it had its review last year, editors didn't state that it needed delisting because it was written by fans or had been years since it was elevated to FA status. They (except for Casliber, who didn't really give an opinion on the article's status) -- Xover, Laser_brain, Ritchie333, SandyGeorgia, Pstoller, SNUGGUMS, DannyMusicEditor, DrKay, and AGK -- saw it as needing some tweaking and likely cuts, but none of them stated that it didn't still meet WP:FA status. And they knew that a number of the editors likely being fans did not mean that the article lacks in quality. Being a fan doesn't mean that one doesn't know how to write a quality article. People on Wikipedia usually work on things they are interested in, whether they are fans or not. The way that the Jackson and Presley articles are written are the standard styles for articles of this type. If you are going to pick this article apart in the way you have done, I don't see what would keep you from doing the same to the Presley article if you were at all interested in it. No doubt you would have made the same or similar arguments for delisting it if Presley had previous child sexual abuse allegations in addition to a documentary alleging child sexual abuse on his part. The FA listing isn't holding the article back in any way. And as for "failing on stability," the stability aspect of FA does not mean that the article should not continue to be edited or have successive edits. It means it should not be "subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." The article has mainly been changing from day to day because you have recently been editing the article and some editors have edited to revert, tweak, or add on to your changes. It is not like more and more Leaving Neverland content should be added to this article. It has its own article. The size aspect is debatable, just like it is with the Presley article. I again refer to WP:Preserve. Then again, the editors who weighed in on the Presley review might feel differently about this article. Either way, I'm about ready to take this article off my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on reflection that "emotional trauma" was almost as bad as what we had before. I removed it quite a while back, and I think the article is the better for its removal. You've referred many, many times to WP:PRESERVE. Part of what you were arguing to preserve was having the subject die twice in the chronology. I agree with Popcornduff that the article is the better for the work I and others have done in the past couple of weeks to tighten it and refine the structure. Why not join us? There is work to be done here, and I have a feeling that we are not far from agreement on the actual content issues. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't "referred many, many times to WP:PRESERVE." You stated "Part of what you were arguing to preserve was having the subject die twice in the chronology." Incorrect. WP:PRESERVE does not mean preserving content that shouldn't be preserved. I already quoted part of the policy to you. I have nothing else to state on this matter. And Wugapodes's comments in the RfC below are brilliant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you have, and it's a shame you aren't aware of it. You'll get the respect you earn from me and arguing using WP:ALPHABETSOUP, quoting policies you clearly don't understand, repeating the same arguments over and over, writing a thousand words where ten would do, arguing about things when you clearly haven't even read the content you claim to be WP:PRESERVING; none of these evoke any respect at all from me. Some of us are trying to improve the article; if you choose not to join us, that's a choice only you can make. Shame though. Having gotten this far, I am determined to help bring this article to a modern FA level. As part of this I will ignore disruption and irrelevance going forward, unless another trip to AN/I becomes necessary. Let's hope not. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Do point me to all of the times I have mentioned WP:Preserve on this talk page. Go ahead. I am looking at all of the talk page right now, waiting for you to actually prove your case on that. There are not many mentions any sense of the word. I don't need respect from you. Nor do I want it. But since we are on the topic of respect, you'd have a chance of getting respect from me if you weren't making up WP:FA standards and what are good writing standards and using that to attack other editors or edit the article in biased and trivial ways. Nothing about your "emotional trauma" edit screams "GOOD WRITING" or "FA LEVEL," which you at least admitted. Policies I don't understand? Not according to the many cases I have been a part of concerning these policies on this site. Not to mention that I am involved in watching and helping craft a number of this site's guidelines and policies. I'm not the one erroneously citing WP:Canvassing violations at WP:ANI and it resulting in no one but me (the one you accused of WP:Canvassing) paying it any mind. You edit and argue like an utter WP:Newbie. Then again, you have only been around since 2012 while I have been around since 2007. Repeating the same arguments over and over, you state? Pot meet kettle. And as for "writing a thousand words where ten would do," not all of your arguments have been brief either, and you make so many nonsensical statements that they require thorough rebuttals. Arguing about things I clearly haven't even read the content I claim to be WP:PRESERVING? This is a pure lack of comprehension on your part. I've been at this article for years, and am aware of what is in this article. Nowhere did I state that anything should be preserved that souldn't be preserved. When I speak of WP:Preserve, I am speaking of matters such as this case, where I preserved the material and built up the article appropriately. I mentioned WP:Preserve because are you are like the hack and slash editors who think or act like cutting material automatically makes the article better; these editors lack the foresight to see that they may be cutting things they should not cut. You've already shown that you sometimes cut in a trivial manner. That is something that I don't do. As for "modern FA level," you have not not shown what "modern FA level" is because you are speaking out of your ass. Disruption? Like I stated to one of your cohorts below, "You and your cohorts need to stop trying to get me topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing this article. It's not going to happen. I am not the problem at this article that I barely edit or this talk page." Your previous trip to WP:ANI with respect to me didn't receive much fanfare, now did it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I count 15 "preserve"s from you at the moment. You're welcome. Now let's get on with improving the article, which is what this page is for. Cheers. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Diffs? And do make clear if the mentions are only in this section, which would make sense considering that I first brought up WP:Preserve with my "19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)" above post, and we have now argued about my mention of WP:Preserve, which would naturally result in me mentioning WP:Preserve more. Common sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2019‎ (UTC)

• The article is currently at 13,048 words, 79,340 characters. 218,278 bytes. There are 459 unique references. I think there is still scope for some slimming down. There are certainly loads of daughter articles we can dump stuff into. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brought here by mention. Flyer22 Reborn is really hitting the nail on the head for this one. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify which of the many points Flyer22 Reborn has made that you agree with, and why? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I just don't think there's much to argue about here. The article has been drastically improved recently - does anyone disagree about that? If not, what's the worry? Popcornduff (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Now at Words: 12,923, Unique references 461. Inching forwards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with sourcing?

Why is Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2009). Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story, 1958–2009. Grand Central Publishing, 2009. ISBN 978-0-446-56474-8. used so much in the sourcing of this article? I am unable to find many positive reviews of his work, and he comes across as gossipy and partial in the reviews I can find. Aren't there any better (i.e. more academic and less fan-like) book sources to base such an important article on? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No suggestions for alternative sources, I'm afraid, but I'm suspicious of the book too. I haven't read it but the article uses it a lot and I'm not sure how respected or reliable it is. Popcornduff (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Taraborrelli is very unreliable. I would even say he's not much better than the average gossip columnist. Most of his sources are anonymous; personal details are uncorroborated and conflict with other verifiable sources. I suggest we tag his citations or remove them altogether. Partytemple (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other accusers not mentioned?

Where is the mention of Jason Francia, son of former Jackson maid Blanca Francia, who alleged molestation and received a cash settlement? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/05/michaeljacksontrial.music

What about Terry George, who alleged as far back as 1979 that Jackson called him on the phone while masturbating? https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/he-spoke-about-masturbation-michael-jacksons-1979-phone-call-to-terry-george/news-story/74774290d5d5bc2caac27ef81d921190

What about Michael Jacobs-Hagen, who says that while nothing explicitly sexual happened he slept in bed with Jackson, he was fondled by Jackson, and saw Jackson naked and masturbating? And who has a copy of one of the same "art books" that was seized from Jackson's home personally inscribed by Jackson? https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/celebrities-gone-bad/michael-jackson-called-me-his-rubba-rubba-boy-and-abused-me-when-i-was-just-14/news-story/c28595aff4cc45e6666520fabd167864

What about Star Arvizo, Gavin's brother, whose fingerprints were found on Jackson's pornography and who claims Jackson was naked in front of him?

You can't just boil it down to the four accusers that got the most media attention (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and James Shewcheck). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4302:4C2E:28AA:69F8:AD7:C238 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand there is a consensus that we need to expand the coverage of the allegations, and these are good sources. On the other hand, I wouldn't want this to become a long list of every person who has ever told a newspaper that the subject did something. See the section above pleading for better sources; we currently have many hundreds of sources of very varied quality, and there are doubts over the quality of the main book source we use. Eventually someone will write a decent quality book about Jackson (or have they already?). In the meantime we have to muddle along somehow with what we have. Any other thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For every accusation made against Jackson, there's trial evidence to disprove it.

The fingerprints case is disproved after jurors realized Tom Sneddon mishandled evidence by giving the porno magazine to Arvizo's bare hands. Arvizo was supposed to have gloves on. Here's a journalist explaining what happened in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x390rVfx3Qg

As for an authoritative book on Jackson, it may never exist sadly, not one with vivid intimate details. Like many other celebrities, Jackson had a deliberate, conscientious control over his image. (Such as his "marriage" to Lisa Marie Presley. I think it was a PR stunt.) He just happened to be one of the most famous pop stars in the world, lived a private life and had private relationships. This got people wondering and some conjured wild mythologies about him. —Partytemple (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Stray factoids that keep coming back

I see we have an editor who wishes to PRESERVE When Jackson and McCartney were unable to make a joint purchase, McCartney did not want to be the sole owner of the Beatles' songs, and did not pursue an offer on his own.. While it isn't as bad as having Jackson die multiple times, I'm having difficulty seeing this as essential in a summary article about Jackson's life, let alone one that claims to be Featured. Somebody explain it to me please. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And also Jackson stated he had had only two rhinoplasties and no other facial surgery, but mentioned having had a dimple created in his chin. This is fan fiction; only a fan cares about the subject's detailed descriptions of what plastic surgery he did and didn't have, rhinoplasty by rhinoplasty. What respectable source writes like this? "Only two". Psh. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am really concerned here.....the opinions of the experienced editors is being ignored.... and in the middle of multiple debates the article is changing astronomically. Not sure what we can do here to get back on the right track.--Moxy (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion in edit summary that demotion might be best for now. A concerted root-and-branch rewrite producing a new version with better sourcing and less fan fiction that will truly represent our best work as an FA is supposed to do. That would be worth working for, wouldn't it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We also have may new media links added about topics that are covered in real publications already found in the article. Some of our publications not being used are more comprehensive.... and of course contain their own sources for even more info.--Moxy (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, as seen here and here, you twice removed the McCartney bit. I reverted you on the McCartney material here and here (followup note here). I did so because you are removing context. Exactly why do you think the fact that McCartney did not want to be the sole owner of the Beatles' songs, and did not pursue an offer on his own, does not relate to what Jackson did/Jackson's ownership?

As for the plastic surgery material, I think you need to familiarize yourself with what fan fiction is. It's not this. And if only fans cared about descriptions of Jackson's plastic surgery, so much of the material regarding Jackson would not be about his changing physical appearance (including his facial surgeries). We would not have the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article, which indicates just how much society, not just fans, have shown interest in descriptions of Jackson's plastic surgeries. His changing physical appearance is a significant aspect of his life and the topic of Michael Jackson. Obviously. It's why we have a section titled "1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films." Per WP:Summary style, we are supposed summarize what can be found in the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson. It makes no sense to only mention Jackson's changing skin color, and not also mention that his nose and chin changed. That is common sense. It is not like we have extensive body parts to mention. Mentioning his rhinoplasties and the dimple created in his chin is not some extensively detailed description. What respectable source writes like this? Any respectable source reporting on every notable aspect of Jackson's life. Just about all of Jackson's biographies address his changing physical appearance. And the "only two" part is his claim, which, like I mentioned, should probably be countered with what plastic surgeon experts state. Jackson states that he only had two nose jobs because plastic surgeon experts state state that he had more than two. But then again, we have the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article for further detail.

Moxy, when you sate that "the opinions of the experienced editors is being ignored," are you referring to my and your opinions being ignored for starters? After all, our opinions on the recent changes to this article's have been in sync. And we can see that other experienced editors have come along in the RfC and expressed what we expressed. And with this edit, you stated, " good to see experienced editors here at the RfC...clearly this is going in the wrong direction as per many policies." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. Do you have anything to say about what we were talking about? Common sense is often a cloak for an opinion without any merit. I'm afraid you'll have to give actual reasons, as stating that it is "common sense" won't do it. And this is an encyclopedia, not social media where you try to get "likes". Try to say what you think and why, briefly, rather than handwaving appeals to authority, if you can. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stick to what I stated, attitude editor. You brought up two aspects that you call factoids, and one that you ridiculously refer to as fan fiction. I addressed them. So I am on-topic. You are going off-topic with your typical personal attack garbage. WP:Summary style is clear. Your opinion that we should not adequately summarize the plastic surgery matter does not compute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And speaking of likes, you are clearly editing this article with WP:DON'TLIKEIT rationales. Do stop wasting my time with nonsense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and see WP:Common sense as well. We can do an RfC every time if you like, and you will see others dispute your faulty rationales. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a red link. Says it all. Anybody got anything useful to say? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.

— René Descartes[10] When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons.

--MarchOrDie (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 9 (UTC)

Good sense is following the WP:Summary style guideline. On your second complaint in this section, I've supported my position with a guideline and common sense, while your above post is nothing but WP:DON'TLIKEIT and attacks. You haven't given any solid reason for why we should only mention Jackson's changing skin color and not the fact that his face also changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, that we need to follow summary style. You might take a look at Graham's triangle, and try to raise the level of your arguments without creating straw men like we should only mention Jackson's changing skin color and not the fact that his face also changed. I don't think that, and haven't argued for that. I think we differ in our understanding of what a summary is, perhaps. Try to come up with an argument for why we need to keep the wording you restored, or come up with a compromise form of words that is better. We certainly need to lose the "only". And if you see personal attacks in anything I write, you know where my talk page is. I don't see any from me. I do take offense at being called "attitude editor", and I do take offense at being referred to [your] "common sense". Please don't do that, and please do make logical arguments and good-faith attempts at compromise. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I created no straw-man. You made a nonsensical claim about excluding the McCartney material and for not including the fact that Jackson's face had also changed. You argued that you are not stating "we should only mention Jackson's changing skin color and not the fact that his face also changed." But with your edit, all that was there is mention that his skin color had changed. We should also mention that his face changed. But stating "his face changed" is vague. Giving a few examples is not vague, and giving a few examples per summary style is enough. As for "only", I already suggested that it should probably be countered with what plastic surgeon experts state. There is nothing wrong with noting that while Jackson claimed minimal whatever surgery, plastic surgeon experts state otherwise. Of course, I'm not stating that we should use that exact wording. As for personal attacks, neither of us have been angels in this regard when it comes to responding to each other. To me, stating, "This is fan fiction; only a fan cares about the subject's detailed descriptions of what plastic surgery he did and didn't have, rhinoplasty by rhinoplasty. What respectable source writes like this? 'Only two'. Psh." is worse than stating "It makes no sense to only mention Jackson's changing skin color, and not also mention that his nose and chin changed. That is common sense." As I noted before, I'm not a Jackson fan, and an editor being a fan of a subject does not mean that the editor can't write a good or great article on that subject or that what they wrote is automatically non-neutral. The vast majority of people on Wikipedia write things they are interested in and/or are fans of. Someone who dislikes Jackson is not a better editor for the topic than a fan is. Everyone needs to watch their POVs. You keep disparaging editors' work as fancruft, "fan work," or whatever, as though it's a valid argument...when it is often just your opinion. There is nothing that is "fan material" about the McCartney bit. SNUGGUMS's reason for wanting to retain the McCartney bit is why I want to retain it. This is why I asked you: "Exactly why do you think the fact that McCartney did not want to be the sole owner of the Beatles' songs, and did not pursue an offer on his own, does not relate to what Jackson did/Jackson's ownership?" Editors on Wikipedia state "common sense" quite a lot, and, as noted, we even have a WP:Common sense page. Personal attacks? There are personal attacks from you with regard to me toward the end of the #Bloat and fancruft section above (your "09:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)" post). If you don't view those as personal attacks, you need to read WP:Personal attacks. Like it notes, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." If you come at me with an attitude, as you did with your initial post in this section, you should not be surprised to be called out on it or to receive an attitude from me in return. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The so-called "common sense" isn't very common given how much individual peoples' perceptions and senses can vary, so that term is basically meaningless as an argument/rationale. Saying "use common sense" incorrectly presumes that the general public shares your senses and thought processes, even if they agree with your stances on something. What we should do instead is discuss reasons why the above text is or isn't important enough to keep in this article. Personally, I would include the McCartney bit as the blurb about Beatles music ownership otherwise looks incomplete. Not exactly as sure what to say about the rhinoplasties when there's already lots of detail on other aspects of Jackson's physical appearance (such as his skin color). Neither are fan fiction by any means, which would refer to completely fictional stories written by fans (and probably posted on another site). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, by "common sense," I mean the common sense editing that should come with every editor's edits here. This is partly why the Wikipedia:Competence is required supplement page exists. Yes, common sense can be subjective, but it also often isn't. We agree on the McCartney bit. As for rhinoplasties, MarchOrDie's edit made it so that only Jackson skin color changing was mentioned. If we are to have a section that is partly about Jackson's changing appearance, we should note more than just skin color having changed. His nose and entire face being different have also had substantial discussion. And a bit of that should be in the section as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

See the page WP:Common sense is not common for additional insight on why the term "common sense" isn't a good basis to use for things and isn't as common as one might think. Worth a read. Anyway, Jackson's nose and face changing gaining lots of attention is a fair reason to include rhinoplasties. Thank you for bringing that up. The question now is how we phrase this detail in the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen that page, but I don't agree with it. Well, I mostly don't agree with it. Editors usually have common sense, and they usually should have common sense when editing here. While common sense can be subjective, it very often isn't. Otherwise, this encyclopedia wouldn't work. Again, WP:Competence is often cited and used as a reason for blocking editors for valid reasons. And WP:Common sense has good advice. Anyway, as is clear, my argument wasn't based on what should be common sense. Not solely anyway. It was based on what should be mentioned per WP:Due and WP:Summary style (although I didn't state "WP:Due" by name). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the terminology. Wikipedia has a good essay about fancruft, and maybe this is a better term to use. Anyway, you know I am happy to haggle about wording in the article, but we really cannot have "Jackson stated he had had only two rhinoplasties" in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fancruft is a more appropriate term for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hagiography is another possibility. I recognize there is no way to call out bad prose and bad content without potentially offending those who wrote it, or who think they are protecting something good. That's natural. But saying things like the two highlighted passages are terrible, isn't a personal attack. They are terrible. I was rather hoping in making my 282 edits, summarizing, removing duplication, over-writing, over-referencing and trivial fan factoids, that others would refine my imperfect writing. That's always a better possibility than reverting. Reverting is horrible, much worse than a personal attack, real or imaginary, and collectively we should be able to do better than that. I am sure we can. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What is bad prose or bad content is not always fact. Editors differ on that, including when bringing articles to FA level. I've watched enough FA discussions to know that. No one argued that stating "passages are terrible" is a personal attack. Per above, my issue is with the way you have addressed things at times. As for your view that "reverting is horrible," I cannot agree with that at all. This is for the same reasons I and others have discussed at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (check the archives). I am not a fan of the Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary essay. And as seen at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status, editors, including myself, felt that elevating WP:BRD to a guideline page would essentially be enforcing WP:1RR. Reverting on Wikipedia is essential. And those that can't handle being reverted should rethink editing here. We only have WP:1RR or WP:0RR on certain pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And the vast majority of your edits to this article have been retained. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I should think so too. One problem with "Jackson stated he had had only two rhinoplasties and no other facial surgery, but mentioned having had a dimple created in his chin." is that is is sourced to Jackson's own book, so it is primary material. It might be marginally interesting if there was a good source for an analysis of what he claimed he had done, what people who knew him said, and what the press said. We are slightly struggling for good sourcing on this article, but I don't think this is the sort of thing we accept primary sourcing on. Especially for a myth-maker like Jackson, it doesn't make sense just to report his claim like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And especially when it is all covered in great detail at Health and appearance of Michael Jackson. A brief summary is all we need here, not a blow-by-blow. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've supported not just going by Jackson's word that he only had two nose jobs. It's obvious that he did not just have two. I've supported a summary of his facial changes. More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jackson's cosmetic surgery: how do we deal with it?

All right, I've tagged this as primary sourced material. Slight further thoughts; on the one hand, I know it's an important part of Jackson's story that he had skin bleaching, nose jobs, and other plastic surgery. I also know that he denied various aspects of the work others who watched him could see he had had done. I also know that he was famous as a mythmaker, someone who enjoyed playing games with the press, as the article mentions. Finally I think it's pretty natural for someone to be reticent about their medical matters, even when they are cosmetic. Maybe especially in Jackson's case, as an African American gradually changing appearance to become more "white" looking. I think the scatter-gun approach used does not do the matter justice; rather than a full account of his rhinoplasties, how many he said he had, how many the press reckon he had, how many Taraborelli said he had, and doing this for every aspect of it, we should have probably a single well-sourced sentence describing the sort of things he had done, and his own reticence about it. I think it is more dignified and encyclopedic to do it that way. I'm pleased to see that there is only one other claim referenced to his own book. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

All we need to state is something similar to what is currently stated in the lead of the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article, which is that his skin color and facial features, such as his nose, changed and this prompted discussion that he bleached his skin and had extensive plastic surgery. I don't see a scatter approach in the "1986–1987: Changing appearance, tabloids, and films" section. That section begins with a focus on his skin. And per, WP:Summary style, I think we should retain that whole paragraph. I don't see that anything needs to be cut from it. The second paragraph focuses on the plastic surgery and his weight (although it also mentions his dermatologist and a nurse he had -- the mother of two of his children). I agree that more should be there. If you propose content here, we can see what we agree on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, I'm sure that the reason it was added is because the current wording has Taraborrelli stating that Jackson had vitiligo. The point of noting that Jackson's autopsy confirmed that he had vitiligo is making it clear that it's not just a claim that he had vitiligo. All of his life, Jackson had people doubting that he had vitiligo and concluding that his lightened skin was solely due to skin bleaching. One might state that his lightened skin was mainly due to skin bleaching (in addition to makeup), but that is beside the point. There are better sources commenting on Jackson's autopsy with respect to vitiligo. And the autopsy aspect is mentioned in the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Leaving Neverland (with resulting controversy) in lead

Readership of this article has increased fivefold during the last few days. Around 80% of all readers of this article currently come here because of Leaving Neverland. The coverage of Leaving Neverland around the world has been enormous; we have to go back a decade, to Jackson's death, to find a comparable level of coverage of Jackson in any capacity. It has also resulted in a significant backlash against Jackson and there are reports from many countries of his music being removed from radio stations. Countless commentators in RS have said this changes Jackson's legacy fundamentally. In other words, Leaving Neverland is a pivotal event in the history of Michael Jackson and his legacy, comparable to the revelations about Jimmy Savile after his death that also altered his legacy (despite the lack of a conviction).

In the world of popular culture, Leaving Neverland is without doubt the most discussed story not only this year, but at least since Harvey Weinstein. In fact it's easily one of the most discussed stories this year in any field.

The lead currently includes fairly trivial material about Jackson's earnings in 2016 and the conviction and brief incarceration of a doctor for involuntary manslaughter. Yet, Leaving Neverland is not mentioned in the lead.

I propose that Leaving Neverland (which I understand as the film and the resulting backlash against Jackson) is mentioned in the lead, and that we remove his 2016 earnings. --Tataral (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

While I'm fine with mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead along with its impact, I oppose removing earnings because that was a record amount tracked. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me, I don't consider the inclusion of the 2016 earnings as a very big issue in itself, as long as Leaving Neverland is also included.

In terms of wording, how about "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland about Jackson's alleged sexual abuse resulted in a backlash against Jackson, and many radio stations removed his music." --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose in lede. Perhaps in lede of Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. SITH (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no article called Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. That is a redirect to this article. The article appears to have been a pet project of the just topic-banned User:Awardmaniac. --Tataral (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support including this significant information in the lead; after all, it's a summary of the article and the article mentions it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the fourth paragraph, how would the Leaving Neverland material fit in? I don't see that it should come before that fourth paragraph or be its own paragraph. Per WP:Lead, we typically don't exceed four paragraphs. Perhaps propose here on the talk page how the text will fit with the fourth paragraph? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM, should not be included in the lead until after the long-term notability of the documentary has been evaluated. Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree withIlovetopaint especially because of WP:RECENTISM.Mcelite (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Given that the recent documentary relates to events from decades ago, has attracted enormous attention, and has already led to some fairly major reevaluation of Jackson's reputation, is RECENTISM really much of an argument? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is not recentism, this relates to events occurring decades ago and the documentary is an important development receiving significant and long-lasting coverage in numerous reliable sources.Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly a major issue, a major change in how Jackson is seen, and discussion in the lede would be appropriate and helpful. deisenbe (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support There is precedent for the inclusion of such allegations in top level sections, regardless of whether you believe documentary or not these are serious allegations and ones that have dogged his entire career. The documentary has aired, the allegations are out there and its now a part of history. So from a historical standpoint it should be in the lead. EL Foz87 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Jackson's career spanned 30+ years. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because of a recent event. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The source (the documentary) is recent, but the events took place over a long period. So I'm not sure how recentism comes into it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Recentism doesn't apply so much to the events, but the recent press coverage. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for the film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:RECENT is that "it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective," not that Wikipedia shouldn't cover developments simply because they are "recent," regardless of their merits (for example: hours after Trump's election as President, major changes would be appropriate). The key question is whether the 2019 backlash against Jackson is significant in the overall assessment of Jackson and his legacy. We have countless sources (just one random example: "Michael Jackson's legacy was changed by 'Leaving Neverland.' It's a long overdue reckoning for every fan.") that directly address that question and consider this year's developments to be of pivotal importance in the assessment of Jackson. In addition, this year's developments relating to Jackson have received more coverage in RS than any other issue relating to Jackson since his death a decade ago, and the lead already includes almost trivial details e.g. on the exact nature of the punishment of his doctor. It's also relevant that the sexual abuse issue has received extensive coverage over several decades and clearly had a significant impact on his life in the 1990s and 2000s, so the material isn't really that recent. --Tataral (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of WP:RECENTISM is to avoid exactly what this proposal is trying to do. Yes, there's a huge flurry of news at the moment, but we have no way of predicting whether this will be important in the long term. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If it's so important, why not wait a year or two and then decide? We have no WP:DEADLINEs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. WP:Recent doesn't suggest we ignore recent events, but that we deal with them appropriately. This is a significant event, and we have an article on it: Leaving Neverland. As it stands , this article is not dealing with Leaving Neverland appropriately, and it's starting to feel like we are whitewashing the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and we seek to provide a neutral balance in our all our articles, which means at times dealing with the negative, especially if it appears sensationalised in the media. What people are looking for is the non-sensational, neutral and factual account. So, we give a brief summary of the main points in the main body of this article, linking people to the fuller details in Leaving Neverland, and - as per WP:Lead - we briefly mention it in the lead, at the same time linking there also to Leaving Neverland. SilkTork (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nobody is suggested that we ignore recent events. It is covered in the article. The question is whether it belongs in the lede, and it's way too early to tell whether this is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is WP:RECENTISM because no one has argued to also include Living with Michael Jackson, which is arguably a much more notable documentary than Leaving Neverland. Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  That's almost funny. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I only say this because it's 15 years old and was released during Jackson's lifetime. Yet no one had talked about it in this talk page since it aired. There was as much media frenzy then as there is now. Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it doesn't really matter whether it happens now or soon, but it's clear there's a change in inertia about the feelings around Jackson. Probably best to play the long game and wait, keep the documentary matters to a subpage with a clear indication on the main article, perhaps with a single sentence in the lead. In due course it will change, of course, to something very different. I'm sad that we won't be hearing Thriller much longer on our radio stations. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Rambling Man – I’m quite sure that in 1-2 years, you’ll be hearing Thriller on Radio Stations again. There’s a new truth emerging – very slowly, but it is coming, dripping into mainstream media as the months go by, exposing Leaving Neverland as the scam it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBf5LGDm7dc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.5.147 (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about including the documentary Leaving Neverland, unless the moderators of the page want the section to be filled with graphic anecdotes because that's what the documentary is all about. They provide no evidence and most of their claims have already been brought under the microscope for serious scrutiny that cast a major doubt over the credibility of their assertions. For example, James Safechuck's train station allegation or Wade Robson being abused at Neverland when he was left alone by his family, have been debunked. Many crucial details have been omitted from the film. If there's a paragraph about Leaving Neverland, then there also must be a separate paragraph highlighting the discrepancies of LN. Talking about the backlash, what about Michael Jackson's songs rising the charts up again amidst the controversy? Most people have voted in favor of him in majority of the online polls. Or what about the Gardner School where parents voted to keep his name at the school's auditorium? If we're not aiming for the Wikipedia page to be another defamatory platform for Michael Jackson and his legacy, this facts too must be rightfully included. Facts and fairness matters! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deboleena.ghy (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Michael jackson 1992.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Aaron Carter

Someone named Aaron Carter, whom I've never heard of, has been added to the sentence that discussed the fact that five boys who knew Jackson very well, intimately and for long periods when they were very young (preteen and younger) have accused him of sexual abuse.

Safechuck and Robson were part of Jackson's entourage for years: they lived with him, travelled with him, dressed like him, slept with him and were literally "married" to him, and were practically like family members as the documentary discusses too. They occupied pretty much the same place in Jackson's life as Blanket and Paris and so on in later years, and Jackson treated them like his "mini-me's". They met Jackson when they were five and nine years old, and Jackson spent years grooming them and their families. Macaulay Culkin is also well known for spending much of his childhood at Neverland and his article has an entire section devoted to "Friendship with Michael Jackson." In fact, his "friendship with Michael Jackson" is the only thing Culkin is known for after his film career ended in 1994.

This Aaron Carter figure on the other hand doesn't seem to have any comparable relation to Jackson. His article doesn't once mention Jackson. The interview he gave seems mostly to be about baselessly attacking Safechuck and Robson, whom he doesn't know, and based on pure conjecture, and he actually says that he only met Jackson when he was 15 years old, nearly an adult and at a time that Jackson was already engulfed by scandal relating to sexual abuse allegations and could hardly be expected or afford to abuse some random 15-year old, and many years after Safechuck, Robson and even Culkin "left Neverland."

As the documentary and numerous sources discuss, Jackson is accused of molesting pre-teen and younger boys, and of losing interest once they reached puberty. That someone who was never part of Jackson's close entourage and who only knew him (barely) when he was much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on says he wasn't molested is of no value at all in a section that discusses allegations of molestation of preteen and younger boys who were part of Jackson's close circle, and only serves to mislead.

Quite frankly, the interview by Carter seems to be a publicity stunt merely to raise his public profile. --Tataral (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Your first four paragraphs make a good argument, well expressed. But your last paragraph is speculation and opinion. I'd suggest removing/retracting it. I see that it was a later edit anyway. Oska (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much point in removing it. It is indeed a personal observation/comment and not really part of the argument. --Tataral (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

> It is indeed a personal observation/comment

And thus doesn't belong here, especially when it is an attack on someone associated with the subject of the article. Not to be too dramatic but it's potentially libelous. Oska (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you that an assessment like that (he accuses Safechuck and Robson of "lying"; I comment that I view his comments as mainly a publicity stunt) wouldn't be regarded as libelous in any western country. --Tataral (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't even be straying in that direction. I'm not much of a fan of quoting policy guidelines but you've pushed me to go and find this one: WP:LIBEL. Quote: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Oska (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not posted any defamatory material anywhere. A (mildly) critical assessment of someone's public opinion or of a source has nothing at all to do with "libel" as that term is used in legal contexts and on WP:LIBEL. I'm not American, but in the US this would be a classic case of an assessment/expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment. You or anyone else are free to disagree with it, but this is really a distraction as I never claimed that my removal of the material was based on that brief comment (it was based on the preceding 96 % of my comment). In light of the distraction it caused I probably wouldn't have made it now – as a rather unimportant final, short comment – but I'm not willing to remove it based on a claim that it's libel when it's clearly not and when it's followed by a long discussion specifically on that sentence. --Tataral (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• We cannot entertain the idea of making a list of boys, pre-pubescent or otherwise, who Jackson did not abuse. Presumably it would be a very long list. Let's stick to the ones who allege he did. Following the section above, I have now removed this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that's a better solution. --Tataral (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm only now seeing this discussion... MarchOrDie, the article listed boys (or men) that alleged to have been abused by Jackson as well as boys (or men) that stated they were not abused by him; this showed balance. All I did was add Aaron Carter, a notable pop singer, to the list. He is well-known as the little brother of Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys, a famous boyband, and he has his own successful solo career as well, and he's gotten quite some press in recent years.

My point is, a proper Wikipedia article should be balanced and impartial. Yes, some boys alleged Jackson did molest them, but others who also slept in his bedroom stated they were not abused in any way. Why not inform the readers of that? That's how psychology works; if a reader only reads about boys who slept in his bedroom and made such allegations, it may very well give them the impression such allegations are true. Also reading about both boys who slept in his bedroom and declared they were not abused by him will leave a more balanced impression. Likewise, that section of the article should also list former employees of Jackson like nanny Grace Rwaramba or ex-bodyguard Bill Whitfield that stated not to have witnessed any such type of abuse in Jackson's home or insist that Jackson had no sexual interest in children. The list needs not be long or exhaustive; it's all about presenting a more fair and impartial view.

It's just like a trial; both the prosecution and the defence get to speak in front of the jurors so they get a balanced view of the situation. They may then make a decision and vote guilty or not guilty, and the judge renders his or her sentence. But what if the jurors only got to hear the prosecution? Would that be a fair trial? I think not, and the accused would be a lot more likely to be found guilty.

And that's the problem I have with removal of the list of boys/men supporting Jackson and that 'Leaving Neverland' film; I do not consider that film a documentary for it is very much one-sided (it only presents the perspective of accusers Robson, Safechuck and family members) and presents unproven accusations of emotional and sexual abuse and rape. Due research will show how many times have Robson and Safechuck lied or contradicted themselves.

Here's an article written by journalist and author Mike Smallcombe on the matter: https://www.mike-smallcombe.com/post/the-lies-of-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-accusers. From his website: "Mike has contributed to publications including Mirror Online, Mail Online, the Express, Metro, The Daily Record and more." Israell (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• And one more thing... Regarding Aaron Carter's age... Though he was 15, he was still a minor, and sexual relations with a minor does constitute child molestation, and I find it relevant to include that list of boys (including Aaron Carter) who support Jackson. Supposing one or more of all of Jackson's accusers were telling the truth (I don't believe, based on due research, any them to be truthful), he would likely have shown a carnal interest in Carter (a very handsome, baby-faced minor boy), even if 15, even if famous.

After all, a cook Phillip LeMarque alleged under oath during Jackson's 2005 trial that he saw Jackson grope Macaulay Culkin: "His left hand was inside the pants of the kid ... down into the pants ... in the crotch area," an allegation Culkin refuted. Therefore, according to Jackson's accusers, he'd definitely go after a famous kid...

And Wade Robson claims to have been abused and molested by Jackson until he was fourteen, which is very close to fifteen (not much of a difference). Israell (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Israell, thanks for your points.
• a proper Wikipedia article should be balanced and impartial, yes, see WP:NPOV, but ...
• reading about both boys who slept in his bedroom and declared they were not abused by him will leave a more balanced impression I don't agree; we need to be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE
• It's just like a trial; both the prosecution and the defence get to speak in front of the jurors Absolutely not, see FALSEBALANCE.
• Due research will show how many times have Robson and Safechuck lied or contradicted themselves; it's actually pretty common for sex abuse survivors to defend their abuser, so this tells us nothing. On the other hand, we have suffered from a (now topic-banned) former editor trying to undermine the credibility of witnesses. We absolutely cannot go there, per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH.
• journalist and author Mike Smallcombe Looking at the list of publications you provide, this sounds like a source to absolutely avoid. See WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:DAILYMAIL.
• a very handsome, baby-faced minor boy... he'd definitely go after a famous kid... That is your own opinion and constitutes original research, which we cannot use. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote: "...according to Jackson's accusers, he'd definitely go after a famous kid.", citing the testimony Phillip LeMarque gave under oath (he claimed that he saw Michael Jackson molest Macaulay Culkin).

And a question... I haven't seen what that editor (now topic-banned) wrote exactly, but what if there are reliable evidence, sources, documentation that those accusers have lied about a number of things? I'm not talking about previous testimonies in defence of Jackson but various other things. Just a side note, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Donald Trump were in recent years accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women, and a lot of individuals incl. public figures labelled them as "attempted rapists" or "rapists", etc. There is that trend to deem an individual guilty as soon as an accusation is made, even if there is no trial and no evidence. False allegations often plague an individual for life! Israell (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tataral, you wrote: "As the documentary and numerous sources discuss, Jackson is accused of molesting pre-teen and younger boys, and of losing interest once they reached puberty. That someone who was never part of Jackson's close entourage and who only knew him (barely) when he was much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on says he wasn't molested is of no value at all in a section that discusses allegations of molestation of preteen and younger boys who were part of Jackson's close circle, and only serves to mislead."

Well, according to Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed, Safechuck was now abused until he was... 16!

In his court filing, James Safechuck alleged to have been abused from age 10 to 14 (from 1988 to 1992). In Leaving Neverland, Safechuck clearly stated he'd "have sex" with Michael Jackson "above the train station" "every day." Michael Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe (and many others) revealed that the train station in question (referred to and shown in Leaving Neverland) was actually built from 1993 to 1994; James Safechuck, born on Feb. 28 1978, turned 16 in 1994.

Replying to Mr. Smallcombe (who provided legal proof of his findings), Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed tweeted: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.", to which Smallcombe responded: "So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14. It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story. This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly."

Therefore, IF Reed's statement is true and the alleged abuse did take place, Jackson molested Safechuck until he was 16, which means Aaron Carter, at 15 years old of age, was NOT "much older and outside the age group Jackson has been accused of preying on".

And according to Aaron, he did not barely know Jackson and they were close (even collaborating on music projects). Just because you had never heard of him before doesn't mean Carter was not well-known. Israell (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

Akshith Srinivas (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

please leave me to edit.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Regarded as one of the most significant cultural icons of the 20th century, he is often referred to as the "King of Pop" or simply "the King". Antavius (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If there's a certain change you'd like to make with this sentence, then please elaborate on how it should be edited. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

Block evasion by User:Keditz.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Michael Jackson sold 750 million records, not 350 million. There are many sources that have told this, including televised shows e.g This Is It press conference. Also, Chris Tucker told the audience at Michael Jackson Tribute On ‘Taking The Stage’ in 2017 that Michael Jackson had sold 1 billion records worldwide. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC) This is already covered in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Time, RIAA and Rolling Stone are highly reliable and held in high regard. One person against all these sources shouldn't dispute the claim that Michael Jackson sold 750 million records, the This Is It press conference was watched by millions and the introducer, Dermot O'Leary, says that Michael Jackson has sold 750 million records. Think about this, ABBA are said to have sold roughly 400 million records worldwide but Michael Jackson is apparently the 3rd best-selling artist. Also, there's barely any high regarded sources that state that the Beatles and Elvis sold the amount that is said on Wikipedia. So why should Michael Jackson's world record sales number be in need of more confirmation? 92.7.38.194 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Also, in the paragraph regarding Michael Jackson's best selling albums, Bad (1987) is missing. Bad should be there too. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC) It's not one person disputing it though, it's multiple reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, see Note 2. Inflated record sales are a feature of this topic, and we should be very careful in reporting the various claims and counter claims. My own feeling is that the article is still somewhat bogged down in immense detail about what sold what, what record it held, what it sold more than or less than, and so on. Where these are not sourced to strong secondary sources, they should be removed. Concerns about other articles are best addressed on those articles' talk pages, or at a project page. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Bad should be added in the 3rd paragraph of the article alongside Off the wall, Thriller and so on because it's also one of the best selling albums. Also, RIAA is the biggest/key source for albums sales in the United States. Wall street journal is not as knowledgeable with music than RIAA, Rolling Stone. Madonna sold 300 million records, you really think there's only a 50 million record gap between Madonna and Michael Jackson? 92.7.38.194 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC) I have no opinion one way or the other, I go with the spread of numbers in the reliable sources, and note the contradictions and controversies. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Oh cool. Bad should be put among the best-selling albums too. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Bad should also be put amongst the best-selling albums in the 3rd paragraph. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

EmircanGULER1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Casn I edit this page please. Thank you

You first need to get extended confirmed rights by making 500 or more edits and having an account that's at least 30 days old. See WP:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection for more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Michael Jackson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Michael Jackson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)