Wikiwand AI

Talk:Michael (2026 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

should this film be considered an "epic"?

as in epic, i mean a film with sweeping scope and, since its focused on a single character, with it's large budget, i am thinking it would be nice to add "epic" before "biographical musical drama film", but most epics usually have a orchestral soundtrack, but yeah i request to add "epic" to the page ~2025-38073-11 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Only if multiple reliable secondary sources say so. Popcornfud (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Agree castorbailey (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree AppleHeeead 58 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Should the article mention Fuqua's comments on the sexual abuse allegations?

Should Michael (2026 film) include director Antoine Fuqua's skeptical opinion on the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, wherein he stated, "sometimes people do some nasty things for some money" (), and if so, should the article also include Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed's response to Fuqua ()? silviaASH (inquire within) 23:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Options:

  • A. Remove Fuqua's commentary on the allegations
  • B. Keep Fuqua's commentary on the allegations and add no further commentary (status quo)
  • C. Keep Fuqua's commentary on the allegations and re-add Reed's commentary somewhere as well (under "Reception" probably)

Survey

  • A Reed's commentary has no place here, he was not involved in the movie and he is not a critic either, he is a biased party with financial and personal interest in painting Jackson as guilty. Fuqua's explanation as to why the allegations were not included should be included but his view that the allegations were financially motivated is another matter. I would support A for this reason. If Part 2 will address the allegations then in that article Fuqua's reason why they are presented as financial motivated lies should be included. We are not there yet.
castorbailey (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
A - Reeds comments are biased and not relevant to the article, he has clear money driven motivation for attacking the biopic & the allegations themselves were selectively cherry picked to avoid including any opposition to promote a neutral investigation or cross examination of the legitimacy of such claims.
Fuqua is credible is because there were legitimate legal issues preventing them from being included and because he himself did independent research & does not believe the media's story. Never17 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't believe Fuqua did do any independent research. He and the producers were backed by Michael Jackson's estate and told to make a film that was both flattering to Jackson's image and legally unproblematic for the estate. That's about as far from independent as I can imagine. Reed may have a conflict of interest, but he clearly did a significant amount of his own independent research when producing his documentaries, while Fuqua directed a dramatized biographical film that, by necessity and expectation, takes artistic liberties with the history. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
"Reed may have a conflict of interest, but he clearly did a significant amount of his own independent research when producing his documentaries"
No he didn't he plagarized a pro pedophilia book by Victor Guiterrez who was a admitted NAMBLA member Never17 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't know why he would do that considering the subject matter of his documentary. Do you have a source for that claim? silviaASH (inquire within) 23:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • A per my argument in the discussion section below, which I articulated prior to this becoming a formal RFC. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • BADRFC Personal opinions are irrelevant, what do the reliable sources do? Polygnotus (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    If you scrolled down to see what I already said about that: that comment has not been the subject of any meaningful secondary coverage, so I'd generally contend it's undue and should be removed
    I have only seen a few articles which just regurgitate the quote with no meaningful criticism or commentary added, so I'd generally contend it falls under WP:GOSSIP that is, at least at this time, irrelevant to the film's production. If you find other reliable sources that indicate otherwise, feel free to argue for B or C. "BADRFC" is not an answer. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is. What should be done is someone should make an overview of the available reliable sources and quotes from them, and then we can see what should be included in the article or not.
    If the overview of available reliable sources is 0 or 1 then we probably have our answer. Polygnotus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/apr/29/michael-jackson-biopic-criticised-by-leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed "sometimes people do some nasty things for some money"
    https://www.nme.com/news/film/michael-director-antoine-fuqua-questions-jackson-accusers-integrity-sometimes-people-do-nasty-things-for-money-3941640
    https://variety.com/2026/film/news/michael-director-antoine-fuqua-michael-jackson-alllegations-1236725933/
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624qx61r4wo
    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/leaving-neverland-director-michael-biopic-molestation-1235552585/
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/26/bad-movies-good-business-how-sanitised-biopics-became-a-hollywood-staple Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    There's a lot more to whether or not something should be included than just if there's sources for it. Something may be verifiable but be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, its inclusion may turn the article into a WP:COATRACK, or it may be WP:UNDUE or WP:ROUTINE, or any number of other things. Each of these sources simply regurgitates Fuqua's comments without adding any of their own commentary or challenging his opinion in any way (and the BBC one misattributes the original source of the quote), so this doesn't do a lot to convince me of anything other than that a handful of outlets jumped on the quote in order to get attention and stir up some clicks. They don't prove to me that the comment is WP:DUE or that it's meaningfully relevant to the production or reception of the film (no one says, "this comment makes me like/dislike the film or Fuqua more" or anything like that), which is the actually relevant criteria for inclusion I'm trying to discuss here.
    As an aside I'm a little baffled by someone with 40,000+ edits claiming that personal opinions are irrelevant. That's untrue. Personal opinions very much are relevant to Wikipedia editing, like it or not, because we are all individuals who interpret the policies differently and have different opinions on what the articles should look like. If this was not true there would be no edit wars, no need to build consensus, no need for any RFCs ever. We'd just math out what the reliable sources do and call it a day. To say there's no personal opinions involved in building consensus and resolving editorial disputes is a plain fiction. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Wikipedia should reflect what is in reliable sources. If reliable sources ignore something then we should do the same. If reliable sources focus on something, we should probably do the same. There are exceptions of course, there always are, but "if a bunch of reliable sources talk about it its probably worth mentioning" is a good rule of thumb.
    If this was not true there would be no edit wars, no need to build consensus, no need for any RFCs ever. Shockingly, people who start from the indisputable facts can still end up drawing wildly different conclusions. But when discussing something like this its good to start by collecting an overview of reliable sources, and go from there, instead of simply posting opinions. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, I guess. If that's your opinion, I can't stop you from believing that. But I still maintain that Fuqua's opinion is not a significant aspect of the film's production nor its reception, and it should not be included unless it's shown that Fuqua's opinion significantly influenced the production of the film, as castorbailey said (I agree with their comment pretty much 100 percent, by the way). Even if that quote by itself does get a lot of WP:LASTING WP:SIGCOV, it probably deserves to go in its own dedicated section, or under "Reception", or potentially even in a different article entirely, again, to avoid this article becoming a WP:COATRACK. This article is about the film Michael, not about the tangentially related personal beliefs of every single person involved in Michael. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    I can't stop you from believing that. You probably can. I disagree with myself roughly 49% of the time so all I need is a little nudge, a few good arguments and you got me.
    For example, you could point out that it was the settlement and not his personal opinions that decided what ended up on the screen. Or you could say it should be in Antoine Fuqua and not here for example.
    WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are about notability; whether an article about that subject should exist. Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    And while I believe Jackson is obviously guilty, there are reasons to be skeptical of Chandler, see 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Polygnotus (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    There is even more reason to be skeptical of the other allegations which essentially copied Chandler's and came with similar or far larger financial demands, which naturally clouds the obviousness of guilt. So while Fuqua is right that money can make people invent such allegations his comment about that does not belong in this article. castorbailey (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Remove the claim, but without prejudice to adding it to a later version of the article. The way it is currently included in the article is inappropriate. It doesn't make sense for it to be there as the there is nothing in that section that connects it to the writing process of the film's script, leading to a WP:COATRACK situation, and I would say that there is currently nowhere in the article it would be appropriate to put this information; however, if there was a subsection of the Production section that covered media reporting on the production or how the production of the movie was received by the media/public this could be a warranted inclusion. That section would very likely have to cover other things too for WP:DUE reasons. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    100 percent in agreement with this as well. If it becomes appropriate to re-add the information in this article or a hypothetical future article on the sequel, then the situation will have changed enough that my current arguments against including it will no longer apply. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Jimcastor I suggest that we both agree with Maltazarian and then someone can remove the {{rfc}} template and implement the consensus. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    I think we should give it a day or two to see if anyone objects and if no one does then let's go ahead and do that. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with this approach as well. 23impartial (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • C, include both Reed and Fuqua's comments. The allegations are relevant to the article as they were a big part of the film production and a big part of the critical response. Fuqua's opinion on the allegations is relevant as he's the director of the film. Reed's opinion on the treatment of the allegations in the film (or lack thereof) is relevant as he's one of the highest-profile supporters of the accusers. The opinions of both parties are supported by reliable secondary sources. I see no WP:DUE problem with either party. Both are obviously biased by their own interests, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't report their views, as long as they are properly attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. (As a hypothetical counterpoint, if Fuqua criticized Reed's anti-Jackson film Leaving Neverland, I would support including his criticism in the Leaving Neverland article.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • C, include both I looked some more into sources discussing this movie, and this aspect of the movie is what everyone is talking about, and Leaving Neverland is what everyone is contrasting it with. I think Fuqua expressed skepticism about the allegations to "Fuqua expressed skepticism about some of the allegations", which is closer to the source: He was skeptical of some of the accusers’ parents, particularly Chandler’s father, a dentist and sometime screenwriter named Evan Chandler, who was recorded threatening to insure that Jackson was “humiliated beyond belief.” (Evan Chandler died by suicide in 2009, a few months after Jackson’s death.) Fuqua stressed that he didn’t know the truth of the allegations against Jackson. But, he said, “sometimes people do some nasty things for some money.”. I fixed it. Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

UTC)

  • A, Remove for now and if a more appropriate section is added to the article, it can be added back. 23impartial (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: I can slightly understand including Fuqua’s comment as he was the director. Reed, on the other hand, has zero association with this film and is not a film critic. I am leaning towards including Reed’s comment on his own WP page and Fuqua’s comment on his own WP page. I’ve not come across an example of any other film that includes such sensationalism here on Wikipedia by some random guy that’s not a film critic having their comment about a movie included on similar pages.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The article on Leaving Neverland contains a paragraph of critical remarks from pop culture figures such as Madonna, Boy George and Joey Fatone, all of whom have "zero association" with Leaving Neverland and are not film critics. Popcornfud (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Null and void. The argument that we should include Dan Reed's recent criticisms of a film he had nothing to do with because the Leaving Neverland article includes reactions from Madonna, Boy George, and Joey Fatone is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy.
Those 2019 celebrity comments were added as examples of notable public discourse when Leaving Neverland first aired. That does not automatically create a precedent for giving similar weight to Reed's remarks here.
Reed is the director and producer of Leaving Neverland, so he has a direct professional, reputational, and financial interest in defending his own documentary against a rival production. His statements on the biopic go well beyond neutral reaction. They read as advocacy for his work. Reed himself admited in a January 29, 2019 Rolling Stone interview: “I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music." Again, if its comments are so notable put it on his page, where it belongs, not here. And quite frankly, it can be summed up in one sentence on his page. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
@TruthGuardians WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about if other articles exist. Polygnotus (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Wait, other stuff exists? But you said it doesn't exist. Which is it?
Here again is our persistent problem on articles about Michael Jackson: certain editors want certain opinions from certain people erased from Wikipedia because they don't like those opinons or trust those people. But the coverage in secondary sources is there, the opinion expressed isn't WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE, and it isn't expressed in Wikipedia's voice.
Fuqua also has "a direct professional, reputational, and financial interest" in defending his film; his motives are therefore underhanded! Must we strike his comments too? Popcornfud (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I would definitely say you can classify yourself in the “certain editors” category. But yeah, no. I’m pretty firm on this. Your arguments is not working here. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Which opinion is it I'm trying to remove from this article? Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Reed's comment that you're quoting there is him saying that he didn't know much about Jackson, in the past tense. Obviously he learned more about Jackson while working on the biopic and came to a particular position which gives him a conflict of interest in this case, but the point that Reed is and has been making is that prior to making Leaving Neverland he had no opinion on or stance for or against Jackson. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
There’s no proof of that. Zero. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
He said so in the Hollywood Reporter article I previously linked. "I don’t make documentaries about celebrities or pop music or any kind of music. I make documentaries about terror attacks and war and stuff. And so as a filmmaker, this was off my usual beat [...] I was skeptical at first, because Jackson’s so famous [...] I began by being skeptical and I ended by being sure that what Wade and James had to say had great merit."
He's obviously saying here that this was and is not his area of expertise and had no strong opinion of Jackson or the allegations, even being skeptical of them prior to producing the documentary, and developed a stronger position on the issue while working on the film.
Fuqua, I am sure, has developed a different position on the matter because he has been associated with different people who have been telling him different versions of the story, but, as he is duty-bound to promote the feel-good dramatization of Jackson's life that he was hired to make, he is not going to openly challenge the narrative set by Jackson's estate even if hypothetically he did disagree or harbor any deeper skepticism. Both parties obviously harbor a roughly equal degree of conflict of interest (though I would argue Fuqua's conflict of interest is greater, given that he has more to lose if he should criticize the narrative in a way that creates greater controversy with the public or within the estate). silviaASH (inquire within) 22:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed Fuqua's opinion on the allegations for now given that discussion here looks to have more or less died out and people generally seemed to align with at least not including it in the Writing section. If anyone would like to challenge that decision, or re-add it as part of a new and more appropriate section as Maltazarian suggests, feel free to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    Came here from the RfC page, and this seems to be a reasonable course of action. Tricky situation. I don't know that I came up with a hard-and-fast opinion. It will be interesting to see the direction of the page written about the next movie where I assume this controversy will have to be looked at a little more squarely. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

(Note: The comment below was written prior to this discussion's reformatting as a formal RfC.) silviaASH (inquire within) 23:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The current revision of the article mentions Fuqua's commentary on "the allegations" ("sometimes people do some nasty things for some money") which were first reported in his profile within The New Yorker, under the "Writing" subheading. In this revision to the article, I added a note of Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed's response to these comments, cited to this Hollywood Reporter article. (Popcornfud then trimmed the quote). Reed's commentary was later removed by TheWikiholic, who called it WP:UNDUE, as it was not directly relevant to the film. (Wikiholic also removed a bit from Reed about a leaked script, which I think is fair to do, and am not challenging at present.)

I felt that the point about takes on the sexual abuse allegations not being related to the film's production seemed quite reasonable, so I decided, as per WP:BALANCE, to also remove Fuqua's commentary in this edit. My logic for the removal was more or less as follows:

  • The filmmakers' thoughts on the allegations aren't directly relevant to the film's production...
    • Unless such opinions are directly related to their creative decisions during the production, which Fuqua's comment isn't, in this instance. He doesn't say, "yeah, I chose to omit the allegations because I don't believe them", or anything like that- if he'd done so, then it would make sense.
  • His opinion on the allegations is insubstantial and unsurprising; of course the director of the Michael Jackson hagiography would probably not think much of them. It doesn't bear much mentioning.
  • His statement on the allegations is not a prominent aspect of the film's production or reception, as far as I can tell, as basically no one responded to it except for Reed and it caused no controversy, so it's best to just leave it unmentioned here.

Wikiholic went and readded the statement, asserting that Fuqua's involvement as the director of this film meant his opinion should be given more WP:WEIGHT. I personally disagree with this. Fuqua was not at Neverland Ranch at the time of the alleged incidents, and neither was Reed, they are both filmmakers covering different aspects of the same guy in different films made long after the fact. (The only real, meaningful for here, difference between the two is one of them was sanctioned by the Jackson estate, which if anything makes Fuqua less reliable given he has a direct conflict of interest.) From this point of view, they are both using the film's release as an opportunity to essentially run their mouths. I therefore contend that both of their comments hold equal weight, and the article should either include them both, or omit them both. Obviously more responses to Fuqua's comments could emerge and this could change, but as of now I don't see it being relevant. Even if it is WP:DUE, it certainly shouldn't be under "Writing", since, as I said, the comment doesn't reveal anything about the writing process.

Reed's commentary about the biopic itself "How can you tell an authentic story about Michael Jackson without ever mentioning the fact that he was seriously accused of being a child molester? I just don’t really see it" could have a place somewhere under the "Reception" section, but given that film critics have already said this in reviews, I'd say it's probably not worth mentioning there either.

So anyway, to summarize, after considering this, I don't think the article should mention Fuqua's "nasty things for money" comment, since it doesn't directly relate to the movie's production process and he doesn't have any more authority than anyone else in this specific area, and also that comment has not been the subject of any meaningful secondary coverage, so I'd generally contend it's undue and should be removed, but obviously I'm posting this to get everyone's thoughts. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This is hearsay. It's simply an opinion and we need to leave all opinions -- both positive and negative -- out of the content. Fuqua's (and everyone else who has expressed an opinion either way) opinion is irrelevant. If you want to include his opinion, and all other opinions, create a separate page that focuses on the controversy(ies) that exist. Whose opinion would you include? Whose opinion would you omit? Can you imagine how large of a "rabbit's hole" you would create by including opinions?
Keep the original page about the movie clean and without bias. Kmogoz (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Opinions are not absolutely banned from being included on Wikipedia, this is not what NPOV means. Opinions of others are allowed to be neutrally described provided that they are relevant and their inclusion is appropriately proportionate (WP:BALANCE). Hell, in this very article, as in many articles on films and other media, there is a "Reception" section describing the opinions of critics about the work. See WP:OPINIONS and WP:SBEXT. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
This is correct. Popcornfud (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires including the fact that audiences like the film, in the lead

Currently, the lead mentions that reviewers have negative reactions towards the film. However, movies are consumer products, and are not marketed to reviewers. The lead says NOTHING about what the opinions of actual consumers are. Just having the fact that reviewers are negative towards it, without including the fact that audiences like it, is unbalanced and violates the WP:UNDUE policy which REQUIRES that "pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Marcus Markup (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You stopped short of the most important part: ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. As far as I have seen the audience reaction to the film has not yet equaled or dwarfed the reaction of film critics in significance. There are plenty of film articles where dissent among the critical consensus has amassed enough significance to get a prominent mention; see for instance Speed Racer (film). This is not one of those articles, and while it may become such an article, the sources for it are not there yet.
Further, nothing is "REQUIRED" to be included on Wikipedia. Please refer yourself to the Five pillars, and in particular the fifth of those five pillars, which prominently states: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Before you take this as license to edit the article however you want, have a jog over to the policy concerning Consensus, and in particular WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which details how a consensus is achieved through editing.
Long story short: if editors keep reverting your edits, it's generally best to take that as a hint that people disagree with you and that you should either a) stop, or b) make your case for why your edit should be included, rather than insist that it must be included. In this instance I don't see a strong case for mentioning the audience reception in the lead here. It's not a prominent aspect of the film's impact. Certain unregistered and new editors seem to be going to the Wikipedia page to impose their viewpoints onto the article a lot, which happens, given that the film is new and focused on a divisive pop culture figure in addition to being divisive itself, but most experienced editors watching this page appear to have quietly agreed that it's not necessary right now.
If you want to change our minds, you'll need to present a sufficient volume of reliable sources that discredit this notion, although keep in mind that depending on what they are, those may be rejected on other grounds like WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOTNEWS (among other possibilities). silviaASH (inquire within) 19:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
There is an overwhelming number of articles which detail how much audiences love the film. If we are going to include the fact that critics hate the film in the lead, due weight of course requires that be mentioned. The lead as it stands does not reflect reality. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Could you cite this "overwhelming" number of articles? Do you have links to them? silviaASH (inquire within) 21:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+audiences , then click the "News" tab Marcus Markup (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding. If you tell us to Google sources, then we're just going to assume you don't have any compelling evidence to offer and count your opinion out of the equation. You're the one challenging the status quo, the WP:ONUS to provide sources is on you. So I suggest you provide specific links.
For what it's worth, from my cursory look at the news tab, I don't see anything there that doesn't look like straightforward garden variety churnalism regurgitating user ratings for clicks. That's not what we want. You're going to need something more substantive than that. A mere WP:HITS argument will not help you here, nor will simply WP:REFBOMBING with no argument as to why the refs in question are strong sources for your claims. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
How many do you want? This https://www.ft.com/content/4407fd76-75a4-4ac4-87ea-aa0ce51fc0bc?syn-25a6b1a6=1 and this https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/news/michael-jackson-movie-biopic-reviews-rotten-tomatoes-b2964137.html was on the very first page of the results for me... do they look like "churnalism" to you? There are MORE than enough reliable sources to support simply having six or so words in the lead saying that audiences like it. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for providing those sources. So my opinion here (keep in mind this is my individual take, other editors may disagree with me):
  1. The Financial Times source. It states that the film is a "hit with audiences," but gives no detail of how or why beyond the box office gross. We already have mentioned in the article that the film was a box office success. This is redundant and not helpful for us, if we want to say "audiences liked it". Just because people saw it doesn't mean they all liked it.
  2. The Independent article is marginally better, in that they do actually cite an indication that audiences like the film: the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. However, they do not provide any details more specific than that, and I would say the mere score should not be included, per WP:FILMAUDIENCE. They themselves admit, quite rightly, that ...it is possible for these numbers to be manipulated in a process known as “review bombing”..., and do not give much other concrete evidence. I'd say this shouldn't be included, as to include it would be WP:RECENTISM. Maybe if the RT score holds steady and continues to attract significant coverage over time, then it could be discussed more in the article.
So, yeah. These may be reliable just for numbers, but numbers don't tell the whole story. We need detailed analysis. For an example of this, I'd suggest looking at the article Megalopolis (film), where the audience of that film was analyzed in detail in sources with exit polls and interest was shown in who saw the film and why, and what they thought of it. We need something like that: articles that say, quote the Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews, or document interviews with audience members who liked the film.
For an example of such an article, consider this New York Times article which investigates and analyzes audience reception of The Greatest Showman. The author polled audiences, stated who responded from where and how many people, and then discussed the implications of her findings. Find maybe three or four articles like that talking about Michael, and we're in business. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
So anyway, Marcus has tapped out of this conversation, but if others still think the audience reception should be mentioned, this is my take on what's needed to establish that the audience reception is significant. Discussion is obviously still open. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
On second thought... I have done my duty to the encyclopedia, and this is coming off my watchlist. I don't have the time or the patience for this kind of nonsense and your finger wagging. Peace out. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, that's a shame. It wasn't my intention to "finger-wag", I'm just trying my best to uphold our standards and aid in building consensus like all the other editors here are. I apologize if my tone came across as overly harsh, and I hope this experience hasn't put you off of contributing constructively. If you choose to continue editing, I hope you learn from this and heed feedback from your fellow editors in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to "finger-wag" I am not sure what your intention was, but that's clearly what you were doing. In my time on Wikipedia, I have never seen such a condescending attitude, to ANYONE. You go: if editors keep reverting your edits, it's generally best to take that as a hint that people disagree with you and that you should either a) stop, or b) make your case for why your edit should be included, That's what I did, THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING HERE! I dropped the stick and TOOK IT HERE! If you choose to continue editing, I hope you learn from this and heed feedback from your fellow editors in the future Of COURSE I intend to continue editing Wikipedia, and and I DID heed feedback! Marcus Markup (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't really know what to say here. I've been trying my best to patiently explain my point of view on this issue and you're just shrieking at me, refusing to provide much in the way of concrete evidence or cede any ground, not engaging with any of my arguments against the little evidence you have provided, and not being civil in the slightest. If this is your reaction to a mild disagreement like this, I don't know how you expect to collaborate with others in the face of larger and more heated disputes over editorial decisions that actually matter.
Let's be honest: it's not that big a deal whether or not the article on the Michael Jackson biopic says that audiences liked it or not. We're not debating huge world events with global ramifications here. It's just a movie. Chill out. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I have to agree that this looks like an overreaction. Please don't shout, Marcus! Popcornfud (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not "shrieking" about the coverage of the movie in the article. I was "shrieking" about you accusing me of behavior I did not exhibit, and then proceeding to lecture me about it. I would do it again, except without the caps. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
It is not my intention to "lecture". However, I was trying to point out that you had in fact been edit warring with others who disagreed with your changes. When told, both by me (on your user talk page) and by @HypnoBlader (via this edit summary) that you ought to try to discuss and reach a consensus rather than edit war, you opened this discussion on a rather bad foot (claiming very aggressively that the policy REQUIRES your editorial preferences to be reinstated) which indicated to me that perhaps you did not understand the policies and guidelines motivating the reversion of your edits and that it might be of help to explain the reasoning as I saw it, in plain language.
I was not trying to tell you off. I was just trying to explain, as thoroughly and clearly as I could, why I saw a problem with your point of view, and what I felt would be a potentially acceptable compromise. I also must stress that I am not the only person editing the page; clearly multiple editors including HypnoBlader, Popcornfud, and SNUGGUMS () agree with me, but others editing the page might very well disagree and might have just not yet have seen this discussion.
I am not the authority on this or any article. I do not WP:OWN it, and neither do you. If my opinion is shown to not match consensus after others weigh in, then I will gracefully accept that reality and move on, as I have done before in other disputes where I was in the minority. I'm not so confident I could say the same of you, based on your conduct in this discussion thus far. While you haven't quite said anything that I would consider an unambiguous personal attack, you are certainly failing WP:AGF here. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I was not "edit warring". For the text in question, I reverted one editor who cited and clearly misread WP:FILMAUDIENCE which was in no way applicable to text in the lead but instead applied to a "Audience reception" subsection, and then you. That is not an "edit war". Marcus Markup (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I was not "edit warring"- sorry, but I think your diffs tell a different story. Over the past few days, you've been reverting others' changes to both the lead and the "Critical response" section, back to your preferred version, in a pretty clear-cut violation of the three revert rule. But don't take my word for it:
silviaASH (inquire within) 00:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Most of those edits are not "reverts" in any way. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I mean, I would disagree, and I think most other reasonable editors would also, but I'll not press the issue. I'm less concerned with the edit warring, or whatever you call it, since in any case you seem to not be doing it anymore, and more concerned with how we can move forward on deciding how to mention the audience reception in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards. If you're willing to go back to my argument over here and respond with some sources of the sort I suggested, or a rational, policy-based refutation, maybe we can continue to discuss and reach a consensus. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I mean, I would disagree, and I think most other reasonable editors would also Your very first example was of me adding new content, and was in no way a "revert". I'm not going to waste my time reviewing your other examples here... I had a look them though and most of them are not reverts. And I already did cite a "rational, policy-based refutation", when I pointed out that WP:UNDUE "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and that just having the lead imply the movie sucks by only citing critics, does not include the other "significant viewponts" (namely, audience opinions). I still think the article is a misrepresentation of reality that way, in that movies are marketed to audiences, not critics. Anyway, I'm washing my hands of the whole affair and am outta here. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm washing my hands of the whole affair and am outta here You said that before, but yeah, sure. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I said I was removing it from my watch list. That did not preclude me from responding to your direct replies, which I get notified of because I am subscribed to the thread. You seem to be taunting me at this point, and I wish you would knock it off. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
If you would like to no longer be notified, then I recommend unsubscribing from the thread. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
I started the thread, and wish to be continued to be notified of changes to it. Please stop taunting me. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Upon searching, there is one source I found which might justify noting the disparity between audiences and critics, in Variety. If we found a few more sources like this I think I'd support adding mention of the disparity in the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
The disparity is already mentioned in the article, just not in the lead, under "Critical response" where it says, That the opinions of audiences was overwhelmingly positive, while critical response was largely negative, was controversial. At the risk of having it immediately removed, I will admit that I added that myself. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I've come close to removing that sentence a few times already, because I don't think simply stating that something is "controversial" without substantiating the nature of the controversy is a good idea. We already have a lump of prose at the bottom of the Reception section summarising the commentary from sources such as the Guardian about the disparity between the audience and the critics' response, so do we need to have that sentence at all? And I'm not even sure the sources really substantiate the claim that it was "controversial"... but I've yet to look closely at the new sources yet, so I could be wrong on that. Popcornfud (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't think there is any controversy at all in the disparity between audience and critical reception, other than the one being manufactured right now on this talk page by Marcus here. A movie that critics hate being a hit with audiences is, if anything, really quite routine. It happens all the time. There is nothing meaningfully exceptional shown about this particular instance, so I support removing that sentence. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Michael Jackson: The Verdict

Hey, I'd like to ask the Wikipedia editors to create a page about Michael Jackson: The Verdict, the new Netflix documentary about Michael. ~2026-30482-73 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news. Shouldn't we be waiting until this whatever it is airs? castorbailey (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Consider Wikipedia:Requested articles or creating a draft if you have the sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
should we be talking about Basir and his producer, the same producer of the Verdic exposing a 14 year old boy by face and name to a crazy world wide press. I would like to know if he knew that family had previously accused 3 others of SA in court for finacial gain. Michesl Jackson had not seen them for 2 years at the times of the interview. They were staying at Neverland after the Documentary to avoid the press and public. ~2026-37019-38 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
i would also add Bashir was totally disgraced in the Dyson report 2021.Diane Diamond her dource and Hard Copy were sued by Micheal Jackson in 97 for 1pp million.HBO have also been sued it is gone and i hooe the jury sue the verdic. I now see today that you have deducted 24million off Micheal box office. So that the media can lie about what the best box office is so far this year. Stopthe braindraìn (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2026

The picture of Jaafar Jackson used in the cast section is not Jaafar. Please remove it and add a accurate photo of him. Rainbow428 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe it isn't him. Day Creature (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
That's a picture of someone else, not Jaafar. Rainbow428 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
What makes you think so? You'll have to provide some more explanation if you want anyone to act on this. Day Creature (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
The man in the picture does not look like Jaafar. The name of the photo says 'Jaafar Jackson à Cannes' but he did not attend this year's film festival. Rainbow428 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
 Not done. Looks like him. Regardless, if you want to change an image, you're going to have to suggest an alternate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
It really does not look like him. It could be because of the specific expression he has on his face, but it could very well be somebody else entirely. Couldn't File:Jaafar Jackson.jpg be used? It's the one currently on Jaafar's main article. —El Millo (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's him or not, it's not a great photograph. The other one looks like a better option to me. Popcornfud (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Then add a new photo of Jaafar. Rainbow428 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, when I said "the other one looks like a better option to me", I was referring to this photo, File:Jaafar_Jackson.jpg, as suggested by El Millo above. Popcornfud (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
The picture of the actor that plays Michael needs to be changed, because that is NOT Jaafar Jackson. ~2026-32382-20 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Here's Jaafar's IMDB page, including a great picture of him! ~2026-32382-20 (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't use photos that belong to someone else. See WP:IUPC for a full explanation. Popcornfud (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"sanitized"

Why are we using two opinions (IndieWire and The Guardian) to generalize the critical reception? If "sanitized" was a common definition among critics, it would be acceptable to use it for the sake of brevity, but that is not the case. ~2026-34613-41 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2026

As can be seen in the article's edit history, the access date has been forgotten during the last several updates of the Rotten Tomatoes data. The data itself is completely up-to-date.

−
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|295|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=June 12, 2026}}
+
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|295|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=June 28, 2026}}

~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Needless churn. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Tagging the three most recent editors of the article in an unfortunately necessary defence against an editor disruptively declining any edit request I make MarioProtIV Evope Basil the Bat Lord ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2026 (2)

Redundant

−
making it the [[List of highest-grossing biographical films#Highest-grossing biopics|highest-grossing biographical film]] and music biopic of all time
+
making it the [[List of highest-grossing biographical films|highest-grossing biographical film]] of all time

~2026-32492-01 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Partly done, wording changed, link left intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2026 (3)

Before:

{{As of|2026|06|26|df=US}}, ''Michael'' has grossed $369 million in the United States and Canada and $591 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $960 million.<ref name="BOM"/><ref name="NUM"/> It became the highest-grossing film in the history of Lionsgate, surpassing ''[[The Hunger Games: Catching Fire]]'' ($865 million).<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |date=June 7, 2026 |title=We Are The World: 'Michael' With $898M WW Dances Past 'Hunger Games' & 'Twilight' Sequels To Become Lionsgate’s Biggest Pic Ever – Update |url=https://deadline.com/2026/06/box-office-michael-lionsgate-record-1236942231/ |access-date=June 8, 2026 |work=[[Deadline (magazine)|Deadline]] |archive-date=June 7, 2026 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260607204708/https://deadline.com/2026/06/box-office-michael-lionsgate-record-1236942231/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It also became the highest-grossing musical biopic film of all time, surpassing [[Bohemian Rhapsody (film)|''Bohemian Rhapsody'']] ($911 million).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Purnell |first=Kristofer |date=June 14, 2026 |title='Michael' overtakes 'Bohemian Rhapsody' as biggest music biopic ever |url=https://www.philstar.com/movies/2026/06/13/2534942/michael-overtakes-bohemian-rhapsody-biggest-music-biopic-ever |access-date=June 14, 2026 |work=[[The Philippine Star]]}}</ref>

After:

{{As of|2026|06|28|df=US}}, ''Michael'' has grossed $370.2{{Nbsp}}million domestically and $607.2{{Nbsp}}million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $977 million. It became the highest-grossing film in the history of Lionsgate, surpassing ''[[The Hunger Games: Catching Fire]]'' ($865{{Nbsp}}million), and the [[List of highest-grossing biographical films|highest-grossing biographical film]] of all time, surpassing ''[[Oppenheimer (film)|Oppenheimer]]'' ($975{{Nbsp}}million); the previous highest-grossing biographical film about a musician specifically was ''[[Bohemian Rhapsody (film)|Bohemian Rhapsody]]'' ($911{{Nbsp}}million).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rubin |first=Rebecca |date=2026-06-28 |title='Michael' Surpasses 'Oppenheimer' as Highest-Grossing Biopic With $977 Million Worldwide |url=https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/michael-box-office-record-surpasses-oppenheimer-1236797787 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260628182144/https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/michael-box-office-record-surpasses-oppenheimer-1236797787 |archive-date=2026-06-28 |access-date=2026-06-28 |work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |publisher=[[Penske Media Corporation]] |issn=0042-2738 |oclc=60626328}}</ref> ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Badly formatted, not clear what needs to be changed. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 18:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Theeverywhereperson And how exactly should it be formatted? ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Either you should have tried using textdiffs or put it in a change X to Y format for a visual edit. Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 19:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2026

−
{{As of|2026|06|26|df=US}}, ''Michael'' has grossed $369 million in the United States and Canada and $591 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $977.4 million.<ref name="BOM"/><ref name="NUM"/> It is now the highest-grossing [[biographical film]] of all time, surpassing[[Oppenheimer (2023 film)|''Oppenheimer'']].<ref>https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65905683/?ref_=nmnw_art_perm</ref> It became the highest-grossing film in the history of Lionsgate, surpassing ''[[The Hunger Games: Catching Fire]]'' ($865 million).<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |date=June 7, 2026 |title=We Are The World: 'Michael' With $898M WW Dances Past 'Hunger Games' & 'Twilight' Sequels To Become Lionsgate’s Biggest Pic Ever – Update |url=https://deadline.com/2026/06/box-office-michael-lionsgate-record-1236942231/ |access-date=June 8, 2026 |work=[[Deadline (magazine)|Deadline]] |archive-date=June 7, 2026 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260607204708/https://deadline.com/2026/06/box-office-michael-lionsgate-record-1236942231/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It also became the highest-grossing musical biopic film of all time, surpassing [[Bohemian Rhapsody (film)|''Bohemian Rhapsody'']] ($911 million).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Purnell |first=Kristofer |date=June 14, 2026 |title='Michael' overtakes 'Bohemian Rhapsody' as biggest music biopic ever |url=https://www.philstar.com/movies/2026/06/13/2534942/michael-overtakes-bohemian-rhapsody-biggest-music-biopic-ever |access-date=June 14, 2026 |work=[[The Philippine Star]]}}</ref>
+
{{As of|2026|06|28|df=US}}, ''Michael'' has grossed $370.2{{Nbsp}}million domestically and $607.2{{Nbsp}}million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $977{{Nbsp}}million. It became the highest-grossing film in the history of Lionsgate, surpassing ''[[The Hunger Games: Catching Fire]]'' ($865{{Nbsp}}million), and the [[List of highest-grossing biographical films|highest-grossing biographical film]] of all time, surpassing ''[[Oppenheimer (film)|Oppenheimer]]'' ($975{{Nbsp}}million); the previous highest-grossing biographical film about a musician specifically was ''[[Bohemian Rhapsody (film)|Bohemian Rhapsody]]'' ($911{{Nbsp}}million).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rubin |first=Rebecca |date=2026-06-28 |title='Michael' Surpasses 'Oppenheimer' as Highest-Grossing Biopic With $977 Million Worldwide |url=https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/michael-box-office-record-surpasses-oppenheimer-1236797787 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260628182144/https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/michael-box-office-record-surpasses-oppenheimer-1236797787 |archive-date=2026-06-28 |access-date=2026-06-28 |work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |publisher=[[Penske Media Corporation]] |issn=0042-2738 |oclc=60626328}}</ref>

~2026-32492-01 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done - First time I've actually seen someone use the diff template lolol pattersonuwu njz (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2026

−
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|295|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=June 12, 2026}}
+
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|296|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=July 1, 2026}}

~2026-32492-01 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done pattersonuwu njz (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2026

−
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|296|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=July 1, 2026}}
+
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|38|4.9|298|While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a 'greatest hits' album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon.|ref=y|access-date=July 12, 2026}}

~2026-32492-01 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done pattersonuwu njz (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have paid 4 times for wiki when asked. The figures for Micheal are wrong again

micheal has surpassed 1b box office has Russia gross at less the opening 20m lost. Japan is at least 6 million down since last i looked. Micheal is best selling film this year and they do not wsnt to admit this ~2026-39191-66 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2026 

Supershawn21 (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Physical Media Release
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Digital/Blu-ray/DVD

Is it OK to add information about the Digital, Blu-ray and DVD of this movie? Including the day it was released? Lonniemitchell22 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have sources, sure. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2026

Please add [Misha Suvorov] as [Animal Handler] to the "Cast" section.

Source to verify: Misha Suvorov (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source per WP:IMDB so a better reference is needed. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks