Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 35

The section 1993 allegations is not accurate .It is loaded with wrong information by citing non reliable sources like Taraborrelli and Maureen Orth. Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was not a match.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Thats why Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers at that time filed a motion in court, demanding the photographs of Jackson's genitals and buttocks be barred from the civil trial. The motion also stated that the copies of the photograph be handed over to them and wanting Jackson to be stripped searched for the second time.^[7] If Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was accurate why did the  Los Angeles County Grand Jury call his Mother Katherine Jackson to testify in front of them in the spring of 1994 ?? Why did the investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia??.^[8] If Jordan"s discription of MJ's penis was accurate he would have been indicted and arrested and that is WP:COMMONSENSE .Not sure if this makes any sense: How citing factual evidence by providing reliable sources not improving any article??? .I know you guys are trying to shorten and simplify the article, But how can you ignore the factul evidence to shorten the article?  And how is adding factual evidence with support of reliable sources look like it was written by Jackson fans? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Such detail is probably better for 1993 allegations article. It's best not to overfill this one when we have that for extended details. What might make it look like fans wrote the section is if you make it look like you're trying to personally debunk allegations when that's not your job to do. We're supposed to let published material discuss such matters and use what they say. Your insertion looked (at least partially) like a personal analysis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating a claim is correct and a claim merely exists. The article currently has the former which is misleading and unproven. The most objective approach is to state some people, like Tom Sneddon and Maureen Orth, have made the claim that the descriptions of Jackson's genitals was a match; but this was refuted by news reports that said investigators did not find the descriptions matching therefore Katherine Jackson had to be questioned. —Partytemple (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree w/ Akhiljaxxn and have nothing more to add, really, but a few links incl. a link to Michael Jackson's autopsy.^[9][10][11]

And why is it so pertinent to know if a text was written by a "fan" or not? The word "fan" itself is very vague. You have casual fans and listeners (that may listen to the artist once in awhile, possess select records of said artist), fans who are even more into the artist, may listen to them more often, possess even more of their material, and mega-fans who collect all the records and are more emotionally attached to the artist. And all those types of fans and listeners I've just listed may go to a concert of said artist—even non-fans may go to their concert, buy a tour programme, etc.

And Michael Jackson was such a huge artist and phenomenon that numerous people call themselves "fans". Should texts written by any of those people be proscribed on Wikipedia for supposed bias? It doesn't make sense. What matters is the content of the article and its sources. Don't you think a text written by a detractor (or a hater) of the artist (there are even hate sites out there) could be very much biased? It's no secret Tom Sneddon, Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, to name a few, were/are strong detractors of Jackson.

Maureen Orth also wrote that Jackson cleansed in sheep blood, and that he paid $150,000 to have 42 cows ritually sacrificed in Africa so he could curse his enemies and be blessed, and she stands by that! That outlandish claim is still on her official website!^[12][13] But only a "fan" could be biased... Israell (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There are already multiple credible citations regarding what actually happened during the strip search. To dismiss them as simply "fan" insertions is negligent and dishonest. How are all those news reports "personal analysis?" And to weigh a detractor's salacious, unproven claims as more credible or as equally credible as a news report negates the purpose of us cleaning up this article's sources. If there's anything that involved "personal analysis" or bias, it's those sensationalist pieces. —Partytemple (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

All these fascinating speculations and conspiracy theories about the dead singer's genitalia may possibly be useful on the daughter article. This one is pretty much fact-based and based on reliable sources. We are trying to make it better, not worse, so I don't think anything here is a useful addition. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The current article has this line from Taraborrelli which is not fact-based, "Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Jackson's genitals; a strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles." Can we at least reword this or add a source to dispute it? Chandler didn't correctly describe Jackson's genitalia, even the sub-article disputes this. It's misleading. —Partytemple (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to source. I don't object to finding a better source. We need to be careful and stay away from WP:FALSEBALANCE. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" is what's written currently, that Chandler described Jackson's genitals perfectly but he wasn't indicted or arrested. This narrative makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying Bobby saw me fall off a cliff and died, but here I am writing on Wikipedia. Nor did the "strip search reveal that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles," because the Los Angeles Times reported that the strip search proved Chandler's description incorrect so Katherine Jackson had to testify before a grand jury.

Moreover, "easy to source" is different from "fact-based," which was how you described the source (Taraborrelli) initially. This complacency to equate "easy to source" and "fact-based" is what's dragging this article's quality down, and doing it at the risk of insulting readers' intelligence. Further sources have already been linked down below in the references section. They are also used in the sub-article regarding the strip search. All of them come from reputable news outlets—at least much more reputable than Taraborrelli and Maureen Orth whom you had, again, described as "fact-based." I think the people who need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE are the ones who believe Taraborrelli, Tom Sneddon, Marueen Orth, and Vanity Fair to be unbiased, infallible, credible, "fact-based," "easy-to-source," among other kindly adjectives. The burden of proof is on them.

And before someone accuses me of "fan bias," since this fallacy has been brought up so many times, I haven't stated my opinions of Jackson's music anywhere on this site, so no one knows what I think of the entertainer. Everything I've posted here can easily be posted by anyone with some critical thought, fan or not. —Partytemple (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MarchorDie Hey your arguments are so lame. How is the content sourced by multiple reliable and reputed sources is fascinating speculations and conspiracy theories for you? The current version by you is based on non reliable sources like Taraborelli and Maureen Orth. How is an article by tabloid and sensational stuff make an encyclopedia article better?   You are trying to make the article  better by quantity wise by omitting the factual evidence by the police report and the findings of investigators and the grand jury. As long as '''a strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles.He also drew accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when it was lifted' this portion exist in the article by citing unrealiable sources ,the version that i added is an imporovement for the article.Hence the portion should be removed or I will go with my version If you oppose i have no way but take this issue to Wikipedia:DRN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ MarchOrDie and Akhiljaxxn. I actually already did discuss this matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Vanity_Fair_as_a_source_of_facts.

How is Michael Jackson's official autopsy report a "conspiracy theory" when it states he was NOT circumcised? And Black men (who have naturally nappy hair like Jackson did) do have naturally short, frizzy pubic hair (just like a natural redhead does have naturally red pubic hair). That's WP:COMMONSENSE. Jackson had vitiligo (he had publicly revealed it earlier in 1993 on The Oprah Winfrey Show), and one could easily guess his skin had dark and light patches. That's WP:COMMONSENSE. No one here is "fascinated by the dead singer's genitalia". Why such a tone? We just have an issue w/ the false notion that Jordan Chandler had correctly described his private parts when he clearly didn't! If there is a conspiracy theory, it's that false notion. Israell (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Autopsies aren't by any means conspiracy theories. The so-called "common sense" also isn't very common given the diversity of people's thought processes and perceptions, pretty rendering it much a meaningless term. See WP:Common sense is not common for more on its faults. Anyway, I admit there was too much detail on genitals here for Akhiljaxxn's initial addition to this section, but these changes on whether they matched Chandler's description are far better. No objections to finding better sources for claims when feasible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

____

I couldn't help but ask why is the Instrument line blank within the infobox? Shouldn't MJJ's familiarity (despite if being of limited fluency at the time of his passing) of the Piano, Keyboards, Guitar, and Drums be considered notable within the infobox - especially given his large and timeless stature as a musician? Many thanks in advance to whoever will read and respond to this.(LonerXL (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC))

Nope. That field is only used for instruments the musician is particularly known for (for example, Phil Collins is notable as a drummer as well as a singer, pianist, etc). MJ wasn't famous for using any instruments. Popcornduff (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:BESTSOURCES, both Taraborrelli and Orth have had their writings discredited repeatedly. We should be further cautious of articles pertaining to Michael Jackson; as Charles Thomson pointed out, Jackson was (and still is) a target for sensationalism, defamation, tabloid fodder, and even conspiracy theories. I suggest we restrict Taraborrelli’s and Orth’s citations by downgrading them with the word claim (“Taraborrelli claims,” “Maureen Orth claims,” etc.), or replace/remove them with more reliable sources.

For Taraborrelli, I have already disproved some of those passages and/or inserted alternative sources in the topic regarding Taraborrelli above. (Please edit them, I will rewrite the passages myself if needed, but the article is locked for me.) Some are easily disproven. Others seem too intimate to even find a different source, so they’re either fabrications or a result of Taraborrelli’s research. I’m inclined to go with the former because Taraborrelli’s book has dubious sourcing, many of which are anonymous and indirect hearsay.

Jackson did not approve of Taraborrelli’s biography back in 1991. According to this other biography on Jackson, Taraborrelli was offered $2 million by Jackson to not publish the book. Taraborrelli refused. While this doesn’t directly refute anything Taraborrelli wrote, it doesn’t make him much more than a gossip writer who exploited his friendship with Jackson either.

Berry Gordy, founder of Motown and close friend of Jackson, also disapproved of Taraborrelli and sued him for damages. Taraborrelli then removed all the lines associated with Gordy in his book.

As for Maureen Orth, she’s a complete hack and does not belong in Wikipedia. I have not read a single piece of hers on Michael Jackson that isn’t full of conjecture, speculation, conspiracy theory and gossip mongering. She is not a reporter but an op-ed writer who has an obsession with exposing Jackson as a child molester in some cover-up conspiracy in spite of actual evidence from verifiable news reports and police investigations. She doesn’t seem to know more about Jackson than the average tabloid reader.

Here’s one of the op-eds she wrote for Vanity Fair and it consists of nothing more than her opinion on various reports on Jackson’s life and behavior. She seems convinced that Jackson was gay, hated women, and attracted to young boys, and she regards various gossip writers as credible. I would categorize this as sensationalism.

Here’s another slanderous one saying things like “the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him,” which is laughable sensationalist nonsense. Jackson was in fact “deformed” by vitiligo and not “by his fame literally.” When does fame literally deform a person? No serious news reporter writes like this.

She also said, “I even found the business manager who told me on-the-record how he had had to wire $150,000 to a voodoo chief in Mali who had 42 cows ritually sacrificed in order to put a curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and 23 others on Jackson’s enemies list.” This sounds like a tabloid piece as it does not source the said business manager. Instead, she wrote the sentence referring to herself as the person who “found the business manager.” A news report wouldn’t be written in first-person, because the source would carry ownership of the facts. Whereas in an opinion piece the writer carries ownership of whatever is written.

We can go on and on arguing about Orth’s statements, but none of her articles for Vanity Fair qualify as a news piece. Under the description for the article “Losing His Grip,” Vanity Fair doesn’t even take ownership of Orth’s opinions, as it states, “Maureen Orth wonders if Jackson is as crazy as he seems—or a cool manipulator of his own fame.” Orth is the one who wonders, not the editors at Vanity Fair.

Vanity Fair is not known for investigative reporting but for their essays and op-eds. They are not The New York Times or The Washington Post, or any other news outlet that follows rules dividing opinion from facts.

As I have said before in previous topics, anyone who believes Orth’s article are credible or factual need to prove it, because I see nothing but sensationalism. —Partytemple (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. Israell (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There are alot of theories if his alive --WikiuserSMH (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)SHOCK-PICTURE-MICHAEL-Jackson-still-alive-and-sitting-in-crowd-this-year

None of them are true; he even had an autopsy after dying. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ther lemma now states that "At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys". The source for this factual quote is an articla in 'Vanity Fair'. Does the Wikipedia community blindly accept ideas put forward by 'Vanity Fair' as unquestionable facts? Do the facts referred to in the article sufficiently prove that these seven people 'accuse him' of abuse or inappropriate behavior? In answering these questions, please bear in mind that 'to accuse' a person is a formal status. It does not inclulde to 'suspect' a person or to 'have second thoughts' on a person. Can we maintain the idea that 'At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys"? I wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcouzijn (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is a very large and very well established source on everything related to popular culture. Jackson and his entire family and all his acquintances belong exclusively to the realm of popular culture, so in the case of Michael Jackson Vanity Fair is a perfectly acceptable source. Of course these claims have been very extensively covered by many other sources too; it's not like Vanity Fair is the only source covering those claims, so this is pretty much a non-issue, as we could easily find a bunch of other sources that say the exact same thing. --Tataral (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Michael Jackson's autopsy report, he was uncircumcised. Pages 15 and 39: ^[1]

But Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair claims that Jordan Chandler, who stated that Jackson was circumcised, correctly described Jackson's penis... ^{[2] [3]}

That is one of the biggest media lies told over and over. There is a huge visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. If you are circumcised, you know what an uncircumcised penis looks like. The description did not match. https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1091741787398402048

Nicole's View Livestream: Exclusive Taj & Brandi Jackson Discuss "Leaving Neverland" (from 47:56 to 49:42) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8PUNP8FkA

My point is, Vanity Fair may be a reputable source, it doesn't mean it is devoid of errors. Errors can happen in any publication, but they should be corrected when pointed out. Israell (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What does MGM have to do with this? --Tataral (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sure there are places on the Internet where you can discuss your views of Michael Jackson's penis, and what it proves about the credibility of the sources. For here, it really doesn't get us anywhere in terms of improving the article. I'm trying to be polite, but if I don't respond to any more posts of yours that say things like There is a huge visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, please don't take it as agreement. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My views? MarchOrDie, instead of trying to ridicule other editors, I politely and respectfully suggest you learn how to read. This is the second time I quote somebody, and I am told it's "my views". I quoted Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew. Am I Taj Jackson? No! So why are you making it sound like it was my own statement? A Vanity Fair article claims Jordan Chandler correctly identified Michael Jackson's private parts when he did not. My point is, Vanity Fair articles are not always 100% factual. I provided sources incl. Taj Jackson's tweet, his interview and Michael Jackson's autopsy report. Is that clear enough for you or do you need a translator? Israell (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's very interesting. This page is for discussing additions and corrections to the Wikipedia article on Michael Jackson. There are undoubtedly many, many others where you may discuss your views on Taj Jackson's views on his late uncle's genitalia. Unless you are suggesting an improvement to the article though, there is little point in bringing these points here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So funny... You don't get it, do you? We are discussing the use of Vanity Fair as a source of facts! Am I off-topic? No! I've explained that that magazine is not always devoid of errors, and I've included sources. Is my point clear enough now or should we waste more time arguing? Israell (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a red herring, twice. Firstly as the contention that our standard for sources is that they always be 100% accurate is not a true one. Please read WP:IRS for more details. And secondly, the contention that something Jackson's nephew said in a Tweet about what he thinks about the reliability of the witnesses, outweighs what the courts said or what other sources say, is only your opinion, and not one that many unbiased observers would or could share. Please see WP:NOR for details. Now, as I said, this is a place where we discuss improvements to the article. If your suggestion is that we remove Vanity Fair as a source, because you think it has made an error, the answer is "no". If you intend to continue this conversation, please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Orth has always been a National Enquirer Level Journalist.^[4] She only got to publish in more reputable outlets because of who her husband is.That people still use articles by this woman as a source for anything is ridiculous.There are multiple sources reported that the Jordan's description of Michael Jacksons penis was not matched.^{[5][6][7][8][9] [10]} If Jordan"s discription of MJ's penis was accurate he would have been handcuffed on the spot because they strip searched him, are yalll stupid? Saying the discription were matched..Thats like saying the police have a warrant to raid your house and they find drugs but they dont arrest you for it.why are the wikipedia editors are so stupid lol.--Funkof40000years (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Funkof40000years, please don't call people "stupid" on this site per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Objections over content are one thing, but it's not appropriate to insult others like that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Allright, SNUGGUMS. Does 'cognitively challenged' meet your requirement for a more 'civil' qualification? Or do you want a prohibition altogether on qualifications of people's known habits of acting in a less than intelligent way?Mcouzijn (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No because that still blatantly demeans one's intellect. We should instead provide insight on what changes would benefit articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Per the RfC (currently seen high above), I will be restoring this article to its previous setup since no once has done so yet. Per the RfC result, Moxy added an undue tag. I replied, "we just need to re-incorporate the material into the respective sections." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We Should work on this - this weekend the "Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland" getting even more bloated speculative media again...exact opposite of the RfC outcome..--Moxy 🍁 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Have restored the page to what was there after the RfC ....now going to move what we have into main body as per RfC above. All that badly sourced martial was removed but is seen in all the sub that are just full of allegations with little merit should also be cleaned up a bunch....So going to move chunks with headers to still easy to navigate.--Moxy 🍁 03:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a serious problem w/ this section of 'Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland':

"As of 2019, five boys who shared a bed with Jackson when they were preteens (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck) have alleged that he sexually abused them.[165][396] Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old.[397][398] Michael Jacobshagen also accused Jackson of child abuse, alleging Jackson had stripped naked before him in 1998 when he was 14 years old.[399][400][401] At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys.[402]"

What is known for certain is that Michael Jacobshagen met Michael Jackson once when 13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PouJliz3M. Jacobshagen, at the time, explained in an interview that, after taking him to the circus, Jackson took him to his hotel room where they played hide-and-seek. There is no evidence he truly did meet Jackson afterwards. Besides, he was reportedly caught selling fake Michael Jackson autographs, and he is not anywhere credible.^[1]

That's the problem. It has come to a point basically any man in his 30s or 40s, especially if they've been around Michael Jackson just once, can come out to the media and accuse him of anything they want including inappropriate sexual behaviour (like stripping naked in front of them), child sex molestation, emotional abuse and grooming.

Now, I know that Wikipedia is about verifiability; Jacobshagen did make such accusations. But shouldn't that section of the article also mention Corey Feldman, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Emmanuel Lewis who all did spend quite some time w/ Michael Jackson, and who, for the most part, did sleep in his bedroom, in his bed even, and who all repeatedly stated Jackson did not sexually abuse them? That section of the article used to mention them; I simply added Aaron Carter to the list, and I was told he was outside the age group of accusers. I was also told that list of supporters was WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I disagree w/ both statements. Why? Because Dan Reed himself confirmed Safechuck got the time of the end of the alleged abuse wrong (and was allegedly abused until he was 16 or 17 years old after that Neverland train station opened).^[2][3]

Therefore, Carter (who's admitted he slept in Jackson's bedroom when he was 15)^[4] is not outside the age group of the accusers.

And considering the fact basically anybody can now come out to the media and falsely accuse Michael (and will be believed even w/ no actual evidence), it is only decent and sensical to balance the article w/ arguments from boys who did sleep in Michael's bedroom, were close to him, spent time w/ him, and insist he never sexually molested them. I was told list of supporters would be too long... 5 boys (now men) is not a long list, not any longer than the list of accusers. This article must be impartial, neutral and not unnecessarily make him appear to be guilty, which so many already believe because of all such allegations and tabloid stories that have been printed for the past 26 years. Israell (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad Israell brought this up, because I just noticed there are serious issues with the section he quoted ("Renewed allegations").

Reference #398 of "Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old" links to Wikipedia itself and not the BBC. WP:CIRCULAR Either fix the link to match the documentary (I have not seen it myself) or remove it. I suggest removing it unless someone here claims to have seen it and can cite it properly.

On Reference #397, this is what the source article actually says: when Terry George had a genuine opportunity to tell the FBI his whole story, he didn't do it. Why? (I'm going to conjecture just slightly here.) Because lying to the Fed's is a felony. It's probably the same reason why the FBI never found any convincing evidence against Jackson, because no one had an honest abuse story to tell and they wouldn't dare to lie to the FBI. Instead, most of them took it to the tabloids or some sort of rag-paper willing to sell these defamatory stories. If we are going to include his allegations in that section, please include that he refused to tell the same abuse story to the Fed's. WP:WEIGHT

The last sentence, "At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys" also has serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:INTEGRITY issues. The source article describes how every one of those accusers lost their credibility after their accusations were brought to court and scrutinized. Please read it and rewrite that line to give a more honest portrayal of the article and, of course, the allegations surrounding Jackson. —Partytemple (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Another improper citation: #399 on the line about Jacobshagen is a reproduction of an article from The Sun, not a reliable source but a tabloid. WP:RS It clearly states at the bottom of the article, "This article originally appeared on The Sun and was reproduced with permission." —Partytemple (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree to some extent. ...have trimmed some....we will have to look at this though....need some good sources. What should we change ? --Moxy 🍁 04:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I just watched the part of the documentary that Hammelsmith linked. It didn't reflect the original sentence written in the article. Terry George repudiated the tabloid headlines calling them sensationalism and vaguely describing them as part true, part false. He said the same thing in the news.au article that was improperly cited. When the FBI came to interview him, he didn't tell the alleged story of abuse, rejected the tabloid stories and said he didn't "hold a grudge against Jackson." Hammelsmith, please do not manipulate sources and write half-truths. You also did that on the Leaving Neverland article with the sentence about Corey Feldman. —Partytemple (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Israell. I think that including Jacobshagen allegations without some context about his character can be misleading for the readers, especially since he has serious credibility issues.^[5] GiuliaZB (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I replaced: ""At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys." with "Some people from Jackson’s inner circle spoke out against Jackson, but they lacked credibility since none of them report Jackson to the police or tried to stop the alleged abuse." The article used as a source does not even mention "seven" or "at least seven", and it only says that "some people from Jackson's inner circle" "spoke out" against him.

The number "seven" and "sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys" is not what the article actually says. Why did that editor rewrite it that way on Wikipedia? And yes, the article specifies all those accusers lacked credibility.Israell (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence: "As of 2019, five boys who shared a bed with Jackson when they were preteens (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck) have alleged that he sexually abused them."

Jason Francia never stated he shared a bed w/ Michael, not even once!^[6][7][8]

As for Chandler, Robson and Safechuck, there is no evidence nor was there any admission by Michael Jackson that he did indeed share a bed with them. Israell (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) As of 2019, five individuals (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Wade Robson, and James Safechuck) have alleged that Jackson sexually abused them as children. This is WP:SYNTHESIS and should be removed. -Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree and removed.....we can't do the math. That said could we say "Numerous individuals blah blah blah..."--Moxy 🍁 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could add these sentences:

"Terry George accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old. Leif Garrett also claimed that Jackson once made an inappropriate sexual request of him in 1979 when Garrett was 17 years old."

by referencing News.com.au & Noise11.com ? Hammelsmith (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Hamelsmith To be honest, the part about Garrett is not reliable, specially the way you've interpreted it. Also, Terry George's claims were highly discredited because of no evidence. He could provide no recorded calls or tapes to prove his claim of having 'phone sex' with Michael Jackson. He never took it to authorities but to the tabloids and also later gave a statement that he was again friends with Jackson in a 2003 documentary by Louis Theroux. FBI monitored his claims, but there was no such evidence to be found and even the prosecution never considered him as credible. That says a lot about the credibility of the claims. Referencing: http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%201%20of%203/view One thing is for sure, the moderators have not looked into the depth of the accusations or have never followed the unusual pattern of the allegations made against Jackson. The media has always reported that he had an infatuation over prepubescent boys and is the reason why he didn't abuse Aaron Carter or Corey Feldman because they were teenagers when they had met him but again give a contradictory claim that he somehow tried to sexually incite a 17 year old Garret? Where's the logic or the credibility? Deboleena.ghy (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to say yet about Terry George, but the proposed bit on Leif Garrett seems like your personal interpretation of the event. The Noise11 link specifically states "Leif makes no judgement about what went down and explains in his book admitting that as Jackson is not around to defend himself he will make no assumptions on Michael's true intentions." Calling it "inappropriate" comes off as WP:SYNTH. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. Could I just omit the word "inappropriate?" I have to say, I would argue that Jackson's alleged 1979 request of Garrett would be considered inappropriate in almost any context. But, yes, that is my opinion. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be better. However, we have to be careful with the phrase "sexual request" as that would imply Jackson requested for Garrett to perform a certain act with/on him. It would be safer to go into specifics by saying something along the lines of Garrett alleging "Jackson once requested for him to teach him how to masturbate". For what it's worth, I find the idea of such a request disturbing myself even if it isn't technically abuse, but we have to keep our opinions out of articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I see it's better to just be specific. Regards & Thank you. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason we have such bad sources for this? Has any major news organization published this stuff?--Moxy 🍁 03:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The links that Hammelsmith gave in this thread are actually from trustworthy publications. You could argue stronger sourcing should be used, Moxy, but "bad sources" isn't a fair description. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The same news link used for Terry links to a story about how MJ kids father is some other dude and links to a story about Russian leader Putin being gay. So yes real problem with the source.--Moxy 🍁 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I included a time-stamped reference of Terry George speaking about the alleged event himself to Louis Theroux in his 2003 documentary. These are all allegations of course. But each testimony deserves a voice. Hammelsmith (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"a voice"...could you read over WP:Advocacy pls.

I do appreciate everyone's efforts to improve the article. I did find (link removed) for the Louis Theroux documentary, played at a rapid rate. I can time stamp the Terry George interview at 29:48, so anyone can have a chance to see it. I noticed that Partytemple wanted a link to the actual documentary itself and Dailymotion has one under Theroux's profile. I hope that SNUGGUMS, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell, Partytemple - all of us and more - can make our contributions to improve the article. I may still need some advice on policy. Hammelsmith (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pls see section bellow WP:CIRCULAR problems....ps his bio was purged of this years ago.--Moxy 🍁 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Partytemple, Thank you for watching it. Please know that I would never knowingly manipulate a source or write any half-truth for Wikipedia. Terry George also made the same allegation in 2005 to ABC's Primetime Live. Hammelsmith (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The documentary you linked features three people of dubious credibility: Maureen Orth (which I wrote about in this talk page), Diane Dimond, and Martin Bashir. All of whom engage in WP:SENSATIONAL. Terry George has also since refused to provide the exact story of his abuse to the FBI and rejected the tabloid headlines written about him. Again, if you want to include Terry George's allegations, you have to portray the whole story. Don't just write that he made allegations. You need to also write that he rejected the tabloid headlines, didn't give the FBI the abuse story when asked, and have nothing against Jackson. Anything less than this is a half-truth. WP:WEIGHT Same with the Vanity Fair article by Julie Miller. This very article discredited the allegations. This still needs to be fixed. —Partytemple (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article about the dishonesty on ABC's part behind the documentary. I think it's about the same documentary. —Partytemple (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• • I think we need a Consensus.* May I call the attention of SNUGGUMS, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for help.

→→I still strongly believe that Terry George's accusation of child abuse should be mentioned on this page. Partytemple wrote that there should be added context concerning how his story was first leaked by a friend without George's authority in 1993. I think that's a good idea too. But George did speak candidly about his allegation to Louis Theroux for his 2003 documentary, and again to ABC's Primetime Live 2005 special. The disclaimer before the 2005 TV special confirms that George was not financially compensated for his interview. Interviewees were compensated for the 2004 BBC Three special - Terry George was not in the 2004 special. This is another page about the 2004 BBC special. In 2009, Terry George spoke of his allegation again. In my opinion, his allegation can be mentioned on this Wiki page. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is included, then don't distort his words. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As can be seen by the post below and above his judgment and ability to evaluate sources is definitely a concern.....thus believeany edit should be post here first for evaluation. User:Hammelsmith pls join the talk in the last section of this talk page....some real concerns raised.--Moxy 🍁 01:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think all of this can be added to the page since it reflects the statements, sources, and allegations accurately. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus?

"Terry George also accused Jackson of child abuse over the telephone, occurring in 1979 when he was 13 years old.^[9] George stated that his abuse allegation was first press-leaked by his friend in 1993 without his permission. Yet, in the mid-2000s, George personally spoke of the alleged 1979 child abuse by Jackson.^[10] Some people from Jackson's inner circle also spoke out against him, but were not deemed credible as they did not report to the police or stop the alleged abuse."^[11]

Hammelsmith (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Again pls address the concernso raised bellow about your interpretation of the topic.--Moxy 🍁 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by my "interpretation." I have submitted what I believe should be added with careful wording and sources. Hammelsmith (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

OK then Opposes as per last section below.--Moxy 🍁 03:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Terry George was the first rumor noted by the FBI on Jackson's dossier, probably because his allegations were the earliest. If we are going to add Terry George, then I propose this:

In 1993, former disc jockey and nightclub owner Terry George alleged to British tabloids that Jackson made an indecent phone call with him when he was 13 years old. In light of the Chandler allegations, detectives from the FBI legal attaché in London contacted George about his story. The attaché decided not take any further action. George has since said he did not believe Jackson was a pedophile and was expecting to see Jackson at the first show of This Is It.^{[12][13][14][15]}

By the way, none of these allegations recently included in that section is "new" or "renewed." Not even the allegations in the Vanity Fair article (Reference #330). We should remove them or move them somewhere else. —Partytemple (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as a 13-year-old is a teen, not a child, plus I'm struggling to figure out how one can sexually abuse someone through a phone when that term tends to imply unwanted physical contact. I might be missing something, though sexual harassment on the phone would regardless be easier to imagine when there's many ways one can verbally harass others. As for Partytemple's comment on the "renewed sexual abuse allegations" section, maybe "posthumous" would be a better fit than "renewed". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant that Terry George, Jacobshagen, and those "several people" from the Neverland staff who alleged they saw abuse were not new. They were all dealt with in the 1993 allegations or the 2005 trial. Some of the staff were also mentioned in the 2005 trial witnesses section. Both George and Jacobshagen are old news since the 90s, and they have nothing to do with Leaving Neverland. The only new allegations are the ones coming from Leaving Neverland, and as far as I know, no one other than Wade Robson and James Safechuck has claimed to be abused by Jackson since his death.—Partytemple (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I'm fine with moving the pre-Leaving Neverland allegations to earlier sections in the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think that Terry George's allegation is noteworthy, but since I've been outvoted I'll leave it alone. I will only say that if he is telling the truth, it is considered child abuse if someone pleasures himself over the phone to a 13-year-old. It is not that different than sexting a minor. Of course, I have been out-voted, so I will not longer write about it here. I really do appreciate everyone taking the time to leave their opinion and discussing this with me. Regards :) Hammelsmith (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"As of 2019, Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck have all alleged that Jackson sexually abused them as children."^[16]

I believe this sentence should still be on the Wiki page. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No objections to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTHESIS. It's misleading (half-truth), redundant and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. All of them are addressed in the 1993, 2005, and Leaving Neverland articles. Hammelsmith, why do you insist on focusing only on the allegations made and not how their stories played out? They all have a beginning, middle and end. The only goal achieved by adding this sentence is to mislead people into believing that all of these cases are open and unresolved. It exploits readers' practice of only spending a few minutes on Wikipedia and not read the entire article. Either explain the whole story in summary and do it justice, or don't include it at all. By the way, I think Chandler and Arvizo have moved on with their lives and refused to be associated with their allegations since their respective investigations ended. —Partytemple (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence does not refer to cases, but allegations. They are all allegations. These individuals have not wavered since making each child sexual abuse accusation. I agree that Gavin Arvizo wants to go on with his life since he has turned down requests for interviews after the trial. Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia cannot discuss their experiences with Michael Jackson publicly since signing their non-disclosure agreements. Wade Robson and James Safechuck's claims are being appealed and they have publicly spoken their piece. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Chandler refused to testify in the 1993 investigation and the subsequent 2005 trial even when he had the chance to.^[17] NDA's can't hide crimes, such as pedophilia. The police will continue investigating regardless of the existence of an NDA. The reason why the 1993 investigation didn't indict Jackson was because the police couldn't find enough evidence and Chandler ran away with the settlement money after refusing to testify on open court. It had nothing to do with an NDA, as though it was some sort of cover-up. WP:FRINGE

Robson testified in court in 2005 that he was not abused. Safechuck gave a sworn testimony in 1993 in support of Jackson.^[18] He was also declared a non-entity by the judge in the 2005 trial, in contrast to his claim that he begged Jackson's assistant to appear on trial in 2005.^[19] So why do you tell one side of the story and not the other? Why prefer to tell just the alleged side and not the legally binding and sensible one. Again, the only thing achieved by only writing the allegations is to mislead people in thinking they are open cases. WP:WEIGHT —Partytemple (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I still believe this sentence should be on the Wiki page. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY. You haven't made a strong point on why this sentence must exist. It has no place in the article because they are already addressed separately in their respective sections. The only new allegations are Robson and Safechuck, who are already mentioned. Chandler, Arvizo, and Francia are old news. They don't want to be questioned anymore about the allegations they made, and they never came forward on their own since Leaving Neverland. So none of them are "renewed." Stop distorting facts, please. And I'm beginning to question your own bias for this article. The NDA theory makes no sense, and it isn't sourced. —Partytemple (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree in principle that there should be some attempt to find references to a statistical analysis to see if the weight of the number of accusers might be significant -- for NPOV there are probably also sources analyzing the N number (the number of children who had various types of involvement in MJ's life). A statement like "Eight people alleged that Jackson had sexually abused them as children" isn't from a source, it is original research, not allowed. There might be some existing research about sexual abuse allegations which we could refer to. We can't make our own little statistical study here in Wikipedia. Also one has to be careful because although MJ is probably guilty, there are a few cases like Jerry Sandusky where you have factual innocence despite seven or eight adults generating various reports of childhood sexual abuse over the years. Prosecutors coalescing evidence gathered over many years can confound a jury but we don't need to be prosecutors, and we don't need to prove anything. Createangelos (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree w/ all the points made by Partytemple. The Chandler, Francia and Arvizo cases are all mentioned in the 1993 and the 2005 articles, and it's all old news (not "renewed allegations"). As for Robson and Safechuck, they are already mentioned. That sentence is not necessary to that section of the article about renewed allegations and 'Leaving Neverland'.

Oppose as the aforementioned names are already included in the articles dealing with the allegation. There's no additional need to include that extra insignificant sentence. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If we add Terry George, Star Arvizo and Michael Jacobshagen to the list of accusers, we'll get to eight accusers (they also all accused Jackson at some point, and there are sources). And if we add that unnamed Toronto boy that also accused Jackson and then recanted on camera (a Hard Copy story by Diane Dimond)^[20], we'll get to nine accusers, and there may be other accusers we do not know of. Dimond herself admitted that 'Hard Copy' received "a constant stream of calls and letters from people making dubious claims". Therefore, it is not possible to even determine the precise number of people who accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse and related offences.

EDIT: Adding Leif Garrett, we'd get to ten accusers. He's recently accused Jackson of asking him to teach him how to masturbate when he was only 17, still a minor. But once again, it's still all allegations. Garrett waited 40 years (2019 at that) to tell his story.

Createangelos, I do not believe Jackson probably guilty 'cause each one of all nine accusers we know of were all challenged and deemed not credible due to refusal to testify, speak to the FBI, due to contradictory statements, inconsistencies (among others, those found in 'Leaving Neverland' and Jordan Chandler's inaccurate description of Jackson's private parts—he was not circumcised^[21]), the demeanour of the parents of some of those accusers (esp. Evan Chandler, Blanca Francia and Janet Arvizo), the monetary gains sought after by many of those accusers and some of their parents, that unnamed accuser's confession to lying, etc. If anything, all of that tells me he was only "guilty" of being (innocently) too giving, too generous, too kind, too good to those kids and family members, and that he was an easy target. I have yet to see irrefutable damning evidence, and Jackson was never ever found guilty during his lifetime. There'd need to be newly uncovered substantial evidence that can be proven in a court of law (not just tabloid stories and films), but it still could be tainted/fabricated since Jackson passed away ten years ago already and can no longer defend himself.

Hammelsmith, yes, we could fill the MJ articles with allegations, but as Partytemple explained, they need to be inserted in the pertinent sections of the right articles, and the whole stories needs to be told, not just the alleged side. Yes, we could mention Michael Jacobshagen's claims, but we'd need to mention the fact there's only evidence he met Jackson once, that he never accused Jackson at the time (when he was 13), that he was in recent years caught selling fake Jackson autographs, that he once admitted to being offered money to accuse Jackson, etc. I have sources for everything I've just listed.

And what about Diane Dimond's outlandish claim (she still stands by) that law enforcement sources in California told her Jackson paid "more than $200 million" to silence victims and their families?^[22][23] What victims? What families? Can she name them? Will she name her law enforcement sources? Is she telling the truth? If so, did her sources tell her the truth? Why wasn't Jackson ever found guilty, then?

At the end of the day, we do have a choice to make. Do we want to help improve MJ articles on Wiki or do we only want to focus on paedophilia/paedocriminality allegations and turn those articles into tabloids? Israell (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The intention is not to focus on child molestation allegations, but we cannot pretend that they do not exist. I think a consensus has been reached and I do accept that, although I am heartbroken. Octoberwoodland first added the sentence, and that seemed appropriate to me. I suppose everything will be answered in the fullness of time. I also want to thank everyone who initiated and contributed to this thread for your passion and input. Regards & Best. Hammelsmith (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We have not pretended the allegations do not exist. In fact, we have full articles for each of those scandals describing what occurred in meticulous detail and impartiality. I also agree with Israell that if we are only including the allegations and nothing else, this article could easily be turned into a tabloid. Hammelsmith please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. —Partytemple (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

True. We could even add Leif Garrett to the list of accusers—taking the count to a whopping ten— since he was only 17 when Jackson allegedly asked him to teach him how to masturbate. Garrett then allegedly gave Jackson a key to his room and directed Jackson to his stash of "naughty" magazines. Here's a link to the article posted by Hammelsmith earlier: http://www.noise11.com/news/michael-jackson-asked-leif-garrett-to-teach-him-how-to-masturbate-garrett-book-reveals-20190215.

Once again, it's all allegations, and Garrett waited 40 years (2019 at that) to tell his story. Israell (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, asking for masturbation instructions isn't technically a form of sexual abuse regardless of whether Garrett was telling the truth, so it's misleading to say he alleged MJ abused him. The Noise11 link used even specifically notes Leif makes no judgement about what went down and explains in his book admitting that as Jackson is not around to defend himself he will make no assumptions on Michael's true intentions. Sexual abuse would suggest Jackson touched him in an unwanted way. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this might be misinterpreting what Reed actually wrote, regardless of the headlines in the given references. In the Leaving Neverland Wiki page, it states,

"Reed responded [to Mike Smallcombe], 'The two still photos of the station shown in [the film] were in fact taken by James,' inferring that Safechuck experienced sexual abuse at Neverland before and after the train station was constructed."

Since Reed also acknowledged the legitimacy of the permit dates, I personally take this to mean that he is still supporting Safechuck's testimony as told to him and established by the photos he saw. Therefore, I believe the above quoted sentence accurately represents the positions of Reed, Safechuck, and Smallcombe in this matter as now known to the public.

For the record again, these are Dan Reed's words:

March 31, 2019 → "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

April 4, 2019 → "1. James Safechuck was at Neverland both before and after the construction of the train station there. The two still photos of the station shown in #leavingneverland were in fact taken by James, who is very clear that he was abused by Jackson in multiple places over many years.

2. #leavingneverland also makes clear that sexual contact between James and #MichaelJackson continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years. The station at Neverland is just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place."

Let us discuss. Hammelsmith (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss. No Leaving Neverland clearly, very distinctly states that Safechuck's alleged abuse didn't last any longer than 1992. It's what Safechuck has even declared in his sworn declaration in support of his lawsuit against the MJ estate in 2014! Didn't you hear Safechuck lament that in 1993 MJ was distancing himself from him and that he was replaced by Brett Barnes, who till date is adamant that he was never abused by Jackson but the creators of LN implied him as a victim nevertheless? Dan Reed destroyed the whole narrative of his film that Jackson discarded boys on reaching puberty. I've always seen a pattern with haters that they don't apply logic at all. I hope you're not on a mission to create Wikipedia as a haters page? Be objective and at least have a fair and unbiased approach. It's undeniable, that the credibility of leaving Neverland has been immensely criticized and is full of inconsistencies. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but the sentence has since been removed. Regards & Best. Hammelsmith (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please add the by him in his book adressed plastic surgery to the part about the autobiography, change: and attributed his changing facial appearance to puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting to: and attributed his changing facial appearance to surgery, puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting I have had my nose alteres twice and I recently added a cleft to my chin (Moonwalker p.229 http://www.mtv.com/news/1623608/michael-jacksons-memoir-moonwalk-read-excerpts-here/) ProblemBesucher (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I hope that's alright. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To clarify the last request: I meant the surgery should be included in the 1987–1990 section. I know it's mentioned in the section above that, but his autobiographie is mentioned in 1987-1990 the first time and it lists to what he attributed his changing appearance. The by him admitted surgeries should be included. He advertised this book afterall in his Oprah interview by saying he'll talk about his surgeries. 'and attributed his changing facial appearance to puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting' should be changed to: 'and attributed his changing facial appearance to three plastic surgeries, puberty, weight loss, a strict vegetarian diet, a change in hairstyle, and stage lighting' thanks! ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for not fully understanding your request the first time. I hope this change is better. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we add.....

"That same year, 13-year-old Jason Francia also accused Jackson of molesting him on three occasions. Jackson quietly settled the allegation out of court for over $2 million."^[1][2][3]

...under "1.7.1 Child sexual abuse accusations?"

--Moxy 🍁 23:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, I support the sentence. May I call again to SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus?

Oppose. WP:NPOV, WP:INTEGRITY. Misleading and factually incorrect, yet again. Here's the actual story: Jason Francia originally told detectives that Jackson did not molest him, even the source articles say it. That's why during the 2005 trial, Mesereau asked in cross-examination if the police pressured Francia to say that Jackson was a molester to explain why he changed his story.

Citation #1: "He also rebutted suggestions from Mr Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, that he had been pressured by police to make the allegation that Mr Jackson molested him. 'I didn't want to be embarrassed at school,' he said. 'I didn't want to be embarrassed anywhere. I was 13. The police were saying, if he did something then tell us, and I was like, no, I'm not gay."

Citation #2: "Under cross-examination today, he acknowledged that in his 1993 interview he initially said Jackson did not molest him."

Francia did not accuse Jackson of being a molester in 1993. If he told police Jackson did molest him, I think Jackson would have been indicted. I'm not sure when exactly Francia started giving a different story, but it wasn't 1993 and it wasn't his initial testimony. Francia came back to the allegations in 2005, when he was 24, and had to explain why he changed his story. As for the settlement money, I haven't heard this from anyone but Francia and his mother during the trial. Apparently, the first time he had ever talked about the molestation and settlement money in public was in the 2005 trial.^[4][5][6][7]

Hammelsmith is not being honest with her/his citations. Literally every citation we fixed was because of integrity or NPOV issues. I am tossing out WP:AGF and suspecting s/he might be doing this deliberately. —Partytemple (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All of my edits are done in good faith transcribed from the sources I read, and I assume the same with fellow editors. Francia's attorney, Kris Kallman, confirmed that a settlement was made. Summary of Kallman's testimony is in this source. Francia first made his accusation around 1994 and the settlement was "finalised in two stages, in 1996 and 1998" according to this source. Francia did admit that he initially told investigators in 1993 that he was not molested. I think it's fine and fair to include that fact as it is in this source I referenced. Anyone may also read this in the court transcripts. Good faith, comrades. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what's worse, that you read the articles and still preferred to write misleading sentences, or that you didn't read the articles and wrote sentences that didn't match the articles. Either way, you seem to believe every one of these accusers in spite of the fact that every article you cited disputes their credibility. Your thoughts are not reflecting what's written in the articles. And if your thoughts don't reflect what you cite, how could you possibly write anything with any integrity to the articles. —Partytemple (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It can certainly be argued that Jason Francia was not consistent and credible, but an accusation and a subsequent settlement out of court were indeed made. I certainly don't claim to have proof about the allegations either way and that would be against policy, of course, per original research. It is all in the transcripts. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per pretty much everything Partytemple said. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I just thought that another accusation resulting in another settlement was relevant to this Wiki page, but if you all say it isn't, there's nothing I can do. Thank you for discussing. Regards & Best, as always. Hammelsmith (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Another request: Could this sentence be added under **2002–2005: Second sexual abuse allegations, trial and acquittal?**

→"During the trial, it was revealed that Jackson had made another out-of-court settlement in the mid-1990s responding to Jason Francia's child molestation allegation, although Francia's mother never filed charges. Jason Francia also acknowledged, during his 2005 testimony, that he initially denied being molested in 1993."

This is confirmed in Charles Thomson's article, Catherine Elsworth's article, the BreakingNews article, and this Q magazine article.

May I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy, Israell & Partytemple for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I mean, allegations can be mentioned in appropriate sections of the right articles as long as the full story, the full context is given. When it's a single sentence that only focuses on the very allegation and briefly states there was a settlement, it causes a weight problem. Israell (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Undecided while that does at least show more than one side, I'm not quite sure how to place it within the section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Undecided (added June 23) All three references are very brief, such as the Guardian saying almost parenthetically, in discussing Meserau's cross-examination of Jason Francia, '...settled with his mother for a reported 2.4 million dollars.' But there is no reference in Guardian for who reported this. In the actual trial Francia describes money being put into his pants. It would be nice if someone can chase the details of this. Did Michael Jackson (or someone representing him) give 2.4 million dollars to Jason Francia's mom at some point? The proposed sentence '...quietly settled the allegation...' includes a lot of detail, implies that there was an allegation, implies that the settlement was done quietly -- which seems true since none of the sources describe it in more than one or two words, and include no source. It worries me to include the phrase 'settled quietly' based on how us editors can't find an original source. It's hard for us to find out about it, but are we then sure that the reason is because MJ wanted to make it hard for us to find out? Createangelos (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Israell & SNUGGUMS for your responses. Since the main objections seem to be weight and context, I suppose I'm content to leave the matter be for now, and be satisfied that the Francias story is just outlined on the Trial of Michael Jackson page. The trouble is, when it comes to the molestation allegations, a lot of the facts can be interpretive. I do know that a settlement "is in no way an admission of guilt," as Johnnie Cochran famously said. In other words, a settlement was made to the Francias, but because much is unknown about that situation, the public cannot definitively know why. I'm sure a lot of people on both sides of the innocence/guilt arguments are saying "I know why," but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Good faith, comrades & Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Createangelos. You made some good points about the sources. The best source is really the court transcript, but I think there is a Wiki policy disallowing that. The 2005 Francia cross-examination transcript and documentations would answer more of your questions. I've already accepted that my proposed sentences mentioning Francia cannot be added to this particular page due to issues of weight and context. The testimonies of both Jason Francia and his mother are appropriately outlined on the *Trial of Michael Jackson* page, since that was when the public first learned about his accusations. Thank you very much for discussing with us. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hammelsmith, so...as far as I could gather, what the Guardian is talking about is how defense attorney Mesereau suggested to Francia during cross-examination that his Mom had received a settlement, and Francia doesn't answer. It's confusing why the defense attorney thought it would be exculpatory, and presumably the prosecution witness too, who refuses to confirm it. I guess that was what was bothering me about saying Jackson "quietly" settled. His defense lawyer is *claiming* that the Mom settled and the only evidence we have of it is that Jackson's lawyer says it's so. So it's like if I told you "I stole a candy bar," and you were to tell someone "Createangelos quietly stole a candy bar without telling anyone." Knowing *only* that I told you..... How could a claim of having done something get reported in Wikipedia as having done it secretly? Createangelos (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Createangelos. May I refer you to a section from this source?

The housekeeper’s son received 2.4 million dollars from Jackson...but no criminal case was filed. The jury was told of the settlement but not the sum, and in brief testimony [from Jason Francia's] attorney, Kris Kallman, acknowledged the terms involved no admission of wrongdoing and specified it was intended to protect Jackson’s reputation.

The Francia's settlement from Jackson is also referred to in this article by Charles Thomson who is a proponent of Michael Jackson's innocence. I hope they help. Again, the best sources are the original court transcripts. I'm always happy to answer whatever questions I can. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead features this sentence: "He was also known for his unorthodox lifestyle, residing in a private amusement park he called Neverland Ranch, and often becoming the focus of tabloid scrutiny."

I don't actually a problem w/ it, but it was brought to my attention that it may be misleading somehow. Israell (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the 'Renewed Allegations' section, it was brought to my attention the following sentence is not directly linked to 'Leaving Neverland': "Some people from Jackson's inner circle spoke out against Jackson, but were not deemed credible since none of them reported Jackson to the police or tried to stop the alleged abuse." Israell (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the accusers mentioned in that article has anything to do with Leaving Neverland except for the fact that people dig up old news for comparison to the new allegations. I agree that it should be removed. —Partytemple (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask, since more members of Michael Jackson's former staff have spoken with more allegations since Leaving Neverland, isn't that a part of the renewed allegations? Hammelsmith (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't read the article, did you? —Partytemple (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

kindly add album ' Blood on the dance floor ' 1997 to discography section

thank you Hhafez2018 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The discography on this article is only including his six studio albums. Blood on the Dance Floor is a remix album and is included in his complete discography page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

He actually had 10 studio albums, not just 6. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Although, the last 6 are more well-known than the first four. WikiSmartLife (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make a difference when it comes to official count. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found better sources on the origins of the Jackson 5. Replace "The following year, the group signed with Motown[32] and relocated from Gary to Los Angeles.[33]" with

Bobby Taylor of Bobby Taylor & the Vancouvers brought the Jackson 5 to Motown after the group opened for Taylor at Chicago's Regal Theater in 1968. Taylor also produced some of their early recordings for the label, including a version of "Who's Lovin' You."^[8] In 1969 executives at Motown decided Diana Ross should introduce the Jackson 5 to the public and to bolster her career in television, sending off what was considered Motown's last product of its "production line."^[9] They made their first television appearance in 1969 in the Miss Black America Pageant where they performed a cover of "It's Your Thing."^[10]

Link to Diana Ross is used again in the section after. I hope it's not too much about the Jackson 5 and not Michael Jackson, but I've also noticed that most of the biography part of the article is just a list of hit songs. Partytemple (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I hope that's alright. Thank you too, for all your work & help. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Regarding the following line: "It earned Jackson seven more Grammys[57]...." He in fact won eight Grammys that evening: Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Best Pop Vocal Performance (Male), Best Rock Vocal Performance (Male), Best R&B Vocal Performance (Male), Best Rhythm & Blues Song, Best Recording for Children, and Producer of the Year (Non-classical). So, replace the line with

It earned Jackson eight Grammy awards in one ceremony (a record which he holds with Santana)...

Partytemple (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the Grammys for Thriller was to Bruce Swedien for Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical. So that award would have been presented to him.

Michael Jackson did indeed win 8 Grammys that night. Seven for Thriller and one for Best Recording for Children (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial audiobook album).

I added for you: "It won him seven more Grammys – along with his Grammy for the E.T. storybook, Jackson earned eight Grammy awards in one ceremony (a record he holds with Carlos Santana)."

 Done I hope that's alright. Thank you for all your good work. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Because Maureen Orth is not a very good source and this statement has been twisted by the tabloids so many times, can we change "Jackson stated in the documentary that he saw nothing wrong with sleeping with boys.[171]" to

Jackson stated in the documentary that he saw nothing wrong with having sleepovers with young people. He said, "Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone." He insisted his intentions were not sexual and very few children had actually stayed in his bed, while most were simply in his bedroom.^[1]

"Sleeping with" is also euphemism for sex, which Jackson denies doing. I think it's better if we quote him directly.

The following line: "As soon as the documentary aired, the Santa Barbara county attorney's office began a criminal investigation" is not true. After the documentary aired, Tom Sneddon said under California law merely sleeping with a child without "affirmative, offensive conduct" was not a criminal offence. Gloria Gruber, president of Prevent Child Abuse California, called for state authorities to interview the children with whom Jackson shared his bed.^[2] In other words, an investigation did not begin until a victim spoke out.

I suggest we explain what happened during the time between the broadcast of the documentary and the investigation in summary. —Partytemple (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

According to this NYT source, an investigation did in fact start after the documentary broadcast. Maybe the source above was wrong, or maybe I interpreted it wrong.

Can we replace the following line: "As soon as the documentary aired, the Santa Barbara county attorney's office began a criminal investigation. After the boy in the documentary and his mother told investigators that Jackson had behaved improperly, Jackson was arrested in November 2003 and charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of giving alcoholic drinks to the boy.[215] Jackson denied the allegations, saying the sleepovers were not sexual in nature" with

On December 18, 2003, Santa Barbara authorities formally charged Jackson with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of intoxicating a minor with alcoholic drinks.^[3]

because Taraborrelli isn't a consistent source. And we could remove the line about sleepovers since we mentioned it in the paragraph before. Partytemple (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, Michael Jackson did say "I have slept in the bed with many children." in this source. But he certainly was not criminally charged solely from the documentary.

From my memories of the trial in this source, Janet Arvizo testified that she first suspected impropriety when her son Gavin told her he had alcohol before they went to the hospital where Gavin Arvizo had to submit a urine sample.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You need to tell us - the question specifically is, what did Gavin tell you?

A. Gavin had called me about 4 a.m., and he had told me that Michael was scared because he had drank some Jesus Juice; that it was going to be detected in his urine. And that's when I told him, "Baby, what do you mean."

THE COURT: Wait, stop. He just asked what Gavin said.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Just stop.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know what "Jesus Juice" was?

A. I had asked what "Jesus Juice" was.

Q. Did he tell you what "Jesus Juice" was?

A. Wine.

Q. Was this the first time you knew that he had been -

A. This is the first time.

Janet Arvizo was then introduced to Larry Feldman through her lawyer Bill Dickerman. Feldman referred her and her children to psychologist Dr. Stan Katz to whom Gavin Arvizo first spoke of alleged inappropriate touching in this source. That's all the research I've done at the moment. I think Dr. Stan Katz said for the record that he didn't think Michael Jackson was a child molester, and Gavin Arvizo testified that he gave Katz "a different description" of abuse than he gave in the courtroom. So there are some discrepancies all around. I hope this helps with your edit request. Best regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the fourth (fifth?) time you've defended an unreliable source, and you introduced yet another unreliable source (vindicatemj.wordpress.com). It doesn't matter what the Arvizos said in court because they don't speak for Jackson, and neither does Maureen Orth who has a history of defamation and libel. Jackson specifically said his intentions were not sexual and that "sharing a bed" did not happen often and most sleepovers meant sharing his bedroom. Partytemple (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jackson stated in the documentary that he saw nothing wrong with having sleepovers with young people. He said, "Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone." He insisted his intentions were not sexual and very few children had actually stayed in his bed, while most were simply in his bedroom.

is what Jackson said, regardless of whether you believe if he molested anyone or not. WP:IMPARTIAL. Hammelsmith clearly cannot edit without bias and allows his/her opinions of Jackson distort facts. Partytemple (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I noticed that no one has dealt with your requests yet. So I integrated your edits as best I could. I hope it's alright and that you approve. Best to you, Hammelsmith (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I see Moxy rejected the edit. My issues with the statement are the unreliable source (Orth) and "sleeping with" is a euphemism for sex, which Jackson denied doing. So currently it sounds like he said he had sexual intercourse with boys, which is misleading and definitely not what he said in the documentary. It's not like he said he had sex with boys and then denied doing it, but that he never implied it to begin with, unlike what the tabloids claimed. Even Tom Sneddon and Gloria Gruber acknowledged that Jackson said "sharing a bed with boys" and not "sleeping with boys." If the quote is too long, perhaps we paraphrase what he said:

Jackson stated in the documentary that he saw nothing wrong with having sleepovers with young people and sharing a bed with them.

Partytemple (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No tabloids pls and best not change editors summaries with quotes MOS:QUOTATIONS. Let's be more clear as to what to include....if you don't find information in a real biography that you found in some obscure news paper consider that it's not for this overview article. Quoting court and scripts have article specifically for them so that different points of view can be expressed. It's hard to belive what's been going on here.--Moxy 🍁 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the current sentence is taken directly from a tabloid, and my suggested revision is from the Telegraph (this article) which I don't believe is a tabloid nor is it an obscure newspaper (it's widely distributed across the UK). As for a biography, there is no official, reliable biography on Michael Jackson except his own (Moonwalk), because he rejected pretty much most of them and especially Taraborrelli which this article cites extensively. I have written about Taraborrelli's inconsistencies in this talk page. And I revised my proposal to a more accurate paraphrasing instead of direct quote. Partytemple (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I checked and the information from the New York Times is already in the article anyway. So Moxy is right. Sorry for that, Partytemple. But the direction of your research might still be useful on the *Trial of Michael Jackson* page. Perhaps we'll see each other there. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Really, you're going to defend Orth again, a tabloid writer who's articles have been disproved multiple times and has a history of defamation and libel? I don't think Moxy understands what's going on right here, because the current article cites both Orth and Taraborrelli who are unreliable. And for the last time, there is no official reputable biography on Michael Jackson, obviously because he was a celebrity and kept his personal life private. Taraborrelli was sued by Barry Gordy and was asked not to publish his book by Jackson. Partytemple (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong here... User:Partytemple can you not edit the article? We need to cutout some information attributed to horrible sources I simply don't trust Hammelsmith to interpret any source properly...I can't see the NYT source (me from Canada where online is free so all social classes have access).--Moxy 🍁 02:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still a couple of edits away from 500. I was using this article from the Telegraph as source. Partytemple (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this (followup fix here), like I stated, mjfacts.com is not a reliable source.

I'm not sure what is meant by "bad source" with this edit.

Regarding this,^[1] that URL link (to that site) is not ideal. Better to cite the USA Today URL or no URL at all.

And regarding what is a reliable source, like I stated at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Taraborrelli is unreliable., our guideline on reliable sources is at WP:Reliable sources. And we also have a WP:BIASEDSOURCES section. Questions about the reliability of a source should be asked at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if one doesn't get a solid answer about the matter from one or more other editors. We have the WP:Reliable sources guideline to guide us, and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to ask about a source's reliability when we question it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this (followup note here), I'm taking the Taraborrelli matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard since Partytemple keeps removing Taraborrelli as a source from anything Partytemple doesn't like. And to repeat what I stated in my note, I don't know of any credible doctor who thinks that Jackson's light skin was completely due to vitiligo or completely due to vitiligo and makeup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been reported that Taraborrelli was sued by Berry Gordy for defamation, and his reputation is that of a gossip columnist. When you defend him, you are defending a potential slanderer and tabloid writer. It also doesn't matter what you know of Michael Jackson. There are plenty of things that we believe that are erroneous, so we need to proof by reliable sources to our beliefs. You also claim that I removed anything that "I don't like." I haven't said what "I like" or not about this article, so you wouldn't know what I like exactly. You wouldn't know whether I'm a fan of Jackson or not, because I haven't said anything about his music. Stop making silly accusations. —Partytemple (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Defending him? By noting that we go by a guideline and not personal opinion with regard to what reliable sources are? And that a lot of what Taraborrelli has stated can be supported by reliable sources, which is why it has been relatively easy to replace him as a source with other sources at the Michael Jackson article? Funny that you state that "it also doesn't matter what [I] know of Michael Jackson." That's how I feel about you and your Jackson fan editing at this article and other articles. It is easy to see that you are a Jackson fan. Your POV-editing at the Leaving Neverland article is just one matter that needs to be nipped in the bud. Yeah, you removed Taraborrelli stating that Jackson had been skin bleaching because you don't like it. When I mentioned "credible doctor," I was referring to doctors who have weighed in on Jackson's physical appearance; they are clear that he did not have just two nose jobs, like he claimed, and no other facial surgeries. They are clear that his light skin was not just due to vitiligo and makeup. That cleft chin did not come out of nowhere; that is not how biology works. But at least he stated that he had a dimple created in his chin. And researchers know how vitiligo works.

Anyway, the matter is now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using J. Randy Taraborrelli as a source in Michael Jackson articles. If you think that I'm going to sit here or there and thoroughly debate this matter with you, you are mistaken. I had enough interaction with you at WP:ANI, where you are lucky that I didn't start a thread about your WP:Personal attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

______