Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Remove Leaving Neverland from Lead

update: I see support for keeping this film in the lead based on solely the amount of coverage it got. By that logic we should include This is it too as it got even more coverage, twice as many reviews as Leaving Neverland, and its the most successful concert film of all time Leaving Neverland is certainly not the most successful anything of all time. Imagine including Amadeus in Mozart's lead just because it got a lot of coverage, lof of awards, it's a very famous film and positively impacted Mozart's legacy. Or Bohemian Rapsody in Queen's lead. Bohrap was far more successful than Leaving Neverland and had a huge impact on Queen's legacy still it's not mentioned in Queen's lead. Anyone who opposes the removal please explain why accross wikipedia it's only Michael Jackson where a posthumous film project should be mentioned in the lead especially when there is no evidence at this point the film had a lasting impact on his legacy.WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Keeping it also violates WP:SUMMARY: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points. No rational person can argue that Leaving Neverland is one of the most important points regarding Jackson given that the film excludes Jackson's side of the story, includes unproven allegations by two financially motivated accusers whose many claims are provably false and who have ungoing unresolved court cases as we speak, cases they may lose, also because clear and undeniable evidence shows the film did not reduce demand for Jackson's art and music. There are events which had far bigger impact even lasting impacts and they are still not mentioned in the lead: 1993 Oprah interview seen by far more people than Leaving Neverland, drew a worldwide audience of 90 million people, covered extensively, it also had a huge impact on Oprah's career 1993 Superbowl seen by far more people than Leaving Neverland, 133.4 million viewers, covered extensively, lasting impact, we have those fancy halftime shows today because Jackson started it 2003 Bashir special seen by far more people than Leaving Neverland, the UK airing had 15 million viewers while 38 million in the US, which led to criminal prosecution , obviously far more significant than a few stations not playing his music

There are many issues with Leaving Neverland being mentioned in the lead of this article, and quite frankly, being mentioned in the article at all. The film should only be mentioned in passing in the section that should only be renamed, “Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations” NOT “Leaving Neverland and posthumous child sexual abuse allegations.” The section should focus only focus on facts as presented in the courtroom, not stories from a film. Any details about the film should go on the film’s WP article, as it doesn’t belong here for the following reasons:

1. The lead should only include events which happened during the artist's life and a short summary of how he died not events which happened after he died. The film does not summarize the main idea of the article or who Jackson was.

2. There is no reference to any film project in the lead except Leaving Neverland. Why should that particular film have the privilege to be included there when it is clear that the film has no long term impact on Jackson’s life or legacy?

3. If we included film projects done after the artist died we could included such projects as Michael Jackson's This Is It, the world’s highest grossing concert film, or other documentaries. Why should it be Leaving Neverland which was not a sanctioned Michael Jackson film approved or associated with his Estate or entities?

4. If the posthumous accusations should be included in the lead, why not mention the lawsuits Robson and Safechuck filed as that came before the film.

5. Other dead artists like Elvis Presley, John Lennon, David Bowie, and Prince (musician) do not have any film or other project mentioned in their lead. Even the hugely successful Bohemian Rhapsody (film) isn’t mention on the leads of Freddie Mercury or Queen (band) pages. Why should it be different for Michael Jackson? castorbailey (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also think that the “Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations” section should be trimmed down a bit and that unrelated picture is unnecessary. We don't have a pic of Conrad Murray on the "Criminal investigation and prosecution" so why this? Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

These are very valid points that I too agree with. In fact, I agree with them all. I may take it a step further and say that the inclusion of Leaving Neverland violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. I’ll say trim the “Leaving Neverland and posthumous child sexual abuse allegations” section, rename as suggested above by dropping Leaving Neverland from the title of the section, and remove ALL mentions of Leaving Neverland from the lead. Any future updates should take place on Leaving Neverland’s WP article, not Michael Jackson’s. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like we all agree in a way. Hey Akhiljaxxn, What do you think? Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The "Leaving Neverland and posthumous child sexual abuse allegations" section should adequately summarize the Leaving Neverland article per WP:Summary style. Right now, it does that. Any trim that reduces the sufficient summary of what is found in the main article is a no for me. And given the significant attention the documentary got, including mention of Leaving Neverland in this article does not violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. Not mentioning it at all is a NPOV issue. I don't see that it matters much that "Leaving Neverland" is in the heading. As for whether or not mention of it belongs in the lead, that has been subject to extensive debate; see, for example, Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 33#Inclusion of Leaving Neverland (with resulting controversy) in lead. Also see Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article. Tataral and Oska were two of the biggest supporters of including content in the lead and a type of setup for this content in the article. Well, I think that Oska was also for including the material in the lead. I argued against some things. And as seen in that latter discussion, Tataral told me, "You, on the other hand, are the editor who have made multiple edits that have more or less removed any meaningful mention of Leaving Neverland from the article, and multiple editors here on this talk page feel the article is being whitewashed and sexual abuse downplayed." I wasn't trying to downplay anything, and it's easy to see how that RfC closed.

Because of the attention the documentary got and the section on it in the article, mentioning it in the lead does align with WP:Lead. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of "other dead artists like Elvis Presley, John Lennon, David Bowie, and Prince (musician) do not have any film or other project mentioned in their lead", were any of the films as controversial as this one? Per WP:Lead, prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. I won't buy any argument that the media (including social media) attention that came about as a result of this film wasn't a prominent controversy.

SNUGGUMS, Popcornduff and Hammelsmith, any thoughts? As seen above, I also pinged Tataral and Oska, despite our passionate disagreements, in case their feelings are now different on these matters and they want to weigh in. I can also ping all of the editors who were involved in those discussions I linked to. MarchOrDie is currently retired, though; so I won't ping him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Arguments presented here have not convinced me that the mention of Leaving Neverland should be included in the lead or even mentioned in the title of a section. The 5 points that the editor of this topic pointed out above definitely stand out as legitimate reasons to remove mention of a film in the lead and any section title as that does not define Jackson, his career, and his legacy after death. I am still leaning towards WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM guidelines being violated, more so the latter. I refuse to deny that Leaving Neverland received significant coverage, boy did it ever. I do believe that it should be mentioned in the posthumous accusation section, but only in passing. It being in the lead and also in the title of a section to this article feels like a promotional campaign for the film, as we are all aware of how much traffic Jackson's WP article receives, and the actual Leaving Neverland WP article does not.

To the author that published this topic, these have been my sentiments for a long time now. Thanks for putting them into words. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what others have to state on the matter. I'll very likely ping all of the editors who were involved in the two discussions I linked to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair deal. It is a good discussion to have. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see where TruthGuardians is coming with WP:RECENTISM for mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead and there is an understandable basis for not having it there, but I wouldn't go so far to say it goes against WP:WEIGHT and as Flyer22 Reborn pointed out, the attention it received was quite significant and I do oppose reducing its discussion within article prose. Let's not downplay how Michael got lots of backlash for its allegations upon release and that certain stations subsequently banned his music (even if that's been partially reversed). Additionally, an episode of The Simpsons where he had a voice role ("Stark Raving Dad") got pulled from circulation following the documentary's release. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a Recentism issue, I'm certainly not an expert on the policy, but this sentence did stick out for me as I was reading it: "One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation & sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories." I do believe that the impact from the documentary is still a developing story, and we can only report about it as best we can through reliable sources. It depends what the consensus is, I guess. Best to everyone, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: WP:Recentism is not a WP:Policy or guideline. But it is a supplement page to keep in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why pulling the Simpsons episode would justify including this film in the lead. It is not a significant part of Jackson's legacy and never was. And given that this controversy happened after Jackson died and no other artist has any posthumous controversy mentioned in their lead I don't see why it should be any different for Jackson. Also numerous prominent controversies are not mentioned in the lead such as the parentage of his children or his conflict with Sony. I don't see why this particular controversy generated by this film should be singled out in the lead. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That pulling in itself doesn't justify inclusion for the lead. Perhaps I should've made it clearer before how I wasn't suggesting that. My point when mentioning that episode was to demonstrate that it was part of the highly negative response to Jackson that followed once Leaving Neverland premiered. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How do you define highly negative response? Should we consider the media's and Hollywood's response only or the general public's response? If the later how do we assess that? Given that Jackson's streaming numbers went up after Leaving Neverland aired and the few stations which banned his music while the vast majority did not, his ungoing tribute shows were not cancelled and in fact keep selling well and you could see literally 100s of Thriller tributes during Halloween I would hardly characterized that as a highly negative response. castorbailey (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Great questions. If you asked me, they are only self-assessed opinions. There are literally no sources to point to a "highly-negative response." TruthGuardians (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "Also numerous prominent controversies are not mentioned in the lead such as the parentage of his children or his conflict with Sony." What numerous prominent controversies? The Sony thing pales in comparison to this. And the rumors about the parentage of his children are not in the article. Including that material would run up against sourcing and WP:BLP issues. As for your statement that you "don't see why this particular controversy generated by this film should be singled out in the lead"? WP:Lead is clear about mentioning prominent controversies in the lead. And this controversy has a section in the article, which also aligns it with WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Then it comes down to what is a definition of "prominent controversy" and whether only certain prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead but not others. His fight with Sony most certainly was a "prominent controversy". Given that it had major implications affecting his life and career, unlike Leaving Neverland, it's actually more important than Leaving Neverland when talking about Jackson's life. Other prominent controversies: the lawsuit against AEG and their alleged responsibility for his death. His drug use. The parentage and race of his kids. It's odd that they are not mentioned in the article itself. Also, Leaving Neverland is not controversy which happened during Jackson's life. And there is no other artist who has any posthumous controversy mentioned in the lead. Why should Jackson be any different? Leaving Neverland is not part of his life or who he was. It also should have a section Leaving Neverland and posthumous child sexual abuse allegations. It makes it sounds like the posthumous allegations were revealed in Leaving Neverland when in fact they were made years before that. Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations would be enough. castorbailey (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Point me to reliable sources that indicate or explicitly call these other supposed controversies "controversies." And I've already explained about the parentage rumors; I think you need to read and study BLP. In any case, this is my last reply to you on in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland needs to be briefly mentioned in the lead. It demonstrably received far, far more attention in reliable sources than anything related to Michael Jackson in a decade, and had a profound impact on how his legacy is assessed, as noted by many commentators. Removing it would seem like an attempt to downplay this issue; it would be comparable to removing all mention of the recent controversies from Harvey Weinstein's lead section and only discuss his film career. --Tataral (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

what many commentators? What profound aspect has it had on Jackson's career? His streaming numbers are way up, he still managed to end the year as the highest-paid celebrity for the 7th year in a row, 9th out of 10 years since his death, and Thriller managed to take over Halloween without skipping a beat. The removal of a Simpson's episode is hardly "profound." The radios stations that removed his music have now put it back in rotation. When you call their main offices, they'll confirm this to be true. Do you think the media is going to report this like they did the brief removal of it? No. Radio stations did the EXACT same thing during the 2005 trial, the media once again reported the music being removed. a few months after the verdict, they quietly added it back. The media didn't report that then. There is no real profound impact to Jackson's legacy outside of one's own imagination. Number's don't lie.

Furthermore, the Harvey Weinstein comparison is exposing your bias. What is similar about the 2 men? 1 had dozens of accusers, the other had 4, only 2 while he was alive. One was acquitted through due process, the other one wasn't. One was subjected to decades of departmental investigations that never turned up anything to suggest any wrongdoing, the other one wasn't. One used the other's fame to deflect negative press away from themselves, the other one didn't [1]. Does Weinstein's lead mention's "Unbreakable," an actual film that is about the accusations into him? No, it doesn't, plus Harvey is alive. Jackson's controversies are mentioned in the lead, this is not about excluding what has always been there, this is about including what doesn't belong there, and that is Leaving Neverland.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein is alive therefore anything that has happened regarding the allegations is part of his life. Leaving Neverland is not part of Jackson's life or who he was. It's a posthumous film project undeniably with highly questionable accuracy and there is no conclusive evidence that its effect on his legacy is somehow bigger than the effect of, say, This is it had, which unquestionably boosted his sales far more than Leaving Neverland reduced his sales. There were a lot of commentators saying negative things about Jackson after the Bashir special aired still it is not mentioned in the lead. Some radios banned his music after the 2003 allegations and even kept it that way after the verdict , still it did not have any long term effect on his legacy. castorbailey (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake summed it very well. Inclusion of Leaving Neverland in the lead constitutes WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the sense those are just the allegations of two men, allegations that have been publicly challenged in the media. WP:RECENTISM is also a concern. I support removal of LN from the lead. Israell (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TruthGuardians and Israell. It is very odd to mention two anecdotal posthumous allegations in the lead. It should be more than enough to mention it in the respective section.--Zusammenprall (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see WP:RECENTISM for mentioning Leaving Neverland in the lead.WP:Summary style doesn’t mean including everything under every section no matter if it’s controversial or not. MOS:BLPLEAD clearly states that "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each."

During the This Is It tour Jackson broke several records from ticket sales, and it was covered by almost every media, but we do not mentioning it on the lead. And the same goes for his concert doccumentary This Is It which is still the highest-grossing concert documentary of all time. We have enough coverage for that also, but we are not mentioning it. The criminal investigation of the doctor at its trial made headlines for many weeks, but we don’t mention it in the lead. Similarly, the posthumous sales of Jackson's records and its place in various charts after his death are still an unsurpassed feat, but we don’t mention it in the lead. There is no reason to argue for Leaving Neverland for receiving far more attention in reliable sources than anything related to Michael Jackson in a decade. Not to mention there is a recent example that fake news reported that Johnny Depp is producing a Michael Jackson musical.

The sentence “The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland details child sexual abuse allegations from two former child friends of Jackson, which led to an international backlash against him and drew criticism from his fans and associates.” also has some WP:NPOV problems. The phrase “international backlash” is highly exagerated. Few radios stations from two or three countries took Jackson’s music off the air for a while dosen't make it a international backlash. There is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

True, and I do have a problem w/ "drew criticism from his fans and associates". That's a blanket statement since a great deal of fans have been very supportive (fans that include the #MJFam movement and the MJ Innocent Project), and some associates of Michael did publicly defend him. The current lead does not mention the support Jackson has been getting ever since the movie was first broadcast. Israell (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint about "drew criticism from his fans and associates." That piece is saying that Jackson fans and associates criticized Leaving Neverland. It's not stating that Jackson fans and his associates criticized Jackson. Anyway, I stand by what I've stated above. I am very much aware that "WP:Summary style doesn't mean including everything under every section no matter if it's controversial or not." It's not like I argued that. I didn't mention WP:Summary style to argue anything about the lead. As for the impact of Leaving Neverland on Jackson's legacy, as made clear by editors at the WP:Original research noticeboard, we cannot yet assess that. This is where WP:Recentism comes in. Tataral, thanks for commenting. Pinging the editors from the aforementioned two discussions (except for anyone who is indefinitely blocked, retired, significantly inactive, and editors I already pinged above): StraussInTheHouse, ILIL (formerly Ilovetopaint), Polyamorph, Deisenbe, EL Foz87, A Quest For Knowledge, SilkTork, The Rambling Man, Moxy, Scope creep, Masem, Collect, Wugapodes, NickCT, Pincrete, Coffeeandcrumbs and Fences and windows. For those being pinged, you've been pinged to weigh in on inclusion of Leaving Neverland in the lead and the amount of coverage on it lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Small change to post; changed "It's not stating that Jackson" to "It's not stating that Jackson fans." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it might be helpful to add the Recentism tag {{Recentism}} or to employ the WP:AVOIDVICTIM policy: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies to Jackson. Jackson isn't alive and the content isn't about his family. And if applying it to the alleged victims, SNUGGUMS and I addressed that the material in the section is WP:Due. As for the WP:Recentism tag, I don't think it should be placed without WP:Consensus, especially to simply address the lead. Placing it on the article won't help anyway. The tag would simply remain there until someone removes it. And if placed due to consensus, who is to decide when it's removed? Removal would also need consensus. We're discussing things now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, so WP:Due could take precedence, while also considering WP:BLP and Recentism. I did some more reading and there is also WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects...but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable material. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland should be in the article, and the lead summarizes that article. The film is a major piece of contemporary discussions of Jackson, and just because it is a recent development doesn't mean it should be excluded. The film obviously is an important event in the history of Jackson and his legacy with the film having won 3 film awards, having a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, being positively reviewed in Vanity Fair and the Washington Post, and ongoing legal action by the Jackson estate against the film's publisher. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fan piece, and Leaving Neverland should be covered in any encyclopedic coverage of Jackson as a significant turn in the narrative of child sexual abuse allegations which is a major part of his biographical narrative. Wug·a·po·des 05:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If Rotten Tomatoes critics score is justification to include it in the lead than why isn't the Rotten Tomatoes audience score which is only 24% which comes from far more people not a justification for NOT including it? This is an encyclopedia article, not a hater piece, which is why it should be in line with how other articles about artists are written and no other artist have any posthumous controversy , any posthumous film project mentioned in their lead as that is not part of the artist's life and work. castorbailey (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is it was a major piece of discussion of Jackson and had major impact on how much his music and art was consumed, far more than Leaving Neverland,

it's still not mentioned in the lead. Why should Leaving Neverland be different, especially when clearly it did not reduce interest in Jackson's music, as the year end Billboard positions , streaming data, YouTube views, ticket sales also indicate. castorbailey (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wugapodes' comment; I couldn't have said it better. --Tataral (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment It should be in the lede. It is nothing to do with film review's. Everything has changed now. It is now the primary facet of his life and as the years pass more and more information is going to surface regarding his child abuse. He is a cultural icon now;that is the sticking point at the moment for most people here but 20-30 year up the road, as more people start to get older and want it all out, they will increasingly talk about what happened. He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change. In the UK, we also had a cultural icon is the shape the Jimmy Savile. There was allegations of child abuse early in his carer, similar to Jackson, but it took years for it to finally to come out. I see various folk saying it is anecdotal, which is absolutely absurd. Folk don't go on TV and expose their life to ridicule on 7 continents with a good reason and it not money. It really comes down the fact it seems to be impossible for Wikipedian's to write a non-biased article on a cultural icon, in the present. I suspect most of the work that is done here will be completely changed ten or twenty years up the road as it will end up missing some core part, similar the Walt Disney article and this is perhaps it. scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the primary facet of his life to who? There has never been any proof that he molested anyone and he was never convicted of anything so these are just allegations by people who undeniably have ulterior motives to make such allegations. By the same token you could have said in 2003 that those allegations were the primary facet of his life. But very clearly for many they were not. And we don't know how these two allegations will play out in the future as new evidence new documentaries will come to light and court cases resolved. Folks do much worse than accuse a dead man of sex abuse to get millions of dollars , which is what those two men undeniable want and whatever ridicule they get , they get as much support from the media and those who want to believe them. The allegations are in fact anecdotal no to mention highly contradictory and even provably false , there is no proof backing them up. A non-bias article would not include a posthumous film project in the lead which had little actual impact on how much Jackson's music and art are consumed. castorbailey (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not personal opinions. How credible you, I, or anyone finds the allegations is - please understand this - irrelevant. Until you realise this, any complaints of bias are worthless. Popcornduff (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no reliable source which proves Leaving Neverland or the allegations are the "primary facet of his life". For one thing that is impossible to assess given how many people have opinion about Jackson one way or the other. Nor is that any reliable source which proves the allegations are true. There are in fact reliable source which prove several claims by those men are undeniably false. So the argument that Leaving Neverland should be in the lead because allegations of sex abuse are now the the primary facet of his life doesn't hold any water. There is no evidence that it's true let alone that proven abuse is the primary facet of his life. castorbailey (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that these allegations are "the primary facet" of the subject of Michael Jackson is ludicrous and can be easily dismissed. But are they an important facet? Yes, as evidenced by the reams upon reams of coverage in reliable sources. Are they therefore worth including in the lead? Yes. Does anyone care if you, Wikipedia editor castorbailey, finds the allegations credible? No, it's irrelevant. Only the sources matter. Popcornduff (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say the allegations should not be included in the lead. I said Leaving Neverland should not be included in the lead and the posthumous allegations should not be included in the lead. Leaving Neverland is a film and it is not more important or more impactful on Jackson's legacy than This is it which is not mentioned and should not be mentioned. It's a posthumous project which was not Jackson's life. Similarly posthumous allegations, which are just never proven allegations and Jackson had no opportunity to react to them should be included in the article but not in the lead. They are not part of Jackson's life or work which is what the lead should summarize. castorbailey (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

All I have read are reasons as to why the film deserves its own page. There is nothing here that supports reasoning as to why it should be mentioned on the lead to Michael Jackson’s page. Not a single thing. No one has explained what impact it has had in Jackson’s legacy. No one has provided sources of this permanent impact. Comparisons to Jimmy Savile and Weinstein are futile. Jackson is Jackson not either of those two men AND WAS VINDICATED VIA DUE PROCESS! You can not convict an innocent man in death. That’s what this film attempted, and failed, to do, and that’s what you are doing with these futile comparison. Raise your hand if you’re actually wanting to see “Unbreakable” mentioned in Harvey’s lead... exactly.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, you wrote: "I don't understand the complaint about "drew criticism from his fans and associates." That piece is saying that Jackson fans and associates criticized Leaving Neverland. It's not stating that Jackson and his associates criticized Jackson."

That piece is saying: "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland details child sexual abuse allegations from two men who had, as children, been friends of Jackson. This led to an international backlash against him and drew criticism from his fans and associates."

Backlash against whom? Michael. Criticism of what or whom? Criticism of Michael or the movie? Not clear. Israell (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse." scope_creep is demonstrating clear POV. Israell (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep it in the lead. I am not persuaded that including it is WP:UNDUE; the film received an enormous amount of coverage and was the effectively the source of the most recent round of allegations against Jackson that led to the backlash.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article that covers those allegations in the most detail is the Leaving Neverland article. We need to link to that article in the lead one way or another, and masking the link with things like "2019 sexual abuse allegations" or whatever, as in the proposal below, is at worst an WP:EASTEREGG link and at best needless complexity. It's just beating around the bush. Popcornduff (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Think your backwards on this ...having a blue link saying sexual assault allegations is much more to the point and damaging then linking the words leaving Neverland. It's the act that is most important not the films name.--Moxy 🍁 17:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"allegations of sexual misconduct following a 2019 documentary" makes it clear that the allegations followed a documentary, but suggests the link will go to a page dedicated those allegations (possibly something like "2019 Michael Jackson allegations"), which is suboptimal. See WP:EASTEREGG.

If we're going to be explicit that the allegations follow a documentary - which we should, because the documentary is at the heart of the allegations - we might as well name the documentary, since we're linking to Leaving Neverland. There is no point in obfuscating the link or the name of the documentary. No one is "advertising" anything, that's a groundless and bizarre accusation. Popcornduff (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would the film be at at the heart of the allegations? The allegations have been presented in court in complaints and sworn declarations and Robson's and Joy Robson's sworn depositions. Given that what they said in those documents and depositions differs from what they said in the film , in numerous points, and they preceded the film, the film cannot possibly be at the heart of the allegations. The film is merely a presentation of allegations which were made after allegations were already made in court. So why not mention those lawsuits in the lead if you want to mention the posthumous allegations in the lead? Why the film? castorbailey (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Why would the film be at at the heart of the allegations?" Because almost every single source covering the allegations cites the film, almost every single source reacting to the allegations was a response to the film, all the discourse surrounding the allegations had the film at its centre. We reflect the sources. Popcornduff (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The court documents are reliable sources too which prove that the allegations existed long before the film and in fact the allegations presented in the court documents and the Robsons's depositions differ from the allegations presented in the film. Given that fact it's simply not true that the film is at at the heart of the allegations. Just because articles ignore the court documents and talk like the allegations appeared with the film does not make it true. We should reflect on facts not just what some source says, given that this is an encyclopedia not a website parotting what certain media outlets are willing to say about a subject. Reactions to the film do not change the fact that these allegations were presented in court years before the film and those court documents reveal a different set of claims than the film reveals. So again: if you want to mention the posthumous allegations in the lead why not mention the lawsuits instead of the film? castorbailey (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We will simply have to disagree on this point....I personally think linking the ttile of the film over linking sexual allegations will cause less people to click on the link as leaving Neverland sounds all warm and fuzzy if you're not familiar with the doc.--Moxy 🍁 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is the goal to make as many readers as possible click links? Popcornduff (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Israell: Everybody has an opinion and a point of view, mostly on everything. That is the reason why we are on here, that and to build an encyclopedia. WP:POV is specific to the article not the talk page. The talk page is for talking. We must be able to talk about everything to do with the subject, within reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep mention in the lead (responding to ping) I think a brief mention is essential in the lead. Present length is OK but statements such as "leading to an international backlash against Jackson" or conversely "film received criticism from fans" are both vague to the point of being meaningless. The lead should either stick to factual results of the documentary (playlist bans etc), or not bother. Truth is probably that some people reacted in each direction (disgust and shock or conversely disbelief about their hero), if that cannot be conveyed efficiently - just leave it out and tell the more nuanced story in the body of the article and on the documentary article. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it essential when other artists' lead do not have any posthumous film projects mentioned in their lead not even if they had far bigger impact than Leaving Neverland (like Bohemian Rapsody or Amadeus) and This is it is not mentioned in Jackson's lead even though it got just as much if not more coverage and undeniably had an impact on his legacy. Or you think only negative impact matters even thought that cannot even be assessed at this point when it comes to Leaving Neverland? castorbailey (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Can't we say something like ..Despite renewed allegations of sexual misconduct in 2019, Jackson remains at the top of the charts--Moxy 🍁 04:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

One problem with this is that Leaving Neverland is not the renewed allegations. It's a film made after Robson Safechuck already made allegations in court years earlier and what they said in court actually differs on many respects than what they say in the film. Linking to Leaving Neverland with the text renewed allegations of sexual misconduact in 2019 misleads the reader as if the allegations first had appeared in 2019 and in the film. castorbailey (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes yes we get it you have said it many many times in the middle of most talks here. That said....as is metioned here and in the article the doc is what brought them to light to the majority. Any comments on the point at hand?. We're do all the newcomers come from? --Moxy 🍁 02:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is probably the best way forward re: wording of the lead. Wug·a·po·des 05:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

My concern regarding such wording is WP:Editorializing. And the fact that "remains at the top of the charts" is vague. Remains at the top of the charts? How? Select singles of his returned to some radio stations he was removed from, but that's not "top of the charts." And the "returned to some radio stations" aspect is not significant enough; there is barely anything on that in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22 Reborn It’s as I have stated above, I have actually called these radio station and they have confirmed that Jackson’s music is in full swing once more. Why would the media cover this? It’s far too pro-Jackson. This happened in 2005 where even more radio stations stopped playing Jackson music during and before the trial. A few months after, he was in full swing again. The media didn’t report it then, like they have barely done now. But let’s just say that none of the very few stations have started playing Jackson’s music again, that’s hardly impactful.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Just tweak it as per sources... so change bloated sentence...The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland details child sexual abuse allegations from two former child friends of Jackson, which led to an international backlash against him and drew criticism from his fans and associates to a smaller line like Despite renewed allegations of sexual misconduct in 2019, Jackson remains the top-earning dead celebrity ... ..The Top-Earning Dead Celebrities Of 2019....this would also match the link style in the sentences just above and avoid naming the doc in the lead giving less weigh to it.. ... In 1993, he was accused of sexually abusing the child of a family friend. In 2005, he was tried and acquitted of further child sexual abuse allegations and several other charges. -Moxy 🍁 10:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the concern of Flyer22 regarding editorializing, and also, the linked text isn't very intuitive in telling the readers where the link actually leads, which is not ideal (see MOS:EGG, MOS:LINKCLARITY). --Tataral (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

When does one’s own ideas come into play? When does the echo chamber end? TruthGuardians (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is an echo chamber here, one comprised of Jackson fans, which is why I got tired of this article a while ago after spending weeks arguing here, but I received a good-faith ping from Flyer22 (an editor with whom I've disagreed about practically everything in the past), so I decided to weigh in in the most recent round here. --Tataral (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "renewed allegations" link is a WP:EASTEREGG link and the "top of the charts" bit is fuzzy editorialising. This is not the solution. Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Step up..guys...give ideas. As mentioned riight above be more specific then "charts"....as for the egg simple fix...so what about..Despite renewed allegations of sexual misconduct following a 2019 documentary, Jackson still remains the top-earning dead celebrity.--Moxy 🍁 11:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC).

Sorry, but I don't accept that there is a problem that needs fixing here, and your proposals only weaken the text, such as by obfuscating the link. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Well there is a huge talk here saying others wise by many. So yes there seems to be a problem as out lined above. What we need to do is explain the idea not advertise for a film. I think all would agree that the name of the doc is not as important as the act he's being accused of.-Moxy 🍁 17:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think we are "advertising for a film"? Where does this idea come from? Popcornduff (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned it feeling like an advertisement before Moxy did. I think Hammelsmith alluded to the same thing. It stems from point number 5 of the person who started this discussion which reads as follows: "Other dead artists like Elvis Presley, John Lennon, David Bowie, and Prince (musician) do not have any film or other project mentioned in their lead. Even the hugely successful Bohemian Rhapsody (film) isn’t mention on the leads of Freddie Mercury or Queen (band) pages. Why should it be different for Michael Jackson?"

The film was objectively successful in the sense that it got the media's attention and won some awards, but it was not impactful. Had the film been impactful, then this discussion would not exist. It does. It being mentioned in the Lead of one of WP's most visited pages feels exactly as it looks, an advertisement.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I do not have an opinion on the Freddie Mercury, Elvis, John Lennon etc article leads because I haven't worked on them, and to demand we use them as standards for this article is bizarre - 1) they deal with different subjects and 2) what if they're doing it wrong anyway?

The idea that mentioning the title of a documentary that receives significant coverage in the body of the article is promotional is nuts. That is not the argument you want to be making. No one is trying to promote a film here, mentioning the title of a film (instead of linking to it with an WP:EASTEREGG link) is not promotional, and no reader will interpret it as promotional - or at least not one who hasn't coming from the Michael Jackson subreddit.

The fact of the matter - and it is a fact - is that in 2019 the film Leaving Neverland received significant extended coverage from reliable sources, had a clear impact on Jackson's public perception (evidenced by, eg, the radio play, the Simpsons episode, the extensive commentary), and yes of course we have to mention it and link to it. It's no good trying to mask it with arguments along the lines of "oh the important bit is that he was accused of abuse again" as if the film itself didn't matter - the film effectively is the allegations, it's the source of all the commentary and backlash, and the Leaving Neverland article is where all that is covered in detail. Obfuscating the film (but, unbelievably, still linking to it) does nothing but muddy the prose and perpetuate a long-term problem of Michael Jackson articles failing to write about their subject clearly, directly, and without bias. Popcornduff (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is denying the film's bigtime coverage. It is the impact that is being disputed. You claim that no one will see it as an advertisement because you want it advertised. A lot of the comments are people saying the same thing. If it looks like an advertisement to me and others, you can't change that with words. The radio stations have started playing Jackson's music again, but that and the Simpson's removing an episode is hardly impactful. Its as I said below: No irreversible legacy impact, no worldwide cancellation of his music, image, or product. No impact on existing projects. No academic studies attempting to convict the man in death. No family members saying they believe in the allegations presented in the film, which contradicts their sworn court depositions. No scientific poll or charts. Just nothing. We are at the same place we were when the first of many versions of their allegations were first made public in 2013 that no one believed. I don't know a single person in real life who walked away from the film and said, "Oh it changed my perspective on Jackson." And I'm sure neither have you. In fact, I've come across the contrary. People eager to research the other side beyond the one-sided film and concluding that Jackson is the victim of it all. Whichever side of the fence you were on prior to the film, you are still on that side of the fence. Significant coverage does NOT equate to impact. Look no further than the impeachment hearing on Donald Trump at the moment for proof of that. I can provide proof of massive streaming numbers, physical record sales, radio airplay, year-end earnings, much coverage of ht Halloween Thriller tributes to Jackson, a broadway show still being released, and no impact on attendance for the Vegas Cirque show going on as all proof that coverage does not equate to impact. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"You claim that no one will see it as an advertisement because you want it advertised." Excuse me? On what grounds do you make that accusation? Popcornduff (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"You" was referenced as me speaking in generalities. Poor wording, but there is absolutely no valid reasoning presented here yet as to why "Leaving Neverland," should be advertised here on this article. It's like the film's director saying, "It's not about Michael Jackson," when in reality every other social media post by the director and interview he gave was about Jackson! People only watched the film because Jackson's name sold it and his Wikipedia page should not continue to do so. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact of the matter that This is it received significant extended coverage and had a clear impact on Jackson's legacy , it being the most successful concert film of all time, still it is not mentioned in the lead. And a fact you keep ignoring Leaving Neverland happened after he died. It is not part of his life or who he was. So why should it be mentioned in any shape or form in the lead especially when it's impact on Jackson's legacy has been minimal , in fact in a way it boosted interest in his music, as streaming data shows. Including it in the lead is clearly advertisement. castorbailey (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we mention the This Is It film in the lead? Don't know - I haven't thought about it - maybe. Does that have any bearing on whether we should mention Leaving Neverland? Of course not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, Leaving Neverland is far more notable than the This Is It film, as evidenced by the sources - which is why Leaving Neverland is covered over several paragraphs in the body, compared to two sentences for This Is It. (And before you cry bias: that's a totally WP:DUE amount of coverage based on the sources.)

And apparently you think only stuff that happened during a person's lifetime is notable? So all the coverage that sprang up after the deaths of Vincent van Gogh and Galileo Galilei, who were unknown in their lifetimes, can be ignored then. Popcornduff (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of any posthumous event in Galileo Galilei's lead, none. The lead should be about what a person did in his life or what happened to him while alive and a short summary of his death. Otherwise we could fill Galilei's lead with hundreds of years of events someone did regarding him. Van Gogh's lead also doesn't have any specific project about him mentioned in the lead either or how any particular film affected his legacy. There is simply no reason to single out Leaving Neverland in the lead. There is no policy that posthumous projects should be mentioned in the lead if X number of articles talk about it. Are there more reliable sources arguing that Leaving Neverland had a bigger impact on Jackson's legacy than This is it? I don't know any article which even compared the two's impact. This is it has 186 reviews on Rotten Tomato and Leaving Neverland has 93. So how is it more notable than This is it if you think media coverage decides what is more or less notable? This is it was widely covered accross the international media. There is simply no logic behind including Leaving Neverland in the lead when This is it is not. castorbailey (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. The body of the article covers LN, and that suffices. Israell (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposal doesn’t advertise the film, which for some reason some people want so badly for Jackson’s page to do. I’m not against the proposal, it’s actually balanced. I think that the following is a good compromise: Despite renewed allegations of sexual misconduct in 2019, Jackson remains the top-earning dead celebrity ... .. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Trying to hide the name of the documentary with that kind of piping is discouraged, see WP:EASTEREGG. 2) The use of "Despite" there incorrectly implies his earnings have anything to do with sexual abuse allegations against him. 3) If anything, a more appropriate description would be "posthumous allegations" because it was after Jackson's death when Robson and Safechuck first alleged he abused them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

But if you were to read the MOS:EGG over an essay... is clear as day...the link will take you to a "documentary about sexual allegations". Right inline with our guideline and how they are used in academic settings. The name is not important but the facts are.--Moxy 🍁 14:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

While I acknowledge and agree with some of the points being made, I believe that 1) the earnings were mentioned to prove that Leaving Neverland's impact has been minimal, which is why it should not be advertised in the lead like a billboard on I95. 2) The way that it is currently written is greatly exaggerated. No one has proven the impact that "Leaving Neverland" has had on Jackson's legacy that makes it deserving of a Lead or a section title mention. I have only read about the film's mediocre success, which is why it has its own WP page, nothing more. No irreversible legacy impact, no worldwide cancellation of his music, image, or product. No impact to existing projects. No academic studies attempting to convict the man in death. No family members saying they believe in the allegations presented in the film, which contradicts their sworn court depositions. No scientific poll or charts. Just nothing. We are at the same place we were when the first of many versions of their allegations were first made public in 2013 that no one believed. 3) I'm not opposed to your third point.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact is, at least eight editors in this and a previous discussion above (me, TruthGuardians, castorbailey, Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake, Zusammenprall, Akhiljaxxn, Partytemple and Pawnkingthree) do not approve of the current wording of that section of the lead, four of us object to mention of an "international backlash", and most of us want it removed altogether for all the motives we've expressed. The last edits made do not reflect our overall assessment. Are we being heard? Israell (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I am actually willing to compromise on the wording that rids of the advertisement, but if consensus cannot be reached, I will support the complete removal of Leaving Neverland and any mention of the posthumous allegations from the Lead.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the removal of the documentary from the lead. There is no problem being solved here; all these proposals only obfuscate needlessly. That some editors think mentioning this documentary is an "advertisement" speaks volumes to their lack of understanding of WP:DUE and WP:POV - not to mention plain English. Oh, and at least one of the gang listed above is a confirmed sockpuppet. Popcornduff (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You still failed to give any rational reason as to why this posthumous film project which had nothing to with Jackson's work or what happened to him should be singled out in the lead when it's common across Wiki articles that the lead includes only events during the artist's life , short summary of his or her death. Imagine if we included film projects or other posthumous projects which influenced how Beethoven or Michaelengalo is viewed by the world. If we included Amadesus in Mozart's lead as it was a massively successful film covered all over the media, won countless awards no doubt boosting the popularity of Mozart. It would be absurd. So yeah, it most certainly looks like advertising which is exactly what you want to do, given your anti Jackson track record. castorbailey (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion and you're entitled to it, but don't present your opinion as though its the final say. It's not. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Support the removal of the documentary from the lead for all the reasons I and other editors have detailed above, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM being two of the main reasons. Besides, there is this article^[1] explains how Leaving Neverland only had a "feeble impact" ("faible impact") on Jackson's legacy. Israell (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong Support Though I am still willing to compromise on the wording about the posthumous allegations, I am not going to support a motion that includes Jackson's page as being a billboard for a film that has had no impact on his legacy. Also WP:RECENTISM has not been ruled out, no one has elaborated as to what has been so impactful about the film to his legacy, no one has quantified "international backlash," and coverage, as I explained, does NOT equate to impact.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Support removal of Leaving Neverland from the lead because of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. No other artist has any posthumous film project mentioned in the lead, regardless of any impact, positive or negative, on their legacy. There is no reason for it to be different for Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose removing Leaving Neverland from the lead. I previously was on the fence, but after giving more thought, I have decided that the prominent attention it received plus the subsequent bans of his music from radio stations (whether reversed or not) are enough to warrant a mention. It also prompted many to perceive him less favorably than before. Calling this recentism is one thing, but it's definitely not undue weight. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Where has the following statement been quantified? "It also prompted many to perceive him less favorably than before." It's simply not true. There are no sources or anything that quantifies that statement. Does it warrant mention? Not in the Lead! Like I said above, no irreversible legacy impact, no worldwide cancellation of his music, image, or product. No impact to existing projects. No academic studies attempting to convict the man in death. No family members saying they believe in the allegations presented in the film, which contradicts their sworn court depositions. No scientific poll or charts. Just nothing. The impact needs to sop being over-exaggerated. I can provide proof of massive streaming numbers, physical record sales, radio airplay, year-end earnings, much coverage of ht Halloween Thriller tributes to Jackson, a broadway show still being released, and no impact on attendance for the Vegas Cirque show going on as all proof that coverage does not equate to impact, but NO ONE can quantify who changed their minds, and who perceives Jackson negatively, or even the impact to his legacy overall. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Solely for the purposes of a lede, I believe that WP:Due satisfies the documentary's inclusion. Of course, I do bear in mind that there are many other pieces of information from reliable sources that must be weighed proportionately. Along with graphic allegations of abuse are earnest protestations of innocence, settlement payments, and a not guilty verdict. Most people know all this and it is duly covered in the article. I also bear in mind that the documentary's "impact" (for lack of a better word) is still a developing story - the lawsuit claims may still go to trial. Therefore no "final word", let's say, can be known at this time. Yet I still think an "impact" arose after the documentary aired, most definitely - although, I say again, it is still a developing story. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Though I believe this is the most reasonable "oppose," the film has no impact on the lawsuit. In fact, it was mentioned sarcastically by the judge exactly once in court. Thus I still disagree with the judgment call. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Support removal of Leaving Neverland from the lead because of WP:RECENTISM, WP:Summary style and MOS:BLPLEAD : Arguments saying that the documentary had impact on Jackson's career are not true. The phrase “international backlash” is highly exaggerated. Few radios stations from two or three countries took Jackson’s music off the air for a while doesn't make it a international backlash. There is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value. That's why France, Russia, China, Korea and other Arab and Asian countries said no to this film. There is no "Mute Michael Jackson" campaign like "Mute R. Kelly". No Weinstein effect happened. His awards and honors are still intact. And the other side there was a Facts Don't Lie People Do by people from Jackson's supporters' side. Many people including celebrities defended him. His streaming is higher than before; album sales also much higher than the previous year. If it had any other major impact to his legacy, we can include that in the coming years, since we have WP:no deadline.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Oppose removing Leaving Neverland from the lead, even if the film's impact on MJ's legacy/reputation turns out to be temporary, a mention is justified by the level of coverage. I agree that text such as "leading to an international backlash" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hammelsmith: @Pincrete: @SNUGGUMS: @Moxy: So you think This is it should be mentioned in the lead too as it got just as much if not more coverage than Leaving Neverland? Rotten Tomatos has 186 reviews listed for This is it Leaving Neverland only 93 and This is it undoubtely had a positive impact on Jackson's legacy. Or it's only negative impact where WP:Due applies? Or should we include Amadeus in Mozart's lead as it got tons of coverage, tons of awards? Or include Bohemian Rapsody in Queen's lead as it got far more coverage and had a huge impact on Queen's legacy. I have no seen any argument from anyone as to why Michael Jackson should get a different treatment when it comes to posthumous film projects in the lead than anyone else. Shouldn't wiki be consistent in what is allows in the lead and what not for everyone?WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. castorbailey (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

coverage doesn’t equal impact. Perhaps we should all migrate to Harvey Weinstein’s page and mention “Unbreakable” in the lead. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue with including the This Is It documentary in the lead. Coverage within the press not withstanding, a major reason why I decided we should keep in Leaving Neverland is because of the music bans it prompted demonstrate it had at least some impact, even if it wasn't permanent. Nobody could reasonably say those counted for nothing, regardless of whether it was long-lasting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of things in Jackson's life had some impact and still not mentioned in the lead. His drug use had a big impact, not mentioned in the lead. His father's abuse had a huge impact, not mentioned in the lead. The 1993 Oprah interview had a big impact, 90 million viewers, not mentioned in the lead. The 1993 Superbowl performance had tons of coverage, 133 million viewers, lasting impact, still not mentioned in the lead. The Bashir special, 53 million viewers, led to massive media reaction and in fact led to criminal prosecution (that's far more drastic consequence than a few radio stations not playing his music) it is still not mentioned in the lead. If we mention the supposed impact of Leaving Neverland in the lead (international backslash) why not mention the impact of his death like "international outpouring of grief" or "Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him" ^[2]? Why would a few radio stations stop playing his music be that significant when the vast majority of them did not stop and Bohrap and Amadeus had much bigger impacts than Leaving Neverland had and still it would be absurd to include them in Queen's or Mozart's leads. Including This is it would be absurd too. If we go down this road a lot of dead people's leads should include posthumous film projects because they got coverage and had some impact positive or negative. A few stations banning his music is nothing in the grand scheme of things and including Leaving Neverland in the lead gives it way too much credit and undue weight especially when combined with the phrase "international backslash". Total Eclipse is not mentioned in Rimbaud's or Verlaine's leads, Lust for Life is not mentioned in Van Gogh's even though there is no doubt those films led to increased interest in those artists. Again, why should Jackson get different treatment than other artists? I just don't understand the double standard. This should not be ignored: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.castorbailey (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an amazing argument. In fact, all of the “Support” arguments have much more meat on the bones and is far more substantial in reasoning than the echo chambering “Oppose” votes. The Bashir interview had almost 40 million worldwide viewers on its original air-date. The documentary was far more reaching and even impactful than Leaving Neverland ever was, or for that matter, is ever going to be. The Oprah interview was even bigger and more impactful than both of them COMBINED!! Each of the latter also received far more coverage and is far more notable than Leaving Neverland. Using the logic coming out of the “oppose” camp we should include the 1993 Oprah interview in the Lead. We should also mention how she was there in 1993 when the train station that Safechuck lied about being abused in wasn’t even built yet. There is absolutely no reason that the lead can’t be expanded to include the Oprah interview with the opposing logic. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We should also mention how she was there in 1993 when the train station that Safechuck lied about being abused in wasn’t even built yet. Is this a serious suggestion? Your whole strategy in this argument is to make the case for Leaving Neverland being WP:UNDUE for the lead, and you drop this in there?

It's this sort of thing that destroys the support camp's credibility. It exposes, once again, that they think their opinions on the allegations' veracity have anything to do with editing Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Chill out. It ain’t that deep. I suggest recognizing satire wrapped in facts when you see it. Certainly wouldn’t sit around as some pedophile fantasists do all day undermining due process, the FBI, and the many other departmental investigations into Jackson that has proved time after time, after time, that there is nothing there. I’m not so wrapped into wanting abuse to have taken place so badly that I couldn’t dare see past the simple fact that children lie and so do adults. But that’s besides the point and off topic. You are unable to dispute what’s being proposed here(the topic at hand) and that’s obvious. What is not a joke is not satire though? The inclusion of more impactful content in the lead like the Oprah Winfrey 1993 interview, based on the opposing logic, it should already be there. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the sarcasm. And yet something tells me you weren't being sarcastic when you say someone lied about being abused - which mustn't become part of our judgement when we edit, and makes your position less credible. Popcornduff (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You tell that little something that is telling you nothing, that it is wrong. Give it up already. Certainly the many versions of their stories, the inaccuracies, the contradictions, and the late-additions doesn’t eliminate the fact that they are lying. That’s just being real. That’s why they are called “allegations.” Can we call them liars in an article edit? Not without evidence, which is the exact same reason why Jackson can’t be called a “monster” or a “pedophile.” People have killed their grandparents for money, certainly lying about being abused isn’t far fetched at all. Last night I made edits to a WP article about false CSA claims. Quite revealing indeed. Perhaps give it a read. Back to the topic at hand. So how about mentioning the Oprah interview in the lead. It received more coverage than Leaving Neverland, it was watched my WAY MORE people, and it was actually impactful, per your logic. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Last night I made edits to a WP article about false CSA claims. Quite revealing indeed. Perhaps give it a read." TruthGuardians, I would like to give it a read. Would you please link to that article?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is one of the articles.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. You and those others who oppose the removal can't explain why Leaving Neverland should be singled out in the lead when there are other even far more impactful events not mentioned there and yes the Oprah interview is one of them, given that it was seen by 90 million people a far cry from Leaving Neverland's audience, or the Bashir special watched by 53 million and which led to a criminal trial. You still couldn't explain why Jackson should be treated differently than any other dead artists who do not have posthumous film projects mentioned in the lead no matter how successful and notable those films were. Why shouldn't wikipedia be consistent in this regard? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. That you keep ignoring these facts destroys your credibility and shows that you in fact want to advertise this film in the lead simply because it depicts Jackson in the most negative manner and perpetuates the idea that he was a child molester which is what you want people to believe he was. You don't have such eagerness to include This is it , a film which had twice as many reviews as Leaving Neverland and broke a record. Based on your logic This is it should be included. But then we should include every major posthumous film projects which has some impact on an artist's legacy and that would be ridiculous. Imagine including Amadeus in Mozart's lead or Bohrap in Freddie Mercury's lead. castorbailey (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

you in fact want to advertise this film in the lead simply because it depicts Jackson in the most negative manner and perpetuates the idea that he was a child molester which is what you want people to believe he was Can you produce any evidence for this extraordinary accusation, or are you just going to delete it? Popcornduff (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a logical conclusion based on your history: 1. You have no coherent argument as to why Jackson should be treated differently than anyone else on wiki regarding posthumous films or why this film should be there when other major events with bigger impact are not and for good reasons as the lead is supposed to include the topic's MOST important points. WP:SUMMARY 2. You don't consider this biased language "leading to an international backlash against Jackson" but you called a portion referring to discrepancies in Leaving Neverland "biased language" which caused you "physical pain" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leaving_Neverland&diff=next&oldid=907123107, hardly an objective reaction. 3. You said we reflect the sources but you ignore actual court documents which prove the allegations preceded the film and in fact contradict the film therefore the film cannot possibly be "at the heart of the allegations" as you claimed. All of these make your position less credible. castorbailey (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I take WP:POV issues on Wikipedia extremely seriously. I have never expressed any opinion on the credibility of the allegations, because my opinion on that matter - and yours - have nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. Your only evidence of my "bias" is that I disagree with you. I'm asking you to quit casting WP:ASPERSIONS, such as the repeated, groundless accusation that I am trying to promote a film, which is offensive and disruptive. If you or others continue to do this I'll take it to WP:ANI. Popcornduff (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No , my evidence is what I said above which you did not refute but ignored just like you keep ignoring the issues I raised regarding why you want Jackson to be treated differently than anyone else on wiki and why Leaving Neverland of all things should be singled out among all the events which were highly covered and had some impact. That Leaving Neverland is a "most important point" regarding Jackson therefore should be in the lead as per WP:SUMMARY is a WP:POV and very clearly you have no issue with that. Also I did not violate WP:ASPERSIONS. I have reasonable cause and evidence, and nowhere was I uncivil. castorbailey (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best newer editors pls read over Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy as quoting essays does not hold much weight in debates.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Support the removal of Leaving Neverland from the lead. I do agree with the users who made examples of other dead musicians or artists without posthumous projects in their lead, especially considering how more impactful some of them were compared to Leaving Neverland: in fact, despite the high media coverage, the aftermath on Jackson was very contained as datas about the consumption of his music and attendance at the Cirque du Soleil One show demonstrate. It is also true that this is still a very fresh topic so we don't know how this situation is going to develope in the future. A rephrasing regarding the allegations post 2009 as proposed could be a good idea.GiuliaZB (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No consensus

@Moxy: may I see your opinion regarding why Jackson should be treated differently than anyone else on wiki when it comes to posthumous film projects? Do you think it would make sense to mention Amadeus in Mozart's lead or Bohrap in Freddie's lead? How does Leaving Neverland qualify as a most important point regarding Jackson? WP:SUMMARY castorbailey (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally I dont think it should be there...but its clear there was WP:NOCONSENSUS going to form when I noticed the talk...thus why I proposed a compromise ....reducing the weight of the long sentences. As of now there is no change going to happen as per WP:NOCONSENSUS thus all we got is the WP:STATUSQUO unless a mid ground is found that most can agree on. When we see WP:Walls of text back and forth its over and new solution needs to be found ....yes Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling can be a problem but Consensus can change if we have the proper balance all can live with.--Moxy 🍁 06:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: Would you please vote and explain why exactly you think it should be removed? Given that the opposing views clearly are against both WP:SUMMARY and common sense and fairness alike, treating Jackson differently than everyone else on wiki regarding posthumous films, and so far refuse to answer my questions as to why that should be accepted, isn't leaving it in the lead raise Wikipedia:False balance and Wikipedia:False consensus concerns? castorbailey (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not about the WP:Vote.... it's about the interpretation of our policies and guidelines by different editors. As of now no side holds a monopoly on the "right" interpretation of these policies. It's over at this point as anyone planning to close the discussion will see there is no consensus for a change as both sides have good points being referenced to our protocols. Walls of text have stumped any hope of progress.--Moxy 🍁 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: But the issue is if those who oppose simply refuse to answer the legitimate questions I raise where can I take this? It clearly looks the opposing editors oppose it without even addressing the issues I raised.castorbailey (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

People are here to give there view on what is best (hopefully based on our protocols). Most will not waste time trying to convince others or spend time answering direct questions they belive are obvious if you're on the other side of the fence. From what I interpret both sides make good arguments for and against and good reasons to oppose my proposal... I don't agree with the point of view but I respect it because of who and how it was rebutted. If this is something you wish to pursue I would suggest an WP:RFC that is more formal in nature (formal as in more structured and wider set of editors) but may not be any more definitive.--Moxy 🍁 03:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, castor, I wrote a long reply addressing all the points you keep demanding responses to (even though I think I've made my own arguments pretty clear). But I didn't post it, because 1) I am loath to contribute to the walls of text here 2) it would only trigger several further walls of text from you 3) I am unwilling to talk to editors who repeatedly make extraordinary and injurious claims about my motives. I think I've made my reasons for wanting to including the text clear, and that'll be the end from me. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You falsely claimed that "the film effectively is the allegations" which is provably untrue. You said "Leaving Neverland is far more notable than the This Is It film" , also not true (see number of reviews for each) and none of what you said explained why you want Jackson get different treatment than anyone else on wiki regarding posthumous films and why LN would be a "most important point" as per WP:SUMMARY. Let me remind you that this sentence was put in there originally because "it got worldwide media attention". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=886401508&oldid=886401304 Which is absurd since by the same token we could put in there any and all events related to Jackson that got worldwide media attention. The sentence then was removed because of WP:RECENTISM and then put in back there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=886401508&oldid=886401304 WP:RECENTISM still applies you just don't care. castorbailey (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Jackson hasn't gotten any "world-wide media attention" for anything, anything at all, other than Leaving Neverland and sexual abuse in the decade since he died. World-wide media attention, i.e. being a main focus of the media's attention, one of the most discussed issues, on a global scale and over a period of time, is not the same as some attention in some media. Leaving Neverland received intense coverage and interest around the world in a way that Jackson has only managed two or three times in his lifetime. Clearly the most significant thing involving Jackson that has happened in a decade merits inclusion, alongside sentences like "Fans around the world expressed their grief" or "In 2016, Jackson's estate earned $825 million." --Tataral (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not true. This is it, Cirque de Solei Immortal Jackson's Black or White premier, his tours, the Oprah interview, Superbowl, Bashir's special all got "world-wide media attention" , some of those have impacts to this day, still none of them is mentioned in the lead. His memorial got "world-wide media attention" still that is not how it is mentioned in the lead. The impact of his death was far beyond just "Fans around the world expressed their grief" but that is minimized while Leaving Neverland is credited for "an international backlash". The Bashir special had far more significant consequences than Leaving Neverland still is not mentioned in the lead. Furthermore, should we include the supposedly most significant thing involving a dead person in the last decade or since they died in all biography leads or Jackson should be singled out for that treatment? I don't see that on Van Gogh's Elvis's Lennon's Freddie's Michaelangelo's etc. leads. You also can't explain why Jackson should be treated differently than anyone else on wiki when it comes to posthumous films. Do you think Amadeus should be part of Mozart's lead or Bohrap should be part of Freddie's? Something getting "world-wide media attention" is not a justification for including it in the lead. Especially not something that happened after the person died. That you consider Leaving Neverland the most significant thing involving Jackson since 2009 is a WP:POV issue. castorbailey (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Jackson's Cirque du Soleil's shows generated more revenue than Leaving Neverland. I've posted a link to a source that explains how the impact of Leaving Neverland is weak. Israell (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Revenue is not the measure of notability. Popcornduff (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

But viewership/ratings are the measure of notability especially if they break records. And Leaving Neverland's ratings pale in comparison to the premier of Black or white, Oprah, Bashir, Superbowl and they are still not mentioned. Also, there are countless notable things regarding countless dead people after they died , they are still not mentioned in the lead. You simply want to treat Jackson differently than anyone else on wiki and refuse to explain why. castorbailey (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to shut down a global discussion of Jackson's sexual abuse – a topic that is in itself of an entirely non-commercial nature and not focused on any "revenue" – based on how much "revenue" his unrelated commercial activities generated is really inappropriate and tasteless, and emblematic of why so many people react so strongly against Jackson, his so-called "estate" (whoever they are) and his family and apologists. Measuring the economic value of the worldwide discussion of Jackson's sexual abuse is in itself bizarre, but if we counted the economic value of media that covered this – say, the earnings of the world's newspapers and TV stations on the days they had major coverage of Jackson – Jackson's own "revenue" would be miniscule in comparison. Most of the impact of Leaving Neverland wasn't derived from people paying to watch the documentary in itself, but in all the major coverage it generated in other media. Why is it that Jackson-related talk pages are full of such spurious "arguments?" --Tataral (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, wikipedia is not about promoting discussion about anything, global or otherwise. It is about presenting facts regarding a subject in a reasonable and consistent fashion. This post demonstrate your anti Jackson bias and that you in fact want to promote that film in Jackson's lead. For one thing there is no proof that Jackson committed sexual abuse at all, there is proof that his accusers lied (including telling provably false things in Leaving Neverland like abuse in the Neverland train station) the accuser's financial motive to lie is proven as well and yes the media definitely want to profit from promoting those allegations too. But none of that justifies promoting this particular film in the lead based on "world-wide media attention" when many other things got "world-white media attention" and not included in the lead and no artist has any posthumous film mentioned in their lead. And the impact of Leaving Neverland, whatever caused it also does not justify including it in the lead. Again, Bashir's special had a far more drastic impact, not mention in the lead. castorbailey (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a requirement to be a fan to edit this article. I don't object to your proposal to add Bashir to the lead, but this discussion is concerned with Leaving Neverland. --Tataral (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Tataral Your comments and reasoning demonstrates WP:OR. A simple google search of the main events that took place since his death and memorial service is given below:

2019 Leaving Neverland About 81,60,000 results
2009 This is it world tour which broke several ticket sales and venue records. 3,06,00,00,000 results
2009 michael jackson's this is it documentary film, which is the most grossed concert film of all time.4,02,00,000 results
2010 Michael album the first posthumous album of Jackson. 67,00,00,000 results
2011 california vs murray the trial of Jackson's doctor who found to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.5,18,00,000 results
2011 michael jackson immortal world tour. One of the most grossed tour of all time. 82,20,000 results
2013 jackson vs aeg the civil trial of Jackson family vs AEG the concert promotor of this is it concerts. 67,40,000 results
2019 Johnny Depp is producing a Michael Jackson musical 99,30,000 results .This was a fake news ..

So there is no point of saying Jackson hasn't gotten any "world-wide media attention" for anything, other than Leaving Neverland and sexual abuse in the decade since he died. Jacksons This is it documentary, the trial of his physician, and the release of his posthumous albums all got world wide media attention. I’m not suggesting that all of the above should be mentioned on the lead because Wikipedia is not news paper and MOS:BLPLEAD and WP:Summary style opposing it

You added this disputed content on March 6th 2019, the same day of its UK premier. And the ILIL removed it on the same day by citing WP:RECENTISM, which I believe still apply. And you reinstated the content again on March 10th for no known good reason.

Leaving Neverland actually did not, and does not, get the media coverage in much of Asia, Africa, and other countries as it did in SOME western countries. Arguments saying that the documentary had impact on Jackson's career are not true. The phrase “international backlash” is highly exaggerated. A few radio stations from a couple of countries took Jackson’s music off the air for a short while (shorter than when some of them took this action in 2005), doesn't make it a international backlash. There is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value. Thats why France, Russia, China, South Korea and other Arabian and Asian countries said no to this film . There is no “Mute Michael Jackson” campaign since the airing of “Leaving Neverland” like the “Mute R. Kelly” campaign after the airing of “Surviving R. Kelly.” There was also no Weinstein effect also that took place either. Jackson’s awards and honors are still intact. However, the other side presented a campaign that made headlines worldwide. Many people, including celebrities and influencers, defended Jackson, his streaming numbers are higher than they were pre-Leaving Neverland, physical album sales also much higher than previous year’s as well. If it has any major impact to his legacy, that may be included in coming years, since we have no deadline.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"the release of his posthumous albums all got world wide media attention": no they didn't, and the argument that Xscape (I hadn't heard of the album at all before looking it up now) had the same impact as Leaving Neverland is ridiculous. What I meant by "world-wide media attention" is not that some or multiple media write something about Jackson, particularly not that he receives the usual coverage on the entertainment pages. His albums probably received attention in the fields of music and entertainment journalism, but they were not globally (and not just in a geographical sense) discussed topics. People who aren't fans or interested in Jackson haven't heard of Xscape.

Whether he gets coverage in China, a country with no free press at all and where all media coverage equals the opinion of just one political party, or other countries with severely underdeveloped media sectors (often the same countries that chronically fail to take sexual abuse seriously), doesn't really matter. It's simply a fact that media in Western countries are disproportionately important and influential, in terms of impact, revenue, quality, quantity and so on. That's why a country like Germany is a super power in the media world. Leaving Neverland got massive coverage in all of the world's Anglophone countries, and all other countries with large, developed media sectors. Whether the Chinese communist party considered sexual abuse of boys an important topic has no relevance here.

I'm not really interested in discussing who added what nearly a year ago. --Tataral (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the numbers Google shows you when you search for a word or phrase are quite meaningless, and don't really prove anything; for instance Google shows me entirely different, much lower numbers for all your terms, and they don't actually reflect real results. Searching for Michael album wouldn't really prove anything anyway, and I'm afraid all your examples are simply original research that fail to demonstrate anything. --Tataral (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

But viewer numbers and ratings are not meaningless and it's simply not true that only Leaving Neverland got "world-wide media attention". You still failed to explain why Jackson should be treated differently in the lead than anyone else. Do you think we should include posthumous films which got "world-wide media attention" in all dead people's lead? Should we include the supposedly most significant thing involving a dead person since he died in everyone's lead or just Jackson's? That fact that you added this film on the day of the UK premier proves you ignored WP:RECENTISM and just wanted to use Jacksons' page to promote the movie. castorbailey (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I, too, see different numbers: Leaving Neverland—about 8,160,000 results vs about 6,910,000 results; This Is It world tour—about 3,060,000,000 results vs about 2,860,000,000; Michael Jackson's This Is It—about 40,200,000 results vs about 34,900,000 result; Michael album—about 670,000,000 vs 576,000,000 about results; california vs conrad murray—51,800,000 results vs about 43,200,000 results; michael jackson immortal world tour—8,220,000 results vs about 8,930,000 results; jackson vs aeg—6,740,000 results vs about 7,570,000 results; Johnny Depp is producing a Michael Jackson musical—about 9,930,000 results vs about 13,400,000 results.

But Akhil's point remains intact! The impact of Leaving Neverland is not anywhere as big as several of the other listed items. Besides, the sole purpose of Leaving Neverland, from my observation, was to support Robson & Safechuck in their suit against the Jackson Estate, help them gain sympathy from the public, the mainstream media, the Hollywood élite, #MeToo/#TimesUp, and portray Jackson as a vicious Svengali and child molester.

That film was repeatedly challenged (the huge train station discrepancy, the Grand Canyon contradiction, the trial dinner contradiction, the complete omission of Robson's 7-year relationship w/ Brandy Jackson, the complete omission of R&S's lawsuit against the Jackson Estate, etc.), and several rebuttal documentaries (such as Leaving Neverland: Take Two, Lies of Leaving Neverland, Chase the Truth, Square One: New Witness in Michael Jackson Case) were released.

In any fair judicial system, and the way it works in America, an accused party has a fundamental human right to defend oneself when accused of wrongdoings, esp. CSA considered by many to be just as horrific if not worse than murder. That movie provides no evidence at all! It is all allegations, and inclusion of Leaving Neverland in the lead therefore justifies inclusion of the rebuttals in the lead as well. That said, I strongly favour removal of Leaving Neverland from the lead for all the aforesaid reasons. Israell (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Tataral Even if I wrote that the release of his posthumous albums all got "worldwide media attention," I never meant Xscape nor the This Is It compilation album. If I did, I would have put up its Google search results also, and you are sticking on that. Leaving Neverland did not, and does not, get media coverage in much of Asia, Africa, and other countries as it did in SOME Western countries like the USA and the UK. Arguments saying that the documentary had an impact on Jackson's career are not true. There is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value. That's why France, Russia, China, South Korea, and other Arabian and Asian countries said no to this film. These countries rejected the film due to the lack of credibility of its accusers. It was questioned by the media and people in their respective countries. But it was not reported in the USA and you are still talking about the free press index and China's position? The whole world saw how seriously China has reacted to one of its PB member's corruption allegations and MeToo allegation from their country. Or are you saying the Jackson estate asked the Chinese Communist Party to not report it?

I'm not interested in discussing who added what nearly a year ago. WHY NOT? It's you who made those sentences in the lead and I couldn't find a consensus for your addition even if you said there is a consensus. I don't think the numbers Google shows when you search for a word or phrase are quite meaningless. Google search results reflect the coverage of a topic there may be differences in numbers, but it is still much higher than the search results of Leaving Neverland.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"What a search test can do—and what it can't".--Moxy 🍁 05:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Who added what a year ago doesn't matter. I haven't been involved in editing this article in a long time, after I got tired of the entire article which is outside my primary field of interest anyway, and only returned to this talk page in response to a ping to weigh in on the most recent saga involving the targeting of this article by Jackson fans & family. --Tataral (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes it matters because you added this on the day when this movie premiered in the UK without even waiting for the impact that would justify it's inclusion in the lead. There was no bigger "world-wide media attention" at that time to this than his memorial or the Bashir special or the Oprah interview or This is it had. and your arguments is based on the supposed influence of the media coverage, in fact after all that promotion in the US the film still flopped with weak ratings and it has not yet aired in other countries. But you already decided that it's should be in the lead. You simply ignored WP:RECENTISM and WP:SUMMARY to promote the film. 2. How would you know that any editor here is a member of Jackson's family? 3. Naturally, Jackson's fans are among those who know the most about him so of course they will edit his pages. That is the case with every artist. 4. You still refuse to explain why you think Jackson should be treated differently than anyone else on wiki when it comes to posthumous events especially posthumous films in the lead. castorbailey (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, who added what a year ago has no relevance. The debate around this article should take the present as its starting point. I'm also astonished that someone who has been active on Wikipedia for about a month is now litigating the finer points of year-old edits to this article, that I barely recall myself. I haven't said anyone here is a member of the Jackson family; I just read in the ongoing noticeboard discussion that Taj Jackson[2] had complained about this article and indirectly called upon his fans on Twitter to influence it (in the thread started by Taj Jackson one of his followers, an account with 16,000 followers that is likely associated with the Jackson family in some way, even admits that "teams of MJ fans have been trying for years to edit it"), and there have been similar calls to target this article on various websites associated with the Jacksonsphere. It has been established beyond doubt in the ongoing noticeboard discussion that the article has been targeted by Jackson supporters. I have seen no evidence of Jackson being treated "differently" (a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway), and also, because Jackson is a unique figure we don't really have any other comparable articles. --Tataral (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. So calling the alleged victims liars or implying that they are liars should be avoided. As for Leaving Neverland 's ratings? Like this source from The Hollywood Reporter states, "HBO's documentary Leaving Neverland delivered a sizable audience over its two nights, with the first installment drawing one of the biggest tune-ins for an HBO doc in the past decade. [...] The initial audience for Leaving Neverland is several times larger than the typical tune-in for HBO documentaries. The last six docs to air on Monday nights on HBO, the outlet's usual featured spot for documentaries, have averaged about 187,000 viewers for their first airings. Across all platforms, part one of Leaving Neverland had gathered 1.9 million viewers as of Tuesday afternoon, and part two is at 1.1 million, bumping up the average for the whole film to 1.5 million." It was not a flop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence that they lied in Leaving Neverland (the train station, the Grand Canyon, the trial dinner, the items Robson supposedly got from Jackson burned at the end of the film, etc.), and they don't need "protection".

And this: "The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations. Yet in his efforts to try to sue the Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars, Robson had no problem lying under oath about the key issue, as the trial judge found. HBO and Reed interviewed no other witnesses, despite the fact that several witnesses have contradicted Robson’s and Safechuck’s claims."^[3] Israell (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer. The word “flop” is subjective. Leaving Neverland, while maybe a ratings success for HBO only, pulled in disappointing ratings worldwide, especially when you consider how much coverage and promotion it received. The night that it aired in America, a reality show, “Real Housewives of Atlanta,” had a larger audience. The top rated cable show that night was “The Walking Dead,” with just 4.7 million viewers, more than 3x what the documentary received. Even 2.3 million viewers, more than Leaving Neverland, tuned-in to watch a Hallmark Hall of Fame cable romcom show called “When Calls the Heart.” This was the first night, the more successful night of the the 2 nights it aired. The viewership and interest was even less the second night, where it didn’t even trend on social media either. Also as far as recent approved Jackson projects are concerned, “Michael Jackson's Halloween” which aired on CBS drew a larger audience than both nights of Leaving Neverland COMBINED!.And a Television biopic Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland was watched by 2 million viewers without any promotion and support from the Jackson estate . If Leaving Neverland was so impactful, why not mention it in HBO’s lead instead of Jackson’s lead? Here it’s nothing more than an advertisement. The addition of its timing further proves that.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell, if you want to continue to violate WP:BLP, that's your decision. But no one can state that I didn't make you aware of the WP:BLP policy applying to talk pages.

Akhiljaxxn, I'm not here to debate all of that. The argument that Leaving Neverland flopped was mentioned above. I noted, with a reliable source, that it is considered a success. Documentaries, especially those on cable channels, are judged differently in terms of success than a show like The Walking Dead. And like many reliable sources note, streaming is big now and is very much considered (sometimes over traditional ratings). I don't see a reliable source stating that Leaving Neverland was a flop or unsuccessful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I’m here to debate removing mention of the film from the lead of Michael Jackson’s page, per reasons already stated above. It obviously wasn’t even in the top 20 impactful projects that were about Jackson or even included Jackson. As mentioned before, there are other things a lot more notable, with even more coverage that can be included in the lead. You want it in the lead of a page, migrate it over to the lead of HBO’s WP article, since it was an HBO bonanza and well, that’s about it. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The way media handled Leaving Neverland and its aftermath was criticized by multiple media outlets inside and outside the United States. Here are a few links:#MeToo-gagged media silent as holes emerge in Michael Jackson abuse documentary, Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson? Leaving Neverland may have been a “hit” for HBO, but not proven nearly successful as actual Jackson Estate sanctioned projects nor unsupported projects like Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland. Here is sources saying it was a ratings disappointment:1 Archived 2019-03-06 at the Wayback Machine, 2 Archived 2019-03-05 at the Wayback Machine, 3 Archived 2019-03-06 at the Wayback Machine, 4 Archived 2019-03-06 at the Wayback Machine, 5 We have multiple reliable sources that says MJ sold 1 Billion records worldwide but we are not using it on Wikipedia.WP:Verifiability is also a concern for not using it and i think it applies for Leaving Neverland as well.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources in your "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" list state that the film was a ratings disappointment. And the showbuzzdaily.com and showbiz411.com sources are poor sources. And I've briefly addressed the way ratings are considered/weighted. I'm not going to cite sources speaking on the matter; for example, what some sources have stated about the The Walking Dead ratings decline and that streaming now factors into how ratings are considered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing the sentence from the lead. The lead in itself was already a great, all emcompassing summary on Jackson's life. I think all LN talk should be left to the controveries section, in its own indentation. MaJic (comments go here) 19:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC) ___

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

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

Change name to Daesean Avery & Take off The Child molestation Parts. 74.192.116.198 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Whatever they are, they're likely going to require consensus first, anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Who is Daesean Avery and what name should be changed to that? castorbailey (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

FBI files on Michael Jackson page

Can we get some eyes over at FBI files on Michael Jackson as its new and written by now blocked editors.--Moxy 🍁 04:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: Sure, but what's their being blocked got to do with it? ——SN 54129 16:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No one around to deal with all the copy vios.--Moxy 🍁 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw that the article a week or so ago and the problems with it, including the fact that it doesn't pass the WP:Notability guideline. But I left it alone, for someone else to handle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

why wouldn't it pass the WP:Notability guideline? It received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CBC, ABC, NBC,CNN, BBC, Reuters, France 24, Variety, MTV, Rolling Stone, ENews, Guardian, New York Post, NY Times, Billboard, Gawker, Evening Standard, LA Times, Telegraph, Smoking Gun, Essence, New Haven Register, CCTV, San Francisco Chronicle, TMZ, The Root, The Economic Times all covered it. castorbailey (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You state that, and yet what I'm seeing is this. What reliable sources specifically address "FBI files on Michael Jackson"? The article cobbles together sources and includes WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, safe to say no corner of the American and British mainstream media is a reliable source when it comes to Michael Jackson as they have been pushing a particular narrative to support their agenda for decades but given that Wiki's definition of reliable is not the same as fair balanced or factual all those outlets I mentioned above published reports about Jackson's FBI files and are used as sources when it comes to other issues. As I see TruthGuardians added 6 of those links already. CNN Guardian ABC NYPost MTV Billboard. Is it necessary to add more? Also, could you name an example of WP:SYNTHESIS on that page? castorbailey (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

These concerns are debunked and addressed in the "Media reaction" section, literally in the first paragraph. Actually clicking on the articles would reveal that in fact, they do address the FBI files in a similar fashion that I modeled the article after.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a "Media reaction" section with WP:Citation overkill does not "debunk" any WP:Synthesis concerns and statements about the article being poor. Not to mention the POV issues. The article has already had WP:Copyright issues. It's a very poor article with problems. And, no, I'm not interested in tackling them or debating them. Not when it'll just be Jackson fans making arguments like the above. Otherwise, like I stated, I would have done that. Jimcastor decided to start up this discussion, as if this is that article's talk page. And stating "safe to say no corner of the American and British mainstream media is a reliable source when it comes to Michael Jackson" just shows a complete misunderstanding of WP:Reliable sources and how this site is supposed to work. But it will at least be a quote I can use in the future to show how Jackson fans think and go about editing. You might also want to read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Debate away with yourselves, if you want to. This is my last comment in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I see for some people, it’s still “Jackson fans versus non-Fan.” That is a petty take in my estimates. I don’t see anything that suggests that jimcaster is a Jackson fan. Even if he/she is, WP actually encourages fans of an artist, piece of work, or topic to edit their pages. Original claims were for notability. There was never a notability issue just like there is no synthesis issue, or POV issue. The POV is the FBI’s, not mine. Any copyright issues were already resolved, so that’s old news. Simply put, we seem to see things differently and that’s okay. The article is brilliant. Anyone is welcome to insult my work, that’s their opinion and that fine. But it meets WP standards and breaks no rules. Like it is mentioned, this is a conversation for the page’s talk page, not here. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: 1. I didn't start the discussion, Moxy did. 2. I asked you to name an example of WP:SYNTHESIS on that page, you failed so far. 3. the copyright issues have been solved. 4. Saying it's a "very poor article" without being specific is POV 5. No, I understand WP:Reliable sources I just noted the irony of how ridiculous that phrase is when it comes to mainstream articles on Jackson. You sure can twist it to suit your agenda and take it out of context and ignore this part "but given that Wiki's definition of reliable is not the same as fair balanced or factual all those outlets I mentioned above published reports about Jackson's FBI files and are used as sources when it comes to other issues.". I gave you a list of sources and you refuse to explain why they cannot be considered WP:Reliable sources. 6. first you complained that no RS was cited. Not you complain about WP:Citation overkill when 6 reliable sources were cited. Make up your mind what exactly you want. castorbailey (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Genres

I don't think that Post-disco and Dance-pop are unnecessary for the Infobox as the genres should really only be the main 'standard' genres of Jackson's career. Post-disco generally falls under Disco and Dance-pop falls under Pop. Also, New jack swing falls under rhythm and blues. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions on the genres don't matter. You'll need to produce reliable sources indicating that the preponderance of music journalism about Jackson considers those to be primary genres. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

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

I am requesting a change to the photo representing Michael Jackson's page. Historybufffanatic2005 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions? If so, then list them here, and please ensure they comply with WP:Image use policy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer that lead image. In 2017, I stated, "I feel that [this image], showing Jackson performing, is the better lead image; it's not as focused on his face, but it captures the overall essence of the topic. The latter, cheesing image of Jackson just seems lackluster as a lead image, in my opinion." I'll feel that way about any lead image for this article that simply shows Jackson smiling, waving, or simply starting at the camera. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Changing appearance"

I think that "changing appearance" in the lead should be changed to "cosmetic surgery and paling skin" as the former it's quite ambiguous - changing appearance could mean anything from different hairstyles to fashion sense. Isaacsorry (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If “changing appearance” is too ambiguous, then so is "cosmetic surgery and paling skin.” Jackson also had lupus. Lupus is known to attack the soft tissue in a human body. His changing appearance is a result of cosmetic and corrective surgery to reverse some of the damage that lupus caused. Mentioning his “changing appearance” in the lead the way that it is to me, as a man of color, is borderline insulting. However, I can see your request causing the lead to become more unstable than it already is. I’ll say for stability sake, keep it like it is, or remove mention of it in the lead altogether. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems pretty evident that you're just letting your bias get in the away. Isaacsorry (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Friendships with preadolescent boys

@Laser brain: Hi, do you think that it would be appropriate for "friendships with preadolescent boys" to be included in the lead? I feel that this is pretty significant considering a lot of criticism/controversy stemmed from this. Isaacsorry (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In what context? I think we have a duty to keep tabloid sensationalism to a minimum and keep the lead focused on his musicianship and legacy, which is at the center of his notability. Unless you can produce mainstream journalism that indicates his personal relationships are as notable as his musical career. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I know the lead is specifically aimed to be at his legacy, but I meant it could be included in the 4th paragraph, which includes his changing appearance, lifestyle etc. Isaacsorry (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

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

Estimated sales for History: Past, Present and Future, Book I is now 22 million. Source ^[1] Nemrud91 (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit this: 1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood In June 1995, Jackson released the double album HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. The first disc, HIStory Begins, is a greatest hits album (reissued in 2001 as Greatest Hits: HIStory, Volume I). The second disc, HIStory Continues, contains 13 original songs and two cover versions. The album debuted at number one on the charts and has been certified for seven million shipments in the US.[196] It is the best-selling multi-disc album of all time, with 20 million copies(40 million units) sold worldwide.

Edit 20 million copies to 30 million copies please. I want you to write down that HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I by Michael jackson actually sold 30 million copies. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. https://www.mjvibe.com/history-past-present-and-future-book-i-20-years-of-the-most-personal-michael-jackson-album/

also according to https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Michael-Jacksons-History-album-succeed it is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

also, ten years ago it sold 25 million copies according to https://michael-jackson.fandom.com/wiki/HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I and now it sold 30 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "HIStory: Past, Present And Future, Book I (1995)*". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-10-29.

Not done: Please read this link to see why the sources you provided are not considered reliable sources, specifically the reasons why quora and fandom references are not reliable. Also, a Forbes picture-listicle is not generally accepted as a reliable source for sales, see [[W{:CHARTS|this link]] for suitable sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Change the current main photo

I don't understand why we're using a blurry black and white photo of MJ when we have multiple color photos of him, including https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson-3.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson_Dangerous_World_Tour_1993.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson_1984.jpg. I think we should change it to one of these photos. CarterLennon (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

MichaelJackson outside GoodTimeTheatre 1984.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

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

CHANGE: Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Jackson's genitals. A strip search was made, and the jurors felt the description was not a match.[186][187][188] In January 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandlers out of court for $25 million.[189] The police never pressed criminal charges.[190]

TO: Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Jackson's genitals. A strip search was made, and the grand jury concluded the description was not a match,[186][187][188] and so the police could not press criminal charges.[190] In January 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandlers out of court for $25 million.[189] 2601:646:8900:84B0:8421:5BC8:102C:33E1 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is no good reason to change the current text in this manner. Saying that "and so the police could not press charges" is WP:SYNTH since it is not stated in the source given. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

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

"Change and one of the greatest entertainers in the history of music. to and is the greatest entertainer in the history of music." 100.35.124.123 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done: A statement like that would require a multitude of independent sources to say that. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

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

Split paragraphs (longer than 5 lines) Aera23 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It would help to provide specific examples of these. Also, keep in mind that not everybody has the same screen widths, which can affect how many lines one sees when viewing pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

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

His correct full name on his birth certificate is Michael Joe Jackson (not Michael Joseph Jackson) 2606:6000:67C3:300:D9B5:16C7:F135:995F (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any links to prove that? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought Joe was the short form of Joseph. Jackson used both Joe and Joseph as his legal name.

For example, MJ's driver's licenses. They both show "Joe":1,2

His passport. It also shows "Joe":1

(I'm not sure about the reliability of the above sources.)

Furthermore, court documents read "Michael Joe Jackson": 1, 2

But on his death certificate, it was "Joseph": [File:Michael Jackson death certificate.jpg 1]. And there are videos of Jackson introducing himself as Michael Joseph Jackson. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo

Stan Garfield (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC) There is one misspelling of Robert Christgau as Christau: "According to Christau, by the 2000s,"

Fixed. Thanks for noticing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

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

Shouldn't this be updated?: "A trial was held from February 6 to 24, 2017, and a decision is expected in 2019." Fezzy1347 (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, let me state that I am not a native English speaker. So I now see two posible meanings in the quoted text:

As of 2019 "a decision is expected".
"a decision is expected [to be made] in 2019." That's why in my edit summary I wrote, "Five months into 2020 already." A possible update could be something like "a decision was made...", "the jury ruled that...", or similar statements; and, of course, with citation.

Fezzy1347 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The text currently says "A trial was held from February 6 to 24, 2017, and a decision was expected in 2019." I added a "needs update" template. If you have new proposed or updated text, preferably with a reliable source to back up any factual claims, please propose it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The template is sufficient. Thanks :) Fezzy1347 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

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

121.208.173.233 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Declined: Empty request. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 01:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sales

Is 350 million records really accurate? Although 750 million - 1 billion is most probably inflated, 350 million seems too low. Surely Michael Jackson did not sell only 50 million more records than Madonna and 100 million more than Rihanna (based on their sales stated on Wikipedia). I think this needs to be discussed inorder to come up with the most realistic sales figure. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed, even just a few months ago at the list. That figure seems more accurate at the moment according to all previous discussions. Per definition, "claimed sales" are attached with certifications and has been noted that recent MJ certifications are mostly streamings. Also, this source, althought is from a "reliable" publishing, uses questionable sales like from ABBA: 400 million overall and they used a blogspot as a source to breakdown some of their album sales. Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but it's just more to do with being more realistic/logical. For example, if you compare the total album sales of Madonna or Elton John compared to Jackson (I'm using them as an example because they both have sales of 300 million), them having 50 million less than Jackson doesn't seem correct. That's why I believe there may need to be a consensus for a new sales figure for Jackson. Isaacsorry (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but you may have in mind these points:

(1) You're using a reference when WP:CONTEXTMATTERS could applies here due questionable sales for other acts (e.g ABBA).

(2) Personally, I believe that using an artist to exemplified another sometimes it's complicated. Not bad at all. But since you already mentioned it, let me clarify something to you: these three artists have had "similar" claim sales chronologically (and forget MJ's hoax sales of 750M/1 billion). You can see an example with this reference who reported a gap of 25 million sales between Madonna/Jackson in the early-1990s. See this UNESCO report for Elton/Jackson in 2002, with a gap of just 20 million. Separete refences like this from 2000 in Madonna's case or this one for MJ in 2005 just confirm the previous "data" and not to mention the "standard" in following years to the present time with at least 300 million records in each one of them.

(3) Finally, despite having had "recently" a boost of over 40 million certified units with RIAA in his case, don't forget mostly are streaming sales (also: is not a surprise at all since sales increase with artists death), both MJ, Madonna & John have a similar summary amount of certified total units worldwide. And this is a reason why Michael Jackson hasn't been moved from the list from 300 to 450 million. You can see again, the talk page history of the last 3-4 pages archived.

Regards, Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

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

2601:47:4581:1200:C883:BE5B:73F3:1E3B (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

i wish to write more facts about him

Declined: Empty request. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Britmax (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

In the 2006–2009 section, the text "loans to Bank of America" should probably be "loans from Bank of America". 67.188.1.213 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Done —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there i want to copy your wikipedia page for translate sinhala languadge

Shamal6789 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

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

I was gonna add his other daughter Emily’s name. 75.117.211.183 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Per what reliable source does this other daughter exist? —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

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

Hello, I've noticed it says he is the eighth child of the Jackson family which is false. He is the seventh, since Randy Jackson and Janet Jackson are his younger siblings. I am requesting this to be edited. 74.14.22.64 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: The article is correct. He is the eighth of ten children born in the Jackson family; Randy and Janet are his younger siblings. The count of eight includes one older sibling who died in infancy. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael is indeed the eighth per the above and the repsonse to item#6 of the FAQ for this talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

grammatical error at the end of the first paragraph

The last paragraph ends in the sentence "Jackson is the most awarded artist in the history of popular music." The sentence should end with a period, but it doesn't. Is it possible for someone to put in the period at the end? 2001:569:78BA:4A00:6570:A1FC:EFCA:FFFB (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Done thank you for pointing that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

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

Please change the third paragraph of "1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood":

"In 1995 the Anti-Defamation League and other groups complained that "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me", the original lyrics of "They Don't Care About Us", were antisemitic. Jackson released a version with revised words.[203][204]"

to

"In 1995 the Anti-Defamation League and other groups complained that "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me", the original lyrics of "They Don't Care About Us", were antisemitic. Jackson strongly denied these allegations stating that 'The idea that these lyrics could be deemed objectionable is extremely hurtful to me, and misleading. The song in fact is about the pain of prejudice and hate and is a way to draw attention to social and political problems. I am the voice of the accused and the attacked. I am the voice of everyone.'^[1] However, Jackson still released a version with revised words.[203][204]" Nathanzachary56 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Chemically castrated?

Is there a reason this isn't included in the article? It can be attributed to the doctor instead of being started in WP:wikivoice. link. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

^ Weinraub, Bernard (June 15, 1995). "In New Lyrics, Jackson Uses Slurs". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2020.

[1] ttps://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/10/30/fin-du-boycottage-de-michael-jackson

[2] ttps://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/michael.jackson.internet/

[3] ttps://www.marklitwak.com/uploads/2/2/1/9/22193936/mj-petition.pdf

[4] "HIStory: Past, Present And Future, Book I (1995)*". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-10-29.

[5] Weinraub, Bernard (June 15, 1995). "In New Lyrics, Jackson Uses Slurs". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]