Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 14 December 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Michael Jackson. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should the article mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim? (No.) A1: No. The article should not mention reports that Michael Jackson was Muslim. Jackson had not publicly spoken about his exact religion in a number of years and only spoke about spirituality in general terms. The specific reports of a conversion ceremony for Jackson have been denied by his New York lawyer Londell McMillan. They were also denied by Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens and Dawud Wharnsby who were allegedly present at the ceremony. The Michael Jackson memorial service did not involve any Islamic rites. Without further details from his family or representatives, it will not be included in the article. Q2: Should the "Jacko" name be mentioned in the lead? (No.) A2: No. The "Jacko" name should not be mentioned in the lead. Past consensus goes against such inclusion. The name is a derogatory term used primarily by US/UK/Australian tabloids. The slogan is discussed in the relevant section of the article. Q3: Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer/blindness/liver disease/AIDS, etc.? (No.) A3: No. The article should not mention that Jackson reportedly had cancer, blindness, liver disease, AIDS, etc. Until such claims are confirmed by a Jackson representative it will not go in the article at all. These claims are largely fabricated by tabloids. Q4: Should the article mention that Jackson reportedly had a secret child called Omer Bhatti? (No.) A4: No. This claim was denied by Bhatti and only a DNA test would resolve the matter. Q5: Isn't Jackson the seventh child of the Jackson family, not the eighth? (No.) A5: No. Marlon had a twin, Brandon, who died shortly after birth. This makes Michael the eighth child.

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

Michael Jackson's religion was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 November 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Michael Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: McCullagh, Declan (June 25, 2009). "Michael Jackson's death roils Misplaced Pages". CNET Networks. Rawlinson, Linnie (June 25, 2009). "Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him". CNN. Boyd, E.B. (June 27, 2009). "Misplaced Pages Tech Team Learns About King of Pop, Rock, and Soul Death When Their Servers Crash". Mediabistro.com. Shiels, Maggie (June 28, 2009). "Web slows after Jackson's death". BBC News. Cohen, Noam (June 26, 2009). "With Jackson Entry, Misplaced Pages May Have Set a Record". The New York Times. Cohen, Noam (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. "Edits on Winehouse, Skrillex and Wile E Coyote: The role of a Wikipedian". Metro. October 12, 2012.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Jackson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Justinesim.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2019.

Taraborrelli, rumor enforcer?

For the sake of some clarity and getting out of that toxic conversation above. I am restating my edit proposal. Currently, we have this written:

Jackson's skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler. The change drew widespread media coverage, including speculation that he had been bleaching his skin. According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984, which causes white patches on the skin, and had also been skin bleaching.

The speculation or rumor: that Jackson was lightening his skin on purpose, because no one knew about his skin condition until he disclosed it on Oprah Winfrey's interview. Some people thought Jackson was a self-hating black man who wanted to be white, hence Jackson used cosmetic surgery and "skin bleaching" (which people didn't know what this was at the time) to make his skin white.

The fact: Jackson had vitiligo. His autopsy vindicated him that he had vitiligo. He also used skin bleaching creams to conceal his vitiligo, not to purposely make himself white.

The current sentence sourced to Taraborrelli wants to have it both ways, that Jackson wanted to pale himself on purpose and had vitiligo. That's what Taraborrelli implied in his book, because at the time people didn't know much about vitiligo. But as far as I know, there is no solid evidence that Jackson wanted to become a white person and used "skin bleaching" (whatever this means) to achieve his white-person dreams.

I propose changing the above statement to this:

Jackson's skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler. The change drew widespread media coverage, including rumors that he had been bleaching his skin on purpose. Jackson later revealed on an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993 that he suffered from a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale. His dermatologist Arnold Klein disclosed in an official statement requested by Jackson that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness which causes the loss of pigmentation of the skin and sensitivity to sunlight. Its drastic effects on the patient's body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness.

Support or Oppose? —Partytemple (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

More sources on the rumor back in the '90s. Chicago Tribune on the speculation : "Though the market for lightening procedures has never been big, doctors say it does exist. In addition to the dermabrasion and chemical peels, doctors can prescribe strong doses of an agent called hydroquinone, which inhibits the production of pigment-causing melanin." This rumor about hydroquinone is repeated in Taraborrelli's book.

Is it possible for a black person to make his skin lighter? ‘Yes,’ said Robert Kotler. ‘You can’t make it white, but you can make it lighter. There are classic bleaching compounds that are commonly found in over-the-counter bleaching creams like Porcelana. Also, there are known bleaching agents, a class of compounds called Hydroquinones, that will make a black person’s skin lighter.’

—Partytemple (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support I think it could also be added that the cream that had been prescribed for him was Benoquin, which is the FDA approved treatment for extensive vitiligo. It was found among his medications. GiuliaZB (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support The proposed change makes clear that Jackson bleached his skin with a clear purpose: not to become white, but to hide or soften the visual effects of his illness.Mcouzijn (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "on purpose." Makes no sense, considering that knowingly using skin whitening products to lighten the skin (areas or in total) is on purpose. And oppose "a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale." That is not an accurate description of vitiligo. This is why it's not the description we use as the lead sentence in the Vitiligo article. The "a rare skin condition that causes his skin color to pale" text should be replaced with "a rare, long-term skin condition characterized by patches of the skin losing their pigment." And the "that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness which causes the loss of pigmentation of the skin and sensitivity to sunlight" part should be changed to "that the skin condition was vitiligo, an illness that also makes the person sensitive to sunlight." Also, "rumors" should simply be "speculation." The matter was not just a feature of tabloids and it's still not, and "rumors" can imply that it was/is simply a tabloid matter. And as for "you can't make it white," from the Chicago Tribune source back in the 90s (before we had the medical advancements we have today), that seems to depend on what the person means by "white." Sammy Sosa bleached his skin, and it is what many people would call "white," just like many people called Jackson's super light skin "white." I'm fine with the rest of the proposed text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I need to explain the difference, any further, between Jackson's freewill to use creams and people speculating whether or not Jackson was lightening his skin because of self-hatred and not because of vitiligo. —Partytemple (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to explain. Use of "on purpose" in the above proposed text is not needed and makes no sense, for the reason I stated in my "19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)" post. He did not unintentionally lighten his skin. Your proposed text ties the skin-lightening products to vitiligo. Use of "on purpose" is not telling readers "Jackson was not lightening his skin because of self-hatred." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Source by Steve Knopper, another biographer of Jackson. This is what he says about Jackson's skin:

In 1987, after “Thriller” made Jackson the biggest star in the world, he put out his smash follow-up, “Bad” — and was all over MTV with its hit singles. But he looked whiter than he had appeared in “Thriller.” Many fans assumed that Jackson, who had become a star through Motown Records in the early ’70s, was turning his back on his race to continue his quest for crossover success and adoration from a white audience. Greg Tate, an African American cultural critic for the Village Voice and other publications, called him “another Negro gone mad because his mirror reports that his face does not conform to the Nordic ideal.” Steven Shaviro, a white author and academic, said, “In a white supremacist society he wanted to become white.” But Jackson insisted otherwise, and there has never been any evidence to contradict him. He told Winfrey in the 1993 interview that he lightened his skin with makeup because of vitiligo, a disease that gave him blotchy, light-and-dark patches, and an autopsy verified the diagnosis after he died in June 2009. His brother Jermaine Jackson also acknowledged the condition as vitiligo and wrote, “He looks like a white man splashed with coffee.” As for Michael Jackson himself, he told Winfrey: “I’m a black American, I’m proud to be a black American, I am proud of my race. . . . I have a lot of pride in who I am, and dignity.”

—Partytemple (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In light of #RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?, I made this edit. Like I stated with it, the "Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1984" aspect is only supported by Taraborrelli. I've looked on Google Books and regular Google. Other sources say that Arnold Klein said that Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo in 1986. I left a hidden note about it. I incorporated Partytemple's following wording: "Vitiligo's drastic effects on the body can cause psychological distress. Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." But I feel that it's important to continue to note that these treatments further lightened his skin; so I left that in. I also added a quote from Jackson that includes him saying that he wasn't trying to be something he wasn't -- white. I didn't include the word "white" in this regard or word it as "He said he wasn't trying to be white." because the source doesn't explicitly state this even though Jackson is implying it. We would need a different source of him saying he wasn't trying to be white. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup tweaks here, here, here, here and here. If we are to re-add that his lupus was in remission, we should look to see if a non-Taraborrelli source states this. I briefly looked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed to this because the two proposed sources for "Jackson frequently used fair-colored makeup and skin bleaching prescription creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness." don't say that. They don't say he used creams to lighten his skin; they speak of makeup. I replaced one source with this Rolling Stone source, which mentions that the skin-bleaching creams found in his home after his death were likely used to treat his vitiligo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the following: ″The creams would have further lightened his skin, and, with the application of makeup, he could appear very pale." Change the word "pale" to "translucent″ as that is how medical professionals typically describe the settling results of vitiligo. Also, Taj, one of Michael Jackson siblings, and producer Rodney Jerkins have all recently described being able to "see through" his skin. Keep the rest of what is there, but change that one word.

Furthermore, if we are going to mention his lupus, perhaps we should also mention the ravaging effects that lupus have on soft tissue in humans and how having lupus can alter one's appearance because of it. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that changing "very pale" to "translucent″ would be an improvement. I think it would confuse readers because of the common understanding of "translucent″ and the fact that they couldn't literally see through Jackson's skin. To the general public, he appeared very pale, not translucent, and Jackson having been very pale is supported by numerous reliable sources. I also don't see the need to mention those closest to him saying that they could see through his skin, at least in this article. Their description could go in the main article about his appearance and health, since that's the article for extensive detail on those topics. Also, just Googling "vitiligo translucent," I'm seeing references to Jackson on regular Google, but no solid medical sources about it. Looking at this Healthline source, which is a low-quality medical source, it states, "Some people are born with naturally translucent or porcelain skin. This means that the skin is very pale or see-through. You may be able to see blue or purple veins through the skin." It lists vitiligo as a cause of translucent skin.

If we state more on his lupus, it should be with sources focused on Jackson's lupus, not lupus in general. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

_____

References

1. Campbell 1995, pp. 14–16. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCampbell1995 (help)
2. Parameswaran 2011, pp. 75–77. sfn error: no target: CITEREFParameswaran2011 (help)
3. DeMello 2012, p. 152. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDeMello2012 (help)
4. "Oprah makes Michael Jackson pale". The Independent. 1993-02-12. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
5. Kolata, Gina (1993-02-13). "Doctor Says Michael Jackson Has a Skin Disease". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
6. https://www.drugs.com/pro/benoquin.html
7. https://www.umassmed.edu/vitiligo/blog/blog-posts1/2016/01/did-michael-jackson-have-vitiligo/

Revert: "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partytemple, I am sick to the teeth of you constantly accusing me of pushing an agenda. I've been editing Misplaced Pages for about a decade, I understand the need for neutrality, I am not even particularly a fan of Michael Jackson and have no opinion on his guilt or innocence. Please take my edits in WP:GOODFAITH.

I stand by the edit: "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is not relevant for the lead, and reads like damage control. Of course Jackson's fans and associates defended MJ - that's not remarkable or informative. The event is that a documentary was released and had an effect on the subject of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The event is the controversy not just the film. You have been literally just deleting opposition voices in both the LN article and this one. It's obvious POV-pushing.

Exhibit A: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/14/europe/france-michael-jackson-case-intl/index.html

Exhibit B: https://en.wikipedia.org/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations

I could show you more, but what you're doing is obvious. —Partytemple (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, so your response, once again, is to accuse me of maliciously manipulating the encyclopaedia. If that's your attitude we'll never be able to have a constructive conversation. Popcornduff (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the question be, what is the relative size of the two reactions, the backlash against Jackson and the criticism of the documentary? If they were roughly equal, they should probably both be mentioned. How extensive was the "international backlash"? A few DJs in a few countries refusing to play his records for a bit, or something more substantial?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who disagree with "international backlash" for this reason. There has never been more than a few radio stations/DJ's who took Jackson's music off the air for awhile until the controversy faded. As for the "international" part, there is strong evidence that many countries did not take the film at face value as easily as the US or UK.—Partytemple (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The backlash/legacy and "radio stations" aspect was addressed at the WP:OR noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 42#Michael Jackson's legacy after the Leaving Neverland documentary. The consensus from that is clear -- we are not going to judge the extent of the backlash ourselves.

And, Partytemple, cease making bad-faith assumptions. You've gone on about me making bad-faith assumptions against you. And yet this is what you've done to me, Popcornduff, and others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, criticism with regard to Jackson after the documentary also came in the form of critical reviews of the film, media articles considering or believing that the accusers are being truthful, and criticism of Jackson fans (for example, here).

On a side note: Popcornduff, I expanded the title of this section to include "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" so that it's clearer what this section is about. Feel free to revert the expanded heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The current attribution of "international" is exaggerating the film's impact. WP:DUEWEIGHT. The film is not as successful outside the US and UK. Critical reviews of the film is a non sequitur. Both streams and radio plays have returned to normal frequency since the controversy faded. —Partytemple (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"International" is accurate, per the previous discussion that took place on this talk page. What reliable sources are there for "The film is not as successful outside the US and UK."? I mentioned critical reviews of the film because that also concerns backlash. Not a non sequitur. You stated, "Both streams and radio plays have returned to normal frequency since the controversy faded." What reliable source states that the stations that stopped playing his songs are playing them again? What reliable source states that the controversy has faded? Again, we do not asses these things ourselves. We rely on reliable sources, and we avoid recentism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, the media doesn't report on this topic as they are more interested in promoting the film. Soundcharts.com has all the streaming and airplay information. There is no credible report that it was successful outside of the US and UK. In fact, it wasn't even that successful within the US and UK, as numbers have shown. So it would still be dubious to claim it had an international impact. —Partytemple (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Best to stick to what reliable sources state on the matter. There will be reliable sources assessing or reassessing the impact in the future; we just have to wait for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There won't be, because the media aren't interested in discussing this. It was clear propaganda from the get-go. There is no article assessing the aftermath. Most articles promoting the film were published around the same week in March. Jackson's airplay reverted back to normal in about a month after the film's premiere on HBO in March. Some major music markets like France, Germany, and Brazil were completely unaffected. The ones that were affected reverted back to normal. I hate to say it, but at this point, whoever still believes that film is a sap. The film also stole material from a child pornography book that was deemed libelous and criminal before. —Partytemple (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above. There will eventually be sources, including academic sources, assessing the impact of Leaving Neverland with regard to Jackson's legacy. There always are eventually such sources when it comes to a big controversy. I've seen this happen over and over again, and Misplaced Pages updates accordingly. And this film is very controversial, having received a lot of media attention. I'm not interested in editors' claims of "was clear propaganda from the get-go" or the common Jackson fan claim that the film "stole material from a child pornography book." That has no place on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And editors should remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. So no ill talk of the two men who allege that they are victims should be had on this talk page, unless directly relevant to what reliable sources have stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The film has already violated WP:BLP. They included Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin into the controversy. Barnes threatened to sue. —Partytemple (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the film has not violated WP:BLP. That is not how WP:BLP is applied. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it has. And there are academic sources for it. Moreover, there are academic sources that say "Robson and Safechuck are proven frauds" verbatim. —Partytemple (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Do I need to take this matter to the BLP talk page or the WP:BLP noticeboard so that you better understand how our WP:BLP policy works? It seems so. What academic sources say "Robson and Safechuck are proven frauds" verbatim? You were just going on about "there is no article assessing the aftermath", and now you are saying this? Furthermore, even if there are such sources, we would not use them to state such in Misplaced Pages's voice. It would also be questionable to include such at all. This is per BLP. And it's not the same as sources assessing Jackson's legacy after Leaving Neverland. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You just explained why I didn't use those sources. They argue that the two accusers are likely frauds and slanderers, the genre of the film can be interpreted as either pedophilia fiction or "fake news" depending on your sexual orientation, and the target audience are various species of Ovis and Povertus ironicus, not to be confused with their close cousins Extremis autismus. It's very intelligent and highly vulgar, totally unfit for WP. —Partytemple (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple, it's pretty rich to accuse others of POV-pushing and then declare that you think accusations about Jackson are "propaganda". That makes it harder to take your edits around the subject in good faith. Our personal opinions about the events described in reliable sources aren't relevant. And no, the film is not a violation of the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy... because Misplaced Pages did not make the film. Popcornduff (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I too would agree that the film's impact has been greatly exaggerated. If you believe that Michael was a victim of false accusations prior to the film, you still believe that. If you believe that the accusations may have some merit, you believed that prior to watching the film. Evidence that supports these claims comes in the form of the increase of Jackson's streams and sales shortly after (https://fortune.com/2019/03/11/michael-jackson-music-sales-hbo-documentary/) the film failed to garner the viewership HBO was really aiming for (https://www.showbiz41 1.com/2019/03/05/urgent-leaving-neverland-second-night-was-a-bust-with-fewer-than-1-million-viewers). Even months after Leaving Neverland, radio stations started playing his music even more according to soundcharts.com where you have to create an account to view the global airplay data (though there was a dip in radio rotation in the month of March) and streams showed no signs of slowing down (https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/07/29/michael-jackson-album-2019-sales-streams-up-significantly-despite-documentary-scandal-and-calls-for-bans-on-his-music). As far as "and drew criticism from Jackson fans and associates" is concerned, I believe that is putting it vaguely. Criticism came beyond just Jackson's fans and associates. It came in the form of the black community, other celebrities, and even civil rights and religious leaders (https://variety.com/2019/music/news/southern-christian-leadership-conference-defends-michael-jackson-slams-leaving-neverland-1203152598/). I don't mind the comment being there as is, as it reveals the neutral truth. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" at NPOV noticeboard

Linked here.

Experienced voices welcomed. —Partytemple (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of philanthropy work in lead

It is suggested that Jackson's philanthropy in the lead since it forms an important aspect of his life and legacy (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-jacksons-forgotten-humanitarian-legacy_b_59c7c8d3e4b08d661550436a).

Suggested edit: Jackson is also remembered for his philanthropy and pioneering efforts in charitable fundraising. In 2000, the Guinness World Records recognized him for supporting 39 charities, more than any other entertainer. Or to keep the section shorter we can go with 'His other achievements include Guinness world records (including the Most Successful Entertainer of All Time and most charities supported by an entertainer)

Links: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/105188-most-charities-supported-by-a-pop-star/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jul-08-et-cause8-story.html https://hiphopwired.com/98495/remembering-michael-jackson-the-global-humanitarian/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.83 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

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

'Dubbed the King of Pop' should now be 'Dubbed the God of Pop' DaSpencerHere (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done he isn't known to be called that very often, at least compared to "King of Pop". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

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

change it so that michael sounds better from he way the sexual assault section sounds it makes it seem like he is a criminal which he is not Ppanda626 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2019 (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. Danski454 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Space Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson voice in space channel 5 part 2 so they should credit him for that. Please add that to the biography. Space Michael jackson (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Space Channel 5 is a video game and Michael Jackson has a brief cameo role as a voice artist. This is quite obscure and I'd never heard of this before. It is mentioned in the article Space Channel 5 as you would expect, but it may not be notable enough for a mention here.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

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

1. Court findings of Jackson's death should be re-added to the lead page. It was not too long ago removed for whatever reason and is no longer found in the edit history. It is just as important for this to be mentioned on the lead as his birth. The Los Angeles County Coroner ruled his death a homicide, and his personal physician, Conrad Murray, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and incarcerated for the crime and this is well-sourced.
2. Posthumous Allegation section should be corrected to show that Jackson's music is back in rotation. New Zealand radio stations eventually re-added his music to their playlists, citing "positive listener survey results".. Candana radio stations did the same.
3. The day Jackson died, June 25th, has been observed as World Vitiligo Day since 2011 in remembrance of Michael Jackson and should be recognized on both body and lead as it use to be. TruthGuardians (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/28/jackson.autopsy/index.html
2. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/aug/28/michael-jackson-homicide
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/us/29jackson.html
4. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-aug-29-me-jackson29-story.html
5. https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/justice/california-conrad-murray-sentencing/index.html
6. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-nov-08-la-me-conrad-murray-20111108-story.html
7. https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/117143093/michael-jackson-songs-back-on-new-zealand-radio-airwaves%7Ctitle=Michael
8. https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/10/29/fin-du-boycott-de-michael-jackson
9. https://www.umassmed.edu/vitiligo/blog/blog-posts1/2014/06/world-vitiligo-day/
10. https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/health/world-vitiligo-day-2019-causes-symptoms-treatment-5798223/

 Partly done:

• 1.  Not done The article Death of Michael Jackson is already linked from the article and extensively covers these issues.
• 2.  Already done
• 3.  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

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

Deletion of dead persons official website. DrTazz (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The official website at https://www.michaeljackson.com/ is still online, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to remove it. As you might expect, the MJ website is selling a ton of MJ merchandise, and some people might find this a bit tasteless. Elvis Presley died in 1977, long before the web came along, but he still has a similar website at http://elvis.com/ which is largely devoted to merchandise. That's life, I suppose . The http://elvis.com/ link in his article's infobox redirects to https://www.shopelvis.com/store and probably fails WP:EL guidelines because there is nothing remotely of value that is about Elvis as a person.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm troubled by sites like these. Obviously a commercial entity has purchased rights to the the "brand" and sites like these exist to make money from the brand, not to disseminate information about the artist. In that case, I don't know why we're helping them along. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I went to the site and read the FAQ. To my surprise, there is actually some interesting stuff from the estate there, and it's less brand-managed than I was expecting. They have quite a fair and interesting explanation for the policy on releasing unreleased material, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know! Thanks for digging deeper. I'm significantly less troubled... --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that https://www.michaeljackson.com/ must remain on the article. The brand still exists, and new (posthumous) material is released or re-released, and the website features biographical information. Israell (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I too would recommend keeping https://www.michaeljackson.com/ for all of Popcornduff’s findings and Israell’s reasons. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Year of active

Eggishorn, SNUGGUMS For many years here on this article, the length of Jackson’s career was listed as 1964-2009. It was well sourced as you can see here. TrackerMercurial136 replaced the source and changed the year. Jackson publicly sang his first song live in 1963 (Climb every mountain) at the age of 5. He joined the band with his brothers that following year in 1964. Before motown they had small local radio releases from 1964-67. They signed with Motown in 1968 to released their first motown material in 1969. This information is well documented in many sources like these , , , and autobiography of Jackson itself.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you actually read the source, you can see that it states that it was written by The Jacksons and close friend, Fred Bronson. That alone shows you extreme credibility. Also, in the book it states that they were first billed as the Jackson 5 in august 1965 in which they also performed live for the first time at a shopping mall in Gary, Indiana. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edit should be reverted back to the year 1964, per the Jacksons' own website (https://www.thejacksons.com/history/) Michael's active work-life started when he started rehearsing as a member of the band in 1964, not when they first performed publicly as a group. Even if we are going to go off of first public performances, that will still be 1964 when he performed "Climb Every Mountain" in the school's auditorium. Being billed as "Jackson 5" is not a criterion that determines when his work life started. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. He performed "Climb Every Mountain" in 1965. It's stated in the book, "Michael Jackson: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track". Here's a link to it: (https://books.google.com/books?id=CbVgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT407&lpg) TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources like Telegraph (two articles), Ebony Magazine and MJ's older brothers autobiography You Are Not Alone: Michael: Through a Brother's Eyes that i gave you above clearly say MJ performed "Climb Every Mountain" in 1963.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s not true. Every legitimate source ever written about Jackson states that Jackson performed the song when he was 5 years old, which would have been from 1963-1964. He would have been 6-7 years old in 1965. His mom has said it to Oprah, he said it to Martin Bashir and in his autobiography, his brothers are saying it on there website, it was said in the movie “Jackson: An American Dream,” and said in the following links: (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5649814/Michael-Jackson-100-facts-about-the-king-of-pop.html), (https://www.liveabout.com/michael-jackson-biography-p2-1007070), (https://www.biographyonline.net/music/michael-jackson.html). TruthGuardians (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I changed 1964 in the lead to 1965 was to keep it consistent with the article body's prose and infobox. Whichever year we go with should be the same in each location. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

It is suggested that '..26 American Music Awards' in the lead be edited as '26 American Music Awards (more than any other male artist)' given that Jackson significantly leads over the next male artist, Kenny Rogers who has 19 AMAs. https://www.theamas.com/winners-database/top-winners-leaderboard/

Remove Leaving Neverland from Lead

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 . 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 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

In "Posthumous releases and productions": It says "Later that year, Queen released three duets recorded with Jackson and Freddie Mercury...". When in fact it was one song, not three. Also a bit below that line it says that "pre-Broadway run in Chicago was canceled in the wake of the renewed claims..." and that the National Football museum statue was removed because of the allegations. There is no source for these claims that that was the reason why it was removed and therefore that line and the Broadway line should be edited out. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: First change made. Please provide reliable sources for the rest. qedk (t 桜 c) 10:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello qedk. The sources in the article does not say that the allegations are the reason why this or that was removed. Which makes it unsourced speculation and for that reason should be removed. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake: The sources do state it's because of the allegations, excerpt from BBC: Its removal comes as sexual abuse allegations against the singer are detailed in a new documentary film. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey qedk. It says "comes after". It does not say that is the reason. They are merely speculating. They have also denied the rumors that the pre broadway show cancelled because of a doc that came 6 months before. For example where it says "Producers and the Michael Jackson estate cite the reason for cancellation as scheduling difficulties brought about by the recent Actors Equity strike" Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake: I disagree that "comes after" specifically implies it has no relation to the sexual assault allegations. The article states "cancelled in the wake of..." and "following renewed sexual allegations", which is an accurate reflection of the statements in the references. Furthermore, the statement of the estate is opinionated and should definitely not be taken into account, thought it can be added as a counter-view. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that is the reason why. The estate are the ones behind the project. They decide what they want to do with the project and they said it was because of the recent strike. Since we can't prove this to be true we should remove it all togheter. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:Citing sources to see how Misplaced Pages works with sourcing. We would remove it if the statement was redacted from the article, no other reason to remove it, you seem to have an one-sided interest in this article, please also read WP:NPOV. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

qedk, Here is a Forbes article from August 2018 before the premiere of Leaving Neverland in early 2019 saying that the musical will hit Broadway in 2020. There is no reason in saying that Leaving Neverland caused the delay of the Broadway musical, and it should be removed from the article.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not what it says, it says "in the wake of", multiple sources including BroadwayWorld and NYT have stated it was following the documentary and that's what the article states. I'm sorry but I'm not making any changes, I recommend you let it be or find reliable sources that counter the statement. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

qedk, why is "in the wake of" a necessary thing to add? How is that relevant? You either list every possible reason why for example that pre broadway show was cancelled or you mention no possible reasons. You can't have it one way. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add it, I just don't see any reason to remove it. As long as the information is NPOV and reliably sourced, it makes no sense to remove it because you think it should not be in an article, please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV pages first. If you want to add all the possible reasons, make another request and state exactly what you want added and someone will do it (probably). --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"The same BBC that you cited above, Forbes and many other reliable sources reported back in july 2018 that the musical is going to hit Broadway in 2020. But during the premiere of Leaving Neverland (2019) the media including the BBC said it's delayed. And according to the latest report from last month it's on schedule, and you still think it should be there?".- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The source BWW was referencing in NYT states that a development lab was delayed (not the musical itself), the current wording makes it seem otherwise, will change that accordingly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are THREE reliable sources that pre-date "Leaving Neverland" that revealed the Broadway show was always going to come out in 2020. To suggest that "Leaving Neverland" was the reason for the 2020 release date is only speculative and can not be proven. The Michael Jackson Estate even released a press statement clarifying as much. These sources can be found here: Source 1, Source 2, and Source 3. So now with this proof, the change can now happen. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I already altered the statement to reflect the correct delay information. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Michael Jackson articles
• Top-importance Michael Jackson articles
• WikiProject Michael Jackson articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Pop music articles
• Top-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles
• FA-Class R&B and Soul Music articles
• High-importance R&B and Soul Music articles
• WikiProject R&B and Soul Music articles
• FA-Class Rock music articles
• Top-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• WikiProject Dance articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• High-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class Janet Jackson articles
• Mid-importance Janet Jackson articles
• WikiProject Janet Jackson articles
• FA-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• FA-Class Southern California articles
• Mid-importance Southern California articles
• Southern California task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• FA-Class American music articles
• Top-importance American music articles
• WikiProject American music articles
• FA-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• FA-Class Indiana articles
• Mid-importance Indiana articles
• WikiProject Indiana articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Selected anniversaries (August 2019)