Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Redirect Safechuck v. MJJ Productions page here

I have reverted Bhdshoes2 's edit because the article he created, with the title, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions doesn't meet the requirements for a standalone article as of now. The case is not even at trial stage yet and there are two other ongoing connected cases one againt HBO, one filed by Wade Robson, none has its own page. Currently, there are not enough sources even for the title of the article. There is no wikirule that every appeal court decision that may lead to trial should have their own page. castorbailey (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a pretty significant legal ruling in and of its as a corporate liabiliy matter. The entire planet doesnt revolvd aroud MJ abuse allegations. That ruling is its own thing. That shouldnt be obscured just because it involves accusations against MJ. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It does not revolve around Jackson abuse allegations, which is why an appeal court ruling does not warrant a separate page just because it is about Jackson abuse allegations. There are 1000s and 1000s of appeal court rulings world history which somehow changed case law but they don't have standalone articles either. It's also unclear at this point how significant this ruling will be since the only case at this point where it is tested is the Jackson case. castorbailey (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We need a link to the pge deleted Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Safechuck_v._MJJ_Productions&oldid=1189083980 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That, I think, is a link to the deleted page. Take a read and tell me what you think. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

He page is redirected for the reason told you on the noticeboard. Redirected pages are not linked on the page there they are redirected to. castorbailey (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What? It is a link to the deleted page - what does that have to do with the redirect? It is a link to the pre-redirect version... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Er...

Where did the lead go? Popcornfud (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

New editor came along, without proper permissions to edit protected pages after years of being stable and neutral. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to look into all the edits, but I've restored the lead, at least. Popcornfud (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Popcorn that was me! There was no lead. It needs to explain the article. Q1 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Folks im not a new editor. Unless you mean to this page. Im trying to flesh out the sections. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "proper permissions"? I came along and edited with good faith citations to mainstream media allegations - who was I supposed to ask for permission? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does this article have no lead?

It is an article about the 6 alleged accusations right? Then why does it randomly launch into a discussion of the first accusers dad?

What is it that you think is "random"? Popcornfud (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right? If you read WP:LEAD there should be a concise summary at the beginning summarizing the article. Imagine you know nothing about the abuse allegations against this pop star and you want an overview intro. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead provides a fairly good overview per WP:LEAD. Popcornfud (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It was devoid of reference to non-Chandler allegations some of which are about to head to trial. I added a sentence on those. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I fuzzily recall some debate in the past about whether the lead should mention the subsequent allegations, but I might be misremembering and can't be bothered to check. As 1) the lead should summarise the body of the article, and 2) the body of the article goes into a bit of detail about the further allegations, I don't object to a single sentence summarising these in the lead.

However, this is raising a bigger issue, which is: What is the scope of this article? The current title, "Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson", suggests it covers all the allegations. Should it be limited to the 1993 allegations only? Popcornfud (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. Good question. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought about this more over night and given the looming trial, i really think the page should fairly, as a neutral Encyclopedia, give an overview of the allegations.

There were six ormer kids who personally alleged abuse in court filings or testimony: Jason, Jordan, Gavin, star, safechuck, robson. Then terry george told reliable source ABC news that he alleged MJ talked about sex while touching self on the phone when 13. So that is seven. That doesnt mean any of this is TRUE of course but it IS true that the 7 so alleged.

The other thing that should really be on this page are the witnesses wuo alleged they, themselves, saw MJ abuse children in sworn testimony. Again they might be lying or done it for money and we can make that clear. But the fact that they swore they witnessed should be in article. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps - Popcornfud, i think it is fine to omit the names as wordy in tbe intro. However the number seven really should remain. Editors keep trying to obscure that number and that is really the thrust of the page. [Making a separate Chandler only page will just confuse matters i think given how contentious all MJ abuse edits can be!] Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest demoting the heading level of most of the existing content so that the article covers (at least) the allegations from 1993 (heading), 2003 (heading, with link to main article), and Leaving Neverland (heading, with link to main article). Does that make sense? At the moment, the article is a fudge between only talking about the 1993 allegations and settlement, and a general discussion of all allegations. Lt1896 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine but i think the safechuck and robson allegations should have a link to the documentary page as well as a link to this page on the current court case about to go to trial in Feb:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Safechuck_v._MJJ_Productions&oldid=1189083980 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This ruling as was explained elsewhere does not warrant a standalone article, it would be the first time on wiki for a state appeal court ruling having its own page especially in an ungoing case. The article also lacks balance and selectively cites primary source, the ruling itself. castorbailey (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitelt not the first time. I lifted the template from other Cal case. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What was that case? castorbailey (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank I think Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That appeal court decision came after trial and was a life and death case. The trial was notable because it was the first where a blood bank was found liable in connection with transmission of HIV by a blood transfusion. castorbailey (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Problem with that is that Safechuck Robson did not make the allegations in Leaving Neverland but long before that in creditor claims and lawsuits and their allegations in the film differ with their allegations in the creditor claim and the lawsuits. castorbailey (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I am working on beefing it up and will upload soon Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to fix the Safechuck and Robson entry

The entry collapses the two together, but I think for clarity it should have a Robson subheading and a Safechuck one. Otherwise it looks like the two have overlapping accusations or filed a joint lawsuit, but they are 2 separate accusations and filings. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I beefed it up here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson&oldid=1190795244 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

annnd it's all been syatemstically deleted for no good reason: Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This is what was deleted:

===== Safechuck and Robson accusations =====

In 2013, dancer, choreographer and former child performer Wade Robson, who in 2005 testified that Jackson never molested him accused Jackson of sexual abuse during their friendship when Robson was a child. In a 2013 interview with the Today Show, Robson stated that the birth of his son two years prior had impacted his emotions regarding what he asserted he had endured as a child: "This is not a case of repressed memory," said Robson to host Matt Lauer. "I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse."

Robson filed a late creditor's claim and civil lawsuit against the singer's estate. Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weizman called the Robson allegations pathetic and outrageous.

In 2014, former child actor James Safechuck, who met Jackson in 1986 when co-starring in a Pepsi commercial, and also had previously denied he was molested also made sexual abuse claims against the singer. Safechuck asserted the sexual abuse began in June 1988 in a hotel room in Paris during a Jackson tour on which he had accompanied Jackson. Safechuck, too, filed late creditor's claims and a civil lawsuit against the estate.

In their legal actions, Robson and Safechuck asserted that in the 1980s and 1990s, corporations owned by Jackson, operated "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known."

Between 2015 and 2017 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dismissed both the creditor claims and the lawsuits as too late. Following the dismissal Robson and Safechuck appealed and participated in the 2019 documentary film Leaving Neverland in which they described their accusations in detail. In 2020 the lawsuits were revived by legislative extensions of the statute of limitations. That year and in 2021 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed both lawsuits, partly on the ground that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had the kind of legal relationship with the companies under tort law that would have required them to protect the boys and the companies had no ability to control Jackson, their sole owner. Safechuck and Robson appealed again.

In 2022, Safechuck and Robson released the first episode in a podcast series hosted by the pair on recovering from childhood sexual abuse and other life trauma.

In 2023, in a published opinion issued by Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes on behalf of a three-judge panel, the California Court of Appeal sent the Safechuck and Robson cases back to lower court for further proceedings. The panel ruled that, as a matter of law, corporations have a legal duty to protect minors allegedly in their care and control from sexual abuse, even if the alleged perpetrator is the sole owner. The matter is set for a pre-trial conference in February 2024. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So... five paragraphs with 18 reliable sources gets immediately wiped in their entirety from the page. Five paragraphs about child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson that look likely to go to trial in 2024. Erased from a page called ... wait for it ... "Child sexual absue allegations against Michael Jackson." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit history shows there were plenty of reasons to delete it. podcast is not notable, Safechuck not a child actor, using unreliable source, using primary source, violation of WP: DISTRUPT and WP:BALANCE was given in the edit summary. I see this as clearly WP:WEIGHT. You want to include more text to promote these accusers here than the 2005 trial has while they already have a lengthy article for their movie which referenced here. If you say that movie presents their allegations on this page there should be a much more concise summary of their case here. The 1993 is detailed on this article because it does not have any standalone article. PinkSlippers (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's against Wikipedia policy to blanket delete text rather than improve it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also could you explain what you mean by this?: "You want to include more text to promote these accusers here than the 2005 trial has while they already have a lengthy article for their movie which referenced here." What are you talking about? What do you mean by "promote"? What do you mean by "their movie"?

I dont understand what promote means. This is an encyclopedia. This is a page covering Jackson abuse accusations. Doesnt mean he did it; it is just a page giving information on the accusations. The fact that there is a page about a documentary the two were interviewed for 5 years ago has nothing to do with a concise summary of their accusations on this page about the sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. Do you feel too much "text" as you put it is unfair to Michael's legacy? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted it for a number of reasons. The page is about allegations against Jackson, not about the accusers' other activities, such as launching a podcast, which is not notable and you used a primary source for it anyway. That is WP:PROMOTION. You also selectively quoted Robson, as if that was his only excuse why he only accused Jackson in 2012 and not before, when he had several of them, including contradictory ones. The quote in isolation also not show what Robson replied to, it was Laurer's question why he, at age 22, testified in court that Jackson never molested him. This is a WP:BALANCE issue. Just like your statement " Leaving Neverland in which they described their accusations in detail." suggesting that what they said in the film was identical to what they alleged in court. You also misrepresent the appeal court ruling pretending that it applies to any minor even if they were not employed by the companies, when you were already shown evidence from the ruling that employment statues is a necessary requirement for the duty to exist. Mr Boar1 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, fix the sentences then. Delete the podcast, amend the sentences. Blanket deletions of paragraphs of well-sourced content about posthumous allegations could give the wrong impression to other editors that someone doesn't want the page to cover the accusations. And I'm sure you don't want that.

On the ruling you are mistaken. Yes, plaintiffs alleged they were employed by Jackson's companies. Yes a "special relationship" under California law arises in employment of minors and certainly that allegation bolsters their case. But the court is crystal clear that, had they simply been taken into the corporations' care (as a Neverland guest, tour companion, etc) and then allegedly sexually molested by Jackson, the special relationship would still arise: "[M]ore to the point, defendants' employment of plaintiffs is only one of several circumstances giving rise to the special relationship here." Court explained: Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As an example of your blanket deletions, you deleted from this page's coverage of Safechuck and Robson the very fact that the California court of appeals revived their child abuse lawsuit in August 2023. That ruling was massive news, covered, for example, in the NYT link below. Obviously you know all about the ruling given your (I would argue erroneous) discussion of the meaning of the ruling above. Why would you delete a citation to the ruling from a page entitled "Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson."?

Sexual Abuse Suits Against Michael Jackson’s Companies Are Revived -NYT article Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That proves employment is in fact a component of the special relationship here. Safechuck was not in the care of those companies during that tour, he was in Jackson's care and his parents' care. Judge Beckloff sustained a demurrer as Safechuck's initial complaint did not include employment between 1988 and 1992. He changed his story, added that his dancing was a job and he was paid with food and clothes. The only way for him to demand duty was to claim employment on the tour. A lie itself , but the court took everything he claimed as fact. That "employment" is a must for this ruling. No employment , no duty. Mr Boar1 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the August 2023 decision? It is crystal clear employment is not the only trigger. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Again Mr Boar just to be be clear, thr August court was a higher court. It overruled the lower court. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Safechuck stated Robson's allegations inspired to come out with his own, because they have had the same set of lawyers from the start to this day, they had identical excuses why they did not come out with allegations before, their cases were in the same courts, in front of the same judges, got the same rulings, their appeals were consolidated into one, they were in the same film , same TV and paper interviews together and their allegations mirror each other in many ways it's logical to have them together under posthumous allegations. Having two subsections would be redundant. Mr Boar1 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Their allegations though are very different. One child allegedly met Jackson on the set of a Pepsi commercial and befriended Jackson, and toured the world with him during the Bad tour allegedly circa 1988. The other met him allegedly during a dance competition and apparently their time with ackson was separated by years. The facts of their allegations have zero overlap. Collapsing them together tends to elide them together as accusers. This is an article ABOUT child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson. That is the subject matter. And yet there are dozens of paragraphs about Chandler and removal of Safechuck and Robson content, and a blurring of the two together. No one even vaguely familiar with the secondary sources about Jackson's alleged sexual abuse victims could find this article to be a fair overview of such accusations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There is that much about the Chandler allegations because that allegation only has this page nothing else. The Arvizo and Robson/Safechuck allegations have separate pages with plenty of material. No need to repeat everything here when links are including to those pages. The facts of their allegations are so overlapped that the similarities are often cited as reasons to believe them and their causes of actions are identical. Where exactly they first met Jackson does not change that, and is immaterial to the allegations of sex abuse. Neither of them alleges that they were abused at those meetings. Mr Boar1 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

the page purports to cover the allegations against Jackson, period. It clearly does not. There should be an upfront explanation if the scope is narrower than that. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

References

If James Safechuck wasn't a child actor, then why do so many news sources call him a child actor?

Is the plan to drive me bonkers so I stop improving Wikipedia? If so, take heart - it's working ;) (just a little humor please don't sic the Wikipedia fuzz on me yet again.) Are we really disputing that James Safechuck was a child actor? User:Mr Boar1 has twice reverted my edits because he "wasn't a child actor." Was the Pepsi commercial from 1987 actually a hidden-camera documentary? What am I missing. Surely we can all agree he was the kid in the Pepsi commercial? Surely we can all agree there are numerous hits for "Child actor James Safechuck" in Google News yes? Right? Yes? Yes. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think him being in one advert doesn't deserve the emphasis of child actor added yet you havent put wade robson as a cheorgrapher. If babies were in commercials once would you class them as child Actors . Why can't him being a film director or him in tech be used. May come off as a nitpick but think his current profession would make sense. Aswell the other edits you added to other editors I think you should discussed with them if adding their appeal be necessary . I think it could be condensed if talk about taking it to trial until more information comes in next coming months. Mr Boar1 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

oh you have did though about wade as a choreographer indeed I see but I think you should wait for a reply with the editor and see what he thinks aswell and come to a resolution. . Best leave it as it is until the editor replies Mr Boar1 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh i see. The "child actor" and "dancer choreographer" are not meant to suggest anything formal or fancy. I just saw it as a short hand for which kid we were talking about. Like Jason Francia is "the maid's son." Robson is the dancer. Safechuck is the kid from Pepsi commercial. Chandler is the "first accuser." Without sort of an intro on who the person is, it's hard to follow the text I thougjt. I didnt mean to suggest he was famous as a child star kid actor or somethibg. Could do "Pepsi commercial child performer" as no one disputes they met on set maybe. I have no idea what his job is now but it feels like we should have some kind of text about which kid was which. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You won't be a child actor just because you appeared in one commercial for about a minute. Safechuck doesn't have any acting credit. As far as I remember nobody identified him as such on this page as the kid from the Pepsi commercial". He is James Safechuck and that's sufficient identification for him. Child performer is also inaccurate as that is generally understood as children who professionally perform, like for example Michael, Marlon, Jermaine Jackson did. If you label Safechuck a child performer just because he danced on stage you should do that to every other child who were with him dancing there or even just walking around as many did during the Dangerous tour. castorbailey (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Child actor and child star are two separate things. Being in a commercial where Michael Jackson was the star hardly makes him a child star, or anyone else for that matter. Your contributions as would not be contested if in fact they were seen as improvements. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ever ever ever called him a child star. Ever. I called him a child actor. I can't tell any more if you actually think I'm making these edits and are confused, or if you're deliberately accusing me of doing something I didn't do, publicly, to poison the well with admins. If it is the latter, not cool. Whoever called him a "child star" wasn't me. He was in one commercial as far as I know. You have it in your head that I "make bad edits" but can't even point to one... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you show any acting credit for Safechuck? There were many kids in this Pepsi commercial, would you call all of them child actors? [1] Were all members of the Jackson 5 child actors because they were in this commercial? [2] Innumerable kids appeared in commercials since TV commercials have been produced without being labeled as child actors. castorbailey (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. No one called him a "child star." And multiple Google News sources call him a "child actor." Why is that so problematic for you. He met Jackson as a child actor in a commercial. The commercial is on YouTube. Multiple news sources report he met him as a child actor. I don't even understand what scares you about the phrase. Fine, use a different phrase if you can articulate the concern. Are you afraid the reader will think he met Safechuck as a child? Because that fact is undisputed. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject. I didn't even say child star. I asked you would you call every kid in the Pepsi commercial a child actor? If a single appearance in one commercial makes someone an actor does that apply to every person who ever appeared in a commercial? That he met him as a child is not disputed. That he qualifies as a child actor is. castorbailey (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If you go into Google News and type in Safechuck and "child actor" there are numerous hits for that fact. Why did so many reporters use that phrase? Because it's informational. why does it bother you? And yes if a child got paid to work a professional commercial, I'd call him a child actor. He met Jackson when they co-starred in the ad together. Why purge that information? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The answer to that painfully obvious question would be "yes"... Is every child who has acted professionally a child actor? Yes... Yes they are. There are certainly sources which refer to this figure that way, you don't get to impose your own standards like that no matter how much you worship Michael Jackson. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that make every person who ever appeared once in a commercial an actor? This has nothing to do with worshipping anyone, but people generally understand actor as someone whose profession is acting, or at the very least it goes beyond just one appearance in one commercial. I would remind you that Jackson himself is not called an actor in his own article but singer, songwriter, dancer, and philanthropist only, despite acting in movies, so it's not my standard. There should be consistency throughout wiki. As a compromise we can call him "a child actor in a 1987 Pepsi commercial" but calling him a child actor in general as if he had some career as an actor is misleading. castorbailey (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes... Yes it would. I think you're getting due weight and accuracy confused. There do appear to be a significant number of NJ "superfans" involved in this conversation, TruthGuardians for example edits almost no other topics. When I look at your edit history I see that your number 1 and number 2 edited pages are Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and FBI files on Michael Jackson while the top two talks are Talk:Michael Jackson and Talk:Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Do you see where I might be getting the impression that some of the editors involved lack the sufficient objectivity to edit this topic area? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That would apply to Bhdshoes2 even more. But naturally people who studied this case most will be most active on these pages. Those who don't care about it will be less involved. If that's the standard to call people actors here why isn't Jackson himself called an actor in his own article? castorbailey (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I said earlier that it appears to apply to all of you. Again I think you're getting due weight and accuracy confused, its an accurate statement about Jackson but isn't due for the opening sentence of the lead (or if it is nobody has noticed yet). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That can apply to any editor on any subject they care about and knew a lot about. If it's not due there for Jackson it's even less due for Safechuck whose acting started and ended with a single commercial where he uttered two words. There is no need to be any kind of "superfan" to realize that. It's simply common sense. Nowhere in Jackson's article is he called an actor, not just in the lead. castorbailey (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We do in fact discourage editors from editing topics they care about, you're not supposed to edit any topic you can't edit impartially. So then you wish to make a due weight argument and not a factualness argument? Due weight is determined by sources, so what do the sources call this individual besides child actor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You said it's not due for the lead. Does this mean you think it would be due outside of the lead? Most sources call him James Safechuck James Safechuck without calling him a child actor. Are you arguing that Safechuck cannot possibly be identified without being called a child actor? Impartially is in the eye of beholder and there is no wiki policy that objectively determines how many edits on a given subject makes an editor impartial. I never saw any policy that discouraged editors from editing topics they care about either. Would be quite silly to have one as every article here was written by people who cared about the subject enough to write an article. castorbailey (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Then just calling him by his name is likely due, but there is nothing inaccurate about calling him a child actor as you contended. By constructing a straw man of my position you appear to be attempting to move the goalposts, as you did when you tried to claim that the discussion was about "child star" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The notion that my edit history is obsessive about Jackson, pro or anti, is absolutely ludicrous. Yes I've had a lot of back and forth with enthusiastic pro-MJ editors since touching this one page this month but that's because I've been dogpiled by superfans. My edit history and all the Jersey boring things I typically find interesting, speaks for itself. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Check out my talk page for the dogpiling overview if curious. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You’ve been warned time after time to stop referring to editors as obsessive, rabid, or superfans. Is that what’s in their description in their bios? Did they tell you they were super fans? People that have disagreed with you are not dogpiling on you, that includes both admins and editors alike that has disagreed with your position. WP:IUC is a great read in this behavior. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, you yourself were warned about forum shopping when you immediately opened 3 complaints about me as soon as I touched the page. By the way, you never explained why you erroneously claimed in the edit history here the other day, while reverting an edit, that Safechuck was described as a "child star"? I also don't understand why, when you finally added Francia to the page the other day, you wrote that he claimed to have been "tickled," omitting the part about the child's genitalia. Were those just oversights? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I read the ruling i also mentioned about the summary in a previous message while back . At no part do they argue that duty to protect in this case would exist even if the plaintiffs had not been employed by the companies. Instead in the section arguing that special relationship did exist they include among the factors "Defendants sometimes employed these children". If their employment was irrelevant they would not bring it up throughout the ruling as to why duty existed. Mr Boar1 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

On the ruling Mr Boar1, you are mistaken. Yes, plaintiffs alleged they were employed by Jackson's companies. Yes a "special relationship" under California law arises in employment of minors and certainly that allegation bolsters their case. But the court is crystal clear that, had they simply been taken into the corporations' care (as a Neverland guest, tour companion, etc) and then allegedly sexually molested by Jackson, the special relationship would still arise: "[M]ore to the point, defendants' employment of plaintiffs is only one of several circumstances giving rise to the special relationship here." It could not be clearer. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth a forbidden source on Jackson allegations.

Someone reverted a cite to an article by Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth who has written for many years on sexual abuse allegations in particular? Just wondering:

1. is it true she is forbidden as a source here?
2. what's the alleged reason?
3. who made the call to 'ban' her and when?
4. what reliable sources were used to make that assessment of her journalism?
5. were there retractions or actions for defamation? If not what was the problem?

Doing a search of "Orth" and "Vanity" it looks like a lot of her arts and celebrity journalism over the years has been used in Wikipedia for various pages. Is it just her journalism about sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson that is problematic or have those cites probably not been examined for whatever the problem is?

In the preface to one of these pieces (see footnote) after his death, for what it is worth, she notes that her pieces were exhaustively researched by Vanity Fair's fact checkers and that Jackson's team never challenged the pieces

Usr:JimCastor I see you wrote "9 December 2023 (as per consensus to not use Maureen Orth on Michael Jackson related articles, see archives of talk page" but no idea how one accesses same can you provide a link? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Maureen Orth's sources on the topic of Jackson has been banned per consensus years ago. She’s been determine to lack journalistic integrity, because her pieces on Michael Jackson are filled with conjecture, speculation, and sensationalism. She functions more as an op-ed writer than a reporter, emphasizing an obsession with portraying Jackson as a child abuser involved in cover-up conspiracies. Her reliance on gossip and her tendency to present personal opinions as facts, questioning the credibility of her work. Orth's articles for Vanity Fair are particularly scrutinized for sensationalist narratives rather than objective news reporting. The distinction between opinion and fact in her writings has been a subject of debate, as Vanity Fair itself distances from taking ownership of Orth's opinions in certain articles. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

OK ... now don't get offended.. but is it possible her reporting feels biased to you and Jimcastor because of your admiration for Jackson and sense that all his troubles were false accusations? Because she is still listed in laudatory terms as a journalist on VF's site. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

it’s not reporting. It unsourced opinion pieces. VF still did separate themselves from her and her particular opinion pieces on Jackson. This conversation is not going to change a past consensus. She out of here in Jackson topics. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

All the published sources I see say it WAS heavily factchecked. In "Michael Jackson Is Gone, But The Sad Facts Remain," Orth wrote the following on factchecking and defamation - the full context is important. See FN

In an interview with the Ringer, she also said the following on factchecking - full context also important: (look at FN)

No objective person could find a reporter who writes this: whose fame had literally deformed him as an investigator acting in good faith to find out the truth. This is a cheap and childish personal attack Orth repeatedly did against Jackson. "I even found the business manager" is not fact checking. That manager - Myung-Ho Lee - had a falling out with Jackson over money and sued him, had a motive to go to the media and slander him. There is no independent evidence that this ritual cow killing happened. The same manager also said that Jackson gave alcohol to Richard Matsura made him sick and the father was so outraged he refused to do business with Jackson. When Matsura and his father came forward and denied the story Orth did not apologize [3] She did not fact check the "business manager". She didn't care to because her agenda was to throw dirt at Jackson and to humiliate him. Her excuse that she was not sued is hollow. Orth knows public figures need to prove that a false statement was published with malice. To get out of that "journalists" hide behind sources, named or not. This is how Diane Dimond got out of the a libel case Jackson filed in 1995, asserting that I just reported what my sources said. Jackson won against the source, after years of litigation. His victory however yielded nothing, the "source" kept slandering him in years to come with the media actively using him and paying him and the "source" refused to pay damages he was ordered to. Suing Orth would have achieved nothing, she would have hidden behind "sources" like Myung-Ho Lee. Her other excuse why she focused so much in hitting Jackson over and over again because his behavior truly troubled me is hollow too. There were 1000s of predators in the world could she never wrote a single word about. Reporting that woodoo story or mocking him for his looks have nothing to do with the allegations anyway. castorbailey (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Frm what i see she did a lot of alleged sex predator reporting. Woody Allen/ Mia Farrow she said she did 8 hours of factchecking with Vanity Fair lawyers in that Ringer interview. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

She also said Jackson's bedroom is connected by a secret staircase to a special guest room, that the floor outside his bedroom was wired so the steps made ding dong sounds, that Jordan spent hours on Jackson's lap and looked much younger than 13, that Jackson gave alcohol to Matsura, that boys were dismissed as puberty approached, that the sisters were put off to the side, that the Jackson family filed a lawsuit against HBO, that there is no dispute Jackson spent 30 nights in a row in June Chandler's house, that five boys who shared a bed with Jackson accused him of abuse, that he paid $18 million to Jordan, that the hallway to Jackson's room was covered by video, that Secret Service agents found fingerprints on Jackson's magazines, that the fingerprints of boys and Jackson were found on the same pages, that Jason Francia was paid $2.4 million and none of that was true. It seems her "fact checking" procedure is allergic to facts. She was not "troubled" enough to report proven pedophilia cases but couldn't stop talking about Michael Jackson. She has no more place on wiki on this matter than Diane Dimond. castorbailey (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

And why would Diane Dimond have no place on wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

She qualifies as a bad source under WP:BIASED: when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking. Dimond, described as a "rumormongering reporter" and "a reporter of dubious distinction" where CBS undermined its credibility by using her as a source not only did interviews where anti-Jackson interviewees were paid, then denied that they were paid but boldly stated on radio that Jackson knew he was recording molestation -- not even adding "I think or I believe" -- as if it had been a historical fact. The tape did not exist, Jackson won a libel case against the source Dimond identified as "one of my best sources". WP:BIASED also allows us to examine "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Nobody can objectively say Dimond had a level of independence from the topic when Larry Feldman, the accusers' lawyer, called her their "closest ally" castorbailey (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So we have a ton of sources talking about her yet you think that she has no place on wiki? Did you mean just as a source or in general? I would also note that not all of those sources meet the BLP standard. Why do you refuse to follow one of our core policies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You said unless some reliable source reports that she is not reliable she should be accepted. Here you had sources which reported she is not reliable. Here's another "Questions about her objectivity have only increased during her two years as an investigative reporter for Court TV. " [4] The policy is WP: BIASED and Dimond absolutely fells in that category. A rumormonger reporter with dubious distinction where "questions about her objectivity have only increased" while she worked for Court TV has no place no wiki, no matter how much you like her constant Jackson-bashing. Don't say again there are no sources when they are disclosed right here. Source reporting Orth's libel case was also included here. castorbailey (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I dont even know how to engage with you on the topic of Orth. You tell me facts that you "know" but have no sources. But Wikipedia seems to say that "Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise." Every time I raise a point you don't like you try to wikilawyer me into getting banned. Where are your sources for any of this? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Folks you atill havent pointed to one verifiable publication showing unreliablity. Think of the biography of living persons policy - " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." When another editor askes you why this journalist is banned (by edict of whom is unclear) you can't just throw around accusations without a source especially given Orth is a living person. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources can be banned without any article in the media declaring them unreliable, based on their track record of non-factual reporting and bias. Both applies to Orth, to say the least. Wikipedia considers many sources as not reliable. All of them are decided based on the discussions and consensus among editors. PinkSlippers (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Source for this? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have previously perused Maureen Orth's articles, including the ones you have provided. However, I must admit that I have not come across a single piece written by her about Michael Jackson that does not consist of conjecture, speculation, conspiracy theories, and gossip. It is worth noting that she is not a reporter, but rather an op-ed writer who seems to have an unwavering fixation on portraying Jackson as a child molester involved in a cover-up conspiracy, despite the existence of concrete evidence from reputable news reports and police investigations. It appears that her knowledge about Jackson is no more extensive than that of an average tabloid reader.

This particular op-ed, authored by her for Vanity Fair, solely comprises her personal viewpoint on different accounts of Jackson's life and conduct. She firmly believes that Jackson was homosexual, harboured animosity towards women, and had an inclination towards young boys. Additionally, she considers several gossip writers to be trustworthy sources. In my assessment, I would classify this as sensationalism.

This is another defamatory statement making claims such as “the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him,” which is absurd sensationalist rubbish. Jackson's physical changes were actually caused by vitiligo, not by his fame. When does fame truly alter a person's appearance? Professional journalists do not write in such a manner.

She also stated: “I even found the business manager who told me on the record how he had had to wire $150,000 to a voodoo chief in Mali who had 42 cows ritually sacrificed in order to put a curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and 23 others on Jackson’s enemies list.” It appears that this article lacks credibility as it fails to provide the source of the mentioned business manager. Instead, the author refers to herself as the one who "discovered the business manager." A reputable news report would not be written in first-person, as the responsibility for the facts lies with the source. On the other hand, in an opinion piece, the writer assumes ownership of the content.

We can continue to debate Orth's statements endlessly, but none of her articles for "Vanity Fair" can be considered as news pieces. In the description of the article "Losing His Grip," "Vanity Fair" does not even claim ownership of Orth's opinions. It explicitly states: "Maureen Orth wonders if Jackson is as crazy as he seems—or a cool manipulator of his own fame." It is Orth who is wondering, not the editors at "Vanity Fair." "Vanity Fair" is not renowned for investigative reporting, but rather for their essays and op-eds. They do not possess the same reputation as "The New York Times" or "The Washington Post," or any other news outlet that strictly distinguishes between opinion and factual reporting.

All that said, Orth’s opinions have no place in this encyclopaedia, and the ban in question was not lifted. Orth being listed in laudatory terms as a journalist on the Vanity Fair site does not negate the aforesaid explanations as to why her reporting is not acceptable on here. Just because somebody is a journalist, it doesn’t mean they cannot possibly be biased and have an agenda, and in Orth’s case, it is blatantly evident. Israell (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok forgive me if im suspicious, but the only evidence I can see of Orth being raised as an issue when I search "Orth" and "Vanity" is by an editor named Owynhart, formerly PartyTemple, who is apparently permanently banned from all Michael Jackson pages.

Also, Israell, i agree with you that her pieces have sassy editorializing in places given the Hollywood and true crime bent of Vanity Fair. But they ALSO have aggressively sourced reporting and fact checking. So arent we throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And that is the consensus that got her banned from Jackson topics. As I can recall it, she’s also banned from the topic of Bill and Hillary Clinton for the same reasons. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Where though? I don't see it. You said Vanity Fair has distanced itself but her bio page on their site could not be more laudatory: "Maureen Orth is a journalism virtuoso. Beginning in 1988, her vast range of work for Vanity Fair has spanned interviews with prominent heads of state like Margaret Thatcher and Vladimir Putin, as well as in-depth investigations that brought to light allegations of celebrity sexual abuse and child abuse. She was nominated for a National Magazine Award for reporting for her story on Michael and Arianna Huffington from the November 1994 issue. Her work has also inspired Hollywood adaptations—The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story, the second season of the hit television show, is based on Orth’s book Vulgar Favors." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Orth was sued for defamation over The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story where she and the defamed party reached a settlement. [5] Awards do not make reporting factual. castorbailey (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats not Jackson though! And even if it was, how is that a basis to find her unreliable. People settle frivolous nuisance claims all tbe time. Michael Jackson settled at least 2 claims of sexually assaulting a child: Chandler and Francia (pre-filing payment) to avoid a drawn-out trial. Does that make him guilty? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct, it's not Jackson , what she did regarding Jackson was far worse. You brought her work on Versace up to show her credibility in general, suggesting if Hollywood adapted her work it had to be factual. Instead it's just more evidence that she is willing to defame and disregard facts. Jackson's settlements were amid a pending criminal case, settling civil cases to prevent the prosecution from circumventing your defense is legitimate and logical. It is not comparable to Orth's settlement where she faced no such dilemma. Orth also did not have to deal with a media that made it a business to convince people with monetary offers to make accusations. Nor did Orth have to deal with cops who were exerting pressure on witnesses including minors to incriminate her. Do journalists settle libel cases all the time without committing libel? castorbailey (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

you again speculate with absolutely zero citations. Orth is a reporter for Conde Nast and me and you are just anonymous Wikipedians. We need to be able to point to citations to establish she is unreliable. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the thing I dont get it - she was a "dogged reporter" on the Jackson beat since the ealry 90s. She spoke to tons of sources, and Vanity Fair says it fact-checked the hell out or them. So does that mean all the facts she published are lost to the Wikipedia body of knowledge? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If Vanity Fair had fact-checked those articles they would have found out that there was no record at all that one of those sources Eddie Reynoza, whom Orth presented as credible, ever met Jackson. They would also demand to hear the supposed tape he had of his conversation with Jackson. Reynoza injected himself into famous cases he had nothing to do with for attention. [6] His claims should be raised a red flag for a honest journalist when he said "He's had little boys around for nine years straight, 24 hours around the clock", an obvious hyperbole even if we were to accept that the he knew Jackson at any time. castorbailey (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ok.but how do you know these facts are wrong? Where are you even getting this from? If Vanity Fair says "we fact checked" you're just deciding they didn't because they "couldn't have" or it would have exonerated Jackson? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

They are allegations and speculation and fantasies, not facts. Normally when such grandiose claims are made by a journalist, it’s always good to have multiple sources by other journalists that are able to back up the claims that Orth is making. When making edits with such claims on Wikipedia, you would need at least one or two more independent secondary sources separate and apart from Orth that has verified Orth’s claims. There aren’t any. Consensus is reached on the talk page in form of WP:GUNRELL, like with Orth and Jackson biographer Randy Tabarolli, when a discussion takes place and both sides have valid points, but one side outweighs the other by the number of editors supporting one side over the other, or facts and policies are simply heavier on one side over the other. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. However, this does not mean that consensus can’t be changed within reason. The conversations are then archived and over. Editors generally agree that the source is questionable due to factors such as the absence of an editorial team, a dubious fact-checking reputation, a tendency to overlook errors, self-publication, or reliance on user-generated content. In typical situations, it's advisable to avoid using this source, especially when seeking information about a living individual. Even when the source seems valid, opting for a more reliable alternative is generally recommended. The absence of such a source could imply inaccuracies. However, the source may still be suitable for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and content produced by recognized subject-matter experts in self-published or user-generated formats is also deemed acceptable. For future references, If consensus is not reached on Wikipedia, things pretty much will remain the same as the most common result is to retain the current and most stable versions of the article. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your statements about Orth? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Reynoza is a proven prevaricator who injected himself in the OJ case too, as demonstrated by the LA Times article I cited. No evidence ever was presented that he had any contact with Jackson, much less that he was so involved in Jackson's life that he would have the opportunity witness that "He's had little boys around for nine years straight, 24 hours around the clock", which is evidently not true. Asking how I know that is not a fact is like asking how I know the Earth is not flat is a fact. Orth never presented the allleged taped conversation either, neither did anyone else as it did not exist. castorbailey (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this proves what about Orth? You're saying a Vanity Fair journalist quoted a guy in 1994 who also made OJ allegations in the 1995 OJ trial? You're saying this proves a mainstream media publication did not fact check their article in 1994? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It proves that Orth is willing to present prevaricators as if what they say about Jackson was credible without doing basic fact checking whether what they say is true or not. She should have checked whether Reynoza even met Jackson, much less whether he was in his video or talked to him or had any taped conversion with him. She didn't, she just printed whatever Reynoza said, nevermind his story lacking any sense. She did the same with the Richard Matsura story, was false too, did not even contact Matsura or his father. Just printed what a man who was suing Jackson after having a falling out with him said. That is not what journalists who seek the truth do. castorbailey (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It might provide evidence towards a certain position, but proves? Thats either a hyperbole or a falsehood. Its also completely unacceptable without a source per WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I already posted the source on Richard Matsura. [7] She did not ask him or his father and both came forward to deny her story. If this is not proof Orth did not do due diligence on an allegation against Jackson, to say the least, what would be proof? castorbailey (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That source does not say what you did. Thats not what you said it was proof of... You said it was proof that "Orth is willing to present prevaricators as if what they say about Jackson was credible without doing basic fact checking whether what they say is true or not" which is a completely different statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean the only proof of her unwillingness to fact check negative stories about Jackson is some article literally saying "Orth is willing to present prevaricators as if what they say about Jackson was credible without doing basic fact checking whether what they say is true or not"? The source I posted proves that Orth didn't fact check the Matsura story. There is also evidence she did not check if Reynoza ever knew Jackson or not, if we can use Lisa D. Campbell as a source. castorbailey (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The only proof would be a source which says that she is unwilling to fact check negative stories about Jackson. Who is Lisa D. Campbell? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

An author who wrote a book about the Jackson case. Of course that would not be the only proof, in fact that could just be an opinion. Without any actual proof where she did not fact check negative stories such statement could not be proof. Are you willing to accept the NBC report as proof that she did not fact check the allegations about Matsura? castorbailey (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Again that would be evidence, not proof. You are abusing that term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not only are there no reliable sources establishing Orth as unreliable, but we should all in my opinion, take a bit of background notice of what [[Vanity Fair]] is and was as a respected and widely read American publication. This isn't some zine or blog in the middle of nowhere. It is Vanity Fair. It is owned by the huge American publisher [[Condé Nast]], publisher of The New Yorker and Vogue among others. In the 1990s, it was probably the most authoritative pop culture publication in the US and it remains very prominent. It is and was famous for covering the intersection of celebrity/high society and true crime with long-form reporting by folks like Orth, Dominick Dunne etc. Orth has stated at least twice in reliable sources the factchecking process. Absent something robust, it is a bit unreasonable to block all citations to her work. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Vanity Fair also published an article praising Epstein, clearly just because something is in Vanity Fair does not make it factual or fair. castorbailey (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is a consensus generally reliable RS, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vanity Fair. Pun aside you have no point there, you also clearly don't have consensus that this article is unreliable... At best you have a lack of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Proof is evidence with only one reasonable explanation. After Mastura came out Orth did not contradict him that she checked with him whether the story was true. She did not. So the NBC report is proof Orth did not fact check the alcohol story with the boy involved. castorbailey (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In your bedroom that might be proof, on wikipedia it never will be... Especially when its in the context of BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In other words, agreed that we shouldnt rely on Orth to "prove," say, the statement that Michael Jackson was, say, a bad singer. That is opinion. But are you also saying if Orth wrote "in 1995, 3 Neverland zookeepers filed for divorce," we cant use her for that? But the statement would have been published by Vanity Fair and factchecked by factchecking team. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and how can we rely on a "consensus from the talk page that Orth is unreliable" when this very topic is under general sanctions becaus of rabid Michael Jackson fans making disruptive edits back in the day? Can we at least get a link to the consensus? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Why can't you provide a source establishing that she is unreliable as a journalist? Instead you simply say "we" had a consensus at some undefined date that she is unreliable for fact-reporting. We all know this page is under general sanctions for too many pro-Jackson-innocence-project pushers. If 3 devout Jackson apologists got together and said "we don't like Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair because she is too mean to poor Michael," that is not consensus in the Wikipedia sense. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the sanctions were imposed because of constant arguing and edit-warring among seemingly pro-MJ and anti-MJ editors of Michael Jackson-related articles, and some sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and canvassing involving both kinds of editors. Israell (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

go look at the ruling. I'm sure there was inappropriate behavior on both sides, I wasn't around then, but the ruling box or vote box, whatever you call it, ays it is "fan" related by at least a few of the ruling admins. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• None of the reasons to exclude seem to hold water, at worst we need to attribute but the POV appears to be a significant one. A broken clock is right twice a day and despite my general misgiving about their intentions in regards to the topic here Bhdshoes2 isn't wrong. @TruthGuardians and Jimcastor: you need to do better. I should not have to remind you that Jackson is dead while Orth is alive. BLP applies to only one of those people and yet its not the one you guys are applying it to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. For the record, my only Michael Jackson-related ax to grind is that i feel the topic is not at all presented in a neutral typical Wikipedia style to the world. That's why I'm here and I do think my edits reflect same. I've created a lot of pages and edited a lot of pages over the years and I try to be fair and objective as possible. To the extent I have been overly responsive on talk pages, I was under the impression I was "supposed" to engage on talk pages rather than just edit-warring and changing the page (which in no fair sense provides an overview of Jackson allegations in neutral language). Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  There’s been 3 different discussions, none of which I was involved in, where consensus was reached to not use Orth as a source on Jackson pages. It’s in the archives. Find them. If need be this can easily be brought up in an RFC to have it completely blacklisted. Nothing about Orth that was said to be untrue. Furthermore, telling other editors to “do better” and calling them is not WP:CIVIL and neither is accusing editors of worshiping a celebrity. Move along. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Move along? On what grounds am I being threatened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Move along, as in next point. Past community consensus has determined she cannot be considered reliable. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  If such a community consensus exists it has not yet been provided. Nor do I ever think I've encountered the claim that past community consensus means that no discussion needs to be had. What policy or guideline are you basing that on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Community consensus can change with a new community consensus, so I would never assume or say that no discussion can be had over it. Like I said, there are 3 for sure, maybe 4 past discussions on this very topic where the community gained consensus, this includes editors on both sides of the topic, where Orth has been deemed unreliable on the topic of Jackson in the archives. They can be found when searched. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can't find a single such consensus. If you can you need to link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Jackson being dead and Orth being alive does not change that Orth has a history of reporting provably false things on Jackson. If we banned Taraborelli as a source , who is still alive, we certainly should apply the same standard on Orth. castorbailey (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  It does change what you can say about the history. For example I can say that Jackson was a pedophile, but I can not say that Orth defamed Jackson. Orth's POV appears to be significant (they are a subject matter expert after all) even if its completely wrong, factually doesn't terribly matter... If another source says they're wrong we can say that, but the opinion is still significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Israell: does that make sense to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  But you certainly can say that Orth had a history of reporting provably false things as that's exactly what she did, I provided a list above. Her bias in her Jackson related articles is evident from many other examples. We banned Taraborelli for his questionable track record, Orth's track record is even worse. This is not about what to include on Orth's biography but whether to use her as a source on Jackson-related pages.castorbailey (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  No you can't, you would need a source to say that Orth had a history of reporting provably false things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  If we said that on her biography article. But that is not the standard for editors reaching a consensus not to use her as a source for a subject. Editors didn't need any source declaring Taraborelli had a history of false reporting to exclude him as a source, we don't need that for Orth either. If someone is filling her articles with as many provably false claims as Orth did in the Jackson articles she has no place as a source on the subject here. castorbailey (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  BLP applies to all pages on wiki... Articles, talk, wikipedia, etc. If BLP means you can't say it in her biography article then it also means you can't say it on a talk page. If what you're saying is true then it doesn't appear that grounds existed to exclude Taraborelli, that would be additional behavioral issues on the part of those involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was an RFC on Taraborelli, and there were grounds. castorbailey (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  It would be so much more productive if you could provide a link when making such claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  what do you say here is, but where did castorbailey slander Orth? He is still entitled to his opinion on her reporting and source work. This how journalists and publications are banned, blacklisted, and depreciated to begin with. An editor offers their opinion about a specific article or journalist. A conversation takes place and a consensus is reached. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Opinions on *articles* are pretty much a free for all, but opinions on living authors are covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Editors can freely state that someone's reporting on a subject is unreliable. That’s how sources and journalists are deemed unreliable on a topic to begin with. BLP is still based on applicable laws in the United States. Orth is a public figure and it's not against the law to say that her reporting has many falsehoods. castorbailey (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  BLP is not based on applicable laws in the United States, thats part of the background but it goes wayyyy beyond what is required by law. A statement about her reporting does not fall under BLP, but a statement about her does. If Orth is a public figure why is her opinion undue even if false? We include notable false opinions, along with the context that they're false if appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back is correct. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  I made statements about her reporting, obviously, not about anything unrelated to her reporting. Editors can state why they think a source is not reliable. If her reports were op-eds, i.e. just treated as opinion pieces, they could not be used as sources to begin with. But she was banned as a source for factual matters, like the amount of the settlement for example as she clearly falsely reported that (enough to see the leaked settlement). Including her falsehoods on Jackson pages just to include other sources that disprove her would be WP:UNDUE, to say the least. Especially considering how many things she got wrong. castorbailey (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You keep saying that it was banned but nobody has been able to provide a link to such a consensus. Either do so or retract the statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Using Orth as a source came up in two talk page discussions in May and July 2019. Both times editors agreed that she should not be used.

  "I wouldn't use that when Orth is known for libel" Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 36#Can "The Importance of Being Famous: Behind the Scenes of the Celebrity" be restored as a reference w/ sentence?

  "As for Maureen Orth, she’s a complete hack and does not belong in Wikipedia." Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 35#Removing Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth as sources

  Taraborelli was also removed as a good source here Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 36#RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?

  Orth wasn't just accused of fabricating defamatory matter in the case she settled [8] She was accused of writing "patently false and misleading salacious, and prurient representations and descriptions and other disparaging and scandalous material" in another case too [9] Her article Losing his grip with stories about sheep blood baths and missing noses particularly qualify as scandal mongering. Jackson's autopsy report does not mention a missing nose, photos taken in that courtroom show his nose intact and the only source of the ridiculous sheep blood scenario  is the same Lee who also falsely claimed Jackson gave wine to Matsura. No articles should be filled with Orth's WP:SENSATIONAL and then sources which debunk her verbal assaults. It would be WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering. castorbailey (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The linked comments appear to be plain BLP violations and those denunciations don't come from the sources themselves. Nothing you've presented works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing you've presented works against the fact that twice this source was rejected in two separate consensus as editors recognized her slanderous reporting on Jackson. If you check the RFC on Taraborelli, an editor opposed using him as a source partly due to slander, without citing an outside source explicitly stating Taraborelli slandered Jackson. In contrast to how you interpret BLP, that is not necessary. I argued that Orth should be excluded for the same reasons: slander and undue. I quoted the editors who brought this issue up in the past because in both cases consensus was reached not to use Orth for the reasons listed there. Deeming a journalist not credible due to cases of libel, sensationalism, and a history of reporting falsehoods is not against BLP. If you want to see denunciation of Orth for her bias against Jackson from an outside source here's one published in the Hartford Courant "Today, there is no need for the KKK to do the dirty work, since Orth has been armed with a mike on her suit label and has  been charged to denounce Jackson so that the viewing public can lynch his memory." [10] [11] Not that this is be necessary to ban her as a source on wiki. castorbailey (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  And where is the source for her reporting on Jackson being slanderous? The source you just presented is an opinion piece, which as I'm sure you know is strictly forbidden for this sort of BLP work... Presenting it as the reporting of the Hartford Courant is misleading at best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's based on applicable laws in the United States, in fact that's why BLP even exists so people could not use wiki to defame. Pointing out that a journalist repeatedly published falsehoods and therefore should not be used as a source for a subject is not violating BLP. If it did, editors could never exclude any living person as an unreliable source. castorbailey (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You would need a source which says that the journalist repeatedly published falsehoods. BLP exists to protect living people from harm, how thats operationalized has changed over the years. In almost all cases where a living author has been excluded its because we have RS which say that they're unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ironic that you complain about impartility while you want to use someone as a source whose "impartiality" manifested itself in such level-headed factual statements as

  he has a fake tip stuck on his nose because he has no more cartilage (unnamed source)

  "fame had literally deformed him"

  "Jackson had already undergone a blood bath. " (the same source who was suing Jackson

  and provided the fake Matsura story)

  "he resembles a mummy with two nostril holes" (unnamed source)

  "Jackson has his skin bleached because he doesn't like black people" (unnamed source)

  "Jackson's increasingly freakish appearance"

  "pop star's life has been spinning out of control"

  "his freak factor has risen"

  "barely escaped being arrested" (that after they took photos Orth also said

  confirmed the boy' claims)

  "the tip of his nose seemed to be missing"

  "his face is caked with white makeup, which conceals a prosthesis that serves as the tip of his nose."

  "clasping his hands and batting his eyes like a schoolgirl."

  And while you want to protect Orth from editors calling out her clearly biased reporting on Jackson you freely label editors as "worshippers" and "superfans". You don't know that editors who try to keep slanted and/or inaccurate content from poisoning these articles are fans or not much less whether they worship anyone. BLP exists to prevent defamation, that's why it only applies to living people, US law does not protect dead people from defamation. BLP is not to protect journalists from any type of criticism especially when they have defamation accusations. PinkSlippers (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, well, "deformed" is in the eye of the beholder ...  but are we now disputing he wore a false nose tip? Because a quick search of Google News for "prosthesis" and "Michael Jackson" reveals the following, among several others:

  "Frail, deep in debt and addicted to drugs ... The prosthesis he normally attached to his damaged nose was missing, revealing bits of cartilage surrounding a small, dark hole." Rolling Stone. The Last Days of Michael Jackson by Claire Hoffman 8/6/09.

  Or is this reporter also "banned by consensus"? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  You bet there’s been discussions and consensus galore in Jackson’s health and appearance. Editors only go by what is medically available in his autopsy or proven in court of law. Folklore, All WP:SENSATIONAL, and unverifiable information is irrelevant to not just topics about Jackson, but all of Wikipedia. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  We're supposed to parse his autopsy report instead of nationally known longstanding periodicals that would be run out of business for defamation (leaving aside the fact he was deceased)? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dead people cannot be defamed, and public figures have an uphill battle suing the press in the US anyway. The autopsy report was published by reliable sources like the LA Times, that is certainly a far better source than some writer at a music magazine citing an unname source. PinkSlippers (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also how can you say this is irrelevant. PinkSlippers tried to assert Orth is unreliable because she said Jackson had nasal cartilage collapse. Well that fact is supported by numerous other publications.

  Folks we cannot just shove every piece of reporting we don't like into the garbage bin. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say nasal cartilage collapse. Orth said "the tip of his nose seemed to be missing" and he had a "prosthesis that serves as the tip of his nose" A lie, according to the autopsy and photos published in reliable sources. PinkSlippers (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not only disputing it but there is plenty of sources that it's not true, demonstrating once more Orth's preference for dramatic lies over dull truths. If photos taken at the trial where Orth allegedly observed the missing nose tip would not already establish that it was not missing at all

  Jackson's autopsy report is public and mentions nothing about the tip of his nose, there would have been notice of a missing one, for sure.Such an anomaly is also not mentioned in any of the many reports in reliable sources on the autopsy. If that still would not be enough, his doctor refuted this myth on CNN. "And contrary to what people said, he could not take off his nose. His nose was attached. But it looked too small."The source where Claire Hoffman got her "information" about the alleged missing nose is conveniently unnamed. The pre-autospy photos contradict Hoffman's tale of "cartilage surrounding a small, dark hole" PinkSlippers (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok so are you suggesting that the reporting of Orth in, again, a major "investigative long form journalism"-heavy American publication and the reporting of Hoffman, again in a major "investigative-long-form"-heavy American publication, should BOTH be banned from the page? Despite getting past teams of experienced editors, factcheckers and lawyers at the publisher? For reporting on a facial abnormality you think you have proven never existed? That's a bit hard to swallow, but it sounds like you're done the research here so what can I say?

  Getting the sense here that Michael Jackson really had the worst luck with people out to get him. At least three professional American journalists were willing to risk destroying their careers by lying about him - Orth, Hoffman, and Diane Dimond - from what this talk page tells me. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  You either looked past the sources I provided above or you think we shouldn't believe our eyes, we shouldn't believe the doctor who treated his nose, we shouldn't believe the official autopsy report rather we should believe a "heavy American publication" because "heavy American publications" never lie. Hoffman risked nothing as Jackson was dead. Orth and Dimond risked little since if sued reporters can easily hide behind a source, Dimond did just that when Jackson sued her. For a public figure to win a libel case they have to prove malice not just falsehood. Gutierrez risked getting sued he still slandered Jackson. He was held accountable in court but it did not destroy his career. NBC Channel 4 were still using him as a source against Jackson, later he even became director of a TV network in Chile. The Mirror risked getting sued when they lied about Jackson's face Jackson sued them for libel, it took 6 years for him to win. It did not destroy the Mirror. Orth lost a libel case , that did not destroy her career either. PinkSlippers (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• the only evidence I can see of Orth being raised as an issue when I search "Orth" and "Vanity" is by an editor named Owynhart, formerly PartyTemple, who is apparently permanently banned from all Michael Jackson pages. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  The editor raised this issue on the talk page and no one dissented, even after the discussion was open for three months. There are many sources that are banned and blacklisted on wiki based on consensus among editors. Consensus is reached based on discussions, not based on an X-source describing Y-source as not reliable. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm calling it -- clearly we have not achieved consensus to ban Orth. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think you understand how consensus work. I’ll explain. There’s already been multiple discussions that ended in consensus to not use Orth. That consensus continues to stand until another discussion changes the previous consensus. This discussion does not do that. Per WP:NOCON, the common result is to retain the version of the stable article or in this case, last reached consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. If this discussion ends in no consensus that will be the new consensus, regardless of what came before. Yes it means that the source would not be included, but it would also mean that there was no consensus not to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unless PartyTemple was banned over what they did in that discussion the consensus reached there would still stand. If they had been banned for what she wrote about Orth , her edit would have been reverted. A topic ban does not negate what that editor accomplished or the other editors that participated in the discussion. If you prefer one where 13 editors were pinged and consensus was reached not to use Orth because she is known for libel:Can "The Importance of Being Famous: Behind the Scenes of the Celebrity" be restored as a reference w/ sentence? To override these you would need to obtain consensus that her reporting on Jackson is reliable. Such consensus however does not exist. PinkSlippers (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  where is this consensus you all keep insisting exists? The references I see to Orth as a source has criticism of her but clearly no consensus to ban her from this page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  My comment included the link. Do you know what consensus is? Consensus is reached implicitely if an issue is raised and has no objection. In this case only editors supporting exclusion commented, therefore consensus was reached. The discussion does not just include criticism, it brings up that Orth is known for libel and other editors accept that as reason not to use her. PinkSlippers (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  And how is what you just wrote not a BLP violation? We have no source which says that the author is known for libel, we don't even have a source which says that the author has ever engaged in libel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. This is massively unethical as well as a BLP violation Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not, BLP does not prevent editors from saying a journalist who committed libel is known for libel. It was reported in reliable sources. PinkSlippers (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The source was already posted but here is it again: The lawsuit states that Orth, Smith, Netflix and FX defamed Roe, in part, by “including a false implication that Plaintiff is a chronic abuser of alcohol who consumes alcohol throughout the day.” In addition: Oleg Cassini's widow claims Vanity Fair defamed her in an article that did not meet "even the most minimal journalistic standards.

  and "Advocate writer Ted Gideonse disputes this, saying “it was not,” and suggests that had Miglin lived, Orth could be sued for libel." PinkSlippers (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  What??? A random lawsuit against someone who works in longform investigative journalism against high profile sources is NOT a fair basis to assert they are a blanket unreliable Wikipedia source! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Star Arvizo's allegations should not have been scrubbed from this page

Star Arvizo alleged that he experienced sexual abuse. This overview page should cover that. There is no basis to delete that well-established fact from a page called, literally, "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations Against Michael Jackson." I wanted to pull it out as its own discussion.

Background

Star was the 12-year-old brother of the alleged victim, Gavin, at the time of alleged abuse (circa early 2003) in the Trial of Michael Jackson, which ended in acquittal. Star alleged in his testimony that he witnessed two acts of molestation upon his brother.

Additionally, Star also testified to his *own* sexual abuse during his March 7, 2005 testimony, which did NOT involve alleged touching but consisted of three main kinds of sexual abuse: 1) Jackson walking in, sitting down on the bed nude next to the brothers and allegedly exposing his erection as "natural" to Star; 2) showing of pornography to Star; and 3) discussing and urging masturbation with and to Star.Glaister, Dan (2005-03-08). "Jackson showed us sex on net, boy tells jurors". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on January 29, 2019. Retrieved 2019-01-28. According to the New York Times:

"[Star] testified that Mr. Jackson once asked him whether he masturbated.

"I said 'no,"' he testified. "He said, 'It's O.K. Everyone does it. You should try it."'

"The boy described an instance in which [Jackson and a staffer] showed the two brothers and another boy a pornographic Web site. He said that when they came upon a picture of a woman lifting her top to expose her breasts, Mr. Jackson said, "Got milk?"

"On another occasion, the boy's brother said, as he and his brother were watching television in Mr. Jackson's bedroom, the singer walked in naked and sexually aroused. "'It's natural,"' Mr. Jackson told them, the boy testified. "We were grossed out," said [Star.]"

According to The Guardian:

"On another occasion, Mr Sneddon said, both brothers were in Jackson's private quarters when the star entered the room naked and with an erection. When the younger brother said he was "grossed-out", Jackson allegedly said "It's OK, it's natural, why don't you do the same thing."

The two also allegedly saw Jackson simulating sex with a female mannequin the singer kept by his bed."

Allegedly Jackson also nicknamed the child "Blowhole" and served him alcohol.

Criticisms

Below are some of the criticisms on inclusion on the page that I have heard and why I disagree:

1. Criticism: Jackson was innocent and Star was lying, so it shouldn't be listed on this page.

Response: By that standard, this Wikipedia page should be scrubbed of *all* allegations since many enthusiastic editors believe none of them. But we don't have to establish that the allegations are "true" to include them. I have never asserted they had to be true. What IS true is the accusations were *made* according to multiple reliable sources. The page purports to cover Jackson allegations, where verified as actually made, according to news outlets. The entry can include well-sourced reports about, say, inconsistencies on cross, etc., to ensure the coverage is balanced.

2. Criticism: Star's accusations of abuse are not famous or prominent enough to warrant inclusion here.

Response: They were made under oath in an open court of law and reported in the New York Times, AP News, The Guardian and various other big newspapers during a front-page news trial. Obviously Star's accusations were subsumed at the time by the trial about his brother's abuse, which included sexual contact but this page is not called "Really Big Deal Sexual Abuse Accusations." It is called "Sexual Abuse Accusations." If the accusation was published in reputable sources, it should be included. Otherwise the page -- which purports to be a survey of Jackson accusations -- has an artificially lowered accusation count, and, what's more, leaves encyclopedia readers in the dark as to the omission.

3. Criticism: What Jackson was accused of doing to Star doesn't count as "sexual abuse" because Star did not say Jackson sexually touched him, so it should not be on a page about Jackson child sexual abuse accusations.

Response: Wikipedia includes what was allegedly done to Star in the very definition of child sexual abuse, saying it not only "includes direct sexual contact," but "also indecent exposure ...asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities, [or] displaying pornography to a child[.]" All three allegedly happened to Star. If there are concerns, the entry can have the indecent exposure claim, pornography claim, and masturbation claim and simply make clear no touching was alleged.

4. Criticism: If Star was abused, why was Jackson only prosecuted for alleged acts involving his brother Gavin? The absence of a prosecution for these acts means they should be excluded from this page.

Response: Prosecutorial discretion means prosecutors choose their battles. The prosecution had to make a case against one of the world's most famous stars. Perhaps they wanted to streamline the prosecution to focus on sexual assaults and involves Star as an eyewitness. Perhaps they planned to charge him later. We cannot know but what we do know are the heavily reported accusations Star made on the stand.

5. Criticism: This page has "good article" status, and has been "stable" which means that edits are per se disruptive.

Response: There is no such thing as a rule or mandate that a "good article" never be improved. The page reached "good article" status many years ago, in 2008, and has been heavily rewritten since. Multiple editors (not me but others) have made that very clear. The name of the page has also changed, removing the "1993" reference. The page should cover what it purports to cover: child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Or its name should be changed to something less confusing. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Star’s testimony is on Jackson’s trial page, which this article links to. His testimony was disproven by the bell test and no juror believed it. As for Star’s claims about talks of masturbation, even if it had happened, what sex abuse laws are being broken for talking to a kid about masturbation? According to his own testimony, his grandma is a sex abuser too as he said his grandma had similar conversations.

The alleged naked scene you mention was described very differently by his brother and that description certianly would not be sex abuse and according to United States law is not classified as sexual abuse either. Furthermore, while showing kids such magazines is highly inappropriate, it is still not sexual abuse under the law. Jackson was not charged for showing magazines to kids.

Your speculation as to why he was not charged with anything Star alleged is not substitute to the fact that nothing he alleged was sexual abuse by law. Tom Sneddon was not at all afraid of going against Jackson, no matter how famous he was and even charged him with conspiracy and abduction with even flimsier evidence than Star's allegation. That prosecution tried to maximize the charges not minimize it. Wikipedia does not allow Original research or speculation, thus should avoid such at all costs. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for "His testimony was disproven by the bell test"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

14 not guilty verdicts. Had the jury believe the testimonies then clearly they would’ve said Jackson was guilty. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, delete Gavin as well. Also delete Chandler, as criminal case was dropped. Obviously that is nonsensical.

It is perfectly legitimate for balance to add, if you have sources, material that undermines Star's testimony and includes the acquittal. What is not legitimate is to completely erase the fact the allegations were indisputably made. It is not right to have a page that purports to be an overview of the accusations and then memoryhole the very accusers who made them. One would be forgiven for thinking it was an effort to lower the accuser count.

The published accounts of what Star testified to are above. If you want to claim those alleged acts "don't count" as abuse, sounds like a big stretch. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

They actually have criminal or civil cases against Jackson. Star didn’t. Just like the admins told you on the neutrality board, this page is about thorough investigations against Jackson brought by actual plaintiffs and the People. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sexual abuse is illegal and if anything Star alleged had violated the law he would have been charged by prosecutors that was not shy charging Jackson with a conspiracy where only one person was charged for the supposed conspiracy. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Robson, Gavin Arvizo, Chandler, Francia, Safechuck all categorically accused Jackson of breaking the law and those accusations were also extensively publicized. Because they check both of those boxes, they are included in this article. Gavin Arvizo stated that his grandmother discussed masturbation in a similar way to Jackson, which, by your standards, would make her a sexual abuser, but not according to any law. Although I believe there should be laws prohibiting the showing of girly magazines to children, they do not exist, therefore based on that allegations Star Arvizo also has no place on this article.

In reference to his account of Jackson entering the room nude, his brother's testimony painted a very different picture, one that would certainly not consist of sexual abuse as Jackson might have simply come up from the shower without realizing the boys were there and then swiftly left. Just the fact that it was mentioned in several publications doesn't mean that it belongs here. Multiple media outlets also covered Joe Bartucci's court-filed accusations of sexual assault, as others have noted, however it seems like you continue to ignore it. They lack any credibility, hence we have excluded them too. Mr Boar1 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

you keep bringing up accusers I've never heard of as if that is "checkmate" for not including someone who the New York Times and other huge sources reported on. Star's testimony was widely covered just as Francia's. The only difference is that Star did not allege touching. When a witness for the prosecution in a child sexual abuse trial alleges that 1) defendant walked in nude with an erection and sat down on the bed next to the brothers, claiming it is "natural," 2) urged masturbation, 3) showed pornography, it is ludicrous to say that's not a sexual abuse allegation. 100.1.83.192 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Before i get accused of sock or meat puppetry, this 100 etc IP is me - i forgot to log jn Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"They lack any credibility, hence we have excluded them too." I don't think you meant to admit to that... Perhaps you phrased it poorly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Right. The only barrier to entry in the list of Jackson accusations (which is what this page purports to be) should be "Did tbe person allege child sexual abuse?" and "Was the allegation reported in a reliable source?" If the answer is yes, it should be included. Editors should not be frantically seeking to exclude accusers because they "dont believe them." The page should be an overview of those accusations.

It feels like prior editors of this page have pushed extremely hard to scrub out whatever can be scrubbed out. Chandler, Gavin, Safechuck and Robson are just far too prominent as "the first accuser," as the complainant in the huge criminal trial, and as the subjects of a jaw-dropping documentary to be successfully blocked from list. Francia was omitted until I pushed this month.

I also find it suspicious that numerous security guards and other staff testifed over the years that they actually literally witnessed Jackson abuse children, reported by a host of sources, and yet none of that is cited in the article. The article has numerous quotes from the first accuser's father for some reason, but nothing from all the individuals who testified in 2005 or are cited in the August 2023 opinion. Those, too, are "allegations." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Suggestion

First of all, apologies for doing a split without a consensus, so I will now try and establish one. This article's title implies it focuses on all the allegations, when it's only the 1993 one that gets a major focus. Can we find some way to remedy this? THE article is called "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations", So shouldn't it discuss each case in equal length? The other two allegations have sub-articles (Trial of MJ and Leaving Neverland), so the 1993 case could get a split article that focuses on it in further detail, and then having this page giving a brief overview of each case with links to the main articles. But I want to get a consensus this time around, and I'll respect the outcome of it regardless. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus on the alternative proposed title. – robertsky (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations → 1993 sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson – Per WP:TITLEDAB.

There have been multiple major allegations of abuse against Michael Jackson. This article focuses on the first. (Note that the short description reads "First allegations against singer".) The other major allegations are covered in Trial of Michael Jackson and Leaving Neverland.

We should retitle the article to make clear that this article is not about all the allegations in general. Popcornfud (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Just curious- any reason for the rearranging of the words instead of just plopping a 1993 at the front of the current title? I'm not arguing it should be that, just honestly asking your thoughts on it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't even mean to do that. "1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" would be more concise per WP:CONCISE. I suppose some might feel "1993 sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson" is more natural or descriptive. I have no preference. Popcornfud (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On further contemplation I think I prefer the longer wording as "1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" is an unusually long series of modifying nouns, to the point where it gets a little hard to parse. But that's a mild preference and I won't object if others prefer the shorter. Popcornfud (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Musicians, and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Support "1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

A reminder to maintain a balanced and nuanced approach.

Hello, everyone. Longtime lurker.

I noticed one of the recent editors is on a subreddit called LeavingNeverlandHBO. They made a post about editing this Wikipedia article:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1eank7z/the_wikipedia_article_on/

This demonstrates a bias.

It is crucial for editors (fans, non-fans, etc.) to uphold neutrality. There is a difference between removing misinformation and making edits to promulgate a narrative of guilt or innocence. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't inspected the edits made by that editor in detail. However, looking at one of the edits, it's definitely not appropriate for inclusion and was rightly removed — it's a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Magnesium77: “Even though I think Michael was guilty, I am trying to remain neutral with my editing, so that there will not be valid grounds to revert my edits.” and “I even left alone the heavily biased claim that Chandler “demanded money”.” doesn’t sound very biased. Which part of “I added text that <5% of CSA cases have medical evidence available, and instead they typically rely on the testimony of the child + cited a reference for this statement” do you think sounds biased? You also appear to have strong opinions on neutrality for a Wikipedia editor who only has three edits - all relating to discussion of the same topic - to their name, who went to the lengths of trying to find posts from another Wikipedia editor on another site, if that is to be believed. None of this appears credible for someone supposedly concerned with neutrality.Nqr9 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits lack neutrality and frequently breaks Wikipedia policies on this topic. The canvassing evidence looks like meat/sock puppetry may be afoot. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, your cynical assumptions about me are not pertinent to the topic.

I edited the article about the FBI files on Jackson to provide the correct timeline.

As for how I noticed your Reddit post, I browse the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit as a non-fan of Jackson’s who has an interest in the allegations. It appears there is a lot of misinformation being peddled on both sides. Magnesium77 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The bias is that you include a line, against wiki rules, that has nothing to do with the 1993 case for no other reason but to make the reader conclude that the lack of physical evidence does not mean Jackson was innocent. However the importance to include that no physical evidence (note: not medical which your source mentions, physical and medical evidence are not the same) was found is that the lack of such finding is one of the reasons why Jackson was not charged. It's a neutral fact that is directly relevant to the article's subject which is not CSA cases in general but the 1993 allegations against Jackson in particular. If such evidence had been found it would be included too. castorbailey (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I found this Reddit page. Looks like they are over there canvassing again. This should be reported to the board ASAP. Reading the comments it looks as though there are pals helping this editor who has the same username on both Wikipedia and Reddit. This is pure evidence of canvassing if I’ve ever seen it. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d love to see what “pure evidence” you have.Nqr9 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the public Reddit conversation is evidence in itself. The definition given at WP:CANVASS is clear. Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. The intentions of that Reddit thread is clear. Your comments and the comments of others prove that the intentions are to disrupt stable articles. The behavior of Reddit is what is known on Wikipedia as campaigning which is when an editor is involved in posting a notification of discussion, here on Wikipedia itself, or other third-party public forums (like Reddit) that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. The entire Leaving Neverland Reddit thread is non-neutral, and so is your posting there and the comments to your post along with your responses to them.

Then there’s your behavior with the intent at WP:OUTING other editors here. The intent itself is breaking Wikipedia policy. You are also engaged in WP:OWH over on Reddit too. I don’t know if this Doctor you talk about is a Wikipedia editor or not, but if they are and they discover you are doxxing them, they can take action. In fact, action can be taken solely based on your attempt to WP:HARASS them. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This is a problematic edit because it violates WP:SYNTH. It combines sources to imply a conclusion not stated by either source.

Statement 1: “The investigation found no physical evidence against Jackson" (Not cited in the lead, but I'm taking it on good faith that this statement is supported by reliable sources in the article body.)

Statement 2: "However, less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony", cited to this PDF.

The implied conclusion is that the lack of physical evidence is not particularly important to the MJ allegations. But that's not stated by either source. The PDF source has nothing to do with MJ. Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Besides, it also appears to be a case of WP:OR. Israell (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed that edit for the same reason. It has no place in the lead and it's not relevant to the subject of the article at all. In addition, the source is WP:OR and does not say anything about physical evidence, but medical evidence. The two are not the same. castorbailey (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m reluctant to assume good faith. User:Nqr9 has chosen to engage in cyber harassment and refuses to acknowledge his bias. Take a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1eccl39/wikipedia_update/

He is falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet. I’m considering contacting one of the noticeboards for dispute resolution. This is ridiculous. Magnesium77 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Nqr9 created yet another Reddit thread to complain. A commenter mentioned Popcornfud in this one and admitted to sock puppeting. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1ed31c1/comment/lf4p9rq/

“We have an editor, Popcornfud, who believes Michael Jackson is guilty and has been doing a lot of good work for our cause. He needs our support. Recently, a friend of mine created an account and has been making numerous edits to avoid arousing the admins' suspicion.” Magnesium77 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to clarify that I work for no "cause", other than Wikipedia. Examining the history of that Reddit account, that is their first and only comment. Is someone playing silly buggers? Popcornfud (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I wouldn’t put it past them to engage in flippant conduct/silly buggers. It is utterly bizarre. Magnesium77 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)