Talk:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2024. The result of the discussion was redirect.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Summary article

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter expanded this disambiguation article into a summary article, but this was reverted.

I think the expansion was a good idea. Summarising the contents of articles on a subject is a standard method of organization on Wikipedia, per WP:SUMMARY. Having a briefer article that provides an overview of all the allegations, with links to the three main pages about them, would be helpful to readers.

Also: before the revert, @Nqr9 began rewriting the page and adding new material. I didn't examine those changes so I don't have any opinion about them, but if we move back to a summary page, we'll need to be careful that the summary page is kept in sync with the main pages, per WP:SYNC. Popcornfud (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words about my expanded version. I don't want to start an edit war so I won't revert, but I'm glad you prefer my expanded version. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think adding some citation needed tags and rephrasing a couple of statements in an attempt to make them more-neutral is “rewriting the page”.Nqr9 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For summary articles, any change needs to be made on the main pages too, to keep things synchronized. See WP:SYNC for the full explanation.

Of course, this is all moot while we don't have a summary article. My position is that a summary article is a good idea. Popcornfud (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments about this? If there are no objections I may expand the page again to provide a summary of each page, per WP:SUMMARY. I'll base the summary of each topic on the leads for the articles and pull in the relevant citations. Popcornfud (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY does not say if there is a standalone article about a specific subject you can create a separate article by summarizing or forking content from those articles. In addition the justification for this page does not exist. "This article includes a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names)" is not true. Only one article has similar title, the trial and Leaving Neverland articles do not. That article however include references and summaries to/of those other two, therefore this page should be redirected to that article. castorbailey (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY does not say if there is a standalone article about a specific subject you can create a separate article by summarizing or forking content from those articles.

No, that's pretty much exactly what WP:SUMMARY says. Summary articles are common on Wikipedia. What is your objection to a summary article here? Popcornfud (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:SUMMARY say that, especially that applies to this particular situation? The justification for this article is: "This article includes a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names)" and that is simply not true. Only one article on that list has a similar name and that article already includes summary for those other two articles. Anyone who is looking for an article about the allegations in general will find that content there. There is no point to create a list of article which have completely different names. castorbailey (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY doesn’t mention article the creation of summary articles by forking content from other articles. Why have a summary article while there are standalone articles for the same subject? Makes zero sense. Redundancy should be avoided as we know if content overlaps significantly, it may be consolidated. Separate articles should only exist if they cover distinct aspects of a topic comprehensively. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this makes it sound like you don't understand summary articles on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples, each of which provide summaries of other articles: Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise), United States, The Last of Us (franchise), September 11 attacks, Physics. Are you saying none of these should exist because "redundancy should be avoided"? Popcornfud (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to you United States was created as a Summary Page. What is it the summary page for? North America? TruthGuardians (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPINOFF, where it is listed as an example of a summary page. Popcornfud (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it already. It says Death of Michael Jackson was spun off from Michael Jackson. Not the other way around. You are trying to create Michael Jackson from Death of Michael Jackson and it does not work in reverse. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. See WP:SPINOFF, where United States is listed as an example of a summary page. Popcornfud (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All your examples are redirects based on similar names. Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise) redirects to Sonic the Hedgehog. It does exactly what I argued Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations should do: redirect to the only article here where the title is similar to that phrase. castorbailey (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. You're conflating disambiguation pages, index pages and summary pages. Summary pages are not based on articles having "similar names". They are summaries of a group of topics on a related theme. Popcornfud (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just justified the existence of that page with disambiguation. "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations." Your examples all redirect based on actual similar names. Here however you want a standalone page for articles which evidently do not share a similar title at all based on the theory they they are "associated with" the title of the newly created page. castorbailey (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do the trial and Leaving Neverland article have similar names of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations? It's a fact they don't. Still, you want to create a page for a list of articles in the name of similar names which do not exist. castorbailey (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do the trial and Leaving Neverland article have similar names of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations?

They don't. That's why I changed this to a disambiguation page per WP:DISAMBIG. Popcornfud (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the titles of the article are not even similar, is it is in this case. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. There is no conflicts here as the titles are very different. castorbailey (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" could refer to one of at least three articles about the sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. That is the ambiguity. Popcornfud (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't refer to three articles as only one article has similar title that's why it should be redirecting to that one article. "Associated with" is not a reason for WP:DISAMBIG. By the same token you could include the pages for Wade Robson, Michael Jackson, or Jack Gordon on that list, since they are all "associated with" the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise) redirects to Sonic the Hedgehog, as Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations should redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. castorbailey (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thinking about "articles with similar titles". That's not the right way of looking at it.

Instead, understand that disambiguation pages are for topics referred to by the same term. That's not the same thing, because what a topic is referred to is not the same as the title of the Wikipedia article.

For example, consider the disambiguation page for Bill. It lists pages including Banknote, Bill (law) and Invoice. These articles do not have similar titles. Does this make sense?

(Also: put aside the Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise) example. I just misremembered the title of the article, that's all. Imagine I wrote Sonic the Hedgehog the first time and its relevance may become clearer to you — Sonic the Hedgehog is a summary article. If you still don't get this, never mind.) Popcornfud (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not the right way of looking at it." That is what WP:DISAMBIG is for and not for your arbitrary interpretation that articles "associated with" the newly created title. You brought up that example and it actually does exactly what I did: redirect to the page which actually has a similar title. The articles you mentioned have similar titles since they are are synomys of bill or the literal meaning of bill (law). Leaving Neverland or Trial of Michael Jackson in no way are synonyms of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Where does WP:DISAMBIG say that disambiguation pages are for topics referred to by the same term? It does not. And how does Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations refer to Leaving Neverland by the same term? It does not. The article Sonic the Hedgehog is most certainly not a list of articles "associated with" Sonic the Hedgehog. castorbailey (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still mixed up and conflating these ideas. Summary articles aren't lists. Popcornfud (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is. And it's apparently you who can't decide how to justify its existence. Whether with WP:DISAMBIG or WP:SUMMARY, neither of which applies here. castorbailey (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position is this:

This article should be a summary article. This would be helpful to readers, per WP:SUMMARY.
If we can't reach a consensus to make it a summary article, it should remain a disambiguation article rather than redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, in line with WP:DISAMBIG.

I hope that's clear. Popcornfud (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:SUMMARY say standalone articles should be created to fork content from existing articles? How is it in line with WP:DISAMBIG when that is specifically for articles with similar titles? You say "associated with", which is extremely vague. What wiki rule allows that? Not WP:DISAMBIG castorbailey (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]