Talk:Leaving Neverland

Same culprits making Jackson articles unbalanced and unstable

There are a couple of culprits who are going around every article about Jackson removing critical content that makes the article balanced. This content includes any content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers, while being unjustly critical to Jackson himself and adding content where consensus has been reached to not add. This behavior must stop. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed "Discrepancy" section

Do not reinstate this content without consensus from other editors. It's mostly OR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

*James claims his abuse occurred from the age of 10-14 (1988-1992), he tells a story of often going into the train station and doing sexual acts with Michael Jackson... The Train station was not built until towards the end of 1994. *James claims Michael called him asking him to testify in 2005 but he was considered a 'non entity' in the case months before the trial began. Neither one of them had a say as to if he could testify. *James mother states she danced when Michael Jackson died... James states that he was unaware what 'happened' to him was abuse until seeing Wade Robson on TV in 2013. * In the doc Wade claims that it was after his family left to the Grand Canyon when they had their first sexual experience, went into great detail as to having no contact with his family.. in court 2 months prior to the taping he stated that it was before his family left to the Grand Canyon while his sister was sleeping in the room. There are multiple testimonies from Wades mother that specifically states he went with the family to the Grand Canyon. *James claims he, another boy (insinuating Jordan Chandler) was with Michael in his Century City CA apartment in September 1992. He describes crying himself to sleep due to Michael having a new 'special friend'.. Michael Jackson was on tour traveling between Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, and Romania in September 1992. *James claims that he first addressed his abuse after seeing an interview with Wade on TV, however it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James before James made any move about the abuse *Wade claimed in court that he was unaware of the administration of the Michael Jackson Estate prior to March 6th 2013 which is another lie considering he was in contact with them about the Cirque De Soleil show and claims to have worked under MJ Ventures in the past. (which is why the estate would be liable in the first place)

References

Discussion

• Oppose as mostly WP:OR and opinions, does not match the claimed sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as all the cited sources are backed up with evidence and are reliable.Deboleena.ghy (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think statements still need better references and perhaps clearer arguments. They are still unpolished. Hammelsmith (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support As explained by Deboleena, all the cited sources are backed up with evidence and are reliable. Inclusion of this section is totally justified and appropriate. Israell (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't support the above addition to the article as is. It's too long and mostly OR. However, I think the article deserves a better mention of protests and criticisms from detractors. There are two sides to this controversy, after all, and the protesters have been just as loud as the supporters of the film.

As per WP:NPOV, we should divide the two sides of the controversy according to criticisms of the film and backlash against Jackson. The current subtitles "Response from Jackson estate and supporters" and "Public response" are not sufficient. We have included supporters of Jackson which are all by definition some form of "public response," and there are more detractors we can include, provided that there is sourcing for them (e.g. the "#MJInnocent" on social media and the reaction against Oprah for her interviewing the film's creators). In other words, this controversy could use better framing and explaining. We should also include links to the articles on Jackson's 1993 allegations and 2005 trial, as both are related to Robson and Safechuck's stories.

We should also remember that Wikipedia isn't here to establish whether Robson and Safechuck are credible, but only to present the facts of what this film is and what is actually happening surrounding the film. I think a lot of users here are changing the article according to how much they believe Robson and Safechuck. See: WP:FORUM (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). We present the facts in the article and let the readers decide what to think of the controversy. —Partytemple (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I still honestly do not see any problem w/ addition of the 'Discrepancy' section since it is relevant information for Wikipedia readers. It could be shortened, but its inclusion is fairly appropriate and necessary. It's just information and facts. Did James Safechuck in court documents and in 'Leaving Neverland' claim to have been molested from ages 10 to 14, from 1988 to 1992? Yes. Fact. Did James Safechuck in 'Leaving Neverland' mention "having sex" with Michael Jackson "everyday" above that train station at Neverland? Yes. Fact. Was it proven that the train station was built from 1993 to 1994 and only opened when Safechuck was 16? Yes. Fact. Did Wade Robson claim to have been left alone with Michael Jackson at Neverland while his parents went to the Grand Canyon? Yes. Fact. Did Robson's mother stated otherwise years prior? Yes. Fact.

My point is, it's not about determining how credible Robson & Safechuck are. It's about inclusion truthful, factual and relevant sourced information so the readers can, as we both said on this Talk page, make up their own mind. Israell (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the points you mentioned are just more details of the film, which would belong in the "Synopsis" section, but a synopsis doesn't require so much detail. If people want to know more about the film, they can go see it themselves.

As for the train station factoid, the only association it has with this film is to dispute its credibility, so it's argumentative. I'm still uncertain about a "Discrepancy" section because there are so many documentaries out there that can be disputed, and they don't have a "Discrepancy" section. I just don't see how this particular documentary requires extra attention. I also don't think this documentary was successful or popular enough to deserve that kind of attention. The "supporters of Jackson" is already quite substantial.

I know there are blogs out there disproving the film with the train station argument, but we can only add those with an attribution attached to them (like "So-and-so blog claims/states/argues," etc.), and not like how that user wrote the "Discrepancy" section above. We can't write it as if Wikipedia is the one making the argument. —Partytemple (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If by "factoid" you mean invented, it's not invented at all! The construction permit for that Neverland train station (mentioned and shown in 'Leaving Neverland') was issued on Sep. 2nd 1993.

Safechuck turned 16 on Feb. 28th 1994, and, as explained by Mike Smallcombe, from “February 1994 and December 1994, Jackson was living in Trump Tower in New York recording his HIStory album, and only making the odd trip abroad. Once to get married to Lisa Marie Presley. The train station opened in 1994, while Jackson was living on the other side of the country. The latter point is, by the time Jackson was at Neverland and the train station was actually open, it was early 1995, three years after Safechuck said the abuse stopped. And by then Safechuck was 17, and on the cusp of adulthood.”

Now, here's what Dan Reed, director of 'Leaving Neverland', told Mike Smallcombe about that revelation: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

Dan Reed, director of 'Leaving Neverland', saw the construction permit, responded to Mike Smallcombe, admitted the train station was built from 1993 to 1994, and he claimed Safechuck was mistaken about the end of the alleged abuse. That's a statement made by Reed himself in response to Smallcombe. Therefore, it is pertinent for the article to feature or refer to both statements. Dan Reed has himself implied the alleged abuse occurred until Safechuck was either 16 or 17 years old of age (in 1994 or in 1995) and not until Safechuck was 14 years old of age in 1992. I do not agree any of that information, when featured on Wikipedia, is argumentative or an attempt to discredit the accusers. It is just pertinent information. Why not let the readers know about it? Israell (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not mean that the train station argument isn't true. And I have no problems with adding more information from people who disagree with the film, provided they have good sourcing.

However, if we are going to add more items disputing the film, I don't think we should name it "Discrepancy" because it sounds like Wikipedia is the one doing the disputing. We can have another section under "Reception" describing how people disagreed or have issues with the credibility of the film. We just need to frame/write it in a way that is objective. WP:IMPARTIAL

Again, I think the credibility issue of this film deserves a mention. The general impression I get from viewers is that most of them don't believe the story. Even Oprah faced a lot of criticism for promoting this film. —Partytemple (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I think that it is appropriate to include this section because it gives more insight into the information given in the documentary and because what the sources claim is backed up with evidence. GiuliaZB (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If naming it "Discrepancies" is not proper, we could effectively have another section under "Reception" addressing those credibility issues. We'd just need to rephrase it: "Critics of the film have noticed the following lack of consistency, etc." That way, it doesn't look like Wikipedia is the one doing the disputing. Israell (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I renamed the "Supporters" section to include more items about the film's credibility. —Partytemple (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Quincy Jones show will be removed from tge response section

• A June 2019 London concert of music produced by Jackson collaborator Quincy Jones removed Jackson's name and album titles from its advertisements. Some concertgoers demanded refunds.

As per the organisers of the show the name changing have nothing to do with Leaving Neverland.According the organisers When the concert at The O2 was originally announced in February, the central core of the show was built around Quincy’s work on the Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad albums,” . “That has not changed. We have in fact broadened the show to include further key songs from outside of his work with Michael Jackson. This was to highlight the wider contribution Quincy Jones made to pop music in the 1980s. As a result, the artwork was modified to reflect this Funkof40000years (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The content you propose to remove is factual, and does not state that the sole reason for the removal was Leaving Neverland. Whether or not it was, some concertgoers apparently thought it was, and reliable sources reported that they requested refunds. Despite the organizers' response, the removal corresponded with widespread discussion of the documentary and we cannot state as a fact that it was not a factor in the decision to change the content of the show or its artwork. The appropriate action in this case is to leave the sourced content, but to add content to the effect that "The organizers of the concert claimed, however, that the artwork was modified to reflect a change in the show to include more of Jones' repertoire unrelated to his work with Jackson, not in response to the documentary" and to include the citation. General Ization ^Talk 02:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposal: restructuring and renaming "Response from Jackson estate and supporters" and "Public response" to two sides of the controversy

Continuing from my points in "Discussions."

Neither of these two subtitles describes its contents or frames the controversy surrounding this film very well. I suggest renaming them "Criticisms against the film" and "Criticisms against Jackson." Also, why are the statements under "Public response" in the format of bullet points? It seems out of place compared to the rest of the article and could use better writing. —Partytemple (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I made significant edits to the last two sections of the article for consistency, better reading and better sourcing. I removed a sentence describing a statement from Corey Feldman in 2005 that did not match what he said about Jackson at all. I think there are a good amount of information on the controversy as of now. I mean, the "supporters of Jackson" section is almost as long as the first three sections combined. —Partytemple (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2005, Corey Feldman did admit to experiencing "inappropriate" behaviour from Jackson

This CNN link quotes Feldman stating, "If you consider it 'inappropriate' for a man to look at a book of naked pictures with a child that's 13 or 14 years old -- then your answer would be 'yes'."

This Variety link adds further details:

We went to his apartment...I noticed a book that he had out on his coffee table. The book contained pictures of grown men and women naked. And the book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia. I was kind of grossed out by it...I have to say that if my son was 14 years old – 13 years old, and went to a man’s apartment that was 35, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass.

Res ipsa loquitur Hammelsmith (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was the sentence I removed.

1. Because the original sentence was misleading. It insinuated that Feldman was confessing about sexual molestation from Jackson, which was what the allegations and the documentary were about. But he never said that in the source article. WP:INTEGRITY.
2. Because something Feldman said in 2005 has nothing to do with the documentary.

I have also removed those supposed "backtracking" comments from Feldman and Aaron Carter. Neither of them shifted from their initial defense of Jackson but only made extra statements to clarify what they said before. We don't need every update of what they said, especially when they didn't even change their opinion anyway. —Partytemple (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint and your position, Partytemple, but I think would like other users such as General Ization, SNUGGUMS, Flyer22 Reborn, JPGordon, or anyone else interested to weigh in on the matter too for the sake of consensus. Hammelsmith (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with all of what Partytemple said here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I also agree w/ Partytemple. Besides, Carter took it to Twitter and made it very clear he in no way accused Jackson of child sex abuse.

Now, this is a long list of sources (tweets and one retweet by Carter), but it serves to reinforce the fact Carter never accused Jackson of molestation and did not even imply that. He simply made a statement, and the media jumped to conclusions he vehemently denied. Carter also liked a tweet referring to the train station and denouncing Safechuck and Robson as liars.

As for Feldman, he clarified those statements, explained his statements were made before the release of 'Leaving Neverland', that they were taken out of context, that some of those statements were of a private nature, never meant to be made public, that he'll never jump on the bandwagon and say: "Michael Jackson did something to me.", and that his movie about Hollywood pedocriminals will not mention Jackson. Israell (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Alright, if it's against policy, I'll leave Corey Feldman's 2005 comments alone. I'm pleased that is was discussed on the Talk page. Thank you all for responding and discussing this with me. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The section 'Issues regarding credibility...'

I've deleted the sentence

Smallcombe described the film's one-sidedness as a "[violation of] all norms and ethics in filmmaking and journalism."

because it states nothing but Smallcombe's opinion. I haven't looked further but if someone wants to go in this direction with a whole separate discussion about ethics it would make sense to find sources claiming that Reed is ethical for whatever reason; e.g., that he knew that critics would initially all believe the testimony and that it would fall apart under the detailed scrutiny of regular viewers.

However overall just opinions about whether Reed is ethical or not seem to be lacking in importance. Compared to, say, Smallcombe's statements of fact about when the station was built.Createangelos (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate sentence clause

"The documentary resulted in a backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy in some quarters, while some critics dismissed the film as one-sided and unconvincing under the evidence of Jackson's previous allegations in 1993 and 2005."

I'm sorry, but a portion of this sentence is inaccurate as to how critics assessed the film.

May I propose this sentence instead:

The documentary resulted in a backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy in some quarters, while some critics dismissed the film as one-sided because it also recounted previous allegations against Jackson in 1993 and 2005."

Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, General Ization Tataral, Octoberwoodland, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I explained before, "one-sided because it also recounted previous allegations against Jackson in 1993 and 2005" doesn't make sense because the events of 1993 and 2005 are complex and not immediately one-sided. What the dissenters of the film say is that certain facts of 1993 and 2005 conflict with the things presented in the film hence unconvincing. The film isn't automatically one-sided when it recounts the events, but that the facts don't add up. This is basic reading comprehension, really. Partytemple (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "while some critics dismissed the film as one-sided and unconvincing under the evidence of Jackson's previous allegations in 1993 and 2005" has no citation in the lede of the article but appears to be backed up by a single review, in Entertainment Weekly. That review calls the film one-sided NOT because it recounts the 1993 and 2005 allegations but because it does not give equal time to the Jackson family/ estate for rebuttal. I haven't had time to read every review of the film, obviously, but most of them are very positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence is not suppose to be a transcription of the source following it but a summary of the "Issues regarding credibility" section. That section is large enough to warrant a summary in the lead. Partytemple (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Most people who know about the documentary know that the Jackson family was not consulted, nor were they given an opportunity to give their input about the allegations made in the film. This is one of the reasons the film is indisputably one-sided. My proposed sentence revision refers to how the critics assessed the film. I never read a review that called it "unconvincing." That is why I believe my proposed sentence is more accurate. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to fully read all the reviews (and doubt I will), but yes this is a one-sided movie for only focusing on what Robson and Safechuck had to say without any input from the Jackson family. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's fine to reference the viewers who found the film unconvincing. That is fair. I thought you were referring to film critics.

May I then propose this sentence:

"The documentary resulted in a backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy in some quarters, while some viewers dismissed the film as one-sided and unconvincing under the evidence of Jackson's previous allegations in 1993 and 2005."

Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if you think you must. But I think the effect is minimal. Disputants/viewers are regarding the same group of people. Partytemple (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what "...under the evidence of Jackson's previous allegations in 1993 and 2005." is trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that Partytemple changed "critics" to "disputants." So the matter is now closed. Partytemple, I know how hard you work for accuracy on Wiki. But you could have changed your word choice from the beginning instead of just reverting my edit. I'm really a fair-minded person who is willing to listen and work with anyone. I'm sorry everyone, for all the trouble. Good faith comrades. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed for clarity and replaced "disputants" w/ "viewers." Partytemple (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis may need improvement

I removed all the background information that was not the main narrative of the film.

From the OED synopsis, n.: A brief or condensed statement presenting a combined or general view of something; a table, or set of paragraphs or headings, so arranged as to exhibit all the parts or divisions of a subject or work at one view; a conspectus.

WP:FILMPLOT:

Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects, per Wikipedia's policy on writing about fiction. Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

Partytemple (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should remove the background information about Robson and Safechuck's lawsuits, as well. Partytemple (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Use Twitter with attributions

I think Twitter can be used as a source but best with attributions, especially when coming from individuals of undetermined reliability. Just putting this here for clarification about why I conceded to the removal of the Twitter statement about NAMBLA supporting the film but kept the statement from Mark Geragos. —Partytemple (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

ICL statement

In response to Popcornduff, Israell was the original contributor to both the Twitter NAMBLA source and the ICL source. The Twitter source looks a bit more dubious because it was simply sourced to someone who claims to part of the NAMBLA, but as far as I know the NAMBLA is now practically defunct. If they have any supporting members, they would keep a low profile. However, that Twitter user does seem to be pro-pederasty.

As for the ICL source, it comes straight from their newsletter which distributes their propaganda, hence I added the attribution to indicate that it's their opinion, just like all the other voices in the article. The ICL is in fact a pro-pederasty group (primarily through its subdivision the Spartacist League) and has defended the NAMBLA before. They even have their own WP article. They claim to be Trotskyist and Leninist, though I personally dispute this. I restored their statement because I found their comments on the film interesting. In terms of notability, it differs for every person. There aren't many pro-pederasty groups in existence, but the ICL has notorious reputation for this. The source isn't dubious as long as we frame it properly (i.e. putting in attributions for certain primary sources). WP:PRIMARY. I didn't add anything that wasn't directly asserted in the source, so no WP:OR. —Partytemple (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda newsletters from niche organisations doesn't cut it. See WP:FRINGE. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree w/ —Partytemple and support the mention of NAMBLA apologists (incl. members of ICL). It is totally appropriate to include them in this article, just as appropriate and relevant as all the other mentions. Israell (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As appropriate as reports from trusted, mainstream sources like the Guardian and the New York Times? Why? Again, see WP:FRINGE. Popcornduff (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason at all to include the opinions of these groups; they are of no value either in the real world or here. WP:FRINGE applies thoroughly. May just as well include the opinion of my next door neighbor who wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. Pro-pederasty views are in fact quite WP:FRINGE. But if anyone really wants to include this, I think using the newsletter as a primary source is fine. —Partytemple (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article on 'Leaving Neverland' that mentions NAMBLA. https://thevioletreality.com/leavingneverland-isnt-a-documentary-it-s-a-work-of-fiction-a6ba55e1a01b Israell (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• On a Prince fansite. If you're suggesting we can use this as a source, we can't. Popcornduff (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Popcornduff and Jpgordon. Popcornduff, thank you for consistently tackling the POV editing at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view TruthGuardians (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are fansites banned under any and all circumstances? Was it a Michael Jackson fansite, one could argue it could be biased, but that is a Prince fansite: "You might have seen us in The New York Times, Variety, BBC News, Jezebel, Consequence of Sound, Spin, or on BBC Radio or CNN". https://thevioletreality.com/about

Those are two different artists, and it appears Prince and Jackson were only ever acquaintances. Sure, some parallels could be drawn between them, but those are two different acts altogether (they were never in the same band, etc.).Israell (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll need a damn good reason to consider a fansite a reliable source. If you want to bring this example to the WikiMusic project and ask there, and somehow we arrive at a consensus that this particular fansite can be used, then great. But I don't think that's on the cards. Popcornduff (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole bottom part of the first paragraph shows a lot of bias

The following part of the paragraph... "The documentary resulted in a backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy in some quarters, while some viewers dismissed it as one-sided, questioned the veracity and viewed it as unconvincing due to conflicting facts between the film and Jackson's 1993 and 2005 allegations. The Jackson estate condemned the film as a "tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death." Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth, a documentary that questions the veracity of Robson and Safechuck allegations will be released on August 13. Taj Jackson, nephew of Jackson and member of R&B group 3T, is currently working on a crowdfunded documentary that will 'tell the true side of Michael Jackson's story.'" No more than a sentence or two of this should be in the top paragraph. This is the kind of thing that would normally be in a later part of the article and the fact that it's shoved up the top there with the emotive ending "Tell the true side of Michael Jackson's story" shows obvious bias that would never be there in a normal Wikipedia article. It's full of emotive language and pro Jackson speak and is bringing up irrelevant documentaries in the first paragaphs on this film. Such information if it needs to be included in such detail at all should be in another part of the article. It's clearly only at the top there to pander to Michael Jackson fans and the Jackson family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 10:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC) House Tules (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)//House Tules//

Fixed your comment. "Tell the true side of Michael Jackson's story" is in quotes so it's a direct quotation of a statement from the makers of that film. WP is not making that judgement. I could see how it should belong in its own section, though. —Partytemple (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I dont know if Chase the Truth should be in the lead of this article, it is already included in the critisizms section.Patelgybed688 (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Damnit, we've got to be neutral

As loath as I am to add to the debate on this page, something has to be done about this article. This from the lead:

The UK version of the film was trimmed by 47 minutes (the original four-hour version premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on HBO in the US), and it has also been characterized as having discrepancies.

This is classic weasel wording, even if it's sourced. It's vague and dodges responsibility. And it's bolted onto the end of a completely unrelated sentence, as if we can't get through a paragraph without mentioning the possibility that maybe MJ was innocent (ideally two or three times).

More from the lead:

The film led to protest from Jackson's fans which led to the release of two documentaries discussing the discrepancies observed in the film.

This presupposes that there are discrepancies to be observed. That's not Wikipedia's place to say.

WP:UNDUE is also a problem. The main mission of the article, as it stands, seems to be to collate arguments for and against the allegations in the film. That's in the interests of MJ fans, but not the interests of an encyclopaedic article about a documentary. Those arguments have received coverage from mainstream sources and deserve coverage - but only proportional coverage, and the lead as it stands is currently frontloaded with suggestions that the documentary is faulty.

This is rocky ground. Stick to the facts. Keep the sentences meaningful and precise. Let's get a grip, please. Popcornduff (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've ripped this crap out of the lead now. Popcornduff (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well said Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Popcornduff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view TruthGuardians (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can see how the first part saying "it has also been characterized as having discrepancies" can be seen as WP voice, because it's written in passive voice, so it obscures the fact that it's the fans' voice. However, the second sentence you mentioned, "The film led to protest from Jackson's fans which led to the release of two documentaries discussing the discrepancies observed in the film," can be read as "The film led to protest from Jackson's fans which led to the release of two documentaries discussing the discrepancies observed [by fans] in the film." So this one is not in WP voice. Both sentences are statements of facts. Your saying that "the lead as it stands is currently frontloaded with suggestions that the documentary is faulty" implies that you don't believe it's possible that the film's faulty, which is not WP:NPOV. Moreover, I believe your last edit that removed the part you mentioned also removed the part where it described the film being trimmed. I think that is very relevant information, especially for an encyclopedia. The viewers of the film deserves to know which version they saw and should not be misguided into thinking both versions are the same. 47 minutes is a significant amount of footage, even for a 4-hour 2-part film. WP:MoS/Film/Production states, "post-production: completion of special effects, musical scoring and sound, and editing" (my emphasis). —Partytemple (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to limit my response to this claim:

Your saying that "the lead as it stands is currently frontloaded with suggestions that the documentary is faulty" implies that you don't believe it's possible that the film's faulty, which is not WP:NPOV.

That doesn't follow. My point is that we mustn't disproportionately load the lead with these suggestions, as it currently stands. WP:UNDUE. Popcornduff (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view TruthGuardians (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's very WP:DUE Weight to include it, because it's already proven that the film had (1) many detractors from viewers, journalists, celebrities, who are not necessarily "fans of Jackson"; (2) no significant viewing (Part 2 didn't even break 1 million viewers, which is fewer than Leaving Neverland Take 2, a Youtube video documentary); (3) Jackson's music sale surged instead of fell in direct response to the film. We can count these numbers up; the section on "Issues regarding credibility" also takes up a large part of this article. This are all indicative of strong weight, whereas I don't hear many supporters of the film outside of the mainstream media and film critics who generally comment on artistic value rather than content quality of a documentary. —Partytemple (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. An assortment of dubious points that seem to have little relevance to each other.

The lead should absolutely say that the film has its detractors. I already said that. But the current wording is weasel-tastic for reasons I think I have made clear, regardless of what's in the rest of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You haven't proven why or how they're dubious. You're just calling them dubious to dismiss them. Everything I said can be sourced, and they're even described and sourced in the article hence they deserve a mention in the lead. —Partytemple (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

By the looks of your edits, it's obvious you're trying to POV-push. You're changing words and cutting out significant voices that are directly quoted and cited as primary sources as statements of opinion on the film. Stop please. —Partytemple (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles Thomson

Further to the exciting discussion above. This passage:

Journalist Charles Thomson, who wrote about the media's biased coverage of Jackson,[72] spoke about the film in a radio podcast, "[Robson and Safechuck]...have maintained for decades that Michael Jackson was innocent, including under oath defending him in legal proceedings. And then both of whom hit hard times a couple of years after he died and changed their stories and started suing his estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. Their case has been thrown out of court twice, and in one of them, the judge reprimanded them and threw their entire witness statement out of court, because he had found that they have provably and deliberately lied under oath. In the film they tell stories which directly contradict the stories they told under oath in their lawsuit." He described the film as "edited with zero supporting evidence" and "completely covers up and omits all of the public record information [and] the court documents which have been accrued over the last five years." He said, "Whether you believe them now or you believe them then, either way they're perjurers.... This director has taken two perjurers at their word, which is so unethical anyway."[73] In an interview with BBC Essex, he described the media's failure to provide any balance of information as a "universal, catastrophic failure" and said the only reason why the film is allowed to air is because Jackson is dead, hence the film is free from libel laws.[74]

Problem one: it's extraordinarily long. See WP:QUOTEFARM.

Problem two: yes, the source was an interview given to the BBC, but it's provided via a YouTube video uploaded by a MJ fan account. That's not good enough. WP:YOUTUBE: Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Additionally, as it's a fan source, readers can't be sure the original interview is being presented fairly. Find the original interview and we can source that. Popcornduff (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view TruthGuardians (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's cited as a WP:PRIMARY. It's direct transcription of a statement, and it's written with attribution as an opinion from an individual. I can shorten it if you'd like, but your edits are already obvious POV-pushing. You're removing and changing the opposing voices from the lead and then the body sections. Stop or be reported. —Partytemple (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask you to respond to this part: Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Popcornduff (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Many" is vague. There is a template for citing YouTube videos, so they're not all violating copyright. For example, AP videos are free to use. You need to prove how this video specifically violates copyright. You should also consider the very first statement of the section you quoted: "While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page." —Partytemple (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not need to prove this. WP:COPYRIGHT: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Is this explicitly disclaimed? The burden is on you to show that we can fairly use this source. Popcornduff (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You're not challenging me but direct statements from WP policy on YouTube videos. Again, please read WP:YTREF and WP:PRIMARY carefully. "Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." —Partytemple (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's also not a "creative work." —Partytemple (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, you clearly have no idea how copyright works, and quoting a policy saying "links should be evaluated with due care" does not explain why this fan-uploaded YouTube video is a special exception. How's it going on reducing the quote length? Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There are many, many YT videos used as citations in WP. Not all of them get taken down. They only get taken down when there is an obvious violation of copyright, and typically they get taken down from YT, too. And the videos used for Thomson are not necessarily "creative work." —Partytemple (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• On copyright violation of YT videos: "You may not link to any copyright violation, such as a music video or television show that has been uploaded illegally, on any page or for any purpose." (My emphasis.) In other words, the video would have to violate copyright on YT, as well. —Partytemple (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think that's a legal YouTube upload? The copyright almost certainly belongs to the BBC. Popcornduff (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Because YT hasn't taken it down, yet. News reporting may be under Fair Use. —Partytemple (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it's obvious that you try so hard to remove this, because you don't want it to show on WP. Meanwhile, anyone can access YT. Removing voices that go against your narrative is obviously against NPOV, and it doesn't strengthen your side of the argument but only distort the opposing voices. —Partytemple (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You got me, it's because I'm Wade Robson.

No. There are YouTube sources I would love to use on Wikipedia - it would make editing Radiohead pages a lot easier - but there are high standards for sources. There is probably a way to use this interview and the guy involved is a worthy voice, but the way it's cited right now is less than ideal. Popcornduff (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wade. Yes, Thomson gave a strong rebuke. I do believe news reporting is allowed under Fair Use, so it doesn't infringe copyright, and that's also why it's still up on YT. —Partytemple (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis

Regarding this, which is also currently being discussed at Talk:Michael Jackson, do you not know that WP:Synthesis is? Do I need to take this to the WP:Original research noticeboard? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. You either don't understand or you're just pushing your usual POV. It's going to the WP:Original research noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I have some questions about this synopsis.

I want to know why the abuse timeline stops at 1992 when Robson said his abuse ended around 1997. Why is Euro Disney mentioned when that claim is not in the film? Why does it state Robson saying that Jackson hated women when, in the film, Robson only claims Jackson told him not to trust women? It was Safechuck who said he was given the Thriller jacket, not Robson. There are photographs of Robson burning other memorabilia in the film. Please explain. Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Partytemple, Createangelos, Flyer22 Reborn, BudapestJoe, Popcornduff, General Ization, Tataral, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpgordon, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The synopsis is another problem area for the article. I've been desperately trying to copyedit it to remove the syntactical weirdness and generally help it read better, but to be honest, I probably ought to rewatch the whole thing and do a summary of all the important claims, from scratch. But watching the film the first time was tedious enough (despite my secret anti-Jackson agenda).

Having said that, from memory, it's a fairly repetitive film, and despite being four hours long it might be possible to summarise all the important parts in just a paragraph or two. Or perhaps we can just find a reliable source that summarises the claims and use that. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been bold and made some edits to that section which I'm happy to discuss. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hammelsmith: read the note about the Euro Disney scene. There's like 4 different versions of this film in various countries. 1997 was an anomaly. You can add that Robson was sexually abused one last time in 1997, but most incidents were claimed to happen during 1988 to 1992. They were supposedly replaced by Barnes and Culkin, remember? Barnes and Culkin came into the scene during the early '90s. Think rationally. Popcornduff's "agenda" is not very secretive. I have contributed to both sides of this controversy, and I know this story very well and can count you every supporter of the accusers. And yet, no new additions to the "Backlash" section, and only deletions and distortions on the opposing side. —Partytemple (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Partytemple you really need to knock off the personal attacks. BudapestJoe (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Time to drop this, Partytemple. I'm a copyeditor. Popcornduff (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the English version of Wiki, I don't think we can speculate about what was incorporated in other versions of the documentary. Writing the synopsis should be easy and non-controversial. All we have to do is summarize what is claimed and portrayed in the film, nothing more or less. If you want to discuss the lawsuit claims, there are other places to do that. I have no issues with this article listing the people who viewed the film with a lot of skepticism. That is fair, and accurately reflects how people would naturally respond to shocking claims. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not "speculation" that there are other versions of this film. Anyone can watch it with subscription. The film is incredibly long and mind-numbingly boring, and a lot of it is Robson and Safechuck blaming Jackson for destroying their families. And then pedophilic fantasy porn descriptions. Topped with innocuous images and videos of them with Jackson. It's hard to summarize, so I just wrote a few highlights that a lot of other viewers talked about. —Partytemple (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your own assessment of the film. Wiki requires only that we summarize what is said and portrayed in it. I've seen all four hours. I was never informed about other versions with different material. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple says they "have contributed to both sides of this controversy," as if that makes Partytemple's POV-editing any less obvious. Like I stated before, it seems that the "Robson wanted the job badly, but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the production." text was added by you to imply that this is why Robson later filed a lawsuit alleging that Jackson had sexually abused him for seven years. Not sure why you put "agenda" in scare quotes when it comes to Popcornduff. You clearly think that Popcornduff has an agenda. You would do better by focusing on the text instead of the editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I'm not sure why Partytemple's unwarranted personal attacks on other editors are tolerated here. BudapestJoe (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2019‎ (UTC)

I haven't watched the film and thus can't really comment on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight/WP:Recentism with regard to the "Public arbitration" section

Regarding this and this, it's WP:Undue weight/WP:Recentism. There is already some material on it in the "Criticisms of allegations" section. All that is needed is a paragraph or two on this aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff, Hammelsmith and SNUGGUMS, any thoughts on this? We should at least remove the redundant piece in the "Criticisms of allegations" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing redundancies. No comment on other aspects of the arbitration. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't feel that I'm knowledgable enough about WP:Undue, so I can't comment on that aspect. I think that the pending arbitration is newsworthy, so I'm fine with it being part of the article. I agree that these paragraphs could be condensed. We certainly know the positions of both parties, so it would be redundant to state their positions repeatedly. Best to you all, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

TheLongTone, you mind giving trimming the section a shot? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Editorializing, POV-pushing, inaccurate wording, and unnecessary text

Hatethejess, I reverted all of this because of WP:Editorializing, POV-pushing, inaccurate wording, and unnecessary text. Per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, you should not be altering text away from what the sources state. Per MOS:QUOTE, you should not be altering quotes like that. And "the documentary anticipated a backlash"? Not only is that ungrammatical, because you were stating that a documentary anticipated a backlash, it's accurate to state that the documentary resulted in a backlash. There is no need to state "allegedly" after every other word. And per WP:Claim, we should be careful with "allegedly" and "claim" anyway. Also, no need to remove links to the sex acts. Regarding "[citation needed]," we use Template:Citation needed. And you should make sure that something is truly unsourced before adding that tag. Sometimes, per WP:Citation overkill, a citation is placed at the end of the paragraph or after a couple or few sentences rather than after every sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Robson

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

In his own words, Robson stated he wanted the job "badly" and had an "obsessive quest for success"; Jude1313 conveniently deleted that information but is accusing other editors of bias and spreading false statements... Israell (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Canvassing Plot

NinjaRobotPirate, following that discussion ([2]) pertaining to Jude1313, one more thing I'd like to direct your attention to. Here's something that was brought to my attention: [3].

A Twitter user that goes by Timothy, The Angry Homo (@ncanarchist) tweeted just two days ago: "We will take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary." Link: [4]

"By any means necessary"... What is that supposed to mean? Canvassing? Creating multiple accounts? Sockpuppetry? Pushing a particular POV?

SNUGGUMS Createangelos Flyer22 Reborn Popcornduff Partytemple TruthGuardians Akhiljaxxn Octoberwoodland Hammelsmith Deboleena.ghy

I am tagging you all here in order to bring this tweet by @ncanarchist to your attention, a tweet made just two days ago. Israell (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wish them the best of luck with that. Wikipedia is heavily patrolled and reviewed, and it's doubtful any of their antics will prevail here. But as a precaution, perhaps the article may need to be reviewed for protection or semi-protection if IP editors engage in disruptive editing or POV edits. We should wait and see and if there are anon edits which are vandalism then request temporary protection for the article, if needed. I assume you know how to request protection for the article? Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Thx! Israell (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me - Why on earth am I included here? Is this further stalking and harassment of me by you Israell? My complaint to admin was justified, you and another fully reverted my edits 4 times rather than discuss them with me. I was entitled to raise a complaint with an admin and ask for advice which I thankfully received. Please immediately remove me from this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate Is it not a breach of WP:PRIVACY to publicly disclose a Wiki User's personal Twitter account on Wikipedia. It could result in harassment of a Wiki User outside Wikipedia. Jude1313 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

People should not speculate on Wikipedia whether a Twitter account is operated by a Wikipedia editor. I guess you could say "this Twitter account is encouraging people to do something that I think is disruptive", but one should not try to link an undisclosed off-site account to a Wikipedia editor. If you have something that you want to say that could be construed as a violation of our policy against harassment, send to the functionaries' mailing list. Also, for anyone contemplating taking over a page "by any means necessary", that's not going to work on Wikipedia. If people cause too much disruption, the article will be locked down. Instead, use dispute resolution and appeal to our core content policies. That's how you change Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I've noticed something about Jude1313. They keep accusing editors of the very same thing we accuse them in a very babish manner. I pointed out their undue edit-warring, they falsely accused me of unduly edit-warring. TruthGuardians wrote: "The user is also engaged in targeted harassment as they have defaced my Talk Page with Edit Warring warnings as an intimidation measure.", they proceeded to falsely accuse TruthGuardians, Akhiljaxxn and I (three editors) of targeted harassment, vandalism, stalking and what not. Falsely accusing other editors of stalking and harassment is a form of harassment.

Once again, I was always polite in all my interactions with them, and my history may be viewed by any editor:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]

Jude1313's edits were reverted (by several editors) because they would either not use sources or use poor sources and because they would not discuss those edits on the Talk pages first; they made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they're now accusing us of not discussing reverts with them. Besides, Jude1313 is the one that made four reverts within 24 hours (I haven't), and that's why they were duly blocked.

Also, I do not know if a Wikipedia editor operates that Twitter account (I really don't know). I just made the post above to alert you all of their intention (inviting people to come here and « take back the page by any means necessary »). I'm glad to know such attempts will fail. Israell (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

hi, thanks for tagging me into the discussion. My view as you can guess is that the article (like any other) should fairly represent the various points of view, or I should say, sources and references, especially if an issue is polarized. Createangelos (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Appeals court rules that 'Leaving Neverland' accusers can pursue lawsuits against Michael Jackson's companies following law change

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-michael-jackson/leaving-neverland-accusers-can-pursue-lawsuits-against-michael-jacksons-companies-appeals-court-idUSKBN1Z227F

"A lower court had dismissed lawsuits brought by the two, now adult, men because California’s statute of limitations had required that claims of childhood sexual assault be filed before an accuser’s 26th birthday. The revised law, which came into effect on Jan. 1, extends the period until an accuser’s 40th birthday."

Rotten Tomatoes & Oprah

Hi, I am new, just here to defend MJ! I promise to be more reasonable then Awardmaniac. So many problems with this film, and a promise of a new one OMG. Would it be more fair to add a mention that the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is 25%?

Oprah deleted video clips related to Leaving Neverland by March 14. (some say tweets, some deny there were any tweets to begin with) JeanJxsn7 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response, we do not include audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes. They often are not reliable. That is why I have reverted the audience score mention being added to this article.

No, there is no need to mention that Oprah (or someone at her website) removed anything. If Oprah wants to state that she believes Jackson wasn't a child molester, she will state that. Clip removal shouldn't be used to imply that she now holds that opinion.

On a side note: How do you know about Awardmaniac anyway? Don't you realize how suspicious it is that you've mentioned him? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Forbes article

Per A Quest For Knowledge in this previous discussion, the Vogel Forbes article here is of dubious reliability. Quest for Knowledge wrote: "This article is not a normal Forbes article. Anything published under the "sites" directory is not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. This is basically a self-published article and we're not supposed to use a WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties." Does that stand? Popcornfud (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinion / Speculation not fact:

"He began therapy in 2013 and recalled his trauma for the first time." Not only is there no citation for this, it contradicts what Safechuck himself said clearly and explicitly in both the documentary and the original interviews and testimonies. Recommend deletion if citation can not be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.76.71 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOT, plot summaries (or in this case, for documentaries, content summaries) don't require citations, as the thing itself is kind of its own citation. However, if this is not an accurate description of what the documentary says then it needs editing. I'm not about to sit through the entire thing again any time soon - can anyone corroborate? Popcornfud (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Safechuck and Robson lawsuits dismissed

I think the news of Safechuck and Robson lawsuits dismissed should be included, either in "Criticisms of Allegations" section or "Aftermath" section. Just a mention NPOV because I think it is relevant to the documentary film. Patelgybed688 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Misrepresentation of notes about Macaulay Culkin

“Robson claims he was replaced by actor Macaulay Culkin because Jackson preferred prepubescent boys (Culkin is two years older than Robson).”

He did not state this in the film. There is no mention of Jackson’s age preference in the statements about Macaulay Culkin. 2607:FEA8:C2E0:8130:8DB:3360:20A0:4A66 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the film, but if it isn't mentioned, then yeah it shouldn't be in the summary. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

Change Finding Neverland to Leaving Neverland 2601:603:1A7F:903F:D4C5:3BF0:5237:951D (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for flagging. Popcornfud (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone should remove the section on Safechuck and Robson vs MJ companies and make it its own page

Those active cases shouldnt be on a documentary movie page.

They should be on their own page like Depp v Heard, with a notable court case info box

Anyone know how to do that? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

it needs the infobox about when cases started, the appeals, the reversal of dismissal, etc. That shouldn't be on the page of a nearly 5 year old documentary. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)