Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson

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

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

• Michael Jackson’s Driver’s license.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with this article (neutrality and more)

Dear users, the scope of Wikipedia is to provide neutral information, with reliable sources and without propaganda. This article, unfortunately, does not meet these criteria in my opinion and I will explain why.

1 - "Verifiable with no original research"

The article contains assumptions which are not sourced at all or are intentionally misrepresenting facts in order to promote a specific narrative. For instance, the claim that "the FBI made several investigations into Jackson" is false, according to the FBI itself. I have provided the official source from the FBI page, plus a broader explanation, which is definitely more reliable than a newspaper, but the moderator keeps deleting any edit made. The same goes for the following statements: "the FBI investigations continued for almost 10 years" or the fact that the "Further Readings" section includes a self-published book from a Michael Jackson fan. In addition to this, there is the intentionally misleading claim that the FBI didn't take further action against Michael Jackson. According to the FBI itself, the agency was never involved in any operational case concerning Michael Jackson, except for the death threats, the only thing that has been investigated (and led to charges).

2 - "Broad in its coverage & focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"

There is an entire paragraph on the Terance George story, including stuff that has nothing to do with the FBI files and whose only purpose is to promote a specific agenda. In order to do this, there is another instance of original research: "The FBI files show that it was George who contacted Jackson" is not a claim from the FBI nor a conclusion from the police department, but rather an interpretation without source made by whoever wrote the article. The whole paragraph about RadarOnline has zero connection with the topic of the FBI files. When talking about the couple working for Jackson, there is a sentence stating "Their claims were dismissed as not credible due to a dispute over back pay" but this is nowhere to be found in the source linked by the author, which states "The Quindoys worked at Jackson’s ranch for about two years, until August, 1990. They said they came forward after Jackson refused to pay $283,000 in back salary that they say he owes them."

3 - "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each"

This is possibly the most problematic aspect of the article: a complete lack of neutrality. First of all, almost every paragraph contains a sentence to clear Jackson of any wrongdoing. Examples:

• "the FBI made several investigations into Jackson, none of which led to charges"

• "The FBI found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's part"

• "According to the files, the FBI ended its investigations into Jackson in 2005 and found no evidence of criminal conduct on his part"

• "The FBI files show that it was George who contacted Jackson"

• "With no proof, no recorded phone call, no lawsuits filed and nothing reported to law enforcement, Legat London and the FBI took no further action"

• "Their claims were dismissed as not credible due to a dispute over back pay."

• "Jackson was acquitted of all charges on June 13, 2005."

• the Mann Act was "first used as a tool for political prosecution against the boxing champion Jack Johnson"

The last sentence is further proof of the agenda being promoted on this article. The claim has no connection with the FBI files and the only function in this context is to imply that Michael Jackson was victim of a conspiracy.

In order to achieve this, important bits of information were intentionally omitted and any attempt to introduce them via edits is being censored by @TruthGuardians. One of the most astonishing examples of this behavior is the deletion of any reference to page 54 from the 3/7 FBI Files, which deals with a report made by two social workers in 1992, thus before the first accusation, and collected by the FBI. While the story of Terance George has been unnecessarily minutely analyzed, any mention to page 54 has been censored. Even the introduction to the article, where a general description of the content of these files is brought forward, does not mention the fact that these files contain reports concerning the allegations of sexual abuse. In addition to this, all the articles linked are in support of Michael Jackson and there is no link whatsoever to articles with opposite views, not even the RadarOnline article, for which a whole paragraph was written.

Finally, it is important to consider that certain terms have been changed with the purpose of being easily dismissed. For example, the article published on RadarOnline doesn't mention child pornography at all. It only says that a source told them that Jackson had "images of [] adult and child nudity". Changing the words "child nudity" to "child pornography" made it possible for the author to link other biased articles, glossing over the actual finding of a large amount of nude photos of young boys in Michael Jackson's possession, according to the police files.

IN CONCLUSION

I have proposed a revision, with some edits backed up by original sources, but it has been replaced twice by the same user @TruthGuardians under the excuse that since this article has been marked as "Good Article", then what is stated in it is factually correct or well-sourced. As I demonstrated, the article is biased, lacks proper sources and misrepresents facts in order to promote a specific agenda. It needs to be revised. Discussions on what can be improved are welcome. DanieleJava (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable feedback. All the concerns you've raised have been thoroughly addressed through arbitration in our dispute resolution process, as documented in detail Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 192#FBI files on Michael Jackson discussion. It's important to note that the article has remained largely unchanged since achieving GA status, and both the article and the sources supporting it have been rigorously vetted, ensuring a high standard of neutrality and accuracy. We strictly adhere to Wikipedia's policy against original research (WP:NOR), relying exclusively on primary and secondary sources to substantiate our content. In line with Wikipedia's core principle of sticking to reliable sources (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), it's worth noting that no credible primary or secondary sources have contradicted the content of this article, as evidenced in the dispute resolution discussion.

As dedicated Wikipedia editors, it's essential that we uphold the platform's standards and guidelines. I’ve identified your involvement as an anti-Jackson contributor on Reddit, and while it's crucial to respect differing viewpoints, canvassing and single-purpose editing are discouraged within our community for the sake of maintaining a fair and balanced environment. Your future contributions are encouraged to adhere to these principles. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have already read the dispute resolution and none of the points I mentioned have been addressed, except for the "FBI didn't investigate" thing, which was suddenly left out with the excuse that other newspapers say it did investigate Jackson. As you might understand, journalists do not have the same knowledge that a FBI operator or chief has and this also pertains the jargon. In this case we have two primary sources who explain - in a clear and unequivocal manner - that the FBI only investigated the death threats. For all the rest, namely the child abuse allegations, it only offered technical support. The same explanation is given in "The FBI Story", published by the FBI itself, p.107.

This is also backed up by news outlets that avoided changing the wording used by the FBI:

• CBS: "Newly released documents show the FBI assisted local authorities in the U.S. and in Britain as they investigated Michael Jackson for child molestation."

• BBC: "They show that the FBI assisted local authorities on several occasions from 1993 to 2005."

• ABC News: "FBI widely assisted authorities in Michael Jackson child molestation probes".

None of the other issues has been mentioned in the dispute. I have proposed a neutral and more comprehensive wording, that includes also bits of information that have been ignored (like p.54 from part 3 of the FBI files). If other people have brought forward the bias issue, then there must be something and I think I've provided enough evidence in my first post. DanieleJava (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference between "FBI investigated" and "FBI assisted in the investigation" is mainly about parsing words. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The FBI itself has explained the difference between the two expressions. An FBI investigation is an FBI operational case (eg. when they investigated the death threats), an FBI assistance is not an FBI operational case and it's merely something like "I have a better computer, you (police department) can use mine".

3:44 of this video:

"When you look at the files that have become available, they are files where the FBI has been asked by the police to help them with certain aspects of the case. They are really not operational FBI cases. For example, coming to the FBI because they have forensic capabilities with computers, to mirror image hard drives so they can look at the evidence inside of a computer, or asking for investigative strategies or interview strategies. So these really are support functions where the FBI were involved in the case. The other side of course are the threats, which were operational cases."

Same explanation was given on a podcast which is available on the FBI website.

It's jargon and it changes the whole meaning of a sentence.

Like "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent".

Plus, I would like to know what kind of explanation there is for @TruthGuardiansto have googled my username, searched my content on Reddit and jumped to conclusions. If this is not a further proof that there is an ideological motive behind this article, then I'd like a logical explanation. DanieleJava (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

My point is not that Jackson was innocent. My point it that it is unknowable if he was guilty. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my thread. Please focus on the mentioned issues. DanieleJava (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The dispute resolution comprehensively addresses all of these questions, drawing from both past Talk Page conversations and established Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, it's important to note that YouTube is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia, and as such, all YouTube videos are disregarded.

Every source cited on this page corroborates the FBI's involvement in investigating or assisting with investigations related to Michael Jackson, with "investigated" and "investigation" being the key terms here. The lead section of the article reflects a prior consensus on the wording.

It's crucial to focus on the factual actions of the FBI rather than getting caught up in wordplay. For instance, in Part 4 of the files, there are nine pages dedicated to the analysis of a VHS tape, acquired by US Customs in 1995, labeled "Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology." Notably, the files do not establish Jackson's ownership of the tape or his connection to it. The investigation regarding potential child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997, with no charges filed. The FBI acquired the tape unbeknownst to Jackson, independently initiated an investigation, and ultimately closed it a couple of years later.

Wikipedia is well aware of the passionate Jackson fans who seek to protect his image at any cost, as well as the anti-fan community dedicated to proving his guilt. Both groups are noticeable but typically do not last on the platform. It's not unusual to research editors outside of Wikipedia to mitigate potential canvassing and agenda pushing.

You rightly mention that these concerns were brought up before in the past. True. By only 1 editor. Your concerns about these matters have been raised and addressed in the past, through dispute resolution processes, resolution being an operative word. When a resolution is reached, the matter is then resolved. Past consensus has also been established on many of these issues, thus unlikely to ever be changed. The article underwent a rigorous GA (Good Article) review, a distinction rarely bestowed on Wikipedia, signifying its fair and balanced approach, accuracy, and source reliability. In Wikipedia, altering sourced and accurate information should not be based on personal preferences or because you WP:DONTLIKEIT, but should adhere to community guidelines and respect the work of long-standing editors and journalists who have contributed to the article's quality.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

1 - Despite you saying that these issues have been addressed, there is nothing in the previous talk pages that deals with those points (e.g. the intentionally missing page 54).

2 - The difference between investigating and helping with an investigation is crucial and it's not wordplay, as demonstrated by the official sources provided. The YouTube video comes from the official ABC News channel, which is a verified source, thus in line with the Wikipedia requirements: "official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher". Claiming that "all YouTube videos are disregarded" is false.

3 - In your previous intervention you stated that "no credible primary or secondary sources have contradicted the content of this article" and I'm proving you wrong by introducing multiple reliable primary and secondary sources that back up the different roles played by the FBI in this whole story. This is intentional misinformation, at best.

4 - @ThunderPeel2001 has brought up these issues years ago, but during the moderated discussion, everything was left out and in the end the moderation only focused on part 4 of the documents. I'm proposing new sources and I'm raising new issues. Also, please avoid deflecting the conversation towards unchallenged material, like the VHS. I'm not pushing any narrative, but it would be unfair - in terms of truth - to hide bits of information or sources that contradict your POV. The fact that the article was voted GA long time ago doesn't mean it can't be improved.

5 - Can you back up your statement that "it's not unusual to research editors outside of Wikipedia"? Where is it written that this is allowed/acceptable?

6 - Can you please go through every single issue mentioned in my OP? DanieleJava (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In it helps, here's the summary I wrote of the problems with this article. Looking back, it appears some editors want to push the narrative that "the FBI investigated Michael Jackson and found nothing incriminating", which is not supported by any public documents. I tried to get this narrative removed from the page because **any** narrative is inappropriate for a page about these FBI files. Being an Encyclopaedia, this page should simply be about the contents on the files, not annotated with editorials expressing opinions on them. Nor should it be littered with erroneous commentary on the role the FBI played. Several other celebrities have pages dedicated to their "FBI files", but no such commentary exists on them: They are presented in factual articles without commentary on the contents of the files. For some reason, Michael Jackson is given different treatment. It's all explained in my original summary. WikiMane11 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I find comments like this one from TruthGuardians, to be troubling:

"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."

You'll note that it is not a request for sources to added to claims on the page, but rather a blanket demand that anything (which in their mind is) "unjustly critical" of Michael Jackson to be removed. And a blanket insistence that materials critical of Jackson's accusers be maintained. Again, no mention of the quality of the sources, just the content itself. Troubling. WikiMane11 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your perception of what goes on around here is not reality. You’ve been banned once from this page for behavior that’s not on par with wiki’s guidelines. That tells any editors that the disruptor is you. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What did I say that isn't true? Here's what you said that isn't true: I was never "banned" from Wikipedia, I was blocked for 36 hours from editing this page after engagining in an edit war with you. No need to lie or exaggerate. And since you decided to engage in this conversation, here's more examples of you showing a clear bias:

Evan Chandler was the accuser. He initiated the allegations to begin with. Jordan went along with it as he was a young impressionable kid. Nonetheless, you can’t change how the information was presented in a film that does not belong to you. The film meets Wiki’s notability guidelines and is fair and balanced. The content is not twisted like some anti-Jackson websites and social media users who hide behind fake pictures and have dedicated their lives to alternative facts. The current version has been stable for a long time. It will stay as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Including threatening people you deem 'anti-Michael Jackson':

It's not a case of Jordan making allegations to his father and then his father using it to extort MJ. It's a case of Evan actively pressing his son to make allegations against Michael Jackson while he already hired a lawyer, asked Jackson for money, and support for his movie career before and when Jackson refused he started pressuring Jordan to make allegations against Jackson. Jordan initially said MJ didn't molest him. Only after Evan basically kidnapped him, isolated him from everyone, and pressured him to make allegations together with his shady lawyer is when Jordan started to mimic allegations that his father had been making. You can’t separate the parents from the impressionable children they forced to lie (as some from the guilt cult do in the Arvizo case as well). These allegations would not exist without these shady parents’ greed for money. I’ll give you 2 sources: Square One and All that Glitters. Thanks for exposing your IP address. Good day. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear that you (and castorbailey) are biased in this matter, which is why you were warned for your behaviour.

@TruthGuardians: do not post defamatory smears like that again, please. From what I can tell, Evan Chandler is no longer alive. That means WP:BLP doesn't apply, but the general sanctions certainly do. I have no idea who made what accusations or what the documentary says about them. However, if the documentary includes opinion and commentary, this can be included and attributed to the documentary. For example: "The documentary says that X made the claim of Y because of Z." Forum-style rants on talk pages are disallowed, as is edit warring (repeatedly undoing others' edits). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiMane11 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A way forward...

DanieleJava, above you mention many different issues and specific changes you'd like to make. Unfortunately, dealing with many issues at one time rarely works well. The way forward is to deal with one issue at a time in its own thread.

You also use primary sources, and that is problematic. We are allowed to use them to a limited degree, and only in a non-controversial manner. Your use is obviously controversial, so you must depend on secondary sources. If they make the point, you should use them. Then you can append the primary source as backing.

Primary sources take the back seat. If information in a primary source has not been mentioned by secondary sources, we are usually not allowed to use it as we do not have secondary sources to tell us what weight to give the information. They may have ignored it because it is not important, even if we think it is. In such a case, it is allowable for editors to contact journalists in an effort to get them to examine the issue and publish about the matter in RS. If that effort succeeds, the RS can be cited.

So pick your most important change and start a thread about it. When that route has been exhausted (successfully or unsuccessfully), start a new thread for the next change you'd like to make. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that there is a repetitive wording, which is not limited to a single paragraph. The claim that the FBI has investigated Michael Jackson is false, as stated by the FBI representative I quoted, the FBI website, the FBI book, the ABC News channel who interviewed the FBI representative and the ABC News website. As per Wikipedia's requirements, these are all reliable sources of information.

The "Further Reading" literally contains a self-published book by a random guy who actively works to push the "Michael Jackson is innocent" agenda. How can this be allowed on a neutral article?

Should I really open a single thread for each of these points? DanieleJava (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Even here you start to deal with several points. Avoid that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources in the lead all say that the FBI investigated and assisted in investigations with Jackson. There are literally no source that say they did not investigate or assisted with investigating Jackson. Again this has already been proven. It’s already a resolved matter. This is a stable article and has been for years. A new Wikipedia editor with an exposed agenda can’t come along and change that because of their unsourced personal opinions. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It has already been discredited by the multiple official sources I've provided. If 100 threads are needed, I will make 100 threads. Funny how the editor who feels the need to write in every single paragraph that Jackson was not guilty talks to me about an agenda. You must be joking. But I'll do as @Valjeansuggested and I'll open a single thread for each issue. DanieleJava (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no one editor for this article this article consists of multiple editors who have made contributions over the years. There isn’t a single source in the world that says Jackson was guilty of any wrongdoing. Your problem with your following list is not with the editors, but the primary and secondary sources that backs up all of this: • "the FBI made several investigations into Jackson, none of which led to charges"

• "The FBI found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's part" - supported by primary and secondary source.

• "According to the files, the FBI ended its investigations into Jackson in 2005 and found no evidence of criminal conduct on his part" - supported by primary and secondary source.

• "The FBI files show that it was George who contacted Jackson" - supported by primary and secondary source.

• "With no proof, no recorded phone call, no lawsuits filed and nothing reported to law enforcement, Legat London and the FBI took no further action" - supported by primary secondary source.

• "Jackson was acquitted of all charges on June 13, 2005." supported by primary and secondary source and a 2005 trial.

It’s important to explain how each operational investigation and non-operational investigations were concluded as per the FBI files and secondary sources. And this is what this article tactfully accomplishes. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"There isn’t a single source in the world that says Jackson was guilty of any wrongdoing."

This is exactly what the article should not state. This is not a forum. The point of this article should not be to proof that Michael Jackson was guilty or innocent. This article should only report the content of the FBI files, without any propaganda whatsoever.

Also, the claim "Jackson was acquitted of all charges on June 13, 2005." has nothing to do with the FBI files. The FBI didn't charge Jackson at all. The FBI wasn't called to testify. The trial has its own Wikipedia page.

Mentioning all this here is pure propaganda. DanieleJava (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reality is not propaganda. It was fitting for the section that it is in, which is why it’s there. Was he not acquitted of all charges? He was. I’m not sure how reality now equates to propaganda. The trial pages also talks about the FBI files. Is that propaganda too? TruthGuardians (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In the trial pages, the FBI files are mentioned once and this is rightfully done in the "Aftermath" section. In this article, though, we are not discussing the trial, nor the aftermath of the trial. We are discussing the simple fact that the FBI has published some files with X content, showing that there was a collaboration with the police department between 1992-1993 and 2004-2005 and some investigations related to death threats in the same period. That's it. The outcome of the trial is not relevant to the FBI files.

Please notice that I'm not contesting the outcome of the FBI investigations and/or their assistance. That's explicitly mentioned in the files and it's obviously relevant. DanieleJava (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ISSUE #1 - "Media Reaction" section

The current wording is as follows:

In 2016, Radar Online alleged that child pornography had been found in the 2003 raid of Jackson's properties, though the FBI files state that no such evidence was found. The report cited documentation allegedly originating from the police department that had investigated Jackson. Kelly Hoover, a police spokesperson, said that the documents had come from the internet or unknown sources and that the department had released all of its reports. Judge Melville, the judge of Jackson's 2005 trial, signed a press statement stating that no child pornography or illegal material had been found in Jackson's possession or on his properties.

There are several problems with this paragraph.

1 - "Radar Online alleged that child pornography had been found in the 2003 raid of Jackson's properties"

This claim has no source to back it up. The original article doesn't mention "child pornography" at all, nor does it the second article on the same topic. Radar Online only mentioned "child nudity", which is different from "child pornography". This is backed up by several media outlets who know the distinction between the two terms: NYDailyNews, The Mirror, WashingtonTimes for example.

2 - "the FBI files state that no such evidence was found"

This claim is also unsupported. No page number from the FBI files, no secondary source, not even an actual transcription of the files. Not even the alleged date mentioned in the paragraph fits (2003), since the FBI report is dated 1996.

3 - "Kelly Hoover, a police spokesperson, said that the documents had come from the internet or unknown sources and that the department had released all of its reports. Judge Melville, the judge of Jackson's 2005 trial, signed a press statement stating that no child pornography or illegal material had been found in Jackson's possession or on his properties."

Given that the statements quoted in #1 and #2 are untrue, these remaining lines have no connection whatsoever with the FBI files.

Therefore, I propose to completely remove this paragraph, as everything that needed to be said is actually addressed in the paragraph "Part four - video analysis". DanieleJava (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Part 2, pages 9-23 all state that nothing was found on the hard drives of incriminating nature. Page 39 in the same part states that case was closed as there were no outstanding leads or evidence to assist in the case. Part 8 of page 7 says there is no indication of child pornography in Jackson’s possession. This information is supported my secondary sources 6,7, and 8 already linked to page. However, you say that the tabloid stories aren’t about child pornography, but instead other legal material that allegedly contained child nudity, thus requesting the paragraph to be removed. I don’t see how it relates to the FBI files if it’s not about child pornography. I will make the proper edit. Next issue. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the tabloid part.

Regarding part 2, there is no explicit mention of "child pornography" nor "child nudity".

The secondary sources are also problematic. Source 7 does not mention "child pornography", "child nudity" or "FBI". Source 8 is not a verified source and it's not considered a reliable source, but rather an opinion piece and it's stated under the title "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site." WP:HUFFPOCON DanieleJava (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 is all about search for child pornography. No need to pretend it isn’t or that it has to mentioned it. When pointing outsource 6,7, and 8, I didn’t realize I was glancing at the wrong sources, but source is used in the section to not talk about child pornography, but to validate the raid and the year it happened. Source 8 was used prior to the decision to not allow HUFFPOST contributors moving forward as of September 2020. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

1 - Part 2 does not mention "child pornography". The strings searched could deal with any issue: child abduction, child trafficking, monetary transactions, deleted letters or e-mails, deleted browser history and so on. You can interpret it as a WP:PRIMARY but that doesn't guarantee that those strings are what you think they are, especially since the documents were released under a redacted format. This is just a clarification, since we do need source 6 for the files.

2 - That leaves only source 8 to be removed, since it is not considered reliable anymore. DanieleJava (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The section can stand without source 8. I’ll remove it for now, but there’s some research being done to see if it can be kept and could be added in the future. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)