Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:NPOV (RESOLVED)

The way this article is written, especially the opening paragraph, very subtly casts a pro-jackson light. I removed some potentially libellous information which needs inline citations following it. Being in other places in the article is not sufficient. Feel free to re-add the information with inline citations from reliable sources, (ensuring neutrality of course. - Toon⁰⁵ 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you because the article is all sourced (I choose not to source leads as a stylistic option) and as the criminal investigation was dropped siting lack of evidence, it's quit hard to say much "anti-jacko" stuff. The only piece of evidence that is known against Jackson was the strip search. The article clearly stats multiple times that "there were strong similarities" in the boys description. The article also dedicates a large section to how badly damaged Jackson's career was afterward. But we can't make things up against Jackson if they don't exist, sorry. — Realist² (Speak) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of things ("But we can't make things up against Jackson if they don't exist, sorry.") - I'm trying to make the article more encyclopaedic, I don't have an agenda, and please don't be so defensive. You may want to cheack out WP:OWN. - Toon⁰⁵ 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your right, I have just been working very hard reading all these books etc, I didn't expect to see multiple tags shooting up so quickly was all, im reading through the language again now. — Realist² (Speak) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I can see you have spent a lot of time on the article. The stuff I removed coupled with the stuff you changed plus citations has cleaned the article up quite a bit. - Toon⁰⁵ 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've readded some stuff but changed the tone, it's important to mention that the first allegation was made under the influence of a controversial drug and that tape recording does, at the very least say that the father wanted to ruin his career. Extortion? that can be left to the reader to decide. I'm trying to get some info about Jackson spending loads of money on the family, if you can find links or something for that please do. I have heard that a lot on TV, I just need so strong sources. — Realist² (Speak) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Quick failing article due to presence of {{POV}} and several {{fact}} tags. Also, the article seems fairly new, and might be subject to a flurry of editing, so I have doubts about stablility. Finally, it's not categorized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Agreed it is very pro jackson, and more PR than a factual account. I plan to delete a lot of the speculation and fabrication. Especially on the "truth serum". Total fan myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.234.146 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Some personal clarification (RESOLVED)

With regard to the part of the introduction which states: "A year after they had met, under the influence of a controversial sedative administered by Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched his penis." - was this sedative "administered" purposefully? As it seems to me (admittedly ignorant of this topic) as though Evan Chandler used a sedative to get this information from his child. I'm not contending anything, as I don't really know any of the details of the case, but I'd just like to know if my interpretation is correct. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my understanding of it. Evan Chandler who is a "beville hills" dentist (so one of the best in the industry) injected his son with the drug. Evan Chandler had easily enough medical knowledge to understand that the drug was potentially dangerous and he had the option of much safer drugs at his disposal to remove a tooth (a simple procedure that he would do regularly). We also know that Evan had already asked Jackson "did you molest my son" and had already made that recorded telephone conversation. Depending on who you believe either, Evan already had genuine suspicions about Jackson or he had already planned to extort him. Evan definitely knew what he was doing when he injected his son, he either felt it was the only way to get his son to confess to the abuse or he simply wanted to implant the belief in his son's head. The drugging was intentional, his reasoning is debatable. The weirdest part is, he might have convinced himself that his son was molested (even when he wasn't) and used a drug to get what he believed to be the truth out of his son, accidentally changing his son's sub consiousness in the progress. It is depressing either way. — Realist² (Speak) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and also understand the phrasing in the text. All very dodgy. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, the scary part is, if the media had given Jackson a fair deal he wouldn't have become ill and he would have taken it to court, maybe then the truth would have been discovered. — Realist² (Speak) 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironic really; the same celebrity culture responsible for a lot of his fame also responsible for a large part of his downfall. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, he should have taken it to court, the allegations are weak, no evidence was found really. The boys description was all they had and even that had holes in it, there were employees who made allegation but were all paid by tabloids, they would have been a laughing stock in court. The evidence from the 2005 trial was stronger and he was still (rightly) found not guilty. In 1993 his albums were selling twice as many as Madonnas records, no jury would have convicted him. It's funny really, he should have just bought these tabloids and stopped them printing things about him. Anyway, I'm going to take this article to GA again in a few weeks, it was a bit silly of me to nominate it 15 minutes after setting it up but it is good enough now. — Realist² (Speak) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vitiligo picture

I removed the picture of the hand and replaced it with a picture that shows Jackson with the early stages of the disease. — Realist² (Speak) 00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article, but good grief, what a kerfuffle to start it...--andreasegde (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am up to "Jackson speaks out". I am cleaning little things to save myself writing about them in the review (which takes longer than to actually fix them myself...)--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"his legal team and friends, such as Presley and Taylor, took control of his defense and finances". His finances? That needs a ref.--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his legal team took over his finances, his mental health had deteriorated to such an extent that people were making business deals for him without telling him. — Realist² 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You should put that in.--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole paragraph: "His next studio album was HIStory; released in the summer of 1995. It was a double album..." confuses me, as it meanders a bit around not selling enough, selling a lot and decline.... --andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think with that album, it all depends on what perspective you want to take as to whether or not it was a decline. I've tried to present all views and let the reader decide. I would only call it a decline in the US, but we all know that the US really isn't important to Jackson's sales figures. Worldwide it was a record breaker. I guess it isn't presenting an opinion, it's presenting all opinions, which probably means it's neutral :-) — Realist² 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean; it's presenting all opinions. This is about the allegations, and IMO it's a little too much about record sales. Could you cut it back a bit? :)

I have gone through the article, and I will now look at links, refs (not much problem there I think) dates, and whatever else. This could be wrapped up and sent to the GA house of distinction in an hour or so. Whaddya think?--andreasegde (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure will trim it while still keeping it neutral, no prob. — Realist² 17:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed. — Realist² 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Right; I'm gonna pass this. Any last words before I do the deed?--andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems ready to me :-) — Realist² 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ladies and Gentlemen, going once, going twice, going...--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Congratulations.--andreasegde (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

eh?

"red to see if the description of his genitals provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities but it was not a definitive mat" can someone please explain this? they were some weird defining features or something?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Vitiligo, the disease Michael had, would cause his skin to be somewhat blotchy and strange looking. Most would never see this since he would wear makeup to cover it and blend the changing skin tone. I believe eventually the problem grew so bad that they couldn't really blend it and he turned the pale white we became familiar with. In any case, since the disease affects pigmentation and so does sunlight, I think it makes sense that his genitalia (an area that really doesn't receive much sunlight or makeup) might look distinct, but predictably so for someone who has Vitiligo. --TheByrus (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be my guess as well. Vitiligo results in very distinct patches, which would certainly be particularly obvious on a man whose natural skin color was quite dark. Over years, the patches grow and new ones appear, but if Jackson had any on his genitals at the time, they almost certainly would have proven fairly effective identifiers. 63.227.64.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

The INFAMOUS and Well Written GQ EXPOSE about this Case by Mary Fischer is here

http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert (a good thing that this article was protected)

Hello. I've just reverted to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson&oldid=298779346 If you start checking the history right afterwards you notice some references being vandalized, becoming empty and then being deleted as being empty (in good faith). Sorry for Zenji effort, but IMHO, without wanting to minimize their effort, besides the large number of modifications, there wasn't much there, but only minor rephrasing... --Vlad|-> 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

chandler confession

the link cited is blogspam, with a link to a totally unreliable source. in fact, it mixes up the names of the father and son. unless someone can find a reliable source, this is bullshit. 68.94.192.247 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone with a wiki account needs to remove this now. I'd do it but the page is protected. 70.189.64.112 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a LIE. Jordon Chandler did NOT say he lied. Why does Wikip allow this trash to be said? The only 'source' was a blog, not any national news. No press release by Chandler. Only a stupid blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.212.89 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Chandler admits he lied about Michael Jackson??

There's definitely a problem because the given date hasn't even happened yet. It stated July 30, 2009 and it's still only June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.238.208 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can find here: Link DEAD http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ that Jordan Chandler admits he lied about Michael touching his penis etc. He admits that his father had told him what he had to tell. (this link is dead. SEE below for Fischer article from GQ Magazine)

Please add this obviously very important new fact to the information of the 1993 accusations wiki.

P.S. This is my first ever comment on wiki, so if I didn't put this info on the right place, I apologize.

That web site is not a reliable source. Only information which comes from reliable third-party publications can be used on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the best journalistic article/expose written on the subject for GQ Magazine by Mary Fischer http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html Here is the Follow Up Story from Fox about the Boy's Abuse Accusations against his father of physical abuse in the aftermath of the case http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209745,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.14 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Watching until a reliable, up-to-date source can verify. People looking to verify content shouldn't find potentially misleading content here. backstabb 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WP:REDFLAG: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been no reliable sources claiming that Jordan Chandler lied. The entire idea was a hoax formed on a blog trying to get more hits. Vpjayant (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is fake... Original link was a virus too... Frankyboy5 (talk)

Jordan Chandler Admits to Lying

Jordan Chandler admits that he was lying about the sexual abuse in 1993: http://news.puggal.com/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ I apologize for not using proper Wikipedia format. Please clean this up. I thought this was important enough to post, anyhow. A new section in the article should probably be made about this. ~CircleChess 21:58, 3 July 2009 Pacific Time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.221.4 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If he really did, please find a better source than some random self-published/blog site. And please put new talk page discussion topics at the BOTTOM of a page, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the talk page before you post things like this. We've already said several times that this is nothing more than a hoax created by a blogger to get more hits on his site. The reason no good news sources are covering the story is that there is no story - it's all fake. "But recently rumors have been spreading on the internet that states Jordan Chandler admitting that he made up a story about Michael Jackson and filed a false case in order to thrash the image if Michael Jackson for money." If we started taking rumours to be true then Wikipedia would become a completely useless resource. -vpjayant (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline

Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hidden Room shown on Extra?

Something I've noticed is absent from this article (and really anywhere on Wikipedia I'd expect, if at all) is mentioning of a "hidden room" in Jackson's former Neverland Ranch home. Strangely, Googling the term shows plenty of results with descriptions of the room. However I've yet to find the actual video itself in its entirety. I've only seen small segments of the video on the TV special Michael Jackson: What Really Happened. Given this, I know the video is real, but do not know of any reliable source for its existence or the video itself. Has anyone come across it? --TheByrus (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims that he was gay instead of pedophile

I found an article from a French-language newspaper citing Jackson's biographer who declares that Jackson was in fact a homosexual, and not necessarily a pedophile. While I find this hard to believe, because he obviously did go after underaged youths, there is definitely a pattern among pedophiles to go after boys instead of girls, in what medical specialists have described as an immature and repressed form of homosexuality (cf article pederasty). [1] ADM (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This are two distinct issues. Jackson may have been gay but being a pedophile is tied to the age of the child regardless of sex. He could have been both, neither or something else completely. We would need very strong sourcing for either statement. -- Banjeboi 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede paragraph

The lede is a mini-article, filled with facts that do not summarize the subject as a whole or greater parts of that subject. All of the information is relevant to the article and should be included, but most of it does not belong in the lede. The point of a lede is to give a summary of the article, not a plot summary. This may mean the lede has to be reduced to a single sentence, but hopefully some language that gives an overview can be found. Anarchangel (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are VERY wrong. Read WP:LEAD. An article of this lengthy should have 3/4 paragraphs. — Please comment R² 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant my phrase, "This may mean the lede has to be reduced to a single sentence" as a literal example, ie, it has happened before and it will happen again, but not necessarily in this article, and I further say, "but hopefully some language that gives an overview can be found". I do not see anything in WP:LEAD about a ratio of article length to lede length, and I have no objection a lede of any particular size, merely non-summary content. Criteria that can be found in WP:LEAD include, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic", and "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"

The lede is written like a story, with facts that are not reiterated elsewhere in the article. It needs to summarize events, and those events elaborated on later in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All content that appears in the lead should also appear in the article body, at one stage it did, but since Jackson's death many articles have deteriorated. — Please comment R² 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumors

This is probably not the right place to ask, but I was leaded here by one of those false accusations. Is there some place on Wikipedia where important disconfirmed rumors (like the one about the confession of Jordan Chandler) are mentioned (similar to Snopes, say? It is not exactly easy for the occasional reader of Wikipedia to understand that if those rumors are not mentioned, they are necessarily not documented or worse...--Dfeldmann (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not tell rumours; it tells about rumours, and only if they are notable. So if a rumour quickly ran its course and died, it won't be here, hopefully. If it was covered at length, it will be here, hopefully. Likewise, WP talks about evidence that is contrary to the rumors, if notable, and from that the reader can decide. Anarchangel (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sodium Amytal

The article states....

In early August, Chandler, a registered dentist, extracted a tooth from his son's mouth, and was later forced to admit that he used the controversial sedative sodium Amytal during the procedure.[1] Under the influence of the drug, Jordan alleged that Jackson had touched his penis.

Should it not indicate who forced such admission and when?

Mary A Fischer in her 1994 article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed? for GQ Magazine wrote...

A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations.

Could Mary's article be everyone's source for this 'fact', no name of the reporter or quote from the report.

Raymond Chandler in response wrote an article for GQ Magazine in October 1994, in which he claimed the reporter was Harry Levin.

One could infer from Fischer's report that Levin claimed to have personally communicated with Evan. Levin made no such claim. But had he followed professional guidelines he should have had at least two independent and unbiased sources. After all, his story not only accused two health-care professionals of brainwashing a minor, it was the single most important piece of evidence in the largest public scandal of all time.

But the press paid little attention to Levin's story and it quickly died. Why? Why would the media reject such a bombshell? Could it be that they, too, were suspicious of the timing? Or did they question the reliability of Levin's sources? Perhaps they believed those sources came from within the Jackson camp. Pellicano, for example.

I'm new to this so excuse me if I've put this in the wrong place or it needs additional information.

I don't understand why this is included either. The one source of the GQ article that mentions it has no verifiable source itself. To me it seems like a rumor. Also it appears quite forced upon the reader with a photograph of a vial next to the article and a few comments from specialists giving their opinion of the drug. Maybe it's because I am not a Michael Jackson fan that this entry looks like it has been hijacked by someone with an agenda. Rigamaro (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigamaro (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Police Investigation?

The article states....

The police then began an investigation into Evan Chandlers's prior actions and found that he was $68,400 behind in his child support payments, even though he was well-paid as a dentist.

According to Raymond Chandler in his book "All That Glitters" (page 142) papers were filed on August 6 by June Chandler's lawyer and made public two days later.

According to Raymond Evan and June divorced in 1985 with Evan offering to pay $500 a month in child support, but it was agreed that June's new partner would pay the son's expenses when living with his mum.

Evan would pay the expenses when the son was with him.

June and her partner later tesified that was the case and June further testified she had never made a request for payment.

June's partner later testified the claim was "leverage in trying to get Jordie back."

LongRan (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Evan Chandler commits suicide

On November 5, 2009, Evan Chandler, the father of the boy, Jordan Chandler - that accused Jackson of child molestation, committed suicide; in the forum of a gun shot to his head in his New Jersey apartment. The responding police officers and corners confirmed, even though there was no suicide note, that Chandler committed suicide; and family members of Chandler have confirmed his death. (Thank you karma!) Multiple reliable sources are implying his suicide is connected to this case, should this be mentioned in the article; i.e. in the page's "aftermath section"?Source: NY Post Source: Telegraph.co.uk Source: Daily Mail Source: FOX NewsSource: United Press International Ashley92995 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you Karma!"? - very tasteful. A man and father is dead. And because he had a lawsuit against a popstar you like, he deserves death? A MAN IS DEAD in real life. ([[User talk:diggerjohn111 |talk}})

1. I don't "like" Michael Jackson (or his music for that matter) so don't even try to insinuate for a second that I'm being negative towards Chandler in a bias way. 2. What human basically falsely accuses another human being of a serious accusation like child molestation for money???? 3. If he was such a 'good father' (like your implying) than why did his son file a restraining order against his saying that his father tried to kill him in 2005 with an excising weight????? 4. Chandler put his son under a drug to change his memory to help his case, that's classified as child abuse and maybe even child endangerment because, he an adult fully acknowledgeable of what he was doing, put his own child under a dangerous drug and 5. Chandler, according to this article, had intentionally wanted to ruin Jackson's career - and he did, Chandler got karma for that, he ruined another human's life and what goes around comes around. I'm honestly not, in anyway, trying to be like 'he deserves to die' or that I wish he him harm, but I'm not going to lie, I don't in anyway feel sad that he died. Ashley92995 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision/Autopsy

I know you guys source Tarraborelli for the circumcision issue, but honestly the man is RARELY reliable and is certainly not considered as such in the fan community (I really hate how almost all MJ pages are covered with random allegations and stories by him). Michael's autopsy was released by TMZ and it shows he was uncircumcised, therefore completely disproving Jordy's claims. (If you honestly believe a 13-year-old boy can be giving a man sexual favours almost every night - as claimed by Jordy - and not know if his penis is circumcised or uncircumcised, I think there's something wrong with your logical process.)

I'm going to try to add a source for this, but considering I don't really edit on Wikipedia much, I'll probably mess up somehow. If someone sees a mistake on my part, please FIX the mistake instead of DELETING it.

Edit: Oh balls. I've already messed it up. I'm sorry. Could someone else source it for me?

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf - Page 15. "The penis appears uncircumcised."

Strip Search

Dworin was not present at the strip search and he never said that he actually saw the photographs or the description. He never provided background information as to what he bases his claim on, and whether the information he offers is hearsay. The DA, nor any other public account, mentions Dworin being present at the strip search. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your first statement about Dworin never having seen the photographs or description? —Partytemple (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are there any footnotes on that source as to exactly how the author knew about the scene so clearly? I'm skeptical because a lot of newspapers didn't have access to the strip search scene. I'm also skeptical about Dworin's words, and I find it suspicious that he only spoke publicly about the strip search when the Bashir documentary prompted a public outrage against Jackson. —Partytemple (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It was agreed that Drs. Strick and Klein, as well as photographers Spiegel and Swayne, would initiate the procedure on their own. The two detectives, Russ Birchim from SBDP and Frederico Sicard from LAPD, Sneddon agreed, would leave the room. "At 6:04 P.M., according to Birchim’s sworn declaration, the examination finally began behind closed doors as the rest of the group waited in the hall. Even Dr. Forecast had been asked to leave.” This according to Diane Dimond's book, "Be Careful Who You Love: Inside The Michael Jackson Case." The two detectives in the room during the strip search were Russ Birchim from SBDP and Frederico Sicard from LAPD, not Dorwin. Within days of a strip search, an agreement was reached to seal the photos. With the photos being sealed, this means that Dorwin would have never seen the pictures, as his credentials or involvement wouldn't allow him to unseal the photos to view them. Here is a source that does not mention Dorwin being present and the photos being sealed shortly after the strip search: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=D27Kw2efVMQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Michael+jackson%27s+penis&source=bl&ots=-uV2OsPrib&sig=ACfU3U2JwOjW_mg-MaEfksqf5kOJL62eCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpspjUteHgAhXUiHAKHVCdAhs4ChDoATAHegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=Michael%20jackson's%20penis&f=false TruthGuardians (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Jackson’s response.

I feel like a picture of Michael Jackson making his videotaped statement at Neverland Ranch should be added to this. MasonMinor (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of Sedatives

The "use of sedatives" section is thoroughly cited, but mostly to popular biographies of Jackson (which I don't have copies of, though I assume many people do have copies.) There are several quotes about the use of sedatives from seemingly reliable authorities, but it is unclear what the context for those quotes were. It looks like most of those quotes have nothing specifically to do with the Jackson/Chandler case. Another issue which is fuzzy in the section as currently worded is the question of how do we know what substances were actually used on Jordan Chandler and when: Evan Chandler said one thing (which is reported twice) but dental anesthesiologist Mark Torbiner apparently reported something different. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The various references to "Fischer, p. 200-something" are actually to an article from the October 1994 edition of GQ Magazine by a journalist named Mary A. Fischer. (Magazines used to be over 200 pages thick in the 1990s.) The article is not officially online but it has been pirated and transcribed by various bloggers. It's available (and parts of it are copied word for word in this Wikipedia article.) Fischer's piece is slanted significantly towards Jackson's side of the story, although Jackson comes across as far from perfect, and of course it was written a decade before the events which finally landed Jackson in court. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up this section to better balance accessible sources. Most references to the Fischer article are biased, not suitable for an encyclopedic entry, and should be removed. Can we remove the references needed banner? Verumregium (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent copyedit

‎Owynhart, care to explain what is "repetitive and confusing" and ungrammatical about this edit? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hello everyone,

This recent edit was made by this editor, and I don't find justification for it in the sources. So I would like to open it up for consensus. Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Akhiljaxxn, Excelse, JG66, TruthGuardians, Orientls, Drmies, Createangelos, Flyer22 Frozen, BudapestJoe, Popcornfud, General Ization, Tataral, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpgordon, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be reverted back to last known stable version. You’re not finding justification because there isn’t any. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed Eggishorn also once reverted this edit. Hammelsmith (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the IP. Like I stated, the onus is on the IP per WP:ONUS. And as seen by the tag that QEDK added to the top of this talk page, this article is under discretionary sanctions. It might at some point be worth contacting a WP:CheckUser to look into this IP hopper. At some point within the past few months, this article got removed from my watchlist, but I don't think I removed it on purpose. I'm not sure. Anyway, it's back on my watchlist. So no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Flyer said it all. I have no further comment on the matter, and please stop pinging me on this talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph with no relevance or importance from HuffPost keeps getting added in

It reads,"Investigative journalist Charles Thomson noted a continued media bias against Jackson after Chandler's suicide."

This doesn't belong on this page. If anything, it relates more to Michael Jackson's biography.

"Thomson said he was contacted by a British tabloid to supply information about the 1993 allegations, only to have them replace his carefully researched information with the misinformation he advised them to avoid."

What is relevance to this page? What was the correct information? Where is proof of this claim?

"According to Thomson, when Jackson's FBI file was released the following month, the media reported that it created the impression of guilt, even though the file supported his innocence. He noted that Gene Simmons' allegations in 2010 about Jackson molesting children received over a hundred times more coverage than his interview with Jackson's long-time guitarist, Jennifer Batten, who rebutted Simmons'."

This has no relevance to this page. The FBI files are only 10 pages of content and relate encountering another male named Mr. George.

Bananasasas (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit warring while this article is under sanctions

QEDK, there was extensive edit warring at this article today. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology

I've been doing some work to try and clarify the narrative of this article, but I'm not making major progress. The sequence of events isn't clear.

After the account of Schwartz's conversation with Chandler, the article says:

Schwartz and June did not believe Chandler's allegations. They gave the tape to the authorities, who leaked it to the press.[15]

So did they leak the tape immediately after the conversation? In which case the allegations became public straight away?

According to the Consequence of Sound article, lots of other stuff happened before the allegations became public - like Chandler removing Jordan's tooth and sending him to a psychiatrist, and negotiations with Jackson's lawyers.

But the next piece of information given by the article is:

The recorded conversation was a critical aspect of Jackson's defense against the allegations made against him.[20][21] Jackson and his supporters argued that he was the victim of a jealous father whose only goal was to extort money from him.[22][23]

So now we've jumped way ahead to the public debate and legal battles...?

I think some major rewriting and restructuring is needed - we need to present the events in a clear logical order. Popcornfud (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the work you’ve done so far. I too have been doing some work. Even bought 3 books to ensure sources. Will check back in later if more improvements are needed, but I like where we are at the moment. Currently at work then heading to Georgia to assist in my last weekend in the Senate Runoffs.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting in the shop

Regarding this edit: the information about Chandler and Evan meeting in the shop was sourced to Consequence of Sound, which says: Dave Schwartz, Jordie Chandler’s step-father and June Chandler-Schwartz’s husband, met with Evan Chandler at Schwartz’s Rent-A-Wreck shop. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Jordie’s relationship with Jackson. Unbeknownst to Evan Chandler, Dave Schwartz taped the phone call. (This is confusing, of course - what phone call?)

This Consequence of Article article is also used to cite the transcripts of the conversation. But it seems we think the article is mistaken so we're not using it for the "meet in the shop" claim. So we're cherrypicking claims in this source, using it for some things (the transcript quotes) but not others. This is getting really messy. Popcornfud (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For both, we could just used the longer more detail conversation from Fisher’s book which has everything above and then more. It too also talks about the recorded phone call between Evan and David.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Such blatant bias

This article is so hilariously biased in Jackson's favour. Almost every sentence is followed up with an attempt at exoneration, a "but...". What an utter joke. It's so obvious that this page was written by Jackson's supporters. Wikipedia isn't about presenting arguments or defending certain positions.

Isn't it convenient that almost every source that speaks against him is labelled as "disreputable" or "unreliable", while those that proclaim his innocence are welcomed indiscriminately. If you want to know the actual, objective truth about Jackson, search for the "MJfacts" website.

The simple fact is that only a child molesterer would own books full of nude young boys, and the fact is that such books WERE found in Jackson's home, some of them were even signed by him. There is nothing "artistic" about such filth, that's such a pathetically transparent excuse. The fact that said books are somehow "legal" to possess doesn't change anything. 139.168.130.225 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

This article is one of the most neutral and balanced articles on Wikipedia that uses actual reliable sources. The facts fall the way the do because this is how they are presented in reliable sources. This article has been worked on by many, many editors, few pro-MJ, most neutral, and some anti-Jackson editors. It’s a GA!

The website you mention above is a blog that has been narrated in such a way that doesn’t present the facts but an author’s very own fantasies. The website is twisted and horribly unbalanced. It will never be used as a source because it’s the exact opposite of objective.” For that matter, fan blogs aren’t used as sources for some of the same reasons why anti-fan blogs are ignored.

Jackson was not a child molester. There is no court verdict, intelligence agency conclusion, or evidence to suggest that he was. The legal artistic books you reference are in the United States Library of Congress and also shown to the jurors. One of which is actually owned by my best friend’s grandmother. I’m sure she doesn’t care that you think she is a child molester.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is balanced adhering to WP:NEUTRAL. The reason why sources referring to exculpatory evidence are included is that such evidence exists. That MJFacts website does not qualify as a reliable source and looking at it, it is - let's just say - hilariously biased against Jackson. The books you are referring to were presented in court by the prosecution and the inscription you referred to was actually exculpatory evidence. Hard to see why he would even sign a book if he knows it's incriminating. It was never clarified how and why the books ended up in Jackson's place, who send them to him and why, but merely owning a book does not mean someone knows its content let alone all photos in it. Jackson's side of the story is that he didn't remember those books, which is plausible given how many he got and it was more than 10 years earlier they were sent to him. He also had books with photos of nude males and females alike ranging from babies to elderly people. Taken together the context of those books is not pedophilia but general interest in art photography otherwise we should argue, as the prosecutor did, that Jackson owning a gay adult book must mean he was gay, but that contradicts the prosecution's other argument that he replaced boys once they reached puberty. So we should be careful to jump to conclusions about what books in a home full of books indicate. What does a book like Poo-Chi by Mayumi Lake say about Jackson's sexual interest, for example? PinkSlippers (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It is most certainly not true that only a child molester can have those books. One can receive books from various sources and not even open them. Jackson's book collection hardly proves his sexual taste, one way or the other, as he had everything from a gay adult sex book to sadomaso art featuring women, photography books with nude pictures of both genders yound and old. If he signed one of those books that would suggest he did not notice the questionable pictures which were a few among hundreds in that book. Unless you believe he wanted people like you to be able to say: you see? He signed it so he had to look through that book and enjoyed the pictures.castorbailey (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Leaving Neverland

I agree that the further allegations section may be fitting for this article. I agree that maybe Wade’s and Jame’s allegations should at least be mention. What I don’t agree with is Leaving Neverland being their allegations. It’s not. Their legal allegations, which completely contradicts a lot of what they say in the film, is what should be mentioned. When some one mentions allegations levied against someone now, do we start using films or do we stick to the legal facts? TruthGuardians (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of a further allegations section at all. This page is about the 1993 case only. If we include a further allegation section then why just cherry-pick the Robson Safechuck and Arvizo allegations? By the same token we could include the 1995 Canadian boy, Terry George, Jane Doe's allegations, Jacobshagen's allegations, Daniel Kapon, Joe Bartucci, Eddie Reynoza, Michelle Flower. Going on about Leaving Neverland is undue promotion, since that was not even where Robson Safechuck first made their allegations. By the same token we could mention Michael Jackson's secret world where Terry George made allegations.castorbailey (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, and you put forth a great argument. You make it difficult for me to counter-argue, but I felt it being there does 2 thing: first it points out that Jackson only had 4 accusers of similar allegations. There’s a lot of misinformation and pure lies about him having dozens of accusers. Secondly, it’s a section that may clarify for the readers that this accuser is different than these accusers. I see your point of view and now I’m a little conflicted on the section altogether. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's fact that Jackson had more than four accusers, five who never even met him, Jacobshagen, Jane Doe, Star Arvizo and Terry George who accused him then backtracked, dropped lawsuits. I don't see why Robson Safechuck Arvizo should be singled out as further allegations when there were others. If the point of this section is to give a full picture of the allegations against Jackson it certainly does not do that castorbailey (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, the various allegations against MJ can be organised around three key events - the original allegations (covered in most detail in 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson), the charges brought against Jackson a few years later (covered in most detail in Trial of Michael Jackson), and the release of Leaving Neverland. All of these events drew wide commentary and had an enormous impact on Jackson's life and legacy.

It's totally appropriate to mention these events in all three articles, and link to them. They're clearly related subjects that inform each other. To take a random example, look at the article about the TR-808, a drum machine used by Michael Jackson. The article (and lead) mentions that it was followed later by another drum machine, the TR-909, even though the 808 article is not actually about the 909. This is standard organizational strategy for Wikipedia articles.

I don't know anything about the other allegations mentioned by Jimcastor ("1995 Canadian boy, Terry George" et al) but these 1) don't seem to have been covered in extensive detail by reliable sources, compared to the other allegations, 2) don't seem as important as the other events and 3) don't have Wikipedia articles organized around them. I therefore don't believe it's cherrypicking to not mention those in the lead, etc.

BTW: contrary to accusations in edit summaries, I'm not attempting to "promote" the film Leaving Neverland by linking to the article about it - for the record I think it's a crummy documentary. I'm just taking readers to the Wikipedia article where those allegations are covered in most detail, including the backlash, impact on Jackson's legacy, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I too agree that George and all the others doesn’t pass the notability test. I also don’t believe that those allegations are same the same in nature to the the more notable ones. Because of rules about talking about living persons, I won’t say anything too much, but apparently the FBI, CPS, and other lawful entities didn’t find their claims to be truthful or important enough to warrant any real actions. I also agree that Popcorn about how Wikipedia works, because that’s exactly how it works. I still sit on the fence on how it should be mentioned. Should it be mention as it is here, where it sticks to the facts, or should it be mentioned with LN, considering that no one really batted a serious eye at their allegations until the film?TruthGuardians (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)