Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The use of the Joe Vogel Forbes op-ed article as a source

[edit]

Several citations within this article use a January 2019 Forbes article entitled, "What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/). It is treated as though it's a valid source, however it is an op-ed piece which has many unsourced claims (Eg. "Safechuck claimed that he only realized he was abused after seeing Robson on TV."). And the few sources within the document are fan-made blogs (Eg. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-wade-robson-allegations-ebook-format-v2-0.pdf). I suggest this Forbes article is removed as a source. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News source

[edit]

Partytemple, you need to use a better source than the Breaking News you used here. Also, keep in mind that being neutral on Wikipedia doesn't mean what being neutral means in common discourse. No need to WP:Ping me if you reply since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Partytemple (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mentioning of 1993 settlement

[edit]

The 1993 settlement was falsely portrayed in the article. It is important to note here that the settlement was for a civil claim of negligence. This settlement did not affect the ongoing criminal investigation. The evidence of the criminal investigation was presented to two grand juries, both of them decided there was not enough evidence to indict. The former formulation catered to a poplular believe Jackson bought silence which is misleading and also illegal. It biases the reader towards the new allegations.--ProblemBesucher (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProblemBesucher (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the error. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I will edit this. Thanks for pointing this out. —Partytemple (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now but the prosecution also didn't stop investigating after the boy declined to testify, Sneddon seemed rather determined. The evidence was presented to a grand jury, they said, not enough to indict, there was the testimony from other people heard. Prosecution continued, presented new evidence to another jury, again not enough to indict. so the prosecution did not stop after Chandler stopped speaking, other people spoke and evidence was presented, it just wasn't credible.according to this article from 1994 --ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)--ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'said he had slept in bed with many children'

[edit]

Jackson has said nothing of this sort. In the Bashir doc he says cleary that he does NOT sleep in the same bed but would leave his bed to others and sleep somewhere else. The 'if you love me' part that is always quoted is misquoted, in context he clearly says: If you love me, you will let me give you my bed while I sleep somewhere else. This was misrepresented in the press back then and is now, but it is not correct as one can verify watching the documentary. I tried to change it but it got reversed. This should be changed though, it's clearly not true.--ProblemBesucher (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProblemBesucher, I think your edits are fine, but we cannot forget this quotation from Michael Jackson in this source:

I have slept in the bed with many children. I sleep in the bed with all of them. When Macaulay Culkin was little, Keiran Culkin would sleep on this side, and Macaulay Culkin is on this side, his sister’s in there, we’d all just jam in the bed.

There is also Brett Barnes' 1993 quotation from this source: "I was on one side of the bed and he was on the other. It was a big bed." There is also Brett Barnes' 2005 cross-examination in this source:

Q. Did you travel with [Michael Jackson] when he was performing?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that - in South America, was he performing then?

A. Yes.

Q. And every night after the performance, you would go with him to his room; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you stayed in his bed that night?

A. Yep.

There is also Macaulay Culkin's 2005 cross-examination in this source:

Q. Mr. Culkin, the question was, did you ever share a bed with Mr. Jackson -

A. Yes.

Q. - the two of you by yourself, prior to going to Bermuda?

A. If I remember correctly, probably, yes.

Q. On approximately how many occasions did you and Mr. Jackson share a bed the entire night prior to going to Bermuda?

A. A handful of times.

There are other quotations, that's all I want to say. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this witness statement before, thanks for that, it's interesting... The outrage sparking segment of the documentary that led to trial though is followed up by his clarification that he would sleep somewhere else. And when quoted the last part is often left out, which seems unfair. --ProblemBesucher (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ProblemBesucher, Your edits are fine and perfectly acceptable for the purposes of this article. I think there is a Wiki policy disallowing use of court transcripts as a source. I encourage everyone's right to edit and give their input. Of course, we can also have discussions on the Talk page, and I am happy to provide any additional sources I can find for further consideration. Thank you for replying and for your contributions. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil case" vs "criminal case"

[edit]

Maybe this wasn't clear enough originally, so I fixed it. There were two "cases" happening during 1993 allegations. One is the lawsuit, or "civil case" because it regards civil law. The second is the criminal investigation, or "criminal case." The two don't conflict each other and ran parallel. When the lawsuit ended, the criminal investigation continued. A previous user pointed this out and wanted it distinguished. It doesn't mean child abuse is "civil." —Partytemple (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Salas testimony

[edit]

I was confused by the lines in the article describing the testimony from Jesús Salas, so I went over the court transcript from April 4th, 2005. I found that the current wording in this Wikipedia article based on the Salas testimony is very inaccurate in relation to the transcript in 4 ways (page references to the court transcript):

1. Salas couldn't tell if Jackson was drunk or if he was rather affected by prescription drugs (pp. 4676 & 4761-4765). (Generally, there are far more reports that Jackson had a prescription drug problem than an alcohol problem.)

2. Salas saw children emerging from the wine cellar once, not "sometimes" (p. 4686).

3. He testified that the children mentioned in the article sometimes used to drive by car to the ranch themselves, being about "15, 16", so to just refer to them as "children" seems misleading and at least gave me a different impression (p. 4773).

4. He said that Jackson was with the kids in the "late night, early morning" of that day, but not that Jackson emerged from the wine cellar with the kids at 8 AM, which is what the article is currently stating (p. 4687).

Current reading in the article: "Jesús Salas, a former Neverland house manager at the Neverland Ranch, testified that he often saw Jackson drunk, and sometimes saw children emerging drunk from the wine cellar with Jackson. When the prosecution attempted to confirm Jackson had served wine to minors, Salas added that although he brought a bottle of wine to Jackson's bedroom, sodas were also ordered for the children." The source is The Guardian, stating: "But he [Salas] did testify that he had seen other children emerging drunk from Mr Jackson's wine cellar at 8am accompanied by the singer." Here, "accompanied by the singer" is obviously incorrect, while the Wikipedia editor made a further mistake writing "sometimes". (The Wikipedia article also, apparently by mistake, repeats the work "Neverland".(

Suggested reading: "Jesús Salas, a former house manager at the Neverland Ranch, testified that he often saw Jackson drunk or affected by prescription drugs, and on one occasion saw three boys aged around 15 to 16 emerging drunk from the wine cellar after having spent time with Jackson. When the prosecution attempted to confirm Jackson had served wine to minors, Salas added that although he brought a bottle of wine to Jackson's bedroom, sodas were also ordered for the children." Source: People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson, court transcripts, April 4th, 2005, pp. 4676, 4682, 4686–4687, 4761-4765 & 4773.

I tried to edit this, but the edit was removed twice, apparently based on considering the source as "primary". I tried to search around for secondary sources giving an accurate report of this, but it's hard for me to find, 14 years after the event reported. However, I couldn't find any Wikipedia guidelines advising against the use of court transcripts (to do so would seem counterintuitive to me, as the transcripts would normally be the most reliable source). On the contrary, this essay seems to argue for the use of court transcripts, and this explanatory supplement (see especially "Reports on events") seems to say that the news-reporting media, in our case The Guardian, is actually a primary source and so, at least, no better than a court transcript.

Based on this, my suggestion is to change the Salas paragraph as per the suggestion and with the source quoted above.

Sarandili (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of your assessment here. I have to admit, and I can only speak for myself, that I jumped the gun on that revert. I heedlessly read the edit and the source far too quickly. It is not what I assumed it was. I agree with your 4 points and I am not going to argue court testimony as it is a testimony. I too was able to cross-reference the accuracy and see where there was no bias added to the text. I am content with allowing your edit to stand. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time! I guess there was a reason based on past experience for the revert. As no one has objected, I'm trying to enter the edit again. Sarandili (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of Robeson’s change in claims

[edit]

Hello everyone! I recently added a short sentence under the Robson portion of “Witnesses for the Defense” introducing his allegations in “Finding Neverland.” My intention was to briefly convey an important fact that, when absent, might lead readers to improper conclusions about Robson’s support of Jackson. Some readers might not be aware of Robson’s recanted testimony unless they scroll several hundred words down the page. I believe this is a reasonable edit but I wanted to run this up the proverbial “talk page flagpole” for posterity.

To avoid redundancy I also introduced a quote from a People magazine article about the documentary. I know People is green lit as reliable source (WP:RSPSS) but if editors have other recommendations for citations, or concerns about reliability I’d appreciate discussing them here. Feel free to add any additional sources if you like. ⁂ (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be misleading. Robson did not recant his testimony in that film but long before that while demanding money from the Jackson estate in 2013. And the excuse that he testified to protect him was just one of his multiple excuses so why single that particular one out especially when he contradicted himself about why he supposedly lied in 2005 and some of his excuses are contradicted by other witnesses like Scott Ross , Brett Barnes or Taj Jackson? That section is about what happened at the trial and what defense witnesses said there. Not what they did before or after. castorbailey (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added POV section template

[edit]

The Timeline in the allegations between the Arvizo family and Michael Jackson section includes events that aren't directly related to the allegations, and a lot of the entries are worded in ways that feel slanted towards Jackson (e.g. August 2000 and February 20, 2003 entries). I don't know enough about the case to determine if anything is factually incorrect, but the way the information is presented feels like the timeline was partially written to discredit the Arvizos and Martin Bashir after the fact. That can be done in the other sections if necessary -- the timeline should be for listing the events as they happened. Puhala,ny (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fair and balanced and only uses language from the reliable sources. If it feels “slanted” towards Jackson that’s because there was a not guilty verdict to render his innocence. You can’t add language to suggest the verdict was incorrect or that is not in the reliable resources. Bashir discredits himself in the end. And a jury discredits the Arvizos. It is what it is. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it presents itself like that is because there was no evidence ever found against Jackson in any case. He was innocent and was taken to court based on hearsay alone. Most speculation comes from Martin Bashir's interview and people fill in the blanks in their head assuming abuse happened simply due to the "bed sharing" controversy" however this story lead the trial, in fact we could argue that the claims made by the defense need it's own section as this trial was not shown on television. Showing the prosecution's claims, reactions from the jurors & defense's side in another section on top of the timeline gives us a comprehensive view Never17 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arvizo family had their days in court, they were not believed, in fact the jury believed Jackson overwhelmingly. Now when it comes to Bashir, he admitted he saw no wrongdoings of any kind. This is all straight facts. Articles are not written to appease ones own interpretation, they are written based in fact. MraClean (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the POV and tone templates were valid and should remain until the section is tidied up. The main objective of the current text is clearly to present only information which might discredit the family of the alleged victim under the guise of an objective and undisputed "timeline" of events involving them.
While presenting information which discredits a party in a court case may be valid in an encyclopedia entry - particularly if that party lost the case - it should obviously be done in the form of "at the trial, the defense sought to discredit person A by calling witness B, who claimed C".
Beyond this, there are claims made in almost every para of this section which are not actually supported by the sources linked. This includes claims which appear to be outright fabrication. ~2025-36360-32 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A jury discredited the accuser and the accuser family when ruling in MJ’s favor 14 times. Had they ruled against MJ, then MJ would be discredited my jury. Templates were not valid. Article has been stable for years since it was taken to GA status. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the claims here are based on objective facts from the investigation, the only fabrication originates from the prosecution which is supported by the evidence we have Never17 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Timeline" - POV and tone section templates

[edit]

Both the POV and tone templates were valid and should remain until the section is tidied up. The main objective of the current text is clearly to present only information which might discredit the family of the alleged victim under the guise of an objective and undisputed "timeline" of events involving them.

While presenting information which discredits a party in a court case may be valid in an encyclopedia entry - particularly if that party lost the case - it should obviously be done in the form of "at the trial, the defense sought to discredit person A by calling witness B, who claimed C".

Beyond this, there are claims made in almost every para of this section which are not actually supported by the sources linked. This includes claims which appear to be outright fabrication. For these specific reasons it reads as biased.

As the section templates say, please do not remove them "until conditions to do so are met." Thank you. ~2025-36360-32 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting the section is deleted. Will wait for the opinion of other users, though am also happy to explain reasons in detail. CounterpointStitch (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already made this subject above & provided no evidence to support your claims of the information being false Never17 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's begin with just the first entry, January 2000: it cites only the court transcript - interpretation of primary documents without secondary sources violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR.
And on what information in that "January 2000" entry of the timeline is false: it claims that Janet Arvizo hired a lawyer for her family against Jackson in January 2000. I have checked the court transcript thoroughly and there is nothing in it which supports this assertion.
Welcoming your feedback, though, again, I believe the entire section should be deleted. CounterpointStitch (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
April 15, 2005 - Page: 249
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael Jackson?
A. I think it was, my best estimate, August of 2000.
April 15, 2005
Page 253 (internal pagination)
Pages 6498–6501 (court pagination)
Q. And the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document… right?
A. Yes… if those words are on there.
Q. Why would you start investigating Michael Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet him till August 2000?
Screen capped it too, she did factually admit that she was investigating Michael Jackson in January 2000 before meeting him in August 2000.
Transcript Photo #253 / Transcript Photo: Page #249 Never17 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She acknowledges signing a document stating she consulted lawyers beginning January 1, 2000, and she acknowledges meeting Michael later, in August 2000.
This supports the timeline entry that she hired/consulted lawyers about Michael in January 2000 because she herself admitted it under oath. You can go to that page right now, go to 249-253 and find those statements. Never17 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have already read this page, and as I mentioned:
1. it is from the court transcript and so can't be used as a source (WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR.) and
2. it doesn't show that Arvizo hired a lawyer in January 2000 (which is the sole claim made in that entry of the timeline). It argues that Arvizo hired a lawyer at some unknown point between January and December 2000.
You may have your own view about this, but we have and can not seen this document, and no one has claimed it shows that Arvizo hired a lawyer in January. CounterpointStitch (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are hallucinating, in the document word for word the defense says "Why did you begin investigating Michael Jackson in January 2000 if you didn't meet him until August 2000". Arvizo did not deny this, she did not correct him, she did not say it was a later date when it began, she remained silent instead which is an admission of acceptance.
The consultation period begins on January 1st, 2000
She consulted lawyers about Jackson in that period
If this was not true she wouldn't have signed a document that literally says "“between January 1st 2000 and [later]
There is no other way to read this. Never17 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example: “Between January 2000 and December 2000 i saw a counseler at school” this means i started seeing them in january, you can’t say “between must mean any point in the months between january and december” but rather beginning on & ending on. That's what she states by that document, what she admitted under oath & what the document says which is why Meseraeu questioned her by asking why she begun investigating her around January 2000. Never17 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson's lawyer is attempting to insinuate this, yes, but you are wrong, this is not meaning of what you shared. Here is the line in the transcript where Mesereau introduces the idea of the document for the first time (my bold/italics):
p.253
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: [...] the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, which is December 18th 2003, right?
Again, the court transcript can't be used a source, but it also doesn't say that Janet Arvizo hired a lawyer in January 2000 (it shows she may have signed a document claiming she hired a lawyer at some unknown point in a three-year period, which is not helpful for a month-by-month timeline!) CounterpointStitch (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So many asinine claims here
> Jackson’s lawyer is attempting to insinuate this…”
False. In the police signed document it states in verbatim
"From time to time, between January 1, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson…”
Thomas was literally just reading a document to her that she signed.
> This is not the meaning of what you shared
The meaning is completely straightforward for anyone who understands english:
- Janet consulted Lawyers about Michael Jackson
- This began in January 2000
- which is before she met him in August 2000
There's no possible reading where this doesn't mean "She contacted lawyers beginning in January of 2000"
> “The court transcript can’t be used as a source.”
False we have court transcripts used on various other articles, furthermore the citations only quote what the documents say not interperting anything which is what You are doing.
> “It doesn’t say she hired a lawyer in January 2000.”
once again in the document: between January 1st, 2000, and the present date (December 2003) I consulted lawyers…”
Consulting a lawyer means hiring or engaging with one by definition, i can't consult with a Lawyer for free unless i pay them. If she did not begin engaging with the Lawyer in January 2000 it wouldn't have used January 2000 as the entry point of the document she signed. It would have used another month instead.
> Some unknown point in a three-year period.”
Objectively misinformation, we have a entry point (January 1, 2000) and a ending point (December 2003). There is no other date mentioned as a beginning, it says between January 1 as it's when consultation began in January 2000
> “Not helpful for a month-by-month timeline
She met a lawyer in January 2000 regarding "abuse" from Michael Jackson, she met Michael Jackson in August. This shows how she was consulting with Lawyers regarding accusations before meeting him. Which is why the timeline said
- January 2000: Janet Arvizo begins consulting a lawyer about Michael Jackson (sworn declaration)
- August 2000 - Janet Arvizo meets Michael Jackson
> “It shows she MAY have signed a document claiming she MAY have consulted lawyers…”
she admitted it under oath twice. Next
Never17 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now moving on to the August 2000 entry. This has issues with WP:V as the source linked:
  1. Does not mention August 2000.
  2. Does not mention that it was the Arvizo family who asked to come to Neverland Ranch (nor explicitly mention a charity organisation).
Instead it says that it was Gavin Arvizo's wish to speak to Michael Jackson, and that he spoke to him on the telephone in hospital at an unspecified date.
This is quite easily fixable if you can find trusted secondary sources which provide any of the information originally claimed, or if you want to reword so the para matches the current source.
To my mind the second part is also difficult to understand and does not appear directly relevant, but let's discuss that later. CounterpointStitch (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the September–November 2000 entry. This also has WP:V issues:
  1. None of the sources linked mention the time period September-November 2000, or indeed any time period.
  2. None of the sources linked mention that anyone involved was a "co-worker" of Janet Arvizo (as mentioned in this entry).
  3. None of the sources claim that Janet Arvizo told anyone that she "exploited her son's cancer for money".
  4. None of the sources mention that "an investigation revealed that all of her family's medical bills were covered by insurance". The only source which mentions insurance is from a site called "Celebrity Justice", which, incidentally, I would argue does not meet WP:RS.
CounterpointStitch (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the September 2001 entry, as with others, the wording is not in line with WP:NPOV (for example outright assertion that Janet lied under oath, instead of saying that a witness called by the defense claimed that this was the case). Also more WP:V:
  1. The source does not mention September 2001
  2. The source says nothing about Penney guards assaulting the Arvizo family or sexually abusing Janet.
  3. The source doesn't mention an "investigation" that revealed that "the family had stolen items from the store".
CounterpointStitch (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the February 2003 entry, the source of the comment about Jackson hiring Mark Geragos "to protect him due to growing distrust with the Arvizo family" is an interview with Geragos himself which he gave to Larry King on the day the filings were made.
Geragos is a primary source for events he personally participated in and so can't be used as a source - these comments benefit the person making them and so are disallowed under WP:NPOV/WP:BLP.
(This is of course unless you make it clear in the wording that this is a claim made by Geragos and you give the precise context). CounterpointStitch (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On February 21–March 2, 2003:
  1. None of the dates (Feburary 21-March 2 2003, February 14-27) are mentioned in the source.
  2. The source is an article is about Alvin Malnik, but doesn't explicitly say that Jackson left Neverland and went to stay with him with his children.
  3. The source doesn't mention the Arvizo family at all.
CounterpointStitch (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On February 7–March 10, 2003:
These dates are the first which accurately reflect what is mentioned in the source. However, the wording is confusing and also appears to present the author's own conclusions (WP:SYTH) - i.e. "despite already acknowledging the family had stayed in his room three years prior in 2000". CounterpointStitch (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you back to my previous reply. Mesereau makes it clear in the passage that both you and I quoted that Arvizo "started investigating Michael Jackson" at an unknown point between January 1st 2000 and Dec 2003, (his exact words "sometime between January 1st 2000 [and December 2003]", so not from Jan 2000, not in Jan 2000 not on January 1st...not even necessarily even in 2000).
Though the wording is ambiguous, you are correct that the following passage in isolation could be read as though there was a consultation period with lawyers between January 1st 2000 and December 2003:
"From time to time, between January 1, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson…”
However, the above from Mesereau (Jackson's lawyer) shows this cannot possibly be the meaning of the sentence, else he would have stated it in that way.
It's not up to me to explain that sentence, which is impossible as we don't have access to the police statement. But a more likely reading is that the police, who drafted it (not Arvizo), were required by protocol to define a precise period, with start and end dates, for events being investigated, and that the events under investigation began in 2000, so they used the first day of that year. (Reading it back, you have to admit it is unlikely someone would hire a lawyer on New Year's Day Y2K?).
I'll also ask you to strike through all of the abusive language you've been using towards me. This is my last word on this particular point as the primary sources issue has been addressed and this page is for discussion of the article, not debate of the case. But hopefully we can continue with the rest of the section in a constructive and civil way. CounterpointStitch (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions were met a long time ago when the article was taken to Good Article status. One editor doesn’t get to determine that it does not meet expectations for tone and POV, when the view is in the minority. Template was removed because it does not belong. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arvizos can maybe have their own small section in the page discussing past issues brought forward in the investigation with links citing page numbers & quotes, we cannot bury the crucial information, however for clarity Michael's timeline can begin when he met them. Never17 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost impossible. Which version of their many stories will make up that section? TruthGuardians (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section was added a few months ago and since then a number of different users have flagged multiple issues with it. The templates are there so the wider community as a whole can judge whether the section needs work and whether it matches Wiki guidelines.
I still believe it should should be either improved or removed (with a preference for the latter), but perhaps we can discuss it line by constructively, with other editors giving their opinion, to avoid this back and forth. CounterpointStitch (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edit history and you are right. My problem with the section has absolutely zero percent to do with neutrality. Facts are not biased. My problem is with formatting and style. I do like the timeline, but its placement is a little strange. Also is it even needed if the sections afterwards of the sections afterwards contain said timeline information or can be updated with it? I’ll have to give this a look over later on. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this. Completely agree that some of this material can be placed later in the article, specifically in the "Trial" section, i.e. specifying that the third part of the defense's argument focused on attempting to discredit the Arvizo family. However, to avoid WP:undue, it should be brief and also balanced by aspects of the prosecution's argument.
I will delete each entry from the "Timeline" individually with an explanation here of what, if any, the issues are. This will hopefully help with later entry of this material elsewhere and avoid assertions which are not supported by the sources. Am happy to run the above suggestions past a third party if necessary. CounterpointStitch (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give the prosecution's claims it's own section and then a section showing what the defence showed in terms of evidence for their claims made against the prosecution and then people can interpret it how they like Never17 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve deleted the entire timeline section. It was not written in encyclopedic style. Some of the information can be salvaged for existing sections.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! CounterpointStitch (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section

[edit]

Just flagging that 2009 Martin Bashir interview is reproduced twice in a row. First as paraphrase, then as a direct quote. My suggestion would be to keep the original (paraphrase) version as it is more neutral and takes up less space while communicating all the necessary info. However, I don't want to remove the direct quote myself before it is agreed by others/the editor who posted it.

Also noting that the line about "The Jury Speaks" contains a space before the full stop and is not written in coherent English. (Should the "though lack of evidence" in the sentence read "due to insufficient evidence"?) CounterpointStitch (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBI files released after Jackson's death

[edit]

Suggesting a minor change in the placement/wording of this particular line:

FBI files released after Jackson's death noted that there were no outstanding leads or credible evidence items.

To me (due to mention of FBI and placement in the "aftermath" section), this initially read as relating to an FBI investigation into Jackson regarding possible wrongdoing after the case. However, looking into the source, the document is actually the Los Angeles police document made on the day of the not guilty verdict officially closing the case against Jackson.

For that reason I suggest moving it to the "verdict section" and changing the wording to something along the lines of:

A document released by the FBI after Jackson's death noted that the Arvizo case was closed with "no outstanding leads or evidence items". CounterpointStitch (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction to my earlier comment - the "no outstanding leads or evidence items" comment - as you can see from the cited doc from the FBI vaultf (p.39) - refers to case number 62D-LA-236081, which was an "FBI response to a Los Angeles Police Department request to analyze computers and digital media obtained from Jackson’s home under court warrant."
I suggest that as the meaning of the line is unclear and the source doesn't refer to anything immediately relevant to either the aftermath or anything else referenced in the article, it is removed. CounterpointStitch (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including this in the category False allegations of sex crimes

[edit]

It violates both BLP editing policies and NPOV policies to include this article in Category:False allegations of sex crimes. While he was acquitted, the allegations were never proven to be unequivocally false. By putting it in the category, we are saying that they were unequivocally false though. That's not neutral. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation was closed and ruled Unfounded during the exact alleged timeline of abuse, afterwards Jackson left & was in Miami away for weeks while another investigation was underway with the family in California which was also closed. The trial was based on Hearsay on this same overlapping period. So yes it was proven false Never17 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prosecutors failing to be able to prove that the accusations are true is not the same as the accusations being proven false. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and this article obviously does not belong in this category. Nor does the Leaving Neverland page. There is no consensus among reliable sources that the allegations were false. Popcornfud (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong
[1]Charles Thomson- Huffington Post: Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. The transcripts show an endless parade of seedy prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves on an almost hourly basis and crumbling under cross examination. Sneddon also appeared to be tampering with fundamental elements of his case whenever evidence came to light which undermined the Arvizo family's claims. For instance, when the DA found out about two taped interviews in which the entire Arvizo family sang Jackson's praises and denied any abuse, he introduced a conspiracy charge and claimed they'd been forced to lie against their will. There wasn't a shred of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime and there wasn't a single credible witness connecting him to a crime either. Never17 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the opinion of Charles Thompson that the allegations were false and does not support the categorization you seek to add. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the standard for including pages in categories. For example, the page HimToo movement is in that category too, despite no consensus in the media that the movement indeed advocates for genuine victims of false accusations. Cleveland child abuse scandal is in that category too despite controversy as to whether all allegations were false or not. But in both cases, as in Trial of Michael Jackson and Leaving Neverland there is more than sufficient evidence reported by reliable sources, that the allegations were false, therefore it's correct to include them in that category. castorbailey (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that about any and all not guilty verdict then, but disproven allegations could only result in one correct verdict: not guilty. At this trial overwhelming evidence was presented that disproved the specific allegations, which was also the reason why the prosecution couldn't prove the opposite. At this trial all counts were about the Arvizos allegations, which were disproven. castorbailey (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can absolutely say that about any not guilty verdict, which is why a not guilty verdict shouldn't be the standard for being included in the category. And if you look at the category, it isn't the standard. Instead, it's for when things like fake conspiracy theories, times when the accused have successfully won lawsuits about the false claims and when the victims either admitted to lying or were arrested for lying. This category would be way larger if it was just for every time someone had been declared not guilty. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly can't be said about all not guilty verdict that overwhelming evidence was presented at the trial that disproved the allegations nor did I say that the page belongs in that category simply because of the 14 not guilty verdict. I said that disproven allegations can only result in one correct verdict, not guilty, because you said in this case the prosecution just couldn't prove the crime. It went way beyond that, there was proof that the accusers lied under oath , contradicted their previous claims and claimed impossible situations. It is not true that all pages in that category involve successful lawsuits (why would such verdicts have more weight than 14 not guilty verdict anyway?) or admissions by the false accusers. Neither happened in the Paul Gambacini case, his page is still there. There is far stronger evidence that the Arvizos were false accusers than Gambacini's were. Matthew Kelly's page is there, although he was not charged due to insufficient evidence. By your logic, just because the prosecution couldn't prove he committed the crime. castorbailey (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people forget that the case was open to all past accusations including June Chandler which effectively re-tried 1993 and each case failed under extensive cross examination with the lowest burden of proof (hearsay) needed to begin with. Never17 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument, but disagree with the idea that the category should be removed. The category is attached to this page as it is to others for the same reason. The potential that there were indeed false allegations exists. In fact, the entire premise for the defense was to prove that these were in fact, false allegations. Some of the jurors are on record of saying that the prosecution witnesses were lying through their teeth. That indicates that they believe the witnesses were fabricating their stories which equates to false allegations. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The potential that there were indeed false allegations exists." That is an absolutely terrible argument. We never categorize articles about things that they can potentially have. We categorize them based on things that we know that they are. Hell, you could say any allegation could potentially be false. So by that logic, just about any article about accusations should be included in that category because they can always potentially be false. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here from BLPN. Seems to me the relevant guidelines are WP:CATV — In general, categories of articles must be: Verifiable: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories — and WP:CATDEF: Defining characteristics; a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in declarative statements.
    So for me, the questions are: (1) is "False allegations of sex crimes" verifiable in the article with reliable sources that unequivocally state they were "false allegations", and (2) is "False allegations of sex crimes" a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in declarative statements.— Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put, and to me, the answer to your questions is clearly no, so @JDDJS is correct, the tag is inappropriate and should be removed.
    As mentioned by others, a "not guilty" verdict does not automatically mean an accuser was lying. Acting as though it does reinforces harmful narratives that can silence survivors of sexual abuse. Wikipedia should avoid categories that imply definitive moral or factual judgments, especially on sensitive topics, unless they are backed by strong, reliable sources. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we must not present unverified claims in a way that could cause harm. CounterpointStitch (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These people "victims" literally directly admitted to multiple witnesses that Michael Jackson was innocent multiple times before retracting their story and making several contradictory remarks about "abuse" and receiving financial compensation for it. In every case in fact they defend him, later demand Jackson for money & when he refuses they claim he abused them. No evidence ends up surfacing and the media drags him through the mud due to his "eccentric" persona which they also created. Never17 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we agree that this tag should be removed? CounterpointStitch (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That the accusers lied in this case was proven by evidence reported by reliable sources. Your premise that the article is in this category solely because of the verdict is false. [WP:BLPCRIME] is a policy against labeling living people accused of crimes as criminals, how does that apply here? castorbailey (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the category was added here three months ago, was immediately reverted, then was edit-warred back in. The article has been unstable since then and has seen constant edit-warring over it, but it's a recent addition that never had consensus - I'm noting this down because some people are arguing that it has consensus somehow or that it's the status quo, which it clearly is not, even before we get to the obvious WP:BLP issues. EDIT: This category clearly makes an accusation of false accusations against multiple people named in the article, with no sources in the article supporting that as a statement in the article voice, and is therefore a WP:BLPREMOVE candidate; I've taken it out and will continue to remove it if it's restored until / unless a clear positive consensus for inclusion is reached on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on "False Accusations of Sex Crimes" Category Inclusion

[edit]

Should the article Trial of Michael Jackson be included in the category Category:False allegations of sex crimes, or removed from the category?

Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Exclude I already made it clear to why I think that it's bad to include as despite what some might say, including in the category is a definitively saying that the accusers lied. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - The category should be used when there is reason to believe that the allegations were false, and should not be a contentious category (about a contentious topic). The jury had reasonable doubt as to whether the allegations were true. We can have reasonable doubt as to whether the allegations were false. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - We have circumstantial evidence from major media outlets, the jurors and independent journalists who were in the court room and explicitly detailed how every claim fell apart with not a single piece of evidence against Jackson, declaring the allegations as false. On the prosecution's side there isn't a single reliable source supporting the basis that the claims were or could potentially be true in any way. Never17 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - Discussion here shows that the topic is inherently contentious and therefore fails the requirement that categories be neutral and uncontroversial. As a more general point, inclusion sends a lousy message to survivors of sexual abuse. CounterpointStitch (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. There is no consensus among reliable sources that these allegations were false. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Based on Wikipedia’s core standards of verifiability, neutrality, and defining relevance. Reliable secondary sources consistently describe the 2005 case as one in which all charges were disproven through full acquittal, making the falsity of the allegations a verifiable and central element of the trial. The defense sought to prove that these were false allegations, and a jury returned verdict in their favor. Because the disproven nature of the accusations is a defining characteristic by which reliable sources describe the trial, the category aligns with WP:CATV. To support the removal of this category would first start with advocating a changing language for WP:CATV.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. The point some editors seem to be missing is that the category isn’t dictating that false accusations were proven in the court of law, the category is attached to this page because false accusations were part the topic’s coverage. The category doesn’t say “hey look at me, I’m an example of false allegations.” It’s only present and does not assert an editorial opinion which is exactly what WP:CAT says, and the opposite conclusion drawn by some editors here.MraClean (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's named "false allegations", not "Potentially false allegations", not "Allegations that have been denied." The idea that we're not labeling the allegations as false by including the category is ridiculous. By their nature, categories don't have context or nuance attached to them. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest you remove your comment, discussion is below and it would be good to keep the survey section neat. CounterpointStitch (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude because categories should not be contentious, and this is still hotly debated to this day. Also, an acquittal doesn't definitively prove that the allegations were false, just that there was reasonable doubt. I frankly think the existence of this category at all is asking for trouble, but it definitely shouldn't be used for contentious cases like this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - The only argument against its inclusion is “Acquittal does not mean false accusations were proven.” While I agree with that general sentiment legally, that’s not the reason for this category being included here. The category is here because false accusations was a prominent conversation surrounding these allegations that only heated up after Jackson was acquitted. I’ve not seen any policy that this category is in violation of for being here as it has been for years. Israell (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I think the reliable secondary sources consistently describe the 2005 trial in terms of its complete acquittal and the failure of the allegations to be proven in court (even the 1108 testimonies wernt proven ) . Secondary sources such as , legal analyses, and retrospective reporting like from outlets like cnn and fox news frame the trial around the disproven nature of the charges as a central element of the case. Because this is how the trial is defined in high-quality sources, the category reflects a verifiable aspect of the topic.
To argue for removing this category would require first challenging how WP:CATV treats characteristics that are consistently emphasized in reliable sources. Without such a policy reinterpretation, the category remains positioned with existing guidelines. Mr Boar1 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • @Israell: That's not the only argument. The other one is that our rules for categories say that they need to not be too controversial, and this issue is very hotly debated to this day. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed the following arguments:
    1. Acquittal ≠ false accusation.
    2. Category is not "neutral" and "uncontroversial" as required by WP:CAT.
    3. The accuser is still alive, so WP:BLP requires higher verifiability.
    4. Knowingly making false accusations in court is a criminal act - WP:CRIME prohibits stating or implying someone committed a crime.
    5. Though the defense claimed the events didn't happen (as is always the role of the defense at trial) reliable, unbiased sources do not "commonly and consistently" characterise this as a case of false accusations.
    6. Including the category sends a harmful message to survivors of abuse. CounterpointStitch (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that @Israell is incorrect, the category was not there for years without controversy before it was challenged recently. It was added by an anonymous editor in September. CounterpointStitch (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Discussion

[edit]

This article has been added to the category "False Accusations of Sex Crimes" solely on the basis that Michael Jackson was found not guilty at trial. A number of editors have argued that this is inappropriate and have attempted to remove the category, however other editors have immediately reverted this change.

According to WP:CAT, categories should be uncontroversial, neutral, verifiable, and reflect defining characteristics of the subject. WP:BLP policies require even stricter sourcing for contentious claims about living persons. The category added appears to fail to meet any of these criteria.

EDIT: This RfC is to gather neutral community input from outside the topic and the limited editors who have previously commented. It is not intended as a vote. Please use the section above if you want to discuss it. Thank you in advance.

CounterpointStitch (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. There is no consensus among reliable sources that these allegations were false. Stand by for a batch of opposing votes from the usual clutch of single-purpose editors. Popcornfud (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming "there's no consensus these allegations were false" is factually wrong and not supported by any source. Jackson for one was physically not even in the same part of the United States for a large number of days when the alleged "abuse" was claimed to have taken place in California. He had iron clad alibi's, and the media stopped broadcasting the coverage when the Defence was given it's time to spotlight the issues. Which provided a slanted narrative, since the trial numerous sources have correctly reported the events of the case and sided emphatically with the defence. Never17 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven’t you been warned time after time after time about this language? Also, what do you think about an account created 12 days ago who jumps right into Jackson pages and starting request for comment discussions? Single purpose? Your ally? Pearl clutching? Or is it just the editors that oppose your view whose been editing for years? TruthGuardians (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no, I've never "been warned about this kind of language" (?) as far as I recall. Please don't imply a history of misdeeds that doesn't exist. Popcornfud (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without touching on the substantive issue yet, I do have some thoughts on this RfC's introduction:
1 How does the category "false accusations of.." define itself: the BLP rule for article titles saying "murder" is generally one requiring conviction. If the defining rule for "false accusations" is similar, then this is a no-brainer.*
2 Nice you mentioned BLP and "contentious claims about living persons", but I regret to inform you Michael Jackson is, in fact, not alive and this article is thus not a BLP.
  • 3 substantively: I would veer on the side of caution either way. If this is controversial (which it would appear to be, if there is no consensus of editors nor of the sources) then that imo should mean we do not include.
That said, I think it would make sense to use, if the afforementioned category is too controversial, an umbrella category (a category that has the category we deem too controversial as a subcategory) on the article instead. I would think of something that sounds like "Accusations of sex crimes" or "aqcuittals of sex crimes" or something adjacent that would be contained in the same umbrella(s) as the contentious category. This minimises the harm of the removal while safeguarding any concerns that would be implied by leaving the category.
I wholeheartedly oppose handling this RfC as a vote. It should always be attempted to form an evidence- and policy-based consensus first. I do not consent to a vote. Popcorn's statement shows why it is wrong to handle an RfC this way. The outcome should be decided by weighing policy, not by a majority vote. If there are fifty SPE's saying x without explanation or with copied arguments, and five serious editors who argue y, and two arguing x, then it should not be obvious that x is the consensus. Slomo666 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it should not be handled as a vote. The RfC was intended as a call for those outside of this topic who have not already been part of the discussion on this talk page to provide a neutral opinion. Once that has happened I will look at the appropriate way to proceed. CounterpointStitch (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, BLP standards are in place for this page, presumably because most of the parties involved in the trial are still alive. CounterpointStitch (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slomo666 The accusers are living people, so this is very much a BLP issue as we're definitively saying that their accusations were lies by including this in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then all people in that category who was acquitted or not charged due to insufficient evidence but their accusers are alive should be removed, such as Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini? castorbailey (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about this page, not any other pages. Something being done on another page does not mean it should be done on this one. Slomo666 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki should have their rules applied consistently though. Clearly, based on the pages in that category so far there hasn't been a uniform standard set as to what exactly is necessary for this category. Many pages there have no multiple reliable sources declare verbatim that the allegations were false. castorbailey (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed we should have consistency, and guidelines should be clear as possible. I support an effort to achieve a more uniform standard, which you say is currently lacking. I also support removing the pages from the category that do not meet the standard, once such a standard is agreed. (Although prior discussion at the relevant talk page might be necessary for that)
What you are doing (at least the way you said it, in my opinion) is not constructive, though. Just mentioning “but other pages” is just whataboutism, unless we are meant to extract a clear understanding of policy relevant to this article from the examples you cite.
Slomo666 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page notice says
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
@CounterpointStitch made the same point, so I am pinging them too.
As I understand it, BLP does not apply, but we should still approach unsourced (contentious) material with a higher degree of concern.
I do not think this is a BLP issue, but more a WP:VOICE issue. This would be true even without the overlap with living people, as the topic is also controversial/contentious, as the other notices say. Slomo666 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not the biography of any person and if BLP would prohibit anything that might hurt the feeling of a living person you could delete half of wikipedia. That the Arvizos lied on the stand and fabricated acts which Jackson didn't commit is not unsourced or poorly sourced material. castorbailey (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did they get prosecuted (civilly: defamation trial, or criminally, for perjury) in a court?
I have, since reading this discussion and discussing further on the teahouse what the inclusion criteria are, moved in my position. I have come to view the "false allegation" as a positive statement, (one which needs to be proven with evidence directly) so I now think merely a rejection by a court of the allegations is insufficient to label the claims as false allegations.
The standard, with regard to blp and things adjacent to it, should be precautionary. That means, if there is any contention, it should not be done. There is no need to include the category. If there is any RS whatsoever challenging the falsehood, we should not include, even if we have evidence that the allegations are incorrect, (People on this talk page have brought up evidence of Jackson's non-presence. This is irrelevant as it would be a form of original research.) we only summarise what reliable sources say.
An additional argument I realise exists is that BLP weighs in one direction: we can do harm to the accusers, which are alive, and we would be doing so in quite confident Wikivoice. We cannot do harm to the subject, as he is dead. His image, sure, but there is a difference in the weight imo of living people and dead people. Once all involved people are dead, the history books will write a picture we can use to make a decision.
Summary: Not necessary to do potential harm, causes no harm to not include. Slomo666 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't find a page in that category with perjury convictions and if verdicts are not conclusive evidence, a perjury conviction wouldn't be either. I said the premise here (that the category is solely based on the verdict ) is false, since the reason is verifiable evidence of fabricated allegations, not the verdict itself. For example, two counts were dismissed by all jurors early on because Star Arvizo's allegations were "plain not believable". (Hultman Diary of Juror No 1, page 512) Thus even if all other counts had been rejected for reasonable doubt only, this trial unquestionably included false allegations of sex abuse warranting the category. Living people are not protected on wiki from things they did in fact do. castorbailey (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thesis. However, if we are taking the kind of proof-by-parts you are making here, we would need to be explicit about that somehow and I am not sure I think we can. Adding the category to the page may seem to imply *all* the allegations mentioned in this article are false if it is not explict which ones wikipedia is referring to. Regardless, I will repeat: please at least engage with my mention of the broader criteria's rules. I am wondering what you think of it.
Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson#c-Slomo666-20251211002100-CounterpointStitch-20251210200300
Thank you, and happy editing,
Slomo666 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay so policy doesn't matter, fact's don't matter, sources mean nothing. It's all about applying your own personal opinion which is jaded by emotion instead, even if it means inventing new rules that never applied before for any other case.
Never17 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will politely ask you to take this accusation back. I don't even personally believe that the allegations are true. I was called here by the bot and I am here expressing my concern related to the policy as I have read it, and understand it, which is precautionary. Slomo666 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that this should be removed as it is not neutral and being not guilty is not the same as false accusations. You can be guilty and have false accusations as well. But in this specific case, it's an unnecessary and controversial title that shouldn't be on the article. 🥑GUACPOCALYPSE🥑 23:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusion would violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a disproven narrative. Category stays.
"Avoid stating opinions as facts."
This is not a controversial subject as proven by the numerous Reliable sources such as NYT, Rolling Stones, Forbes, Huffington Post, The Jury Speaks (Which asks the jurors directly who said he was innocent) People Magazine, LA Times, a Unfounded memo from the investigation itself, Find Law and even more such as Aphrodite Jones who also shared this sentiment and covered the case. We have a established consensus showing how the accusations were false. Never17 (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. You cannot decide the consensus. Closing will be done by someone other than the RfC's participants. Since you even participated in the discussion prior to the RfC, you are far too involved to make this decision. Also please consider my recent comment, which discusses an explicit rule that should be in force for the category. Slomo666 (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said Media has a consensus, not us Never17 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note to say I've removed the category as neutral editors here and here have confirmed it is inappropriate, as well as in the teahouse here. CounterpointStitch (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category is neutral and verifiable by the mountain of reliable sources which declare the allegations false. post-trial consensus which has been provided by reliable sources in this page frames it as a hoax/con by perjurers. We have a unfounded ruling + 10-15 reliable media sources explicitly calling them false allegations on a case which was a unanimous acquittal at that. Excluding it from the false accusations category implies credible guilt despite disproof, which there is none. Never17 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since two users have reinstated the category after the discussion here, I have submitted a dispute resolution request including the following editors: JDDJS, North8000, Popcornfud, Isaidnoway, Guacpocalypse, Slomo666, TruthGuardians, Never17, and castorbailey, PositivelyUncertain.
I hope everyone is ok with this. CounterpointStitch (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CounterpointStitch - Not necessary, an RfC is a form of dispute resolution.— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it had settled the matter, but removing the category was reverted twice. What is the appropriate action to take in this case? CounterpointStitch (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as it was, none of Michael's pages needed any major changes, yet you've been attempting to do this on several of them. Never17 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A DNR is not the proper forum for a Category dispute, especially when there’s an RFC already in progress. It’s quite disruptive. Furthermore, I reverted because you unilaterally decided to close the RFC which is still open. RFC’s will remain open for up to over 30 days. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed because there are organic responses to the RfC, all of which say it should be removed. I have opened up a dispute resolution request as it still doesn't satisfy you. You are only saying this because you know what the outcome of the dispute resolution request will be. CounterpointStitch (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. RfC is one of the highest forms of dispute resolution. You can not switch between one method of dispute resolution to another while one is still ongoing. I believe this was a case where it was escalated to an RfC too soon, skipping other forms of dispute resolution unnecessarily. But we must live with that. What is done, unlike on articles, cannot be undone. Slomo666 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this should be handled by the evidence provided in the article and amongst independent and impartial sources. Not personal opinions of certain editors who choose to interpret the information however they like which would turn this into a forum.Never17 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say this is neither a vote nor a debate, but a request to have a neutral party look at the issue as the discussion above has stalled. If you want to discuss it, please use the section above. CounterpointStitch (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose based on Wikipedia’s core standards of verifiability, neutrality, and defining relevance. Reliable secondary sources consistently describe the 2005 case as one in which all charges were disproven through full acquittal, making the falsity of the allegations a verifiable and central element of the trial. The defense sought to prove that these were false allegations, and a jury returned verdict in their favor. Because the disproven nature of the accusations is a defining characteristic by which reliable sources describe the trial, the category aligns with WP:CATV. To support the removal of this category would first start with advocating a changing language for WP:CATV.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my previous comments that it's inappropriate to include this in the category. By including it, we're taking a definitive stance on something that still remains very divisive and debated. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Debated by who? Not by the Jurors, not by the overwhelming evidence supporting it, not by anyone. There's no basis for this statement. Never17 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The jurors were not ruling on whether the claims were false allegations or not. That is not how the justice system works. ~2025-40441-51 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the reliable secondary sources consistently describe the 2005 trial in terms of its complete acquittal and the failure of the allegations to be proven in court (even the 1108 testimonies wernt proven ) . Secondary sources such as , legal analyses, and retrospective reporting like from outlets like cnn and fox news frame the trial around the disproven nature of the charges as a central element of the case. Because this is how the trial is defined in high-quality sources, the category reflects a verifiable aspect of the topic.
To argue for removing this category would require first challenging how WP:CAT treats characteristics that are consistently emphasized in reliable sources. Without such a policy reinterpretation, the category remains positioned with existing guidelines. Mr Boar1 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Remove (invited by the bot). "Acquitted" merely means "didn't convict" , it doesn't mean a finding that the charges were false. There is no basis for saying they were false, that would be a derivation (OR) by Wikipedia editors. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that not a single editor has provided any evidence for claiming "there's no source claiming the allegations were false". This is literally all bad faith claims about minor wordplay, trying to spin facts from the accusations in away that removes any and all evidence provided about Michael Jackson's innocence in this case. Never17 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot expect people to find evidence for the absence of evidence, I am afraid. Absence of evidence is not required, but should also not be construed as evidence of absence (innocence of the subject or innocence of 'false accusations'). If this argument is relevant, it is only because we should not give undue credence to an allegation. (Certainly not to deny one or both sides.)
If you do have evidence of innocence, and more importantly, reliable sources stating/claiming that the allegations are fake, please do provide those to support your position.
Slomo666 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never17, I disagree with your entire post, which was mostly negative characterizations/allegations regarding what editors have said or done regarding this. On one structural item, those "no source saying that they were false" means that nobody has provided such a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted it
I have way more sources however if you insist, but this is enough Never17 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stones - His case was bullshit. California vs. Jackson turned out to be basically a tale of a family of low-rent grifters trying to lay a criminal-molestation charge on a rich celebrity as a prelude to a civil suit":
[2]
Forgot Forbes, perhaps the most credible journalism outlet in the US
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Never17 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are terrible sources that don't support what you're stating at all. Every source in the first collapse attributes it, ie. "XYZ thinks this"; that can only be used for attributed opinions in our articles, not for article-voice statements of fact. And see WP:FORBESCON; Forbes contributor pieces are not reliable sources - they're essentially blogs. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion:, I collapsed that comment for a reason: substantive discussion should take place in the correct place, which is above this rfc. Slomo666 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per WP:CAT For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include. The premise of the RFC is false, the article wasn't added to this category solely due to the not guilty verdict but verifiable evidence that the allegations were fabricated. Numerous pages in this category have similar or even lower standard for inclusion: Roscoe Arbuckle, no consensus [1] if he committed sexual assault, no consensus if Ben Feibleman was falsely accused [2], no consensus that Paul Reubens was innocent [3]. Craig Charles, Quinten Hann, Driff Field are all included for aquittals, Cliff Richard for not being charged due to "insufficient evidence". The Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy is included as the court ruled the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. castorbailey (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All that shows to me is that there are other articles in that category that should also be removed from it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the category exists, it sends an appalling message. But if anything should belong in that category, it should only be cases where there is incontrovertible evidence accusations were false, for example if they were later recanted. CounterpointStitch (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit [Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services] concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded, both by the LAPD Wilshire Division and the department,”
Seems like it qualifies then as these "accusers" in fact defended Jackson's innocence for weeks Never17 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recantation is not necessarily incontrovertible evidence , people may change their story under pressure or for money. Evidently, there can be proof that an accuser lies without him admitting that he lied. I would argue that making false allegations is appalling not calling them false allegations. castorbailey (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category existing is not an issue, (looking at what most of the included articles are) but it should be handled appropriately. It is a subcategory of Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, and thus if we place this page in the subcategory, it is automatically under the umbrella category, which states Per 2021 consensus, this category should not include biographies of accusers or people accused, nor redirects to biographies.. The rules that apply to the umbrella apply to the subcategory. Should there be other pages that violate this rule, someone should raise those there.
Tagging @Jimcastor, as their argument seemed to touch on this. I think the issue has been made significantly less vague by this discovery of mine.
Also, please, to the people active on this talk page (no one in particular): be nice to each other. There is no need for hostility.
Slomo666 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be right if WP:CAT didn't allow editors to add categories even if it is not the defining characteristics of the article, but it does, as per the citation I posted above. Therefore in each case editors can decide if the article does include sufficient well-sourced evidence that the allegations were false. castorbailey (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, categorization makes a statement but there's no explicit rule that wp:verifiability applies to that statement. Just the general principle.....when it's a controversial statement, it's needs to meet wp:ver in order to be kept. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's contradictory. If the statement is controversial then you need only one side be verified to be included? As I listed about, if we remove that category for this page we should remove it for all those others. Should this category be used only if multiple reliable source explicitly state that the allegations were false and no reliable source at all questions if they were false? castorbailey (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is expanding beyond the scope of the RfC. I think you’re right to ask the question, but it should be on a discussion at the category talk page, after this RfC is closed. I think you are right that some of the individuals named on that category should be removed. Slomo666 (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that somebody was falsely accused is a statement that someone said something which was later shown to be false. That is very different than arguing that there was not enough (or enough credible stuff) to bring criminal charges or to obtain a criminal conviction under the US legal system. Folks in favor of keeping the classification are arguing (and presenting supporting sources) for the latter and incorrectly saying that it is an argument for the former. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I argued that it's not the verdict alone why the category is warranted, rather evidence that what the accusers said was in fact false. You are right, the two are not the same, and if the later didn't exist the category should be removed. But it does exist. Star Arvizo's allegations were not dismissed by all jurors because there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction, they were dismissed because, as Juror 1 stated, his testimony was "plain not believable". If that is not enough to label an allegation as false, what would be enough? Another reliable source reported the prosecution's case was bull.... If that doesn't mean false allegation, what would it mean? castorbailey (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Acquitted isn't the same thing as saying that the original charges are false, only that they weren't proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Beyond that, categories must be supported by the body, ie. if the accusation was false then the body must say in as many words that it is false. Saying it in a category is actually a heavier lift than that, because categories can't provide any context and can't have sources directly attached - so an editor must be able to ctrl-F the article for the word false and instantly find where it says, specifically, explicitly, and unambiguously, that the accusation was false, cited to a source that itself must specifically and unambiguously use the word false or something that unequivocally has the same meaning (ie. not just a source that says he was acquitted, which is insufficient.) Since no such reliable source seems to exist, we can't say it in the body, which means we definitely can't say it in a category. It also raises obvious WP:BLP issues, since it clearly accuses living people of making false accusations without adequate sourcing in the article. For the record, the category was added here three months ago, was immediately reverted, then was edit-warred back in. The article has been unstable since then and has seen constant edit-warring over it, but it's a recent addition that never had consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have over a dozen reliable sources in this exact talk page explicitly calling the false. If that's not enough then remove the presumption of innocence from any single person who was found not guilty in court Never17 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't presented a single usable source that states, in the article voice, that it is false, no. The presumption of innocence applies but categories like this are for when we have sourcing explicitly stating in its own voice that someone was falsely accused, not the unusable mess of attributed opinions and broad argumentation that you presented above. Your "best" source was a Forbes contributor piece! If that low-quality nonsense is the best you could come up with despite what I'd assume is a thorough search, I'm upgrading it to strong removal. Even if you had found usable sources, though, stating something in the article voice (ie. via a cat) requires that it be essentially uncontested, which is clearly not the case here. And, again, ultimately - categories need to be supported by statements in the body. If you believe you have sources that support calling the accusations unambiguously false in the body, unattributed, make the argument for that and reach a consensus on that. But we can't have the category without that statement in the body, and I think you realize you've failed to produce sourcing that can support it (since you haven't even attempted to add it.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The point some editors seem to be missing is that the category isn’t dictating that false accusations were proven in the court of law, the category is attached to this page because false accusations were part the topic’s coverage. The category doesn’t say “hey look at me, I’m an example of false allegations.” It’s only present and does not assert an editorial opinion which is exactly what WP:CAT says, and the opposite conclusion drawn by some editors here.MraClean (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an RfC on this in 2021 for the umbrella category this cat falls under, which would seem to contradict your statement that WP:CAT exempts the use of categories from the concerns raised on this RfC. Slomo666 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The category may not explicitly say “hey look at me, I’m an example of false allegations.”, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think a lot of naive readers might read it that way. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only argument against its inclusion is “Acquittal does not mean false accusations were proven.” While I agree with that general sentiment legally, that’s not the reason for this category being included here. The category is here because false accusations was a prominent conversation surrounding these allegations that only heated up after Jackson was acquitted. I’ve not seen any policy that this category is in violation of for being here as it has been for years. Israell (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not yet sure I agree with you, but thank you for adding this argument, which shows the issue to me from another angle. Edit: to answer your last question, @Israell: did you look at this comment of mine? Slomo666 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this perspective! To me this closes it. CounterpointStitch (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a great perspective. I don't know that the policies cited in this argument are strong enough evidence to removing either. 🥑GUACPOCALYPSE🥑 23:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Seems obviously controversial. As evidenced by this conversation. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/the-sexual-assault-case-that-shocked-hollywood-almost-a-century-ago
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/columbia-sexual-assault.html
  3. ^ https://www.today.com/popculture/paul-reubens-pleads-guilty-obscenity-charge-wbna4563512