Talk:Leaving Neverland

Beware of Awardmaniac

@Awardmaniac is systematically removing anything negative about Jackson, and amplifying the estate's responses. deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have responded but you have refused to talk and just revert with out giving any reason. Awardmaniac (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Potential overuse of quoting

Obviously this is a fluid situation as the documentary has only recently been presented and thus new information is coming up fairly often, but I'd like a more experienced editor to pare down the section under "Response from the Jackson Estate" as I believe the extensive block quoting from the Jackson estate is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, at least by my reading of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse. The opinion of the Jackson estate is clearly not positive, and particularly the last paragraph seems to be content that should be restated in a more neutral tone, or something like that. Princess Audrey of Ixelles (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Popcornduff seems to have done what I was trying to say just as I was saying it, so this is no longer relevant. Princess Audrey of Ixelles (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I did this previously and @Awardmaniac (who put it in to begin with) promptly reversd me. deisenbe (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The long quote was so clumsily inserted into the article I didn't even realise it was a quote. In any case it's far too long and undue weight. The other quote from one of the accusers was also inappropriate. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Which quote? deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a long, two-paragraph quote from the Jackson estate, plus a quote in a side box from Johnson saying "His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever." We could include this quote somewhere in the article, given proper sources, context, and notability, but its previous placement was irrelevant and likely meant to discredit the documentary. Popcornduff (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I previously deleted the same quotes, but they were put back in. deisenbe (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the quote should have been shortened(which i did a bit) instead of completely just linked somewhere else. But obviously cut down way more than it originally is. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

Add: Both Robson and Safechuck were caught on video laughing as the interviewer at the Q&A asked a question on how the documentary has affected their family, to them (family) to see the truest-. 7moonwalker7 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't an edit request. Popcornduff (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is written like C Wright Mills Power Elite propaganda and is not exactly neutral

I'm afraid it's best to still to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and not promote New Left propaganda by hyping things like "standing ovation" from the Sundance crowd and certain critical praise without noting more. Even Slate acknowledges that both Robson and Safechunk testified for Jackson's defense and that they is also denying what he testified in this documentary.[1] This propaganda cannot save the New Left.2601:447:4101:5780:D091:25CA:6ACF:95B2 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific about what you think is biased about the article and why. Popcornduff (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I already typed don't hype things like "standing ovation." Slate even stated "The greatest hurdle Leaving Neverland has to clear is explaining why Robson and Safechuck are coming forward now and alleging acts that they have previously denied, including during their testimonies in defense of Jackson against other accusers."[2] The defense testimonies where also under oath as well.[3][4] This is not included in the article either. Please make it neutral. For somehow who also knows about what C. Wright Mills encouraged for journalism in The Sociological Imagination, the neutrality of the film's hype is really hard shake off. [5][6][7]2601:447:4101:5780:CCCB:66F0:536A:997F (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

Thirteen quotes on a little article like this are way too many. We need to summarise, shorten, and remove some. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in pretty poor shape overall - it currently has broken English, ffs - but improving it has so far been a painful war of attrition. Popcornduff (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The reception section has quotes, true. But usually, when you look at many other similar article. This part is filled with quotes. But It could be trimmed down. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That isn't a good argument. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The quotes aint even that long. The article barely has any quotes. So I dont think its "to many". Awardmaniac (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Credibility and contradictions

The dreadful writing quality isn't the worst thing about this new section. Why do we even have such a section? See WP:NPOV. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it? It does not pick any sides, but just writes stuff that has happened. Im sure the wording can be improved to better show that. Its clearly a relevant topic, since the credibility has been a huge issue, been well documented and been a talking point by many. Its very relevant. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not pick any sides, but just writes stuff that has happened. Gosh. Really? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? What part of that section is wrong? We can discuss an improvement if there is need of one. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've wiped the section. Poorly written and outrageously biased. We don't need a dedicated section to cover holes in the accusers' story. If notable sources accuse the film of being biased/flawed in their reviews we can cover it in the Reception section. Popcornduff (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the reception of the movie, its not giving an opinion of the movie but of the accusers history and credibility. But as you said, the holes in the story that has been very much discussed and criticized. I provided the sources necessary. The content is well sourced and only mentions the facts and what Brandi said. Nothing more. There is no reason for it to be removed. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You can help improving the section. I like to know exactly what you think is the problem with it and work on improving the problem you feel there is. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets talk about each part step by step. Lets start with the Brandi Jackson part. Do you find something wrong with it and if so what? Her testimony contradicts what was said in the film. Also if you still do not think this section is not needed. I don't know why you would think that and if you do you point out what exactly is wrong, so we work on getting it improved. There credibility has been a very big topic of conversation. Just some minute ago, the biggest radio show in America(The Breakfast Club) criticized the credibility of the two accusers and some of the stuff mentioned in this section. Awardmaniac (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the section right now should be included. This is not the place to dissect the accusations made by the people in the film. Popcornduff (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you cant discuss and give any reason why it should not be included. I will put it back on. You did not even answer any of the questions I asked. These are arguments and criticism of the film. Making it totally relevant. Awardmaniac (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've also removed the section; on reflection it was in breach of WP:BLP as well. Please don't restore it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are failing to make any argument. What exactly is wrong. Give an example. Just one sentence. Awardmaniac (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As it's a BLP issue, the onus is on you to justify it here, before adding it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Its not a BLP issue. You have to point out how it is a BLP issue. What part of it and can it be worked on. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Starring

Should Michael Jacksons name be in the staring or cast section, since it is archive footage only. I dont know the Wiki rule for this. So, what do we thing? Awardmaniac (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Section: Reception

The citations for the sentences “Many people who spend time with Jackson as children, have also spoken out against the film. Among them are Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman and Emmanuel Lewis.[10][11][12]“ all lead to articles discussing the above persons’ support of Michael Jackson (and sometimes criticism of previous allegations), but refer to statements made before this film and not in relation to this film. There is no reference to Leaving Neverland made by any of the above names in any of the citations. So either change citations to relevant articles or remove the sentences as they currently have nothing to do with the reception of the film Leaving Neverland.

Awardmaniac...

@Awardmaniac: Regarding your most recent revert, you have restored:

• overlong quotes (the section already has a WP:QUOTEFARM tag)
• poor formatting and spelling, such as "contraction" instead of "contradictions"
• non-neutral writing, such as "The Michael Jackson estate sent a letter to HBO to address the many problems and contraction in the film", which presupposes that the film has "many problems"
• non-sourced content, such as the claim that Culkin has criticised the film - he says nothing about the film in the source
• extensive waffle about Jackson's extended family's feelings about the film

You have also removed an account of exactly how the Jackson estate is suing HBO. This is neutral, sourced, appropriate content.

Over the last couple of weeks, you have made editing anything related to Michael Jackson a constant battle, even when multiple editors oppose you. You repeatedly restore poorly written prose (often incorporating broken English), non-neutral content, and unreliable sources - and remove good content. I'm begging you: give it a rest. Popcornduff (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. I'd also like to distinguish (as I have at Awardmaniac's talk) between the very poor standard of writing, (which is moderately easy to fix) and the completely unfixable addition of BLP and SYNTH-busting sections like the one we were discussing above. I've got some ideas:

• Don't add quotes, at all. Summarise them.
• Don't revert when others remove your work. They're probably right.
• Try "writing for the enemy" - you're a big fan of Jackson, right? What would someone who wasn't think about some of the stories? Try to write for them as well. Articles written by fans turn into hagiographies, which are dreadful articles. People read Wikipedia to get information; they are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions, or at least we write better when we make that assumption.

Please have a think about it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

These are all sourced content that you removed. Why did you remove the Brandi Jackson quote or the Taj doc. What Brandi says contradicts what is said in the film. Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman and Emmanuel Lewis have all been against the film, why where they removed? Culkin also called it ridiculous in a podcast. The rest of stuff you deleted is stuff that happened and was said during these weeks. I will revert it back or most of it. If you do not give any valid reason why it was deleted. Poor spelling is not an reason. That can be fixed. If something is not "neutral" than change it, don't delete it. Awardmaniac (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I know you want to help, but these additions are not helpful and it's tedious to have to remove them. Have you read WP:SYNTH? What about WP:BLP? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If we are gonna remove all the quotes, then we should remove the Dan Reed quote to. We cant pick and chose. Also explain how the Brandi Jackson one is not needed?. When she said something very game changing and relevant to the story said in the film. Awardmaniac (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing the Brandi quote. Whether he did or did not cheat on her isn't relevant to the film. It seems most like character assassination. The part about it "ruin[ing] his entire timeline" could be relevant except she doesn't explain how. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use WP:SELFPUB sources for WP:BLP material

We have a lot of content sourced to Joe Vogel's article, What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary, including contentious WP:BLP material. This article is not a normal Forbes article. Anything published under the "sites" directory is not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. This is basically a self-published article and we're not supposed to use a WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties. SELFPUB states, " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis not mine). Unless I'm missing something, this is a BLP violation. Therefore, I've removed the content sourced to Joe Vogel.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is Forbes. And every thing published in it links to the court papers, lawsuits and so on. You cant get more official and reliable than that. Since it is taken directly from testimony, transcripts and documents. Awardmaniac (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? It's not a normal Forbes article. Anything written under the "sites" directory is not written by a Forbes journalist, is not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is still Forbes. Would it be better if it sourced the court papers directly? Awardmaniac (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Also you need to prove what you say is true. I see that all the articles in Forbes is under "site". Awardmaniac (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, using court papers is also a WP:BLP violation. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Hover your mouse over the 'I' towards the top of the page. There's a disclaimer that says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." You're right about the "sites" directory. It looks like they've rearranged the site. But you can tell the difference between a regular Forbes article and a Forbes contributor article because the contributor article says "contributor" and has the disclaimer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources covers the difference between regular Forbes articles and contributor articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Awardmaniac, as per the section above, I request that you stay away from adding or restoring any more material to this article or related ones. It's clear you don't have the ability to tell what is and isn't ok to use, and that you have an agenda you are pursuing. I'll follow this up with a note on your talk page, but basically what we are telling you is true. Please stop. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough With the C. Wright Mills Propaganda

You shouldn't erase reliable sources like Forbes or Slate, which point better the lack of scientific credibility of the documentary. This is not a proper place for either the advertisement of the movie or the promotion of New Left propaganda. Even the Wikipedia Power Elite article notes what Mills described as a "powerless society". A group of sociologists have also acknowledged how The Sociological Imagination, which I had either noted promoted manipulative journalism, was ranked the second most influential sociology book of the entire 20th Century.[9] Please stick the NPOV policy for a change.2601:447:4101:5780:4502:CE70:BA9:F19D (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)