Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus to exclude the article from Category:False allegations of sex crimes because inclusion would violate WP:CAT#N. WP:CAT#V, WP:CAT#N, and WP:CAT#D are each necessary for including an article in a category; they are not independent and sufficient criteria for inclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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)

Survey

• 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)

  Not necessarily. It does not mean the accusers have lied. It also could mean that MJ had good lawyers (as we all know) and fought the case well and the accusers did not have proper evidence to proof it, so it does not mean that they lied. We must follow what the citations say, which is that he was found not guilty, and that means there were false allegation. In fact, it could also be the case. We will never know the truth. Celebrities are often sued for by false allegations by those looking for a quick buck. I personally think MJ was guilty, but my own personal view has no relevance. Sincreator (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Exclude. There is no consensus among reliable sources that these allegations were false. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Include - 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, reason for inclusion wasn't solely the verdict but reliable sources reporting the accusers lying on the stand. Numerous pages in this category have similar or lower standard for inclusion: Roscoe Arbuckle, Ben Feibleman, Paul Reubens, Craig Charles, Quinten Hann, Driff Field , Cliff Richard due to "insufficient evidence". Unanimous jury vote rejecting allegations because they are "plain not believable" should be a sufficient standard for this category. castorbailey (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude - While my view has shifted back and forth on if sources do or do not agree here through the course of this discussion, I come back to my invocation of the precautionary principle since reading what [[Category:Sexual misconduct allegations]], which "False allegations of sex crimes" is a subcategory of, says: Per 2021 consensus, this category should not include biographies of accusers or people accused, nor redirects to biographies.. I don't really understand why none of the people who support inclusion engaged with that.
  I think there can be arguments for both sides, but precaution in a contentious topic related to BLP makes me weigh to the Exclude side. Slomo666 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude - This is difficult. The trial ended with a verdict of innocent. This suggests it should be included in the category. But we also have later testimonies also from a witness at the trial who retracted what they said and have made allegations in a pending trial case. Perhaps when this trial is finished, we can think again about adding it here. Ismeiri (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  That second trial won't be about Jackson's innocence or guilt as he is dead and you can't sue dead people. It will be a civil trial with a far lower burden of proof solely about whether employees were responsible for abuse, if it happened. Rosbon's 2005 testimony is also irrelevant as to whether the Arvizos falsely accused him or not. All counts at the 2005 were about the Arvizos allegations, nothing more. castorbailey (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude There is a difference between a court saying someone is not guilty and the allegations being false. Lova Falk (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude While Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges, inclusion fails WP:CAT#N, which states, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Our debate here alone proves this to be a contentious topic. The acquittal and defense can stand on the article itself, but the article doesn't belong in this category. Penguino35 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude as the idea of Michael Jackson having "false accusations" is far from universally established. The category is not "accusations found to be not definitive enough for a guilty verdict in a court of law", it is "false accusations", and in any case Wikipedia is not a proxy of the United States legal system.  novov talk edits 09:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Include - Based on Wikipedia policies, we must follow what the sources say, which is that he was not found guilty of these charges. For those that say that this means that accusers have lied, not necessarily. It also could mean that MJ had good lawyers (as we all know) and fought the case well and the accusers did not have proper evidence to proof it, so it does not mean that they lied. Sincreator (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  Surely that means you think the category should be excluded, not included? CounterpointStitch (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ping Sincreator! Lova Falk (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Precisely. This line of reasoning is exactly why it doesn't belong on "false accusations." Could it belong on a list of "not proven guilty"? Sure, but that's not the discussion here. MJ's court cases were controversial then, and they remain controversial now, littered with doubt through every lens. Penguino35 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  But reliable sources report that the accusers lied, it was not just that they didn't have proof against Jackson. Particularly Star Arvizo's allegations, which were the basis of four counts in the indictment were rejected by all jurors because they were categorically false. There is no question that at this trial Jackson was hit with fabricated allegations, even if all other counts would be dismissed for mere lack of evidence. castorbailey (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude. Treating the acquittal as evidence that the allegations were false is synthesis: an acquittal means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the underlying allegations were false. Unless reliable sources explicitly characterize the allegations as false, we shouldn’t state or imply that conclusion. If high-quality sources explicitly describe specific claims/testimony as false (e.g., a documented recantation), that can be reported with attribution and due weight, but it doesn’t justify making "false accusations" a defining framing of the topic. spintheer (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
• Include. For now until specific requirements for the category are laid out. When accuser testimonies are ruled not believable as in this case and juror statements detailed the accusers lied that goes beyond reasonable doubt and WP:CAT goes beyond defining characteristics. Unanimous verdicts dismissing accuser testimonies should be enough for this category. PinkSlippers (talk)
• Exclude It seems that the editors who want to include it are attempting neutrality, because courts found Jackson not guilty. And I really get that line of reasoning. But not including Jackson's cases on this list doesn't mean we're saying the courts were wrong. We're just saying his cases involved too much controversy for it to be included on this particular list. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 19:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• Include What matters is whether there are sources that describe him as such, apparently, we have them. Arguing for more than a court decision is setting the bar too high, as it is extremely hard to prove a negative. As castorbailey showed, the de facto inclusion criteria for the category don't require this. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
• Include When accuser testimonies are ruled not believable as in this case and juror statements detailed the accusers lied that goes beyond reasonable doubt and WP:CAT goes beyond defining characteristics. Unanimous verdicts dismissing accuser testimonies should be enough for this category. Just to clarify, we aren't discussing whether Jackson EVER committed 'inappropriate acts' with minors (he may well have done), nor whether those acts passed legal thresholds (public jury's still out on that, but possibly yes). The only real question is whether some or all of the accusations levelled at this trial were ruled as not simply 'unproven', but actually 'unbelievable'. If what I read above is true, that is literally what the jury ruled. Even Al Capone can be accused of things he didn't do and whilst I acknowledge that considerable controversy still surrounds Jackson's behaviour with young fans, in this instance a jury ruled that some accusations were false. That appears to me to be much more certain than some of those listed in this category, where simply 'not guilty' verdicts are treated as proof that the initial accusation was false. It would be helpful if objective criteria existed for inclusion.Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  Mmm... I see the contingency you and @PinkSlippers are advocating for. I agree with you regarding the "objective criteria for inclusion." The area I get hung up on is that WP:CAT specifically addresses "contention" as a criteria for denying inclusion. So if we're looking for defined criteria, I believe that's where we find it. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 16:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  I can see why the 'contention' criteria for exclusion ordinarily applies, but in this instance it simply invites us to 'relitigate' the case(s). I spent quite a while looking at other entries in the category, some were historic and there seems to be near-absolute evidence or agreement that any accusations were false. Some were modern, but where confessions/forensic evidence or police statements made explicit that the initial accusations were false. Some were simply 'not guilty' verdicts, but in instances where only one of the two 'sides' could possibly be telling the truth (it couldn't be mistaken identity for eg). In the UK, jurors are forbidden from speaking about their deliberations so, in some instances, the verdict is all we have to establish that the accusation must have been false. In the Jackson case, the reasons for thinking that at least some of the accusations were false were much stronger, the jury explicitly said so.

  My (thin and flawed) memory of that period/that trial was that there was quite a lot of debate at the time not so much about whether specific events had occurred (sharing bedrooms with young fans for eg), but whether those events passed the legal threshold warranting prosecution/punishment, but that has no bearing on falsity of course. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude — we need a general consensus amongst reliable sources that the allegations were indeed false. We do not have that, so absent that consensus with sources, the cat must be excluded.— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  This is the best explanation and support of WP:CAT#N I've seen. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude To my knowledge it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law one way or another. It is very disrespectful to the gentlemen, who may very well have been victims of a most heinous act, to dismiss them as liars based on such inconclusive findings in court, or based on selective opinions. The only right thing to do is listen to their stories, and reserve judgement where we have no grounds to do so. "Some of us think those boys are lying" is simply not good enough. Do better.

Discussion

• @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)

  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)

  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)

  This is a nice list. Well done. Penguino35 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Previous Discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since you also agree that there is no such standard currently whataboutism could only apply if other pages violated such a standard. The RFC pretends that this page was included solely due to not guilty verdict, that's not the case, but if it was, such objection was never raised against all those other pages, so it's logical to ask, why should be for this one? Again, considering, that there is no such established standard. An RFC specifically about the requirements for this category would be far more useful than this one. castorbailey (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying is true, for the reasons I have already stated. That said: no. You argued that the fact they are currently included, because according to you, they were never challenged, should not mean an RfC that allows people to challenge this specific article's inclusion is wrong. It would mean, unless there was a standard you can cite, that this RfC would be the first step to create the standard. But again: there are rules for the umbrella category, and I think they would inherently apply to the subcategory, so in my view, there is a standard. (Which we should ensure is followed.) Slomo666 (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I simply said Media has a consensus, not us Never17 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

CounterpointStitch - Not necessary, an RfC is a form of dispute resolution.— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You wanted it

Extended content

"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,”

Hottenroth wrote." (overlaps with entire abuse period)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-dec-10-me-jackson10-story.html

Jackson's lawyers were able to poke holes in the family's testimonies, and were also able to convince the jury, who already found Janet unlikeable, that she was a "con artist" who had made her children lie on the stand, according to Global News. "As a mother, the values she has taught them, it's hard for me to comprehend," one Santa Monica juror said after the verdict was delivered, according to the Times. "I wouldn't want any of my children to lie for their own gain.

"https://people.com/music/michael-jackson-2005-molestation-trial-not-guilty/

The Detail That Proved Michael Jackson's Innocence | The Jury Speaks

"Despite the prosecution's claim that Jackson used adult magazines to prepare his victims, a crucial detail was overlooked: the magazine used as evidence was published after the children were on the ranch. Find out how the defence successfully argued that Jackson couldn't have looked at the magazine with the victim and how the county's own investigators had contaminated the only tangible evidence they had."

The Jury Speaks - The Jury Speaks, Season 1 - Episode 2 Michael Jackson (Video)

Michael Jackson Cleared After 14-Week Child Molesting Trial

“The prosecutor’s case had problems from the beginning. The timeline of the accusations, for example, was problematic, because the molesting was said to have taken place after the broadcast of the documentary, when the world’s attention was focused on Mr. Jackson and the boy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/us/michael-jackson-cleared-after-14week-child-molesting-trial.html

The Not Guilty Verdicts in the Michael Jackson Case: Was Justice Served, or Thwarted?

"In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units"

There was virtually no physical evidence. There was no chilling confession. So the prosecution based its case on testimony – calling eighty-five witnesses, and dragging in allegations of molestation that were nowhere to be found in its indictment.

This testimony was almost entirely provided by witnesses who, by all accounts, were former disgruntled employees of Neverland, with axes to grind. One was sued by Jackson and forced into bankruptcy in the face of a judgment that had exceeded one million dollars; it’s hard to imagine a clearer example of the kind of bias that causes a jury to mistrust testimony.

Moreover, the parade of witnesses with poor credibility did more than undermine the prosecution’s case. It also sent an ugly, inadvertent message: This prosecutor wanted to get Jackson even if he had to suborn perjury to do so.

Attorneys have an ethical duty not to knowingly put lying witnesses on the stand.

This case never should have been brought in the first place. But it was – and thankfully, this smart, thoughtful jury did the right thing.

They didn’t do it lightly, either; those who disagree with their verdict should consider that – as we now know from their own interviews — they kept deliberating even though after their initial vote, in the minutes kicking off their deliberations, was a unanimous “not guilty.”

Many juries would have reported their verdict back to the judge immediately. But these jurors were anxious to make sure they did the right thing. So they continued to mull the evidence for the better part of 30 hours; their further deliberations spanned seven days.

That’s right: These twelve people sat in a courtroom for thirty hours – taking time away from their jobs, families and other commitments, despite their initial unanimity — just to make sure justice was done.

It was: These jurors did not mistake quantity for quality when it came to evidence. Nor did they mistake shaky testimony for credible testimony – as the prosecutor’s office repeatedly did, knowingly or not.

In his closing argument, Mesereau called the family a pack of scam artists trying to pull off the ”the biggest con of their careers.”

I might say the same about the office of the Santa Barbara’s District Attorney.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-not-guilty-verdicts-in-the-michael-jackson-case-was-justice-served-or-thwarted.html

Charles Thomson, "One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History" (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. The newspaper cuttings and the TV news clips detail day after day of heinous accusations and lurid innuendo.

June Chandler, Jordy's mother, testified that she hadn't spoken to her son in 11 years. Questioned about the 1993 case, she seemed to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. At one point she claimed she couldn't remember being sued by Michael Jackson and at another she said she'd never heard of her own attorney. She also never witnessed any molestation (in the 1993 case)

In a devastating blow to the prosecution's increasingly hilarious conspiracy charge, Fournier laughed at the idea that anybody could be held prisoner at Neverland Ranch, telling the jurors that there was no high fence around the property and the family could have walked out at any time 'with ease'.

But the boy's cross examination was another story. It went almost completely unreported. Instead of stories about Gavin Arvizo's lies and the two brothers' contradictory allegations, newspaper pages were filled with snarky opinion pieces about Jackson's pajamas, even though 'pajama day' had been days previously. Thousands of words were dedicated to whether or not Jackson wore a wig and the Sun even ran an article attacking Jackson for the accessories he pinned to his waistcoats every day. It seemed like the press would write anything to avoid discussing the boy's cross examination, which severely undermined the prosecution's case.

This habit of reporting lurid allegations but ignoring the cross examination which discredited them became a distinct trend throughout Jackson's trial. In an April 2005 interview with Matt Drudge, Fox columnist Roger Friedman explained, "What's not reported is that the cross examination of these witnesses is usually fatal to them." He added that whenever anybody said anything salacious or dramatic about Jackson, the media 'went running outside to report on it' and missed the subsequent cross examination.

Drudge agreed, adding, "You're not hearing how witness after witness is disintegrating on the stand. There is not one witness, at least lately, that hasn't admitted to perjuring themselves in previous proceedings either in this case or in some other case."

"When both sides rested jurors were told that if they found reasonable doubt, they had to acquit. Anybody who had been paying attention to proceedings could see that the doubt was so far beyond reasonable it wasn't even funny. Almost every single prosecution witness either perjured themselves or wound up helping the defense. 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."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258

I have way more sources however if you insist, but this is enough Never17 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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":

Forgot Forbes, perhaps the most credible journalism outlet in the US

Extended content

“The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him… [The 2005 trial featured] perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse… virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Never17 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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 if he committed sexual assault, no consensus if Ben Feibleman was falsely accused , no consensus that Paul Reubens was innocent . 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  Thank you for this perspective! To me this closes it. CounterpointStitch (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• Remove - Seems obviously controversial. As evidenced by this conversation. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Great point, @NickCT! ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well thanks! Sorta amazing that we have a simple rule stating that "categories should be uncontroversial" and then we spend endless hours debating whether a category is right or not. If there's a debate, it's controversial and hence not right. Seems obvious. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop deleting the category entitled Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Otherwise no one using the encyclopedia will be able to jump with ease in their research from:

- 1993 Chandler case (1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations)

- 2005 criminal trial (Trial of Michael Jackson)

- Robson and Safechuck claims (discussed on the Leaving Neverland documentary page, a film that came out 7 years ago, because any article on their lawsuit actively going to trial this year gets deleted)

If I didnt know better,I'd think folks were deliberately obscuring the topic so that readers are overwhelmed with walls of text and never see the full scope of pages on this issue.

WP:READERS FIRST means that cntent should be organized and presented so that readers can easily understand and navigate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore I welcome your thoughts on three recent issues:

- Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations page. Should it be deleted? My vote is of course it should be kept.

- Should the category Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations be deleted?

- should the page Safechuck v. MJJ Productions be deleted?

Various discussions are afoot at the pages. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Bhdshoes2, new comments go at the bottom. You have been here since 2018 and you should know that. I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this formatting but it wasn't working, and this forum shopping is not going to work either. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Once again you do the harsh attack on an editor rather than improve the encyclopedia.Just explain, coherently, why you keep removing Category:Michael Jackson Sexual Abuse Allegations from a page about the sexual abuse allegations. Do you not want readers researching? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is text from the 1993 page about Jason Francia accusation

Francia is an alleged accuser so I think this text should go here, woven into the Francia entry in the witnesses section.

<blockquote>Jason Francia, son to a Neverland Ranch maid (Blanca Francia), testified in 2005 at the criminal trial that Jackson had abused him on several occasions when he was seven to ten years old. According to The Guardian, Francia testified: "'I was wearing shorts,' he said, his voice breaking. 'He reached on my leg and he reached up and into my privates.'" Francia alleged that Jackson continued touching his testicles for several minutes." Francia said that "every time I was being tickled there was some sort of exchange of money", done with the understanding that he would not tell his mother. On cross-examination, Francia acknowledged that in his first 1993 interview he told detectives Jackson had not molested him. He said he had denied being improperly touched by Jackson because he did not want to be embarrassed at school. He said he went into counseling until he was eighteen years old. Mesereau sought to establish that the Francias were goaded into their accusations by overzealous prosecutors and tempted by money offered for media interviews. Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez compared Jason's to Janet Arvizo's erratic behavior on the stand. He said he "just didn't seem that credible", "left too many little loopholes in his statements" and they had a hard time believing him.</blockquote>

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My proposal for a nav box for the abuse allegations

.... I posted it below if interested!

link to my navbox discussion Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)