Talk:Michael Jackson

Allegations

i think there should be a separate section on the abuse allegations against him. Kashish857 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This has WP:TOPIC issues and there are several separate articles dealing in detail with the allegations and the trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree all the abuse allegations should be in one place. Otherwise it is confusing and unhelpfulBhdshoes2 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

More broadly, I don't think the current format of this article with everything stuffed into a giant "Life and Career" chronology serves the topic. Several aspects of his life are notable enough to warrant their own sections: the abuse allegations, family, other legal matters, etc.

I just changed a redirect that was pointing "Prince Michael Jackson" to the several-paragraph section of his biography that contains one sentence noting the birth of his son. He has a large family full of other notable individuals, that warrants a full section. I don't see how @Ianmacm can argue in good faith that any of these things would be "off-topic" in this article, and the existence of dedicated articles is an argument for a topic having a at least a dedicated section, not against it! Walkersam (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. At least a 'Controversies' section or something similar. Twistybrastrap (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The practice of lumping things into a "controversies" section of a biography page is frowned upon as undue negative weight. We therefore shouldn't use that name as a title even if the focus was allegations against him that were placed under a collective heading. Honestly, one would be better off with "Sexual abuse allegations" as a title for it, but that's assuming you could even find a way to place them all under it without messing up chronology for how the 1993 and 2003 allegations affected his career. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough about the section heading name. I think the abuse allegations having their own section doesn't necessarily preclude references to those events in other sections and is still a good idea. As the page is now, it feels like this info is buried/obscured in his biography compared to other famous figures with similar allegations against them. Twistybrastrap (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The article, currently a Featured Article, contains three separate sections titled “Sexual abuse allegations.” High-profile biographies with similar allegations do not typically divide this topic into multiple sections, particularly at this level of article quality. In this context, the argument that the material is “buried” or “obscured” does not seem applicable, given that it is already presented across three separate sections. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with having a separate section that summarises/contains all the allegations in one place. Also agree with Twistybrastrap that the abuse allegations having their own section doesn't necessarily preclude references in other sections.

I think having three separate subsections that are scattered across "life and career" and "death" makes it difficult to read, and buries the allegations, which are pretty numerous and substantial in terms of detail (especially considering that the allegations have two separate articles of their own, 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and Trial of Michael Jackson, not to mention the Leaving Neverland documentary. Whether one believes or disbelieves the allegations, there should be one section that summarises them in one place. Another alternative would be making a separate wiki article for the abuse allegations. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, having pre-death allegations in both "Life and career" as well as a separate collective section of those and posthumous ones would be redundant. I don't see any plausible way to avoid repeating them by giving those a heading completely detached from the section talking about what happened during his lifetime. Nevertheless, having separate sections interspersed throughout this article as it currently is arranged most certainly is NOT burying them, particularly when they are mentioned within headings. As for a separate article, there already is one for the 1993 case and the 2005 trail (based on 2003 charges). Another big page containing both of those and Leaving Neverland allegations got deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the explanation. Apologies, I realise "burying" is a pretty strong word, that's not what I intended. For what it's worth, I don't have strong feelings on the allegations either way/know much about the topic, I'm just a passer-by on this article and made my comment solely on reader experience i.e. what would be easiest to read.

Thank you for linking the page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, I'll give it a read. I didn't see that one, but I did see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (dated Sep 2024). Seems like this topic is a recurring issue. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums in that we probably shouldn't have a separate section for the allegations, because it would duplicate the Life/career section.

However, I maintain that Wikipedia would benefit from a dedicated area somewhere with an overview of the allegations, and that deleting that "Overview" page was a mistake. Popcornfud (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree but its very sensitive and we all know he didnt do any of that stuff Apolhead.22 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Featured Article issues

So, this article's been featured since 2008, before Jackson's death. There was some review archived here for WP:URFA/2020 in 2021, and some discussions since, but I don't think all the issues raised have been addressed and the article hasn't been put through FAR either. There are, it seems, evident issues with lead length and stability (ie discussion on how the allegations should be covered). Bringing an article back to FA quality is hard and I doubt I'll be able to contribute much, but if this article can't be brought to FA standards sometime soon it really should be nominated for FAR. Erinius (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

A lack of stability isn't surprising given the recent allegations made and a biopic coming out lately. As for the lead, I'll try to trim that down before digging into other issues. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Erinius (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, it's 458 words, but that's fine because most, if not all, feature articles are over 400, so I don't see a problem. Lililolol (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:LEADLENGTH says most FAs have leads between 250 and 400 words although there is no hard limit Erinius (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

And right now it seems like it's at an appropriate length? Ie it doesn't seem obviously too long or too short . Erinius (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

As I see, edits have been made (diff). Nonetheless, this article would be too large for an average FA reviewer to mark this as "satisfactory". Furthermore, the article's compliance with WP:FACR#1e (stable) has been questioned or endangered lately. So is its compliance with WP:FACR#2a (a lead). Will list this at WP:FARGIVEN soon. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC); edited, 20:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Stability is a much bigger concern than sheer sizes of articles, and you appear to be blindly assuming large articles are a bad thing to have. Sometimes being long actually is necessary to encompass all crucial details for a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak for George Ho, but to say an article is too long doesn't necessarily mean you think long articles are always bad, only that they shouldn't be longer than is necessary. MJ is a big topic so this article is always going to be pretty long, but there might still be things that ought to be trimmed. Perhaps an FA reviewer would come to that opinion here. I don't know. Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case, it would help to name certain things that can be cut down instead of just trying to stick to a particular article size or anything. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say that I, as an "average FA reviewer", may not have enough time to thoroughly and comprehensively review the whole article... without a Featured Article Review discussion. I don't mind large articles, and I apologize for saying "too large". Indeed, I don't want certain parts to be split into bad content forks already. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Michael Jackson: The Verdict

Hey, I'd like to ask the Wikipedia editors to create a page about Michael Jackson: The Verdict, the new Netflix documentary about Michael. ~2026-30482-73 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Requests for creation belong to WP:Articles for creation. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

i could try, but i'd also like to know your preferences and opinions on The Verdict so its easier for me to know your feedback so i dont get attacked cause i have VERY strong negative opinions for it Apolhead.22 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There's already a page. Michael Jackson: The Verdict Popcornfud (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse allegations

The drawing of Jordan Chandler did match MJs genitalia in detail. Please correct that. The article makes it sound like the allegations of child sexual abuse are unfounded, which they are not. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4ze2HhFaTvimlHDEhOKP5v?si=61f6321b586c4457 ~2026-34689-07 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not true. The drawing was NOT a match, and it was reported by Reuters and USA Today back in 1994. Also, the Grand Jury reviewed all the evidence in the case (which included the drawings & MJ strip search pictures), and they refused to indict Jackson bc of lack of evidence. Why would they cite "lack of evidence", if the drawing was a match? Stephy22534 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026

Please add "Blood On The Dancefloor" album to the Discography. It was an official release. ~2026-35643-79 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Remix albums like that belong in Michael Jackson albums discography and maybe some prose here instead of the "Discography" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Mj is African

Michael Jackson is not just “American” he’s African American . Why does the article state that he’s just “American” ~2026-36334-26 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about the opening sentence of the lead section, then it's because that should just give citizenship instead of race or ethnicity, and he never had African citizenship. He's known for being a citizen of the United States. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to edit

I didn't seem to find the part about how even when michael was in the ambulance, the paparazzi made six figures from taking pictures through the window of his last moments, which i feel is need info ASTRYX*UNIVERSIAL (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's more on topic for Death of Michael Jackson, but it would need sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of Previously Reverted Content

Can someone enlighten me? Is it really appropriate to restore content simply because it was previously removed by an editor who was later blocked?

I think this (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1360758010) should be discussed and consensus reached before restoring it. TheJoebro64 introduced this content on May 3 (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1352329119), and it was reverted based on a prior RfC consensus. I don't think it's appropriate to restore the same content almost two months later by the same editor who originally added it simply because the editor who reverted it was later blocked.

For context, the newly added material concerns Leaving Neverland, which was released on the same day as a documentary about Harvey Weinstein (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchable_(2019_film)).

According to a New York Times article(www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html), Harvey Weinstein's PR operation paid multiple people to write about Michael Jackson to divert attention from the allegations against Weinstein.

I also noticed from TheJoebro64's user page that they have disclosed doing paid editing in the past. I'm not suggesting this edit was paid or that there was anything improper about it. However, given the significance of this addition, I think it deserves discussion and consensus before it is retained.Wiki Retrospect (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that reverting a blocked/banned editor's changes was based on WP:Deny recognition (viewing the Wikipedian as disruptive) and not wanting to give that user the satisfaction of maintaining such contributions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. My concern isn't really why the earlier revert happened, but whether restoring the content now is justified on its own merits. The content was originally added by TheJoebro64, then removed with reference to a prior RfC, and now it's been restored by the same editor who originally added it. I don't think the fact that the editor who reverted it was later blocked is, by itself, a good enough reason to restore the content. Also, if that revert had actually been considered disruptive or clearly contrary to consensus, I'd have expected another editor, including yourself, to have restored the content long before now. Instead, it remained out of the article for almost two months. If there's a view that the previous consensus no longer applies or that the material should now be included for other reasons, I think that should be discussed first and consensus established before restoring it. Maybe I'm missing some context, but that's how it looks to me. Wiki Retrospect (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

After looking through WP:Banning policy and the "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad" section it contains, I'm now even more inclined to think it was a preventative measure to reduce risks of disruption, but still am open to hearing more on the matter and discussing individual bits that got reverted in broad sweeps. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If an editor who opposed any particular edit is 1) no longer around to oppose the edit and 2) found to have routinely edited in bad faith because they were pushing a POV, manipulating consensus and colluding with the Jackson family (see WP:ARBMJ), I see no problem with anyone WP:BOLDly restoring that edit.

Anyway, Welcome to Wikipedia, Wiki Retrospect! Congrats on your first edit. What brings you to this particular article? Popcornfud (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wiki Retrospect, User:TheJoebro64 § Paid editing contains paid-contribution disclosures for Saint Patrick Academy and When Pigs Fly Bakery, neither of which appear to be related to Michael Jackson. As these disclosures do not reflect a conflict of interest with respect to this article, it is not appropriate to cite these disclosures in an argument regarding TheJoebro64's edit to this article. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

Hello, I was just requesting that the Leaving Neverland Documentary piece in the lead of the article should be removed bc it is not the same as the 1993 & 2005 cases. It should be put in section only about allegations after death. I think it's disrespectful to put it in the lead, as it promotes something Jackson, in life, knew nothing about. The lead is supposed to be a summery of what went on DURING his lifetime. That documentary didn't come out until 2019, it should be only added to the after death section for allegations. Plus, Michael has no dealings or knowledge of that documentary. It's promoting something that Michael had nothing to do with. Thank you. Stephy22534 (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There are three major "bundles" of allegations against Jackson, which Wikipedia covers at 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, Trial of Michael Jackson, and Leaving Neverland. All three, including Leaving Neverland, continue to affect assessments of Jackson, as seen with the critical response to the stage musical and the biopic. It doesn't make sense to mention the first two but not the third in the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Also: no, the lead is not "supposed to be a summary of what went on DURING his lifetime", that makes no sense whatsoever for the purposes of an encylopedia... and in any case the alleged abuse detailed in the Leaving Neverland article supposedly took place during Jackson's lifetime, so this point is doubly moot. Popcornfud (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, but in the lead piece, it should be largely about what went on in Jackson's LIFE. The accusations by the grown men in that film (whom for years DENIED any abuse accured, even under oath), were years after the death of Mr. Jackson. There was no need to add & most of all promote a documentary (that wasn't made during Jackson's lifetime; as he has NO knowledge of) in the LEAD summary of HIS article, when it was already rightfully addressed in a section AFTER DEATH part of his wikipedia page. Mr. Jackson had 2 major accusations during his lifetime, in 1993 & 2005. Which should be featured in his lead section. Bc that's what HE went through, before ultimately passing away.

In the lead section, after rightfully addressing the accusations he went thru, it follows up w/ the cause of his death, and then speaks about the surge of his music, which happened. Then you (or somebody) recently added in "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland detailed further abuse allegations." which had nothing to do w/ the summary lead of his life. It simply doesn't fit, and only seems to be added-in to promote a documantary, which MJ had nothing to do with or had no knowledge of in DURING his life! It simply doesn't fit the summary lead at all.

Overall, it should only be apart of the section Leaving Neverland, in which is rightfully mentioned during the AFTER DEATH summary of his legacy. Just like his record breaking biopic, Michael, should be mentioned during the LEGACY/AFTER DEATH section of his Wikipedia page, not during his lead summary.

That's just my honest, and humble opinion, bc it makes it seem like you (or someone) has been paid to promote a documentary right in the LEAD section of his highly viewed wikipedia page. Yet, it doesn't mention anything else major in the last 8 years, like his 991.4 million dollar grossing biopic in his lead.

Hope you really understand where many are coming from regarding that issue. as this page should stay neutral and unbiased. Thank you for listneing and replying, God Bless. Stephy22534 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"Leaving Neverland article supposedly took place during Jackson's lifetime, so this point is doubly moot."

Key word "supposedly". In reality, we don't know what took place. It's a highly biased, and 2-sided movie only showing the story of 2 men. It really has nothing to do w/ Michael Jackson during his lifetime (even the director publically said, it has nothing to do with Michael Jackson). They never accused or claimed he abused them DURING his lifetime. So, it's not comparable to the 2 major accusations Jackson faced in 1993 & 2005, which is rightfully addressed in the lead. As it has ALWAYS been.

So, why would you put a "suppposedly" movie in the lead summary of Jackson's life? It just doesn't make any sense. Stephy22534 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Also: In the section about the afterdeath accusations regarding LN accusors, it says "The trial is set to begin in November 2026.", that is NOT true. As the trail has been moved back once again, until Feb 2028. Stephy22534 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I am marking your edit request as answered for now because another editor has objected to it, but feel free to continue the discussion here and attempt to reach a consensus as to whether the lead should be changed. Day Creature (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reading and replying with respect and class. I think it’s important to keep such a highly viewed and respected Wikipedia page like this neutral and unbiased. And adding unfounded, highly biased and a 1 sided documentary to Michael’s lead summary page isn’t necessary or neutral. The 1993 & 2005 cases are totally different from accusations being thrown around in a movie, that still is unfounded and has been dismissed outta court by multiple judges and/or has the dates pushed back by months or years. Completely unnecessary to add that documentary to the lead summary page. Stephy22534 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland should be removed from lede

It made sense to include accusations in the film at the lede back in 2019 when it was topical. But because nothing of substance ever came from it since no awards were recisinded, music is still incredibly popular on radio and streaming, and the backlash was mostly concentrated in media circles.

All that there is left is a pending civil trial that keeps getting delayed. Until anything comes from that (either in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendants) and the trial isn’t either thrown out or settled, I really find it completely irrelevant to put it on the lede. I see no reason to include the film or any posthumous allegations. PopCultureFan125 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been mostly a media circus, rather than actual court cases to be taken seriously as the 1993 & 2005 accusations. And great point that the LN cases keeps getting either dismissed or pushed back for months too years on end. It has no valid point on being added to the lead vocal point of Michael’s summary. Plus, it promotes a documentary that Michael really has nothing to do with. It wasn’t his story or film, so why’s it in his summary lead? Stephy22534 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

After a week, there doesn't seem to be any objections. Removing Cena332 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've put this back. See the objection in the discussion above this one. The editors above are likely socks (see WP:ARBMJ). Popcornfud (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah I didn't notice the discussion above. thanks Cena332 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a sock. Stephy22534 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a "sock". There's no objective reason to add that documentary to Jackson's lead page. And it has been objectively refuted by multiple people. I don't understand how 1 person, has the power to override multiple objections to this? Is this page only handled by one person? Stephy22534 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Completely baseless. I have NEVER engaged in any sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and I’d dare anyone to try and prove it. I just made a suggestion in the talk page and awaited any pushback or consensus. I didn’t even see someone else posted a similar discussion until after I posted mine. PopCultureFan125 (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

How did michael jackon die?

how did michael jackon die? ~2026-39719-43 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The article already says it is due to cardiac arrest from a prescription he took. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

But wasn't Jackson's death also ruled by the Los Angeles County coroner a homocide?

"Michael Jackson died of acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication, which led to cardiac arrest. The Los Angeles County coroner officially ruled the death a homicide. His personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for criminally negligent administration of the drugs."

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/us/29jackson.html Stephy22534 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No difference given in the manner of death, homicide or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

How is that not a difference? The direct cause was from crimnially neglient by a doctor. Not from a

"prescription" he took, as you stated. Stephy22534 (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Murray was the one who prescribed those meds to Jackson in the first place and that ended up being fatal. On another note, the use of "direct" to describe a cause of death is pointless when there's no way to have an "indirect" cause of death. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Murray prescribed and gave Jackson a toxic mix of medications, that led to his death. Which is why his death was rulled an homocide (manslaughter). I think that should be added towards his Cause of Death. Aka Homocide/Overdose. Stephy22534 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39719-43 cardiac arrest Vakarė Kriščiūnaitė (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

REMOVE LEAVING NEVERLAND

The following discussion 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.

---

This mockumentary has been debunked heavily by facts. Filled with lies and potholes fueled by greed, theres no real reason in this topic being here. It’s fake and filled with lies and can be debunked in 5 minutes. Imaginary train stations, inconsistent timelines, changing of stories, perjury,… its one big joke ~2026-40401-03 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

To delete all mentions of that movie here would come off as whitewashing given the controversy it sparked when premiering. Including this is not a measure of film accuracy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really care whether we include it or not, but the main article Leaving Neverland has a relatively large section concerning "Criticisms of allegations", with people claiming that there are obvious anachronisms in the narrative.: "Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe argued that Safechuck's claims of sexual abuse at Neverland's train station at age 10 between 1988 and 1992 could not be true because the train station had not been built until 1994, when Safechuck was at least 16. Reed responded that the accusers had misremembered the year the abuse ended, that Safechuck was present at Neverland before and after the construction of the station, and that it was "just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place". This contradicts Safechuck's claim that his alleged abuse ended in 1992 because he grew too old." Dimadick (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

The 2026 biopic should be removed from the lede

I recently said above that Leaving Neverland should be removed from the lede, which I still argue should. But I also think the biopic should be removed aswell.

No disrespect to other music legends who have theirs in the lede, but Michael’s life and career was so huge that having the biopic in there seems like an irrelevant factoid. It would be like adding the 2022 biopic to Elvis Presley’s Wikipedia lede, or to the Beatles’ page when their movies come out. They are too big for their biopics to be mentioned. PopCultureFan125 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland must stay because, upon release, it became an essential element of the controversy about MJ's pedophilia. That film has its own section in the biography, with two paragraphs about it. The WP:LEAD guideline would not be satisfied if it was removed.

None of that is true about the Michael biopic, which can be removed or kept in the lead depending on talk page consensus. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• alleged pedophilia. FTFY

The two paragraphs aren’t very detailed, just a summary of what Leaving Neverland is.

It was the talk of the town when it came out, but it died down pretty quickly. Once the 10th anniversary of Jackson’s death passed, it wasn’t really discussed that much anymore other than a few niche journalism and internet circles. Which along with losing big distributors, is why Leaving Neverland 2 flopped.

All that’s left is a pending civil trial. I said before and I stand by it, if there is a verdict from that trial either for the plaintiffs or defendants and is not thrown out or settled out of court, then including the documentary in the lede would make sense (like the 1993 case and 2005 trial). Until then, the documentary doesn’t have much relevance.

That being said, it’s all my opinion and I’ll leave it to the consensus to decide. PopCultureFan125 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the unprecedented success of the biopic makes it worth a mention. It also demonstrates Jackson's enduring appeal and place in popular culture. It's certainly the most significant Michael Jackson product since his death. Popcornfud (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If the biopic success is kept, it should be along with other successes, being part of a generalization of his withstanding relevance (as the final sentence). Because yes, its one big success, but what about topping Forbes wealthiest dead celebrity (most times), Michael the Broadway musical being one of the highest-grossing musical theatre productions, plus his catalogue being the highest selling for solo artist in music history. theres so many things that are equal or in the same breadth of the film's success. Raolae (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Parodies and Satire

Owing to his distinct vocal style, signature dance moves, and highly publicised personal life, Jackson has been one of the most frequently parodied figures in modern pop culture history.

Music

• "Weird Al" Yankovic: Yankovic recorded two highly successful commercial parodies of Jackson's songs with Jackson's personal permission. The 1984 single "Eat It" spoofed "Beat It", and the 1988 song "Fat" spoofed "Bad". Jackson actively supported the parodies, going as far as signing a co-writer contract for "Eat It" and lending Yankovic the original "Bad" subway set for the "Fat" music video.
• Eminem: The 2004 music video for Eminem's single "Just Lose It" extensively parodied Jackson's physical appearance, his 1984 Pepsi commercial accident, and his contemporary legal issues. The parody drew swift public criticism from Jackson, who called it "unprofessional" and "disrespectful," leading several television networks to pull the video from broadcast rotation.
• Genesis: The British rock band's 1991 video for "I Can't Dance" parodies the "panther sequence" from Jackson's "Black or White" music video, featuring lead singer Phil Collins mimicking the dance steps against a plain white background.

Television and Film

---

---

---

Orange phone123 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2026

"Change Alleged sex offender back to Philanthropist" Raion404 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: "Alleged sex offender" doesn't appear in the article. Would also require a census to change — IVORK _Talk 16:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually the change has already been made, and using "alleged sex offender" doesn't belong in opening sentence regardless when he was never convicted of sexual crimes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2026

I have spotted a basic grammar mistake and would like to fix thank you! Obai Goat (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)