# Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Hello, everyone. Longtime lurker.
I noticed one of the recent editors is on a subreddit called LeavingNeverlandHBO. They made a post about editing this Wikipedia article:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1eank7z/the_wikipedia_article_on/
This demonstrates a bias.
It is crucial for editors (fans, non-fans, etc.) to uphold neutrality. There is a difference between removing misinformation and making edits to promulgate a narrative of guilt or innocence. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't inspected the edits made by that editor in detail. However, looking at one of the edits, it's definitely not appropriate for inclusion and was rightly removed — it's a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Magnesium77: “Even though I think Michael was guilty, I am trying to remain neutral with my editing, so that there will not be valid grounds to revert my edits.” and “I even left alone the heavily biased claim that Chandler “demanded money”.” doesn’t sound very biased. Which part of “I added text that <5% of CSA cases have medical evidence available, and instead they typically rely on the testimony of the child + cited a reference for this statement” do you think sounds biased? You also appear to have strong opinions on neutrality for a Wikipedia editor who only has three edits - all relating to discussion of the same topic - to their name, who went to the lengths of trying to find posts from another Wikipedia editor on another site, if that is to be believed. None of this appears credible for someone supposedly concerned with neutrality.Nqr9 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Your edits lack neutrality and frequently breaks Wikipedia policies on this topic. The canvassing evidence looks like meat/sock puppetry may be afoot. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, your cynical assumptions about me are not pertinent to the topic.
I edited the article about the FBI files on Jackson to provide the correct timeline.
As for how I noticed your Reddit post, I browse the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit as a non-fan of Jackson’s who has an interest in the allegations. It appears there is a lot of misinformation being peddled on both sides. Magnesium77 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The bias is that you include a line, against wiki rules, that has nothing to do with the 1993 case for no other reason but to make the reader conclude that the lack of physical evidence does not mean Jackson was innocent. However the importance to include that no physical evidence (note: not medical which your source mentions, physical and medical evidence are not the same) was found is that the lack of such finding is one of the reasons why Jackson was not charged. It's a neutral fact that is directly relevant to the article's subject which is not CSA cases in general but the 1993 allegations against Jackson in particular.  If such evidence had been found it would be included too.   castorbailey (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I found this Reddit page. Looks like they are over there canvassing again. This should be reported to the board ASAP. Reading the comments it looks as though there are pals helping this editor who has the same username on both Wikipedia and Reddit. This is pure evidence of canvassing if I’ve ever seen it. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I’d love to see what “pure evidence” you have.Nqr9 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The existence of the public Reddit conversation is evidence in itself. The definition given at WP:CANVASS is clear.  Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. The intentions of that Reddit thread is clear. Your comments and the comments of others prove that the intentions are to disrupt stable articles. The behavior of Reddit is what is known on Wikipedia as campaigning which is when an editor is involved in posting a notification of discussion, here on Wikipedia itself, or other third-party public forums (like Reddit) that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. The entire Leaving Neverland Reddit thread is non-neutral, and so is your posting there and the comments to your post along with your responses to them.
Then there’s your behavior with the intent at WP:OUTING other editors here. The intent itself is breaking Wikipedia policy. You are also engaged in WP:OWH over on Reddit too. I don’t know if this Doctor you talk about is a Wikipedia editor or not, but if they are and they discover you are doxxing them, they can take action. In fact, action can be taken solely based on your attempt to WP:HARASS them. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a problematic edit because it violates WP:SYNTH. It combines sources to imply a conclusion not stated by either source.
Statement 1: “The investigation found no physical evidence against Jackson" (Not cited in the lead, but I'm taking it on good faith that this statement is supported by reliable sources in the article body.)
Statement 2: "However, less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony", cited to this PDF.
The implied conclusion is that the lack of physical evidence is not particularly important to the MJ allegations. But that's not stated by either source. The PDF source has nothing to do with MJ. Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Besides, it also appears to be a case of WP:OR. Israell (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed that edit for the same reason. It has no place in the lead and it's not relevant to the subject of the article at all. In addition, the source is WP:OR and does not say anything about physical evidence, but medical evidence. The two are not the same.  castorbailey (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m reluctant to assume good faith. User:Nqr9 has chosen to engage in cyber harassment and refuses to acknowledge his bias. Take a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1eccl39/wikipedia_update/
He is falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet. I’m considering contacting one of the noticeboards for dispute resolution. This is ridiculous. Magnesium77 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Nqr9 created yet another Reddit thread to complain. A commenter mentioned Popcornfud in this one and admitted to sock puppeting. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1ed31c1/comment/lf4p9rq/
“We have an editor, Popcornfud, who believes Michael Jackson is guilty and has been doing a lot of good work for our cause. He needs our support. Recently, a friend of mine created an account and has been making numerous edits to avoid arousing the admins' suspicion.” Magnesium77 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to clarify that I work for no "cause", other than Wikipedia. Examining the history of that Reddit account, that is their first and only comment. Is someone playing silly buggers? Popcornfud (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
At this point, I wouldn’t put it past them to engage in flippant conduct/silly buggers. It is utterly bizarre. Magnesium77 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping to a timeline, as was last edited by Israell. I can see there are bullet-point timelines, then timelines in paragraph form. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so TheWikiholic added "The DA and the sheriff's photographer stated that the description was accurate. But the jurors felt that the photos did not match the description" @02:45 back in April 21, 2019 using Ian Halperin & John David Ebert as sources, but I read both those books to check and the sentence is not there. It is not even accurate paraphrasing. I just want to say again that I myself have doubts about what's true & not true when it comes to this topic. What I am reasonably familiar with is Wiki policy & the sentence is definitely unverified & should be removed. Hammelsmith (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This was mentioned in the article, as evident from the previous edit. I condensed the text by maintaining the timeline. TheWikiholic (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)