Talk:Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Demand for a film production deal

Regarding this edit, I removed this information, per WP:VERIFY, because I couldn't verify it in the source provided. I'm certain it's true (and relevant to the article), but we need a reliable source.

Jimcastor has now added five sources to this claim. Of these, three redirect to a generic archives page - it's not clear to me how to access the articles that supposedly contain this information. Is there a way to get to the relevant articles?

Of the other sources added by Jimcastor, only one of them makes reference to the film production deal, but does not say 20 million. It's also not the simplest source for our purposes, as it requires us to unpick the summary of a phone recording presented in the article.

It should be possible to find a single RS for this claim rather than tagging it with five sources, which creates a WP:CITEOVERKILL situation. Can we work together to find this? Popcornfud (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s important to show possible motive(s) from Evan. Some will argue that his motive was to protect Jordan. Some will disagree and say that his motive was money and this request for money proves the related extortion claims that the Jackson’s camp levied against Evan. We do know that that even before then, Evan demanded 1 million dollars from MJ. If Michael Jackson had been guilty he would have paid Evan in August of 1993 when Chandler first demanded money and threatened him. This accusation would have never went public and 1 million dollars would have prevented it. It’s easy to believe that this turned to 20 million dollars.

I didn’t find it particularly difficult to access the archives, but could see how some could. I also agree that RS are in place to support this addition, but 5 sources aren’t needed. Can we narrow it down to the very best one or 2 out of the 5?TruthGuardians (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t find it particularly difficult to access the archives, but could see how some could.

Maybe I'm being dumb, but when I follow any of the archived links, it takes me to a generic page. Can you explain how to reach the relevant articles? edit: It seems this requires a paid subscription; are you guys paying subscribers to the LA Times? Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add five sources, three were already there I added two since you said no sources backed up the 20-million demand. There is this LA Times article about Evan seeking movie deals with Jackson, demanding more than $350 000 because he wants to focus on movies and this about Evan seeking a 20-million deal Chandlers confirmed in their book they sought 20 million and wanted it in 5 movie developments. page 110

Barry structured his offer around that Michael would pay Evan five million apiece for

four screenplays over a four-year period. Barry figured if the movies were a hit, Michael,

as owner and producer, would see a profit from his "investment". If they bombed,

it would be one hell of a tax write-off.

So it undeniably happened and Evan's financial and career motives to accuse Jackson are highly relevant to this case. The question is what sources we use to back it up. I think we should use all of them but at least those two above.

Thanks. When you say Chandlers confirmed in their book, which book are you talking about? That passage you cite would be an ideal source, assuming it's reliable.

Another question: in the Wiki article, the same paragraph has a lot more information:

Another investigation source there police had found no medical or taped evidence to support the allegations. The child abuse case file read that Jordan first told his father about the alleged abuse, in spite of Jackson's alleged threats. Jordan claimed that he and his father then met with Jackson and his lawyers "and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing".

... but it's not clear where, if at all, this information is in the 5 sources at the end of the paragraph. Can anyone identify them, or provide sources? If not I'll remove this text for now, for the purposes of good Wikipedia hygiene. Popcornfud (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been over a year and no one responded to this, so I am removing this text for the reasons of sourcing problems I gave above. Popcornfud (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Much of this is about to be restored. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for the numerous problems cited above please? Popcornfud (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've studied the sources here as best as I can, and have restored wording for the claims I can clearly cite based on the given sources. I removed claims I can't clearly find evidence for in the given citations. Per WP:BURDEN, these shouldn't be restored until the citations are demonstrated.

The previous version of this paragraph had several complicated claims followed by five different sources, which makes verifying the claims very difficult (see WP:CITEOVERKILL).

If I missed something and these claims were supported by the provided sources, please point that out here, and then we can attach each claim directly to the correct source instead of lumping them all at the end of a paragraph. Popcornfud (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This article says Although investigators have the statement of a 13-year-old who says he was molested by Jackson over a period of months, sources say their probe has been hampered by a shortage of physical or medical evidence linking Jackson to sexual molestation. Videotapes seized during the Aug. 21 searches of two homes belonging to Jackson did not produce evidence that would support a criminal filing against the entertainer, says a well-placed police source.". And I think you should restore the below part "Another investigation source where the police had found no medical or taped evidence to support the allegations". TheWikiholic (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we get better sources than these for these claims? The LA Times is a reliable source, but the problem is that the wording is vague ("a well-placed police source" ... "sources say") and they were written at the time before the dust settled. There must be high-quality sources written in the years since that provide this information more concretely. Popcornfud (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is another LA Times article Videotapes seized from homes belonging to Michael Jackson do not incriminate the entertainer, and the lack of physical evidence of alleged sexual molestation has left investigators “scrambling” to get statements from other potential victims, a high-ranking police source said Thursday.

“There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence,” the source said. “The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.” Do you think the wording is vague in this as well? TheWikiholic (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This has exactly the same problem: "the source said", "a high-ranking police source".

It means we can't state these claims in Wikipedia's voice. (See also the "According to some sources" wording currently in the article — it's a bit of a hedge.)

As I said above, there must be high-quality sources written in the years since that provide this information more concretely. Popcornfud (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I found a recent-ish Rolling Stone source that more directly says that no evidence was found, so I have incorporated this into the article. I think this is a critical piece of info so I've added it to the lead too. Popcornfud (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Evan or Chandler. Pick one.

His name is Evan Chandler so why not pick one to refer to him - and stop switching between the two? It's hard enough to follow the story with so many different names without complicating the issue by referring to the same person by his first name alternating with his last name. 64.28.140.228 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC).