Talk:Neverland Ranch

The accusations has nothing to do with the groups of children; among other things, I fixed that.--Patrick 10:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this article for the second time in less than a day. Much of the information presented in this article before my first attempt at revision was not written very concisely and wasn't very readable. I attempted to fix this yesterday, but virtually all of my edits were reverted and the article went back to being cumbersome and confusing. I have had to cleanup the article again. As it stands now, the article is quite neutral and certainly far easier to read and understand. I would invite other users to discuss just exactly what, if anything, is specifically wrong with my edits before simply reverting them again. I don't have an agenda for or against Jackson, I just want to make the article easier to understand and I want it to comply better with generally accepted Wikipedia and grammatical standards.--MatthewUND 23:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to section the content, copyedit the text, identify needed citations, and added an infobox for quick reference. Avi 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is written like a B- term paper. Doesn't anybody on this site have their work proofread before posting for the whole world to see? I cleaned up a few of the more offensive gramatical errors.

Basic grammar

When the statement being made is about a situation in the past that actually occurred (not a hypothetical situation), then was is for singular subjects, and were is for plural.

"Most of the staff was dismissed" is incorrect because the staff consists of many people, therefore "were" is used.

"Most of the staff were dismissed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.207.94 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

What, on Earth, is the point of adding a mention of accusations against Michael Jackson in this article? The accusations themselves have very little to do with the home, so what's the point of adding them? Stiles 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• This is no longer relevant. I dealt with the issue. Stiles 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed two statements that had no sources. They are:

1. Golf carts are provided as transportation and fun rides.
2. Its geographic location is 34°44′22″N 120°5′36″W / 34.73944°N 120.09333°W / 34.73944; -120.09333.

Unless someone can provide references for these claims, I will leave them here. I have made great effort to provide sources almost every single thing in the article, and I felt that these statements should be removed until they can be verified. They are not of great importance, but it would be the right thing to do. Stiles 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Patrick provided the following reason on the talk page for putting back #2: "coords can simply be verified by following the map links." He also added a reference for the golf cart comment. That makes this discussion point obsolete, because it has been resolved. Stiles 04:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

With all the effort I put in to reference almost every single thing in the article, there is no need for the unreferenced tag. Since there is almost nothing left that is unreferenced, the tag is not appropriate. For the rest, others will have to help out, because what I couldn't reference, either doesn't have a reference or can't be found with adequate research on the Internet. I know Patrick put back the unreferenced tag, though seemingly for no reason. I'll remove it once again unless there's a reasonable objection. Stiles 06:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It did not put the tag because I thought it was needed, it came with a reversion of a deletion of content on the grounds that it was unreferenced. I removed it now.--Patrick 06:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know that this is a minor issue, but I hardly consider "Entertainment Today" to be a legitimate "news program". This suggests that Entertainment Today is like the Nightly News or other trusted sources when it is less than reliable. Perhaps Entertainment Today should be cited as any other television program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.62.12 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added this latest on sale of ranch, since he is no longer the owner and the auction is off: On May 12, 2008, a foreclosure auction for Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch was cancelled after an investment company, Colony Capital LLC purchased the loan. Jackson was in default on the £ 12 / $24.5 million he owes on the 2,500-acre.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk, Jacko ranch foreclosure auction off Jackson stated: "I am pleased with recent developments involving Neverland Ranch and I am in discussions with Colony and Tom Barrack with regard to the Ranch and other matters that would allow me to focus on the future."take40.com, Jackson sells Neverlandap.google.com, Neverland Ranch foreclosure auction canceled --Florentino floro (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a reference to an article written by longtime S.Y. Valley resident William Etling, regarding the November sign-over and immediate removal of rides. Also an external link to my Flickr page [1] where I've added some new aerial photos. Please let me know if you'd like to use anything from this new set, and I'll be happy to post them to Wiki Commons with CCAttrib for inclusion in the MJ/Neverland article(s). I'll probably be out that way again in a month or two for aerials of the wildflower bloom, and could get new photos then if that's helpful. Maybe something showing the ranch in context with nearby hillsides in bloom? Post to my talk page if you have a photo request, since I seldom check here. Jw4nvc (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

At Neverland again? If it wasn't his property anymore, how come he died there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.131.187 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

He didn't die there. See see Michael Jackson for info about where he lived after leaving the ranch, and Death of Michael Jackson for information about where he died. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was lots of talk locally about him being buried there, and of possibly turning Neverland into a theme park (neither came to pass). Also lots of activity there since his death, both outside the gate and around the mansion, including some mysterious helicopter landings after the "media day" (Nightline, Larry King, et al) when I happened to last fly over. I thought about adding an aerial photo or two on those topics, but the page seems a bit photo-heavy to me. On the other hand, the pictures add a lot of context. I'm curious if they'll be deleted, and whether anyone will suggesting adding more. Jw4nvc (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pretty self explanatory as Jackson seemed to owe a fair amount of money and he stated that he was not returning. All the news reports have been mentioning 'the new owners'. Who are they? Douglasnicol (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I assume the reports are referring to the Sycamore Valley Ranch Co, which bought the property last year. Who owns SVRC is something that will be sorted out as MJ's estate goes through probate. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seemed that MJ still had at least a part ownership in the place through that company. The whole explanation sounds like holding or shell companies though I may be wrong. Douglasnicol (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article covers this. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please look into findin source that the Michael jackson Estate Owns 83% of neverland and colonial captital 17% - Colonial is resposible for upkeep of the house and grounds. The ownership of Estate was reported in their last public financial statement for probate. They also publically stated it is not for sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.136.231 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've discovered what the inside of Neverland Ranch looks like. Here's the link. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should we consider adding these images to this article or linking to them ? StephenBHedges (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's already under External links. We can't add images to a Wikipedia article without the owner's permission. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the bold element from the heading for "Financial status". It was added in February. If it is preferred, please change it back, and leave a reply here as to why that is. I couldn't figure it out. --マイキ (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Michael's three children are involved in staffing and restoring more parts of the property, according this this NYDailyNews article: http://nydn.us/17QajdN

• As much as I don't like the idea of a tabloid source, it provides recent pictures of refurbished sections of Neverland (Main Station, Butterfly flowers where stage used to be, movie theater and adjacent carnival ride grounds, and ariel shot of central irrigated and mowed section of property where the main house and guest units are) and is the first substantiated Neverland news for months; perhaps consider for inclusion. If another, more reliable source comes out with a similar story we can always use that source, but until now the one above is all available. The final image of present-day Neverland, showing the greenery thanks to newly installed irrigation systems is magnificent. Mc8755 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Update - It seems Michael's children may have had far less of an input into Neverland's restoration and maintenance as the article indicates. Colony Capital have stated they are the ones who are carrying out renovations and caring for the property, and have been improving it since mid-2010. I suspect NYDailyNews used Prince, Paris and Blanket's names to get more hits for their story. All the same, the images associated are as recent as this month. Mc8755 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to post another section right after my first, but currently the article states that "Sycamore Valley Ranch Company, LLC" owns Neverland and source concurs with that, though I have no idea where they are getting that information from. Michael relinquished control of the property to prevent a default in his name on loans against Neverland, but never gave up a majority stake. Below are the documents legally filed by Michael Jackson's Estate - they were filed August 10th 2012. They specify that MJ Estate owns 87.5% undivided stake in Neverland, and Colony Capital LLC owns the remaining share. (Undivided means that although MJ Estate owns a majority share, each of the two parties get an equal say in what happens with the property and can't overrule one another. It basically prevents either person from selling or using the property against financial credit in the future). Per California law, Michael Jackson's Estate must inherit his debt upon his death, and as such entered probate until debts were written off, which is supposed to have occurred in the last six months. That means that the Estate couldn't relinquish control of Neverland even if they wanted to, because they would need a judge's approval and considering they were exiting debt, giving up a multi-million dollar property would be nonsensical. Thus, it should be noted Neverland Ranch is jointly owned by The Michael Jackson Estate and Colony Capital, LLC.

• Link to documents: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101284813/mj-estate-second-accounting Mc8755 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jermaine Randall Mj32020 (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

How come there isn't a section talking about what is/was on the property, obviously when Jackson lived there. I am sure there are a ton of reliable sources out there to make a section about the amusement park, zoo, and other random things.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know when the estate was built? --91.57.0.201 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Neverland Ranch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080317164555/http://www.forbes.com:80/feeds/ap/2008/02/26/ap4700673.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/26/ap4700673.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518174244/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5hZNgbrgnco68wdSY5q0bFdgp2MYgD90KF3F80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZNgbrgnco68wdSY5q0bFdgp2MYgD90KF3F80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100112203352/http://apps.calexpo.com:80/fair/PressRelease/ViewPressRelease.asp?PRelId=407 to http://apps.calexpo.com/fair/PressRelease/ViewPressRelease.asp?PRelId=407
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_en_mu/us_michael_jackson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neverland Ranch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081215051134/http://ukpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h88TcEC8zCjFsjTO6G5UKwOV0bOQ to http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h88TcEC8zCjFsjTO6G5UKwOV0bOQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

34.741438,-120.092653

—2A02:C7D:562A:9600:E457:CB77:4760:EBA7 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done, adjusted a bit to location of main residence. Deor (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neverland Ranch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212102142/http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/01/23/10013403.html to http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/01/23/10013403.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727103118/http://www.taletela.com/news/775/michael-jacksons-neverland-ranch-is-sold to http://www.taletela.com/news/775/michael-jacksons-neverland-ranch-is-sold
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/14/michael-jackson-auction-lifestyle-collecting-michael-jackson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, this and this, I'm bringing the matter to the talk page per WP:BRD and to hopefully stop the edit warring and this article being subjected to full-protection (meaning no one edits it until the matter is worked out or until full-protection expires).

It doesn't make sense to me to remove mention of the child sexual abuse aspect, given Neverland Ranch's association with child sexual abuse, as discussed in WP:Reliable sources. For example, with reliable sources, the article notes that "The ranch's association with sexual abuse allegations was described as a possible reason for a significant decrease in value." That is clearly relevant/on-topic. The off-topic claim is invalid. Also, regarding this? Per WP:Lead, it's bad form for the lead to mention the child sexual abuse aspect without the matter also being addressed lower in the article. As seen with this edit, I did revert Hazhk's additions. I did this as a compromise and because "the article already covers a bit on [child sexual abuse aspect]. How much the article should cover is something to discuss on the article talk page." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It makes absolute sense to have mention of it removed from the article. The absolute desperation to include it in the article makes no sense. Why? The claims that the allegations have devalued the property is a second rate opinion. In fact, it’s POV. I’ll say good riddance to the sensationalism. Let’s restore order to what the article is suppose to actually be.TruthGuardians (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would say it is absolute desperation to remove it from the article. It is obvious from the sources that it is very WP:Due to mention. The comparisons to Disney World are clearly misguided, as such theme parks are not the private property of someone accused. And something is only POV if it misrepresents what sources as a whole say. If sources are commenting on this then it has to be included. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with you and you disagree with me. Fine. We have found common ground before in the past, but this ain’t it. It ain’t ever gonna be it. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no proof that the price dropped because of that, it's POV. That is, it's the personal opinion of the source not backed up by any proof. There is a WP:Reliable sources that says the opposite: Why Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch Still Isn’t Sold No, it's not what you think. Also, Neverland is associated with ALLEGED child abuse for some. But then again so are all the other locations where an accuser claimed abuse. As a matter of fact most of the abuse was alleged not in Neverland but in hotel rooms, Jackson's condo and the accusers' own homes. Should we then include those allegations in the pages of every hotel where abuse was alleged to have occured? Where is the WP policy that such abuse claims should only be mentioned if the property is owned by the accused? I don't see the logic of singling out Neverland. Neverland is associated with fun, happiness and magic for a lot of people. Should then we include all those opinions on its page too? castorbailey (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me and others have noted the same, there has been an organised effort to whitewash Jackson-related articles.. I argue that this article should mention the abuse allegations and there is no reasonable justification not to do so. The fact that many of the alleged instances of abuse took place at the ranch is WP:NOTABLE to the topic of the article, and should be given attention. The page statistics show that this article received a large increase in traffic following the Leaving Neverland doc. A couple of sentences is not enough. Regarding the headings, I don't think that a subsection dedicated to the abuse allegations is necessary, but I do think that the sections in this article are too long and it's unwieldy. My main contention is that if the article is going to detail the abuse allegations then that should be covered in the lead. I understand that some editors may argue that covering these facts in the lead gives too much focus to a secondary topic, but the lead should summarise the article. This is pretty much my last word, since I have no desire to be drawn into some sort of edit dispute involving multiple users. --Hazhk (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seeing Jimcastor (castorbailey) predictably having popped up here speaks to what I mean about canvassing and meatpuppetry when it comes to Jackson fans and the Jackson articles. I can guess who will be next to show up, just like I guessed that Jimcastor, who had no prior history with this article and is a sporadic editor, would show up here to argue excluding clearly due material. I suppose he could claim that he put all of the Jackson articles on his watchlist. Either way, I don't want to hear any claim that Jimcastor isn't a Jackson fan. His edit history speaks volumes.

Yamla, QEDK, Laser brain, and Johnuniq, this is clearly another article that needs the Jackson discretionary sanctions enforced. Do one of you mind enforcing it? As seen here, I requested full protection. It likely hasn't yet been applied because the edit warring has ceased for now. But there is a good chance that Zdawg1029 will revert again. As for that matter at hand, I could start an RfC if needed. And per the Jackson discretionary sanctions, the RfC can be protected from disruption. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Page under 1RR and CRP for now. I don't see a RfC to enforce GS for? --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, QEDK. With regard to the RfC, I was stating that I could start one if needed. If editors feel that we should go that route, then I could start it. Or someone else could. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No worries, feel free to ping any of the above admins (or any admin really!) if the RfC starts facing issues w.r.t. (sock/meat)puppetry. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yamla, QEDK, Laser brain, and Johnuniq Is there anything I can do to get Flyer to stop with the false accusation of meat puppetry and false accusation? I have felt, because I have been, bullied by her since I’ve been here. There are features on wiki that allows people to follow other articles etc. I don’t know a JimCastor or anyone else that is going to come here and disagree with Flyer.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TruthGuardians: I agree that aspersions should not be cast without proof, but I do not want to make administrative decisions w.r.t. the accusations as I am already WP:INVOLVED, since Flyer requested me to enforce DS (which I did), so any action I take might be construed as taking sides. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your replY, QEDK.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TruthGuardians: I wouldn't act here in an administrative capacity since I have stated opinions on content disputes and am WP:INVOLVED. There are definitely problems with meatpuppetry on these articles, but no one should be accusing you of it without evidence. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your, Laser_brain. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m concerned as to why Flyer always seems to have a problem with people taking pro-MJ stances that disagree with her POV, yet ignored newcomers that agree with her. This is alarming. I have never seen any WP policy or guidelines preventing fans from editing wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia has promoted that fans get involved. We have/are conducted/conducting lots of wikiproject to attract people who are interested in such topics. Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson is also one example. There are also Barnstars ( Michael Jackson Barnstars) for the editors who made exceptional works in their respective projects. Furthermore, Wikipedia also provide templates for fans to use on their user page such as User:UBX/Michael Jackson. If Wikipedia doesn't allow fans from editing why do they do all these things? Fans, for any artist, bring a wealth of knowledge that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not owned by fans or naysayers. Fans or any editors should not feel bullied or made to feel unwelcome. There are 100s of editors who always patrol on these pages and they are making the necessary correction to those pages to remove POV pushing, puffery, and vandalism.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

TruthGuardians, did I note you by name? Did I focus on you? No. You already know how I feel about your involvement with these articles. But I'm not going to play dumb, just like I didn't play dumb by recently identifying an editor as a sock based on behavior alone. That sock is now blocked. I saw no need to play the "assume good faith" game in that case. WP:Assume good faith states, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." It mentions lacking good faith in the absence of evidence of bad faith. When I see behavioral evidence that clearly indicates socking, meatpuppetry, and/or canvassing, I am likely to note it. In the aforementioned AN case, admins agreed with me that canvassing and meatpuppetry are going on with Jackson fans at the Jackson articles, and they didn't treat the matter as me casting aspersions on all of the poor newbies. They treated the matter with common sense. And that common sense includes cases where a lone Jackson fan is having trouble getting their POV accepted and then another Jackson fan (often one who has been absent from Wikipedia for days, weeks, or months) pops up out of nowhere (including at articles they have no prior history with) to help the other Jackson fan. I stand by what I stated above.

And now there goes Akhiljaxxn. A problem with "people taking pro-MJ stances that disagree with [my] POV"? This isn't about my POV. This is about Jackson fans having repeatedly shown an inability to edit appropriately on Jackson articles or with regard to Jackson-related content. You state and "yet ignored newcomers that agree with her." Eh? Agree with me in what way? I seem to remember being accused of being pro-Jackson/biased in favor of Jackson. Tataral was one of the main editors accusing me of being biased in favor of Jackson, and only recently came to see me as striving for neutrality at the Jackson articles. I also seem to remember addressing editors Jackson fans have had an issue with about their problematic editing. And that includes this editor, who Jackson fans ran off Wikipedia. Fans editing the Jackson articles is one thing. Fans engaging in problematic behavior, such as trying to remove WP:Due content from this article, is another. Per the aforementioned AN thread, Jackson fans (not others) are the main problem. I'm concerned as well, as made very clear in the aforementioned AN thread. The "let's gang up on Flyer" tactic is old. Jackson fans tried it in the AN thread as well, to no avail. Both sides have tried it, which indicates that I've been on the right path with regard to neutrality. But if you and other Jackson fans must, continue trying to deflect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Flyer, let’s not pretend as though you have never accused me of socking, sort of like you are doing Akhil above. In fact, my first interaction with you, I was called a “rabid fan” because I disagreed with you on a talk page. That had nothing to do with my article edit at all. I follow each and every single article related to Jacksons, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, along with others. Also, let’s not pretend as though you aren’t prowling Jackson articles on the reg either. I also hop in the edit history of various users who I like and who presents themselves as problematic as well. Jude1313 ran herself off, was not problematic when they come here with unreliable sources and edit warring. However, she probably would have agreed with you, so blame “fans” for running her off. After a conversation on wiki, I decided to create a twitter account. I found Jude1313’s account and tweet after tweet they are trying to convince the world that MJ was guilty. They literally have made a past time of such behavior. Disturbing. While you almost ran me off of of wiki because of your bullying, I decided to stay. You aren’t in position to blame all of Jackson fans as a collective. Everyone else surely can’t be the problem. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not interested in your misrepresentations and "we are all so innocent" commentary. I'm not interested in your silly "assume good faith" commentary in the case of obvious canvassing and meatpuppetry. I accused you of socking? Where? Escapes my mind. Sort of accused Akhiljaxxn of socking in my above commentary? I did not. Meatpuppetry is related to socking. I talked with admins and a WP:CheckUser about obvious meatpuppetry. Just like many others, they see both socking and meatpuppetry at the Jackson articles, but especially a lot of meatpuppetry. Where have the supposed anti-Jackson fans been caught socking? Where have various admins deemed supposed anti-Jackson fans problematic enough to enact discretionary sanctions? I've been "prowling Jackson articles"? That's a no, as I only watch a few and have barely significantly edited any of them. Seems it's time to ignore you again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song) that is all.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That behavioral issues do crop up at MJ articles was established at this RfC, which is why the general sanctions arrangement is in place. Fans are welcome to edit, but crucially, their editing has to follow WP:NPOV like everyone else. And NPOV is defined by what WP:RS as a whole say, not by any personal belief or any mistaken idea that a neutral article has no negative coverage. Engaging in fanaticism in articles is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Crossroads, I certainly agree that MJ articles, like other articles, especially political ones, is subjected to concerning behavior. Like you said, protections are in place. Good. I’m not attacked here for POV pushing, instead I’m attacked for legitimately disagreeing with people and accused of socking, which I didn’t know what it was before the false accusation. You guys will never see me, because I have never, disagree with protections when warranted.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I got a great idea. How about we put our "Thinking caps" on. Remember those from elementary school. Ok now that we have them on, lets think about this. This is an article having to do with Neverland Ranch. Neverland Ranch is a residence, not a person, so therefore the article should be about the residence, not what people did or didn't do at the residence. While yes of course there should be mention that it is only famous for being Michael Jackson's former residence, what he did or did not do at that residence is for another article, where it already is. If you want to put that he added an amusement park, decorated it a certain way, added this, got rid of that, you know stuff that has to do with the residence, fine, whatever, but there is no place in a article about a residence for these alleged incidents. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply