Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 10 October 2019

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Michael Jackson C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Do not delete : Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

I am advised that there is talk of deleting this topic. My bias up-front on the topic: I didn't think highly of him nor often of him, but I know that many of my friends voiced positive opinions of him. While I am dispassionate on the subject, I vote to avoid deletion.

Pop Star Michael Jackson's contribution to culture is relevant as a research topic for academia. It is of interest to fans. Michael Jackson continues, after his passing, to influence artistic expression in North America, and specifically within the United States Pop Music culture, which in turn both influences and reflects the general culture to some degree. Whom among us wouldn't smile (or cringe) at the thought of the Moon-Walk or Thriller. Who can not agree that music influences culture? Michael Jackson music still plays on the air.

Many would call him a beloved icon. As an enormously successful Black-American, he continues to inspire generations of youth. As a controversial offender of public morality (alleged) he continues to be discussed for his character faults. In short, Michael Jackson as a cultural contributor is current, ongoing, and very relevant.

Let's round table a discussion of this proposed deletion. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-that (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: 1) http://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/michael-jacksons-style-26062009 2) http://www.mtv.com/news/1614819/michael-jacksons-style-legacy-from-military-jackets-to-one-glove/ 3) http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ig-jackson-style-pictures-photogallery.html (see caption of third page in the photogallery). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

social impact

Excelse, you deleted my contrib about the Kopp bill. Actually I do think it is a social impact (headline) if a state law is passed based on Jackson's actions.Quaffel (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Because your content is irrelevant here, it belongs to 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson albums discography. Excelse (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I only mentioned the Kopp bill here, so we are not talking about Michael Jackson album discograpraphy (I think none of my contribs belongs there). Of course the source can also be used for the allegations article, but it also fits here. As I said it is a social impact. This change of law did not only affect on Jackson, but it could be used in other cases in California. There are also other articles dealing with the allegations, although not in detail ( e.g. the articles about Michael jackson and Evan Chandler). I kept it short and I won't go into furher detail. Cultural and social impact of Michael Jackson does not mean we can only write about his artistic influence. Quaffel (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes we have to write only about "artistic" impact. You are adding more WP:SYNTH and turning it into a bigger fancruft that this article already is. Can you read Cultural impact of Madonna for some actual idea? This article really lacks sentences like "Professors from Heidelberg University shows how Madonna's "iconicity" is indeed that of a "meta-icon" in the sense that the self-reflexive imitation of celebrity poses. Calls this strategy "iconizing", in analogy to the concept of "vogueing". The essay also inquires into the blend of biography and performativity that can be said to underlie Madonna's "iconizing" in relation to the performance artists." If you can't then please don't create further problems. Excelse (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I Think "Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson" lacks much more than that. Even those who can't read do see that. “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read” (Mark Twain). Same thing with editing. Think about it. Quaffel (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"lacks much more than that"... Are you talking about Cultural impact of Madonna there? Excelse (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just read what I wrote. I think it's very clear. I never said a word about Madonna or the article about her her impact. You brought it up. Quaffel (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Let me be be very clear about it: I was never refering to "Cultural Impact of Madonna".Quaffel (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So all you could find now is how Michael Jackson achieved something as an African-American? Are you also going to say that Michael Jackson showed how singers can dance? It is all WP:OR. I have now redirected the article to Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence, from where it originally ripped off, without getting consensus.

What this article has anyway that isn't WP:POVPUSHING, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR? First para had nothing to do with cultural impact. 2nd para had nothing to do either. 3rd para was mostly unrelated too. All of this was fork of Michael Jackson. From first section, (Cultural and social impact) it is full of WP:QUOTEFARM, that how Michael Jackson achieved a lot for an African-American artist. What this all has to do anything with cultural impact? And the last section in Brazil has ripped off They Don't Care About Us.

Anyhow, this whole article is useless, also per consensus on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music#Redirect discussion, where every editor agreed with redirecting, except one editor who said that List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson should be instead redirected to this article. But List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is older and not a WP:POVFORK, that's why it is going to remain, not this POV fancruft. I am also letting @Flyer22 Reborn and Chrishonduras: know this, that they should remove the link to this article from Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence should be removed as well. I wonder if the creator (who has serious CIR issues) is going to adhere consensus, since he only edit wars to spew his MJ obsession. Excelse (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no Consensus is there to redirect on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music#Redirect discussion.You ran away from there in a halfway without further discussion. The discussion closed without reaching a Consensus.And since you have conflict of interest on this ,;You cant redirect this page yourself.You'll have to ask an uninvolved admin to review and close.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Five people agreed with redirect against one person that is you, and you claim there was no consensus. You lost the credibility right when you pointed that it was not closed by an admin, because not having consensus was enough but you know we have it. Don't try to WP:GAME. People criticized you though for spewing MJ obsession and one person said that List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson should be redirected instead. But we are not going to redirect that long standing article for this WP:POVFORK. I have already said this on your talk page but you are pretending that you don't hear and demonstrating your WP:CIR. There was local consensus, you dont need admin or closure for merges or redirects at least and there is no case when result is this clear. You have only selectively forked or violated copyrights here and blocked any attempts to improve the article. You don't understand what is "conflict of interest" (WP:COIN), why do you think we should tolerate your content forking even after there is consensus to redirect? If this article went to AFD it would get deleted. That's why a redirect is a compromise here. You never even discussed on the main article of Michael Jackson before creating this fancruft after cherrypicking from that article. Excelse (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Misplaced Pages article?

As seen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, whether or not there should be a Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article has been subject to debate. That AfD closed as "no consensus." That was in August 2017. In December 2017, further discussion took place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music (see here). After that, there was a 2018 discussion on the talk page. Soon, the article was redirected per arguments made at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music. Recently, another discussion has taken place on the matter...this time at Talk:Michael Jackson (see here). So that is where this RfC comes in. One view is that this is a WP:No page case and that the article (the latest version seen here) is an unnecessary content fork (and the same goes for a Michael Jackson in popular culture article) because it's copy and pasted content already covered at the Michael Jackson article and related articles. When redirected, the page points to the "Legacy and influence" section of the Michael Jackson article. With regard to previous incarnations of the article, there have also been WP:Synthesis and WP:FANPAGE concerns. The other view is that the page should be an article because Jackson has had a huge cultural impact. Editors have also felt that since the Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, Elvis impersonator, Michael Jackson impersonator and Cultural impact of Madonna articles exist, this page should be an article as well. Additionally, editors have talked about fixing up the page so that its existence as an article is justified.

Thoughts? I will alert the associated WikiProjects to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

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.

• Oppose. In the AfD, I argued, "Right now, this article is not needed since it is a fork (significant aspects of it anyway) of what is already covered in the Michael Jackson article; I don't see that we should delete a lot of the content there and add it to this article instead. Since that article is WP:FA, good care should be taken with it anyway, and that means discussing breaking out any of its content. Furthermore, the cultural impact of Michael Jackson (I mean the topic, not this article) covers the less savory aspects of his life as well, including his child sexual abuse cases and the death trial concerning him, and we already have articles for those." My opinion on the matter has not change since that time. I still do not see that the article is needed, even if it were significantly fixed up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the need for it, and certainly not two popular culture articles. The "Elvis and Madonna have cultural impact pages therefore so should Michael Jackson" argument doesn't make sense - each case has to be judged on its own merits. Perhaps if Awardmaniac built a well cited, expansive page in their sandbox, demonstrating great content that would be too extensive to fit on the main MJ page, I'd be persuaded... but, without meaning to be a dick, that's not how I imagine the article turning out right now. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorsed. There is enough content for its own article. It does not have to be as expansive as those mentioned articles to merit its very own page. Even though it most likely will be improved. Also It is well cited, as it features many strong sources. Awardmaniac (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. And it would be a good idea to first create it in a sandbox. I'm somewhat neutral on his music, depending on which era of his career he was creating in. This man seriously evolved. Some are successful in a musical genres that already existed. Michael Jackson carved out his own path. Or in some cases, he ended up owning what he didn't invent ... the moon walk. On the first anniversary of his death, I remember seeing in the news about memorial gatherings across the US. Another area to explore is how Michael affected the lives of his fans, or careers of others. Take into consideration how he died, and did it have a long-lasting affect in anything in our culture? I was glued to MTV when it first started and was nothing but music videos, and "Thriller" was incredibly creative. Oh, "Weird Al" Yankovic parodies. Go with it. I think there are unlimited ideas on having a separate article for Michael's impact on world culture. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is clearly a notable topic, so there should be an article, but as of now the article is not great, I say it be moved to draft space until it's long and well sourced enough for the mainspace.★Trekker (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per his main article I don't think need an extra article, since has coverage the most important things on his legacy, impact etc. Previous page seems like a depository of same information. And yes, the argument "Elvis and Madonna have cultural impact pages therefore Michael Jackson should have one" is invalid. Regards, --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, etc.So this is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources and it simply can't be covered sufficiently in a biographical article. Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson article is approximately 93 KB (readable prose weight) which, as it happens, is 43 KB heavier than the size Misplaced Pages's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "No consensus" means that outcome can be decided outside AfD. Michael Jackson's impact can be best described as influence on individual artists for which we have List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. Unless someone can create a really fair article without engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH then we will revisit the issue and that will take years because we are not there yet. Excelse (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose using this page as anything but a redirect. Per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOPAGE; the legacy of the subject can be easily summarized within the main article and a second article framing his notability as a cultural force gives too much an impression of an effort at a WP:WWIN effort at hagiography. Snow

Discussion

What is the brief and neutral statement here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, initial RfC statements are not always, and cannot always, be very short, as seen by the current listings at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All. I gave brief background material on the matter at hand and presented both sides of the matter neutrally. I summarized what needed summarizing. The paragraph is brief for the matter at hand. Except for you, it doesn't appear that anyone had an issue with understanding the above format and the issue it addresses. I have successfully presented RfCs in this way before, such as in this case, which I was commended for. I am always aiming to present a brief (as brief as it can be) and neutral statement for the RfCs that I start, and I think I did fine in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Also take note that the Trypophobia RfC I refer to on my talk page in that "commended" discussion is not this one. That one did fine format-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft again

I rejected a recently submitted Draft:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but it is still being added onto by 8eatle. Do you want this to still become a separate article, or can that be removed and/or salted? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible for me to keep it stalled even if I don't submit it now? 8eatle (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

8eatle, stalling it still implies you want to eventually resubmit it. The reception and cultural impact of each album should really be on the album articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay. Are there any draft pages available on Misplaced Pages, were users can use it for there selves without needing to submit it. Also, do you know why it's not appropriate to have a Cultural impact of Michael Jackson; in brief his music, dances, videos changed popular music and he's also seen as an inspiration for humanitarian efforts for rerecording artists (who cited him as that). 8eatle (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

8eatle, looking at your draft, that page is still unnecessary. Per the #Survey section above, I'm failing to see why it's necessary. It's likely to go through a WP:Afd or to be subject to an RfC.

AngusWOOF, thanks for posting here about it.

No need to WP:Ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Article recreated again

Pinging all of the editors from the #Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Misplaced Pages article? RfC above so that they can assess this new incarnation: Popcornduff, Maile66, Trekker, Chrishonduras, Akhiljaxxn, Excelse, and Snow Rise. I pinged everyone except for Awardmaniac since Awardmaniac is indefinitely blocked.

Also pinging AngusWOOF per the #Draft again section and because I said on his talk page I'd ping him, and Hammelsmith. I told Hammelsmith, "Since you have a critical eye and have brought some necessary balance to the Michael Jackson topics, I think it would be a good idea for you to review Draft:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson once you're back (whether it's still a draft at that time or an article). I know that you'll be interested in checking the sources and making sure that no WP:Synthesis or WP:Editorializing." Hammelsmith thanked me for the message via WP:Echo; so Hammelsmith got the message.

I will also alert Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music to the creation of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good right now I have to say.★Trekker (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a thorough and well researched article. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it.

However, I'm concerned that it reads like hagiography, and has clearly been put together by a fan. Jackson's contributions are "immeasurable in all of its subgenres, derivatives and corollaries". He "transcended boundaries between audiences that music industry experts believed were unassailable." "Elaborate and inventive choreography accompanied Jackson’s music to express his virtuosity." "Few people know that, as an instinctive and natural dancer, Jackson..." "Jackson has received a copious amount of praise for his talents ..." There are also lots of strange declarations that read more like essays, such as the claim that "Jackson's music is near inextricable from the music videos that accompany them".

Obviously Jackson's achievements and influence are tremendous, but the gushing tone needs to be pared back. I'm also yet to be convinced the main Michael Jackson article can't cover this stuff in sufficient detail, but I'll wait to hear what other people think. Popcornduff (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading further, segments of this seem to have nothing to do with the purported subject the article, Jackson's cultural impact. Example:

Jackson himself held tolerant and worldly beliefs about race. He believed one of his overarching purpose as an artist was to bring people together. He once said he would like to adopt two children from each continent around the world. While his artistry was rooted in the African-American tradition, his range of influences grew far beyond any one race or ethnicity. Jackson said, “I love great music. It has no color, it has no boundaries.”

Aside from more loaded language, like "worldly", none of this has anything to do with Jackson's impact on culture. I'm now concerned that the mission here is just to write the version of a Michael Jackson article the Jackson estate would prefer to read. Popcornduff (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff, thanks for assessing all of this. I hadn't yet taken the time to look closely, but I knew that the article had POV and WP:Puffery language, and likely no criticism where it should have some criticism material.

SNUGGUMS, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's quite detailed for sure. As for specific nitpicks, I should note the following:

• "Jackson showed remarkable musical talent"..... POV when "talent" is an inherently subjective term, same goes for calling someone "talented" or saying they have "talents" as those convey a personal opinion that someone does a good job at something, and not everyone will agree with such thoughts on that person
• Even if iconography has its own page, its uses sounds promotional here
• "though less impressive than Thriller"..... completely biased description
• "personal eccentricities" isn't neutral when "eccentric" implies one is odd (a subjective view)
• Off the Wall was NOT Michael's first solo album (this is a common misconception); it actually was his fifth following Got to Be There, Ben, Music & Me, and Forever, Michael.
• Not sure "Jackson's music have been covered by other artists in various styles extensively, including Mariah Carey, Miles Davis, Willie Nelson, and Alien Ant Farm" is really impact, but either way, I'm certain that the following sentence "Artists who often mention Jackson in their music include Kanye West, Missy Elliott, Ghali, Logic, and Drake" isn't.
• "His dancing is as inseparable from his artistry as his other visual trademarks" sounds like borderline fancruft
• "he had practically invented stylized ensemble dancing in pop music"..... not sure how I feel about that
• "yet another essential piece of the singer-dancer's iconography"..... fancruft
• "a copious amount of praise for his talents in the art form"..... I've already written on why the use "talents" is problematic
• "Jackson's music is near inextricable from the music videos that accompany them"..... seems like fluff
• "Although the Jackson 5 was undoubtedly part of Motown's breakthrough of R&B music on television in the '50s and '60s, it was not until 1983 with the release of music videos from Thriller did Jackson become a visual phenomenon in and of itself"..... not sure "undoubtedly" is needed, also full years should be used per MOS:DATE
• We can completely scratch the fluffy "At the time, Ebony magazine proclaimed the singer 'The World's Greatest Entertainer.' Time declared him 'the biggest star in the world.' People devoted an entire issue to celebrating the performer's 'superstar' status."
• "featuring poor production" is a blatant personal opinion
• It's not clear whether "cheap" in "cheap montage promos" refers to low expenses or the opinion of subpar quality
• More POV with "spectacular visuals"
• "In 2016, Barack and Michelle Obama danced to the song with local schoolchildren at a White House Halloween event"..... far too trivial for inclusion
• "Some notable ones" is inappropriate editorializing and POV
• Not sure parodies are really relevant here
• "Jackson had an innovative and daring sense of style" sounds questionable
• "Since the Thriller era, he became known for wearing an array of sequined gloves, fedora, red leather jacket, aviator sunglasses, black high-water pants, and white socks. Jackson was also enamored with British hereditary and military history, which reflected in his love of encrusted military jackets and regalia. His military jackets and tuxedoes were often designed with a single colored armband on one sleeve. These military visuals and symbols, and sometimes ostensible glorification of a charismatic leader, prompted some critics to interpret them as sympathetic to Nazism. Others simply described it as eccentric and theatrical."..... I fail to see how this has to do with impact
• "the record company's 'assembly line' of talents"..... see my above comments on "talents"
• "Off the Wall succeeded during a time when disco was perceived as inferior to rock by critics"..... commercial performance has nothing to do with what critics think of music
• "One of the greatest achievements of the album was to integrate a diverse collection of talents from different races, cultures and countries, and to coalesce them seamlessly into the record"..... full of POV
• "Despite its enormous success, the album was only nominated for two Grammy awards and won one. Jackson wept at the snub and felt the music industry was trying to keep him in his place: a black singer making dance music.".... this incorrectly implies a connection between accolades and chart/sales success, and has nothing to do with his impact
• "most revolutionary breakthrough" sounds like puffery
• Don't italicize the song title in "Black or White the music video, aired in 1991", and I'd go with "The music video for 'Black or White', which aired in 1991".
• "hit" in "one of only a handful of political songs over the past thirty years to become a number-one hit" isn't very encyclopedic language
• "perhaps the most powerful" is POV
• There's too much detail on the lyrical controversy for "They Don't Care About Us", which is probably better for the song's page. Not sure the second paragraph on this song is even impact to begin with.
• This also goes into excessive detail on criticism involving race within the "Identity" subsection. The second and fourth paragraphs give zero impact discussion whatsoever.
• "Jackson was notable for his eccentric persona" is not neutral writing, and I'm not sure we even need the "tabloid scrutiny" section at all
• Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't look like anything from the "In Africa" section aside from being "reportedly crowned king of the Agni people in the Kingdom of Sanwi" remotely resembles impact except maybe Nelson Mandela's comment on publicity
• The first paragraph of "In Brazil" is unsourced, and Billboard should be italicized when referring to the Billboard (magazine)

From a prose review alone, I can say this needs extensive work. It's not even mentioning all the instances this goes against MOS:QUOTEMARKS by using "curly" quotation marks (which Misplaced Pages discourages) as opposed to the "straight" ones I've used here. The article overall reads like a fansite. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, thanks a lot for taking the time to look so thoroughly at the article. I'll help out in any way I can once copyediting and tweaks begin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach this. I would be happy to get stuck in rewriting it, but given my previous interactions with Partytemple, I'm not optimistic.

I guess, before we go any further, does this article have potential in its current state? Are we satisfied that it should exist at all? Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. I do believe this has enough to stand as a separate article even when all the excess detail and POV is cut. It just is quite flawed right now and needs lots of revising. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I keep looking at this article, trying to decide where to begin with rewriting it, and failing. Popcornduff (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd try starting with the first paragraph of the lead, and Partytemple has almost immediately reverted it. I have no appetite to help improve this article if it's going to be this sort of uphill battle every inch the way. Popcornduff (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Commented in the #Peer-reviewed journals means POV? section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I do think that this could be a very good article in due time. Some of the sources do need to be qualified with publication dates and there seems to be an over-reliance on Joseph Vogel at times. Some portions need to be written in a more encyclopedic voice, perhaps the article would read better if there was a clear sense of timeline to Michael Jackson's achievements and influences. It seems to be making good progress, just needing a more objective POV, more sources, and more research with each topic. I could do some editing on it next week. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Support deleting the article again and WP:SALTing the title this time. My opinion on this matter has not changed since the previous discussion and consensus outcome: an article by this name and approaching Jackson as a subject in this manner is clearly a WP:POVFORK issue and inconsistent with WP:NOPAGE/WP:WWIN. Indeed, my concern that such an article would lead specifically to a hagiographic fork of an article which already covers the root topic has only been further sharpened by seeing the present content. Which is not to say that this article would be any less a fork or NOPAGE violation if it were critical of Jackson's legacy or even if it were scrupulously neutral: regardless of the level of subjectivity or neutrality, any article at this title would be an awkward and policy-inconsistent redundancy on multiple articles we already hav--articles which cover the root subject in a manner more appropriate and consistent with established project norms on how to discuss persons with particularly large profiles, influence, and notability. Indeed, if I am frank, I think this is about as much a WP:SNOW matter as I have come across in a community discussion in some time: I can't see the community ever allowing this article, even if a monumental amount of work were put into it to make the content more neutral and less based in subjectivity and fancruft. And bluntly, that would be a truly massive amount of effort based on the current, wholly-unacceptable tone of the article, particularly given the current advocate's substantially WP:IDHT approach to numerous basic policies. Snow 07:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hammelsmith that the article could use more development. I don't agree that its hagiographic, though, since everything is well-sourced, and many scholars have commented on Jackson's immense cultural impact in a variety of ways. More specific criticisms about the article are welcomed. There many other notable artists that have a cultural impact page, like Madonna and the Beatles, to which Jackson's influence is comparable. Why have those pages survived but this one haven't? —Partytemple (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse: I think this looks like a thorough and well researched , article. Like SNUGGUMS stated; I also believe this has enough to stand as a separate article especially since its last redirected version. Snow Rise The article is completly rewritten from the last RFC .Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journals, articles, etc . So clearly the topic is notable. We have cultural impact pages for Madonna, Elvis Presley and Beatles . So I dont understand your argument an article by this name and approaching Jackson as a subject in this manner is clearly a WP:POVFORK issue and inconsistent with WP:NOPAGE/WP:WWIN..- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Snow Rise The article is completly rewritten from the last RFC ." Yes, I did notice that there had been a substantial shift in article content since the first RfC that I was (Summoned by bot) to. However, to be blunt, the current version of the article has not alleviated but rather enhanced my concern that an article at this namespace is inappropriate and likely to generate non-encyclopedic coverage of the subject. Nobody (that I have seen anyway) contests the presumption that Jackson's notability and influence is expansive, which is why he has several very large articles dedicated to him. However, that fact does not lead to the presumption that a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" (or "Fame of Michael Jackson" or "Artistic Influence of Michael Jackson" or any of hundreds of other possible permutations of aspects of his effect on music or popular culture) are appropriate stand-alone articles for the purposes of describing the man and his legacy as encyclopedic topics on this project: that is the very root of the purpose of our WP:POVFORK and WP:PAGEDECIDE policies. To quote just one relevant part of the latter of those policies: "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable". The notability of the underlying topic (here Jackson himself) does not qualify multiple competing articles which are technically speaking notable topics in themselves but which are really just synonyms for the root topic's general notability: that is the very definition of a POVFORK.

"We have cultural impact pages for Madonna, Elvis Presley and Beatles ." Yes, that is a very reasonable observation for you and Partytemple to be making. I can only tell you that had I been randomly selected to respond to an RfC on the appropriateness of those articles at some point (instead of this one), I probably would have opposed them as well--and for all I know, consensus discussions were held debating that point on the talk pages of those articles. Regardless, I cannot, as a policy matter, approach this from an WP:OTHERSTUFF perspective: I must make my call on this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue as I see the relevant policies applying to this article specifically--and in that light, I am quite convinced this article runs afoul of said policies. But there are two other points as to that argument I'd like to raise. First, the vast, vast majority of artistic/pop cultural figures (even those who, like Jackson, have an indisputably huge profiles) do not get such "cultural impact of" articles, so the analogical argument actually runs strongly against the presumption Jackson (or anyone) should have one. The other factor is that I'm sure those similar articles for those other musicians survived in large part because those other articles were at least scrupulously neutral and encyclopedic in tone, allowing them to scrape by any WP:NOPAGE challenges. This article does not benefit from such bootstrapping, because it is, frankly, a mess and nowhere near our standards on neutrality and appropriate tone--a situation which further emphasizes the more general forking concerns. But at the end of the day, having been summoned here for feedback, I would still oppose this article even if it were in much better shape, just as a matter of fidelity with how I read policy and community consensus on how to split up articles about particularly famous persons, and which aspects of a subject's notability are truly independent subtopics and which are really just forks on the subject of their main notability. Snow 22:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I want to add, just so the above does not come off as uniformly discouraging, that significant portions (in some cases several paragraphs in a row) are actually quite well written, and I do not want to put off the authors from finding an appropriate home for some of that content (in other articles where it would not be redundant) or from contributing to the project generally. I just have a concern about the article itself being an appropriate split of our coverage of Jackson. I've been reviewing a number of other "cultural impact of " articles to try to be certain that I am not being too entrenched in my position here: some people and topics simply just are two big to be covered in just one general article, it might be argued. But at present, my take on the appropriateness of this article remains as I expressed above: I will comment further here if my review of those other articles (particularly those relating to massively influential musicians) shifts my perspective. Snow 23:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse: Publication of this article is totally appropriate, pertinent, and its content is sufficient. Israell (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT and POV

Partytemple, regarding this, this, this, this, this, and this, WP:INTEXT is important for the reasons that WP:INTEXT and WP:YESPOV make clear. We shouldn't state that in Misplaced Pages's voice. You know that many people do not believe that evidence "was slim (and at times ludicrous) and the evidence of extortion was strong." Before I made this edit, you had the text stated in Misplaced Pages's voice with no indication that Fast had made the argument. Your latest edit at least lets readers know that Fast made this argument, but something verbatim such as "(and at times ludicrous)" can be argued to also need quotation marks. See WP:Close paraphrasing. That I changed "refused to believe" to "did not believe" is POV-compliant. If Fast stated "refused to believe," if that whole sentence is verbatim, it should have quotation marks. Yes, editors are very much aware that you personally believe that the alleged victims are not victims, but, like Popcornduff told you, our personal opinions should not matter when editing these topics. We should try to remain as impartial as possible. Our personal beliefs shouldn't come through via our editing. Having changed the title from "Public image" to "Tabloid scrutiny", when the previous title fits the section better and the material is not just a tabloid matter, also is not a good change POV-wise, but it at least is not a WP:INTEXT matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There are clearly many opinions and grand statements presented in this article in Misplaced Pages's voice, which isn't acceptable. Popcornduff (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, looking again at the wording in question here:

Fast argues that Jackson suffered from these perceptions, which stemmed from anxieties of masculinity, despite the fact that he created highly heterosexual art like “Black or White” and “In the Closet”; and that this idea extended to Jackson’s alleged child molestation, in which some of the public did not believe an innocuous relationship between Jackson and children, despite the evidence of wrongdoing being slim (and at times ludicrous) and the evidence of extortion being strong.

This is clearly a violation of Misplaced Pages neutrality policy. Misplaced Pages doesn't get to tell us what is "ludicrous" (and that isn't even the only problem here). Popcornduff (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was getting at. The latter part of the content needed in-text attribution. It now has it, but it likely should have quotes as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journals means POV?

The citations are from peer-reviewed journals. I'm only transcribing them. They are accessible through The Music Index. I'm unsure how POV applies here since I'm seeing an academic consensus on some of these statements in the article. —Partytemple (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, you can't state subjective opinions (such as cake being delicious or rollercoasters being fun) as if they're facts, even if you cite them.

Take one of the examples Snuggums used above: "Jackson showed remarkable musical talent". Talent is subjective. It isn't like saying someone is 6 feet tall or has blue eyes. People disagree about what talent is and who has it. That means you can't just write that Michael Jackson was talented. You have to write that other people called him talented, and make it clear that it is other people who say that, not Misplaced Pages.

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt or patronising, but look. It's OK if you find this counter-intuitive or difficult - staying neutral is not always easy to do, even when you're trying to do it. But you have got to start listening to other experienced editors when they repeatedly challenge you on neutrality grounds. It's clear you have worked hard on this article and want it to succeed, but it cannot stay in Misplaced Pages in its current state. Popcornduff (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The full sentence is "At a young age Jackson showed remarkable musical talent and was regarded as a child prodigy" with a citation that uses "remarkable" as the adjective. Warwick, page 249: "Michael Jackson’s rhythmic sensibility and vocal skill were remarkable even in childhood." Are you saying Warwick is expressing opinion (a statement not shared by the academic community at large) or that peer-reviewed journals are POV? Remarkable musical talent at a young age seems like a definition of child prodigy, so the sentence is just reinforcing itself. —Partytemple (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that Warwick is expressing an opinion and that Misplaced Pages must not restate this opinion as if it were a plain, objective fact. Popcornduff (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What are some sources that say differently? Because I can find other academic literature that say similar things about Jackson's talent as a child. —Partytemple (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to nitpick over every single claim in this article in this way. You now have four editors telling you there are POV problems. Perhaps consider letting others improve the article for a while. Popcornduff (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's a different opinion about Jackson's talents as a child, I think it needs sourcing, not just users disagreeing with the statement. —Partytemple (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Question. Why do you think editors might have problems with the article as it stands? Popcornduff (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm trying to figure that out and learn as I go. Again, I'm confused at what is POV and what is not. Are peer-reviewed journals POV? Warwick's opinion doesn't seem deviate from other scholars, unless you can show me a different source. —Partytemple (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

From WP:POV:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Do you see how this applies to this article and the Warwick example? Popcornduff (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It says "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." Is the opinion that Jackson isn't a child prodigy a significant opinion backed by reliable sources? The sources I have express similar opinions to Warwick. —Partytemple (talk)

Also, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice." Is the opinion that Jackson is a child prodigy contested by reliable sources? —Partytemple (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The opinion that Jackson was talented is not an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion". It is an opinion. Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems contradictory to me, especially when regarding the academic body of knowledge. I think WP policy emulate this rather clearly, that opinions are "conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Facts are "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources." —Partytemple (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, facts are, quote, "factual assertions". It doesn't matter how many sources agree that genocide is evil, we can't state it as a fact. It doesn't matter how many sources think Michael Jackson was talented, we can't state it as a fact. Popcornduff (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, I can put it this way. How we know that evolution is factual is because peer-reviewed journals have reached a consensus, without significant conflicting opinions. By the same logic, doesn't this also apply to other subjects in academia? —Partytemple (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, because the theory of evolution is not merely a shared opinion - and frankly if you wanted to bring up an example of something that everyone agrees on you could have picked something better than that.

Don't get yourself in a knot. You're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. If you're having this much of a crisis over how WP:POV works (what are facts, anyway?!) you ought to be debating it elsewhere. Popcornduff (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, what about this line: "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute)..." I think WP policy has a strict policy on reliable sources when regarding facts and varying opinions. Again, I'm not seeing a reliable source that says Jackson isn't a child prodigy or that it tries to dispute this academic consensus. —Partytemple (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple, per what Popcornduff and SNUGGUMS stated in the #Article recreated again section above, this article needs serious work. These two are great at copyediting and bringing articles in line with guidelines and policies. Other experienced editors, including Aoi seen here, would come to the same conclusion as them. Don't let your attachment to the article keep it from being improved. "Peer-reviewed journals" doesn't mean that the article is without the POV issues that Popcornduff, SNUGGUMS and I highlighted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a broad policy discussion that's beyond this article. We're inquiring if peer-reviewed journals violated POV. —Partytemple (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not what we are inquiring. Your misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines, including your misunderstanding of the BLP policy, is affecting your editing. If I were to take this matter to the WP:Neutral noticeboard, which it seems I need to do and will do, others would make clear to you what Popcornduff has tried to make clear to you. I'm not understanding why you are not understanding what Popcornduff has stated on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can have a lengthy discussion there about which journals violated POV. —Partytemple (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Taken there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

One example of subjective POV

Hi Partytemple,

Here's an example of what I personally mean with non-neutral POV: "Jackson’s achievements as a musician have defined a category of contemporary popular music that is characterized by fusions of different eras, styles, media and genres, but also rooted in R&B and soul."

This is sourced to Joseph Vogel, so it is an opinion to be attributed in his name, although I'm sure other noteworthy critics would agree with this opinion, or at least have quotations with similar sentiments. However this sentence, as it stands without attributed quotations, is not in an encyclopedic voice, which is essential for a quality article. This is just an example of what I mean about this article needing consistently objective POV. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

How would you rewrite it? —Partytemple (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

With this particular sentence, I might contribute something like "Some critics, such as Joseph Vogel believe that Jackson's musical achievements created a new category of contemporary popular music: one rooted in R&B and soul while fusing different media styles and genres." I'm not sure how many examples Vogel may give about which different music genres & media styles, but examples could include disco, power ballads, swingbeat, Broadway choreography, magician's pantomime etc. Best Hammelsmith (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of academic sources I found express the same opinion as Vogel. What are the significant opinions backed by reliable sources that disagree? I can see why "some critics" might fit in that case, but I don't see a deviation from academic consensus. —Partytemple (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It may not be so much an issue of agree or disagree, it's just citing sources with similar views about a certain topic. I just don't have it in me to do a lot of research about this article today. But I remember reading that Jackson's influence probably resulted in more pop stars incorporating back-up dancers and challenging choreography in their videos and shows, for instance. Looking for general consensus is the right direction to go, for sure. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Academic consensus is important in stating facts as facts. But I'm just not seeing a difference in opinion cited with reliable sources. I trust the journals because they're peer-reviewed by multiple scholars on this subject. —Partytemple (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle, but as an editor, we must be careful when using the word "facts". There are times when consensus and fact can be mutually exclusive. Just to use an example, the health care industry used to have differing consensus as to whether avocados are healthy. Criticism about popular culture is not an exact science either. Wiki can only follow reliable sources, it cannot be a vanguard leader of opinion. Citing three or more reliable sources about Michael Jackson's cultural impact and influence per topic should be sufficient as to what is the general critical consensus. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's true in general epistemology that consensus can be wrong, but only if there's a proven conflicting opinion. We owe our body of knowledge to the evidence we have at hand. A statement in its strictest form is either fact or opinion. WP defines opinion as something with "conflicting assertions." Hence, when there are no deviating significant assertions by reliable sources, the statement can be asserted as fact. I also can't possibly turn every page of academic literature to find differing opinions. —Partytemple (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages does not "define opinion as something with conflicting assertions". You've drawn this from WP:POV, which actually says If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Popcornduff (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. I don't think it conflicts with this line, which is just stating the opposite: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Factual assertions are made by reliable sources and are uncontested. Opinions are contested and/or unreliable. If it's not contested, we don't word it in a way that appears contested. —Partytemple (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be straining to find definitions of "facts" and "opinions" in WP:POV that aren't there. You can only state an uncontested factual assessment if the assessment is factual. It doesn't matter how much consensus there is for it! Popcornduff (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying facts and opinions are preordained? —Partytemple (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that for our purposes - we're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia - this is a matter of drawing a line between factual statements that can be objectively measured (the earth orbits the sun) and subjective statements that can't (bananas are delicious). Sometimes that line is blurry, but we have to draw it somewhere or else we have much bigger problems on our hands.

The consensus of everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far, barring you, is that we are on the wrong side of that line. Let's try to clean it up. Popcornduff (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So what is a source that challenges the academic consensus? I don't think WP is based on user beliefs when it has a strict policy on reliable sources. I mean, if you disagree with the current interpretation of WP policy, we can discuss this further. —Partytemple (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is you who and you alone who feels the article is currently 100% adhering to Misplaced Pages policy. Popcornduff (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the article violates reliable sources policy? —Partytemple (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We are saying it violates WP:POV.

It's clear this discussion isn't proving constructive to improving the article. I'll hand it over to other editors for a while. Popcornduff (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So peer-reviewed journals are violating POV? Or do you mean something else? —Partytemple (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The cultural Impact page stays, but not in its current form. I would agree that it needs editing for a lot of reasons mentioned here. Jackson's impact and cultural influence is undeniable with no shortage of sources to better construct the section. Some of these sources can be found here: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-michael-jackson-influenced-the-world.html/ https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2009-06-28-0906260178-story.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jackson-global-sb/michael-jacksons-music-had-impact-around-the-globe-idUSTRE5624OT20090704 https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/06/michael-jacksons-unparalleled-influence/58616/ https://www.straight.com/blogra/michael-jacksons-impact-popular-culture and thousands of more! Even a quick Bing or Google search would reveal college essays about his cultural impact. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No article can maintain the same text forever. And I welcome changes, provided they actually improve the article with reliable sources, preferably academic sources. Cultural impact is hard to measure, so I think well-researched material is needed. But I don't think there was a POV issue regarding the "child prodigy" statement. —Partytemple (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So what are we doing about the POV problems?

Do we have a consensus that this article has POV problems? If so, what are we going to do about it? Popcornduff (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I support tackling the issues raised in the #Article recreated again section above. You and SNUGGUMS did a great job highlighting things to fix and things that might need to be fixed. And I know that Snow Rise would rather see the article deleted and non-redundant, valid content merged elsewhere, but I'm sure that Snow Rise accepts this as an alternative approach in the meantime. I think you should be WP:BOLD and begin copyediting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your assumption is correct: my stance on the question of a stand-alone article, though consistent with the previous RfC on the question, may not be the one ultimately adopted in the current consensus discussion, but in either event, there is nothing to be gained from not working on the content as it stands. Either the present article will remain or portions of the content will be merged elsewhere, but whichever outcome, any preserved content will stand a better chance of being consistent with our policies and encyclopedic tone if work proceeds while the article is benefiting from increased editor engagement. Snow 10:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'll resume trying to remove the puffery as I did a few days ago. Let's see if Partytemple reverts me as immediately as they did last time. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The POV issues definitely need to be worked on. I don't have the time or patience to edit them all myself now, but wish luck to whoever does. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• C-Class Michael Jackson articles
• Unknown-importance Michael Jackson articles
• WikiProject Michael Jackson articles
• Unassessed Pop music articles
• Unknown-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles