| Revision as of 10:02, 30 January 2018 editTheWikiholic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,840 edits →social impact← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:47, 30 January 2018 edit undoExcelse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users691 edits →social impactNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| ::Anyhow, this whole article is useless, also per consensus on ], where every editor agreed with redirecting, except one editor who said that ] should be instead redirected to this article. But ] is older and not a ], that's why it is going to remain, not this POV fancruft. I am also letting {{ping|Flyer22 Reborn|Chrishonduras}} know this, that they should remove the link to this article from ] 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. ] (]) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | ::Anyhow, this whole article is useless, also per consensus on ], where every editor agreed with redirecting, except one editor who said that ] should be instead redirected to this article. But ] is older and not a ], that's why it is going to remain, not this POV fancruft. I am also letting {{ping|Flyer22 Reborn|Chrishonduras}} know this, that they should remove the link to this article from ] 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. ] (]) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::There is no Consensus is there to redirect on ].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.] (]) 10:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | :::There is no Consensus is there to redirect on ].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.] (]) 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 ]. People criticized you though for spewing MJ obsession and one person said that ] should be redirected instead. But we are not going to redirect that long standing article for this ]. I have already said this on your talk page but you are pretending that you ] and demonstrating your ]. 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" (]), 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 ] before creating this fancruft after cherrypicking from that article. ] (]) 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:47, 30 January 2018
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Michael Jackson C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)
- 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)