![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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. Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As seen at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
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.
What is the brief and neutral statement here? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
Oh okay. Are there any draft pages available on Wikipedia, 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)
Pinging all of the editors from the #Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to the creation of this article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Jackson himself held tolerant and worldly beliefs about race. He believed one of his overarching purpose as an artist was to bring people together.[84] He once said he would like to adopt two children from each continent around the world.[85] 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.”
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 let's rap 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)
" Snow Rise The article is completly [sic] 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 let's rap 22:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)
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.
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)
"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 Wikipedia.
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 Wikipedia'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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To me it appears as if we are discussing something like Life of Michael Jackson and Views on Michael Jackson, with all that "he wrote this, he said this, he considered this" or "he said this about jackson, he said that about jackson, he was influenced by jackson". You can say the same thing for any notable celebrity since all of their views or acts are bound to find influence or positive commentaries from audience. "Cultural impact" is not about all that, but something that has changed the culture.
I went through all sections and it is clear that none of these most attractive sentences from each of these sections are fitting the criteria:-
Article as it stands tells nothing more than subjective commentaries, sales figures, lyrics criticism, achievements with regards to Michael Jackson. This contradicts other articles such as Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, Cultural impact of the Beatles that indeed tell that how culture was impacted by them.
Except this all, the recent creation is clearly against the standards we follow here. WP:CON had to be gained before creation, given there have been multiple discussions that were ultimately against the creation. If you are not aware of Wikipedia standards then I would still count this creation to be unwise considering the recent reports about downfall in his popularity. [6] Excelse ( talk) 10:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is today years old, and it clearly states that Jackson's streams have not only increased but is outpacing the industry's: https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/streaming/8533464/michael-jackson-radio-streaming-numbers-since-hbo-leaving-neverland you're citing old sources that have since been corrected in more recent and reliable sources. TruthGuardians ( talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to do a bit of copyediting on this mess but despair. It contains absolutely huge claims that rest on very slender cites. There may be a case for yhis topic having an article but this one is not it, Really, WP:NUKE. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Every last subjective POV issue has been resolved months ago. Why is this puffery tag still here? Have anyone read the Beatles? Or even Evlis’? If this is puffery, then their cultural impact pages, created the term. TruthGuardians ( talk) 01:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
TheLongTone, please discuss your edits here. Israell ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You left plenty of grammar errors and removed well-sourced contents. Israell ( talk) 16:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You obviously removed lots of puffery and irrelevant information, but you removed lots of other content as well. That was brought to my attention, and I was advised to revert it all so we start again from the ground up. Israell ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This bubble of guff was reinstated as sourced content. I beg to differ. It's a bizarre and rizla-thin claim from a source that I believe that this article places undue reliance upon. Barrel-scrapingly silly. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ... a Sun hack could conceivably have known about this very obscure bit of history, but I really doubt it & due to its obscurity it is very very very very improbable that any Sun 'reader' would get the reference. Really, all this cite does is make one doubt Vogel's reliability. Not to mention sanity. I shall go on removing this guff. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I cant see anything in this section that is actually relevant to the topic. If no convincing argument is made, it's going down the tube. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
So, Isaacsorry, you have taken over from where Partytemple, who has mysteriously disappeared, last left off at. Interesting. I suppose now that I've mentioned Partytemple, Partytemple will suddenly show up again. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Michael_Jackson#So_what_are_we_doing_about_the_POV_problems? since none of my concerns were adequately addressed by the people who restored this article, the redirect (which involved multiple discussions) has been now restored. I would also add those discussions that took place in recent times here clearly indicated that enough users preferred restoring the redirect. [7] [8] Those users have a better standing than WP:SPAs. Excelse ( talk) 09:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
A consensus to delete or redirect won’t be reached. Jackson is the most influential global artist of all time and there are ample amounts of reliable sources that gives this topic of his cultural impact notability and the right to have a stand alone article. In fact, I see opportunity to expand the article. Jackson’s global impact far exceeds that of Madonna and Elvis combined and each of them have their own cultural impact page. So let’s consider a delete of the lesser artists first, then perhaps come back to Jackson after accomplishing that task. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been more than 2 months now since Popcornduff placed the puffery tag, and we had a discussion on this regard. Everything listed for puffery was discussed and corrected. That tag can't just be there indefinitely, and its presence is no longer justified. @ Aoi: Israell ( talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Jackson's music is nearly inextricable from the music videos that accompany them
The two figures shared the same ambitions for integration and racial harmony while refusing to allow their race hold them back.
Jackson remains highly respected among black Americans.
Jackson was notable for his eccentricity, often perceived as confounding, contradictory and occasionally ridiculous.
Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice.
Some, particularly black Americans, saw the controversy as manufactured and a clear display of double-standards.
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
During his career Jackson visited various countries im [sic] Africa, including Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Egypt, Gabon and Cote d’Ivoire, for example, have no relevance to the purported subject matter at all. The overall impression is that, under the pretence of documenting Jackson's cultural impact, fans have instead created a version of the Michael Jackson article they would prefer to see, emphasising the good stuff.
I am currently working on removing what I believe to be perceived puffery (The rest can be debated later on), removing non-relevant information, and adding sourced context/content. Will take a few days, but a lot of what you mentioned above has been handled."Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice." this is just true and is proven through his humanitarian efforts, body of work, and time spent doing such. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the very best approach is to take this article section-by-section starting with the lead. We discuss the section agree and disagree and find common ground, then move on to next section. I see no issues with the lead, but if others do, let’s find common ground and move on to next section/sub-section. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I support removal of the puffery tag. And I totally disagree that the article doesn't cover its purported subject matter, that there is still puffery and new problems even (and I say that as a 13+ years editor). Noting someone's work, art, societal impact, etc. does not necessarily qualify as puffery (it's all about the tone and pertinence of the information).
Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice.Is it true or is it a lie or an exaggeration? I see no puffery there. It is simple information. Such statements just need to be backed by examples and proper sources. And puffery, by definition [1] [2], refers to excessive or exaggerated praise; it is definitely NOT the case with the current state of this article. Israell ( talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I am very slow on the uptake. There is a lot of guff about racism & disco; in light of the fact that the disco boom was kickstarted by the Bee Gees, does this make any sense? TheLongTone ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a deletion nomination tag. Take deletion discussion there. The user who placed the Puffery tag has already stated he wants the article gone rather than improved. @ Aoi, BRD only applies to editors who want to improve the article. Owynhart 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding that puffery tag, I very honestly do not see how its presence is still justified. Puffery means "exaggerated praise", and there is none. This is a pertinent, quality article, and deletion is not the answer. Let us keep working on improving it. That said, it is decent as it is. Israell ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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. Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As seen at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
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.
What is the brief and neutral statement here? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
Oh okay. Are there any draft pages available on Wikipedia, 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)
Pinging all of the editors from the #Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to the creation of this article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Jackson himself held tolerant and worldly beliefs about race. He believed one of his overarching purpose as an artist was to bring people together.[84] He once said he would like to adopt two children from each continent around the world.[85] 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.”
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 let's rap 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)
" Snow Rise The article is completly [sic] 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 let's rap 22:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)
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.
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)
"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 Wikipedia.
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 Wikipedia'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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To me it appears as if we are discussing something like Life of Michael Jackson and Views on Michael Jackson, with all that "he wrote this, he said this, he considered this" or "he said this about jackson, he said that about jackson, he was influenced by jackson". You can say the same thing for any notable celebrity since all of their views or acts are bound to find influence or positive commentaries from audience. "Cultural impact" is not about all that, but something that has changed the culture.
I went through all sections and it is clear that none of these most attractive sentences from each of these sections are fitting the criteria:-
Article as it stands tells nothing more than subjective commentaries, sales figures, lyrics criticism, achievements with regards to Michael Jackson. This contradicts other articles such as Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, Cultural impact of the Beatles that indeed tell that how culture was impacted by them.
Except this all, the recent creation is clearly against the standards we follow here. WP:CON had to be gained before creation, given there have been multiple discussions that were ultimately against the creation. If you are not aware of Wikipedia standards then I would still count this creation to be unwise considering the recent reports about downfall in his popularity. [6] Excelse ( talk) 10:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is today years old, and it clearly states that Jackson's streams have not only increased but is outpacing the industry's: https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/streaming/8533464/michael-jackson-radio-streaming-numbers-since-hbo-leaving-neverland you're citing old sources that have since been corrected in more recent and reliable sources. TruthGuardians ( talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to do a bit of copyediting on this mess but despair. It contains absolutely huge claims that rest on very slender cites. There may be a case for yhis topic having an article but this one is not it, Really, WP:NUKE. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Every last subjective POV issue has been resolved months ago. Why is this puffery tag still here? Have anyone read the Beatles? Or even Evlis’? If this is puffery, then their cultural impact pages, created the term. TruthGuardians ( talk) 01:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
TheLongTone, please discuss your edits here. Israell ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You left plenty of grammar errors and removed well-sourced contents. Israell ( talk) 16:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You obviously removed lots of puffery and irrelevant information, but you removed lots of other content as well. That was brought to my attention, and I was advised to revert it all so we start again from the ground up. Israell ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This bubble of guff was reinstated as sourced content. I beg to differ. It's a bizarre and rizla-thin claim from a source that I believe that this article places undue reliance upon. Barrel-scrapingly silly. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ... a Sun hack could conceivably have known about this very obscure bit of history, but I really doubt it & due to its obscurity it is very very very very improbable that any Sun 'reader' would get the reference. Really, all this cite does is make one doubt Vogel's reliability. Not to mention sanity. I shall go on removing this guff. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I cant see anything in this section that is actually relevant to the topic. If no convincing argument is made, it's going down the tube. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
So, Isaacsorry, you have taken over from where Partytemple, who has mysteriously disappeared, last left off at. Interesting. I suppose now that I've mentioned Partytemple, Partytemple will suddenly show up again. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Michael_Jackson#So_what_are_we_doing_about_the_POV_problems? since none of my concerns were adequately addressed by the people who restored this article, the redirect (which involved multiple discussions) has been now restored. I would also add those discussions that took place in recent times here clearly indicated that enough users preferred restoring the redirect. [7] [8] Those users have a better standing than WP:SPAs. Excelse ( talk) 09:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
A consensus to delete or redirect won’t be reached. Jackson is the most influential global artist of all time and there are ample amounts of reliable sources that gives this topic of his cultural impact notability and the right to have a stand alone article. In fact, I see opportunity to expand the article. Jackson’s global impact far exceeds that of Madonna and Elvis combined and each of them have their own cultural impact page. So let’s consider a delete of the lesser artists first, then perhaps come back to Jackson after accomplishing that task. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been more than 2 months now since Popcornduff placed the puffery tag, and we had a discussion on this regard. Everything listed for puffery was discussed and corrected. That tag can't just be there indefinitely, and its presence is no longer justified. @ Aoi: Israell ( talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Jackson's music is nearly inextricable from the music videos that accompany them
The two figures shared the same ambitions for integration and racial harmony while refusing to allow their race hold them back.
Jackson remains highly respected among black Americans.
Jackson was notable for his eccentricity, often perceived as confounding, contradictory and occasionally ridiculous.
Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice.
Some, particularly black Americans, saw the controversy as manufactured and a clear display of double-standards.
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
During his career Jackson visited various countries im [sic] Africa, including Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Egypt, Gabon and Cote d’Ivoire, for example, have no relevance to the purported subject matter at all. The overall impression is that, under the pretence of documenting Jackson's cultural impact, fans have instead created a version of the Michael Jackson article they would prefer to see, emphasising the good stuff.
I am currently working on removing what I believe to be perceived puffery (The rest can be debated later on), removing non-relevant information, and adding sourced context/content. Will take a few days, but a lot of what you mentioned above has been handled."Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice." this is just true and is proven through his humanitarian efforts, body of work, and time spent doing such. TruthGuardians ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the very best approach is to take this article section-by-section starting with the lead. We discuss the section agree and disagree and find common ground, then move on to next section. I see no issues with the lead, but if others do, let’s find common ground and move on to next section/sub-section. TruthGuardians ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I support removal of the puffery tag. And I totally disagree that the article doesn't cover its purported subject matter, that there is still puffery and new problems even (and I say that as a 13+ years editor). Noting someone's work, art, societal impact, etc. does not necessarily qualify as puffery (it's all about the tone and pertinence of the information).
Jackson was devoted to fighting prejudice and injustice.Is it true or is it a lie or an exaggeration? I see no puffery there. It is simple information. Such statements just need to be backed by examples and proper sources. And puffery, by definition [1] [2], refers to excessive or exaggerated praise; it is definitely NOT the case with the current state of this article. Israell ( talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I am very slow on the uptake. There is a lot of guff about racism & disco; in light of the fact that the disco boom was kickstarted by the Bee Gees, does this make any sense? TheLongTone ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a deletion nomination tag. Take deletion discussion there. The user who placed the Puffery tag has already stated he wants the article gone rather than improved. @ Aoi, BRD only applies to editors who want to improve the article. Owynhart 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding that puffery tag, I very honestly do not see how its presence is still justified. Puffery means "exaggerated praise", and there is none. This is a pertinent, quality article, and deletion is not the answer. Let us keep working on improving it. That said, it is decent as it is. Israell ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)