Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. 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)

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?[1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] ,[3];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[4] 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.[5] 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 Wikipedia article?

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)

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 Wikipedia'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 ^{let's rap}

The discussion above 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.

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 Wikipedia: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 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)

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 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)

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.[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.”

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 Wikipedia 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 ^{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)

• 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 [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)

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 [X]" 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 ^{let's rap} 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)

• Endorse: Jackson did have enough cultural impact to warrant a separate article. If Elvis Madonna the Beatles have such pages logically Jackson should too. The overly effusive parts should be eliminated. castorbailey (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2020 (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 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)

There are clearly many opinions and grand statements presented in this article in Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia neutrality policy. Wikipedia 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)

But wiki can have quotes attributed to authors who wrote about the topic of the article. Is this an actual quote or the opinion of the article's author? castorbailey (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2020 (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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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."

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 Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 ^{let's rap} 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)

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:-

• "These military visuals and symbols, and sometimes ostensible glorification of a charismatic leader, prompted some critics to interpret them as sympathetic to Nazism."
• "In 1981, Off the Wall was the best-selling album ever by any black artist, a feat later trumped by Jackson’s following album Thriller in 1983."
• "From the outset the song attracted immense controversy for its supposedly antisemitic lyrics. Bernard Weinraub of The New York Times cited the lines “Jew me, sue me / Everybody do me / Kick me, kike me / Don’t you black or white me” as “pointedly critical of Jews.”"
• "Jackson’s story was that of a successful black man who fulfilled the American dream after coming from a humble Indiana family, working hard, and finally becoming the “King of Pop.”"
• "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”"
• "According to his memoir, former President of Ghana John Dramani Mahama felt a kinship with Jackson for their similar backgrounds"
• "In the music video, Jackson collaborated with 200 members of the cultural group Olodum, who "swayed to the heavy beat of Salvador"."

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)

@TheLongTone: Your work is appreciated. I too started work on the article but got disheartened.

I really don't know what the next step is. Continue trying to pare it back or maybe nom for deletion? Popcornduff (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Pare it back to much and there may be nothing left...TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be virtually nothing describing Jackson's influence; merely a lot of effulgent guff from critics.TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the article has a lot of problem with POV, it seems that it was only a desperate attempt to have exist it. --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:09, 29 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)

Editing of this Article

TheLongTone, please discuss your edits here. Israell (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

See above; there is a consensus that this article needs a great deal of cleaning up. Wholesale reverting is tantamount to vandalism.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 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)

Any "content" I removed was clearly off-topic.TheLongTone (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

and if you can find anything that really deserves to be back in the article, please simply cut & paste it from an earlier version. I'm sorry if I have made any unwarranted cuts; I am simply trying to hack out the vast amout of fluff in this article to provide a decent foundation foer building an article that actually has some real content, rather than a bunch of 'strange but untrue' fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think TheLongTone's edits are an overwhelming improvement. Popcornduff (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn, you need to stop restoring material that Popcornduff and TheLongTone have validly removed. There are clearly issues with this article, as made clear by multiple editors in sections above. If you and others who are editing in a fancruft fashion continue to stonewall improvement of this article, this matter might find its way to WP:ANI. Per this warning by Yamla, you should know to tread carefully at Jackson articles. WP:Preserve, which you cited here, doesn't mean "keep everything one likes." WP:Edit warring goes both ways. Discussion goes both ways. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, as you can see in the edit history I never restored anything that was removed by Popcornduff nor completely restored the material removed by TheLongTone. I just restored the content relevant to the topic along with few more sources that was asked by The Long Tone as per WP:Preserve, WP:AGF. The Long Tone had asked the other user above to cut and copy the content that deserves to be in the article, which is completely opposite of what you said like keeping everything as one likes.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between fancruft and stuff that belongs in the article. Akhijaxxn, you need to start adding real content.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So whose edits were you restoring? We can see this IP doing similar. And there's stuff like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko and the nineteenth century monkey

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)

While reading the edit history I noted that you asked for more sources and when more credible sources are provided by multiple authors, you cry about it being a ludicrous claim. Explaining why the name "Jacko" is incredibly racist and offensive to Jackson and other people of color ought to be included and given context. Have you ever been called an offense name that bothered you? When being interviewed on 20/20 by Barbara Walters, Jackson exposed that being called "Wacko Jacko" was hurtful. "It's not nice, don't do it. I'm not a Wacko, I'm Jackson," he explained. There are tons of online articles, even here on WP, that exposes the racist cognitions behind London's monkey baiting matches. However, did you also know that that African Americans were called "Jacko" throughout early American history because whites would claim that you could only see the teeth and eyes of black people at night? Did you know that there was a 1960's toy monkey named Jacko as well (https://springchicken.co.uk/entertainment/memory-lane/jacko/)? I am failing to see what is so passive about it being okay that Jackson was called Jacko. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Sun is known for its penchant for rhymes. And in any case the whole section is irrelevant to the article, and I would point out that in the cited article MJ is objecting to being called Wacko without any mention of racist connotations.TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Identity

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)

• Kill it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

& the stuff on racial identity and politics does not seem of much relevance either...TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll let this cook a while before I get out the meat-cleaverTheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Could you post any proof they are the same editors? castorbailey (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect restored

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)

Was there a consensus to redirect this page? Why do you think Elvis and Madonna should have Cultural impact pages but Jackson should not? Makes no sense. The last restored version was rewritten by User:Owynhart and there is no consensus on redirecting this version now. Most of your concerns are not even in the article anymore. castorbailey (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the two remaining parts you singled out. Your argument that such a page should not exist because the supposed downfall of his popularity is absurd. For one thing there are other sources which directly contradict the People magazine article you cited. Michael Jackson's Music Have Actually Increased Since HBO Doc Michael Jackson Sales Up Year-to-Year Roughly 50%, Streaming Booms But even if that was true that does not negate the immense cultural impact Jackson has had for decades. It's a historical fact just like the cultural impact of Elvis , the Beatles or Madonna. Such a page should exist but I agree there is room for improvement. So what exactly do you think should be changed still? castorbailey (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OSE is a poor argument. Why there is no Cultural impact of Chuck Berry? How come you jumped to this page without ever editing it before? Anyway, you have to prove now where this and this consensus to redirect this article was ever superseded. I only see a few MJ fans insisting to keep this article, such as you, without addressing the problems or gaining consensus to retain this fancruft which is doing nothing other than detailing a range of opinions about Jackson without explicitly describing how he impacted the culture. I will restore the redirect shortly should you fail to show the consensus for retaining the article. Excelse (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably there is no Cultural impact of Chuck Berry because unlike Jackson he in fact had much less impact on culture. It's absurd that you deny Michael Jackson like Elvis, Madonna and the Beatles did not have significant cultural impact that warrants its own article. I watched this page that's how I noticed the redirect. As I said your concerns were addressed, the parts you objected to were removed. You are not specific about what else you think is "just opinion rather than explanation how he impacted culture". Shouldn't you show proof that consensus has been reached to redirect the current version of the article? Where did that happen? Sounds like your arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT castorbailey (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to redirect the current version of the page here? Other than Flyer no editor said there it should be redirected. Akhiljaxxn and JG66 opposed it, Walter Görlitz told you "stick to the content, not the contributor." Chrishonduras said "keep if looks that really added an efficient content", John Pack Lambert said "page should be put through a new AfD", Richard3120 said "might be tempted to side with the existence of this article if the claims of MJ's cultural impact have been widely discussed and demonstrated". this was a weak consensus against at that time with four pro and five against, one is yours where you said "Unless someone can create a really fair article without engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH". So again, why do you think the current version should be redirected? What exactly do you think the problems are? The argument that "Michael Jackson's impact can be best described as influence on individual artists" is absurd. His impact went way beyond individual artists. It looks like you want to deny historical facts simply because you don't like those facts castorbailey (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is on full display for sure.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Berry was an influential artist, so was Michael Jackson but he is far from having a 'cultural impact'. You can create a Cultural imapct of Chuck Berry by inserting same kind of garbage like "he said this he said that he said those about Berry, Berry influenced this guy that guy those guy" just like it has been done here. Why you can't find a single scholarly source telling how Jackson impacted the culture? It is funny that Greg Tate, a musician, has been described as a "critic" on this article. "Shouldn't you show proof that consensus has been reached to redirect the current version of the article?" You don't create a new version every time you want to supersede consenses. Your argument sounds like WP:ILIKEIT.

There was clear consensus to redirect per here. Only Akhiljaxxn disagreed because he believes in doing his duty of a fanboy, just like you. There was clear cut 5 support in redirect and only 1 opposing editor.

Since you are bringing up Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Madonna and Cultural impact of Elvis Presley then let us have a look at those articles too... they start with:

Cultural impact of the Beatles: "The English rock band the Beatles are commonly regarded as the foremost and most influential band in popular music history. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they sparked the "Beatlemania" phenomenon in 1963, gained international stardom in 1964, and remained active until their break-up in 1970. Over the latter half of the decade, they were often viewed as orchestrators of society's developments. They are recognised particularly with concern for the era's counterculture and popular music's evolution into an art form."

Cultural impact of Elvis Presley: "Since the beginning of his career, Elvis Presley has had an extensive cultural impact. According to Rolling Stone, "it was Elvis who made rock 'n' roll the international language of pop." The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll describes Presley as "an American music giant of the 20th century who single-handedly changed the course of music and culture in the mid-1950s"."

Cultural impact of Madonna: "Since the beginning of her career in the early 1980s, American singer and songwriter Madonna has had a social-cultural impact on the world through her recordings, attitude, clothing and lifestyle. Called the "Queen of Pop", Madonna is labeled by international authors as the greatest woman in music, as well as the most influential and iconic female recording artist of all time."

And how Cultural impact of Michael Jackson starts? "The American singer Michael Jackson (1958 – 2009), nicknamed the “King of Pop",[1] is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the most successful and influential entertainers of his era." And you think that is a big deal? There are THOUSANDS of artists that are regarded as "one of the most successful and influential entertainers" of "their era" and are also known by honorifics.

Now do you realize why we don't need this article? Excelse (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You’ve only proved exactly WHY the article is needed. Jackson has won more awards than all of these artists combined. He is far more recognized globally, and the modern music industry exists because he did. Article is far too well sourced. Consensus is it stays.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Show where is the consensus? I explained why we don't need this article. You are clearly not getting the point. Excelse (talk) 07:49, 6 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)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. I am sure that a Usher's fan will say same thing about Usher whatever you are saying about Michael Jackson. Excelse (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:REMOVAL removing cited sources, especially academic sources, needs consensus. You can accuse anyone you want of being a “fanboy” when there is only one person here that appears fanatical. Your talking points fails you. Get over your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

They need to be relevant to the subject. The 'cited sources' just don't form enough basis required for the standalone article. Excelse (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Puffery Tag

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)

The tag should remain until we reach a consensus that the puffery problem has been resolved.

It hasn't, as far as I can see. Here are some remaining examples of puffery and/or editorialising, or poorly cited, biased, or otherwise dubious writing:

• 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

Moreover, little of the article directly states Jackson's impact on pop culture. Sentences such as 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 not opposed to a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" article. To me it seems completely plausible that Jackson had a major impact on global culture deserving of an article. But this article is not that. Popcornduff (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having read the article for a second time, I quite agree. I agree that it rises to a higher problem than puffery; it reads like a WP:POVFORK of the main article. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:POVFORK. Exactly. Popcornduff (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: per statements like [9][10][11][12] it is clear that there is no explanation to have this article other than "if Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley and Cultural impact of Madonna can exist then why this cannot?" To me these editors seem WP:NOTHERE and hopes for any improvement are becoming futile. Excelse (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Okay, it didn't take a few days. Every last item above has been edited, removed, or restructured. I even went a step further to add additional sourced content for contextual reasons, removed wording that could be perceived, but wasn't, POV and/or puffery, fixed minor grammar issues, re-arranged paragraphs, and have generally made the article better. And even removed content that I thought was blatant puffery. The Tag can now be removed.TruthGuardians (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So you've added unsourced sentences like "Jackson's visionary prowess for the music video art form came to be in 1983" and "Other celebrities have been inspired to mimic Jackson's fashion sense." and you think that makes it less problematic?? You've actually made it worse. I'm tempted just to revert those changes wholesale per BRD. The tag certainly needs to stay now. And what relevance to culture have those paragraphs about India etc. got? None.Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits that imo were both puffery and borderline incomprehensible. I've edited both into English.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, these are not improvements. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s still work in progress. No one said anything was complete. However, all the puffery listed above is gone. It was 3 in the morning where I was, no one else attempted to improve the article, so give me a break.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, your good-faith efforts to fix the problems are appreciated, but unfortunately we don't seem to be making progress here. This is a WP:FIXLOOP situation - editors are identifying individual examples of long-standing patterns of puffery and bias, and you are responding to them but introducing new problems. Moreover, the bigger picture problem, the fact that the article is basically a WP:POVFORK that doesn't cover its purported subject matter, remains. Popcornduff (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing my efforts. This is why we are all here. To fix it. I did what I thought was right for the most part. I agree with longtone that my efforts in a few areas, not all as accused of, were probably not what it should have been. But he has fix those and I agree with his edits as about 90% of mine are still in place, except citation was removed from the global impact section that was in the source being referenced. I can go back and fix that later. However, I have much work to do today with the Democratic National Committee for the 2020 elections. Again, the article is indeed better than it was the day before and all of your notes puffery above was indeed addressed.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:23, 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, 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)

  Israell, well, the use of the word "devoted to" is dubious for a start - it's emotive and passionate - "Jackson opposed prejudice and injustice" would be a more neutral wording. Then you need to get very specific and provide lots of good, concrete examples backed by good sources of how he opposed these things. But of course none of it is relevant apart from where it can be shown to have changed culture. Popcornduff (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Jive Talkin'

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)

Are we talking about in the race section of the article, or elsewhere? TruthGuardians (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes."Billie Jean was one of the first music videos by a black artist to be shown on MTV, which hitherto had been a channel directed to a white, rock-oriented audience. MTV initially refused to play the video because of its commitment to rock music. When CBS Records executive Walter Yetnikoff threatened to remove all of their products off MTV and expose its discriminatory policies, the network gave in. The following videos from the album were also part of this transformation of racial politics in music television.".TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s impactful. This reveals how Jackson was responsible for normalizing black artists being played on MTV during a time when they openly admitted that their channel wasn’t for “jazz artists.” The success of the song and video single-handedly changed their ideology of what the channel was and who it could appeal to. Could this be trimmed down? I think it could.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What nonsense. It was one of the first disco videos to be shown; the artists color is irrelevant.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

...and I don't think that MTV showed much C&W either.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MichaelJackson outside GoodTimeTheatre 1984.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on deletion page. Editing is for improving.

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)

Popcornfud: As I stated a day or two ago at the AfD, having already done a fair bit of work on the article by that point, I think this tag regarding puffery for the entire article is redundant. I've now removed or reworded more of what I and I'm sure others considered contentious statements presented in Wikipedia's voice. Late on 27 March, SnowRise commented: "It's been a while since I contributed to the last thread, and the difference between the article's content at that time and what I am reading now is truly a night and day situation. It's much more appropriately worded and makes much better use of attribution to contextualize praise for Jackson, rather than trying to say it in Wikipedia's voice." As I'm sure you know, plenty of work has gone into improving this article, and it was much needed (and, from looking through the article history and the threads above, a personal hats off to user:TruthGuardians).

You added the puffery tag, I believe – would you please remove it now? In any other (non-AfD) situation, I'd confidently ditch it myself: the article's been flagged, others including myself have then addressed multiple examples of the problem. I've not looked at the lead in my entire time working on the article, I admit, and perhaps there are still statements you consider outstanding elsewhere. I've been adding cite needed tags where appropriate (and they're been swiftly answered), so of course feel free to add any inline puffery/exaggeration tags as you see fit. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

JG66, actually I started reviewing the situation with the tag a couple of days ago, but I decided it would be a better idea not for me to touch the article with a long pole until the nightmare of the AfD is over. Someone has already been banned for repeatedly attacking me and I'd rather not repeat that experience. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, with respect, that is just not good enough. The AfD is ongoing, which by definition puts the article under scrutiny; editors see the puffery tag then they see what I imagine to be a week lead – it's certainly not representative of several culturally significant points I've added of late (they being points that, in some cases, I'm quite astonished had been omitted when I first read the article). Unless I'm mistaken – and apologies if I am – you've insisted on retaining the tag. Right? As I've partly insinuated, I know no other situation where this happens, and it's difficult not to see this as an obstacle.

Please remove the tag. Please add tags instead to specific examples of puffery, given all the work that's gone into addressing these concerns. Thank you very much. JG66 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Editing this because I don't think I was clear above. What I'm trying to say is that I'm going to keep my opinions on the article (and the tag) to myself for now, so if other editors conclude that the tag is no longer needed, I won't challenge that. You asked if I would remove the tag, so I was trying to respond to that. Sorry for the unclear response. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But as a procedural point, I should say I was acting on your initial, unedited response when removing the tag. And would the record show – forgive me PCF/Duff – that this editor sent Thanks notification after I removed the puffery tag. (This being reflective of the idea that one almost needs a lawyer to engage in the ongoing debate, unless one's sufficiently skilled in wikilawyering of course.) Best, JG66 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the article was up for deletion until I saw this. But I'm not sure which way I would have voted, given the changes that have been made to the article and that it is true adding more on the impact to the main article could bloat the main article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MichaelJackson outside GoodTimeTheatre 1984.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)