User:Dreftymac/Docs/MJPopIcon200612

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] MJ, NPOV and pop icon (pursuant to Wikipedia:Taking it outside)

Including reference and link to "pop icon" status is consistent with NPOV and deserves to remain in the article. Rationale follows:

• credible and authoritative sources routinely apply this status indicator (which is not a nickname) to this and other individuals of the same stature (see e.g., [1], [2] [3][4]);
• NPOV states: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source";
• omitting this status indicator as 'pop icon' represents a failure to include a significant viewpoint;
• omitting this status indicator omits a link to directly relevant and related content within WP;
• omitting this status indicator in itself may represent a POV bias, to the extent that it prevents readers unfamiliar with the subject matter from obtaining a well-rounded perspective of the subject matter of the article, and conducting further reasearch based on that perspective;
• omitting this status indicator diminishes the contextual breadth of the article for researchers in the distant future who may not realize the scope of influence this individual has had *beyond* the realm of his musical career;
• the term "pop icon" has no inherently prejudicial or favorable bias, no more so than the term "entertainer" (each term is subject to personal interpretation);

For these and many other reasons, it is requested that further detailed justification be presented before deleting the link and reference to "pop icon" status. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Follow-up proof of "being a pop icon" is distinct from proof of "routine application of a status indicator to an individual". The application of this status indicator is what is at issue *not* whether MJ is "really" a pop icon. It's exactly the same thing as the status indicator of "entertainer" ... no one needs to prove MJ is really "entertaining" (which is subject to considerable debate). Please address potential deficiencies here in discussion before further reverts or modification. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the sources you've sited are enough evidence that it is verifiable that Jackson is indeed a "pop icon".--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a nonsense debate. Its like asking to debate on whether grass is green or vegetation. It is both. MJ is both. Just incorporate them both into the article as has been currently done is the best solution. 60.234.242.196 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seemed surprising (to me anyway) that anyone even complained about the addition of 'pop icon' to begin with. Nevertheless, someone did complain, and that complaint has been respectfully addressed with thorough discussion and references, hopefully to the satisfaction of the original complainant. Nothing nonsensical about sincere, respectful good-faith discussion to reconcile possibly different viewpoints. That's what its all about! Thanks! :) dr.ef.tymac 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the insertion but I don't agree with the position: "musician" and "entertainer" are both jobs; "pop icon" isn't.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. As said, comparing two 'different' characteristics. It should be incorporated into the article, but in a better structure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.242.196 (talk)

And it's kind of a repeat of the statement that he is/was "at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century"--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I would debate that this statement stays. I would not consider Jackson at the forefront of pop culture. But that is my POV (thus irrelevant). As with the arguement on 'genre', one could argue till blue in the face and still there would be a 50/50 split on opinion. You should read the wiki page on 'pop' as a genre, if they cannot agree, then likelyhood no concensus would be correct here either. I digressed. Some careful editing, I am sure someone will find a compromise. Suggestions?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.242.196 (talk)

The forefront of pop culture clause was partially why I included pop icon to begin with. Even if the latter isn't a job title, it is a verifiable and well-known "status indicator". It is so well-known that it is more likely to be a meta keyword descriptor and synonym for MJ himself. The "forefront of pop culture" phrase, in contrast, is not a status indicator, could mean anything, and does not appear to be a phrase frequently associated with MJ. In fact, my informal preliminary research (Google) indicated that every single connection of the phrase to MJ is a result of this specific WP article

• "michael jackson" "pop icon" -wikipedia ;; returns *many* different and authoritative results
• "michael jackson" "forefront of pop culture" -wikipedia ;; returns very little, and *all* of it appears to be a copy from this specific article.

I was going to *replace* "forefront of pop culture" with "pop icon" because of this, but chose to leave both in (to avoid the "why did you take that out!" debate) and simply augment the ambiguous and isolated phrase with the more-verifiable phrase "pop icon" as a compromise. Compromise is hopefully what we have reached. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 12:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Googling that is not a fair assessment; one is original work the other is work that can be used in many instances--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 12:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale and meaning of your previous statement is unclear. Nevertheless, pursuant to your earlier remarks and agreement with me on verifiability, I am going to make an additional refinement to the intro section. Thanks for your contributions! dr.ef.tymac 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"widely regarded" and "featured prominently" are definately POV phrases--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both were taken out already, the only remaining POV vestige was "at the forefront of pop culture" which (as you stated) is redundant with "pop icon", and "pop icon" is the only one of the two that is verifiable and mutually agreed. Please discuss, thanks! :)dr.ef.tymac 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The editing currently done is still not a proper solution in my opinion. "... is an American musician, entertainer, and pop icon, whose successful music career and controversial personal life have been a part of pop culture for the last quarter-century." As worded, it still reads too long winded and disjointed, as well as implies that his 'controversies' are part of pop culture. It is better structured to say "Pop icon, Michael Jackson, (born ..." but assume that wanting his name first is probably a requirement. Possibly, split it into two separate sentences? "... is an American musician and entertainer whose successful musical career has been part of pop cuture for the last quarter century. Controverty in his personal life has also dogged (is that term used in the USA?)this pop icon for most of his latter career". Just a suggestion. 60.234.242.196 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, his controversial personal life is somewhat part of pop culture; I mean there are many jokes that make reference to it and many comedianes/tv shows make reference to his personal life.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it pop culture. It just means Jackson is a good source for comedy :) 60.234.242.196 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the current intro at this time reflects a good balance between neutrality, completeness and verifiability. The prose is also structurally and grammatically acceptable. For a controversial article like this, that seems more than adequate. dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is good to see agreement, which is most important. I am sure it will get edited before long anyway. Discussion closed? 60.234.242.196 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, at the moment it seems to imply that "pop icon" is a job (with it being in a list of jobs)--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think it's grammatically incorrect?--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 18:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop-icon status ok for both grammar and style: It seems almost surreal that it took over 1300 words in discussion to resolve that "pop icon" is indeed ok as it is in the article. Please note, it is also *very common* for the term to appear in parallel with "a list of jobs" for an individual. The following links all include exact examples of the very same thing applied to various people (including MJ): ([5]

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). It is also common for the term "and pop icon" to be the last item on the list, which can be easily found if you do a full text search on the items linked. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you're just googling for stuff in the hope that you'll find something and then using it in your defense. I mean these are very weak in reliabilty. And grammatically it is in correct; in a list of jobs only jobs should be included; "pop icon" is not a job. And I don't think anyone agreed that it was OK; from what I see you agreed with yourself.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you do not agree on the exact wording, but you do agree with me that "pop icon" is verifiable for MJ. I apologize for my imprecise take on the level of your agreement. Your personal feelings about me are incorrect, and not appropriate for this discussion page. Because of this, and because these 1300 plus words (and counting) about "pop icon" seem a bit much I suggest we resolve this outside on your discussion page. Do you at least agree to that? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide support: Hopefully we can agree that personal remarks about individual editors on wikipedia are not relevant to this discussion. Since you have asserted that it is not grammatically correct to include "and pop icon" at the end of a list that consists of "job titles" for a person, and since I have provided outside resources that refute this assertion, it seems the only fair way to proceed is to ask you to provide outside validation for your assertion, specifically:

• please provide authority for the claim that it is not grammatically correct to include "and pop icon" at the end of a list that includes a person's job titles

Absent such support, it seems appropriate to leave the text as it is now, given that the only citations provided regarding this issue are the ones I have submitted, all of which support the text as it is now. Any thoughts or feedback? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

List's are meant to have some sort of similarity between the items; "musician" and "entertiner"; and "pop icon" do not have similarities.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any external authority or citation to back up your assertion so I can review it? I can't make a good faith effort to research the validity of your claim if you do not even provide a *single* reference. This would be extremely helpful, since at this point I have no way of distinguishing this assertion from purely personal opinion. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[13] for now. I'll get some more later.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Please note also that I do not contest the use of commas or other basic rules of English grammar. The matter at issue are these specific claims you made:

• "musician" and "entertiner"; and "pop icon" do not have similarities; and
• grammatically it is in correct;(sic) in a list of jobs only jobs should be included;

More material does seem appropriate, since the link you provided does not appear to even address these issues, let alone support them. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The source says "Use a comma if the adjectives are equally important and give similar kinds of information" and "Don’t use a comma if the adjectives give different kinds of information".--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll call it quits: they all describe Jackson so in theory so it's cool--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Futher support for job title mixed with non job title: Just FYI, here are more links supporting the validity of including 'job title' item in coordinate list with 'non job title'. All are from major news organizations unless otherwise indicated.

John Granger, a devout Christian, literature teacher and father of seven ...
    http://www.powells.com/biblio/1414300913
    religion, job title and family status all in the same list

A substitute teacher and father of three, Karr said he was ...
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/17/state/n161120D62.DTL
    job title and family status

Sean Wilkinson, teacher and father of two, was nominated for ...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/holiday/destinations/brazil_perfect/
    job title and family status together

... Charles Xavier, is the founder, leader, mentor, teacher, and father figure of the X-Men.    
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A630505
    job title, personal role, many status titles all together

The baby son of rock star and popular icon Riff is kidnapped during a party.    
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/series3_ep8.shtml
    job title and popular icon status together        

Here, Karen Pasquali-Jones, editor of the magazine and mother of one, speaks        
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3191068.stm
    job title and family status together

Nina Sandler, a lawyer and mother of three children.        
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3257820.stm
    job title and family status together

Smoker and mother-of-two Louisa Gurner, 31, says while ...      
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3790889.stm
    personal habits and family status together

actor, singer and pop icon of the 1950s, Frankie Avalon takes ... 
    http://www.uh.edu/uhtoday/2004/01jan/011304innviews.html
    combines job titles and pop icon together 
    (office of internal communications for a major U.S. university)

I had found these before you posted your previous comment and paste them in here for future reference. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 01:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)