Talk:List of Michael Jackson's awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Michael Jackson WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Michael Jackson and associated groups or individuals. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-02. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] External links cleanup

Someone really needs to convert the external references to use the various template cite forms. This would reduce the number of references listed in this article. I'll try to do a few as an example. Vegaswikian 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources reliable?

I have concerns that the sources given in this article don't mean our standards as reliable sources. 90% of them come from a fan forum. I don't think that these are appropriate according to our standards. Metros 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that, technically, as outlined in Wikipedia policies, MJJForum does not count as a reliable source. However, I don't necessarily view this as a problem for this type of article; that is to say, a list (unless we had greater aspirations, like taking this to FA status). If I were using these sources for the actual Michael Jackson article, it would be a big problem. But for here, the standards can be a little laxer.UberCryxic 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No they can't. We don't have different policies depending on the type of article you want to make. For many of these awards, reliable sources are out there, if you are willing to spend some time. Awards without such sources will be removed. If then nothing is left of the article, logically the article will be deleted. I have given you an example of how easy it can be to find the sources (even online) at WP:AIV. Fram 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite a bit of time. The convenience was too tempting. I'll look for better sources, but it will take some effort. And actually, in Wikipedia we do place less emphasis on certain types of articles above others. A list like this is nowhere near as important as the actual Michael Jackson article. You can say what you want all day as a normative principle, but I'm telling you that, descriptively, Wikipedia operates like this all the time (ie. weaker sources in "weaker" or less important articles). You'll find that articles like this one, relating to the awards that a musical act has won, cite fan sites endlessly because they are the ones that usually contain that information in one concentrated place.UberCryxic 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

just adding the same link to the same fan forum page 200 times does NOT equal WP:RS - there is no technically about it. I am busy today but I plan to remove all 200 of those links (and check the yahoo one as well) over the weekend. --Fredrick day 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. Technically, the source I added is not reliable. I'm not saying something out of the blue here (I'm actually agreeing with you on that point). But where the material is likely to be less controversial, like a list of awards, the sources get correspondingly less reliable (everywhere in Wikipedia, not just here). Why? See above. Convenience mainly. Some of these acts have won hundreds of awards; scouring the net for reliable sources that say that would be extremely difficult, although achievable with enough will.UberCryxic 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

complete and utter nonsense - we do NOT put less of an emphasis on certain types of article where BLP is concerned, repeating what you'd like to be true does not make it be so. --Fredrick day 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a biography. You're making the same irrelevant point as Metros. This is a list of awards. It is less relevant as, say, an article on the actual person.UberCryxic 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is subjected to the policies of living biographies as it is an extension of his biography. Awards and achievements are contained in most biographies; this one is different because it is too large to be contained in the main article on Jackson so it is split into this article. Metros 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other examples

Here are a few other similar articles of living persons that suffer from the same problems:

  • Celine Dion awards and accomplishments - Virtually all claims go uncited. There is, however, an external link to Celine Dion's official website, which I presume was the source used for much of this stuff, if not all of it.
  • List of Mariah Carey awards - As with Celine Dion, virtually all the claims here are uncited. In the references section, there is a (oh wait wait this will be shocking!) a fan site that lists her awards.

I could go on like this for a while. Point is Wikipedia has crappy articles like this. Either make the decision to delete them all, or.....don't and try to make a significant change as highlighted by Fram above, which would require a whole lot of effort.UberCryxic 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - so what? then those articles need to be sourced or deleted, the poor quality of one argument is not an argument to not try and improve the quality of others. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA - we don't say "oh finding good sources is hard, so we'll not bother!". --Fredrick day 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

People keep bringing that up. That's a bad argument. If you want to change this article, you're going to have to deal with all those other articles for the sake of standardization, which Wales has identified as a big problem. You can't just screw one article over and not bother with the rest. Well, people do that often, but they shouldn't. That's a stain on the encyclopedia that you're leaving there.UberCryxic 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All of these articles are subject to the Biographies of living persons policy:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
Edits to remove such material is not subject to the Three revert rule. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not really "contentious" material, leaving aside specific awards.UberCryxic 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

I also wrote about this on Fredrick's talk page if some want more information. MJJForum has been deleted as a source, but the HIStory album has been left intact. This is vastly redundant as that fan site got these awards from that album (how do I know? Because the awards listed in the fan site and those in the album match almost exactly up until 1994). If, however, people consider the HIStory album a reliable source (or the booklet it came with, which details Jackson's awards up until 1994), then much of this stuff can be cited right now.UberCryxic 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of this stuff comes from the History booklet and also the Michael Jackson Ultimate collection booklets it has to be said, they are published material so have been checked for their reliability.Realist2 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup in dire need

Seriously, the layout and referencing of this article sucks. The awards need to be rationalised into one and two-shots and otherwise, they need to be collected by type, not a full chronological listing. It's absurt. It's very well researched, as I'm certain it's complete and sourced, but we need to have inline references and citations for every entry, and it can't be a chaotic chronological listing like this. --lincalinca 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] top nonce?

em.. I doubt that Michael Jackson was given an award for "top nonce" by Paul Glad (Gary Glitter). you guys asleep at the wheel? --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)